[House Report 106-253]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



106th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 1st Session                                                    106-253

======================================================================



 
         ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2000

                                _______
                                

 July 23, 1999.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______


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

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                            ADDITIONAL VIEWS

                        [To accompany H.R. 2605]

    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, 2000, and for other purposes.

                        INDEX TO BILL AND REPORT

                                                            Page Number

                                                            Bill Report
Introduction...............................................
                                                                      4
I. Department of Defense--Civil:
        Corps of Engineers--Civil:
                Introduction...............................
                                                                      7
                General Investigations.....................     2
                                                                      8
                Construction, general......................     3
                                                                     37
                Flood control, Mississippi River and 
                    tributaries, Arkansas, Illinois, 
                    Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, 
                    Missouri, and Tennessee................     4
                                                                     53
                Operation and maintenance, general.........     4
                                                                     57
                Regulatory program.........................     5
                                                                     74
                Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action 
                    Program................................     7
                                                                     75
                General expenses...........................     9
                                                                     76
                Administration provisions..................     9

II. Department of the Interior:
        Central Utah Project completion account............    10
                                                                     77
        Bureau of Reclamation:
                Water and related resources................    11
                                                                     77
                Bureau of Reclamation loan program account.    12
                                                                     89
                Central Valley Project restoration fund....    13
                                                                     92
                California Bay-Delta ecosystem restoration.    13
                                                                     92
                Policy and administration..................    14
                                                                     93
                Administrative provision...................    15

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

        Energy supply......................................    15
                                                                    101
        Non-defense environmental management...............    16
                                                                    109
        Uranium enrichment decontamination and 
            decommissioning fund...........................    16
                                                                    110
        Science............................................    17
                                                                    110
        Nuclear waste disposal.............................    17
                                                                    117
        Departmental administration........................    18
                                                                    118
        Office of Inspector General........................    19
                                                                    120
        Atomic energy defense activities:
                Weapons activities.........................    19
                                                                    120
                Defense environmental restoration and waste 
                    management.............................    20
                                                                    125
                Defense facilities closure projects........    20
                                                                    130
                Defense environmental management 
                    privatization..........................    21
                                                                    131
                Other defense activities...................    21
                                                                    132
                Defense nuclear waste disposal.............    21
                                                                    139
        Power marketing administrations:
                Bonneville Power Administration............    22
                                                                    140
                Southeastern Power Administration..........
                                                                    141
                Southwestern Power Administration..........    22
                                                                    141
                Western Area Power Administration..........    23
                                                                    142
                Falcon and Amistad operating and 
                    maintenance fund.......................    23
                                                                    142
        Federal Energy Regulatory Commission...............    24
                                                                    143
        General Provisions.................................    25
                                                                    153
IV. Independent agencies:
        Appalachian Regional Commission....................    31
                                                                    157
        Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board............    32
                                                                    157
        Denali Commission..................................    32
                                                                    158
        Nuclear Regulatory Commission......................    32
                                                                    158
        Office of Inspector General........................    33
                                                                    160
        Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board...............    34
                                                                    161
        Tennessee Valley Authority.........................
                                                                    161
V. General provisions......................................    34
                                                                    163
House reporting requirements...............................
                                                                    165

                Summary of Estimates and Recommendations

    The Committee has considered budget estimates which are 
contained in the Budget of the United States Government, 2000. 
The following table summarizes appropriations for fiscal year 
1999, the budget estimates, and amounts recommended in the bill 
for fiscal year 2000.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                                       2000 recommendation compared with--
                                                                               1999                2000 estimate         2000 recommendation   -------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                                   1999 appropriation         2000 estimate
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Title I--Department of Defense--Civil..............................           4,097,233,000            3,905,800,000            4,188,389,000               91,156,000              282,589,000
Title II--Department of the Interior...............................             824,596,000              895,979,000              821,871,000               (2,725,000)             (74,108,000)
Title III--Department of Energy....................................          17,060,796,000           17,077,197,000           15,553,535,000           (1,507,261,000)          (1,523,662,000)
Title IV--Independent Agencies.....................................             175,700,000              117,050,000               84,100,000              (91,600,000)             (32,950,000)
                                                                    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal.....................................................          22,158,325,000           21,996,026,000           20,647,895,000           (1,510,430,000)          (1,348,131,000)
Scorekeeping adjustments...........................................          (1,088,690,000)            (438,300,000)            (458,000,000)             630,690,000              (19,700,000)
                                                                    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Grand Total of bill..........................................          21,069,635,000           21,557,726,000           20,189,895,000             (879,740,000)          (1,367,831,000)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              Introduction

    The Energy and Water Development Appropriations Bill for 
fiscal year 2000 reaffirms the congressional commitment to 
reducing the size, scope and cost of the Federal government. At 
$20.2 billion, the total level of spending in this bill is $880 
million below the fiscal year 1999 level and $1.4 billion below 
the Administration's budget request. Although the savings 
effected by this bill are real and profound, the Committee has 
managed to preserve cost-effective investments in high-value 
programs with demonstrable benefits for the U.S. taxpayer.
    Over the past five years, the Energy and Water 
Appropriations Bill has helped turn the concept of deficit 
reduction into a reality. Comparisons to the fiscal year 1995 
bill illustrate the point. The total level of spending in the 
fiscal year 2000 bill represents a reduction of more than $300 
million below the fiscal year 1995 level. The comparable 
reduction in non-defense discretionary spending amounts to $1.3 
billion, or 12.8%. Adjusted for inflation, this decrease in 
domestic discretionary spending totals 21.4%. Cumulative five-
year savings realized by this reduction total $8.4 billion in 
1995 dollars.
    By limiting the amount of taxpayer largesse available to 
Federal agencies and by instituting substantial managerial 
reforms, programs throughout the Energy and Water 
Subcommittee's jurisdiction are leaner and more efficiently 
executed than they were just five years ago. The benefits of 
Committee action are tangible and quantifiable.
    Because the Committee transferred the Formerly Utilized 
Sites Remedial Action Program from the Department of Energy to 
the Corps of Engineers, residents of communities that 
contributed to the development of our atomic capability are 
seeing contaminated soils removed from their towns at less cost 
and on a more expeditious schedule. Because of provisions 
included in recent Energy and Water Bills, contracts for 
operation of Department of Energy laboratories--massive 
contracts that have not been competed in a generation--are now 
subject to open and competitive bidding. By adjusting 
expenditures in solar and renewable energy, the Committee has 
assured that a greater share of scarce taxpayer resources is 
invested in the basic science associated with the development 
of renewable energy technologies and that a lesser share goes 
to support the activities of trade associations. By reducing 
the Federal appropriation for the Tennessee Valley Authority 
from $143 million in fiscal year 1995 to $0 in fiscal year 
2000, the Committee has significantly reduced taxpayer 
subsidies flowing to that New Deal-era regional electric 
utility.
    The Energy and Water Bill for fiscal year 2000 continues 
this recent tradition of programmatic reform and taxpayer 
savings, beginning with reductions in contractor travel. In 
fiscal year 1998, Department of Energy contractors spent almost 
$250,000,000 for travel expenses. One contractor reported over 
4,500 trips to Washington, D.C., or almost 87 trips each week. 
The Committee has cut contractor travel in half in fiscal year 
2000, saving $125,000,000. The number of contractor employees 
who are assigned to Washington will also be reduced by fifty 
percent, saving almost $25,000,000.
    Additionally, in response to recent security reviews 
critical of the Department's Headquarters and field structure, 
the Committee is recommending a ten percent reduction in the 
size of the field operations. Finally, the Committee continues 
to insist that contracts be competed in an open and fair manner 
to get the best prices possible--not extended for decades with 
no competition.
    Title I of the Energy and Water Bill includes funding for 
the civil works program of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 
The Committee has been able to maintain a relatively vigorous 
civil works program within severe budgetary constraints. By 
concentrating limited resources on those traditional missions 
yielding the greatest economic benefits for the nation (viz., 
flood control and navigation), the Committee has acted to 
ensure the highest possible yield on taxpayer investment. At 
the same time, the Committee has acted to check mission creep 
within the Corps. Spending on new environmental programs, local 
water supply, recreation, waterfront development and sewer 
infrastructure can only be accomplished at the expense of 
traditional missions with national benefits. The Committee 
respects the importance of these other needs but acknowledges 
that they are, as a general proposition, more appropriately the 
responsibility of state and local government.
    The Bureau of Reclamation is funded through title II of the 
Energy and Water Bill. The continued existence of the Bureau, 
long after its principal mission of reclaiming the American 
West has been accomplished, proves that, like diamonds, 
bureaucracy is forever. Rather than serve as an enabler in the 
Bureau's continued efforts to perpetuate itself through new 
missions and reinvention, the Committee has directed targeted 
programmatic reductions to better reflect the Bureau's 
relevance in the post-settlement era of the seventeen 
Reclamation states. At the same time, the Committee has 
provided generously for the operation and maintenance of 
existing Reclamation facilities in an effort to protect the 
considerable Federal investment in western water 
infrastructure.
    Revivification of the national debate over the future of 
the Bureau is long overdue. The Committee expects that its 
action will help ignite that discussion. In the meantime, the 
Committee will actively examine options for the consolidation 
or reorganization of the national water bureaucracy.
    All atomic energy defense activities and most civilian 
programs of the Department of Energy (DOE) are funded through 
title III of the Energy and Water Appropriations Bill. The most 
substantial funding reductions for fiscal year 2000 are to be 
found in this title of the bill. Because of its size, 
inefficiency, and cloudy mission (as well as the questionable 
value of its outputs), DOE is in a position to absorb the 
sizable reductions required in energy and water programs 
pursuant to the Balanced Budget Agreement of 1997.
    Reductions in the Department of Energy, however, reflect 
more than budgetary constraints. They also reflect the 
Committee's frustrations with an unmanageable bureaucracy whose 
very existence is insufficiently justified. Created in direct 
response to the oil crisis of the early 1970s, the DOE has 
grown into a sprawling complex of loosely related ``business 
lines.'' The current hodgepodge of DOE activities and tasks has 
little to do with the mission of energy security around which 
the Department was originally created.
    If the programs within the Department's portfolio were well 
managed and efficiently executed, it is conceivable that the 
Committee would be somewhat distracted from the larger 
questions surrounding the need for, and viability of, a U.S. 
Department of Energy. Sadly, though, DOE programs are models of 
mismanagement and waste. Long before the American public 
learned that DOE's national laboratories constituted a sieve 
through which our nuclear secrets poured, the Committee decried 
the lack of accountability for program management within 
Department. The Committee is aggrieved that it has taken a 
national security crisis of devastating proportions to bring 
the endemic mismanagement of DOE to the attention of the 
American public.
    The Committee is proud of its accomplishments in 
instituting specific managerial reforms at DOE. Nevertheless, 
the Committee acknowledges that these improvements, while 
important, have occurred at the margins of a fundamentally 
flawed and irreparable government agency. The Committee shares 
the judgment of the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory 
Board, which recently concluded that: ``The Department of 
Energy is a dysfunctional bureaucracy that has proven it is 
incapable of reforming itself.''
    Title IV of the Energy and Water Bill contains funding for 
independent agencies. In fiscal year 1995, Congress 
appropriated $470 million in new budget authority for these 
agencies. The comparable figure for fiscal year 2000 is $84 
million, a reduction of 82%. The accomplishments of the 
Committee in reducing or eliminating funding for the 
Appalachian Regional Commission, Tennessee Valley Authority, 
and independent river basin commissions, among other agencies, 
visibly and quantifiably exemplifies the success of Congress in 
delivering on its promise to reduce the size, scope and cost of 
Federal government.
    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 Committee is concerned about the amount of time and 
effort it takes the Army to review and approve project decision 
documents and agreements. These are very important to the civil 
works program because they determine the feasibility, scope, 
costs, and local responsibilities associated with water 
projects. The Committee recognizes that some form of a review 
and approval process is necessary to ensure that projects are 
properly planned and constructed to meet the water resources 
needs of the nation. The Committee, however, is not convinced 
that the process is being conducted in the best and most 
efficient manner.
    The Committee believes that reduced levels of review, 
limited Washington level involvement and streamlined decision-
making are imperatives to the improvement of this process. The 
review and approval of a decision document or agreement should, 
in the Committee's judgment, follow a basic path. The Assistant 
Secretary of the Army for Civil Works should provide broad 
policy guidance to the Corps Headquarters. Headquarters, in 
turn, should implement specific policies and guidelines to 
govern the content and preparation of reports, agreements and 
other documents. Headquarters should further establish a 
process by which such agreements and approvals are reviewed at 
the lowest practical level.
    The Committee is aware that the process is not working this 
way. The Headquarters and the Assistant Secretary's office have 
an excessive amount of involvement in the review and approval 
process. The Army leadership is not fully utilizing the 
capabilities of the division offices and districts to 
accomplish these activities. In the best interests of all 
involved, those closest to project implementation should be 
empowered to perform as much of the review and approval process 
as possible.
    Specifically, the Committee requests consideration of 
changes to the process for review and approval of decision 
documents and agreements. These changes should address all 
reports and agreements throughout the project development 
process and across all programs, including the continuing 
authorities programs. This approach should emphasize delegation 
and decentralization to the lowest level and simplification of 
actions, activities, products, and agreements. In examining 
procedural requirements, the Corps is to focus on the value of 
these requirements in comparison to the time and costs of 
procedural compliance. The Chief of Engineers is directed to 
provide a report to the Committee by February 1, 2000 outlining 
plans for improved and streamlined project decision, review, 
and agreement processes.
    It has recently come to the attention of the Committee that 
the position of Director of Civil Works, a position whose 
occupants have served the country proudly and effectively for 
over fifty-four years, was summarily eliminated without 
consultation of the Congress. The Committee is concerned about 
this reorganization, as it is with other organizational changes 
for which the need remains obscure and unexplained. The 
Committee notes that the Corps of Engineers is relatively 
effective in fulfilling its missions to the nation and that any 
internal changes that might compromise its effectiveness would 
cause great concern. Further, the Committee would view with the 
greatest alarm any attempt to impose more military control over 
the civil works program at the expense of civilian authority. 
Civilian control of the military is a basic tenet of our 
democratic government, and this principle is especially 
appropriate for application to the civil works program.
    The Committee notes that the Corps of Engineers has entered 
into a Memorandum of Understanding with the National Fish and 
Wildlife Foundation in pursuit of opportunities to promote the 
conservation of fish, wildlife, and plants, in accordance with 
applicable law. The National Fish and Wildlife Foundation 
(NFWF) is a private, non-profit, 501(c)(3) organization, 
established by Congress in 1984. The Committee looks favorably 
upon future cooperative efforts of the Corps and NFWF.

                         General Investigations




Appropriation, 1999...................................      $161,747,000
Budget Estimate, 2000.................................       135,000,000
Recommended, 2000.....................................       158,993,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 1999...............................        -2,754,000
    Budget Estimate, 2000.............................       +23,993,000


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


    Lubbub Creek, Reform, Alabama.--The recommendation includes 
$100,000 for a reconnaissance study of environmental and 
flooding problems along the Lubbub Creek near Reform in Pickens 
County, Alabama.
    Perdido Key Beaches, Alabama and Florida.--The Committee 
has provided $100,000 for a reconnaissance study of beach 
erosion along the coast of the Gulf of Mexico in Baldwin County 
in the southwestern part of Alabama and Escambia County in the 
southwestern part of Florida.
    Colonias Along U.S.-Mexico Border, Arizona and Texas.--The 
recommendation includes an addition of $400,000 to the budget 
request for projects at Douglas, Old Nogales Highway, and San 
Luis, Arizona.
    Pima County, Arizona.--The Committee recommendation 
includes $100,000 for the Corps of Engineers to evaluate 
opportunities for environmental restoration and related matters 
in Pima County, Arizona. This study is to proceed with 
particular reference to recommendations and findings included 
in the Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan, Pima County, Arizona, 
dated October 21, 1998.
    Rio de Flag, Arizona.--The Committee has provided 
additional funds to initiate preconstruction engineering and 
design of the Rio de Flag, Arizona, project.
    Rio Salado, Phoenix Reach, Arizona.--The Committee has 
provided funds to conduct reconnaissance level reviews of two 
additional reaches of the Salt River in Phoenix, Arizona. These 
reaches, extending to the east and west of the Rio Salado, 
Arizona, project as currently proposed, are to be studied for 
environmental restoration and related purposes.
    Rio Salado, Tempe Reach, Arizona.--The Committee 
recommendation includes additional funds to complete plans and 
specifications for the Tempe Reach of the Rio Salado, Arizona, 
project.
    Santa Cruz River, Arizona.--The recommendation includes 
$250,000 to investigate structural and non-structural methods 
of flood control along the Santa Cruz River from Fort Lowell 
Road to Grant Road in metropolitan Tucson, Arizona.
    Santa Cruz River (Paseo de las Iglesias), Arizona.--The 
Committee has provided an increase of $100,000 above the budget 
request to initiate an expanded feasibility study of the Santa 
Cruz River (Paseo de las Iglesias), Arizona, project.
    Arkansas River (Navigation Study), Fort Smith, Arkansas.-- 
The Committee is aware of continuing concerns and problems 
associated with the operation of the McClellan-Kerr Arkansas 
River Navigation System. Sustained high flows result in 
difficult navigation conditions and continued flooding in the 
vicinity of Fort Smith, Arkansas. As the operation of the flood 
control features of the navigation system are keyed to the Van 
Buren gage, the flooding and navigation problems are 
interrelated. Consequently, the Committee has provided 
additional funds to expand the Arkansas River, Fort Smith, 
Arkansas, study to examine operational and other navigational 
improvements along the Arkansas River.
    Red River Navigation, Southwest Arkansas.--The Committee 
has included language in the bill directing the Corps of 
Engineers to continue feasibility phase studies of extending 
commercial navigation on the Red River upstream of Shreveport-
Bossier City, Lou-

isiana, into southwest Arkansas using funds previously 
appropriated for the Red River Waterway, Shreveport to 
Daingerfield, Texas, project.
    Arroyo Pasajero, California.--The recommendation includes 
$650,000 above the budget request to advance by one year 
completion of preconstruction engineering and design of the 
Arroyo Pasajero, California, project.
    Bolinas Lagoon Ecosystem Restoration, California.--The 
Committee has provided funding in excess of the budget request 
to accelerate completion of the feasibility phase of the 
Bolinas Lagoon Ecosystem Restoration, California, project.
    City of San Bernardino, California.--The Committee has 
provided funding for a reconnaissance study of flooding 
problems related to groundwater in the City of San Bernardino, 
California.
    Coast of California, Los Angeles County, California.--The 
Committee has included funds to update a Project Study Plan for 
the Coast of California Storm and Tidal Wave Study, Los Angeles 
County, California.
    Encinitas, California.--The recommendation includes funds 
to complete the reconnaissance phase of a shoreline study for 
the City of Encinitas, California. This study will investigate 
storm damage protection options for the City of Encinitas, as 
well as environmental restoration opportunities for the San 
Elijo Lagoon.
    Huntington Beach, Blufftop Park, California.--The Committee 
has included funding to initiate a feasibility study of the 
Huntington Beach, Blufftop Park, California, project.
    Llagas Creek, California.--The recommendation includes 
$250,000 to complete a Limited Reevaluation Report and to 
initiate preconstruction engineering and design of the Llagas 
Creek, California, project.
    Los Angeles County, California.--The recommendation 
includes funding for a reconnaissance study of a regional 
dredged material management plan for contaminated sediments in 
Los Angeles County, California.
    Matilija Dam, California.--The Committee has provided 
$100,000 for the Corps of Engineers to complete a 
reconnaissance study related to the potential removal of the 
Matilija Dam on the Ventura River in the vicinity of Ojai, 
California.
    Newport Bay (LA-3 Site Designation Study), California.--The 
Committee recommendation includes funding to complete the LA-3 
Site Designation Study for Newport Bay, California.
    Northern California Streams, Cache Creek, California.--The 
Committee has provided funding to initiate the feasibility 
phase of the Northern California Streams, Cache Creek, 
California, project.
    Orange County Coast Beach Erosion, California.--The 
recommendation includes $500,000 to complete a reconnaissance 
study and initiate the feasibility phase of a shoreline 
protection project for Orange County, California.
    Orange County Special Management Plan, California.--The 
Committee recommendation includes funding to continue 
development of a Special Area Management Plan (SAMP) for Orange 
County, California. The SAMP will be conducted in coordination 
with the existing California Natural Community Conservation 
Plan for San Diego and San Juan Creek Watersheds of Orange 
County.
    Pajaro River at Watsonville, California.--The Committee 
recommendation includes funding to initiate plans and 
specifications for the Pajaro River at Watsonville, California, 
project, consisting of levees and channel improvements on the 
Pajaro River and Corralitos and Salsipuedes Creeks.
    Pajaro River Basin Study, California.--The Committee has 
provided funding for a reconnaissance study of flood protection 
improvements in the Pajaro River Basin of California, including 
potential flood damage reduction measures in the community of 
Morgan Hill.
    Pajaro River Mainstem, California.--The Committee 
recommendation includes funding for a reconnaissance study of 
flood control improvements to the Pajaro River Mainstem, 
California, project.
    Peninsula Beach, California.--The Committee has included 
$300,000 to initiate a feasibility study of shoreline 
protection options for Peninsula Beach in the City of Long 
Beach, California.
    Port of Stockton, California.--The Committee has provided 
$150,000 above the budget request to expedite completion of the 
feasibility study for the Port of Stockton, California, 
project.
    Rancho Palos Verdes, California.--The recommendation 
includes an increase of $200,000 over the budget request to 
accelerate preconstruction engineering and design of the Rancho 
Palos Verdes, California, project.
    Sacramento River and San Joaquin River Basins Comprehensive 
Study, California.--The Committee has provided $1,000,000 above 
the budget request for the Sacramento River and San Joaquin 
River Basins Comprehensive Study. These funds are provided to 
maintain an optimal schedule and to advance completion of the 
study by twelve months.
    San Antonio Creek, California.--The recommendation includes 
funds for a reconnaissance study of flood control opportunities 
along San Antonio Creek, California.
    San Clemente Shoreline, California.--The Committee 
recommendation includes funds for the Corps of Engineers to 
conduct a reconnaissance study investigating shoreline 
protection alternatives for San Clemente, California.
    San Diego County Shoreline, California.--The recommendation 
includes funding for a reconnaissance study of the coastal 
erosion problem of communities in the San Diego region. Among 
other things, this study should assess the contribution of 
navigation structures at Camp Pendleton to the regional erosion 
problem.
    San Francisco Bay, California.--The recommendation includes 
an increase of $600,000 over the budget request to accelerate 
the feasibility phase of the San Francisco Bay, California, 
project.
    San Gabriel to Newport Bay, California.--The Committee 
recommendation provides funding for a reconnaissance study of 
potential modifications to the existing Federal shore 
protection project along the Orange County, California 
coastline from the mouth of the San Gabriel River to the 
entrance of Newport Bay.
    San Jacinto River, California.--The Committee has provided 
$100,000 for the Corps of Engineers to initiate a 
reconnaissance study to examine flood control, environmental 
enhancement and related purposes along the San Jacinto River, 
California, between the City of San Jacinto and the City of 
Lake Elsinore.
    San Joaquin River Basin, Corral Hollow Creek, California.--
The recommendation includes funding for a reconnaissance study 
of flood control issues along Corral Hollow Creek, California.
    San Joaquin River Basin, Frazier Creek, California.--The 
Committee recommendation includes $100,000 for a reconnaissance 
of flooding problems along Frazier Creek in California.
    San Joaquin River Basin, Pine Flat Dam, Fish and Wildlife 
Habitat Restoration, California.--The Committee has provided 
funding above the budget request to initiate preconstruction 
engineering and design of the San Joaquin River Basin, Pine 
Flat Dam, Fish and Wildlife Habitat Restoration, California, 
project.
    San Joaquin River Basin, Stockton Metropolitan Area, 
California.--The Committee has included funds above the budget 
request for the San Joaquin River Basin, Stockton Metropolitan 
Area, California, project. The additional funds provided by the 
Committee will advance completion of the feasibility phase of 
this project by one year.
    San Joaquin River Basin, Tuolumne River, California.--The 
Committee has provided $375,000 for the San Joaquin River 
Basin, Tuolumne River, California, project. Funding above the 
budget request is provided to advance completion of this 
project by twelve months.
    San Joaquin River Basin, West Stanislaus County, 
California.--The Committee has provided funds above the budget 
request to advance by one year completion of the feasibility 
phase of the San Joaquin River Basin, West Stanislaus County, 
California, project.
    San Luis Obispo County Streams, California.--The 
recommendation includes funding for a reconnaissance study of 
flood control and environmental restoration opportunities along 
the San Luis Obispo County Streams, California.
    Santa Margarita River and Tributaries, California.--The 
Committee has provided $332,000 for the Corps of Engineers to 
complete a feasibility study and initiate preconstruction 
engineering and design of a flood control project for Murrieta 
Creek within the Santa Margarita Watershed in California.
    Solana Beach, California.--The Committee has provided funds 
for a reconnaissance study of the shoreline along the City of 
Solana Beach in San Diego County, California. This study will 
investigate shore protection improvements for storm damage 
reduction, environmental restoration and protection, and 
related purposes.
    Southampton Shoal Channel and Extension, California.--The 
Committee understands that the feasibility study of the 
Southampton Shoal Channel and Extension, California, project 
has been suspended. Accordingly, the recommendation does not 
include the budget request for this project.
    Suisun Marsh, California.--The Committee has provided 
funding to initiate the Suisun Marsh Levee Enhancement and 
Managed Wetland Protection Program.
    Sutter Basin, California.--The recommendation includes 
$240,000 above the budget request to initiate the feasibility 
study of the Sutter Basin, California, project.
    Tijuana River Environmental Restoration, California.--The 
Committee has provided an increase of $250,000 above the budget 
request for the Tijuana River Environmental Restoration, 
California, project.
    Tule River, California.--The Committee has recommended 
$800,000 for the Tule River, California, project. This level of 
funding will accelerate preconstruction engineering and design 
of the project by two years.
    White River, Poso, and Deer Creeks, California.--The 
recommendation includes funding above the budget request to 
complete the reconnaissance phase and continue into the 
feasibility phase of the White River, Poso, and Deer Creeks, 
California, project.
    Yuba River Basin, California.--The Committee has provided 
an additional $550,000 above the budget request to advance 
preconstruction engineering and design of the Yuba River Basin, 
California, project by two years.
    Delaware Bay Coastline, Delaware and New Jersey.--Of the 
amount provided for the Delaware Bay Coastline, Delaware and 
New Jersey, project, $100,000 is to initiate preconstruction 
engineering and design of the Broadkill Beach element; $100,000 
is to initiate preconstruction engineering and design of the 
Oakwood Beach element; $25,000 is to continue preconstruction 
engineering and design of the Port Mahon element; $200,000 is 
to initiate preconstruction engineering and design for the 
Reeds Beach to Pierces Point element; $200,000 is to continue 
preconstruction engineering and design of the Roosevelt Inlet 
and Lewes Beach element; and $450,000 to continue 
preconstruction engineering and design of the Villas and 
Vicinity element.
    Delaware Coast from Cape Henlopen to Fenwick Island, 
Delaware.--In addition to the amount included in the budget for 
the Fenwick Island element of the Delaware Coast from Cape 
Henlopen to Fenwick Island, Delaware, project, the Committee 
has provided $349,000 to continue preconstruction engineering 
and design of the Bethany Beach to South Bethany element of the 
project.
    Hillsborough River Basin, Florida.--The Committee 
recommendation provides funding to initiate a reconnaissance 
study of flood control, environmental restoration and related 
purposes in the Hillsborough River Basin in Florida.
    Lake Worth Inlet, Palm Beach County, Florida.--The 
Committee has included funding for a reconnaissance study of 
potential interior channel improvements at Lake Worth Inlet, 
Palm Beach County, Florida.
    Mile Point, Jacksonville, Florida.--The Committee 
recommendation provides funding for a reconnaissance study of 
erosion and sinkholes along the St. Johns River at Mile Point, 
Jacksonville, Florida.
    Tampa Harbor, Alafia River, Florida.--The recommendation 
includes funding to initiate preconstruction engineering and 
design of the Tampa River, Alafia River, Florida, project.
    Withlacoochee River Basin, Florida.--The Committee 
recommendation provides funding to initiate a reconnaissance 
study of flood control, environmental restoration and related 
purposes in the Withlacoochee River Basin in Florida.
    Allatoona Lake (Etowah River), Georgia.--The Committee has 
provided $425,000 to conduct feasibility phase investigations 
to identify and recommend measures to alleviate shoreline 
erosion and sedimentation problems, including structural and 
non-structural solutions, along Lake Allatoona and the Etowah 
River.
    Allatoona Lake (Little River), Georgia.--The recommendation 
includes $250,000 to conduct a feasibility phase investigation 
to evaluate environmental problems and recommend environmental 
restoration measures, including structural and non-structural 
approaches, for the Little River within Lake Allatoona, 
Georgia.
    Metropolitan Atlanta, Georgia.--The Committee has included 
funding for three separate reconnaissance studies of flood 
damage reduction and ecosystem restoration in Metropolitan 
Atlanta, Georgia: Indian, Sugar, Intrenchment and Federal 
Prison Creeks Watershed, Georgia; Long Island, Marsh, and Johns 
Creeks, Georgia; and Utoy, Sandy, and Proctor Creeks, Georgia.
    Boise River, Idaho.--Funding has been provided to initiate 
the Boise River, Idaho, reconnaissance study of drainage and 
flood control issues.
    Kootenai River at Bonners Ferry, Idaho.--The Committee 
recommendation includes funding for a reconnaissance study of 
flood control opportunities along the Kootenai River at Bonners 
Ferry, Idaho.
    Little Wood River, Idaho.--The recommendation includes 
$100,000 to complete a reconnaissance study of the Little Wood 
River Containment System project in the city of Gooding, Idaho.
    Payette County, Idaho.--The Committee has provided $100,000 
to complete a reconnaissance study of flood prevention 
opportunities along the Payette and Snake Rivers in Payette 
County, Idaho.
    Illinois Beach, Illinois.--The Committee recommendation 
provides funding to complete a feasibility report for shore 
protection along the Illinois Beach between Zion and Waukegan.
    Kankakee River Basin, Illinois and Indiana.--The 
recommendation includes the full amount of the budget request 
for the Kankakee River Basin, Illinois and Indiana, project. 
The Committee reiterates its strong support for this project 
and urges the Corps to use all reasonable means to assure that 
the feasibility study is completed on schedule in fiscal year 
2001.
    Upper Mississippi and Illinois Navigation Study, Illinois, 
Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, and Wisconsin.--The recommendation 
provides funds above the budget request for preliminary 
engineering and design activities for potential lock 
improvements.
    Hammond, Indiana.--The Committee has provided $100,000 for 
a reconnaissance study of potential shore protection measures 
for the vicinity of Hammond, Indiana.
    Indiana Harbor, Indiana.--The recommendation includes 
funding for a reconnaissance study of environmental dredging of 
Indiana Harbor, Indiana.
    Muncie, White River, Indiana.--The Committee has provided 
funding for a reconnaissance study of flooding issues affecting 
Muncie, White River, Indiana.
    Mississinewa River, Marion, Indiana.--The Committee 
recommendation includes funding for a reconnaissance study to 
evaluate alternative flood damage reduction measures along the 
Mississinewa River in the vicinity of Marion, Indiana.
    St. Joseph River and Spy Run Creek, Indiana.--The 
recommendation includes funding for a reconnaissance study of 
flooding problems along the St. Joseph River in the vicinity of 
Leo-Cedarville, Indiana and along Spy Run Creek in the vicinity 
of Fort Wayne, Indiana. Among other things, this study will 
assess the potential creation of upstream wetlands to reduce 
downstream flooding.
    Turkey Creek Basin, Kansas and Missouri.--Funding above the 
budget request is provided to accelerate the completion of 
preconstruction engineering and design of the Turkey Creek 
Basin, Kansas and Missouri, project.
    Walnut River Basin, Kansas.--The Committee has provided 
funding to initiate a reconnaissance study of flood control and 
related water resource issues in the Walnut River Basin, 
Kansas.
    Banklick Creek, Kenton County, Kentucky.--The 
recommendation includes funding for a reconnaissance study of 
solutions to flooding and related water resource problems along 
the Banklick Creek, Kenton County, Kentucky.
    Greenup, Kentucky.--The Committee has provided funds to 
initiate a feasibility study of flooding and other water 
resource problems in Greenup, Kentucky.
    Licking River, Cynthiana, Kentucky.--The recommendation 
includes funding above the budget request to advance completion 
of the feasibility study of flooding problems along the Licking 
River in Cynthiana, Kentucky.
    Metropolitan Louisville, Jefferson County, Kentucky.--The 
Committee has provided funding for a reconnaissance study of 
ecosystem restoration and related water resource issues in 
Metropolitan Louisville, Jefferson County, Kentucky.
    Russell, Kentucky.--The Committee recommendation includes 
funds to initiate a feasibility study of flooding and related 
water resource issues in Russell, Kentucky.
    Amite River and Tributaries, Louisiana.--The recommendation 
includes funding for a reconnaissance study of ecosystem 
restoration along the Amite River and Tributaries, Louisiana.
    Calcasieu River Basin, Louisiana.--The Committee 
recommendation includes funding to initiate a reconnaissance 
study of flood control and environmental enhancements for the 
Calcasieu River Basin, Louisiana.
    Louisiana Coastal Area, Louisiana.--The Committee has 
provided $1,750,000 to initiate an ecosystem restoration 
feasibility study of the Louisiana coast. This effort, known as 
Coast 2050, will comprehensively address critical loss of 
coastal landscape in Louisiana.
    Boston Harbor, Massachusetts.--The Committee has provided 
funding for a reconnaissance study to evaluate the deepening of 
the Main Ship, Reserved and Entrance Channels to Boston Harbor, 
Massachusetts.
    Detroit River, Michigan.--The recommendation includes 
funding for a reconnaissance study of environmental dredging of 
the Detroit River, Michigan.
    Kalamazoo River, Michigan.--The Committee recommendation 
includes funds for a reconnaissance level study to assess the 
potential for habitat restoration, ecosystem enhancement, and 
erosion control along the Kalamazoo River in the vicinity of 
Kalamazoo, Michigan.
    Muskegon Lake, Michigan.--The Committee has included funds 
for a reconnaissance study of environmental dredging of 
Muskegon Lake, Michigan.
    White Lake, Michigan.--Funding is provided in the 
recommendation for a reconnaissance study of environmental 
dredging of White Lake, Michigan.
    Upper Mississippi River from Lake Itasca to Lock and Dam 2, 
Minnesota.--The Committee has provided funding to conduct the 
reconnaissance phase of a comprehensive watershed study of the 
Upper Mississippi River Basin from Lake Itasca to Lock and Dam 
2 in Hastings, Minnesota.
    River des Peres, Missouri.--Funds are included in the 
recommendation to resume preconstruction engineering and design 
of the Deer Creek portion of the River des Peres, Missouri, 
project.
    Lower Platte River and Tributaries, Nebraska.--The 
Committee recommendation includes $600,000 for the Lower Platte 
River and Tributaries, Nebraska, project. The Committee 
understands that this project will incorporate actual existing 
conditions into the baseline for problem identification and 
analysis. The recommendation includes funding to complete the 
interim feasibility study and initiate plans and specifications 
for the Lake Wanahoo project in Saunders County, Nebraska.
    Barnegat Inlet to Little Egg Inlet, New Jersey.--The 
Committee has provided funding to initiate preconstruction 
engineering and design of the Barnegat Inlet to Little Egg 
Inlet, New Jersey, project.
    Brigantine Inlet to Great Egg Harbor Inlet, New Jersey.--
The recommendation includes funding to initiate preconstruction 
engineering and design of the Brigantine Island element of the 
Brigantine Inlet to Great Egg Harbor Inlet, New Jersey, 
project.
    Great Egg Harbor to Townsends Inlet, New Jersey.--Funding 
is included in the recommendation to complete the feasibility 
study of the Great Egg Harbor to Townsends Inlet, New Jersey, 
project.
    Hudson-Raritan Estuary, New Jersey and New York.--The 
Committee has recommended funding for a reconnaissance study of 
harbor estuary opportunities in the Hudson-Raritan Estuary, New 
Jersey and New York.
    Lower Cape May Meadows to Cape May Point, New Jersey.--The 
recommendation includes funding for preconstruction engineering 
and design of the Lower Cape May Meadows to Cape May Point, New 
Jersey, project.
    Manasquan Inlet to Barnegat Inlet, New Jersey.--The 
Committee has provided funding to complete the feasibility 
study of the Manasquan Inlet to Barnegat Inlet, New Jersey, 
project.
    Raritan Bay and Sandy Hook Bay, New Jersey.--Of the funds 
added to the budget request by the Committee for the Raritan 
Bay and Sandy Hook Bay, New Jersey, project, $200,000 is to 
continue preconstruction engineering and design of the Port 
Monmouth element; $100,000 is to initiate a feasibility study 
of the Highlands element; $100,000 is to initiate a feasibility 
study of the Keyport element; and $150,000 is to initiate 
preconstruction engineering and design of the Cliffwood 
element.
    Shrewsbury River and Tributaries, Monmouth County, New 
Jersey.--The recommendation includes funding to initiate and 
complete a reconnaissance study of flooding problems and 
environmental restoration opportunities along the Shrewsbury 
River and Tributaries, Monmouth County, New Jersey.
    Stony Brook, New Jersey.--The recommendation includes 
$100,000 to fund a reconnaissance study of flooding problems 
and environmental restoration opportunities along Stony Brook, 
New Jersey.
    Townsends Inlet to Cape May Inlet, New Jersey.--The 
Committee has included funding to continue preconstruction 
engineering and design of the Townsends Inlet to Cape May 
Inlet, New Jersey, project.
    Clinton County, New York.--The recommendation includes 
funding for a reconnaissance study of flood control, 
environmental restoration and related purposes in the Great 
Chazy and Saranac River Basins and Tributaries in Clinton 
County, New York.
    Ellicott Creek, New York.--The Committee has recommended 
funding for a reconnaissance study of flood control and 
environmental restoration opportunities along Ellicott Creek, 
New York.
    Hamlin Beach and Lakeside Beach, New York.--The Committee 
has provided funding for a watershed and shoreline erosion 
study of Hamlin Beach and Lakeside Beach, New York.
    Hudson River, Hudson, New York.--Funding has been provided 
for a reconnaissance study of water resource issues along the 
Hudson River at Hudson, New York. This study is to emphasize 
navigation and environmental restoration.
    Montauk Point, New York.--The recommendation includes 
funding to continue a feasibility study of erosion control 
measures to protect Montauk Point, New York.
    North Shore of Long Island, New York.--Funds have been 
included by the Committee to continue the feasibility study of 
the Asharoken reach of the North Shore of Long Island, New 
York, project.
    Bogue Banks, North Carolina.--The Committee has provided 
funds for the reconnaissance phase of the Bogue Banks, North 
Carolina, shore protection project.
    Dare County Beaches, North Carolina.--The recommendation 
includes funding for preconstruction engineering and design of 
the Dare County Beaches, North Carolina, project.
    John H. Kerr Dam and Reservoir, North Carolina.--The 
Committee recommendation provides funding for a reconnaissance 
study to review the existing project for potential ecosystem 
and operational improvements at the John H. Kerr Dam and 
Reservoir, North Carolina.
    New River Basin, North Carolina, Virginia and West 
Virginia.--The Committee has provided funding for a 
reconnaissance study of the New River Basin, North Carolina, 
Virginia and West Virginia. This effort will support the 
American Heritage River Initiative for the New River.
    Berlin Lake, Ohio.--The Committee recommendation includes 
funding to investigate reallocation of reservoir storage at 
Berlin Lake, Ohio.
    Mahoning River, Ohio and Pennsylvania.--The Committee 
reiterates its support of the Mahoning River, Ohio and 
Pennsylvania, environmental dredging project and notes that 
sufficient carryover funding is available to meet project 
requirements for fiscal year 2000. The Committee is aware that 
potential local sponsors have been unable to commit to the 
study requirements due to extreme financial hardships. The 
Committee directs the Corps of Engineers to consider 
application of ``ability to pay'' provisions of existing law to 
relieve the financial burden on non-Federal interests and to 
permit this important project to proceed.
    Michael J. Kirwan Dam and Reservoir, Ohio.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $100,000 to investigate reallocation of 
reservoir storage at Michael J. Kirwan Dam and Reservoir, Ohio.
    Mosquito Creek Lake, Ohio.--The Committee has provided 
$100,000 to investigate reallocation of reservoir storage at 
Mosquito Creek Lake, Ohio.
    Muskingum Basin System Study, Ohio.--The Committee has 
provided funds to initiate the Muskingum Basin System Study in 
Ohio.
    Richland County, Ohio.--Funding has been included to 
initiate a study of flood damage reduction opportunities in 
Richland County, Ohio.
    Cimarron River Basin, Oklahoma and Kansas.--The Committee 
recommendation includes funding for a reconnaissance study of 
environmental restoration and flood control opportunities 
within the Cimarron River Basin in Oklahoma and Kansas.
    Southeast Oklahoma, Oklahoma.--The Committee has provided 
funding for a reconnaissance study of flooding and related 
water resource issues in Southeast Oklahoma, Oklahoma.
    Warr Acres and Bethany, Oklahoma.--The recommendation 
includes funding for a reconnaissance study of flood control 
problems and opportunities in Warr Acres and Bethany, Oklahoma.
    Willamette River Environmental Dredging, Oregon.--The 
Committee has recommended funding for a reconnaissance study of 
environmental dredging of the Willamette River, Oregon.
    Bloomsburg, Pennsylvania.--The recommendation includes 
$300,000 to expedite completion of the feasibility study of 
flood control options for Bloomsburg, Pennsylvania.
    Upper Susquehanna River Basin, Pennsylvania and New York.--
The recommendation includes $250,000 for continuation of the 
Upper Susquehanna River Basin, Pennsylvania and New York, 
study.
    French Broad Watershed, Tennessee.--The Committee directs 
the Corps of Engineers to use $200,000 of available fiscal year 
1999 funds to initiate a feasibility study for ecosystem 
restoration, flood control, and related purposes in the French 
Broad River watershed in Knox, Blount, Jefferson, Sevier, and 
Cocke counties, Tennessee.
    Bois D'Arc Creek, Bonham, Texas.--Funds are included in the 
recommendation for a reconnaissance study of flooding and 
related water resource problems along the Bois D'Arc Creek near 
Bonham, Texas.
    Guadalupe and San Antonio Rivers, Texas.--The Committee has 
provided $400,000 for an expanded reconnaissance study of water 
resource issues within the Guadalupe and San Antonio River 
Basins in Texas.
    LaQuinta Channel, Texas.--The recommendation includes 
$500,000 for an interim feasibility study of the LaQuinta 
Channel, Texas, to be accomplished separately from the Corpus 
Christi Ship Channel study. The study will investigate 
potential extension of the existing project.
    Lower Colorado River Basin, Texas.--Funds have been 
provided to expand the Onion Creek, Texas, feasibility study to 
comprehend water resource issues in the Lower Colorado River 
Basin in Texas.
    North Padre Island, Corpus Christi, Texas.--The 
recommendation includes the full amount of the budget request 
for continued investigation of the North Padre Island, Corpus 
Christi, Texas, project.
    Raymondville Drain, Texas.--Funding above the budget 
request has been included to accelerate the Raymondville Drain, 
Texas, project.
    Sabine Pass to Galveston Bay, Texas.--The recommendation 
includes funding for an expedited reconnaissance study of 
coastal erosion problems along the Texas coastline from Sabine 
Pass to Galveston Bay.
    Upper Trinity River Basin, Texas.--The recommendation of 
the Committee provides $1,195,000 for the Upper Trinity River 
Basin, Texas, project. Funds above the budget request are 
provided to expedite completion of the Dallas Floodway study 
and to initiate a feasibility study of the Trinity River 
Environmental Enhancement/Fort Worth Floodway component of the 
project.
    Chesapeake Bay Shoreline, Hampton, Virginia.--The Committee 
has provided $245,000 to continue investigations associated 
with the Chesapeake Bay Shoreline, Hampton, Virginia, project.
    Bellingham Bay, Washington.--The recommendation provides 
$100,000 for a reconnaissance study to evaluate navigation 
improvements and ecosystem restoration in the estuary and 
watershed at Bellingham Bay in Whatcom County, Washington. In 
conducting this study, the Corps shall consider information 
generated by the Bellingham Bay Demonstration Pilot Project.
    Centralia, Washington.--The Committee has provided the full 
amount of the budget request to continue preconstruction 
engineering and design efforts associated with the Centralia, 
Washington, project in western Lewis County, Washington.
    Chehalis River Basin, Washington.--The Committee has 
recommended funding for a reconnaissance study of flood damage 
prevention and ecosystem restoration opportunities within the 
Chehalis River Basin, Washington.
    Howard Hanson Dam, Washington.--The recommendation includes 
$3,000,000 to accelerate preconstruction engineering and design 
of the additional storage project at Howard Hanson Dam, 
Washington.
    Lake Washington Ship Canal, Washington.--The Committee has 
provided funding above the budget request to expedite the 
feasibility study of the Lake Washington Ship Canal, 
Washington, project.
    Ocean Shores, Washington.--The Committee has provided 
funding to initiate a feasibility study of storm damage 
reduction alternatives for the City of Ocean Shores in Grays 
Harbor County, Washington.
    Puget Sound Nearshore Marine Habitat, Washington.--Funds 
have been included to initiate the Puget Sound Nearshore Marine 
Habitat Restoration, Washington, study.
    Skokomish River Basin, Washington.--The Committee 
recommendation includes full funding of the budget request for 
the Skokomish River Basin, Washington, project. The Committee 
directs that this feasibility study take into account the 
values of both flood reduction and ecosystem restoration.
    Island Creek at Logan, West Virginia.--The Committee has 
provided $400,000 to continue design and related activities 
associated with the Island Creek at Logan, West Virginia, 
project.
    Lower Mud River, Milton, West Virginia.--The Committee 
recommendation includes funding to complete a Limited 
Reevaluation Report for the Lower Mud River, Milton, West 
Virginia, project.
    Fox River, Wisconsin.--The recommendation includes $100,000 
for a reconnaissance study of a potential environmental 
dredging project at Fox River, Wisconsin.
    Flood Plain Management Services.--Of the amount provided 
for the Flood Plain Management Services program, $100,000 is to 
complete Phase IV of the Nassau River, Florida, Comprehensive 
Floodplain Management Study. $150,000 is for completion of 
cross section surveys and analysis of the hydrology and 
hydraulics of the Yellowstone River in the Glendive area to 
provide current flood plain information.
    Great Lakes Remedial Action Program.--The Committee has 
added funds to continue the provision of technical assistance 
in areas of concern through the Great Lakes Remedial Action 
Program.
    Other Coordination Programs.--The recommendation for Other 
Coordination Progams includes the full amount of the budget 
request for the Chesapeake Bay Program.
    Planning Assistance to States.--The Committee is aware that 
channel shifting of the Yellowstone River in Montana has left 
the Laurel water supply intake unreliable. The Committee notes 
that the Corps of Engineers is scheduled to complete a Section 
22 study of this problem in fiscal year 1999. The Committee 
urges the Corps to continue its cooperation with the City of 
Laurel in order to address this problem.
    Of the amount provided for the Planning Assistance to 
States program, $100,000 is for technical assistance associated 
with water resource development in Lewis and Lawrence Counties, 
Tennessee.
    Research and Development.--Of the amount provided for 
Research and Development, $1,250,000 is for the National 
Shoreline Erosion Control Development and Demonstration 
Program.

