[House Report 107-112]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



_______________________________________________________________________

107th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 1st Session                                                    107-112

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



 
         ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2002

                                _______
                                

 June 26, 2001.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

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

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                            ADDITIONAL VIEWS

                        [To accompany H.R. 2311]

    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, 2002, and for other purposes.

                        INDEX TO BILL AND REPORT

                                                            Page Number

                                                            Bill Report
Introduction...............................................     1
                                                                      3
I. Department of Defense--Civil:
        Corps of Engineers--Civil:
                Introduction...............................     2
                                                                      5
                General investigations.....................     2
                                                                      6
                Construction, general......................     3
                                                                     33
                Flood control, Mississippi River and 
                    tributaries, Arkansas, Illinois, 
                    Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, 
                    Missouri, and Tennessee................     6
                                                                     50
                Operation and maintenance, general.........     7
                                                                     55
                Regulatory program.........................     8
                                                                     76
                Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action 
                    Program................................     8
                                                                     76
                General expenses...........................     9
                                                                     77
                Administrative provisions..................     9

                General provisions.........................    10
                                                                     78
II. Department of the Interior:
        Central Utah Project completion account............    12
                                                                     79
        Bureau of Reclamation:
                Water and related resources................    13
                                                                     79
                Bureau of Reclamation loan program account.    14
                                                                     90
                Central Valley Project restoration fund....    15
                                                                     92
                California Bay-Delta ecosystem restoration.
                                                                     92
                Policy and administration..................    15
                                                                     93
                Administrative provision...................    16

                General provisions.........................    16
                                                                     93
III. Department of Energy:
        Introduction.......................................    17
                                                                     95
        Energy supply......................................    17
                                                                    101
        Non-defense environmental management...............    18
                                                                    109
        Uranium facilities maintenance and remediation.....    18
                                                                    111
        Science............................................    19
                                                                    112
        Nuclear waste disposal.............................    19
                                                                    117
        Departmental administration........................    21
                                                                    120
        Office of Inspector General........................    22
                                                                    122
        Atomic energy defense activities:
        National Nuclear Security Administration:
                Weapons activities.........................    22
                                                                    123
                Defense nuclear nonproliferation...........    23
                                                                    127
                Naval reactors.............................    23
                                                                    133
                Office of the administrator................    24
                                                                    134
        Environmental and Other Defense Activities:
                Defense environmental restoration and waste 
                    management.............................    24
                                                                    134
                Defense facilities closure projects........    25
                                                                    140
                Defense environmental management 
                    privatization..........................    25
                                                                    142
                Other defense activities...................    25
                                                                    142
                Defense nuclear waste disposal.............    26
                                                                    147
        Power marketing administrations:
                Bonneville Power Administration............    26
                                                                    148
                Southeastern Power Administration..........    26
                                                                    149
                Southwestern Power Administration..........    27
                                                                    149
                Western Area Power Administration..........    28
                                                                    150
                Falcon and Amistad operating and 
                    maintenance fund.......................    29
                                                                    150
        Federal Energy Regulatory Commission...............    29
                                                                    151
        General provisions.................................    30
                                                                    164
IV. Independent agencies:
        Appalachian Regional Commission....................    34
                                                                    169
        Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board............    35
                                                                    169
        Delta Regional Authority...........................
                                                                    169
        Denali Commission..................................
                                                                    170
        Nuclear Regulatory Commission......................    35
                                                                    170
        Office of Inspector General........................    36
                                                                    171
        Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board...............    37
                                                                    172
V. General provisions......................................    37
                                                                    173
House reporting requirements...............................
                                                                    175









                Summary of Estimates and Recommendations

    The Committee has considered budget estimates which are 
contained in the Budget of the United States Government, 2002. 
The following table summarizes appropriations for fiscal year 
2001 the budget estimates, and amounts recommended in the bill 
for fiscal year 2002.

                                                                 [Dollars in thousands]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                           2002 recommendation compared with--
                                                                                                --------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  2001          2002 estimate           2002               2001
                                                                                                   recommendation     appropriation      2002 estimate
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Title I--Department of Defense--Civil....................        $4,541,065         $3,900,000         $4,468,233           ($72,832)          $568,233
Title II--Department of the Interior.....................           816,637            819,727            842,890             26,253             23,163
Title III--Department of Energy..........................        18,475,148         18,106,554         18,747,360            272,212            640,806
Title IV--Independent Agencies...........................           171,474            181,721            136,517            (34,957)           (45,204)
Title V--Rescissions.....................................          (172,000)  .................  .................           172,000   .................
Title VI--Emergency Supplemental.........................           213,988   .................  .................          (213,988)  .................
                                                          ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Subtotal...............................................        24,046,312         23,008,002         24,195,000            148,688          1,186,998
Scorekeeping adjustments.................................          (489,982)          (491,000)          (491,000)            (1,018)  .................
                                                          ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Grand Total of bill....................................        23,556,330         22,517,002         23,704,000            147,670          1,186,998
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              Introduction