                         Construction, General




Appropriation, 1999...................................    $1,464,885,000
Budget Estimate, 2000.................................     1,239,900,000
Recommended, 2000.....................................     1,412,591,000
Comparison:
  Appropriation, 1999.................................       -52,294,000
  Budget Estimate, 2000...............................      +172,691,000


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


    Tennessee-Tombigbee Wildlife Mitigation, Alabama and 
Mississippi.--The bill includes sufficient funding to complete 
land acquisition in satisfaction of wildlife mitigation 
requirements associated with the Tennessee-Tombigbee, Alabama 
and Mississippi, project.
    Montgomery Point Lock and Dam, Arkansas.--The Committee has 
provided $45,000,000 to advance completion of the Montgomery 
Point Lock and Dam, Arkansas, project by one year.
    Red River Basin Emergency Bank Protection, Arkansas and 
Texas.--The recommendation includes $4,000,000 for the Red 
River Basin Emergency Bank Protection, Texas and Arkansas, 
project.
    Red River Waterway (Index, Arkansas to Denison Dam, 
Texas).--Funding has been added by the Committee to the Red 
River Waterway (Index, Arkansas to Denison Dam, Texas) project 
for Phase II of the Sediment Transportation Study.
    White River Navigation to Newport, Arkansas.--The 
recommendation includes $1,000,000 to initiate construction of 
the White River Navigation to Newport, Arkansas, project.
    Humboldt Harbor and Bay, California.--In the past three 
fiscal years, Congress has appropriated $14,500,000 for 
construction of the Humboldt Harbor and Bay, California, 
project. The total estimated Federal cost of this project is 
only $12,300,000, and yet the Administration has requested 
additional funding for fiscal year 2000. The Corps of Engineers 
is directed to use funds previously appropriated for this 
project to fund any remaining project requirements in fiscal 
year 2000.
    Imperial Beach (Silver Strand Shoreline), California.--The 
recommendation includes funding to complete the General Re-
evaluation Report on the Imperial Beach (Silver Strand 
Shoreline), California, project.
    Kaweah River, California.--The Committee has provided 
$2,500,000 to initiate construction of the Kaweah River, 
California, project.
    Los Angeles County Drainage Area, California.--The 
Committee has included in its recommendation $50,000,000 for 
the Los Angeles County Drainage Area, California, project. 
Despite the Administration's use of the LACDA project to 
illustrate the costs of project delay, it has once again failed 
to budget adequately for this project. The Committee's 
recommendation maintains the optimum construction schedule for 
the project and will advance completion of the overall project 
by one year.
    Los Angeles Harbor, California.--The recommendation 
includes $4,785,000 to fully fund fiscal year 2000 project 
requirements for the Los Angeles Harbor, California, project. 
This amount has been reduced from the budget request due to 
reprogramming actions completed in fiscal year 1999.
    Napa River, California.--The Committee recommends the full 
amount of the budget request to initiate the Napa River, 
California, project.
    Norco Bluffs, California.--The Committee has provided 
$2,200,000 to complete the Norco Bluffs, California, project.
    Sacramento River, Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District, 
California.--The Committee has provided $6,000,000, double the 
budget request, for the Sacramento River, Glenn-Colusa 
Irrigation District, California, project. This level of funding 
will advance completion of the gradient restoration facility by 
six months. The Committee recognizes that this project is an 
important component of the Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District 
fish protection program being implemented by the Corps of 
Engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation and urges the continued 
cooperative efforts of these two agencies.
    Santa Ana River Mainstem, California.--The recommendation 
includes $28,000,000 for the Santa Ana River Mainstem, 
California, project. Of this amount, $5,000,000 is to initiate 
construction of the Prado Dam element of the project. The 
Committee remains fully supportive of the San Timoteo Creek 
feature of the project and understands that sufficient funding 
is available to ensure its completion on an optimum schedule.
    Santa Paula Creek, California.--Funding above the budget 
request has been added to accelerate completion of the Santa 
Paula Creek, California, project.
    Surfside-Sunset and Newport Beach, California.--The 
Committee has provided funding for stage 11 of the Surfside-
Sunset and Newport Beach, California, project.
    Delaware Coast from Cape Henlopen to Fenwick Island, 
Delaware.--The recommendation includes funding to initiate 
construction of the Rehobeth Beach to Dewey Beach element of 
the Delaware Coast from Cape Henlopen to Fenwick Island, 
Delaware, project.
    Brevard County, Florida.--The recommendation includes 
$5,000,000 to initiate construction of the Brevard County, 
Florida, project.
    Cedar Hammock, Wares Creek, Florida.--The Committee has 
recommended $3,000,000 for construction of the channel 
improvement project at Cedar Hammock, Wares Creek, Florida.
    Dade County, Florida.--The Committee recommendation 
includes an addition of $3,000,000 above the budget request for 
the Dade County, Florida, project.
    Fort Pierce Beach, Florida.--The Committee has provided 
$1,000,000 for the Fort Pierce Beach, Florida, project.
    Kissimmee River, Florida.--The recommendation provides 
$28,100,000 to fully fund fiscal year 2000 program requirements 
for the Kissimmee River, Florida, project.
    Lake Worth Sand Transfer Plant, Florida.--The 
recommendation provides $1,000,000 for construction of the Lake 
Worth Inlet Sand Transfer Plant, Florida.
    Lee County, Florida.--The recommendation includes $350,000 
to complete remaining work on the general reevaluation report 
on Estero and Gasparilla Islands in Lee County, Florida. Funds 
are also to be used to complete plans and specifications for 
the project and to execute a project cooperation agreement with 
local sponsors.
    Martin County, Florida.--The Committee has provided 
$250,000 to prepare plans and specifications for the initial 
renourishment of the Martin County, Florida, project.
    Palm Valley Bridge, Florida.--The Committee has added 
$4,000,000 to the budget request to accelerate completion of 
the Palm Valley Bridge, Florida, project.
    Panama City Beaches, Florida.--The Corps is directed to 
credit toward the non-Federal share of the project cost the 
cost of any work performed by non-Federal interests on the 
Panama City Beaches, Florida, project, subsequent to project 
authorization, to the extent the Secretary determines that work 
to be compatible with, and integral to, the project.
    Panama City Harbor, Florida.--Funding is included in the 
recommendation to initiate the expansion project at Panama City 
Harbor, Florida.
    Tampa Harbor (Ybor Channel), Florida.--The Committee has 
provided $3,200,000 to initiate and complete a project to widen 
the Ybor Channel Turning Basin at Tampa Harbor, Florida.
    Lower Savannah River Basin, Georgia.--The recommendation 
includes funding to initiate real estate acquisition associated 
with the Lower Savannah River Basin, Georgia, project.
    Chain of Rocks Canal, Mississippi River, Illinois.--The 
Committee has provided $2,100,000, an increase of $500,000 over 
the budget request, to advance work on the Chain of Rocks 
Canal, Mississippi River, Illinois, deficiency correction 
project.
    Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal Dispersal Barrier, 
Illinois.--The Committee has provided $300,000, trebling the 
budget request, for the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal 
Dispersal Barrier, Illinois, project.
    Chicago Shoreline, Illinois.--The recommendation includes 
$13,129,000, an increase of $5,500,000 over the budget request, 
to expedite the Chicago Shoreline, Illinois, project.
    Des Plaines River, Wetlands Demonstration, Illinois.--The 
Committee has included in its recommendation $1,075,000 to 
initiate work on additional demonstrations as part of the Des 
Plaines River, Wetlands Demonstration, Illinois, project.
    East St. Louis Interior Flood Control, Illinois.--The 
Committee recommendation includes funding to complete the 
general reevaluation report on the East St. Louis Interior 
Flood Control, Illinois, project.
    McCook and Thornton Reservoirs, Illinois.--The Committee 
has provided an increase of $2,000,000 over the budget request 
to accelerate construction of the McCook and Thornton 
Reservoirs, Illinois, project.
    Indianapolis Central Waterfront, Indiana.--The 
recommendation includes $10,991,000 to advance completion of 
the Indianapolis Central Waterfront, Indiana, project.
    Indiana Shoreline Erosion, Indiana.--The recommendation 
includes funding for continued monitoring of the Indiana 
Shoreline Erosion, Indiana, project.
    Little Calumet River, Indiana.--$5,500,000 above the budget 
request has been provided for the Little Calumet River, 
Indiana, project. The Committee directs that the value of 
flowage easements acquired in the East Reach Remediation Area 
be credited toward the non-Federal share of the project cost, 
to the extent the Secretary determines that acquisition of the 
easements is compatible with, and integral to, the project.
    White River, Indianapolis (North), Indiana.--The Committee 
has provided $500,000 to initiate construction of the White 
River, Indianapolis (North), Indiana, project.
    Missouri River Fish and Wildlife Mitigation, Iowa, 
Nebraska, Kansas and Missouri.--The recommendation includes 
$5,000,000 over the budget request for the Missouri River Fish 
and Wildlife Mitigation, Iowa, Nebraska, Kansas and Missouri, 
project.
    Perry Creek, Iowa.--The recommendation includes $9,500,000, 
the full amount of the budget request for the Perry Creek, 
Iowa, project.
    Kentucky Lock and Dam, Tennessee River, Kentucky.--The 
recommendation provides an increase of $7,250,000 over the 
budget request to accelerate completion of the Kentucky Lock 
and Dam, Tennessee River, Kentucky, project.
    McAlpine Locks and Dam, Ohio River, Kentucky and Indiana.--
The Committee has provided $8,000,000 above the budget request 
to advance the schedule for completion of the McAlpine Locks 
and Dam, Ohio River, Kentucky and Indiana, project.
    Salyersville, Kentucky.--The Corps of Engineers is directed 
to use any available excess funds previously appropriated for 
the Salyersville, Kentucky, project to provide additional flood 
control damage reduction measures (such as snagging and 
clearing along Burning Fork, State Road Fork and the Licking 
River) in conjunction with local interests.
    Southern and Eastern Kentucky, Kentucky.--The 
recommendation includes $2,000,000 for the Southern and Eastern 
Kentucky, Kentucky, project.
    Comite River, Louisiana.--The Committee has provided 
$4,000,000 to initiate construction contracts and continue 
construction of the Comite River Diversion project, as 
authorized by Section 101(11) of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1992 and modified by Section 301(b)(5) of 
the Water Resources Development Act of 1996.
    Inner Harbor Navigation Canal Lock, Louisiana.--The 
recommendation includes an increase of $2,900,000 above the 
budget request for the Inner Harbor Navigation Canal Lock, 
Louisiana, project. The Committee is aware of the community 
impacts and disturbances that will be endured by the local 
residents during the lengthy construction period of the Inner 
Harbor Navigation Canal Lock replacement project. Therefore, 
the recommendation includes the full amount requested to 
implement the community impact mitigation plan associated with 
the project, as authorized in the Water Resources Development 
Act of 1986, as amended.
    Lake Pontchartrain and Vicinity (Hurricane Protection), 
Louisiana.--Additional funds above the budget request have been 
included for the Lake Pontchartrain and Vicinity (Hurricane 
Protection), Louisiana, project.
    Lake Pontchartrain Stormwater Discharge, Louisiana.--The 
recommendation adds funding to continue the Lake Pontchartrain 
Stormwater Discharge, Louisiana, project.
    Larose to Golden Meadow, Louisiana (Hurricane 
Protection).--The Committee has provided the full amount of the 
budget request for the Larose to Golden Meadow, Louisiana, 
hurricane protection project. The Committee recognizes that 
life-threatening situations have occurred several times by the 
closure of the Golden Meadow floodgates to protect its 
``interior'' citizens from storm surges. While it supports the 
use and operation of this flood control system, the Committee 
urges the Corps of Engineers to expedite, to the fullest extent 
possible, the completion of the Post Authorization Change with 
a recommendation on allowing the unimpeded passage of mariners 
seeking safe harbor north of the floodgates on Bayou Lafourche.
    New Orleans to Venice, Louisiana (Hurricane Protection).--
The Committee has provided an additional $600,000 above the 
budget request to continue construction of the New Orleans to 
Venice, Louisiana, hurricane protection project.
    Port Fourchon, Louisiana.--The recommendation includes 
$2,184,000 to initiate construction of the Port Fourchon, 
Louisiana, navigation project.
    Red River Waterway, Mississippi River to Shreveport, 
Louisiana.--The recommendation includes additional funds to 
accelerate completion of the Red River Waterway, Mississippi 
River to Shreveport, Louisiana, project. Of the total amount 
recommended for this project, $2,487,000 is provided to 
accelerate construction contracts for the Cognac and Poisson 
Revetments. Additionally, the Corps is directed to use up to 
$1,000,000 to reinforce the Cupples Landing Revetment.
    West Bank, Vicinity of New Orleans, Louisiana (Hurricane 
Protection).--The Committee recommendation includes additional 
funding to continue construction of the West Bank, Vicinity of 
New Orleans, Louisiana, hurricane protection project.
    Baltimore Harbor and Channels (Brewerton Channel), 
Maryland.--The recommendation includes $9,578,000, the full 
amount of the budget request, for the Baltimore Harbor and 
Channels (Brewerton Channel), Maryland.
    Chesapeake Bay Environmental Restoration and Protection, 
Maryland, Virginia and Pennsylvania.--Funds provided for the 
Chesapeake Bay Environmental Restoration and Protection, 
Maryland, Virginia and Pennsylvania, project are for oyster bed 
restoration at Rappahannock, Virginia.
    Poplar Island, Maryland.--The recommendation includes 
$16,000,000 to accelerate completion of the Poplar Island, 
Maryland, project.
    St. Croix River, Stillwater, Minnesota.--The Committee has 
provided $1,158,000 to complete the St. Croix River, 
Stillwater, Minnesota, project.
    Jackson County, Mississippi.--The recommendation includes 
$800,000 for the Jackson County, Mississippi, project.
    Wolf and Jordan Rivers and Bayou Portage, Mississippi.--The 
Committee recommendation includes $1,000,000 to initiate 
construction of the Wolf and Jordan Rivers and Bayou Portage, 
Mississippi, project.
    Brigatine Inlet to Great Egg Harbor Inlet, New Jersey.--The 
recommendation includes $7,000,000 to initiate construction of 
the Absecon Island element of the Brigatine Inlet to Great Egg 
Harbor Inlet, New Jersey, project.
    Passaic River Streambank Restoration, New Jersey.--The 
Committee has included in its recommendation $8,000,000 for 
continuation of the Passaic River Streambank Restoration, New 
Jersey, project.
    Raritan Bay and Sandy Hook Bay, New Jersey.--The 
recommendation includes $200,000 to complete the review report 
on the Raritan Bay and Sandy Hook Bay, New Jersey, project.
    Fire Island Inlet to Jones Inlet, New York.--The Committee 
has provided full funding for the Fire Island Inlet to Jones 
Inlet, New York, project. The Committee understands that the 
amount provided is sufficient to complete a full nourishment 
cycle in fiscal year 2000.
    Fire Island to Montauk Point, New York.--Of the additional 
funding above the budget request provided for the Fire Island 
to Montauk Point, New York, project, $1,500,000 is for 
construction of the west of Shinnecock Inlet project, and 
$500,000 is for activities associated with the Fire Island 
Interim Plan.
    Kill van Kull and Newark Bay Channel, New York and New 
Jersey.--The Committee recommendation includes $40,000,000 to 
fully fund fiscal year 2000 project requirements for the Kill 
van Kull and Newark Bay Channel, New York and New Jersey, 
project. This amount is reduced from the budget request due to 
favorable construction bids received by the Corps of Engineers.
    Long Beach Island, New York.--The Committee remains fully 
supportive of the Long Beach Island, New York, project and 
understands that sufficient carryover funding is available to 
satisfy program requirements for fiscal year 2000.
    New York City Watershed, New York.--The Committee 
understands that sufficient prior year appropriations are 
available to meet New York City Watershed, New York, project 
requirements in fiscal year 2000.
    New York Harbor Collection and Removal of Drift, New 
York.--The Committee has provided fiscal year 2000 funding for 
the New York Harbor Collection and Removal of Drift, New York, 
project.
    New York State Canal System, New York.--The recommendation 
includes $4,000,000 to continue the New York State Canal 
System, New York, project.
    Orchard Beach, New York.--The Committee understands that 
sufficient funding will be carried over into fiscal year 2000 
to satisfy fiscal year 2000 project requirements for the 
Orchard Beach, New York, project.
    Brunswick County Beaches, North Carolina.--The 
recommendation includes funding to initiate construction of the 
Ocean Isle Beach element of the Brunswick County Beaches, North 
Carolina, project.
    Grand Forks, North Dakota--East Grand Forks, Minnesota.--
The Committee has provided $10,000,000 to initiate construction 
of the Grand Forks, North Dakota--East Grand Forks, Minnesota, 
project.
    Sheyenne River, North Dakota (Baldhill Pool Raise).--The 
recommendation includes $1,700,000 to initiate construction of 
the Sheyenne River, North Dakota (Baldhill Pool Raise), 
project.
    Lower Girard Lake Dam, Ohio.--The Committee understands 
that sufficient carryover funding is available in fiscal year 
2000 to continue the development of plans and specifications 
for the Lower Girard Lake Dam, Ohio, project.
    West Columbus, Ohio.--The recommendation has provided an 
additional $8,000,000 over the budget request to maintain the 
optimum completion schedule for the West Columbus, Ohio, 
project.
    Elk Creek Lake, Oregon.--The Committee has provided 
$180,000 for the Elk Creek Lake, Oregon, project. These funds, 
along with funds previously appropriated for the 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.
    Willamette River Temperature Control, Oregon.--The 
Committee has provided $1,700,000 to initiate construction of 
the Willamette River Temperature Control, Oregon, project.
    Lock and Dams 2, 3, and 4, Monongahela River, 
Pennsylvania.--The Committee has added $31,400,000 to the 
budget request to maintain the optimum construction schedule 
for the Lock and Dams 2, 3, and 4, Monongahela River, 
Pennsylvania, project.
    Southeastern Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania.--The 
recommendation includes $3,000,000 to continue the Southeastern 
Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania, project.
    Rio Puerto Nuevo, Puerto Rico.--The Committee has provided 
$1,000,000 above the budget request to maintain the optimum 
construction schedule for the Rio Puerto Nuevo, Puerto Rico, 
project.
    Charleston Harbor, South Carolina (Deepening and 
Widening).--The recommendation includes $37,284,000 for the 
Charleston Harbor, South Carolina, deepening and widening 
project.
    Big Sioux River, Sioux Falls, South Dakota.--The Committee 
has provided $2,200,000 to initiate construction of the Big 
Sioux River, Sioux Falls, South Dakota, project.
    Pierre, South Dakota.--The Committee has recommended 
$10,000,000 for continuation of the Pierre, South Dakota, 
project.
    Black Fox, Murfree and Oakland Springs Wetlands, 
Tennessee.--The recommendation includes final year funding of 
$2,000,000 for the Black Fox, Murfree and Oakland Springs 
Wetlands, Tennessee, project. These funds are to be applied 
only toward continued construction of wetland restoration 
sites.
    Tennessee River, Hamilton County, Tennessee.--The Committee 
has included in its recommendation $1,500,000 for continued 
construction of the Tennessee River, Hamilton County, 
Tennessee, project.
    Cypress Creek, Houston, Texas.--The recommendation includes 
$4,569,000 to initiate the Cypress Creek, Houston, Texas, 
project.
    Neches River and Tributaries Saltwater Barrier, Texas.--The 
Committee has included $2,000,000 to initiate construction of 
the Neches River and Tributaries Saltwater Barrier, Texas, 
project.
    Wallisville Saltwater Barrier, Texas.--The Committee has 
provided $4,756,000 to complete construction of the Wallisville 
Saltwater Barrier, Texas, project.
    Virginia Beach, Virginia.--The recommendation includes 
$22,000,000 to continue the Virginia Beach, Virginia, hurricane 
protection project.
    Virginia Beach, Virginia (Reimbursement).--The Committee 
has provided funds to reimburse the City of Virginia Beach, 
Virginia for an annual cycle of beach nourishment.
    Columbia River Fish Mitigation, Washington, Oregon and 
Idaho.--The recommendation for the Columbia River Fish 
Mitigation, Washington, Oregon and Idaho, project includes a 
reduction of $5,600,000 from the mitigation analysis budget. 
Funds are not to be expended for phase II of the lower John Day 
drawdown study or for any investigation of drawdown from the 
McNary Lock and Dam without the prior approval of the 
Committees on Appropriations of the House and Senate.
    Mount St. Helens Sediment Control, Washington.--The 
Committee has provided the full amount of the budget request 
for the Mount St. Helens Sediment Control, Washington, project. 
The Committee recognizes that additional studies are required 
to predict whether operation of the spillway in the Sediment 
Retention Structure will result in a change in downstream 
dispositions with potential impacts on the resultant level of 
flood protection. The Corps of Engineers is directed, using the 
latest hydrology data available, to maintain levels of 
protection not less than those described in the October 1985 
Decision Document (the basis for the project cost-sharing 
agreement with the non-Federal sponsors) and authorized in 
Public Law 99-88.
    Levisa and Tug Forks of the Big and Sandy Rivers and Upper 
Cumberland River, West Virginia, Virginia, and Kentucky.--Of 
the amount above the budget request included in the 
recommendation for the Levisa and Tug Forks of the Big and 
Sandy Rivers and Upper Cumberland River, West Virginia, 
Virginia, and Kentucky, project, funds are provided for the 
following elements in the amounts specified: $4,500,000 for 
Harlan/Clover Fork, Kentucky; $5,000,000 for Middlesboro, 
Kentucky; $1,600,000 for Pike County, Kentucky, including 
$500,000 for additional studies along the tributaries of the 
Tug Fork; $900,000 for Martin County, Kentucky; $500,000 for 
the Town of Martin, Kentucky; $750,000 for initiation of a 
Detailed Project Report for Bell County, Kentucky; $800,000 for 
completion of a Detailed Project Report for Buchanan County, 
Virginia; $700,000 for a Detailed Project Report for Dickenson 
County, Virginia; and $600,000 for engineering and design of 
the Haysi Dam, Virginia, feature.
    Marmet Lock, Kanawha River, West Virginia.--The 
recommendation includes an amount of funding in excess of the 
budget request sufficient to maintain the optimum construction 
schedule for the Marmet Lock, Kanawha River, West Virginia, 
project.
    Southern West Virginia Environmental Infrastructure, West 
Virginia.--The Committee has included $2,000,000 for the 
Southern West Virginia Environmental Infrastructure, West 
Virginia, project.
    West Virginia and Pennsylvania Flood Control, West Virginia 
and Pennsylvania.--The Committee has added $2,600,000 for the 
West Virginia and Pennsylvania Flood Control, West Virginia and 
Pennsylvania, project.
    LaFarge Lake, Kickapoo River, Wisconsin.--The 
recommendation includes $3,000,000 for authorized 
reimbursements associated with the LaFarge Lake, Kickapoo 
River, Wisconsin, project.
    Aquatic Plant Control Program.--Of the amount provided for 
the Aquatic Plant Control Program, $100,000 is for the control 
of hydrilla in the Potomac River and its tributaries in 
Virginia, Maryland, and Washington, D.C.
    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 the full amount of the budget request 
for the Section 206 program. Within the funds provided, the 
recommendation includes: $100,000 for the Huntsville, Madison 
County, Alabama, project; $1,481,000 for the Clear Lake Basin 
Watershed Restoration, California, project; $10,000 for a 
project restoration plan for the remediation of a contaminated 
backwater of Lake Natoma, California; $600,000 for the Santa 
Anita Creek Ecosystem Restoration, California, project; 
$100,000 to initiate a feasibility study of erosion impacts on 
a lagoon system at Chicago Botanical Gardens, Illinois; 
$123,000 to initiate an ecosystem restoration report for the 
Wabash River Environmental Restoration, West Lafayette, 
Indiana, project; $60,000 for the Rivers South Wetland 
Restoration, St. Louis County, Missouri, project at LeMay, 
Missouri; $160,000 for the Little Sugar Creek Aquatic Ecosystem 
Restoration, North Carolina, project; $59,000 for the 
Clatskanie River, Oregon, project; $200,000 for the Springfield 
Millrace, Oregon, project; $200,000 for the Hughes Borehole 
Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration, Pennsylvania, project in the 
Upper Conemaugh River Basin, Cambria County, Pennsylvania; 
$1,000,000 for the Upper Jordan River Restoration, Utah, 
project; $250,000 for the West Jordan, Utah, project; and 
$150,000 to conduct evaluations at each of two sites within the 
Green River Early Action, King County, Washington, project.
    The Committee remains fully supportive of the Nine Mile Run 
habitat restoration demonstration program in Allegheny County, 
Pennsylvania and understands that previous appropriations are 
sufficient to meet project requirements in fiscal year 2000. 
The Committee supports the proposed Hayden Diversion Project on 
the Yampa River in Colorado, because it will alleviate the 
agricultural need for temporary diversion structures, which are 
harmful to the river ecosystem. The Corps of Engineers is 
encouraged to determine this project's eligibility for Section 
206 funding, and if warranted, to participate in this project 
with state and local agencies and the Natural Resource 
Conservation Service. The Committee also urges funding of the 
Upper Rogue Basin, Oregon, project.
    The Committee urges the Corps of Engineers to complete the 
Ecosystem Restoration Report and initiate plans and 
specifications for the Koontz Lake, Indiana, project within 
available funds. In addition, the Secretary of the Army shall 
allow credit toward the costs of the Koontz Lake, Indiana, 
project for the design and implementation of aquatic ecosystem 
measures by the non-Federal sponsor accomplished prior to the 
execution of the project cooperation agreement, to the extent 
the Secretary determines such work to be compatible with, and 
integral to, the project.
    Beneficial Uses of Dredged Material (Section 204).--The 
Committee has provided level funding for the Section 204 
program. The Committee directs the Corps of Engineers to 
emphasize projects that use dredged materials to recreate 
habitat, such as those at Duluth Harbor, Minnesota and the Cat 
Island Chain, Wisconsin.
    Dredged Material Disposal Facilities Program.--Of the 
amount recommended for the Dredged Material Disposal Facilities 
Program, $4,000,000 is to complete design and initiate 
construction activities associated with the development of a 
confined disposal facility at Indiana Harbor and Canal, 
Indiana.
    Emergency Streambank and Erosion Control (Section 14).--The 
Committee has provided $5,000,000 for the Section 14 program. 
Within the funds provided, the recommendation includes: $40,000 
for planning and design analysis of bank stabilization 
requirements at Chicago Botanical Gardens, Illinois; $825,000 
for the Russell, Kentucky, project; $300,000 for the Greenup, 
Kentucky, project; $100,000 for a shoreline protection project 
at Muskegon, Michigan; $534,000 for the City of Escanaba, Delta 
County, Michigan, project; $635,000 for the Coulson Park 
Landfill, Billings, Montana, project; $40,000 for the 
Poughkeepskie, New York, project; $1,000,000 for the Swannanoa 
River, Buncombe County, North Carolina, project; $40,000 for 
bank stabilization work only at Athens County, Ohio; and 
$90,000 for a project along the east bank of the Fox River in 
Green Bay, Wisconsin.
    Small Flood Control Projects (Section 205).--The Committee 
has provided funding in excess of the budget request for the 
Section 205 program. Within the funds provided, the 
recommendation includes: $200,000 for the Big Nance Creek, 
Lawrence County, Alabama, project; $300,000 for the Dallas 
Branch and Pinhook Creek, Huntsville, Alabama, project; 
$400,000 for the City of Folsom, Humbug and Willow Creek, 
California, project; $100,000 for the Fox Field Industrial 
Corridor, California, project; $300,000 for the Hamilton City, 
California, project; $1,700,000 for the Magpie Creek, 
Sacramento, California, project; $100,000 for the Mare Island, 
California, project; $100,000 for the Tehama, California, 
project; $50,000 for the Farm River, North Branford, 
Connecticut, project; $20,000 for the Goodwin Brook, East 
Hartford, Connecticut, project; $100,000 for a reconnaissance 
study of a flood control project at Plant City, Florida; 
$100,000 for the Coeur d'Alene River at Cataldo, Idaho, 
project; $175,000 for the St. Joe River at St. Maries, Idaho, 
project; $100,000 for a reconnaissance study of the Calumet 
Park, Illinois, project; $100,000 for a reconnaissance study of 
the Chicago Heights, Thorn Creek, Illinois, project; $100,000 
for a reconnaissance study of the Flossmoor, Butterfield Creek, 
Illinois, project; $200,000 for the Oak Forest and Midlothian 
(Natalie Creek), Illinois, project; $640,000 for the Stony 
Creek, Illinois, project; $150,000 for the Tinley Park/Hickory 
Creek, Illinois, project; $318,000 to complete construction of 
the Flatrock River, Rushville, Indiana, project; $25,000 for 
the Pipe Creek, Alexandria, Indiana, project; $150,000 for the 
Pleasant Creek, Greenwood, Indiana, project; $100,000 for the 
White River, Anderson, Indiana, project; $100,000 for the 
Frankfort, Jones Run Pump Station, Kentucky, project; $75,000 
for a flood damage reduction study of the Yellowstone River in 
the vicinity of Glendive Montana; $175,000 for the Mill Brook, 
Highland Park, New Jersey, project; $200,000 for the Poplar 
Brook, Monmouth County, New Jersey, project; $300,000 for the 
Mecklenburg County, North Carolina, project; $100,000 for the 
Vinton, Gallia County, Ohio, project; $100,000 for the Mill 
Creek, Bristol Township, Pennsylvania, project; $100,000 for 
the Southampton Creek, Upper Southampton Township, 
Pennsylvania, project; $75,000 for the Tawney Run Creek, 
Pennsylvania, project; $175,000 for the Bailey Fork, Paris, 
Henry County, Tennessee, project; $200,000 for the Cane Creek, 
Camden, Benton County, Tennessee, project; $50,000 for the 
Finley, Tennessee, project; $100,000 to initiate a feasibility 
study of flooding problems in Gates and Halls, Tennessee; 
$150,000 for the Mountain City, Johnson County, Tennessee, 
project; $100,000 for the Town Creek, Lenoir City, Tennessee, 
project; $100,000 for the Big Moccasin and Little Moccasin 
Creeks, Gate City, Scott County, Virginia, project; $200,000 
for the Snoqualmie River at North Bend, Washington, project; 
and $1,900,000 for the Snoqualmie River at Snoqualmie, King 
County, Washington, project.
    The Committee is aware of the ongoing development of the 
Lone Star Water Management, Arkansas, project and encourages 
the Corps of Engineers to give careful consideration to funding 
this project from the Section 205 program. The Corps is 
directed to proceed with the North Little Rock, Arkansas (Dark 
Hollow), project within available funds. The Committee directs 
the Corps to proceed with the Novato Creek Tributary (Rush 
Creek), California, project, subject to a determination that 
the project satisfies all Section 205 program requirements. The 
Committee directs the Corps to proceed with the Deer Creek, 
Illinois, project with funds provided to this program. The 
Committee directs the Corps to proceed with the Muddy River, 
Boston, Massachusetts, project, subject to a determination that 
the project satisfies all Section 205 program requirements. The 
Committee also directs the Corps to proceed with the Mill 
Creek, The Dalles, Oregon, project within available funds
    Navigation Mitigation Projects (Section 111).--The 
Committee remains fully supportive of the Ogden Dunes, Indiana, 
project and understands that sufficient funds to complete a 
study of this project will be carried over into fiscal year 
2000
    Small Navigation Projects (Section 107).--The Committee has 
provided $7,500,000, the full amount of the budget request, for 
the Section 107 program. Within the funds provided, the 
recommendation includes: $200,000 for the Yellow Bend Port, 
Arkansas, project; $400,000 for the Port of Hueneme, 
California, project; $869,000 for the Intracoastal Waterway, 
Palm Beach County, Florida (Palm Beach Harbor), project; 
$50,000 for the Westport, Massachusetts, project; $2,000,000 to 
initiate construction of the Duluth (McQuade Road) Harbor, 
Minnesota, project; $94,000 to complete plans and 
specifications for the New Madrid County Harbor, Missouri, 
project; $90,000 to complete plans and specifications for the 
Pemiscot County Harbor, Missouri, project; $200,000 to complete 
plans and specifications and initiate construction of the 
Buffalo Inner Harbor, New York, project; $175,000 for 
navigation improvements in Rochester Harbor, New York; and 
$200,000 for the Clarksville Public Port, Montgomery County, 
Tennessee, project.
    The Committee is supportive of a small navigation project 
at the Port of Morrow, Oregon and directs the Corps of 
Engineers to proceed with the project within available funds.
    Project Modifications for the Improvement of the 
Environment (Section 1135).--The Committee has provided 
$8,500,000 for the Section 1135 program. Within the funds 
provided, the recommendation includes: $4,250,000 for the 
Tucson (Ajo) Detention Basin Wetlands Development, Arizona, 
project; $490,000 to complete the Playa del Rey Wetlands 
(Ballona) Restoration, California, project; $500,000 for the 
Colusa Basin Wetlands Restoration, California, project; 
$300,000 for the Chicopit Bay, Florida, project; $100,000 to 
complete the preliminary restoration plan and initiate the 
Ecosystem Restoration Report for the Jacksonville Harbor (Mill 
Cove), Florida, project; $274,000 for the Bayou Plaquemine, 
Louisiana, project; $300,000 for the Rochester Harbor, New 
York, project; $70,000 for the East Harbor State Park, Habitat 
Restoration, West Harbor, Ohio, project; $150,000 for the Lake 
Washington Ship Canal Smolt Passage Restoration, Washington, 
project; and $100,000 to complete project restoration plans and 
initiate planning for five sites along the Green and Duwamish 
River in King County, Washington.
    Using available funds, the Corps of Engineers is directed 
to proceed with the Pine Flat Dam, California, project and with 
three separate projects for ecosystem restoration on the North 
Canadian River in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. The Committee 
remains supportive of the Fox Creek, Oregon, project and 
understands that sufficient funds are available to provide for 
its completion in fiscal year 1999.
    Snagging and Clearing (Section 208).--The Committee has 
provided the full amount of the budget request for the Section 
208 program. These funds are to be used for clearing and 
snagging projects on the San Joaquin River and its tributaries 
in California.

            Flood Control, Mississippi River and Tributaries

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




Appropriation, 1999...................................      $323,649,000
Budget Estimate, 2000.................................       280,000,000
Recommended, 2000.....................................       313,324,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 1999...............................       -10,325,000
    Budget Estimate, 2000.............................       +33,324,000


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


    The Committee has provided $33,324,000 above the budget 
request to continue ongoing construction of Mississippi River 
and Tributaries projects and to expedite award of contracts in 
fiscal year 2000 to alleviate the impacts of continued flooding 
and to relieve the suffering of affected communities.
    Morganza, Louisiana to the Gulf.--The Committee has 
provided $300,000 above the budget request for the Morganza, 
Louisiana to the Gulf, project to continue expedited 
engineering and design of the Houma Locks and to advance 
completion of the study.
    Spring Bayou, Louisiana.--The recommendation includes 
funding for an investigation of the Spring Bayou in Louisiana. 
This study will focus on ecosystem restoration and 
preservation, flood damage prevention, improved drainage, and 
related water resource issues.
    Wolf River, Memphis, Tennessee.--The recommendation 
provides the full amount of the budget request for 
preconstruction engineering and design of the Wolf River, 
Memphis, Tennessee, project.
    Channel Improvement, Arkansas, Illinois, Kentucky, 
Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, and Tennessee.--The Committee 
supports the expeditious construction of Phase II of the 
Natchez Front Revetment project and understands that sufficient 
funds have been programmed to complete the project during the 
current fiscal year.
    L'Anguille River, Arkansas.--The Committee is aware of the 
frequent flooding and environmental degradation problems along 
the L'Anguille River, Arkansas, and the need to reevaluate the 
project. Consequently, the Committee has provided $100,000 to 
initiate a project re-evaluation.
    Mississippi River Levees, Arkansas, Illinois, Kentucky, 
Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, and Tennessee.--The Committee 
has provided funds above the budget request for construction of 
the Mississippi River Levees project. Of this additional 
amount, $1,000,000 is to continue construction of the Commerce 
to Birds Point, Missouri, grade raise, and $1,000,000 is to 
advance construction on the addition to the Drinkwater Pumping 
Station.
    St. Francis Basin, Arkansas and Missouri.--The Committee 
has added $500,000 to the budget request for the St. Francis 
Basin, Arkansas and Missouri, project, to accelerate the 
completion of critical channel improvement work.
    Atchafalaya Basin, Louisiana.--The Committee recommendation 
includes $4,000,000 above the budget request for continued 
construction of the Atchafalaya Basin, Louisiana, project. 
Funds have been provided for: continued floodproofing efforts 
on the waterfronts of Morgan City and Berwick, Louisiana; 
construction of the Bayou Yokely Basin pumping stations; and 
repairs to address slides and sloughing along the west guide 
levee.
    Louisiana State Penitentiary Levee, Louisiana.--The 
Committee has provided an additional $6,000,000 above the 
budget request for the Louisiana State Penitentiary Levee, 
Louisiana, project. The Corps is directed to allow credit 
toward the non-Federal share of the project cost for any work 
performed by non-Federal interests on the Louisiana State 
Penitentiary Levee, Louisiana, project, subsequent to project 
authorization, to the extent the Secretary determines that work 
to be compatible with, and integral to, the project.
    Yazoo Basin, Demonstration Erosion Control, Mississippi.--
The Committee has included $20,000,000, an increase of 
$13,706,000 over the budget request, for the Yazoo Basin, 
Demonstration Erosion Control, Mississippi, project. This 
program is a continuation of a joint effort by the U.S. Army 
Corps of Engineers and the Natural Resources Conservation 
Service of the Department of Agriculture in the Yazoo Basin, 
Mississippi. The funds provided will allow the Corps of 
Engineers to accomplish construction work in some of the 
following watersheds: Abiaca Creek, Batupan Bogue, Black Creek, 
Burney Branch, Cane-Mussacuna Creek, Coldwater River, 
Hickahala-Senatobia Creek, Hotophia Creek, Hurricane-Wolfe 
Creek, Long Creek, Otoucalofa Creek, Pelucia Creek, Toby Tubby 
Creek, and the Yalobusha River Watersheds. The work to date by 
the Corps of Engineers and the Natural Resources Conservation 
Service has shown positive results in reduction of flood 
damages, decreased erosion and sediments, and improvements to 
the environment. These positive results show that continued 
funding for the program is important and that it should be 
completed to realize the total benefits of the program. This 
may well be a case where the completed program gives results 
that are much greater than the sum of the individual items of 
work. The additional funds are provided to continue design, 
real estate acquisition, monitoring of completed work, and 
initiation of continuing contracts. The Committee expects the 
Administration to continue to request funds for this important 
project.
    Yazoo Basin, Upper Yazoo Projects, Mississippi.--The 
Committee has provided $13,700,000 for construction of the 
Yazoo Basin, Upper Yazoo Projects, Mississippi, project. These 
funds have been included to accelerate completion of channel 
item four and to purchase mitigation lands.
    St. Johns Bayou and New Madrid Floodway, Missouri.--The 
recommendation includes $2,000,000 above the budget request for 
construction of the St. Johns Bayou and New Madrid Floodway, 
Missouri, project. These funds are included to advance 
construction of the New Madrid pumping station by one year.
    Mississippi River Levees, Arkansas, Illinois, Kentucky, 
Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, and Tennessee.--The Committee 
has provided funds above the budget request for maintenance of 
the Mississippi River Levees project. These funds are included 
to replace a dilapidated culvert along the mainline Mississippi 
River near New Madrid, Missouri and to enhance the integrity of 
the levee.
    St. Francis Basin, Arkansas and Missouri.--The Committee 
has provided $2,400,000 above the budget request for 
maintenance of the St. Francis River and Tributaries, Arkansas 
and Missouri, project. These additional funds should be first 
applied to channel work at Arkansas Highway 90 and Missouri 
Highway 84.
    Atchafalaya Basin, Louisiana.--The recommendation includes 
the full amount of the budget request for maintenance of the 
Atchafalaya Basin, Louisiana, project. High priority should be 
accorded to levee slides and sloughing within the project area, 
as well as to guidewall repair at various locks.
    Mississippi Delta Region, Louisiana.--The Committee has 
provided the full amount requested for maintenance of the 
Mississippi Delta Region, Louisiana, project. The Committee 
urges the Corps of Engineers to continue to work with the 
oyster fishing industry to resolve any impacts resulting from 
the construction and operation of this project.
    Yazoo Basin, Mississippi.--The recommendation includes 
additional funds for maintenance of Arkabutla Lake, Sardis 
Lake, Enid Lake, Grenada Lake, and Yazoo Basin Tributaries.

                   Operation and Maintenance, General




Appropriation, 1999...................................   $ 1,752,952,000
Budget Estimate, 2000.................................     1,835,900,000
Recommended, 2000.....................................     1,888,481,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 1999...............................      +135,529,000
    Budget Estimate, 2000.............................       +52,581,000


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


    Alabama-Coosa River, Alabama.--The recommendation includes 
an additional $200,000 above the budget request for additional 
dredging of the Alabama-Coosa River, Alabama, project.
    Bayou Coden, Alabama.--The Committee has provided $500,000 
for maintenance dredging of the Sound and Bayou channels at 
Bayou Coden, Alabama.
    Black Warrior and Tombigbee Rivers, Alabama.--The 
recommendation includes $19,200,000 for operation and 
maintenance of the Black Warrior and Tombigbee Rivers, Alabama, 
project. Funding above the budget request is for dredging of 
the navigation channel and purchase and construction of dredged 
material disposal areas.
    Bon Secour, Alabama.--The Committee has included funding 
for maintenance dredging of the navigation channel at Bon 
Secour, Alabama.
    Dauphin Island Bay, Alabama.--The recommendation includes 
$500,000 for maintenance dredging of the Pass Drury and Fort 
Gaines channels of Dauphin Island Bay, Alabama.
    Dog and Fowl Rivers, Alabama.--The recommendation includes 
$500,000 for maintenance dredging of the river and bay portions 
of the Dog and Fowl Rivers, Alabama, project.
    Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, Alabama.--The Committee has 
provided $2,758,000 above the budget request for additional 
maintenance dredging of the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, 
Alabama, project.
    Mobile Harbor, Alabama.--The Committee recommendation 
includes $1,500,000 above the budget request for additional 
maintenance dredging of Mobile Harbor, Alabama.
    Perdido Pass, Alabama.--The recommendation includes funds 
for maintenance dredging of the entrance channel at Perdido 
Pass, Alabama.
    Regional Sediment Management Pilot Project, Alabama and 
Florida.--The recommendation includes $1,000,000 to begin 
implementation of a regional sediment management pilot project.
    Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway, Alabama and Mississippi.--The 
Committee has provided $1,530,000 above the budget request for 
additional maintenance dredging of the Tennessee-Tombigbee 
Waterway, Alabama and Mississippi, project and for the repair 
and maintenance of upland disposal areas. Within funds 
available for this project, the Corps of Engineers is directed 
to expend such funds as are necessary to meet its obligations 
to operate and maintain the Ward Bayou, Mississippi wildlife 
management area.
    Isabella Lake Mitigation, California.--The Committee 
expects the Corps of Engineers 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.
    Larkspur Ferry Channel, California.--The recommendation 
includes $3,340,000 for dredging of the Larkspur Ferry Channel, 
California, project.
    Los Angeles and Long Beach Harbors, Los Angeles County, 
California.--The Committee has provided additional funds for 
the Los Angeles and Long Beach Harbors, Los Angeles County, 
California, project for activities associated with maintenance 
dredging.
    Marina Del Rey, California.--The Committee recommendation 
includes $3,500,000 for maintenance dredging of the navigation 
channel at Marina Del Rey, California.
    Morro Bay Harbor, California.--The recommendation includes 
an addition of $1,000,000 above the budget request for the 
Morro Bay Harbor, California, project for repairs to the south 
jetty.
    Port of Hueneme, California.--The Committee has provided 
$2,700,000 for repairs to the east and west jetties at the Port 
of Hueneme, California, project.
    Santa Ana River Basin, California.--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.
    Cherry Creek Lake, Colorado.--The Committee prohibits the 
Corps of Engineers from proceeding with the Cherry Creek Basin 
Study until the Corps completes an independent peer review of 
the National Weather Service data in order to determine the 
appropriate design flood for the Cherry Creek Basin. The 
recommendation does not include funds requested in the budget 
for the basin study.
    Chesapeake and Delaware Canal, St. George's Bridge 
Replacement, Delaware.--The recommendation includes $4,000,000 
for final reimbursement payment to the State of Delaware for 
construction costs associated with the replacement of St. 
George's Bridge.
    Apalachicola Bay, Florida.--The recommendation includes 
$1,000,000 for maintenance dredging of the W.N. (Newt) 
Creekmore Channel at Apalachicola Bay, Florida.
    Intracoastal Waterway, Jacksonville to Miami, Florida.--The 
recommendation includes $3,286,000 for operation and 
maintenance of the Intracoastal Waterway, Jacksonville to 
Miami, Florida, project. Within this amount, funding is 
provided to address the most serious maintenance dredging needs 
along the Intracoastal Waterway in Brevard, Indian River, and 
St. Lucie counties.
    LaGrange Bayou, Walton County, Florida.--The Committee 
recommendation includes funding for preliminary requirements 
associated with dredging of the LaGrange Bayou, Walton County, 
Florida, project.
    Miami Harbor, Florida.--The recommendation includes an 
addition above the budget request for accelerated maintenance 
dredging of the Miami River at Miami Harbor, Florida.
    St. Petersburg, Florida.--The recommendation includes 
$3,200,000 for maintenance dredging of the St. Petersburg, 
Florida, project.
    Apalachicola, Chattahoochee and Flint Rivers, Georgia, 
Alabama and Florida.--The recommendation includes $250,000 
above the budget request for the Apalachicola, Chattahoochee 
and Flint Rivers, Georgia, Alabama and Florida, project to 
conduct model studies to address the shoaling problem below 
George W. Andrews Lock and Dam; $750,000 above the budget 
request for additional maintenance dredging; and $500,000 above 
the budget request to conduct model studies on the Apalachicola 
River from Chipola cutoff to Corley Slough to address 
structural changes to reduce dredging and to address beneficial 
uses of dredge material.
    Mississippi River Between Missouri River and Minneapolis, 
Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, and Wisconsin.--Of the 
funds provided for operation and maintenance of the Mississippi 
River Between Missouri River and Minneapolis, Illinois, Iowa, 
Minnesota, Missouri and Wisconsin, project, $6,000,000 is for 
urgent bank stabilization work along the Sny Island Levee 
system.
    Burns Waterway Small Boat Harbor, Indiana.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $500,000 above the budget request for 
operation and maintenance of the Burns Waterway Small Boat 
Harbor, Indiana, project.
    Kentucky River, Kentucky.--The recommendation includes 
$1,000,000 above the budget request for repair and disposition 
activities associated with the transfer to the State of 
Kentucky of locks and dams within the Kentucky River, Kentucky, 
project.
    Wolf Creek Dam, Lake Cumberland, Kentucky.--The 
recommendation includes an additional $650,000 for the Corps of 
Engineers to enhance the trash removal efforts of the debris 
rack upstream from Lake Cumberland, including equipment, yard 
modifications, and construction of additional floating booms.
    Atchafalaya River and Bayou Chene, Beouf and Black, 
Louisiana.--The recommendation includes funding above the 
budget request for additional maintenance dredging of the 
Atchafalaya River and Bayou Chene, Beouf and Black, Louisiana, 
project.
    Bayou Teche, Louisiana.--The Committee has provided 
$5,000,000 above the budget request for maintenance dredging 
associated with channel restoration at Bayou Teche, Louisiana. 
The Committee is very concerned about the low priority accorded 
to this project by the Corps of Engineers and strongly urges 
the Corps to expedite work on the channel and locks.
    Calcasieu River and Pass, Louisiana.--The Committee has 
included $1,750,000 above the budget request for additional 
dredging of the Calcasieu River and Pass, Louisiana, project.
    Grand Isle and Vicinity, Louisiana.--The Committee has 
provided $455,000 for the Federal share of maintenance of the 
Grand Isle and Vicinity, Louisiana, project.
    Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, Louisiana.--Funds above the 
budget request have been recommended to continue dredging the 
mainstem of the Gulf Coastal Intracoastal Waterway, Louisiana, 
project.
    Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet, Louisiana.--The Committee 
has provided $16,000,000 for the Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet, 
Louisiana, project. The Committee is concerned with efforts of 
the Environmental Protection Agency to insinuate itself in the 
future management of the Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet, 
Louisiana, project. The Committee emphasizes that the 
responsibility for identifying and evaluating options for the 
mitigation of potentially ad-

verse project impacts resides within the U.S. Army Corps of 
Engineers. The Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief 
of Engineers, may at his discretion seek to utilize the 
expertise of other agencies as he deems necessary.
    Red River Waterway, Mississippi River to Shreveport, 
Louisiana.--In order to reduce the existing backlog of critical 
maintenance items, the Committee has provided $2,000,000 above 
the budget request for the Red River Waterway, Mississippi 
River to Shreveport, Louisiana, project.
    Baltimore Harbor and Channels, Maryland.--The Committee 
understands that the Corps of Engineers recently released a 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed placement 
of eighteen million cubic yards of dredged material in an open 
water site, known as Site 104, located just northeast of the 
William Preston Lane, Jr. Memorial Bridge (the Chesapeake Bay 
Bridge). The Committee is deeply concerned about the potential 
approval of this site and imposes upon the Corps an obligation 
to thoroughly analyze and review all practicable alternatives. 
In the reviewing the alternatives, the Corps should conduct an 
exhaustive analysis of each site to include how re-suspension 
of sediments will affect nutrient loading and whether there is 
a resident population of shortnose sturgeon that would be 
impacted by the proposed placement of dredged material. Since 
other dredge disposal sites are available, the Corps is 
directed to exhaust the space in these other sites before using 
Site 104 for disposition of dredged material.
    Cedar River Harbor, Michigan.--The Committee has provided 
funding in its recommendation for repairs to the west 
breakwater at Cedar River Harbor, Michigan.
    Missouri River Between Fort Peck Dam, Montana and Gavins 
Point Dam, South Dakota and Nebraska.--The Corps of Engineers 
is directed to fully exploit opportunities to use non-
traditional methods to combat bank erosion along the Missouri 
River between the communities of Fort Peck and Culbertson, 
Montana.
    Barnegat Inlet, New Jersey.--In addition to fully funding 
the budget request for maintenance dredging of the Barnegat 
Inlet, New Jersey, project, the Committee has provided 
$1,000,000 for other maintenance and repair activities at the 
project.
    Salem River, New Jersey.--The Committee has provided 
$940,000 for maintenance dredging of the Salem River, New 
Jersey, project.
    Fire Island Inlet to Jones Inlet, New York.--The 
recommendation includes funding above the budget request to 
fully to permit the award of a full nourishment cycle contract 
for the Fire Island Inlet to Jones Inlet, New York, project.
    Rocky River, Ohio.--The Committee has provided $1,760,000 
for the Rocky River, Ohio, project. Recommended funding above 
the budget request is for activities associated with breakwall 
reconstruction along the Rocky River in Cuyahoga County, Ohio.
    Oolagah Lake, Oklahoma.--The recommendation includes 
funding above the budget request for the Oolagah Lake, 
Oklahoma, project. These funds are provided for the Corps of 
Engineers to initiate a study of water resource problems at the 
lake and to develop a water management plan.
    Columbia and Lower Willamette Rivers Below Vancouver, 
Washington and Portland, Oregon.--An additional $2,300,000 has 
been provided by the Committee for repairs to the north 
breakwater at the Astoria east boat basin within the Columbia 
and Lower Willamette Rivers Below Vancouver, Washington and 
Portland, Oregon, project.
    Port of Port Orford, Oregon.--The recommendation includes 
funding to initiate the Port of Port Orford Ocean Dredged 
Material Disposal Site Study.
    Yaquina Bay and Harbor, Oregon.--Additional funds in the 
amount of $450,000 have been included by the Committee for 
reconstruction of the north jetty at Yaquina Bay and Harbor, 
Oregon.
    Curwensville Lake, Pennsylvania.--The Committee has 
included funding above the budget request for enhanced 
operation and maintenance of facilities and flood control 
infrastructure at Curwensville Lake, Pennsylvania.
    Raystown Lake, Pennsylvania.--The Committee has provided 
additional funding for operation and maintenance of the 
Raystown Lake, Pennsylvania, project. These funds are for 
enhanced operation of the facility, physical improvements, and 
maintenance of flood control capabilities.
    Schuylkill River, Pennsylvania.--Of the amount provided for 
operation and maintenance of the Schuylkill River, 
Pennsylvania, project, $900,000 is provided for the Corps of 
Engineers to address an emergency water depth problem at 
Boathouse Row along the race course on the river above Fairmont 
Dam.
    Chickamauga Lock, Tennessee.--The recommendation includes 
$2,800,000 for continued repairs to Chickamauga Lock, 
Tennessee.
    J. Percy Priest Dam and Reservoir, Tennessee.--The 
Committee recommendation provides funding above the budget 
request for handicap accessibility improvements to the J. Percy 
Priest Dam and Reservoir, Tennessee, project.
    Old Hickory Lock and Dam, Tennessee.--The recommendation 
for the Old Hickory Lock and Dam, Tennessee, project includes 
$510,000 for handicap accessibility improvements.
    Trinity River and Tributaries, Texas.--The Committee has 
added $900,000 to the budget request for the Trinity River and 
Tributaries, Texas, project for the completion of maintenance 
dredging of the Channel to Liberty in the vicinity of Smith 
Point. An additional $1,000,000 has been added for maintenance 
dredging of the Trinity River to Liberty, Texas.
    Waco Lake, Texas.--The recommendation includes funding 
above the budget request for improvements to Waco Lake, Texas.
    James River Channel, Virginia.--The Committee has provided 
additional funds for the operation and maintenance of the James 
River Channel, Virginia, project to permit year-round 
navigation in the channel.
    John W. Flannagan Dam and Reservoir, Virginia. The 
recommendation includes $140,000 for handicap accessibility 
improvements at John W. Flannagan Dam and Reservoir, Virginia.
    Norfolk Harbor, Virginia.--The Committee has provided 
$1,000,000 above the budget request for enhanced maintenance of 
the Norfolk Harbor, Virginia, project.
    Potomac River at Mount Vernon, Virginia.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $400,000 for activities associated with 
maintenance dredging of the Potomac River and Mount Vernon, 
Virginia, project.
    Grays Harbor and Chehalis River, Washington.--The Committee 
has provided funding above the budget request for the Grays 
Harbor and Chehalis River, Washington, project for 
rehabilitation of the Grays Harbor north jetty at Ocean Shores, 
Washington.
    Bluestone Lake, West Virginia.--Funding above the budget 
request has been provided for drift and debris management 
activities at the Bluestone Lake, West Virginia, project.
    Dredging Operations and Environmental Research.--The 
Committee urges the Corps of Engineers to include 
phytoremediation technology as a priority environmental quality 
research activity within the Dredging Operations and 
Environmental Research program.
    National Invasive Species Act.--The Corps of Engineers is 
directed to review its relevant programs to determine 
appropriate ways to incorporate the objectives of the 
President's Executive Order on Alien Invasive Species.
    Zebra Mussel Control.--The Committee recommendation 
includes $1,500,000 for the Zebra Mussel Control program.

                           Regulatory Program




Appropriation, 1999...................................      $106,000,000
Budget Estimate, 2000.................................       110,000,000
Recommended, 2000.....................................       117,000,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 1999...............................        11,000,000
    Budget Estimate, 2000.............................        7,000,000

Note.--In addition to the $110,000,000 budget estimate, $7,000,000 is
  proposed for the program, 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 2000, the Committee recommends 
$117,000,000, an increase of $11,000,000 over the fiscal year 
1999 level and $7,000,000 over the Administration's budget 
request.
    The Committee has tired of the Administration's excuses for 
its failure to implement a full administrative appeals process 
for wetlands decisions, including jurisdictional 
determinations, as directed by Congress in previous fiscal 
years. Accordingly, the Committee has included statutory 
direction to implement such a process, as well as $5,000,000 
for its implementation in fiscal year 2000.
    The Committee has concluded that the Corps of Engineers has 
paid insufficient attention to the potential impacts of its 
proposed nationwide replacement permits. Before replacement 
permits are implemented, it is imperative that the Corps of 
Engineers better understand their impacts on the Regulatory 
program workload and their potential cost impacts on the 
regulated community. As a consequence, the Committee has 
included statutory language requiring study and analysis of 
these issues before the Secretary of the Army may adopt 
replacement permits or terminate the current nationwide 26 
permit.
    The Committee recognizes the difficulties the Iowa Drainage 
District and Pocahontas County Board of Supervisors have had in 
enduring years of frustration in their effort to close 
environmentally hazardous drainage wells. As a result of these 
difficulties, the Committee strongly encourages the U.S. Army 
Corps of Engineers to submit a rewritten set of Section 
404(b)(1) guidelines that would propose to recognize existing 
land uses and the prior investments made on farmed wetland.
    The Committee is aware of efforts by the Corps of Engineers 
in San Diego County, California to include considerations such 
as traffic congestion and air quality issues in the evaluation 
of Section 404 wetland permit applications for several 
projects. These issues are, by and large, within the 
jurisdiction of other Federal and local agencies. The Committee 
believes that this practice establishes a bad precedent for 
future permit applications and believes that the Corps lacks 
the authority to expand its jurisdiction to these ancillary 
issues in the context of permit application reviews.
    The Committee has been made aware of the Section 404 permit 
application of the State of Utah for construction of a highway 
in the southern portion of Davis County, Utah. The Committee 
further recognizes the merits of the Locally Preferred 
Alternative (Alignment C). The Committee understands that the 
Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) is proposing to build 
a new north-south highway that would basically parallel 
Interstate 15 and be adjacent to the Great Salt Lake. The 
Section 404 permit application was submitted by UDOT in the 
fall of 1998. The Administrative Draft Environmental Impact 
Statement evaluated three alternative routes for the new 
highway, all of which would impact wetlands in the Great Salt 
Lake ecosystem and require a Section 404 permit. The Committee 
understands that each alignment would impact wetlands in the 
southern portion of the Great Salt Lake Ecosystem but that 
neither alignment A nor alignment C would have a major impact. 
Within the immediate area of the project, each of these two 
alignments would impact or sever about one tenth of one percent 
of the southern portion of the floodplain. Under the proposal 
by the State of Utah for the Legacy Nature Preserve, 
approximately 1600 acres would be held in trust by the State, 
providing an ecological buffer and producing a unique project 
that not only solves a serious transportation problem but 
provides net benefits to the aquatic ecosystem. The Committee 
urges the Corps of Engineers to approve a permit for alignment 
C.

            Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program




Appropriation, 1999...................................      $140,000,000
Budget Estimate, 2000.................................       150,000,000
Recommended, 2000.....................................       150,000,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 1999...............................        10,000,000
    Budget Estimate, 2000.............................  ................


    The Committee recommendation for the Formerly Utilized 
Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP) is $150,000,000, 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 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.
    In the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act for 
FY 1999, Public Law 105-245, Congress directed that the 
response actions by the Corps of Engineers under FUSRAP shall 
be subject to the administrative, procedural, and regulatory 
provisions of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 
Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) and the National Oil 
and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan. In 
appropriating funds to the Corps of Engineers for the cleanup 
of contaminated sites under FUSRAP, the Committee does not 
intend that licensing of the Corps by the U.S. Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission shall be required for the implementation 
by the Corps of the responsibility for cleanup of contaminated 
sites under FUSRAP.

                            General Expenses




Appropriation, 1999...................................      $148,000,000
Budget Estimate, 2000.................................       148,000,000
Recommended, 2000.....................................       148,000,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 1999...............................  ................
    Budget Estimate, 2000.............................  ................


    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. The 
recommendation also includes bill language prohibiting the use 
of funds to support a congressional affairs office within the 
executive office of the Chief of Engineers and language 
prohibiting the use of funds to support more than one regional 
office in each division.
                                TITLE II

                       DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

                          Central Utah Project

                Central Utah Project Completion Account




Appropriation, 1999...................................       $42,500,000
Budget Estimate, 2000.................................        39,370,000
Recommended, 2000.....................................        37,190,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 1999...............................        -5,310,000
    Budget Estimate, 2000.............................        -2,180,000


    The Central Utah Project Completion Act (Titles II-VI of 
Public Law 102-575) provides for the completion of the Central 
Utah Project by the Central Utah Water Conservancy District. 
The Act also: authorizes the appropriation of funds for fish, 
wildlife, and recreation mitigation and conservation; 
establishes an account in the Treasury for the deposit of these 
funds and of other contributions for mitigation and 
conservation activities; and establishes a Utah Reclamation 
Mitigation and Conservation Commission to administer funds in 
that account. The Act further assigns responsibilities for 
carrying out the Act to the Secretary of the Interior and 
prohibits delegation of those responsibilities to the Bureau of 
Reclamation.
    The Committee recommendation for fiscal year 1999 to carry 
out the provisions of the Act is $37,190,000. Funding provided 
for program oversight and administration is the same as the 
fiscal year 1999 level, as is funding for the Utah Reclamation 
Mitigation and Conservation Commission.