    The Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill for 
fiscal year 2002 totals $23,704,000,000, which is $147,670,000 
above the amount appropriated in fiscal year 2001, and 
$1,186,998,000 above the President's budget request. Under 
constrained funding conditions, the Committee has given 
priority to maintaining the existing inventory of Corps of 
Engineers and Bureau of Reclamation water resources projects; 
continuing construction of ongoing water resources projects to 
avoid increased costs from stretching out project schedules; 
protecting basic science programs at the Department of Energy; 
investing in new energy technologies; providing sufficient 
funds for the Secretary of Energy to make a recommendation on 
the suitability of Yucca Mountain as a repository for the 
nation's nuclear waste; maintaining the nation's nuclear 
weapons stockpile; and providing for cleanup of contaminated 
Department of Energy sites.
    There has been much interest in how this bill would address 
the Nation's energy shortages. The Committee wishes to 
emphasize that the Department of Energy's energy technology 
programs are not designed to provide immediate relief for the 
energy crisis. Instead, the energy technology programs consist 
primarily of research and development into technologies such as 
renewable energy which are intended to provide long-term 
solutions to the nation's energy needs. Near-term deployment of 
available energy technologies is best accomplished through 
incentives other than appropriations.
    The National Energy Policy directed the appropriate Federal 
agencies to take actions to remove constraints on the 
interstate transmission grid and to allow our nation's 
electricity supply to meet the growing needs of the economy. 
The Secretary of Energy was directed to examine the benefits of 
establishing a national grid, identify transmission 
bottlenecks, and identify measures to remove transmission 
bottlenecks. The Committee expects to address these issues 
throughout the appropriations process as information becomes 
available on possible remedies requiring Congressional 
appropriations action.
    Title I of the bill provides $4,468,233,000 for the 
programs of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, a decrease of 
$72,832,000 from fiscal year 2001 and $568,233,000 over the 
budget request of $3,900,000,000. The Committee has maintained 
nearly level funding for the civil works program despite 
budgetary constraints. By concentrating resources on 
traditional missions such as flood control and navigation which 
yield the greatest economic benefits for the nation, the 
Committee seeks to ensure the highest possible payback on 
taxpayer investment. The Committee has generally been unable to 
provide funds for new construction projects within the water 
resources programs of the Corps of Engineers.
    Title II provides $842,890,000 for the Department of 
Interior and the Bureau of Reclamation, an increase of 
$26,253,000 over fiscal year 2001 and $23,163,000 over the 
budget request of $819,727,000. The Committee has not provided 
funding for the California Bay-Delta Restoration program in 
California pending the enactment of authorizing legislation.
    Title III provides $18,747,360,000 for the Department of 
Energy, an increase of $272,212,000 over fiscal year 2001 and 
$640,806,000 over the budget request of $18,106,554,000. The 
Committee has provided additional funding for energy 
technology, environmental cleanup, and nuclear nonproliferation 
programs. Basic research and science programs are supported at 
a level consistent with fiscal year 2001. In addition, $7 
billion is provided for environmental cleanup programs to 
remediate contaminated defense and non-defense sites throughout 
the nation, and $443 million is provided for the nuclear waste 
fund program in support of a final geologic repository for 
spent fuel high-level nuclear waste.
    Funding for the National Nuclear Security Administration, 
which includes nuclear weapons activities, defense nuclear 
nonproliferation, naval reactors, and the office of the 
administrator is $6,667,274,000, an increase of $90,225,000 
over fiscal year 2001 and a decrease of $109,496,000 from the 
budget request.
    Title IV provides $136,517,000 for several Independent 
Agencies, a decrease of $34,957,000 from fiscal year 2001 and a 
decrease of $45,204,000 below the budget request of 
$181,720,000. Funding is provided for the Appalachian Regional 
Commission, the Defense Nuclear Facilities Board, the Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission and its Inspector General, and the 
Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board.
                                TITLE I