                         Bureau of Reclamation

                      Water and Related Resources




Appropriation, 1999...................................      $618,545,000
Budget Estimate, 2000.................................       652,838,000
Recommended, 2000.....................................       604,910,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 1999...............................       -13,635,000
    Budget Estimate, 2000.............................       -47,928,000


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


    Central Arizona Project, Arizona.--The recommendation for 
the Central Arizona Project includes $150,000 for the Tucson 
Reliability Division and $1,224,000 for litigation activities 
associated with native fish protection.
    Lake Powell, Arizona and Utah.--None of the funds provided 
in this recommendation may be used to study measures related to 
or associated with the drainage of Lake Powell.
    Northern Arizona Investigations Program, Arizona.--The 
recommendation of $200,000 is for the Little Colorado River 
Sediment Transport study.
    South/Central Arizona Investigations Program, Arizona.--Of 
the amount provided for the South/Central Arizona 
Investigations Program, $50,000 is for the Southern Arizona 
Regional Water Management study, $200,000 is for the Upper Gila 
River Watershed Restoration study, $400,000 is for the West 
Salt River Valley Water Management study, and $150,000 is for 
the Verde River Basin Management study.
    Southern Arizona Water Rights Settlement Act Project, 
Arizona.--The recommendation does not include funding to 
initiate the San Xavier farm extension project.
    Tucson Area Water Reclamation and Reuse Study, Arizona.--
Funding for the Tucson Area Water Reclamation and Reuse study 
is funded under the Bureau-wide Title XVI Water Reclamation and 
Reuse Program.
    Central Valley Project, American River Division, 
California.--Within the amount provided for the American River 
Division of the Central Valley Project, $4,000,000 is for 
construction of a permanent pumping facility for the Placer 
County Water Agency. Using these funds and funds previously 
appropriated for this project, the Bureau is directed to 
execute continuing contracts for construction of the pumping 
plant as expeditiously as possible. The recommendation also 
includes $3,400,000, the full amount of the budget request, to 
initiate construction of the temperature control device at 
Folsom Dam.
    Central Valley Project, Delta Division, California.--The 
amount provided for the Delta Division of the Central Valley 
Project includes full programmatic requirements for fiscal year 
2000 for the Contra Costa Fish Screen Program (Rock Slough) and 
the Delta Barriers project. The recommendation does not include 
the funding requested to begin new research and technology 
activities or to initiate a new feasibility study. The 
recommendation also excludes the funding requested for Bay-
Delta Oversight. Sufficient funding is provided in the 
California Bay-Delta Restoration account to provide for 
oversight and administration activities associated with the 
CALFED Bay-Delta program.
    Central Valley Project, Miscellaneous Project Programs, 
California.--The Committee has included the budget proposal to 
fund Refuge Water Supply from the Central Valley Project 
Restoration Fund. The Committee has recommended full funding 
for Refuge Water Supply from that Fund.
    Central Valley Project, Sacramento River Division, 
California.--The amount provided for the Sacramento River 
Division of the Central Valley Project includes $520,000 for 
the Winter-Run Chinook Salmon Captive Broodstock program and 
$1,000,000 for the Integrated Watershed Management Project for 
the Colusa Basin Drainage District. The recommendation also 
includes $3,750,000 for the Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District 
fish screen improvement project at the Hamilton City Pumping 
Plant. The Committee continues to recognize that the fish 
screen facility and the gradient facility are both necessary to 
meet fish protection goals at the Hamilton City Pumping Plant. 
In the Construction, General Account of the Corps of Engineers, 
the Committee has provided $6,000,000 for continued 
construction of the gradient facility. The Committee repeats 
its direction that both agencies consider these activities as 
two elements of the same project, and that they take necessary 
steps to ensure that the projects are coordinated in every 
respect.
    Central Valley Project, Shasta Division, California.--The 
recommendation does not include the funding requested to 
observe the reproductive success of bald eagles at Shasta Dam. 
The recommendation does include $2,006,000 for activities, 
including physical modifications, at the Coleman Fish Hatchery. 
The recommendation fully funds the budget request for the Clear 
Creek Restoration Program. In addition to the funding provided 
in this account for the Clear Creek Restoration Program, 
$2,050,000 is recommended from the Central Valley Project 
Restoration Fund.
    Central Valley Project, Trinity River Division, 
California.--The Committee is aware of the Trinity River study 
addressing the effects of various flows on the anadromous fish 
populations in the river. The Committee is concerned about the 
potential impacts on water supply in the Bay-Delta system. As 
part of the study, the Secretary is directed to minimize the 
adverse impacts on the Central Valley Project and to ensure 
that the effects of the flow recommendations from the Trinity 
River study on the Bay-Delta system are fully assessed within 
the CALFED process before reaching a decision on implementing 
study recommendations.
    Central Valley Project, West San Joaquin Division, 
California.--The amount provided for the West San Joaquin 
Division of the Central Valley Project includes $4,525,000 for 
continued operation of the San Luis Joint-Use Facilities. Also 
included is $851,000 for implementation of the Arroyo Pasajero 
sediment encroachment fix and the full amount of the budget 
request for flowage easements at Arroyo Pasajero. Within 
available funds, the Bureau is directed to continue to assist 
in the planning efforts associated with the Cantua Creek Stream 
Group.
    Colorado River Front Work and Levee System, California and 
Arizona.--The recommendation includes $125,000 for design of 
the Palo Verde Drain project.
    Mission Basin Brackish Groundwater Desalting Demonstration 
Project, California.--The recommendation includes funding for 
expansion of the Mission Basin Desalting Facility at the City 
of Oceanside, as authorized within the Title XVI water 
reclamation and reuse program.
    Salton Sea Research Project, California.--The 
recommendation includes $1,000,000 for the Salton Sea Research 
Project in California.
    Colorado Investigations Program, Colorado.--Funding 
provided for the Colorado Investigations Program is to complete 
the Mesa County Water Conservation investigation.
    Upper Colorado River Basin Selenium Study.--The 
recommendation includes the full amount of the budget request 
to complete the Upper Colorado River Basin Selenium Study.
    Idaho Investigations Program, Idaho.--Funding has been 
provided to complete the Treasure Valley Hydrologic Analysis 
and the Upper Salmon River Water Optimization study. Funds have 
also been included to continue the Lower Boise River Water 
Quality Plan and the Lower Payette River Water Quality Plan.
    Equus Beds Groundwater Recharge Demonstration Project, 
Kansas.--The Committee recommendation includes funding to 
complete the Federal cost share obligation for the Equus Beds 
Groundwater Recharge Demonstration Project in Kansas.
    Kansas Investigations Program, Kansas.--The recommendation 
includes $200,000 for the Cheney Reservoir Water Quality 
Assessment. The remaining funds are provided to complete the 
Cheyenne Bottoms Investigation.
    Fort Peck Rural Water System, Montana.--The Committee is 
aware of ongoing efforts to secure non-Federal participation in 
development of the Fort Peck Rural Water System. The Committee 
further understands that prior year funds will be available for 
expenditure on this project if such non-Federal participation 
is secured in fiscal year 2000. In addition to such prior year 
funds, the Committee has added $1,000,000 for the Fort Peck 
Rural Water System for fiscal year 2000.
    Montana Investigations Program, Montana.--The 
recommendation includes the full amount of funding requested to 
complete the Nevada Reservoir study, the North Fork of the 
Blackfoot River investigation, and the Jefferson River Basin 
Return Flow investigation. The remaining funds are provided for 
the Montana River System investigation.
    Nebraska Investigations Program, Nebraska.--The Committee 
has provided full funding of the budget request to complete the 
Nebraska Rainwater Basin Wetlands investigation.
    Carlsbad and Middle Rio Grande, New Mexico.--The Committee 
prohibits the use of appropriated funds for the diversion or 
instream use of non-Federal water in the Middle Rio Grande 
Project and the Pecos River Project in New Mexico for aquatic 
habitat or species protection until such time as all existing 
Federal water allocations have been exhausted for such 
purposes. The Committee supports the efforts in New Mexico to 
enhance the habitat of the fish species generally known as the 
silvery minnow and blunt nosed shiner, but requires those 
efforts to be performed without negatively affecting current 
water policy on the Rio Grande and Pecos Rivers in New Mexico.
    Southern New Mexico/West Texas Investigations Program, New 
Mexico and Texas.--The recommendation includes final year 
funding for the Rio Grande Project River and Drains Water 
Quality Assessment.
    Oklahoma Investigations Program, Oklahoma.--The funds 
recommended for the Oklahoma Investigations Program are for 
continuation of the Lugert-Altus Water Resources Management 
Assessment.
    Grande Ronde Water Optimization Study, Oregon.--The 
recommendation includes final year funding to complete the 
Grande Ronde Water Optimization Study.
    Oregon Investigations Program, Oregon.--The recommendation 
includes funds to continue the Rogue River Basin study, the 
John Day River Basin study, the Grande Ronde River Basin Study, 
and investigations of the Malheur, Owyhee, Powder, and Burnt 
River Basins. The recommendation also includes funding to 
complete the Deschutes River Basin study.
    Mid-Dakota Rural Water Project, South Dakota.--The 
Committee recommendation includes an addition of $10,000,000 
above the budget request for acceleration of the Mid-Dakota 
Rural Water Project in South Dakota.
    Mni Wiconi Project, South Dakota.--The Committee has 
provided $29,400,000, the full amount of the budget request, 
for the Mni Wiconi Project in South Dakota.
    Rapid City Wastewater Reuse Study, South Dakota.--Funding 
for the Rapid City Wastewater Reuse Study has been provided 
under the Bureau-wide Title XVI Water Reclamation and Reuse 
Program.
    El Paso Water Reclamation and Reuse Project, Texas.--The 
Committee has recommended $1,000,000 for construction of the 
Haskell Street portion of the El Paso Water Reclamation and 
Reuse Project.
    Northern Utah Investigations Program, Utah.--The 
recommendation includes $250,000 in final year funding for the 
Ashley/Brush Creeks Area Water Management investigation and 
$100,000 in final year funding for Ogden River Basin Water 
Quality Management investigation.
    Southern Utah Investigations Program, Utah.--The 
recommendation includes final year funding of $100,000 for the 
Carbon/Emery Counties Water Management investigation.
    Tooele Wastewater Reuse Project, Utah.--The recommendation 
includes $571,000 to complete Federal participation in the 
Tooele Wastewater Reuse Project.
    Yakima River Basin Water Enhancement Project, Washington.--
The Committee has provided $11,434,000 for the Yakima River 
Basin Water Enhancement Project in Washington. The 
recommendation does not include funding for the Interim 
Comprehensive Basin Operating Plan, the budget request for 
which exceeds the current authorized ceiling. The Committee 
recognizes the potential benefits of diverting water for the 
Kennewick and Columbia Irrigation Districts from the Columbia 
River instead of the Yakima River. This could greatly enhance 
instream river flows where they are most needed to benefit 
endangered salmon. The Bureau of Reclamation is encouraged to 
investigate this proposal to the extent permitted by existing 
authorities.
    Endangered Species Recovery Implementation Program.--The 
recommendation includes $15,118,000, the full amount of the 
budget request, to continue the Endangered Species Recovery 
Implementation Program.
    Reclamation Recreation Management (Title XXVIII).--Of the 
amount provided for the Title XXVIII program, $500,000 is for 
renovations and enhancements at Lost Creek within the Weber 
Basin Project in Utah.
    Safety of Dams.--The recommendation includes the full 
amount of fiscal year 2000 requirements to complete repair and 
improvements to the Wasco Dam within the Wapinitia Project.
    Soil and Moisture Conservation.--Within the funds provided 
for the Soil and Moisture Conservation program, the Bureau is 
directed to initiate a sediment management plan for Twitchell 
Reservoir in California.
    Title XVI Water Reclamation and Reuse Program.--Of the 
amount provided for the Bureau-wide Title XVI Water Reclamation 
and Reuse program, $200,000 is for planning activities 
associated with the Phoenix Metropolitan Water Reclamation and 
Reuse Project; $150,000 is for the Tucson Area Water 
Reclamation and Reuse study; $400,000 is for a feasibility 
study of the Watsonville Area Wastewater Recycling Project; 
$750,000 is for a feasibility study of the Santa Fe Water 
Reclamation and Reuse Project; $50,000 is for completion of the 
Rapid City Wastewater Reuse study; and $500,000 is included to 
complete construction prerequisites for the City of West Jordan 
Water Reuse Project in Utah.
    Water Management and Conservation Program.--The Committee 
supports development of a water plan for Orange County, 
California, and understands that funding will be provided from 
the Water Management and Conservation Program to complete this 
activity in fiscal year 1999.
    Wetlands Development.--Of the amount provided for the 
Wetlands Development program, $1,000,000 is provided for 
construction of the second phase of the restoration project at 
South Lake Tahoe, including efforts at Trout and Angora Creeks. 
Also included in the recommendation is $750,000 for the Brawley 
Wetlands project to improve conditions in the New River and 
Alamo River in California. $382,000 is for the Sierra Vista/San 
Pedro wetlands development project.
    The Committee understands that the Bureau is completing 
construction of sewage treatment plant modifications, wetlands 
treatment system, and the effluent recharge basins at Sierra 
Vista/San Pedro with funds provided in fiscal year 1999. The 
community is struggling to balance the future stability of the 
watershed with the rapidly developing border region. The 
Committee is aware that a coalition--the San Pedro 
Partnership--has been formed to bring together interested 
parties to review the problems and to develop solutions. The 
Committee urges the Bureau of Reclamation to actively 
participate and cooperate in this important effort.

               Bureau of Reclamation Loan Program Account




Appropriation, 1999...................................        $8,421,000
Budget Estimate, 2000.................................        12,425,000
Recommended, 2000.....................................        12,425,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 1999...............................        +4,004,000
    Budget Estimate, 2000.............................  ................


    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.
    Under the Fort McDowell Water Rights Settlement Act, the 
Fort McDowell Indian Community's irrigation distribution system 
was funded through the Small Reclamation Projects Act loan 
program. The Committee understands that the original 
development plan required setting aside 330 acres of 
Reservation land for mitigation and the acreage identified for 
development was reduced by 175-200 acres to avoid impacts to 
cultural resource sites. Given this reduction of land, the 
Tribe asserts that it is not receiving the full benefits of the 
water rights settlement and that this situation must be 
corrected. The Committee directs the Bureau of Reclamation to 
negotiate a solution with the Tribe that will ensure that the 
Fort McDowell Indian Community receives the full benefits of 
the settlement. The Bureau is further directed to provide a 
report on the results of these negotiations to the Committee by 
April 1, 2000.
    The budget request and the approved Committee allowance are 
shown on the following table:


                central valley project restoration fund




Appropriation, 1999...................................       $33,130,000
Budget Estimate, 2000.................................        47,346,000
Recommended, 2000.....................................        47,346,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 1999...............................       +14,216,000
    Budget Estimate, 2000.............................  ................


    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.

                    California Bay-Delta Restoration




Appropriation, 1999...................................       $75,000,000
Budget Estimate, 2000.................................        95,000,000
Recommended, 2000.....................................        75,000,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 1999...............................  ................
    Budget Estimate, 2000.............................       -20,000,000


    The California Bay-Delta Restoration account funds the 
Federal share of ecosystem restoration and other activities 
being developed for the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San 
Joaquin Delta by a State and Federal partnership (CALFED). 
Federal participation in this program was authorized in the 
California Bay-Delta Environmental and Water Security Act 
enacted in the fall of 1996. That Act authorizes the 
appropriation of $143,300,000 for ecosystem restoration 
activities in each of fiscal years 1998, 1999, and 2000. The 
funds appropriated in this account 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.
    Of the $75,000,000 recommended for fiscal year 2000, 
$45,000,000 is for continued ecosystem restoration activities, 
and $30,000,000 is for other authorized purposes, such as 
projects to promote or develop water use efficiency, water 
quality, groundwater storage, surface storage, levees, 
conveyance systems and watershed management.
    The Committee is extremely concerned about the use of 
Federal funds to acquire and retire productive lands in the 
Central Valley of California. Specifically, the Committee 
recognizes that land acquisition and changes in land use could 
have enormous impacts on the social character, tax base and 
economic development of communities in northern California. 
Consequently, the Committee directs that Bay-Delta funds shall 
not be used for land and water right acquisitions without 
proper consideration to, and mitigation of, the economic 
impacts associated with such acquisitions.

                       policy and administration




Appropriation, 1999...................................       $47,000,000
Budget Estimate, 2000.................................        49,000,000
Recommended, 2000.....................................        45,000,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 1999...............................        -2,000,000
    Budget Estimate, 2000.............................        -4,000,000


    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 2000, the Committee has recommended 
$45,000,000, a $2,000,000 reduction from the enacted level for 
fiscal year 1999.
                               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, Nuclear 
Waste Disposal, 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

    Due to severe funding constraints, funding recommendations 
for Department of Energy programs in fiscal year 2000 are 
significantly below the Department's fiscal year 2000 budget 
request.

             DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE

    In House Report 105-581, the Committee asked the Department 
to perform a comprehensive management and field structure 
review. Based on this review, the Secretary made several 
changes to realign field office reporting relationships. 
However, the size of the field structure and the overlapping 
and duplicative roles and responsibilities were not addressed. 
Numerous reports have identified issues with the Department's 
field structure which hamper the efficient and effective 
execution of Departmental programs. The Galvin report in 
February 1995 identified ``. . . a counterproductive federal 
system of operation.'' A March 1997 report prepared by the 
Institute for Defense Analyses (IDA) identified a series of 
problems with Defense Program's management processes and noted 
that many of the issues could not be addressed by a single 
program, but required Department-wide management changes. The 
General Accounting Office has issued several reports on 
improving the management of Federal agencies. Finally, the 
President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board report on 
security problems at the Department seriously questions the 
layers of bureaucracy and states that:

          Layer upon layer of bureaucracy, accumulated over the 
        years, has diffused responsibility to the point where 
        scores claim it, no one has enough to make a 
        difference, and all fight for more. Convoluted, 
        confusing, and often contradictory reporting channels 
        make the relationship between DOE headquarters and the 
        labs, in particular, tense, internecine, and chaotic. 
        In between the headquarters and the laboratories are 
        field offices, which the panel found to be the locus of 
        much confusion. In background briefings of the panel, 
        senior DOE officials often described them as redundant 
        operations that function as a shadow headquarters, 
        often using their political clout and large payrolls to 
        push their own agendas and budget priorities in 
        Congress. Even with the latest DOE restructuring, the 
        weapons labs are reporting to far too many DOE masters.

    The list of reviews and reports questioning the 
Department's field structure and field and Headquarters roles 
and responsibilities goes on and on. The Committee had hoped 
that the Secretary of Energy would seek to examine the need for 
the overlapping and duplicative field structure which has 
evolved. Since that has not happened, the Committee has reduced 
funding for the Department's field offices and expects to see 
at least a 10 percent reduction in the field staffing levels by 
the end of fiscal year 2000. The Department is expected to 
analyze the functions performed in the operations offices, 
field offices, regional offices, and area offices, and 
determine which are duplicative, add little value to the 
process, and are no longer needed.

        IMPROVING PROJECT MANAGEMENT IN THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

    A report released by the National Research Council on July 
1, 1999, ``Improving Project Management in the Department of 
Energy,'' questions the credibility of the Department's 
procedures to develop designs and cost estimates and to manage 
projects and outlines several reasons for this deficiency. The 
report was thorough and includes many recommendations to begin 
to correct the deficiencies in the Department's project 
management system. The Committee is well aware there are broad 
and systemic problems in the Department and encourages the 
Department to use this report as an outline to address these 
fundamental problems in project management. There are no quick 
fixes. The Committee expects the Department to continue to work 
with the National Research Council to address each of the 
recommendations in the report. The National Research Council 
should review and assess the Department's efforts to improve 
its project management and report to the Committee semi-
annually on the steps to be taken and the progress being made 
to strengthen project management in the Department.
    At the request of the Committee, the Department has had 
external, independent project assessments prepared for many of 
its current construction projects. These assessments have 
identified several problems with individual projects and have 
led to the re-scoping of several of them. The Department is to 
work with the National Research Council to formalize a process 
to ensure that the recommendations for each of the external 
independent reviews are implemented.

       EXTERNAL, INDEPENDENT ASSESSMENTS OF CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS

    None of the funds provided for fiscal year 2000 new 
construction projects may be obligated until an external, 
independent assessment of the baseline cost and schedule has 
been performed and provided to the House and Senate Committees 
on Appropriations for review and approval.

                        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. In fiscal year 1998, the 
Department spent approximately $50,000,000 on management and 
operating (M&O) contractor employees assigned to Headquarters 
program organizations and to support M&O contractor offices in 
the Washington metropolitan area. In addition to permitting 
contractor employees to make policy and manage Federal 
programs, some M&O employees are being paid through overhead 
accounts to track legislation and lobby Congress, market their 
services to other Federal agencies, and walk the halls of the 
Department's headquarters office to seek more Departmental 
funding.
    It is apparent that the Department has been completely 
negligent in monitoring both the direct and indirect overhead 
costs incurred by M&O contractors. While many of these 
activities are quite beneficial to the contractor, they are of 
significantly less benefit to the U.S. taxpayer. The Committee 
has drastically reduced funding for these activities in several 
program accounts and directs the Department to eliminate 
immediately all funding for contractor lobbying and marketing 
activities. The Department is directed to reduce these costs to 
not more than $20,000,000 in fiscal year 2000. The Committee 
should be notified if the Department needs special authority to 
hire Federal employees with the skills needed to replace these 
contractor employees.
    Reporting Requirement.--The Committee directs the 
Department to provide a report at the end of fiscal year 1999 
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 
assigned to the Washington metropolitan area. 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 work in the 
Washington metropolitan area, including the name of the 
employee, the name of the contractor, the organization to which 
he or she is assigned, the job title and a description of the 
tasks the employee is performing, the annual cost of the 
employee to the Department, the program account funding that 
employee, and the length of time the employee has been detailed 
to the Department. The report should also include detailed 
information on the cost of maintaining each M&O office in the 
Washington metropolitan area. This report is to include actual 
data for the period October 1, 1998 through September 30, 1999, 
and is due to the Committee on January 31, 2000.

                           CONTRACTOR TRAVEL

    Throughout this report, the funding recommendations for 
many of the Department's programs include reductions for 
activities which the Committee believes are inappropriate or 
excessive. A recent General Accounting Office (GAO) report 
outlined the Department's spending for contractor travel which 
was in the range of $250,000,000 annually. One contractor was 
averaging 87 trips a week to Washington. Based on this abuse, 
the Committee has limited the amount of funding for contractor 
travel to $125,000,000 in fiscal year 2000.
    The Department is directed to review the rules and 
regulations pertaining to contractor travel expenses to ensure 
they are not more generous than the rules and regulations which 
pertain to the travel of Federal employees in fiscal year 2000. 
Domestic and international travel for contractor employees 
should not permit the use of first class or business class 
fares unless specifically approved by the appropriate Assistant 
Secretary funding the travel. The Department should report to 
the Committee by January 31, 2000 on the changes made to 
contractor travel regulations to be consistent with those 
applied to Federal employees. This report should also identify 
the amount of funds spent by each contractor for travel in 
fiscal year 1999.

              LABORATORY DIRECTED RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

    The Department currently allows each laboratory director to 
use six percent of all operating funds provided to the 
laboratory to conduct employee-suggested research and 
development projects selected at the discretion of the 
laboratory directors. For fiscal year 2000, the Department 
estimates that the laboratories will spend $273,000,000 on 
Laboratory Directed Research and Development (LDRD) and 
additional funds on Director's Discretionary Research and 
Development (DDRD).
    Discretionary research and development funding was 
initiated to provide funds for cutting-edge, high-risk 
research. However, the size of the fund has increased 
significantly as overall funding levels increased throughout 
the Department, and there are notable areas of abuse. These 
funds have been used for marketing and business development, 
international travel, research for other Federal agencies, and 
initiating programs in advance of Congressional funding. In 
addition, this funding provides a significant advantage to the 
largest laboratories which have more than $50,000,000 of 
``walking around'' money annually for the laboratory director 
to use to compete for research funding within the Department, 
with other Federal agencies, and with the private sector. This 
can be a significant advantage for the laboratories.
    The Committee will not argue there is no value to some of 
these activities, but questions the lack of oversight of this 
spending and whether this is the best use of taxpayer dollars 
in times of constrained budgets. Thus, the Committee has 
eliminated all funding for LDRD and DRDD in fiscal year 2000.

                             OVERHEAD COSTS

    The Committee directs the Department to review the costs 
included in the overhead charges of the management and 
operating contractors and report to the Committee on the 
reasonableness of these charges. In addition, the Department 
should determine which charges should more appropriately be 
funded as direct program costs. There are many activities being 
charged to overhead accounts which may be more appropriately 
charged as direct program costs. For example, some contractors 
are direct funding security investigation costs while others 
are charging these costs to overhead accounts. The costs of 
management and operating contractor offices in Washington are 
charged to overhead accounts, and thus, have received little 
review. The laboratories also appear to establish centers of 
excellence in many areas while charging these centers to 
overhead accounts without the approval that would normally be 
required for direct program activities.

                           COMPUTER SECURITY

    In House Report 105-581, the Committee requested a report 
by March 30, 1999, identifying a computer security policy and 
implementation plan that stated 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 Department requested a two month extension, but the 
Committee has not yet received the required report.
    Events of the past few months have highlighted the 
Department's computer weaknesses, but it is still not clear 
that the concerns expressed by the Committee last year have 
been addressed. Thus, the Committee directs that all funding 
for the corporate management systems be withheld from 
obligation until the Department has provided this report to the 
Committee.

                        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 program, project, or activity allocations 
specifically denied, limited, or increased by Congress in the 
Act or report. In cases where unforeseen events or conditions 
are deemed to require such changes, proposals shall be 
submitted in advance to the Committee and be fully explained 
and justified.
    Reporting and Approval Procedures.--The Committee has not 
provided statutory language to define reprogramming guidelines, 
but expects the Department to follow the spirit and the letter 
of the guidance provided in this report. Consistent with prior 
years, the Committee has not provided the Department with any 
internal reprogramming flexibility in fiscal year 2000, 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.

                  INAPPROPRIATE USE OF APPROPRIATIONS

    The Committee continues to be concerned about the 
inappropriate use of trade associations and other non-
governmental organizations in the development of budget 
requests and execution of Department programs. In prior years, 
the Department reimbursed certain groups for the following 
activities: answering the organization's phones, faxes and e-
mails; updating non-DOE web sites; 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 were 
especially suspect considering that funds were routinely 
awarded non-competitively.
    The Committee has been assured that the Department has 
discontinued these practices. The Committee commends the 
Department for working toward better controls and using 
competitive procedures in funding programs within its purview. 
Consistent with last year's direction, 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, 1999...................................      $727,091,000
Budget Estimate, 2000.................................       834,791,000
Recommended, 2000.....................................       577,579,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 1999...............................      -149,512,000
    Budget Estimate, 2000.............................      -257,212,000


    The Energy Supply account includes the following programs: 
solar and renewables; nuclear energy; environment, safety and 
health; and technical information management. The Committee 
recommendation includes transferring and consolidating the 
funding for field offices and Oak Ridge landlord activities in 
the Science account consistent with the Department's management 
restructuring. In prior years, the Committee recommended 
significant reductions to programs in this account including 
reductions to solar and renewable programs of 30%. This year, 
the Committee recommendation is generally supportive of the 
level of funding provided in the Energy and Water Development 
Appropriations Act, 1999.
    In prior years, Administrations have sought to justify 
large spending increases for this account based on the 
Department's role to end the oil crisis, control pollution, 
promote solar businesses and save the environment. This year, 
this Administration is justifying large spending increases 
based on a new role for the Department: to prevent the sun from 
over-heating the Earth. To accomplish this goal, the 
Administration developed a two-pronged strategy: increase the 
number of spending programs and increase spending for existing 
programs.
    The Committee rejects this strategy. As a first step, 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 in the Department's management 
practices. The Committee has enjoyed a good working 
relationship with the new management team and fully supports 
efforts to better prioritize spending for these programs. 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 (CCTI), the Committee rejects the 
premise of the Administration's argument for more spending. For 
example, the Committee believes that prior year funding levels 
identified by the Administration as part of the CCTI represent 
an arbitrary amount considering the programs not included. Why 
not include the tens of millions of dollars the Office of 
Energy 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 unrivaled 
by any other nation.

                       SOLAR AND RENEWABLE ENERGY

    The Committee recommendation for solar and renewable 
research and development is $326,450,000, a reduction of 
$39,455,000 from the amount provided in the Energy and Water 
Development Appropriations Act for the current fiscal year, and 
a reduction of $119,571,000 from the amount in the budget 
request. The Committee continues to be concerned that, over the 
years, the Department has placed a higher priority on providing 
funds to corporations and other private interests extensively 
expanding efforts 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. With the goal of better coordinating the efforts 
of the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy and the 
Office of Science, the Committee combined the budgets of these 
offices and directed the Department to submit a comprehensive 
research and development budget. The Committee commends the 
Department for its effort to coordinate the efforts of these 
offices, which share 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.
    Following are specific recommendations for programs:
    Solar building technology research.--The Committee notes 
that solar water heating is a mature technology. The Committee 
recommendation of $1,500,000 includes $300,000, the amount 
requested, to continue efforts to establish voluntary 
certification standards for system installations. The remaining 
funds are provided to complete ongoing research and development 
activities.
    Photovoltaic energy systems.--The Committee continues to 
strongly support the goals of this program. The Committee 
recommendation provides $69,847,000 including $2,847,000, the 
same amount as the budget request, for related research 
conducted by the Office of Science. The recommendation includes 
support for basic research and thin-film partnerships. The 
Committee recommendation includes continuation of support for 
the ongoing research in photovoltaics conducted by the 
Southeast and Southwest regional photovoltaic experiment 
stations. The recommendation does not include an increase over 
the current fiscal year for PV Building Opportunities 
activities.
    Concentrating solar power.--The Committee recommendation 
provides $13,000,000 to continue and complete ongoing research 
and development activities. The Committee commends the 
Department for completing its participation in the Solar Two 
project. This project and other system development activities 
have demonstrated that these technologies can produce 
electricity. While there are off-grid and other niche markets 
for these products, there are more promising and dramatic 
advances for baseload generation in photovoltaics and biomass 
programs. The funding provided this year represents a 
transition from an aggressive program to use thermal systems 
for baseload generation to a more focused program for portable 
or other niche market systems.
    Biomass/biofuels energy systems.--The total Committee 
recommendation is $97,490,000, including $26,740,000, the same 
amount as the budget request, for related research conducted by 
the Office of Science. The recommendation includes $29,000,000 
for the power systems program and $41,750,000 for the 
transportation program. The Committee has eliminated and 
reduced funding for other solar programs, but strongly supports 
the basic research and maintenance of a Federal role in 
promising biomass programs. The recommendation does not include 
funding for the Vermont gasification project for which the 
Department will complete validation in fiscal year 1999, nor 
the Minnesota agri-power project, which the sponsors have 
canceled. The funding level provided represents an increase 
over last year's appropriation given the completion of these 
two projects which were budgeted to receive $4,300,000 and 
$12,000,000, respectively in fiscal year 1999.
    The Committee urges the Department to follow through on its 
commitment to perform a government-wide assessment of biomass 
activities to eliminate duplication and better focus each 
agency's program. The Committee recommends the use of up to 
$6,000,000 within the funds available for the Bioenergy 
Initiative. Funding for this initiative may be derived from 
both the power and transportation programs. The Department is 
directed to provide a report to the Committee as part of the 
fiscal year 2001 budget request which identifies each Federal 
agency that provides funding related to producing power or 
fuels from biomass and the amounts spent by each program for 
each agency. The report should include recommendations that 
eliminate duplication and lay out specific unique roles for 
each program listed.
    Wind energy systems.--The Committee recommendation is 
$25,283,000, including $283,000, the same amount as the budget 
request, for related research conducted by the Office of 
Science. The Government Accounting Office (GAO) reported this 
year that U.S. taxpayers have spent close to one billion 
dollars on research, development and deployment of wind power 
systems since 1978. Over this period of time, the cost of 
generating wind power has been driven down from $0.20 to $0.40 
per kWh to $0.03 to $0.06 per kWh. Wind plant production is at 
record levels with installations in excess of 800 megawatts, 
representing a 55% increase in installations from the installed 
capacity in 1996. Wind energy is a mature technology.
    The Department's budget does not recognize that wind energy 
has arrived in the marketplace. The Department continues to 
propose spending increases for this program, including an 
increase for product development to provide funds for a 
subsidiary of the largest corporate beneficiary, with reported 
1998 revenues of $1.6 billion, including its oil and gas 
business lines. The Committee strongly supports wind energy, 
but believes that funding levels should be adjusted so that 
prioritization can be given to hydrogen, photovoltaic, biomass 
and superconductivity systems. These programs promise dramatic 
reductions in generation costs and efficiencies.
    The Committee supports the Department's efforts to focus 
resources of the wind program on accelerating the use of wind 
power in rural areas of the United States. Within the funds 
appropriated for the wind program, up to $5,000,000 may be used 
to support certification services and standards development, 
wind-diesel and other hybrid systems, and monitoring and 
analysis of new wind projects. The Committee is pleased to see 
the wind program's FY 1999 accomplishment of establishing 
Underwriters Laboratories as the first U.S. certification agent 
for wind energy technology
    Renewable energy production incentive (REPI).--The 
Committee recommendation does not include funding for this 
troubled program. For several years, the Department has 
requested and awarded funding to a fraction of eligible 
applicants. This year, the Department provided testimony that 
$20,000,000 would be required in fiscal year 2000 to reimburse 
all eligible applicants for fiscal year 1999 activities. The 
Department has requested only $1,500,000 or 7.5% of the amount 
required. The Committee requested an estimate of fiscal year 
2000 requirements, but the Department declined to provide an 
estimate except to state that the amount would be in excess of 
the 1999 requirement. The Committee has stated its opposition 
to the Department's prior year practice of selecting ``good'' 
renewable energy (wind and biomass, for example) over ``bad'' 
renewable energy (methane recapture). This year, the Committee 
recommends that this program be eliminated rather than putting 
the Department in the position of determining which eligible 
utilities will be given awards and which eligible utilities 
will be denied.
    Solar program support.--The Committee recommendation 
includes $2,000,000, an $8,000,000 reduction from the budget 
request. The Committee recommendation includes $1,000,000 for 
electricity restructuring activities and $1,000,000 for 
feasibility studies in preparation for a competitive 
solicitation. The Committee looks forward to working with the 
Department on better prioritizing funds for various 
technologies supported by the Office of Energy Efficiency and 
Renewable Energy and cost-effective ways to support deployment 
of the most promising technologies.
    International solar energy.--The Committee recommendation 
includes $3,000,000 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 $1,100,000, the same amount as the 
budget request, for infrastructure and general purpose 
equipment.
    Geothermal.--The Committee recommendation is $18,000,000, a 
reduction of $4,000,000 from the amount provided in last year's 
Energy and Water Development appropriations bill (adjusted to 
exclude $6,500,000 provided for the geothermal heat pump 
deployment program). Like the wind energy program, geothermal 
energy production is a mature technology. The Committee 
strongly supports geothermal energy, but believes that funding 
levels should be adjusted so that prioritization can be given 
to hydrogen, photovoltaic, biomass and superconductivity 
systems. These programs promise dramatic reductions in 
generation costs and efficiencies.
    Hydrogen.--The Committee recommendation is $23,970,000, 
including $2,970,000, the same amount as the budget request, 
for related research conducted by the Office of Science. The 
Committee commends the Department for its efforts to better 
coordinate the research and development performed by the Office 
of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy and the Office of 
Science. The Department is encouraged to ensure that the work 
of these two offices is complementary.
    Hydropower.--The Committee recommendation includes 
$2,000,000 for cost-shared research and development of ``fish-
friendly'' turbines, the same amount as provided in the current 
fiscal year.
    Electric energy systems and storage.--The recommendation 
includes $31,000,000 for high-temperature superconductivity, 
the same amount as the budget request. The Committee fully 
supports the efforts to demonstrate truly first-of-a-kind high-
temperature superconducting technologies. The Committee 
strongly supports the goals of these programs, especially 
superconducting transmission lines, motors and storage devices 
which have the potential to greatly enhance the viability of 
renewable energy resources in the near term.
    The recommendation also includes $2,500,000 for 
transmission reliability and $4,500,000 for energy storage 
systems, the same amounts as provided in the current fiscal 
year. Distributed power technologies that generate electricity 
in close proximity to the consumer have tremendous potential to 
improve reliability and power quality, reduce electricity costs 
and minimize the impact of electricity production on the 
environment. The Committee endorses the Department's efforts in 
this area and has provided up to $500,000 to remove cross-
cutting technical, regulatory, and institutional barriers to 
distributed power
    Program direction.--The Committee recommendation for 
program direction is $17,000,000, 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.

                        NUCLEAR ENERGY PROGRAMS

    The Committee recommendation is $265,700,000, a decrease of 
$18,266,000 from the current fiscal year. The Federal 
government funds research to improve efficiencies in coal, 
natural gas, hydropower and other renewable technologies. The 
modest nuclear research programs requested by this 
Administration and supported by this Committee represent a 
commitment to ensuring that nuclear power remains an important 
contributor to the nation's electricity generating capability. 
These programs address the entire spectrum of nuclear issues 
including safety, efficiency, advanced fuels, and long-term 
safe storage of wastes. Regardless of whether new plants are 
constructed, each of these issues are important to the people 
of the nation, who currently rely on nuclear power for 18% of 
the electricity consumed across the country.
    Advanced radioisotope power systems.--The recommendation 
includes $32,000,000, a $5,000,000 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 Committee strongly urges the Department to 
negotiate new agreements with the beneficiary and customer of 
this program, the National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration.
    Test reactor area landlord.--The recommendation includes 
$9,000,000, the same amount included in the budget request.
    University reactor fuel assistance and support.--The 
recommendation includes $12,000,000, an increase of $1,000,000 
over the current fiscal year. The recommendation includes 
$5,000,000 for the peer-reviewed Nuclear Engineering Education 
Research grant program (NEER), $1,400,000 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 plant optimization (NEPO).--The 
recommendation includes $5,000,000, the same amount included in 
the budget request. The Committee strongly supports this 
Administration initiative to help ensure that currently 
operating nuclear power plants are operated as safely and 
efficiently as possible. The Committee directs that all awards 
be matched dollar for dollar from industry contributions.
    Nuclear energy research initiative (NERI).--The 
recommendation includes $20,000,000, an increase of $1,000,000 
over the amount provided in the current fiscal year. The 
Committee strongly supports this program which awards grants to 
laboratories, universities and consortia using a formal peer-
review process. Research topics include: nuclear safety and 
risk analysis, proliferation-resistant reactor and fuel 
technologies and new technologies for nuclear wastes. The 
Committee strongly supports research to ensure that nuclear 
power remains a safe, efficient and environmentally-friendly 
contributor to the nation's power generation portfolio.
    Fast Flux Test Facility (FFTF).--The recommendation is 
$30,000,000, the same amount as the budget request. The 
Committee notes that the Department has announced yet another 
review to determine whether a mission exists for this facility. 
The Committee urges the Department to demonstrate leadership 
and bring an end to the cycle of uncertainty that has made it 
impossible to plan and budget for this facility in a 
responsible manner.
    Termination costs.--The recommendation is $75,000,000, a 
$10,000,000 reduction from the current fiscal year, but a 
$10,000,000 increase over the amount requested by this 
Administration. The recommendation includes $40,000,000 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 $20,000,000 to demonstrate 
electrometallurgical technology at the Fuel Conditioning 
Facility.
    Uranium programs.--The Committee recommendation includes 
$40,000,000, a $1,000,000 reduction from the amount provided in 
the budget request. The Committee urges the Department to 
ensure that funds from the United States Enrichment Corporation 
(USEC) are first committed to cover the costs of the burden of 
USEC cylinders for which the Department has assumed 
responsibility.
    Isotope support.--The Committee recommendation is 
$18,000,000, a $3,000,000 reduction from the amount requested. 
The Committee is concerned that demand for medical isotopes 
could require production increases of up to fourteen percent 
per year over the next twenty years. Human clinical trials and 
treatment protocols using medical isotopes are increasingly 
showing promise in the treatment of cancer, cardiovascular 
disease, arthritis and other diseases. Furthermore, the 
potential for reduced health care costs, less debilitating side 
effects, and higher quality of life made possible through these 
treatments should be pursued. The Committee directs the 
Department to work with the National Institutes of Health to 
identify production priorities for future research work. 
Furthermore, the Committee expects the Department to 
incorporate the recommendations and peer review process of the 
Nuclear Energy Research Advisory Committee in selecting the 
medical isotope research projects to be funded. Consideration 
should be given to funding options that include cost-sharing 
from other sources, including the National Institutes of 
Health.
    The Department is encouraged to accelerate its plan to 
privatize the molybdenum production operation, which should 
include reimbursement of these costs.
    Program direction.--The recommendation includes 
$24,700,000, the same amount provided in the current fiscal 
year. The Committee notes that in prior years the Office failed 
to observe internal budget procedures by providing funding for 
support service contracts from program funds. The Committee 
directs that all support service contracts be funded from the 
amount provided for program direction.

                     ENVIRONMENT, SAFETY AND HEALTH

    The recommendation includes $36,750,000, a reduction of 
$14,000,000 from the budget request of $50,750,000. Funding for 
contractors who provide technical assistance to other 
Department of Energy contractors and Federal employees has been 
reduced by $14,000,000. As the Committee has consistently 
noted, the Department relies too much on outside contractors 
for activities which should be performed by Federal employees. 
This should not be a significant problem as the Department 
currently has 1,230 Federal employees performing environment, 
safety and health activities at Headquarters and in the field.

                       ENERGY SUPPORT ACTIVITIES

    Technical information management.--The Committee 
recommendation is $8,600,000, a reduction of $500,000 from 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.
    OSHA funding.--The Committee is aware that the Department 
of Energy and the Department of Labor have been working to 
clarify that Department of Energy non-nuclear facilities that 
are not covered by the Atomic Energy Act fall under the 
jurisdiction of the Occupational Safety and Health 
Administration (OSHA). There are also efforts to ensure the 
safety and health of non-Federal employees who are working in 
Departmental facilities which have been transferred to non-
Federal entities for economic development purposes. The 
Committee expects the Departments of Energy and Labor to 
complete these agreements to ensure the proper regulation of 
worker health and safety of all workers at all Departmental 
sites. This regulatory gap has existed for too long, and the 
current Assistant Secretary of Energy for Environment, Safety 
and Health is to be commended for working quickly to clarify 
these issues.
    The Committee recommendation provides $1,000,000 to be 
transferred to the OSHA for conducting these activities.
    Field offices.--The Department has reorganized the 
reporting structure for the field offices included in this 
account, and these offices now report directly to an Assistant 
Secretary. Accordingly, the Committee recommendation moves the 
funding for these offices from the Energy Supply appropriation 
account. Funding for the Chicago, Oakland, and Oak Ridge 
Operations Offices has been moved to the Science account. 
Funding for the Idaho Operations Office has been moved to the 
Environmental Management account.
    Oak Ridge landlord.--In recognition of the Department's 
reorganization, the Committee recommendation provides funding 
for this program in the Science account.

                          FUNDING ADJUSTMENTS

    The recommendation for Energy Supply includes several 
funding adjustments. Two adjustments are included in the budget 
request. The $47,100,000 adjustment represents the funding 
provided for renewable energy research programs managed by the 
Office of Science and funded in the Science account. The 
Committee recommendation also includes the Department's 
proposal to transfer $5,821,000 from available prior year 
balances in the geothermal resources development and United 
States Enrichment Corporation funds. These are the same amounts 
as the amounts transferred in the budget request.
    The recommendation also includes three adjustments not 
included in the budget request. Recent reviews by the General 
Accounting Office (GAO) and the Department's Inspector General 
(IG) indicate that the Department has been very lax in 
reviewing expenses incurred by the management and operating 
contractors. The Committee expects the Department to review all 
costs incurred by the contractors, make judgments on the 
validity of those costs, and reduce those which cannot be 
justified to the satisfaction of the taxpayer. The Department's 
program managers should be monitoring all of these costs. 
Reports by the GAO and IG indicating wasteful and excessive 
spending cast doubt on the validity of all the program costs.
    Contractor travel.--According to the General Accounting 
Office (GAO), in fiscal year 1998, programs funded in the 
Energy Supply account were charged approximately $6,000,000 for 
contractor travel expenses. The Committee recommends a 
reduction of $3,000,000 to be allocated to contractor travel 
expenses in fiscal year 2000.
    Management and operating contractor employees in 
Washington.--Energy Supply programs spend approximately 
$6,000,000 on contractor employees and contractor offices in 
the Washington metropolitan area. The Committee seriously 
questions the need for this contractor presence in Washington 
and has reduced this funding by $3,000,000.
    Laboratory directed research and development (LDRD) 
Funding.--The Department currently allows each laboratory 
director to use six percent of all operating funds provided to 
the laboratory to conduct employee-suggested research and 
development projects selected at the discretion of the 
laboratory directors. For fiscal year 2000, the Committee 
estimates that approximately $2,000,000 of that will come from 
the Energy Supply account, and thus, has eliminated this 
funding.

                  Non-Defense Environmental Management





Appropriation, 1999...................................      $431,200,000
Budget Estimate, 2000.................................       330,934,000
Recommended, 2000.....................................       327,223,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 1999...............................      -103,977,000
    Budget Estimate, 2000.............................        -3,711,000


    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 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 Committee recommendation is $327,223,000, a reduction 
of $3,711,000 from the budget request. No funds have been 
provided for the National Low-Level Waste Program in fiscal 
year 2000. Over $80,000,000 has been provided for the low-level 
waste program over the past two decades, and State expertise is 
now mature enough that Federal funding is no longer required.

      Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund





Appropriation, 1999...................................     $ 220,200,000
Budget Estimate, 2000.................................       240,198,000
Recommended, 2000.....................................       240,198,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 1999...............................       +19,998,000
    Budget Estimate, 2000.............................  ................


    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 2000 the 
Department of Energy will transfer $420,000,000 into this Fund.
    The Committee recommends $240,198,000, the same as the 
budget request. The Committee continues to encourage the 
Department to review all costs included in the UED&D program 
and seek to minimize those of lesser priority. The Committee 
believes there are many efficiencies to be made in all areas of 
the environmental management program.
    The Committee recommendation includes $30,000,000, the same 
as the budget request, 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, 1999...................................   $ 2,682,860,000
Budget Estimate, 2000.................................     2,839,178,000
Recommended, 2000.....................................     2,718,647,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 1999...............................       +35,787,000
    Budget Estimate, 2000.............................      -120,531,000


    The Science account includes the following programs: high 
energy and nuclear physics; biological and environmental 
research; basic energy sciences; computational and technology 
research; other energy research; fusion energy sciences; Oak 
Ridge landlord; and program direction (including headquarters 
and field offices). 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 more than $200,000,000 from the amount provided in 
last year's bill and more than $300,000,000 from the amount in 
the budget request. As in prior years, the Committee was able 
to identify lower priority programs for reductions while 
protecting basic research programs funded in the Science 
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 committed to ensuring 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. The Committee strongly supports the 
data collection and peer-reviewed science sponsored by the 
Department.

                          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 $715,525,000, a $19,025,000 increase 
over the amount provided in the current fiscal year and an 
$18,435,000 increase over the amount of the budget request. The 
recommendation includes a $16,435,000 increase over the budget 
request for facility operations, and a $2,000,000 increase for 
the research and development program. The increase reflects the 
Committee's continued support for full utilization of user 
facilities. The recommendation also includes funding for 
orderly and complete transition of the use of the Alternating 
Gradient Synchrotron for the nuclear physics program.

                            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 $357,940,000, a 
$22,840,000 increase over the amount provided in the current 
fiscal year and a $5,115,000 increase over the amount 
requested. The increase reflects the first full year of 
operations at the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC), the 
budget amendment to continue operations at the Bates Laboratory 
and the Committee's continued support for full utilization of 
the Department's world-class user facilities.

                 Biological and Environmental Research

    The Committee recommendation is $406,170,000, a $37,430,000 
reduction from the current fiscal year. The Committee 
recommendation is the same amount as the budget request, 
adjusted to exclude funding set aside for the Garden State 
Cancer Center.

                         Basic Energy Sciences

    The Committee recommendation for basic energy sciences is 
$735,989,000, a reduction of $73,111,000 from the current 
fiscal year, and a $152,095,000 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 2000, 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).
    High-Flux Beam Reactor.--The Committee has included 
statutory language prohibiting the Department from re-starting 
the High-Flux Beam Reactor. This reactor has been shut down 
since December, 1996. The Department has failed to meet its own 
deadlines for making a decision about the future of this 
reactor. The Committee directs that the Department complete the 
environmental impact study (EIS) no later than the date 
provided to the Committee, November 30, 1999, and issue a 
record of decision no later than thirty days after issuing the 
final EIS. The Committee has watched deadlines pass while the 
Department continues funding necessary caretaking and safety 
improvements with requirements of more than $20,000,000 per 
year. The Committee further directs the Department to provide a 
budget and program plan reflecting the record of decision with 
the submittal of the fiscal year 2001 budget request.
    Spallation Neutron Source.--The recommendation provides 
$67,900,000, including $17,900,000, the same amount as the 
budget request, for underlying research and development needed 
to confirm design for this unique machine and $50,000,000 for 
construction, a reduction of $146,100,000 from the amount 
requested. The Committee has again recommended a reduction in 
the funding level for this project based on several unfavorable 
reviews of the management of this project including reviews by 
the Department of Energy (DOE), the General Accounting Office 
(GAO), and the comprehensive independent review commissioned by 
the Committee (EG&G). In testimony to the Committee, the 
Department stated that: ``The only reason for the change in the 
total project cost is the change in the fiscal year 1999 budget 
for the project from $157 million to $130 million.'' Each of 
the reports cited problems including, for example, the need to 
reorganize the project office, the need for better lines of 
responsibility through the lab structure, and the need for 
project managers with project manager experience. Each of these 
are significant issues that must be addressed before 
construction commences. None of these are attributable to the 
Congress's recognition that this project was not ready for full 
funding last year. It is unfortunate that the Department chose 
to first blame Congress when cost estimates were increased.
    Despite these problems, the Committee is encouraged that 
the Department is re-evaluating the costs and proposals 
submitted by the proposed participating laboratories. The 
Department has already announced that this project is now on 
track and that its new management team and project management 
structure have eliminated all of the problems and concerns of 
the reports cited above. The Committee has grown accustomed to 
the Department immediately solving all problems with the 
issuance of a press release; however, the Committee is holding 
onto its confetti.
    The Committee will continue to closely follow the progress 
of this project and urges the Department to follow through on 
its stated commitment to put the goals and interests of this 
taxpayer-funded project above the goals and interests of the 
individual labs that ultimately participate in this project. 
Consistent with the authorization bill recently passed by the 
House Committee on Science, the Department is prohibited from 
obligating funds provided in this Act until the following are 
provided to the committees of jurisdiction, namely the 
Committee on Science of the House, the Committee on Energy and 
Natural Resources of the Senate, and the Committees on 
Appropriations of the House and the Senate:
          (1) Certification that senior project management 
        positions for the project have been filled by qualified 
        individuals;
          (2) Cost baseline and project milestones for each 
        major construction and technical system activity, 
        consistent with the overall cost and schedule submitted 
        with the Department's fiscal year 2000 budget, that 
        have been reviewed and certified by an independent 
        entity, outside the Department and having no financial 
        interest in the project, as the most cost-effective way 
        to complete the project;
          (3) Binding legal agreements that specify the duties 
        and obligations of each laboratory of the Department in 
        carrying out the project;
          (4) A revised project management structure that 
        integrates the staff of the collaborating laboratories 
        working on the project under a single project director, 
        who shall have direct supervisory responsibility over 
        the duties and obligations described in subparagraph 
        (3) above,
          (5) Official delegation by the Secretary of primary 
        authority with respect to the project to the project 
        director;
          (6) Certification from the Comptroller General that 
        the total taxes and fees in any manner or form paid by 
        the Federal government on the SNS and the property, 
        activities, and income of the Department relating to 
        the SNS to the State of Tennessee or its counties, 
        municipalities, or any other subdivision thereof, does 
        not exceed the aggregate taxes and fees for which the 
        Federal government would be liable if the project were 
        located in any other State that contains a national 
        laboratory of the Department; and
          (7) Annual reports on the SNS project, included as 
        part of the Department's annual budget submission, 
        including a description of the achievement of 
        milestones, a comparison of actual costs to estimated 
        costs, and any changes in estimated project costs or 
        schedule.

                     other energy research programs

    The Committee recommendation for the Computational and 
Technology Research program is $143,000,000, the same amount as 
the current fiscal year, and a reduction of $53,875,000 from 
the budget request. The recommendation does not include funds 
for the Scientific Simulation Initiative (SSI) or the Next 
Generation Internet (NGI) programs. The Committee has had to 
cut existing programs and make hard choices and was unable to 
justify starting these new spending programs.
    The budget justification for NGI failed to explain the need 
for a multi-million dollar government program at a time when 
hundreds of private companies are investing billions of dollars 
on hardware and software innovations. The Committee was 
informed that funds would be used to upgrade hardware at 
laboratories and universities and that the Department would 
study ways to improve the capabilities of the internet. The 
Committee notes that these activities have been funded in this 
account and that it is unnecessary to create a new program to 
continue these efforts.
    The budget justification for SSI failed to justify the need 
to establish a second supercomputing program in the Department 
of Energy. The Congress has been supportive of the ASCI program 
which the Department claimed would have benefits in addition to 
the defense purposes for which it was originally created. The 
ASCI program, for which Congress is providing more than 
$300,000,000 per year, seeks to build and operate massively 
parallel computers with a performance goal of 100 TeraOps by 
2004. The proposed SSI program has a goal of building and 
operating a separate, yet similar, program dedicated 
exclusively to domestic purposes. At this time, the Committee 
cannot support this massively parallel proposal to manage and 
fund two separate supercomputing programs.
    The Committee recognizes that the Department has re-
classified some of its ongoing activities and therefore has not 
reduced the budget request by the $85,000,000 requested for 
these two ``new'' programs. The Committee appreciates the 
advantages of modeling and having computing capability to 
analyze complex problems. The Committee would like to work with 
the Department to get better answers to questions it has about 
this new proposal. (For example, the Department declined to 
answer direct questions about the outyear costs for this 
program.) The Committee looks forward to further discussions to 
identify a program that has mutually supportable budget and 
program plans.
    Energy research analysis.--The Committee recommendation 
includes $1,000,000, the same amount as the current fiscal year 
and the budget request.
    Multi-program energy labs.--The Committee recommendation 
includes $21,260,000, an increase of $1,000,000 over the budget 
request. The Committee regrets that the Department has failed 
to meet its obligations for payments of lieu of taxes and has 
provided sufficient funding to pay arrearages and obligations 
through fiscal year 1998. The Department is directed to make 
these payments, some of which are delinquent from fiscal year 
1994, as expeditiously as possible.
    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 amount to 
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. 
Three 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 includes $4,500,000, the same amount as 
the budget request, for the Laboratory Cooperative, National 
Science Bowl and Albert Einstein Distinguished Educator 
Fellowships programs in the program direction account.

                         fusion energy sciences

    The Committee recommendation is $250,000,000, a $27,386,000 
increase over the budget amount. The Committee commends the 
Department for its efforts to pursue the most promising paths 
towards producing electricity from fusion. The Committee has 
provided sufficient funding to accelerate and fully utilize the 
user facilities currently in operation. The Committee will work 
closely with the Department to review the work done by the 
Secretary of Energy's Advisory Board and continue to support 
the goals of the fusion energy sciences program.
    The Committee remains committed to a fusion program that is 
based on both quality science and the ultimate goal of 
practical fusion energy. A positive development in this regard 
is the ``roadmapping'' process, which the fusion community is 
now undertaking and which includes both the MFE and IFE 
approaches. Positive aspects of this process include the 
emphasis on increasing diversity in the program and 
strengthening of peer review. The Committee is pleased with the 
advanced-tokamak emphasis of current tokamak research, which is 
in keeping with the program emphasis on innovation.
    Additional funds are provided to support new work in 
concept innovation in both MFE and IFE, to provide for more 
effective utilization of the existing national research 
facilities, and to support the underlying technology 
development which sustains this research. The Department is 
directed to provide an updated spending plan to the Committees 
on Appropriations within thirty days of enactment of the 
accompanying bill. The Committee looks forward to working with 
the Department on budget and program plans to accelerate the 
accomplishments in the fusion program.
    The recommendation includes $13,600,000, the same amount as 
the budget request, to continue landlord activities and begin 
decontamination and decommissioning of the Tokamak Fusion Test 
Reactor (TFTR). The Committee expects that decontamination and 
decommissioning of the TFTR facility will go forward as 
proposed and will be managed by the Princeton Plasma Physics 
Laboratory. In developing future budgets and program plans, the 
Committee strongly encourages the Department of Energy and the 
Administration to ensure that this work can proceed without 
negatively affecting the ongoing research program.

                           Oak Ridge landlord

    The Committee recommendation provides $11,800,000, a 
reduction of $12,000 from the budget request. This program was 
transferred from the Energy Supply account.

                           program direction

    The recommendation is $126,963,000. This includes 
$52,360,000, the same amount as the budget request, for 
headquarters activities, and $74,603,000 for the field offices 
for which funding was transferred to this account. The 
Committee has provided $47,860,000 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 Science 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.
    Field offices.--The Department has reorganized the 
reporting structure for the field offices formerly included in 
the Energy Supply account. These offices now report directly to 
an Assistant Secretary. Accordingly, the Committee 
recommendation moves the funding for the Chicago, Oakland, and 
Oak Ridge Operations Offices to the Science account. The 
Committee recommendation includes $74,603,000, a reduction of 
$8,289,000 from the budget request. The Committee urges the 
Department to take a leadership role in establishing a more 
streamlined and efficient management structure.

                          funding adjustments

    The recommendation for Science includes several funding 
adjustments. Recent reviews by the General Accounting Office 
(GAO) and the Department's Inspector General (IG) indicate that 
the Department has been very lax in reviewing expenses incurred 
by the management and operating contractors. The Committee 
expects the Department to review all costs incurred by the 
contractors, make judgments on the validity of those costs, and 
reduce those which cannot be justified to the satisfaction of 
the taxpayer. The Department's program managers should be 
monitoring all of these costs. Reports by the GAO and IG 
indicating wasteful and excessive spending cast doubt on the 
validity of all the program costs. To the extent practicable, 
the Committee directs that these reductions not be applied to 
the operation of user facilities.
    Contractor travel.--According to the General Accounting 
Office (GAO), in fiscal year 1998, programs funded in the 
Science account were charged approximately $16,000,000 for 
contractor travel expenses. The Committee recommends a 
reduction of $8,000,000 to be allocated to contractor travel 
expenses in fiscal year 2000.
    The following reductions make up the $43,000,000 general 
reduction recommended by the Committee.
    Management and operating contractor employees in 
Washington.--Science programs are charged approximately 
$6,000,000 on contractor employees and contractor offices in 
the Washington metropolitan area. The Committee seriously 
questions the need for this contractor presence in Washington 
and has reduced this funding by $3,000,000.
    Science education funding.--Rather than requesting funding 
for this program in a visible line item as it has in prior 
years, the Department chose to bury $10,000,000 in five of the 
nineteen program lines. The Committee recommendation has 
included $4,500,000 for Laboratory Cooperative, National 
Science Bowl, and Albert Einstein Distinguished Educator 
Fellowships programs in the program direction lines, but has 
not included funds for these new programs as proposed in the 
budget request.
    Laboratory Directed Research and Development (LDRD) 
Funding.--The Department currently allows each laboratory 
director to use six percent of all operating funds provided to 
the laboratory to conduct employee-suggested research and 
development projects selected at the discretion of the 
laboratory directors. For fiscal year 2000, the Committee 
estimates that approximately $30,000,000 of that will come from 
the Science account, and thus, has eliminated this funding.

                         Nuclear Waste Disposal





Appropriation, 1999...................................      $169,000,000
Budget Estimate, 2000.................................       258,000,000
Recommended, 2000.....................................       169,000,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 1999...............................  ................
    Budget Estimate, 2000.............................       -89,000,000


    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 
$169,000,000 to be derived from the Fund in fiscal year 2000, 
the same funding as provided in fiscal year 1999. Combined with 
the appropriation of $112,000,000 to the Defense Nuclear Waste 
Disposal account, a total of $281,000,000 will be available for 
program activities in fiscal year 2000.
    The Department is to review all cost components to see what 
savings can be achieved in fiscal year 2000. The Committee has 
not provided funding for the State of Nevada nor for the 
affected units of local government.
    The Committee is aware that the Department proposes to 
compete the contract for operating the Yucca Mountain Site. The 
Department should ensure that the competitive process is fair 
and expeditious, and that the process does not result in any 
additional delays to the proposed date for opening this 
facility.

                      Departmental Administration


                          Gross Appropriation




Appropriation, 1999...................................      $200,475,000
Budget Estimate, 2000.................................       240,377,000
Recommended, 2000.....................................       193,769,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 1999...............................        -6,706,000
    Budget Estimate, 2000.............................       -46,608,000


                         miscellaneous revenues




Appropriation, 1999...................................     $-136,530,000
Budget Estimate, 2000.................................      -116,887,000
Recommended, 2000.....................................      -106,887,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 1999...............................        29,643,000
    Budget Estimate, 2000.............................        10,000,000


    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 2000, the 
Committee has provided funding for Departmental Administration 
activities in two appropriation accounts. The Committee has 
provided $193,769,000 in this account, and $25,000,000 in the 
Other Defense Activities appropriation account, for total 
funding of $218,769,000, a reduction of $21,608,000 from the 
budget request.
    The Committee continues to believe that Headquarters 
staffing for many administrative functions is excessive, and 
has reduced the funding for certain offices accordingly. 
Funding has been provided for severance payments for the Office 
of Field Management.
    Information management.--The recommendation includes 
$12,000,000, a reduction of $1,000,000 from the budget request, 
for the Corporate Management Information Program. Full funding 
has been provided for the Corporate Business Management 
Information System and the Corporate Human Resources 
Information System. No funding has been provided for the 
Corporate Technology Supported Learning new initiative.
    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 an annual status report by November 
1, 1999, 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; 
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 should be audited periodically by 
the Department's Inspector General to ensure the integrity of 
the accounts, and the Committee expects to be apprised of any 
recommendations to improve the charge back system.
    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 2000 
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 $34,027,000, 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 Department's revenue estimate for fiscal 
year 2000 is $116,887,000. However, the Committee 
recommendation is $106,887,000, a decrease of $10,000,000 from 
the budget request. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has 
estimated that the Department's revenues will be less than the 
budget request in fiscal year 2000. The Committee has included 
the CBO recommended level of revenues.
    Transfer from Other Defense Activities--For many years, 
full funding for all corporate and administrative activities of 
the Department has been provided in the energy portion of this 
bill despite the fact that over 70 percent of the Department's 
funding is provided in the national security programs. The 
Committee has distributed these costs more equitably in fiscal 
year 2000 and provided $25,000,000 from national security 
programs.

                      Office of Inspector General





Appropriation, 1999...................................       $29,000,000
Budget Estimate, 2000.................................        30,000,000
Recommended, 2000.....................................        30,000,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 1999...............................        +1,000,000
    Budget Estimate, 2000.............................  ................


    The Office of Inspector General performs agency-wide audit, 
inspection, and investigative functions to identify and correct 
management and administrative deficiencies which create 
conditions for existing or potential instances of fraud, waste 
and mismanagement. The audit function provides financial and 
performance audits of programs and operations. The inspections 
function provides independent inspections and analyses of the 
effectiveness, efficiency, and economy of programs and 
operations. The investigative function provides for the 
detection and investigation of improper and illegal activities 
involving programs, personnel, and operations.
    The Committee recommendation is $30,000,000, the same as 
the budget request.

                    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, 1999...................................    $4,400,000,000
Budget Estimate, 2000.................................     4,524,900,000
Recommended, 2000.....................................     4,000,000,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 1999...............................      -400,000,000
    Budget Estimate, 2000.............................      -524,900,000


    The goal of the Weapons Activities program is to maintain 
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 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 safely 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 
$4,000,000,000, a decrease of $400,000,000 from the fiscal year 
1999 appropriation, and a decrease of $524,900,000 from the 
budget request of $4,524,900,000.
    Controlling Costs.--The reduction to the fiscal year 2000 
budget request reflects the Committee's concern that the 
Department is still not seriously seeking to control costs 
throughout the nuclear weapons complex. The recent GAO report 
on contractor travel highlighted the Department's lax attitude 
toward controlling costs at nuclear weapons laboratories. 
Contractors at the nuclear weapons complex spent $146,000,000 
on travel in fiscal year 1998, and of that amount, the three 
nuclear weapons laboratories accounted for $116,000,000. A 
report by the Inspector General highlighted the excessive costs 
of operating the Department's aircraft at Albuquerque. In 
addition, six percent of all operating funds provided to each 
laboratory is allocated to the laboratory director for 
discretionary research. The three weapons laboratory directors 
control the use of approximately $200,000,000 with little 
Congressional oversight. Then, there are the contractor 
overhead charges paid by the Department with little thought. 
These overhead costs include management and operating (M&O) 
contractor offices maintained in Washington for the convenience 
of the contractor, ``centers of excellence'' established by the 
contractor to support efforts to seek new missions, and tiered 
overhead costs which multiply the cost to the government for 
work performed by subcontractors to the M&O. When the 
Department can convince the Committee that it really 
understands and can control contractor costs and can show that 
all costs relate directly to the Federal government's interests 
(not the contractor's), then the Committee will be less harsh 
in its assessment of Departmental oversight of contractor 
spending.

              restructuring the national security programs

    The Committee has included a provision that would delay the 
obligation of $1,000,000,000 until after June 30, 2000, and 
Congress has enacted legislation restructuring the national 
security programs currently under the jurisdiction of the 
Department of Energy. This delayed obligation will give 
Congress time to craft careful, bipartisan legislation while 
ensuring that actions are taken to address the serious problems 
which have been identified at the Department of Energy.
    The report by the Special Investigative Panel of the 
President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board concludes that 
for the past two decades, the Department of Energy has embodied 
science at its best and security of secrets at its worst. After 
going through a litany of the problems in security 
administration, the Panel concludes that the Department is 
incapable of reforming itself--bureaucratically and 
culturally--in a lasting way, even under an activist Secretary.
    This was only the last in a long line of reports that have 
documented management problems at the Department of Energy and 
made numerous recommendations to solve these problems. 
Unfortunately, there have been few positive results from these 
reports, and the Committee is concerned that the Department 
will once again pay lip service to the recommendations while 
taking very little action.
    The report of the Special Investigative Panel suggested two 
alternative solutions. The first would create a new semi-
autonomous agency within the Department with responsibility for 
weapons research and development. The second proposal would 
create a wholly independent agency. The Committee has watched 
while many have developed elaborate legislation to create a new 
semi-autonomous agency within the Department. But, the 
Committee does not believe this fully addresses the problems. 
This solution would not free the weapons program from systemic 
problems. The same people staffing this new organization would 
be those who have created the problems over the past two 
decades.
    Starting with a fresh slate is the only chance for solving 
many of the problems. Eliminating the cumbersome and redundant 
field structure will lead to cost savings and management 
efficiencies. Creating an independent agency at the sub-Cabinet 
level will free the agency from political influence and 
encourage the appointment of technically qualified managers. 
Direct lines of responsibility and authority will be 
established. Those interested primarily in maintaining the 
status quo will be thwarted.
    There will ultimately be cost savings from this proposal. 
The Department of Energy has approximately 14,500 Federal 
employees in Headquarters and at various field offices 
throughout the country. Streamlining the agency and the 
Byzantine field structure, as recommended by the each of the 
independent reviews, will result in significant cost savings. 
The Department currently spends nearly $1.7 billion on 
administrative expenses associated with these Federal 
employees. The report of the Special Investigative Panel 
questioned the need for field offices. Downsizing the 
Headquarters staff and streamlining the field structure will 
result in immediate cost savings.

                         stockpile stewardship

    The stockpile stewardship program addresses issues of 
maintaining confidence in stockpile safety and reliability 
without nuclear testing through a science-based stockpile 
stewardship program using upgraded or new experimental and 
computational capabilities. Funding of $2,098,472,000, a 
decrease of $187,728,000 from the budget request, has been 
recommended for fiscal year 2000. As noted above, the Committee 
believes there are many cost efficiencies to be achieved 
throughout the laboratory complex.
    Core stockpile stewardship.--Core stockpile stewardship is 
funded at $1,482,632,000, the same as fiscal year 1999, but a 
reduction from the budget request of $1,635,355,000.
    Accelerated Strategic Computing Initiative.--The budget 
request includes $341,000,000 for the Accelerated Strategic 
Computing Initiative (ASCI) which 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. This is a significant increase 
over the fiscal year 1999 funding level of $300,926,000. The 
recommendation provides $316,000,000.
    Construction projects.--The Committee recommendation for 
construction projects is $126,140,000, a reduction of 
$7,005,000 from the budget request, but a significant increase 
over the fiscal year 1999 funding level of $103,443,000. 
Funding for Project 99-D-108, Renovate Existing Roadways at the 
Nevada Test Site, has not been provided pending completion of 
additional information supporting the need for this project. No 
funds for fiscal year 2000 new construction projects may be 
obligated until an external, independent project assessment has 
been provided to the House and Senate Committees on 
Appropriations for review and approval.
    Inertial Fusion.--The Committee recommends $475,700,000 for 
the inertial fusion program, an increase of $10,000,000 over 
the budget request of $465,700,000, and $32,300,000 less than 
fiscal year 1999. The recommendation includes $254,000,000 for 
the National Ignition Facility, $30,450,000 for the University 
of Rochester's OMEGA laser, and $9,500,000 for the Naval 
Research Laboratory. Consistent with the fiscal year 1999 
program, the recommendation includes $10,000,000 to further the 
development of high average power lasers.
    Technology Transfer and Education.--Due to severe funding 
constraints, the Committee finds it necessary to focus 
resources on direct stockpile stewardship activities and has 
significantly reduced funding for technology transfer and 
education activities. In the technology transfer program, the 
budget request of $5,000,000 has been provided for the Amarillo 
Plutonium Research Center. Funding of $9,000,000, the same 
level of funding as provided in fiscal year 1999, has been 
provided for education activities. No funds are provided for 
the National Atomic Museum.

                          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 $1,913,300,000, a decrease of $85,000,000 from 
the budget request of $1,998,300,000. The recommendation 
provides funding for activities necessary to sustain a 
reliable, quality production capability to support the nuclear 
weapons stockpile as it ages.
    Transportation.--The Committee recommendation reflects the 
transfer of $60,000,000 which was requested in the stockpile 
management for transportation activities. To more accurately 
reflect program activities, a separate program has been 
established to include all funding for the Transportation 
Safeguards Division.
    Tritium.--The Committee recommendation for the tritium 
program is $145,000,000, a reduction of $25,000,000 from the 
budget request of $170,000,000. Due to severe funding 
constraints, funding for the backup technology, the accelerator 
production of tritium, has been reduced from $88,000,000 to 
$63,000,000. The recommendation includes $22,000,000 for 
operating expenses and $41,000,000 for design activities.
    Infrastructure improvements.--The Committee is aware that 
many areas of the nuclear weapons complex require significant 
upgrades and improvements to the existing infrastructure. Due 
to severe funding constraints, the Committee is unable to 
provide additional funding for these activities, but urges the 
Department to give such measures a high priority when 
allocating resources.
    Construction projects.--The Committee recommendation for 
construction projects is $168,679,000, an increase of 
$10,000,000 over the budget request. This additional funding 
has been provided for design only activities in Project 98-D-
126, Accelerator Production of Tritium.

                   TRANSPORTATION SAFEGUARDS DIVISION

    The Transportation Safeguards Division provides for the 
safe, secure movement of nuclear weapons, strategic quantities 
of special nuclear material, and weapon components between 
military locations and nuclear complex facilities within the 
United States. Funding for this activity was included in the 
budget request in two separate accounts: salaries and other 
expenses of $31,812,000 were included in the program direction 
account, and equipment and other expenses of $60,000,000 were 
included in the stockpile management program. The Committee 
recommendation consolidates funding for the Transportation 
Safeguards Division as a separate activity and provides 
$91,812,000, the same as the budget request.

                           PROGRAM DIRECTION

    The Committee recommendation of $199,500,000 for program 
direction is a reduction of $47,000,000 from the budget request 
of $246,500,000. This reflects the transfer of $31,812,000 for 
the Transportation Safeguards Division to a separate program, 
and a reduction of $15,188,000 for expenses at Departmental 
field offices.

                          FUNDING ADJUSTMENTS

    The recommendation for Weapons Activities includes several 
funding adjustments. The Department has requested significant 
budget increases for the nuclear weapons program in fiscal year 
2000. Recent reviews by the General Accounting Office (GAO) and 
the Department's Inspector General (IG) indicate that the 
Department has been very lax in reviewing expenses incurred by 
the nuclear weapons contractors. The Committee expects the 
Department to review all costs incurred by the contractors, 
make judgments on the validity of those costs, and reduce those 
which cannot be justified to the satisfaction of the taxpayer. 
The Department's program managers should be monitoring all of 
these costs. Reports by the GAO and IG indicating wasteful and 
excessive spending cast doubt on the validity of all the 
program costs.
    Contractor Travel.--According to the General Accounting 
Office (GAO), in fiscal year 1998, the nuclear weapons complex 
spent approximately $141,400,000 on contractor travel expenses. 
The Committee recommends a reduction of $75,000,000 to be 
allocated to contractor travel expenses in fiscal year 2000.
    Management and Operating Contractor Employees in 
Washington.--Defense Programs spends approximately $9,200,000 
on contractor employees and contractor offices in the 
Washington metropolitan area. The Committee seriously questions 
the need for this contractor presence in Washington and has 
reduced this funding by $5,000,000.
    Laboratory Directed Research and Development (LDRD) 
Funding.--The Department currently allows each laboratory 
director to use six percent of all operating funds provided to 
the laboratory to conduct employee-suggested research and 
development projects selected at the discretion of the 
laboratory directors. For fiscal year 2000, the Department 
estimates that the three nuclear weapons laboratories will 
spend $215,000,000 on LDRD. The Committee estimates that 
approximately $100,000,000 of that will come from the Weapons 
Activities account, and thus, has eliminated this funding.
    Use of Prior Year Balances.--Due to severe funding 
constraints, the Committee also recommends a reduction of 
$123,084,000 in fiscal year 2000.

         Defense Environmental Restoration and Waste Management





Appropriation, 1999...................................    $4,310,227,000
Budget Estimate, 2000.................................     4,503,276,000
Recommended, 2000.....................................     4,157,758,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 1999...............................      -152,469,000
    Budget Estimate, 2000.............................      -345,518,000


    The Environmental Management program is responsible for 
identifying and reducing risks and managing waste at sites 
where the Department carried out nuclear energy or weapons 
research and production activities which resulted in 
radioactive, hazardous, and mixed waste contamination requiring 
remediation, stabilization, or some other type of cleanup 
action. Environmental management activities are budgeted under 
the following appropriation accounts: Defense Environmental 
Restoration and Waste Management; Defense Facilities Closure 
Projects; Defense Environmental Management Privatization; Non-
Defense Environmental Management; and the Uranium Enrichment 
Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund.
    The Defense Environmental Restoration and Waste Management 
account includes site/project completion, post 2006 completion, 
science and technology, and a variety of crosscutting and 
program management activities. 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 Committee's recommendation for Defense Environmental 
Restoration and Waste Management is $4,157,758,000, a decrease 
of $345,518,000 from the budget request, and $152,469,000 below 
fiscal year 1999. Details of the recommended funding levels 
follow.

                                general

    The Committee commends the environmental management 
organization for the submission of the budget request on 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, and 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.
    Project Changes.--The Committee was surprised to learn that 
the Department was making significant changes to the individual 
operating projects identified in the fiscal year 1999 budget 
justifications without notifying the Committee of these 
changes. In fiscal year 2000 the Department is directed to 
provide a report by January 15, 2000, showing the initial 
funding allocation by site for each individual project. After 
that, the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations must be 
notified of any change that increases or decreases funding for 
any project by more than 20 percent. The Department should work 
with the Committee to establish the level of detail required in 
the initial report.
    Reprogramming Authority.--The Committee continues to 
support the need for some flexibility to meet changing funding 
requirements at former defense sites which are undergoing 
remedial cleanup activities. In fiscal year 2000, each site 
manager may transfer up to $5,000,000 between Defense 
Environmental Restoration and Waste Management program 
activities such as site/project completion and post-2006 
completion, 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.
    Research Funding.--The Committee understands that some 
Departmental sites may be using operating funds for 
discretionary research and development rather than the 
operational activities for which the funding was requested and 
appropriated. The Committee wants to make very sure that the 
Department understands that environmental management funding is 
provided for cleanup activities, not as a source of 
discretionary funding for the sites and laboratories. The need 
for cleanup funds far exceeds the availability of resources. 
The Department is directed to separate all research funding 
from operational funding. All research funding is to be 
included in the Science and Technology account and will be 
allocated based on a review of the merits of such research.
    Economic Development.--None of the environmental management 
funds are available 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 $970,219,000, a decrease of $10,700,000 from the 
budget request of $980,919,000. Funding has been adjusted to 
reflect the latest cost estimates for Project 96-D-406, Spent 
Nuclear Fuels Canister Storage and Stabilization Facility in 
Richland, Washington. Due to funding constraints, the Committee 
has not provided funding to move from design to construction of 
Project 99-D-404, the Health Physics Instrumentation Laboratory 
at Idaho.

                          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 $2,848,548,000, a decrease of $105,000,000 from 
the budget request of $2,953,548,000.
    Alternative Technology Development.--The Committee supports 
the efforts by the Department to develop alternative 
technologies to stabilize DOE-owned spent fuel in preparation 
for permanent disposal. Despite the technical and design risks, 
the Department's approach of narrowing technical alternatives 
from a range of potential technologies should minimize those 
risks. The Committee also understands that the Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission has concluded that melt and dilute would 
be an acceptable concept for geologic disposal of aluminum-
based spent nuclear fuel. The Department ignored Congressional 
intent in fiscal year 1999 when $10,000,000 was provided for 
this activity. The Committee expects the Department to fund 
this activity in fiscal year 2000 at a level to compensate for 
the inequitable reduction in fiscal year 1999.
    Payment-in-Lieu-of-Taxes.--The Committee directs the 
Hanford site to review its budget priorities, and, to the 
extent possible within available resources in fiscal year 2000, 
make a payment-in-lieu-of-taxes to the local communities.
    Waste Isolation Pilot Plant.--The Department should provide 
to the Committee a report detailing the feasibility and 
methodology of transferring the funding and oversight 
responsibilities of the Environmental Evaluation Group, a group 
tasked with oversight of the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, to 
the State of New Mexico to better facilitate the State's 
regulatory responsibilities.
    Uranium Enrichment D&D Fund Contribution.--The Committee 
recommendation includes the budget request of $420,000,000 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.
    Hazardous Waste Operations Emergency Response Program.--The 
Committee recommendation supports the budget request of 
$8,500,000.
    Health Effects Studies.--The Committee recommendation does 
not include the budget request of $20,000,000 for worker and 
public health effects studies. All funding for worker and 
public health effects studies has been provided in the Defense 
Environment, Safety and Health account, and all studies are to 
be managed by the Office of Environment, Safety and Health.

                   science and technology development

    The Committee recommendation for science and technology 
development is $230,500,000, the same as the budget request, 
and a reduction of $16,500,000 from fiscal year 1999.
    Technology Deployment.--Due funding constraints, the 
Committee is unable to provide additional funds for technology 
deployment, but urges the Department to reallocate funds to the 
extent possible to provide at least $15,000,000, the fiscal 
year 1999 funding level, 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.
    The Committee urges the Department to make every effort to 
seek cost effective cleanup alternatives available from outside 
the Department, and is aware that the international agreement 
with AEA Technology has been very successful in bringing 
cheaper and more efficient technologies to the Department's 
cleanup problems. The Department is urged to expand the use of 
this existing agreement.
    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.
    Environmental Management Science Program.--The Committee is 
disappointed that the Department was unable to provide funding 
for new grants in fiscal year 2000. The funding for the 
environmental management science program has been reduced from 
$47,000,000 in fiscal year 1999 to $32,000,000 in fiscal year 
2000. 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. The Committee believes it is 
critical to provide continuity of funding for this research 
program, and recommends $10,000,000 from within available funds 
for the next round of new and innovative research grants in 
fiscal year 2000.
    Education programs.--The Committee is aware of, and urges 
the Department to fully consider, a proposal from Voorhees 
College, Morris College, and Allen University to develop 
programs of study in environmental science and to develop 
research projects to meet the needs of the Department.
    Oversight of Environmental Management Laboratories.--The 
Department should ensure that proper management oversight is 
provided for each laboratory reporting to the Office of 
Environmental Management. This should include a review by the 
Headquarters Office of Environmental Management of all research 
projects to assure mission relevancy and compliance with all 
applicable orders and regulations, as well as a review and 
evaluation of the institutional planning process for the 
program's national laboratory.
    Risk Policy.--The Committee recommendation supports the 
budget request of $3,000,000 for the Consortium for Risk 
Evaluation and Stakeholder Participation (CRESP).
    University Robotics Program.--The Committee recommendation 
supports the budget request of $4,000,000 for the university 
robotics program.

                           PROGRAM DIRECTION

    The Committee recommends $331,665,000 for program 
direction, a decrease of $17,744,000 from the budget request of 
$349,409,000. The change in funding results from transferring 
to this account the salaries and expenses of the Federal 
employees performing administrative functions at the Idaho 
Operations Office, consistent with the Department's new 
organization structure, and reducing expenses at Departmental 
field offices.
    Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP).--
The Committee expects the Department to fulfill its 
responsibilities at FUSRAP sites, exclusive of the remedial 
actions to be performed by the Corps.

                          FUNDING ADJUSTMENTS

    The recommendation for Defense Environmental Restoration 
and Waste Management has several funding adjustments. A 
reduction of $180,764,000, including $8,700,000 proposed in the 
budget request, has been applied to prior year balances. There 
is a $9,000,000 reduction for contractor travel, and a 
$3,000,000 adjustment to reduce the use of management and 
operating (M&O) contractor employees at Headquarters and 
support for M&O contractor offices in the Washington 
metropolitan area.
    Laboratory Directed Research and Development.--A reduction 
of $30,410,000 has been included to eliminate any funds being 
allocated for laboratory directed research and development or 
director's discretionary research and development. The 
Committee allocates funding to Departmental laboratories to 
clean up contaminated properties and facilities as quickly as 
possible, not to provide discretionary spending for the 
laboratory directors. The Committee is prohibiting the use of 
any environmental management funds for discretionary research 
and development activities. A peer-reviewed science and 
technology program is adequately funded in this program. Any 
laboratory seeking to do environmental research should submit 
proposals to the Office of Science and Technology and compete 
for these funds.

                  Defense Facilities Closure Projects





Appropriation, 1999...................................    $1,038,240,000
Budget Estimate, 2000.................................     1,054,492,000
Recommended, 2000.....................................     1,054,492,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 1999...............................       +16,252,000
    Budget Estimate, 2000.............................  ................


    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 by 2006 include the Rocky Flats Closure Project in 
Colorado, and several sites in Ohio--Fernald, Miamisburg, 
Ashtabula, and Columbus.
    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 recommendation for fiscal year 2000 funding is 
$1,054,492,000, the same as 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. 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 has provided fiscal year 2000 funding of 
$657,200,000, the same as the budget request.
    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 $280,589,000, the same 
as the budget request.
    Miamisburg.--The Department plans to complete cleanup at 
the Miamisburg, Ohio, site by fiscal year 2005 or earlier. The 
Committee recommends the budget request of $92,353,000.
    Ashtabula.--The goal at the Ashtabula site in Ohio is to 
achieve complete cleanup by fiscal year 2003 with an associated 
cost reduction of $48,600,000 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 were completed in 1998, and at the 
remaining site will be completed by fiscal year 2006. The 
budget request of $8,841,000 has been provided.
    Report Requirement.--As part of the fiscal year 2001 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 on 
an annual basis.

             Defense Environmental Management Privatization





Appropriation, 1999...................................      $228,357,000
Budget Estimate, 2000.................................       228,000,000
Recommended, 2000.....................................       228,000,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 1999...............................          -357,000
    Budget Estimate, 2000.............................  ................


    The Committee recommendation for the Defense Environmental 
Management Privatization program is $228,000,000, the same as 
the budget request. The recommendation includes $106,000,000 
for the Tank Waste Remediation System at Richland; $110,000,000 
for the Advanced Mixed Waste Treatment Project at Idaho; 
$20,000,000 for Environmental Management/Waste Management 
Disposal at Oak Ridge; $12,000,000 for Transuranic Waste 
Treatment at Oak Ridge; and $5,000,000 for Spent Nuclear Fuel 
Dry Storage at Idaho. The total amount is reduced by the use of 
$25,000,000 in prior year balances.
    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,'' which requires the use of fixed price 
contracts and private financing of the construction of waste 
treatment facilities. The Department believes the privatization 
program is the most cost-effective approach for selected 
projects.
    The Department requested advance appropriations for the 
Hanford Tank Waste Remediation System for fiscal years 2001 
through 2004 and for the Idaho Advanced Mixed Waste Treatment 
Project for fiscal year 2001. The remaining privatization 
projects will be incrementally funded on an annual basis. The 
Committee has not provided advance appropriations for fiscal 
years 2001 and beyond, but will continue to review funding on 
an annual basis for all the privatization projects.

                        Other Defense Activities





Appropriation, 1999...................................    $1,696,676,000
Budget Estimate, 2000.................................     1,797,991,000
Recommended, 2000.....................................     1,651,809,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 1999...............................       -44,867,000
    Budget Estimate, 2000.............................      -146,182,000


    This account provides funding for Nonproliferation and 
National Security Programs which include Nonproliferation and 
Verification Research and Development, Arms Control, Emergency 
Management, Nuclear Safeguards and Security, Security 
Investigations, HEU Transparency Implementation, International 
Nuclear Safety, and Program Direction; Intelligence; 
Counterintelligence; Environment, Safety and Health (Defense); 
Worker and Community Transition; Fissile Materials Disposition; 
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 NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS

    Competitive Research.--The Committee is concerned that 97 
percent of the funding for research and development in the 
nonproliferation and national security budget goes to the DOE 
national laboratories. The Committee is even more concerned 
that the Department of Energy believes that this research and 
development is acquired through a competitive process because 
the DOE laboratories are asked to provide technical proposals 
to solve both current and future technical challenges to 
nonproliferation and national security issues. Asking the 
Department's own laboratories for proposals is not what the 
Committee believes to be a competitive process by any stretch 
of the imagination. The Department is directed to initiate a 
free and open competitive process for its research and 
development activities during fiscal year 2000. The Committee 
should be notified of any research and development which cannot 
be openly competed due to its classified nature.

       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 funding level as fiscal year 1999, and a 
reduction of $11,000,000 from the budget request. No funding is 
provided for Project 00-D-192, Nonproliferation and 
International Security Center at Los Alamos. Funding has been 
provided in the Weapons Activities account for a new terascale 
simulation facility at Los Alamos in fiscal year 2000. In view 
of the Department's significant problems with project 
management, the Committee does not believe it is prudent to 
initiate construction of two new buildings at Los Alamos in 
fiscal year 2000.
    The nonproliferation and verification research and 
development program consists of hundreds of projects executed 
primarily at the nuclear weapons laboratories. The Department 
has still provided no information to the Committee that shows 
the value of these disparate projects, and how they relate to 
an overriding program plan or technology roadmap. The 
Department should provide a report to the Committee by October 
31, 1999, which identifies how the individual projects 
contribute to the overall objectives. The Department should 
also implement an external, peer-review process to examine each 
of the projects, their progress, and their value to the overall 
needs of the 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 level of funding as provided in 
fiscal year 1999, and a reduction of $39,100,000 from the 
budget request.
    Materials Protection, Control and Accounting Program.--The 
recommendation supports the budget request of $145,000,000, an 
increase of $5,000,000 over fiscal year 1999, for the materials 
protection, control and accounting program to secure and 
safeguard nuclear materials in Russia and the Newly Independent 
States.
    Initiatives for Proliferation Program and Nuclear Cities 
Initiative.--The Committee recommendation provides $22,500,000 
for the Initiatives for Proliferation Program, the same as 
fiscal year 1999. A recent General Accounting Office report was 
highly critical of the fact that as much as 63 percent of these 
funds have been spent in the United States, mostly by the 
Department's national laboratories, rather than going to the 
scientific institutes of the Newly Independent States. The 
Committee directs that no more than 20 percent of the funding 
may be spent in the United States.
    The Committee has provided $1,500,000 for the Nuclear 
Cities Initiative, significantly less than the budget request 
of $30,000,000. The Committee has several concerns with this 
program. First, and foremost, it is not clear that the 
Department of Energy is the best agency to implement this 
program since the most important training needed in these 
cities is marketing and business expertise. The Department 
should work with other Federal agencies that are implementing 
similar programs in Russia to ensure that this type of training 
is provided immediately. The Department relies solely on its 
national laboratories to implement this program, and the 
Committee does not believe that Department of Energy 
laboratories are useful guides for marketing expertise and 
successful commercial ventures. Additionally, the Committee is 
aware that access to these cities is very difficult and 
requires a 45 day advance notification period. With funding of 
$7,500,000 provided in fiscal year 1999 and an additional 
$1,500,000 in fiscal year 2000, the Committee is providing 
limited funds for this new initiative and will wait to see some 
tangible results before significantly increasing funding.
    Treaty Monitoring.--The Committee believes that there is an 
appropriate role for university research to contribute to this 
program. The Department is directed to ensure there are 
opportunities made available for participants other than the 
national laboratories and that at least 50 percent of the 
funding should be openly competed.

                          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 $21,000,000, the same as the budget request.

                    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, a reduction of $3,900,000 from the budget request 
of $59,100,000, but the same as fiscal year 1999. The fiscal 
year 1999 funding level of $55,200,000 included several one-
time costs which are not included in the base funding for 
fiscal year 2000.
    The Committee is well aware of the recent concerns about 
laboratory security. However, none of the reviews have 
identified lack of spending by the Department of Energy as the 
root cause of the security problems. Instead, the report by a 
Special Investigative Panel of the President's Foreign 
Intelligence Advisory Board found that

          Organizational disarray, managerial neglect, and a 
        culture of arrogance-both at DOE headquarters and the 
        labs themselves-conspired to create an espionage 
        scandal waiting to happen. The physical security 
        efforts of the weapons labs (often called ``guns, 
        guards, and gates'') have had some isolated 
        shortcomings, but on balance they have developed some 
        of the most advanced security technology in the world. 
        However, perpetually weak systems of personnel 
        assurance, information security, and 
        counterintelligence have invited attack by foreign 
        intelligence services.

    Until the Department has demonstrated by actions rather 
than words that it is addressing the fundamental concerns 
raised by the various panels that have addressed security 
issues at the Department, the Committee will not be providing 
additional resources to the same management for the same 
programs going to the same contractors.

                        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 2000 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. In the fiscal year 2001 budget, each program 
organization should clearly identify the funding for security 
investigations

          HIGHLY ENRICHED URANIUM TRANSPARENCY IMPLEMENTATION

    The highly enriched uranium (HEU) transparency 
implementation program is responsible for ensuring that the 
nonproliferation aspects of the February 1993 agreement between 
the United States and the Russian Federation are met. This 
agreement covers the purchase over 20 years of low enriched 
uranium (LEU) derived from at least 500 metric tons of HEU 
removed from dismantled Russian nuclear weapons. Under the 
agreement, conversion of HEU components into LEU is performed 
in Russian facilities. The purpose of the program is to put 
into place those measures agreed to by both sides that permit 
the U.S. to have confidence that the Russian side is abiding by 
the agreement.
    The Committee recommendation is $15,750,000, the same as 
the budget request.

                      INTERNATIONAL NUCLEAR SAFETY

    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 $15,300,000, a reduction of $18,700,000 from the 
budget request. This reduction should be applied to the 
excessive prior year balances being carried in this program. 
The program currently has uncosted balances that are double the 
total new funding provided in fiscal year 1999. From within 
available funds, activities directed at upgrading unsafe 
nuclear reactors are to be fully funded. Funding for all other 
activities proposed in the budget should be reduced 
accordingly.
    Each year the Department seeks to expand this program 
beyond the original mission which was to upgrade unsafe 
reactors. A new focus in fiscal year 2000 is to create 
international environmental safety centers and to initiate work 
at Russian nuclear materials facilities. Previous efforts have 
created international nuclear safety centers and research 
laboratories. A key feature of these new programs is that a 
large portion of the money goes to the Department's national 
laboratories for administrative and programmatic expenses. 
Continued attempts to expand this program are of particular 
concern because there are continuing delays in executing the 
original program to upgrade unsafe nuclear reactors. 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 estimated cost for each reactor, the 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.

                           program direction

    The Committee recommendation of $86,900,000 for program 
direction is a reduction of $3,550,000 from the budget request 
of $90,450,000, but the same as the fiscal year 1999 funding 
level.

                         office of intelligence

    The intelligence program provides information and technical 
analyses on international arms proliferation, foreign nuclear 
programs, and other energy related matters to policy makers in 
the Department and other U.S. Government agencies. The focus of 
the Department's intelligence analysis and reporting is on 
emerging proliferant nations, nuclear technology transfers, 
foreign nuclear materials production, and proliferation 
implications of the breakup of the Former Soviet Union.
    The Committee recommendation is $36,059,000, the same as 
the budget request.

                     office of counterintelligence

    The Office of Counterintelligence is to develop and 
implement an effective counterintelligence program throughout 
the Department of Energy. The goal of the program is to 
identify, neutralize, and deter foreign government or 
industrial intelligence activities directed at or involving DOE 
programs, personnel, facilities, technologies, classified 
information, and unclassified sensitive information.
    The Committee recommendation is $39,200,000, a reduction of 
$591,000 from the budget request, but a significant increase 
over the fiscal year 1999 funding level of $15,641,000.

                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 
$96,600,000, an increase of $4,600,000 over the budget request 
of $92,000,000. The recommendation reduces funding for 
environment, safety and health evaluations to the fiscal year 
1999 level of $8,900,000 and eliminates contractor support for 
the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board liaison.
    Health Effects Studies.--For fiscal year 2000, the 
Committee recommendation for health effects studies is 
$46,956,000, an increase of $6,000,000 over the budget request. 
No funding has been provided in the Environmental Management 
program to support these studies. The Committee is pleased with 
the progress to date in developing public health agendas for 
each DOE site. No funding has been provided in fiscal year 2000 
for medical monitoring programs.
    Occupational Illnesses.--The Committee is aware of the 
concerns about the health of contractor employees who may have 
been exposed to beryllium during the course of their work. 
There are other illnesses where the link between exposure to 
workplace hazards and occupational diseases is difficult to 
establish. The Committee directs the Department to enter into 
an agreement with the Institute of Medicine of the National 
Academy of Sciences to begin a review of available scientific 
evidence to determine the association between workplace 
exposures in DOE facilities and specific diseases.
    Radiation Effects Research Foundation.--The budget request 
of $13,500,000 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 Committee directs the Department to review the 
continued usefulness of this program to the understanding of 
radiation effects since the most useful data for protecting 
current workers and public health and safety pertains to low 
dose radiation exposures.
    Program Direction.--The Committee recommendation for 
program direction is $24,769,000, the same as the budget 
request.

                    worker and community transition

    The Committee's recommendation for the worker and community 
transition program is $20,000,000, a decrease of $10,000,000 
from the budget request of $30,000,000. This reduction should 
be applied to the excessive prior year balances being carried 
in this program.
    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 100,000 contractor employees through the end 
of fiscal year 1998. However, the cost of this program has not 
been insignificant. From fiscal year 1993 through fiscal year 
1998, enhanced severance payments and benefits have totaled 
$786,000,000, and Federal grants to communities have totaled 
$193,000,000, for a total cost of $1,014,000,000.
    Funding at DOE cleanup sites and the nuclear weapons 
complex has stabilized, and the need for enhanced severance 
payments to contractor employees and grants to local 
communities has declined. Worker and community transition is 
not an enduring mission of the government. The Committee does 
not intend to continue to fund this program, and the Department 
should prepare for significantly decreased or no funding in 
fiscal year 2001.
    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 
$190,000,000, a reduction of $10,000,000 from the budget 
request of $200,000,000.
    Funding for Project 99-D-141, Pit Disassembly and 
Conversion Facility, has been reduced by $10,000,000. No 
funding is provided for long-lead procurement.

           national security programs administrative support

    The Committee recommendation includes $25,000,000 to 
provide administrative support for national security programs. 
This will fund Departmental activities performed by offices 
such as the Secretary, Deputy Secretary, and Under Secretary, 
the General Counsel, Chief Financial Officer, Human Resources, 
Congressional Affairs, and Public Affairs.

                     office of hearings and appeals

    The Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) is responsible for 
all of the Department's adjudicatory processes, other than 
those administered by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. 
The Committee recommendation is $3,000,000, 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 $677,600,000, an increase 
of $12,600,000 over the budget request of $665,000,000. 
Additional funding 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 the use of 
$37,700,000 of prior year balances and an offset of $20,000,000 
from user organizations which will fund security investigations 
through other program accounts. The recommendation does not 
include the Department's proposal to fund $12,559,000 of the 
Counterintelligence program by taxing other Departmental 
entities.
    A funding adjustment of $39,000,000 reflects a reduction of 
$9,000,000 for management and operating contractors assigned to 
the Washington metropolitan area and $30,000,000 for 
eliminating Laboratory Directed Research and Development. An 
adjustment of $30,000,000 has been made for contractor travel 
savings.

                     defense nuclear waste disposal




Appropriation, 1999...................................      $189,000,000
Budget Estimate, 2000.................................       112,000,000
Recommended, 2000.....................................       112,000,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 1999...............................       -77,000,000
    Budget Estimate, 2000.............................  ................


    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 1998, the balance owed by the 
Federal government to the Nuclear Waste Fund was approximately 
$1,191,000,000 (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 
$987,830,000 has been appropriated to support the nuclear waste 
repository activities attributable to atomic energy defense 
activities.
    The Committee's recommendation is $112,000,000, the same as 
the budget request. However, the budget request included 
$73,000,000 in new budget authority and the release of 
$39,000,000 which the Committee had earmarked previously for 
interim waste storage. The recommendation does not include 
releasing these funds.

                       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 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.
    The recommendation includes the Administration's proposal 
to discontinue appropriations for the power marketing 
administration's purchase power and wheeling programs. Across 
the country, electricity restructuring is opening transmission 
access, enabling more competitive pricing and creating 
opportunities for customers to form new and innovative 
cooperatives. Customers of the Federal power marketing 
administrations will no longer have to rely on the Federal 
government to arrange power purchase and wheeling services.

                    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 2000, the 
Committee recommendation includes an additional increment of 
$352,000,000 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 necessitate the 
need for Bonneville to obligate borrowing authority in excess 
of such amounts.
    Repayment.--During fiscal year 2000, Bonneville plans to 
pay the Treasury $618,000,000, 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 2000.

      Operation and Maintenance, Southeastern Power Administration





Appropriation, 1999...................................        $7,500,000
Budget Estimate, 2000.................................  ................
Recommended, 2000.....................................  ................
Comparison:
  Appropriation, 1999.................................        -7,500,000
  Budget Estimate, 2000...............................  ................


    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.
    Consistent with the budget request, the Committee 
recommends no funding in fiscal year 2000. No appropriation is 
necessary for fiscal year 2000 funding requirements of 
$4,727,000 due to the availability of $5,500,000 in prior year 
balances. The recommendation includes the Department's proposal 
to transfer $773,000 in surplus funds to the Southwestern Power 
Administration.

      Operation and Maintenance, Southwestern Power Administration





Appropriation, 1999...................................       $26,000,000
Budget Estimate, 2000.................................        27,940,000
Recommended, 2000.....................................        27,940,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 1999...............................        +1,940,000
    Budget Estimate, 2000.............................  ................


    The Southwestern Power Administration is the marketing 
agent for the power generated at Corps of Engineers' 
hydroelectric plants in the six-state area of Kansas, Oklahoma, 
Texas, Missouri, Arkansas, and Louisiana with a total installed 
capacity of 2,158 megawatts. It operates and maintains some 
1,380 miles of transmission lines, 24 generating projects, and 
24 substations, and sells its power at wholesale primarily to 
publicly and cooperatively owned electric distribution 
utilities.
    The Committee recommendation is $27,940,000, including the 
transfer of $773,000 from the Southeastern Power 
Administration. The appropriation and the transfer are the same 
amounts as recommended in the budget request.

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





Appropriation, 1999...................................      $203,000,000
Budget Estimate, 2000.................................       171,471,000
Recommended, 2000.....................................       171,471,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 1999...............................       -31,529,000
    Budget Estimate, 2000.............................  ................


    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, 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 non-power 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 $171,471,000, the same amount as the budget 
request, and a reduction of $31,529,000 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, 1999...................................        $1,010,000
Budget Estimate, 2000.................................         1,309,000
Recommended, 2000.....................................         1,309,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 1999...............................          +299,000
    Budget Estimate, 2000.............................  ................


    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 $1,309,000, the same as the 
amount requested, and $299,000 more than the amount provided in 
the current fiscal year.

                  Federal Energy Regulatory Commission


                         Salaries And Expenses




Appropriation, 1999...................................      $167,500,000
Budget Estimate, 2000.................................       179,900,000
Recommended, 2000.....................................       174,950,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 1999...............................        +7,450,000
    Budget Estimate, 2000.............................        -4,950,000


                Salaries And Expenses--Revenues Applied




Appropriation, 1999...................................     $-167,500,000
Budget Estimate, 2000.................................      -179,900,000
Recommended, 2000.....................................      -174,950,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 1999...............................        -7,450,000
    Budget Estimate, 2000.............................        +4,950,000


    The Committee recommendation is $174,950,000, an increase 
of $7,450,000 over the amount provided in the current fiscal 
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.
    The Committee understands that the Commission is beginning 
to consider how it will implement the stranded cost provisions 
of Order 888 in the context of ``retail turned wholesale'' 
customers. The Committee urges the Commission to stand by its 
commitment to full cost recovery and believes that the agency 
should carefully examine, in this context, the use of a 
methodology that contains a recovery period sufficient to 
ensure the recovery of all generating assets included in state 
approved rates used to serve the departing customers.
    The Committee is concerned that the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission's (FERC) Draft Environmental Impact 
Statement for the proposed market link expansion project in 
Northern New Jersey (known as the TRANSCO pipeline) 
insufficiently addresses environmental impact and public 
safety, most specifically the dangers from a potential 
explosion. The Committee notes that the proposed pipeline's 
route through the Great Swamp National Wildlife Refuge poses a 
tremendous potential risk to Federal land designated by 
Congress as a wildlife preserve in 1966 and urges the 
Commission to provide better safeguards for this Federal land 
in the Final Environmental Impact Statement. The Committee also 
notes that the area in New Jersey where this pipeline is 
planned is one of the most densely populated regions in the 
country and an explosion involving this pipeline would have 
devastating consequences. Safety concerns need to be a high 
priority in any pipeline proposal. Finally, the Committee is 
concerned by the Commission's lack of analysis and future plan 
for capacity needs in this area. Therefore, the Committee 
directs the Commission to provide an analysis of how much 
expansion is anticipated for this area. The analysis should 
provide, but not be limited to, a 20-year outlook of the number 
of pipelines that will be needed to handle future capacity in 
this region.

                        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 have 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 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 or renegotiated, 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 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 may be used to 
augment the $20,000,000 made available for obligation in this 
Act for severance payments and other benefits and community 
assistance grants authorized under the provisions of section 
3161 of the National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 
1993, Public Law 102-484.
    Limitation on Initiation of Requests for Proposals.--
Section 305 provides that none of the funds in this Act may be 
used to initiate requests for proposals or expressions of 
interest for new programs which have not yet been presented to 
Congress in the annual budget submission, and which have not 
yet approved and funded by Congress.
    Transfer and Merger of Unexpended Balances.--Section 306 
permits the transfer and merger of unexpended balances of prior 
appropriations with appropriation accounts established in this 
bill.
    Termination and Cancellation Costs.--Section 307 provides 
that funds may be used to enter into or continue multi-year 
contracts without obligating the estimated costs associated 
with cancellation or termination of the contract.
    Laboratory Directed Research and Development.--Section 308 
provides that none of the funds in this Act may be used for 
Laboratory Directed Research and Development (LDRD). Currently, 
the Department of Energy laboratory directors are allowed to 
take up to six percent from all operating funding sent the 
laboratory to use for research and development of a creative 
and innovative nature selected by the director of a laboratory. 
They have the flexibility to use this funding with little 
Congressional oversight. While the Committee does not dispute 
the value of some level of funding for these activities, there 
are many instances where this funding has been used to augment 
program funding, circumvent program funding denials, initiate 
new programs which are not part of the Department's mission, 
and seek business and marketing advantages. The Committee is 
particularly concerned that work performed at the Departmental 
laboratories to clean up contaminated sites incurs an 
additional charge of six percent. In light of the Committee's 
constrained funding levels, the Committee has eliminated all 
funding for LDRD in fiscal year 2000.
    Contractor Travel.--Section 309 provides that not more than 
$125,000,000 of the funds provided in this Act for the 
Department of Energy are available for reimbursement of 
contractor travel expenses.
    Submission of Laboratory Funding Plans.--Section 310 
provides that none of the funds in this Act or any future 
appropriations Act may be expended under a contract for the 
management and operation of any of the Department's weapons 
laboratories except in accordance with a Laboratory Funding 
Plan that has been approved by the Secretary of Energy. The 
Committee has included this provision to ensure that the 
Secretary has a greater role in overseeing the activities 
funded by Federal dollars at the weapons laboratories. The 
Committee expects that Laboratory Funding Plans will be 
submitted by the Laboratory Directors at such level of detail 
as the Secretary may require to enable him to exercise his role 
as the Federal official with ultimate responsibility for the 
activities of these facilities.
    The Committee believes that imposing this requirement for 
Secretarial approval prior to expenditure of appropriated funds 
at the laboratories will increase transparency of laboratory 
fiscal management and improve communications with the 
Department regarding planned activities. The Department would 
benefit from receiving a greater level of detail in the budget 
proposal process than has been the case in the past.
    Each broad budget category of the Department's programs: 
e.g. Stockpile Stewardship and Stockpile Management in the 
Weapons Program, should be supported by a breakdown structure 
that includes each program element. Each program element, in 
turn, would be broken down into more detailed work packages. 
Departmental personnel are expected to work closely with the 
weapons laboratories at this level. In addition to the benefit 
that would result from both parties achieving a better 
understanding of expectations and planned activities early in 
the budget process, the availability of this level of detail 
will provide the basis for the weapons laboratories to 
construct the Laboratory Funding Plans for approval in 
accordance with the requirements of this section.
    Contract Approvals.--Section 311 requires the Secretary of 
Energy to become directly involved in several details of 
laboratory management that are currently executed at the field 
office and Headquarters program office level. Recent events, 
such as the security breach at Los Alamos, have once again 
demonstrated the need for the Department to take control of the 
activities of its laboratories. Such involvement on the part of 
the Secretary will ensure closer oversight of laboratory 
spending, more uniformity in the application of incentives, 
greater responsiveness from laboratory officials, and, 
generally, a much needed high level of attention to Laboratory 
issues within the Department. The Committee is requiring this 
for the three nuclear weapons laboratories, but encourages the 
Secretary to extend this requirement to all multi-purpose 
national laboratories.
    Centers and Partnerships Established for Various Purposes 
at DOE Laboratories.--Section 312 provides that none of the 
funds in the Act may be used to establish or maintain any 
center or programmatic partnership at a Department of Energy 
Laboratory or facility unless such funds have been specifically 
identified in the budget submission. Department of Energy 
laboratories have been establishing independent centers and 
funding them through a combination of direct program funds, 
overhead, and laboratory directed research and development 
funds with little oversight. These centers cover a broad range 
of programs: the Center for Global Security Research; the 
Center for International Security Affairs; the Center for Space 
Science and Exploration, and the Partnership for Natural 
Disaster Reduction. The merits of these centers and 
partnerships are not reviewed nor the costs identified in the 
Department's budget submission. The Committee objects to this 
process and has deleted all funding for such activities.
    The Department should provide by November 30, 1999, a 
report identifying all centers which have been established, the 
funding provided in fiscal year 1999 and proposed for fiscal 
year 2000, and the source of that funding. The report should 
provide a brief description of each center and the Assistant 
Secretary who approved the establishment of the center.
    Waiving Overhead and Added Factor Charges.--Section 313 
provides that none of the funds provided in this Act may be 
used to waive overhead charges for other Federal agencies or 
for other Department of Energy programs. The Department of 
Energy's laboratories have been trying to lower the cost of 
doing business with other Federal agencies by eliminating the 
overhead or added factor which the Department applies to work 
performed for other Federal agencies. This has the effect of 
augmenting other Federal agencies budgets while penalizing the 
rest of the Department. The Inspector General has also 
identified instances in which DOE field offices are not 
equitably distributing overhead costs resulting in windfalls 
for some programs at the expense of other DOE programs. The 
Committee objects to this type of inequitable financial 
practice.
    Repeal of Prohibitions on Studies at Federal Public Power 
Authorities.--Section 314 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 the assets of the six Federal 
public power authorities. These provisions inhibit full 
participation by the Federal public power authorities as the 
Nation pursues extensive discussions on electricity 
restructuring.
    Restart of the High Flux Beam Reactor.--Section 315 
provides that no funds may be used to restart the High Flux 
Beam Reactor at the Brookhaven National Laboratory in New York.
    Limitation on Federal Power Marketing Administrations.--
Section 316 provides that no funds may be used by the Federal 
power marketing administrations for construction, expansion, or 
upgrades of fiber optic telecommunication lines, associated 
facilities, or purchase of equipment directly related to such 
efforts.
    Additional Limitation on Federal Power Marketing 
Administrations.--Section 317 provides that no funds may be 
used by the Federal power marketing administrations to: rent or 
sell construction equipment, provide construction-type 
services, perform contract construction work, provide 
construction engineering services, or provide financing or 
leasing services for construction, maintenance, operational, or 
engineering services.
                                TITLE IV

                          INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

                    Appalachian Regional Commission




Appropriation, 1999...................................       $66,400,000
Budget Estimate, 2000.................................        66,400,000
Recommended, 2000.....................................        60,000,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 1999...............................        -6,400,000
    Budget Estimate, 2000.............................        -6,400,000


    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 $60,000,000, a reduction of $6,400,000 
from the budget request.
    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, 1999...................................       $16,500,000
Budget Estimate, 2000.................................        17,500,000
Recommended, 2000.....................................        16,500,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 1999...............................  ................
    Budget Estimate, 2000.............................        -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.

                           Denali Commission




Appropriation, 1999...................................       $20,000,000
Budget Estimate, 2000.................................  ................
Recommended, 2000.....................................  ................
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 1999...............................       -20,000,000
    Budget Estimate, 2000.............................  ................


    The bill includes language rescinding $18,000,000 
appropriated in Public Law 105-245 for the Denali Commission.

                     Nuclear Regulatory Commission

                          Gross Appropriation




Appropriation, 1999...................................      $465,000,000
Budget Estimate, 2000.................................       465,400,000
Recommended, 2000.....................................       455,400,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 1999...............................        -9,600,000
    Budget Estimate, 2000.............................       -10,000,000


                                Revenues




Appropriation, 1999...................................     $-444,800,000
Budget Estimate, 2000.................................      -442,400,000
Recommended, 2000.....................................      -432,400,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 1999...............................       +12,400,000
    Budget Estimate, 2000.............................       +10,000,000


                           Net Appropriation




Appropriation, 1999...................................       $20,200,000
Budget Estimate, 2000.................................        23,000,000
Recommended, 2000.....................................        23,000,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 1999...............................        +2,800,000
    Budget Estimate, 2000.............................  ................


    The Committee recommendation is $455,400,000, a reduction 
of $9,600,000 from the current fiscal year and $10,000,000 from 
the budget request. The recommendation includes $23,000,000 to 
be made available from the Nuclear Waste Fund and the General 
Fund, including $19,150,000 to support the Department of 
Energy's efforts to characterize Yucca Mountain as a potential 
site for a permanent nuclear waste repository. The 
recommendation also includes $1,200,000, the same amount as the 
budget request, for the Commission's continuing efforts to 
study and provide technical assistance relating to external 
regulation of certain Department of Energy facilities, 
$2,050,000 for work related to the Hanford Tank Waste 
Remediation System and $600,000 for assistance to the Agency 
for International Development for nuclear safety related work 
in the Former Soviet Union and Eastern European countries.
    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 the Commission has responded 
positively to a number of issues that the Congress has raised 
over the last few years with respect to moving toward a more 
efficient and effective regulatory system. The Commission as a 
whole, the five Commissioners individually, and the Commission 
staff deserve a great deal of credit for the accomplishments in 
the last year.
    The Committee observes that much work remains to be done 
before the benefits of these reform initiatives are realized. 
The Committee expects that these changes, when implemented, 
will result in lower budget requirements and has therefore 
recommended a lower amount for fiscal year 2000 than requested 
by the Commission. Moreover, the Committee believes that for 
these changes to occur, the Commission must be able to decide 
what organizational structure will best enable it to meet its 
responsibilities. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission, as 
successor to the Atomic Energy Commission, was established as 
an independent agency by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as 
amended. In subsequent legislation, the Commission was 
statutorily required to establish certain offices and 
functions. The Committee believes the Commission is in the best 
position to determine what organizational structure will best 
enable it to fulfill its statutory mandate to assure adequate 
protection of public health and safety and the common defense 
and security associated with the use of nuclear materials. 
Therefore, the Committee urges the Commission to consider 
submitting legislation to repeal those provisions of law.
    The Committee believes that one of the most important 
challenges facing the Commission is the renewal of licenses for 
currently operating reactors. The Committee is pleased that the 
Commission has taken steps to put a two-year review process for 
license renewal applications in place. The Committee directs 
the Commission to provide a report that describes the lessons 
learned from the initial license renewal reviews and the 
actions being taken to ensure that the two-year timetable will 
be sustained and improved upon for future license renewal 
applicants.
    The Committee supports the move to safety-focused, 
performance-based regulation. The Committee is aware that the 
Commission has recently directed the Commission staff to begin 
to revise the regulations to change the scope and technical 
requirements based on safety insights and operating experience. 
The Committee notes, however, that no timetable was given for 
completing this effort. The Committee directs the Commission to 
examine reforms to the scope of power reactor regulations that 
will promote a higher level of confidence that the revised 
regulations, when issued, are consistent with the fundamental 
accountability of the Commission and that regulations which do 
not contribute to adequate protection are eliminated. The 
Committee directs that these efforts be completed no later than 
December 31, 2000.
    In addition, the Committee directs the Commission to review 
existing regulations to reform those that are outdated or 
paperwork oriented to a set of regulations that are 
performance-based. This effort should also be completed by 
2004.
    The Committee directs the Commission to continue to provide 
monthly reports on the status of its licensing and regulatory 
duties. The Committee notes that in addition to the power 
reactors regulations contained on 10 CFR 50, other parts 
affecting power reactor operation are in need of reform. The 
Commission should include in the monthly report to Congress its 
activity with respect to these other parts, particularly its 
efforts to harmonize its security regulations with part 50.
    The Committee recommendation includes authority for the 
Commission to collect annual charges not to exceed a total of 
$432,400,000 from licensees in fiscal year 2000. The Committee 
recommendation includes an appropriation of $19,150,000 to be 
made available to the Nuclear Waste Fund and another $4,000,000 
to be made available from the General Fund for other Federal 
agency activities. Due to severe budget constraints, the 
Committee was unable to provide the approximately $50,000,000 
for Agreement State oversight, international activities, 
generic decommissioning and reclamation activities, the site 
decommissioning management program, regulatory support to 
Agreement States, the small entities program, and support to 
nonprofit educational institutions. The Committee urges the 
Commission and the Administration to provide statutory language 
and budget resources needed to remove these expenditures from 
the fee base currently imposed on licensees.
    The Committee has recommended a $12,400,000 reduction for 
fiscal year 2000 to the regulatory and non-Federal programs. 
Consistent with the new regulatory practices and procedures, 
the Committee expects reductions in future budget requests and 
is committed to ensuring that out-year budget requirements will 
be reduced. The Commission is directed to include a 
comprehensive five-year plan as part of its fiscal year 2001 
budget request. The five-year plan must provide a detailed 
staffing and organizational analysis and corresponding budget 
requirements for fiscal years 2001 through 2005.

                      Office of Inspector General


                          Gross Appropriation




Appropriation, 1999...................................        $4,800,000
Budget Estimate, 2000.................................         6,000,000
Recommended, 2000.....................................         6,000,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 1999...............................        +1,200,000
    Budget Estimate, 2000.............................  ................


                                Revenues




Appropriation, 1999...................................       $-4,800,000
Budget Estimate, 2000.................................        -6,000,000
Recommended, 2000.....................................        -6,000,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 1999...............................        -1,200,000
    Budget Estimate, 2000.............................  ................


    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 $6,000,000, 
equal to the amount of the budget request, and $1,200,000 more 
than the amount provided in the current fiscal year. 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, 1999...................................        $2,600,000
Budget Estimate, 2000.................................         3,150,000
Recommended, 2000.....................................         2,600,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 1999...............................  ................
    Budget Estimate, 2000.............................          -550,000


    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 
$550,000 from the budget request.

                       Tennessee Valley Authority





Appropriation, 1999...................................       $50,000,000
Budget Estimate, 2000.................................         7,000,000
Recommended, 2000.....................................  ................
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 1999...............................       -50,000,000
    Budget Estimate, 2000.............................        -7,000,000


    Final year appropriations for the non-power functions of 
the Tennessee Valley Authority were provided by Congress for 
fiscal year 1999.
                                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.
    Extension of Authority for Nuclear Regulatory Commission to 
Collect Fees and Charges.--Section 504 provides a one-year 
extension of the authority of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 
to collect fees and charges to offset appropriated funds.
    Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, Lower Brule Sioux Tribe, and 
State of South Dakota Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat 
Restoration.--Section 505 repeals the Cheyenne River Sioux 
Tribe, Lower Brule Sioux Tribe, and State of South Dakota 
Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat Restoration Act.
    Denali Commission.--Section 506 repeals legislation 
authorizing the Denali Commission and amendments thereto.
    Technical Change.--Section 507 makes a technical change to 
the provision of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 
authorizing reimbursement for work by non-Federal interests on 
certain civil works projects of the Corps of Engineers.
    Prohibition on Implementation of Kyoto Protocol.--Section 
508 prohibits the use of funds to propose or issue rules, 
regulations, decrees or orders for implementing the Kyoto 
Protocol prior to Senate ratification.
              HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES REPORT REQUIREMENTS

    The following items are included in accordance with various 
requirements of the Rules of the House of Representatives.

                        Constitutional Authority

    Clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives states that: ``Each report of a committee on a 
public bill or public joint resolution shall contain the 
following: (1) A statement citing the specific powers granted 
to Congress in the Constitution to enact the law proposed by 
the bill or joint resolution.''
    The Committee on Appropriations bases its authority to 
report this legislation from Clause 7 of Section 9 of Article I 
of the 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

    Clause 3(c)2 of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives requires an explanation of compliance with 
section 308(a)(1)(A) of the Congressional Budget and 
Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-344), as 
amended, which requires that the report accompanying a bill 
providing new budget authority contain a statement detailing 
how that authority compares with the reports submitted under 
section 302 of the Act for the most recently agreed to 
concurrent resolution on the budget for the fiscal year from 
the Committee's section 302(a) allocation. This information 
follows:

                                            [In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                302(b) Allocation                         This bill
                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Budget authority       Outlays        Budget authority       Outlays
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary.......................             19,390             19,168             20,190             19,673
Mandatory...........................  .................  .................  .................  .................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      Five-Year Outlay Projections

    In compliance with section 308(a)(1)(B) of the 
Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 
(Public Law 93-344), as amended, the following table contains 
five-year projections associated with the budget authority in 
the accompanying bill:


                                                            Millions

Budget Authority......................................            20,190
Outlays:
    2000..............................................            12,131
    2001..............................................             6,342
    2002..............................................             1,310
    2003..............................................                83
    2004 and beyond...................................               205


               Assistance to State and Local Governments

    In accordance with section 308(a)(1)(C) of the 
Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 
(Public Law 93-344), as amended, the financial assistance to 
State and local governments is as follows:


                                                            Millions

Budget authority......................................                43
Fiscal year 2000 outlays resulting therefrom..........                10


                           Transfer of Funds

    Pursuant to clause 3(f)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the following is submitted describing 
the transfer of funds provided in the accompanying bill.
    The following table shows the appropriations affected by 
the transfers:
    Under Title I, Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action 
Program:

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

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

          * * * of which $2,247,000 shall be available for 
        transfer to the Upper Colorado River Basin Fund and 
        $24,089,000 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 appropriations under this heading: * * *

    Under Title II, Bureau of Reclamation, California Bay-Delta 
Restoration:

          * * * and 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, Energy Supply:

          * * * of which $820,953 shall be derived by transfer 
        from the Geothermal Resources Development Fund, and of 
        which $5,000,000 shall be derived by transfer from the 
        United States Enrichment Corporation Fund.

    Under Title III, Operation and Maintenance, Southwestern 
Power Administration:

          * * * of which $773,000 shall be derived by transfer 
        from unobligated balances in ``Operation and 
        Maintenance, Southeastern Power Administration'' * * *

    Under Title, III, General Provisions:

          Sec. 306. 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.

                              Rescissions

    Pursuant to clause 3(f)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the following table is submitted 
describing the rescissions recommended in the accompanying 
bill:
    The bill proposes to rescind $18,000,000 from funds 
provided in Public Law 105-245 for the Denali Commission.

               Changes in the Application of Existing Law

    Pursuant to clause 3(f)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the following statements are 
submitted describing the effect of provisions in the 
accompanying bill which directly or indirectly change the 
application of existing law.

                      Title I--Corps of Engineers

    Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, 
General Investigations, providing for detailed studies and 
plans and specifications of projects prior to construction. 
Language is also included under General Investigations 
directing the Secretary of the Army to use unobligated funds 
appropriated in Public Law 102-377 for the feasibility phase of 
the Red River navigation, Southwest Arkansas, study.
    Language has been included under Construction, General, 
permitting the use of funds from the Inland Waterways Trust 
Fund and the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund.
    Language has been included under Operation and Maintenance, 
General, stating the following:

          * * * 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; * * *

    Language has been included under Operation and Maintenance, 
General, providing for construction, operation, and maintenance 
of outdoor recreation facilities and permitting the use of 
funds from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund.
    Language has been included under the Regulatory Program 
regarding the regulation of navigable waters and wetlands. 
Language is also included directing the Corps of Engineers to 
implement an administrative appeals process and to prepare 
analyses of the impacts of the proposed replacement permits for 
the nationwide permit 26. Language is also included prohibiting 
termination of the nationwide permit 26 until such time as the 
aforementioned analyses are submitted to jurisdictional 
committees of Congress.
    Language has been included under General Expenses regarding 
support of 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. 
Language is also included prohibiting the use of funds to 
support an office of congressional affairs within the executive 
office of the Chief of Engineers. Language is also included 
prohibiting the use of funds to support an office of 
congressional affairs within the executive office of the Chief 
of Engineers. Language is also included prohibiting the use of 
funds to support more than one regional office in each Corps of 
Engineers division.
    Language has been included under Administrative Provision 
providing that funds are available for purchase and hire of 
motor vehicles.

                    Title II--Department of Interior

    Language has been included under Water and Related 
Resources providing that funds are available for fulfilling 
Federal responsibilities to Native Americans and for grants to 
and cooperative agreements with state and local governments and 
Indian tribes. Language is included under Water and Related 
Resources providing that such sums as necessary may be advanced 
to the Colorado River Dam Fund. Language is included under 
Water and Related Resources which permits fund transfers within 
the overall appropriation to the Upper Colorado River Basin 
Fund and the Lower Colorado River Basin Development Fund. 
Language is included under Water and Related Resources 
providing that funds may be derived from the Reclamation Fund 
of the special fee account established by 16 U.S.C. 460l--
6a(i). Language is included under Water and Related Resources 
which provides that funds contributed by non-Federal entities 
shall be available for expenditure. Language is included 
providing that funds advanced for operation and maintenance of 
reclamation facilities are to be credited to the Water and 
Related Resources account. Language is also included permitting 
the use of funds available for the Departmental Irrigation 
Drainage Program for site remediation on a non-reimbursable 
basis.
    Language has been included under the Bureau of Reclamation 
Loan Program providing that funds may be derived from the 
Reclamation Fund.
    Language has been included under the Central Valley Project 
Restoration Fund directing the Bureau of Reclamation to assess 
and collect the full amount of additional mitigation and 
restoration payments authorized by section 3407(d) of Public 
Law 102-575.
    Language has been included under the California Bay-Delta 
Restoration account, imposing limitations on the obligation of 
funds for ecosystem restoration and other activities.

                    Title III--Department of Energy

    Language has been included under Nuclear Waste Disposal 
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 has been 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 has been 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 has been included under the Other Defense 
Activities account providing not to exceed $5,000 for official 
reception and representation expenses for national security and 
nonproliferation activities.
    Language has been included under the Bonneville Power 
Administration account approving the Northeast Oregon Hatchery 
Master Plan, providing not to exceed $1,500 for official 
reception and representation expenses, and precluding any new 
direct loan obligations.
    Language has been 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 has been 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 has been 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 has been 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 has been 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 has been included under Department of Energy, 
General Provisions, prohibiting the use of funds to prepare 
workforce restructuring plans or to provide enhanced severance 
payments and other benefits for Department of Energy employees 
under section 3161 of Public Law 102-484.
    Language has been included under Department of Energy, 
General Provisions, prohibiting the use of funds to augment the 
funding provided for section 3161 of Public Law 102-484.
    Language has been included under Department of Energy, 
General Provisions, prohibiting the use of funds to prepare or 
initiate requests for proposals for programs which have not yet 
been funded by Congress.
    Language has been included under Department of Energy, 
General Provisions, providing that unexpended balances of prior 
appropriations may be transferred and merged with new 
appropriation accounts established in this Act.
    Language has been included under Department of Energy, 
General Provisions, permitting the use of funds to enter into 
or continue multi-year contracts without obligating the 
estimated costs associated with cancellation or termination of 
the contract.
    Language has been included under Department of Energy, 
General Provisions, prohibiting the use of funds for Laboratory 
Directed Research and Development and Director's Discretionary 
Research and Development.
    Language has been included under Department of Energy, 
General Provisions, limiting to no more than $125,000,000 the 
funds available for reimbursement of contractor travel 
expenses.
    Language has been included under Department of Energy, 
General Provisions, prohibiting the expenditure of funds under 
a laboratory contract unless the funds are expended in 
accordance with a Laboratory Funding Plan that has been 
approved by the Secretary of Energy.
    Language has been included under Department of Energy, 
General Provisions, requiring the Secretary of Energy to review 
and approve various contractor fees and costs.
    Language has been included under Department of Energy, 
General Provisions, prohibiting the expenditure of funds to 
establish independent program centers or partnerships at a 
Department of Energy facility or laboratory unless such funds 
are specifically identified in the budget.
    Language has been included under Department of Energy, 
General Provisions, prohibiting the Department from waiving 
overhead or added factor charges for work performed for other 
Federal agencies or other Department of Energy programs.
    Language has been included under Department of Energy, 
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 has been included under General Provisions 
prohibiting the restart of the High Flux Beam Reactor.
    Language has been included under General Provisions 
prohibiting the use of funds by the Federal power marketing 
administrations for construction, expansion, or upgrades of 
fiber optic telecommunications lines, associated facilities, or 
purchase of equipment directly related to such efforts.
    Language has been included under General Provisions 
prohibiting the use of funds by the Federal power marketing 
administrations to provide construction equipment or related 
services to other entities.

                     title iv--independent agencies

    Language has been included under the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission excluding 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 has been included under the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission, Office of Inspector General, to utilize revenues 
collected to offset appropriations, notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 
3302. This language has been carried in previous appropriations 
Acts.

                      title v--general provisions

    Language has been included under General Provisions 
prohibiting the use of funds in this Act to influence 
congressional action on any legislation or appropriation 
matters pending before Congress.
    Language has been included under General Provisions 
requiring, to the greatest 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 has been 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 has been 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 has been 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 has been included under General Provisions 
repealing the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, Lower Brule Sioux 
Tribe, and State of South Dakota Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat 
Restoration Act.
    Language has been included under General Provisions 
repealing legislation, as amended, authorizing the Denali 
Commission.
    Language has been included under General Provisions making 
a technical change to the provision of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1996 authorizing reimbursement for work by 
non-Federal interests on certain civil works projects of the 
Corps of Engineers.
    Language has been included under General Provisions 
prohibiting the use of funds to propose or issue rules, 
regulations, decrees or orders for implementing the Kyoto 
Protocol prior to Senate ratification.

                  Appropriations Not Authorized by Law

    Pursuant to clause 3(f)(1) of rule XIII of the rules of the 
House of Representatives, the following table lists the 
appropriations in the accompanying bill which are not 
authorized by law:
    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
    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 Clause 3 of Rule XIII (Ramseyer Rule)

    In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by 
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law 
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in 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 102-337, 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, 
1999''] ``September 30, 2000.''
    The accompanying bill would repeal Title VI, division C, of 
Public Law 105-277, Making Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency 
Supplemental Appropriations for Fiscal Year 1999.

  [TITLE VI--CHEYENNE RIVER SIOUX TRIBE, LOWER BRULE SIOUX TRIBE, AND 
     STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA TERRESTRIAL WILDLIFE HABITAT RESTORATION


SEC. 601. DEFINITIONS.

    In this title, the following definitions apply:
          (1) Restoration.--The term ``restoration'' means 
        mitigation of the habitat of wildlife.
          (2) Terrestrial wildlife habitat.--The term 
        ``terrestrial wildlife habitat'' means a habitat for a 
        wildlife species (including game and nongame species) 
        that existed or exists on an upland habitat (including 
        a prairie grassland, woodland, bottom land forest, 
        scrub, or shrub) or an emergent wetland habitat.
          (3) Wildlife.--The term ``wildlife'' has the meaning 
        given the term in section 8 of the Fish and Wildlife 
        Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. 666b).

SEC. 602. TERRESTRIAL WILDLIFE HABITAT RESTORATION.

    (a) Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat Restoration Plans.--
          (1) In general.--In accordance with this subsection 
        and in consultation with the Secretary and the 
        Secretary of the Interior, the State of South Dakota, 
        the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, and the Lower Brule 
        Sioux Tribe shall, as a condition of the receipt of 
        funds under this title, each develop a plan for the 
        restoration of terrestrial wildlife habitat loss that 
        occurred as a result of flooding related to the Big 
        Bend and Oahe projects carried out as part of the Pick-
        Sloan Missouri River Basin program.
          (2) Submission of plan to secretary.--On completion 
        of a plan for terrestrial wildlife habitat restoration, 
        the State of South Dakota, the Cheyenne River Sioux 
        Tribe, and the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe shall submit the 
        plan to the Secretary.
          (3) Review by secretary and submission to 
        committees.--The Secretary shall review the plan and 
        submit the plan, with any comments, to the appropriate 
        committees of the Senate and the House of 
        Representatives.
          (4) Funding for carrying out plans.--
                  (A) State of south dakota.--
                          (i) Notification.--On receipt of the 
                        plan for terrestrial wildlife habitat 
                        restoration submitted by the State of 
                        South Dakota, each of the Committees 
                        referred to in paragraph (3) shall 
                        notify the Secretary of the Treasury of 
                        the receipt of the plan.
                          (ii) Availability of funds.--On 
                        notification in accordance with clause 
                        (i), the Secretary of the Treasury 
                        shall make available in the State of 
                        South Dakota funds from the South 
                        Dakota Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat 
                        Restoration Trust Fund established 
                        under section 803, to be used to carry 
                        out the plan for terrestrial wildlife 
                        habitat restoration submitted by the 
                        State and only after the Trust Fund is 
                        fully capitalized.
                  (B) Cheyenne river sioux tribe and lower 
                brule sioux tribe.--
                          (i) Notification.--On receipt of the 
                        plan for terrestrial wildlife habitat 
                        restoration submitted by the Cheyenne 
                        River Sioux Tribe and the Lower Brule 
                        Sioux Tribe, each of the Committees 
                        referred to in paragraph (3) shall 
                        notify the Secretary of the Treasury of 
                        the receipt of each of the plans.
                          (ii) Availability of funds.--On 
                        notification in accordance with clause 
                        (i), the Secretary of the Treasury 
                        shall make available to the Cheyenne 
                        River Sioux Tribe and the Lower Brule 
                        Sioux Tribe funds from the Cheyenne 
                        River Sioux Tribe Terrestrial Wildlife 
                        Habitat Restoration Trust Fund and the 
                        Lower Brule Sioux Tribe Terrestrial 
                        Wildlife Habitat Restoration Trust 
                        Fund, respectively, established under 
                        section 804, to be used to carry out 
                        the plan for terrestrial wildlife 
                        habitat restoration submitted by the 
                        Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe and the 
                        Lower Brule Sioux Tribe, respectively, 
                        and only after the Trust Fund is fully 
                        capitalized.
                  (C) Transition period.--
                          (i) In general.--During the period 
                        described in clause (ii), the Secretary 
                        shall--
                                  (I) fund the terrestrial 
                                wildlife habitat restoration 
                                programs being carried out on 
                                the date of enactment of this 
                                Act on Oahe and Big Bend 
                                project land and the plans 
                                established under this section 
                                at a level that does not exceed 
                                the highest amount of funding 
                                that was provided for the 
                                programs during a previous 
                                fiscal year; and
                                  (II) fund the activities 
                                described in sections 803(d)(3) 
                                and 804(d)(3).
                          (ii) Period.--Clause (i) shall apply 
                        during the period.--
                                (I) beginning on the date of 
                                enactment of this Act; and
                                  (II) ending on the date on 
                                which funds are made available 
                                for use from the South Dakota 
                                Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat 
                                Restoration Trust Fund under 
                                section 803(d)(3)(A)(i) and the 
                                Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe 
                                Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat 
                                Restoration Trust Fund and the 
                                Lower Brule Sioux Tribe 
                                Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat 
                                Restoration Trust Fund under 
                                section 804(d)(3)(A)(i).
    (b) Programs for the Purchase of Wildlife Habitat Leases.--
          (1) In general.--The State of South Dakota may use 
        funds made available under section 803(d)(3)(A)(iii) to 
        develop a program for the purchase of wildlife habitat 
        leases that meets the requirements of this subsection.
          (2) Development of a plan.--
                  (A) In general.--If the State of South 
                Dakota, the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, or the 
                Lower Brule Sioux Tribe elects to conduct a 
                program under this subsection, the State of 
                South Dakota, the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, 
                or the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe (in consultation 
                with the United States Fish and Wildlife 
                Service and the Secretary and with an 
                opportunity for public comment) shall develop a 
                plan to lease land for the protection and 
                development of wildlife habitat, including 
                habitat for threatened and endangered species, 
                associated with the Missouri River ecosystem.
                  (B) Use for program.--The plan shall be used 
                by the State of South Dakota, the Cheyenne 
                River Sioux Tribe, or the Lower Brule Sioux 
                Tribe in carrying out the program carried out 
                under paragraph (1).
          (3) Conditions of leases.--Each lease covered under a 
        program carried out under paragraph (1) shall specify 
        that the owner of the property that is subject to the 
        lease shall provide--
                  (A) public access for sportsmen during 
                hunting season; and
                  (B) public access for other outdoor uses 
                covered under the lease, as negotiated by the 
                landowner and the State of South Dakota, the 
                Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, or the Lower Brule 
                Sioux Tribe.
          (4) Use of Assistance.--
                  (A) State of South Dakota.--If the State of 
                South Dakota conducts a program under this 
                subsection, the State may use funds made 
                available under section 803(d)(3)(A)(iii) to--
                          (i) acquire easements, rights-of-way, 
                        or leases for management and protection 
                        of wildlife habitat, including habitat 
                        for threatened and endangered species, 
                        and public access to wildlife on 
                        private property in the State of South 
                        Dakota;
                          (ii) create public access to Federal 
                        or State land through the purchase of 
                        easements of rights-of-way that 
                        traverse such private property; or
                          (iii) lease land for the creation or 
                        restoration of a wetland on such 
                        private property.
                  (B) Cheyenne river sioux tribe and lower 
                brule sioux tribe.--If the Cheyenne River Sioux 
                Tribe or the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe conducts a 
                program under this subsection, the Tribe may 
                use funds made available under section 
                804(d)(3)(A)(iii) for the purposes described in 
                subparagraph (A).
    (c) Federal Obligation for Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat 
Mitigation for the Big Bend and Oahe Projects in South 
Dakota.--The establishment of the trust funds under sections 
803 and 804 and the development and implementation of plans for 
terrestrial wildlife habitat restoration developed by the State 
of South Dakota, the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, and the Lower 
Brule Sioux Tribe in accordance with this section shall be 
considered to satisfy the Federal obligation under the Fish and 
Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.) for 
terrestrial wildlife habitat mitigation for the State of South 
Dakota, the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, and the Lower Brule 
Sioux Tribe for the Big Bend and Oahe projects carried out as 
part of the Pick-Sloan Missouri River Basin program.

SEC. 603. SOUTH DAKOTA TERRESTRIAL WILDLIFE HABITAT RESTORATION TRUST 
                    FUND.

    (a) Establishment.--There is established in the Treasury of 
the United States a fund to be known as the ``South Dakota 
Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat Restoration Trust Fund'' (referred 
to in this section as the ``Fund'').
    (b) Funding.--For the fiscal year during which this Act is 
enacted and each fiscal year thereafter until the aggregate 
amount deposited in the Fund under this subsection is equal to 
at least $108,000,000, the Secretary of the Treasury shall 
deposit $10,000,000 in the Fund.
    (c) Investments.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall 
invest the amounts deposited under subsection (b) only in 
interest-bearing obligations of the United States or in 
obligations guaranteed by the United States or in obligations 
guaranteed by the United States as to both principal and 
interest.
    (d) Payments.--
          (1) In general.--All amounts credited as interest 
        under subsection (c) shall be available, without fiscal 
        year limitation, to the State of South Dakota for use 
        in accordance with paragraph (3) after the Fund has 
        been fully capitalized.
          (2) Withdrawal and transfer of funds.--Subject to 
        section 802(a)(4)(A), the Secretary of the Treasury 
        shall withdraw amounts credited as interest under 
        paragraph (1) and transfer the amounts to the State of 
        South Dakota for use as State funds in accordance with 
        paragraph (3) after the Fund has been fully 
        capitalized.
          (3) Use of transferred funds.--
                  (A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), 
                the State of South Dakota shall use the amounts 
                transferred under paragraph (2) only to--
                         (i) fully fund the annually scheduled 
                        work described in the terrestrial 
                        wildlife habitat restoration plan of 
                        the State developed under section 
                        802(a); and
                          (ii) with any remaining funds--
                                  (I) protect archaeological, 
                                historical, and cultural sites 
                                located along the Missouri 
                                River on land transferred to 
                                the State;
                                  (II) fund all costs 
                                associated with the ownership, 
                                management, operation, 
                                administration, maintenance, 
                                and development of recreation 
                                areas and other lands that are 
                                transferred to the State of 
                                South Dakota by the Secretary;
                                  (III) purchase and administer 
                                wildlife habitat leases under 
                                section 802(b);
                                  (IV) carry out other 
                                activities described in section 
                                802; and
                                  (V) develop and maintain 
                                public access to, and protect, 
                                wildlife habitat and recreation 
                                areas along the Missouri River.
                  (B) Prohibition.--The amounts transferred 
                under paragraph (2) shall not be used for the 
                purchase of land in fee title.
    (e) Transfers and Withdrawals.--Except as provided in 
subsection (d), the Secretary of the Treasury may not transfer 
or withdraw any amount deposited under subsection (b).
    (f) Administrative Expenses.--There are authorized to be 
appropriated to the Secretary of the Treasury such sums as are 
necessary to pay the administrative expenses of the Fund.

SEC. 604. CHEYENNE RIVER SIOUX TRIBE AND LOWER BRULE SIOUX TRIBE 
                    TERRESTRIAL WILDLIFE HABITAT RESTORATION TRUST 
                    FUNDS.

    (a) Establishment.--There are established in the Treasury 
of the United States 2 funds to be known as the ``Cheyenne 
River Sioux Tribe Terrestrial Wildlife Restoration Trust Fund'' 
and the ``Lower Brule Sioux Tribe Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat 
Restoration Trust Fund'' (each of which is referred to in this 
section as a ``Fund'').
    (b) Funding.--
          (1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), for the 
        fiscal year during which this Act is enacted and each 
        fiscal year thereafter until the aggregate amount 
        deposited in the Funds under this subsection is equal 
        to at least $57,400,000, the Secretary of the Treasury 
        shall deposit $5,000,000 in the Funds.
          (2) Allocation.--Of the total amount of funds 
        deposited into the Funds for a fiscal year, the 
        Secretary of the Treasury shall deposit--
                  (A) 74 percent of the funds into the Cheyenne 
                River Sioux Tribe Terrestrial Wildlife 
                Restoration Trust Fund; and
                  (B) 26 percent of the funds into the Lower 
                Brule Sioux Tribe Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat 
                Restoration Trust Fund.
    (c) Investments.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall 
invest the amounts deposited under subsection (b) only in 
interest-bearing obligations of the United States or in 
obligations guaranteed as to both principal and interest by the 
United States.
    (d) Payments.--
          (1) In general.--All amounts credited as interest 
        under subsection (c) shall be available after the Trust 
        Funds are fully capitalized, without fiscal year 
        limitation, to the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe and the 
        Lower Brule Sioux Tribe for their use in accordance 
        with paragraph (3).
          (2) Withdrawal and transfer of funds.--Subject to 
        section 802(a)(4)(B), the Secretary of the Treasury 
        shall withdraw amounts credited as interest under 
        paragraph (1) and transfer the amounts to the Cheyenne 
        River Sioux Tribe and the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe for 
        use in accordance with paragraph (3).
          (3) Use of transferred funds.--
                  (A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), 
                the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe and the Lower 
                Brule Sioux Tribe shall use the amounts 
                transferred under paragraph (2) only to--
                          (i) fully fund the annually scheduled 
                        work described in the terrestrial 
                        wildlife habitat restoration plan of 
                        the respective Tribe developed under 
                        section 802(a); and
                          (ii) with any remaining funds--
                                  (I) protect archaeological, 
                                historical, and cultural sites 
                                located along the Missouri 
                                River on land transferred to 
                                the respective Tribe;
                                  (II) fund all costs 
                                associated with the ownership, 
                                management, operation, 
                                administration, maintenance, 
                                and development of recreation 
                                areas and other lands that are 
                                transferred to the respective 
                                Tribe by the Secretary;
                                  (III) purchase and administer 
                                wildlife habitat leases under 
                                section 802(b);
                                  (IV) carry out other 
                                activities described in section 
                                802; and
                                  (V) develop and maintain 
                                public access to, and protect, 
                                wildlife habitat and recreation 
                                areas along the Missouri River.
                  (B) Prohibition.--The amounts transferred 
                under paragraph (2) shall not be used for the 
                purchase of land in fee title.
    (e) Transfers and Withdrawals.--Except as provided in 
subsection (d), the Secretary of the Treasury may not Transfer 
or withdraw any amount deposited under subsection (b).
    (f) Administrative Expenses.--There are authorized to be 
appropriated to the Secretary of the Treasury such sums as are 
necessary to pay the administrative expenses of the Fund.

SEC. 605. TRANSFER OF FEDERAL LAND TO STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA.

    (a) In General.--
          (1) Transfer.--
                  (A) In general.--The Secretary shall transfer 
                to the Department of Game, Fish and Parks of 
                the State of South Dakota (referred to in this 
                section as the ``Department'') the land and 
                recreation areas described in subsections (b) 
                and (c) for fish and wildlife purposes, or 
                public recreation uses, in perpetuity.
                  (B) Permits, rights-of-way, and easements.--
                All permits, rights-of-way, and easements 
                granted by the Secretary to the Oglala Sioux 
                Tribe for land on the west side of the Missouri 
                River between the Oahe Dam and Highway 14, and 
                all permits, rights-of-way, and easements on 
                any other land administered by the Secretary 
                and used by the Oglala Sioux Rural Water Supply 
                System, are granted to the Oglala Sioux Tribe 
                in perpetuity to be held in trust under section 
                3(e) of the Mni Wiconi Project Act of 1988 (102 
                Stat. 2568).
          (2) Uses.--The Department shall maintain and develop 
        the land outside the recreation areas for fish and 
        wildlife purposes in accordance with--
                  (A) fish and wildlife purposes in effect on 
                the date of enactment of this Act; or
                  (B) a plan developed under section 802.
          (3) Corps of engineers.--The transfer shall not 
        interfere with the Corps of Engineers operation of a 
        project under this section for an authorized purpose of 
        the project under the Act of December 22, 1944 (58 
        Stat. 887, chapter 665; 33 U.S.C. 701-1 et seq.), or 
        other applicable law.
          (4) Secretary.--The Secretary shall retain the right 
        to inundate with water the land transferred to the 
        Department under this section or draw down a project 
        reservoir, as necessary to carry out an authorized 
        purpose of a project.
    (b) Land Transferred.--The land described in this 
subsection is land that--
          (1) is located above the top of the exclusive flood 
        pool of the Oahe, Big Bend, Fort Randall, and Gavin's 
        Point projects of the Pick-Sloan Missouri River Basin 
        program;
          (2) was acquired by the Secretary for the 
        implementation of the Pick-Sloan Missouri River Basin 
        program;
          (3) is located outside the external boundaries of a 
        reservation of an Indian Tribe; and
          (4) is located within the State of South Dakota.
    (c) Recreation Areas Transferred.--A recreation area 
described in this section includes the land and waters within a 
recreation area that--
          (1) the Secretary determines, at the time of the 
        transfer, is a recreation area classified for 
        recreation use by the Corps of Engineers on the date of 
        enactment of this Act;
          (2) is located outside the external boundaries of a 
        reservation of an Indian Tribe;
          (3) is located within the State of South Dakota;
          (4) is not the recreation area known as 
        ``Cottonwood'', ``Training Dike'', or ``Tailwaters''; 
        and
          (5) is located below Gavin's Point Dam in the State 
        of South Dakota in accordance with boundary agreements 
        and reciprocal fishing agreements between the State of 
        South Dakota and the State of Nebraska in effect on the 
        date of enactment of this Act, which agreements shall 
        continue to be honored by the State of South Dakota as 
        the agreements apply to any land or recreation areas 
        transferred under this title to the State of South 
        Dakota below Gavin's Point Dam and on the waters of the 
        Missouri River.
    (d) Map.--
          (1) In general.--The Secretary, in consultation with 
        the Department, shall prepare a map of the land and 
        recreation areas transferred under this section.
          (2) Land.--The map shall identify--
                  (A) land reasonably expected to be required 
                for project purposes during the 20-year period 
                beginning on the date of enactment of this Act; 
                and
                  (B) dams and related structures;
        which shall be retained by the Secretary.
          (3) Availability.--The map shall be on file in the 
        appropriate offices of the Secretary.
    (e) Schedule for Transfer.--
          (1) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date 
        of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Army and 
        the Secretary of the Department shall jointly develop a 
        schedule for transferring the land and recreation areas 
        under this section.
          (2) Transfer deadline.--All land and recreation areas 
        shall be transferred not later than 1 year after the 
        full capitalization of the Trust Fund described in 
        section 803.
    (f) Transfer Conditions.--The land and recreation areas 
described in subsections (b) and (c) shall be transferred in 
fee title to the Department on the following conditions:
          (1) Responsibility for damage.--The Secretary shall 
        not be responsible for any damage to the land caused by 
        flooding, sloughing, erosion, or other changes to the 
        land caused by the operation of any project of the 
        Pick-Sloan Missouri River Basin program (except as 
        otherwise provided by Federal law).
          (2) Easements, rights-of-way, leases, and cost-
        sharing agreements.--The Department shall maintain all 
        easements, rights-of-way, leases, and cost-sharing 
        agreements that are in effect as of the date of the 
        transfer.
    (g) Hunting and Fishing.--
          (1) In general.--Nothing in this title affects 
        jurisdiction over the land and water below the 
        exclusive flood pool of the Missouri River within the 
        State of South Dakota, including affected Indian 
        reservations. The State of South Dakota, the Lower 
        Brule Sioux Tribe, and the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe 
        shall continue in perpetuity to exercise the 
        jurisdiction the State and Tribes possess on the date 
        of enactment of this Act.
          (2) No effect on respective jurisdictions.--the 
        Secretary may not adopt any regulation or otherwise 
        affect the respective jurisdictions of the State of 
        South Dakota, the Lower Brule River Sioux Tribe, or the 
        Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe described in paragraph (1).
    (h) Applicability of Law.--Notwithstanding any other 
provision of this Act, the following provisions of law shall 
apply to land transferred under this section:
          (1) The National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 
        470 et seq.), including sections 106 and 304 of that 
        Act (16 U.S.C. 470f, 470w-3).
          (2) The Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 
        1979 (16 U.S.C. 470aa et seq.), including sections 4, 
        6, 7, and 9 of that Act (16 U.S.C. 470cc, 470ee, 470ff, 
        470hh).
          (3) The Native American Graves Protection Act and 
        Repatriation Act (25 U.S.C. 3001 et seq.), including 
        subsections (a) and (d) of section 3 of that Act (25 
        U.S.C. 3003).

SEC. 606. TRANSFER OF CORPS OF ENGINEERS LAND FOR INDIAN TRIBES.

    (a) In General.--
          (1) Transfer.--The Secretary of the Army shall 
        transfer to the Secretary of the Interior the land and 
        recreation areas described in subsections (b) and (c).
          (2) Corps of engineers.--The transfer shall not 
        interfere with the Corps of Engineers operation of a 
        project under this section for an authorized purpose of 
        the project under the Act of December 22, 1994 (58 
        Stat. 887, chapter 665; 33 U.S.C. 701-1 et seq.), or 
        other applicable law.
          (3) Secretary of the army.--The Secretary of the Army 
        shall retain the right to inundate with water the land 
        transferred to the Secretary of the Interior under this 
        section or draw down a project reservoir, as necessary 
        to carry out an authorized purpose of a project.
          (4) Trust.--The Secretary of the Interior shall hold 
        in trust for the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe and the 
        Lower Brule Sioux Tribe the land transferred under this 
        section that is located within the external boundaries 
        of the reservation of the Indian Tribes.
    (b) Land Transferred.--The land described in this 
subsection is land that--
          (1) is located above the top of the exclusive flood 
        pool of the Big Bend and Oahe projects of the Pick-
        Sloan Missouri River Basin program;
          (2) was acquired by the Secretary of the Army for the 
        implementation of the Pick-Sloan Missouri River Basin 
        program; and
          (3) is located within the external boundaries of the 
        reservation of the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe and the 
        Lower Brule Sioux Tribe.
    (c) Recreation Areas Transferred.--A recreation area 
described in this section includes the land and waters within a 
recreation area that--
          (1) the Secretary determines, at the time of the 
        transfer, is a recreation area classified for 
        recreation use by the Corps of Engineers on the date of 
        enactment of this Act;
          (2) is located within the external boundaries of a 
        reservation of an Indian Tribe; and
          (3) is located within the State of South Dakota.
    (d) Map.--
          (1) In general.--The Secretary, in consultation with 
        the governing bodies of the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe 
        and the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe, shall prepare a map of 
        the land transferred under this section.
          (2) Land.--The map shall identify--
                  (A) land reasonably expected to be required 
                for project purposes during the 20-year period 
                beginning on the date of enactment of this Act; 
                and
                  (B) dams and related structures;
                which shall be retained by the Secretary.
          (3) Availability.--The map shall be on file in the 
        appropriate office of the Secretary.
    (e) Schedule for Transfer.--
          (1) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date 
        of enactment of this Act, the Secretary and the 
        Chairmen of the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe and the 
        Lower Brule Sioux Tribe shall jointly develop a 
        schedule for transferring the land and recreation areas 
        under this section.
          (2) Transfer deadline.--All land and recreation areas 
        shall be transferred not later than 1 year after the 
        full capitalization of the State and tribal Trust Fund 
        described in section 804.
    (f) Transfer Conditions.--The land and recreation areas 
described in subsections (b) and (c) shall be transferred to, 
and held in trust by, the Secretary of the Interior on the 
following conditions:
          (1) Responsibility for damage.--The Secretary shall 
        not be responsible for any damage to the land caused by 
        flooding, sloughing, erosion, or other changes to the 
        land caused by the operation of any project of the 
        Pick-Sloan Missouri River Basin program (except as 
        otherwise provided by Federal law).
          (2) Hunting and fishing.--Nothing in this title 
        affects jurisdiction, over the land and waters below 
        the exclusive flood pool and within the external 
        boundaries of the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe and Lower 
        Brule Sioux Tribe reservations. The State of South 
        Dakota, the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe, and the Cheyenne 
        River Sioux Tribe shall continue to exercise, in 
        perpetuity, the jurisdiction they posses on the date of 
        enactment of this Act with regard to hose lands and 
        waters. The Secretary may not adopt any regulations or 
        otherwise affect the respective jurisdictions of the 
        State of South Dakota, the Lower Brule River Sioux 
        Tribe, or the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe described in 
        the preceding sentence. Jurisdiction over the land 
        transferred under this section shall be the same as 
        that over other land held in trust by the Secretary of 
        the Interior on the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe 
        reservation and the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe 
        reservation.
          (3) Easements, rights-of-way, leases, and cost-
        sharing agreements.--
                  (A) Maintenance.--The Secretary of the 
                Interior shall maintain all easements, rights-
                of-way, leases, and cost-sharing agreements 
                that are in effect as of the date of the 
                transfer.
                  (B) Payments to county.--The Secretary of the 
                Interior shall pay any affected county 100 
                percent of the receipts from the easements, 
                rights-of-way, leases, and cost-sharing 
                agreements described in subparagraph (A).

SEC. 607. ADMINISTRATION.

    (a) In General.--Nothing in this title diminishes or 
affects--
          (1) any water right of an Indian Tribe;
          (2) any other right of an Indian Tribe, except as 
        specifically provided in another provision of this 
        title;
          (3) any treaty right that is in effect on the date of 
        enactment of this Act;
          (4) any external boundary of an Indian reservation of 
        an Indian Tribe;
          (5) any authority of the State of South Dakota that 
        relates to the protection, regulation, or management of 
        fish, terrestrial wildlife, and cultural and 
        archaeological resources, except as specifically 
        provided in this title; or
          (5) any authority of the Secretary, the Secretary of 
        the Interior, or the head of any other Federal agency 
        under a law in effect on the date of enactment of this 
        Act, including--
                  (A) the National Historic Preservation Act 
                (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.);
                  (B) the Archaeological Resources Protection 
                Act of 1979 (16 U.S.C. 470aa et seq.);
                  (C) the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act 
                (16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.);
                  (D) the Act entitled ``An Act for the 
                protection of the bold eagle'', approved June 
                8, 1940 (16 U.S.C. 668 et seq.);
                  (E) the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 
                703 et seq.);
                  (F) the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 
                U.S.C. 1531 et seq.);
                  (G) the Native American Graves Protection and 
                Repatriation Act (25 U.S.C. 3001 et seq.);
                  (H) the Federal Water Pollution Control Act 
                (commonly known as the ``Clean Water Act'') (33 
                U.S.C. 1251 et seq.);
                  (I) the Safe Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C. 
                300f et seq.); and
                  (J) the National Environmental Policy Act of 
                1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.);
    (b) Federal Liability for Damage.--Nothing in this title 
relieves the Federal Government of liability for damage to 
private land caused by the operation of the Pick-Sloan Missouri 
River Basin program.
    (c) Flood Control.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
this title, the Secretary shall retain the authority to operate 
the Pick-Sloan Missouri River Basin program for purposes of 
meeting the requirements of the Act of December 22, 1944 (58 
Stat. 887, chapter 665; 33 U.S.C. 701-1 et seq.).

SEC. 608. STUDY.

    (a) In General.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall arrange for the 
United States Geological Survey, in consultation with the 
Bureau of Indian Affairs and other appropriate Federal 
agencies, to conduct a comprehensive study of the potential 
impacts the transfer of land under sections 805(b) and 806(b), 
including potential impacts on South Dakota Sioux Tribes having 
water claims within the Missouri River Basin, on water flows in 
the Missouri River.
    (b) No Transfer Pending Determination.--Not transfer of 
land under section 805(b) or 806(b) shall occur until the 
Secretary determines, based on the study, that the transfer of 
land under either section will not significantly reduce the 
amount of water flow to the downstream States of the Missouri 
River.

SEC. 609. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

    (a) Secretary.--There are authorized to be appropriated to 
the Secretary such sums as are necessary--
          (1) to pay the administrative expenses incurred by 
        the Secretary in carrying out this title; and
          (2) to fund the implementation of terrestrial 
        wildlife habitat restoration plans under section 802(a) 
        and other activities under sections 803(d)(3) and 
        804(d)(3).
    (b) Secretary of the Interior.--There are authorized to be 
appropriated to the Secretary of the Interior such sums as are 
necessary to pay the administrative expenses incurred by the 
Secretary of the Interior in carrying out this title.]
    The accompanying bill would repeal Title III, division C, 
of Public Law 105-277, Making Omnibus Consolidated and 
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for Fiscal Year 1999, and 
section 105 of Public Law 106-31, the 1999 Emergency 
Supplemental Appropriations Act.

                     [TITLE III--DENALI COMMISSION


SEC. 301. SHORT TITLE.

    This title may be cited as the ``Denali Commission Act of 
1998''.

SEC. 302. PURPOSES.

    The purposes of this title are as follows:
          (1) To deliver the services of the Federal Government 
        in the most cost-effective manner practicable by 
        reducing administrative and overhead costs.
          (2) To provide job training and other economic 
        development services in rural communities particularly 
        distressed communities (many of which have a rate of 
        unemployment that exceeds 50 percent).
          (3) To provide rural development, provide power 
        generation and transmission facilities, modern 
        communication systems, water and sewer systems and 
        other infrastructure needs.

SEC. 303. ESTABLISHMENT OF COMMISSION.

    (a) Establishment.--There is established a commission to be 
known as the Denali Commission (referred to in this title as 
the ``Commission'').
    (b) Membership.--
         (1) Composition.--The Commission shall be composed of 
        7 members, who shall be appointed by the Secretary of 
        Commerce (referred to in this title as the 
        ``Secretary''), of whom--
                  (A) one shall be the Governor of the State of 
                Alaska, or an individual selected from 
                nominations submitted by the Governor, who 
                shall serve as the State Cochairperson;
                  (B) one shall be the President of the 
                University of Alaska, or an individual selected 
                from nominations submitted by the President of 
                the University of Alaska;
                  (C) one shall be the President of the Alaska 
                Municipal League or an individual selected from 
                nominations submitted by the President of the 
                Alaska Municipal League;
                  (D) one shall be the President of the Alaska 
                Federation or Natives or an individual selected 
                from nominations submitted by the President of 
                the Alaska Federation or Natives;
                  (e) one shall be the Executive President of 
                the Alaska State AFL-CIO or an individual 
                selected from nominations submitted by the 
                Executive President;
                  (F) one shall be the President of the 
                Associated General Contractors of Alaska or an 
                individual selected from nominations submitted 
                by the President of the Associated General 
                Contractors of Alaska; and
                  (G) one shall be the Federal Cochairperson, 
                who shall be selected in accordance with the 
                requirements of paragraph (2).
          (2) Federal cochairperson.--
                  (A) In general.--The President pro temporare 
                of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of 
                Representatives shall each submit a list of 
                nominations for the position of the Federal 
                Cochairperson under paragraph (1)(G), including 
                pertinent biographical information, to the 
                Secretary.
                  (B) Appointment.--The Secretary shall appoint 
                the Federal Cochairperson from among the list 
                of nominations submitted under subparagraph 
                (A). The Federal Cochairperson shall serve as 
                an employee of the Department of Commerce, and 
                may be removed by the Secretary for cause.
                  (C) Federal cochairperson vote.--The Federal 
                Cochairperson appointed under this paragraph 
                shall break any tie in the voting of the 
                Commission.
          (4) Date.--The appointments of the members of the 
        Commission shall be made no later than January 1, 1999.
    (c) Period of Appointment; Vacancies.--Members shall be 
appointed for the life of the Commission. Any vacancy in the 
Commission shall not affect its powers, but shall be filled in 
the same manner as the original appointment.
    (d) Meetings.--
          (1) In general.--The Commission shall meet at the 
        call of the Federal Cochairperson not less frequently 
        than 2 times each year, and may, as appropriate, 
        conduct business by telephone or other electronic 
        means.
          (2) Notificaton.--Not later than 2 weeks before 
        calling a meeting under this subsection, the Federal 
        Cochairperson shall--
                  (A) notify each member of the Commission of 
                the time, date and location of that meeting; 
                and
                  (B) provide each member of the Commission 
                with a written agenda for the meeting, 
                including any proposals for discussion and 
                consideration, and any appropriate background 
                materials.
    (e) Quorum.--A majority of the members of the Commission 
shall constitute a quorum, but a lesser number of members may 
hold hearings.

SEC. 304. DUTIES OF THE COMMISSION.

    (1) Work Plan.--
          (1) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date 
        of enactment of this Act and annually thereafter, the 
        Commission shall develop a proposed work plan for 
        Alaska that meets the requirements of paragraph (2) and 
        submit that plan to the Federal Cochairperson for 
        review in accordance with the requirements of 
        subsection (b).
          (2) Work Plan.--In developing the work plan, the 
        Commission shall--
                  (A) solicit project proposals from local 
                governments and other entities and 
                organizations; and
                  (B) provide for a comprehensive work plan for 
                rural and infrastructure development and 
                necessary job training in the area covered 
                under the work plan.
          (3) Report.--Upon completion of a work plan under 
        this subsection, the Commission shall prepare, and 
        submit to the Secretary, the Federal Cochairperson, and 
        the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, a 
        report that outlines the work plan and contains 
        recommendations for funding priorities.
    (b) Review by Federal Cochairperson.--
          (1) In general.--Upon receiving a work plan under 
        this section, the Secretary, acting through the Federal 
        Cochairperson, shall publish the work plan in the 
        Federal Register, with notice and an opportunity for 
        public comment. The period for public review and 
        comment shall be the 30-day period beginning on the 
        date of publication of that notice.
          (2) Criteria for review.--In conducting a review 
        under paragraph (1), the Secretary, acting through the 
        Federal Cochairperson, shall--
                  (A) take into consideration the information, 
                views, and comments received from interested 
                parties through the public review and comment 
                process specified in paragraph (1); and
                  (B) consult with appropriate Federal 
                officials in Alaska including but not limited 
                to Bureau of Indian Affairs, Economic 
                Development Administration, and Rural 
                Development Administration.
          (3) Approval.--Not later than 30 days after the end 
        of the period specified in paragraph (1), the Secretary 
        acting through the Federal Cochairperson, shall--
                  (A) approve, disapprove, or partially approve 
                the work plan that is the subject of the 
                review; and
                  (B) issue to the Commission a notice of the 
                approval, disapproval, or partial approval 
                that--
                          (i) specifies the reasons for 
                        disapproving any portion of the work 
                        plan; and
                          (ii) if applicable, includes 
                        recommendations for revisions to the 
                        work plan to make the plan subject to 
                        approval.
          (4) Review of disapproval or partial approval.--If 
        the Secretary, acting through the Federal 
        Cochairperson, disapproves or partially approves a work 
        plan, the Federal Cochairperson shall submit that work 
        plan to the Commission for review and revision.

SEC. 305. POWERS OF THE COMMISSION.

    (a) Information From Federal Agencies.--The Commission may 
secure directly from any Federal department or agency such 
information as it considers necessary to carry out the 
provisions of this Act. Upon request of the Federal 
Cochairperson of the Commission, the head of such department or 
agency shall furnish such information to the Commission. 
Agencies must provide the Commission with the requested 
information in a timely manner. Agencies may, upon request by 
the Commission, make services and personnel available to the 
Commission to carry out the duties of the Commission. To the 
maximum extent practicable, the Commission shall contract for 
competition of necessary work utilizing local firms and labor 
to minimize costs.
    (b) Postal Services.--The Commission may use the United 
States mails in the same manner and under the same conditions 
as other departments and agencies of the Federal Government.
    (c) Gifts.--The Commission may accept, use, and dispose of 
gifts or donations of services or property.

SEC. 306. COMMISSION PERSONNEL MATTERS.

    (a) Compensation of Members.--Each member of the Commission 
who is not an officer or employee of the Federal Government 
shall be compensated at a rate equal to the daily equivalent of 
the annual rate of basic pay prescribed for level IV of the 
Executive Schedule under section 5315 of title 5, United States 
Code, for each day (including travel time) during the time such 
member is engaged in the performance of the duties of the 
Commission. All members of the Commission who are officers or 
employees of the United States shall serve without compensation 
that is in addition to that received for their services as 
officers or employees of the United States.
    (b) Travel Expenses.--The members of the Commission shall 
be allowed travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of 
subsistence, at rates authorized for employees of agencies 
under subchapter I of chapter 57 of title 5, United States 
Code, while away from their homes or regular places of business 
in the performance of services for the Commission.
    (c) Staff.--
          (1) In general.--The Federal Cochairperson of the 
        Commission may, without regard to the civil service 
        laws and regulations, appoint such personnel as may be 
        necessary to enable the Commission to perform its 
        duties.
          (2) Compensation.--The Chairman of the Commission may 
        fix the compensation of personnel without regard to the 
        provisions of chapter 51 and subchapter III of chapter 
        53 of title 5, United States Code, relating to 
        classification of positions and General Schedule pay 
        rates.
    (d) Detail of Government Employees.--Any Federal Government 
employee may be detailed to the Commission without 
reimbursement, and such detail shall be without interruption or 
loss of civil service status or privilege.
    (e) Procurement of Temporary and Intermittent Services.--
The Federal Cochairperson of the Commission may procure 
temporary and intermittent services under section 3109(b) of 
title 5, United States Code, at rates for individuals which do 
not exceed the daily equivalent of the annual rate of basic pay 
prescribed for level V of the Executive Schedule under section 
5316 of such title.
    (f) Offices.--The principal office of the Commission shall 
be located in Alaska, at a location that the Commission shall 
select.

SEC. 307. SPECIAL FUNCTIONS.

    (a) Rural Utilities.--In carrying out its functions under 
this title, the Commission shall as appropriate, provide 
assistance, seek to avoid duplicating services and assistance, 
and complement the water and sewer wastewater programs under 
section 306D of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act 
(7 U.S.C. 1926d) and section 303 of the Safe Drinking Water Act 
Amendments of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 1263a).
    (b) Bulk Fuels.--The Commission, in consultation with the 
Commandant of the Coast Guard, shall develop a plan to provide 
for the repair or replacement of bulk fuel storage tanks in 
Alaska that are not in compliance with applicable--
          (1) Federal law, including the Oil Pollution Act of 
        1990 (104 Stat. 484); or
          (2) State law.

SEC. 308. EXEMPTION FROM FEDERAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE ACT.

    The Federal Advisory Committee Act shall not apply to the 
Commission.

SEC. 309. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

    (a) In General.--There are authorized to be appropriated to 
the Commission to carry out the duties of the Commission 
consistent with the purposes of this title and pursuant to the 
work plan approved under section 4 under this Act, $20,000,000 
for fiscal year 1999, and such sums as may be necessary for 
fiscal years 2000, 2001, 2002, and 2003.
    (b) Availability.--Any sums appropriated under the 
authorization contained in this section shall remain available 
until expended.]
    [Sec. 105. Denali Commission. (a) The Denali Commission Act 
of 1998 (title III of division C of Public Law 105-277) 
amended--
          (1) in section 303(b)(1)(D) by striking in two 
        instances ``Alaska Federation or Natives'' and 
        inserting ``Alaska Federation of Natives'';
          (2) in section 303(c) by striking ``Members'' and 
        inserting ``The Federal Cochairperson shall serve for a 
        term of four years and may be reappointed. All other 
        members'';
          (3) in section 306(a) by inserting after the first 
        sentence the following: ``The Federal Cochairperson 
        shall be compensated at the annual rate prescribed for 
        level IV of the Executive Schedule under section 5315 
        of title 5, United States Code.'';
          (4) in section 306(c)(2) by striking ``Chairman'' and 
        inserting ``Federal Cochairperson'';
          (5) by inserting at the end of section 306 the 
        following new subsections:
    ``(g) Administrative Expenses and Records.--The Commission 
is hereby prohibited from using more than 5 percent of the 
amounts appropriated under the authority of this Act or 
transferred pursuant to section 329 of the Department of 
Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1999 
(section 101(g) of division A of this Act) for administrative 
expenses. The Commission and its grantees shall maintain 
accurate and complete records which shall be available for 
audit and examination by the Comptroller General or his or her 
designee.
    ``(h) Inspector General.--Section 8G(a)(2) of the Inspector 
General Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App. 3, section 8G(a)(2)) is 
amended by inserting `The Denali Commission,' after `the 
Corporation for Public Broadcasting,'.''; and
          (6) in section 307(b) by inserting immediately before 
        ``The Commission'' the following: ``Funds transferred 
        to the Commission pursuant to section 329 of the 
        Department of Transportation and Related Agencies 
        Appropriations Act, 1999 (section 101(g) of division A 
        of this Act) shall be available without further 
        appropriation and until expended.''.
          (7) in section 305 by inserting at the end of a new 
        section (d) as follows:
    ``(d) The Commission, acting through the Federal 
Cochairperson, is authorized to enter into contracts and 
cooperative agreements, award grants, and make payments 
necessary to carry out the purposes of the Commission. With 
respect to funds appropriated to the Commission for fiscal year 
1999, the Commission, acting through the Federal Cochairperson, 
is authorized to enter into contracts and cooperative 
agreements, award grants, and make payments to implement an 
interim work plan for fiscal year 1999 approved by the 
Commission.''.
    (b) Amounts made available by this section are designated 
by the Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 
251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
Control Act of 1985, as amended: Provided, That such amounts 
shall be available only to the extent that an official budget 
request that includes designation of the entire amount of the 
request as an emergency requirement as defined in the Balanced 
Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended, 
is transmitted by the President to the Congress.]
    The accompanying bill would amend Section 211(e)(2)(A) of 
the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-
303, 110 Stat. 3682), as follows:
                  (A) Reimbursement.--For work (including work 
                associated with studies, planning, design, and 
                construction) carried out by a non-Federal 
                interest with respect to a project described in 
                subsection (f), the Secretary shall, subject to 
                amounts being made available [in advance in 
                appropriations Acts], reimburse, without 
                interest, the non-Federal interest an amount 
                equal to the estimated Federal share of the 
                cost of such work if such work is later 
                recommended by the Chief of Engineers and 
                approved by the Secretary.
    The accompanying bill would establish a new independent 
agency for all matters pertaining to atomic energy defense 
activities.
                          Full Committee Votes

    Pursuant to the provisions of clause 3(a)(1)(b) of rule 
XIII of the House of Representatives, the results of each roll 
call vote on an amendment or on the motion to report, together 
with the names of those voting for and those voting against, 
are printed below:

                             rollcall no. 1

    Date: July 20, 1999.
    Measure: Energy and Water Development Appropriations Bill, 
FY 2000.
    Motion by: Mr. Visclosky.
    Description of Motion: To delete from the bill language 
providing that the results of an administrative appeals process 
for jurisdictional determinations under section 404 of the 
Clean Water Act shall be considered final agency action under 
the Administrative Appeals Act.
    Results: Rejected 23 yeas to 32 nays.
        Members Voting Yea            Members Voting Nay
Mr. Clyburn                         Mr. Aderholt
Ms. DeLauro                         Mr. Bonilla
Mr. Dicks                           Mr. Boyd
Mr. Dixon                           Mr. Callahan
Mr. Edwards                         Mr. Cramer
Mr. Farr                            Mr. Cunningham
Mr. Jackson                         Mr. Dickey
Ms. Kaptur                          Mrs. Emerson
Ms. Kilpatrick                      Mr. Frelinghuysen
Mrs. Lowey                          Ms. Granger
Mrs. Meek                           Mr. Hobson
Mr. Mollohan                        Mr. Hoyer
Mr. Moran                           Mr. Istook
Mr. Obey                            Mr. Kingston
Mr. Olver                           Mr. Knollenberg
Mr. Pastor                          Mr. Kolbe
Ms. Pelosi                          Mr. Latham
Mr. Porter                          Mr. Lewis
Mr. Price                           Mr. Miller
Ms. Roybal-Allard                   Mr. Methercutt
Mr. Sabo                            Mr. Packard
Mr. Serrano                         Mr. Regula
Mr. Visclosky                       Mr. Rogers
                                    Mr. Skeen
                                    Mr. Sununu
                                    Mr. Taylor
                                    Mr. Tiahrt
                                    Mr. Walsh
                                    Mr. Wamp
                                    Mr. Wicker
                                    Mr. Wolf
                                    Mr. Young
                          Full Committee Votes

    Pursuant to the provisions of clause 3(a)(1)(b) of rule 
XIII of the House of Representatives, the results of each roll 
call vote on an amendment or on the motion to report, together 
with the names of those voting for and those voting against, 
are printed below:

                             rollcall no. 2

    Date: July 20, 1999.
    Measure: Energy and Water Development Appropriations Bill, 
FY 2000.
    Motion by: Mr. Visclosky.
    Description of Motion: To delete from the bill language 
requiring the preparation of studies and analyses of the 
impacts on the Corps of Engineers Regulatory Branch workload 
and on the cost of compliance by the regulated community of 
proposed replacement permits for the nationwide permit 26 under 
section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
    Results: Rejected 22 yeas to 35 nays.
        Members Voting Yea            Members Voting Nay
Mr. Clyburn                         Mr. Aderholt
Ms. DeLauro                         Mr. Blunt
Mr. Dicks                           Mr. Bonilla
Mr. Dixon                           Mr. Boyd
Mr. Edwards                         Mr. Callahan
Mr. Farr                            Mr. Cramer
Mr. Jackson                         Mr. Cunningham
Ms. Kaptur                          Mr. Dickey
Ms. Kilpatrick                      Mrs. Emerson
Mrs. Lowey                          Mr. Frelinghuysen
Mrs. Meek                           Ms. Granger
Mr. Mollohan                        Mr. Hobson
Mr. Moran                           Mr. Istook
Mr. Murtha                          Mr. Kingston
Mr. Obey                            Mr. Knollenberg
Mr. Olver                           Mr. Kolbe
Ms. Pelosi                          Mr. Latham
Mr. Price                           Mr. Lewis
Ms. Roybal-Allard                   Mr. Miller
Mr. Sabo                            Mr. Nethercutt
Mr. Serrano                         Mrs. Northup
Mr. Visclosky                       Mr. Packard
                                    Mr. Pastor
                                    Mr. Porter
                                    Mr. Regula
                                    Mr. Rogers
                                    Mr. Skeen
                                    Mr. Sununu
                                    Mr. Taylor
                                    Mr. Tiahrt
                                    Mr. Walsh
                                    Mr. Wamp
                                    Mr. Wicker
                                    Mr. Wolf
                                    Mr. Young
                                    
                                    

            ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF HONORABLE PETER J. VISCLOSKY

    As the ranking minority member of the Subcommittee on 
Energy and Water Development, I submit these additional views 
on the bill as reported by the Committee on Appropriations.
    I strongly support the bill, which was put together in a 
non-partisan way and with the complete cooperation of all 
members of the Committee. The Chairman of the Subcommittee was 
considerate of the needs of the minority and was fair in the 
distribution of resources in the bill. Given the constrained 
302(b) allocation provided to the Subcommittee, the Chairman 
did a responsible job in distributing scarce resources to the 
numerous programs funded by the bill. While I am supportive of 
the bill, there are two legislative provisions included in 
Title I with which I disagree. I believe these provisions, 
related to wetlands protections in the Clean Water Act, would 
result in the unnecessary loss of wetlands.
    First, the bill includes statutory language related to the 
new administration appeals process the Corps of Engineers is 
formulating for wetlands permitting. This language would short-
circuit the review process for wetlands jurisdictional 
determinations by making the review of these initial decisions 
appealable to the Federal courts prior to a final permit 
decision. Although I support the creation of an administrative 
appeals process for these determinations, the bill would 
generate unnecessary and premature litigation, set back efforts 
to ensure a fair and amicable resolution of potential disputes, 
and undermine the ability of citizens and communities to 
participate on an equal footing in the permit process.
    Second, the bill threatens excessive wetlands losses by 
delaying the termination and replacement of nationwide permit 
26. By requiring an unnecessary study of the workload and cost 
effects of the proposed replacements for the current nationwide 
permit 26, the language would substantially delay promulgation 
and implementation of the replacement until such a study is 
completed. Implementation of the new nationwide permits is a 
high priority for the Administration because these permits will 
put into effect the special protections for flood plains, 
impaired waters, and pristine waters announced by President 
Clinton on October 7, 1998. These changes are essential to 
meeting the goals Congress established in the Clean Water Act 
for restoring water quality and reducing the loss of the 
nation's wetlands. The simple fact is that the U.S. is 
permanently losing 70,000 to 90,000 acres of wetlands every 
year to development. This cannot continue. Delays in the 
implementation of the replacement permits would place the 
regulatory program at substantial risk of litigation and would 
result in increased flooding, degradation of water quality, and 
the loss of fish and wildlife habitat.

                                                Peter J. Visclosky.

              ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF MRS. PELOSI AND MR. FARR

    We strongly object to the Committee Report language 
regarding the Central Valley Project, Trinity River Division.
    The report language directs the Secretary of the Interior 
to do something he cannot do under current law. Specifically, 
we are concerned that this language would rewrite years of the 
legislative history of the Trinity Division, and would be 
inconsistent with the Secretary's trust responsibilities to the 
Hoopa valley and Yurok tribes.
    Interior Secretary Babbitt clearly recognizes his 
responsibilities regarding both the Trinity River and 
California water supply networks in the Central Valley. He also 
recognizes that Federal law requires him to make an independent 
finding with regard to restoration of the Trinity River. In a 
statement May 20, 1999 before the House Resources Committee, 
Secretary Babbitt remarked,

          Mr. Chairman, the Trinity River is a distinct, 
        defined, specific mandate in law which says I must make 
        a decision about water flows sufficient to restore the 
        fishery. That's the baseline. Now, obviously, that 
        decision has impacts in the Sacramento Valley and 
        indeed the entire system. And having made--once having 
        made the decision about what's necessary for the flow 
        regimes and the hydrograph, I think it is then possible 
        and indeed imperative that we look at the management 
        regimes in a way that is designed, to the extent 
        possible, to minimize the impact in the Central Valley.

    In other words, it is the Secretary's intent to minimize 
the impact on the Central Valley, but to do so by adjusting the 
way water is distributed and used in the Central Valley, not by 
reducing the flows needed to restore the Trinity River. The 
Committee report language would dramatically complicate this 
process and would add more frustration for water users, 
affected Indian Tribes, commercial fishermen, and 
environmentalists alike.
    This report language was never formally requested by any 
affected party, and this topic has never been reviewed at any 
hearing convened by the Subcommittee on Energy and Water 
Development. It has no place in this report, and we object to 
its inclusion.

                                   Nancy Pelosi.
                                   Sam Farr.

                                  