                      DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL

                         Department of the Army

                       Corps of Engineers--Civil

                              Introduction

    The Committee is very concerned about the level of funding 
requested by the Administration for the water resources 
programs of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The amount 
requested by the Administration is about $640 million below the 
amount appropriated in fiscal year 2001. At the level of 
funding recommended by the Administration, ongoing construction 
projects would have been funded at an average of only 57% of 
their capability, with the result being that $5.8 billion in 
benefits would be forgone due to delayed completion dates. In 
addition, $500 million in increased costs would be incurred for 
these projects due to stretched out completion schedules.
    The Committee understands that the new Administration did 
not have time to fully analyze the importance of the Corps of 
Engineers' missions to the economic well-being of the Nation. 
Here are some examples of that importance. The Corps of 
Engineers is responsible for constructing and maintaining the 
Nation's ports and waterways. In 1999, about 2.3 billion tons 
of commerce moved through and on those ports and waterways. The 
value of the foreign commerce handled at ports is about $672 
billion. The Federal taxes generated by waterborne commerce at 
ports is $150 billion per year. Those ports also generate about 
13 million jobs. In the area of flood control, Corps projects 
have prevented an annual average of over $20 billion in damages 
between 1991 and 2000. Since 1928, Corps of Engineers flood 
control projects have prevented almost $6.00 for each dollar 
expended. The Corps of Engineers operates 75 hydroelectric 
power projects, which have an installed generating capacity of 
20,720 megawatts. These plants provide 24% of the Nation's 
hydropower output and 3% of total U.S. generating capacity. 
Even though the Corps does not construct projects for the sole 
purpose of recreation, recreation at Corps projects also 
contributes significantly to the Nation's economy. About 10% of 
the U.S. population visits at least one Corps project each year 
and those visitors spend $15 billion per year. That visitation 
supports about 600,000 full- and part-time jobs.
    For fiscal year 2002, the Committee has recommended 
$4,328,233,000 for the Civil Works functions of the Corps of 
Engineers, $568,233,000 over the amount requested by the 
Administration (the total amount of $4,468,233,000 recommended 
for the Corps of Engineers includes $140,000,000 for the 
Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program). Even at this 
level, the Committee's recommendation includes no new 
construction starts, and many ongoing projects are funded well 
below their optimum levels.
    In the last year, the Corps of Engineers has received a 
significant amount of external criticism, most of it centered 
around an ongoing study, for which the Corps has never made a 
recommendation, of the need to expand the navigation capacity 
of the upper Mississippi River and Illinois Waterway. The 
Committee believes that that study was poorly managed by the 
Corps of Engineers; however, the National Academy of Sciences 
has found that the Corps' officers who questioned the 
preliminary results of the study were completely justified in 
doing so since those preliminary results were based on a 
seriously flawed model. It is unfortunate that the Army 
Inspector General did not have the benefit of the National 
Academy's work before it issued a report critical of those 
officers. The other major area of criticism leveled at the 
Corps was that it was secretly trying to grow its program. The 
Committee finds this criticism to be somewhat absurd. The Corps 
currently has a backlog on active projects of $40 billion. The 
Corps has plenty of work to keep it busy for years to come even 
if Congress enacts no new project authorizations, which is 
highly unlikely. The Committee believes that it is the American 
people, who have recognized the need for increased investment 
in water resources, who have been attempting to expand the 
Corps' programs.
    Some have also criticized the Corps for not being ``green'' 
enough when, in fact, the Corps has requested over $300 million 
for construction of projects it categorizes as 
``environmental'' and 36% of its ongoing studies have 
environmental restoration as their primary purpose. Some think 
the Corps has become too ``green.'' The Committee fully 
supports the environmental restoration efforts being undertaken 
by the Corps, but urges it to maintain a balance in its work 
and not lose sight of its traditional missions of navigation 
and flood control, which are so important to the Nation's 
economy.

                         General Investigations




Appropriation, 2001...................................      $160,584,000
Budget Estimate, 2002.................................       130,000,000
Recommended, 2002.....................................       163,260,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2001...............................        +2,676,000
    Budget Estimate, 2002.............................       +33,260,000


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


    False Pass Harbor, Alaska.--The Committee has provided 
$313,000 for the Corps of Engineers to accelerate completion of 
plans and specifications for the False Pass Harbor, Alaska, 
project.
    Colonias Along the U.S.-Mexico Border, Arizona.--The 
Committee has provided $100,000 for the Corps of Engineers to 
initiate detailed design and plans and specifications for a 
wastewater treatment facility and distribution system in the 
City of Marana, Pima County, Arizona.
    Tucson Drainage Area, Arizona.--The bill includes $410,000 
for the Corps of Engineers to complete preconstruction 
engineering and design for the Tucson Drainage Area, Arizona, 
project.
    Va Shly-Ah Akimel Salt River Restoration Project, 
Arizona.--The Committee has provided an additional $300,000 for 
the Va Shly-Ah Akimel Salt River Restoration Project in Arizona 
to advance completion of the study by one year.
    Pine Mountain Dam, Arkansas.--The Committee has provided 
$200,000 for the Corps of Engineers to update the design for 
the Pine Mountain Dam project in Arkansas.
    White River Navigation, Arkansas.--The Committee has 
provided $169,000 for the Corps of Engineers to complete the 
ongoing studies for the White River Navigation to Newport, 
Arkansas, project.
    Arroyo Seco Watershed, California.--The Committee has 
provided $100,000 for the Corps of Engineers to evaluate non-
structural flood control management, opportunities for water 
quality improvement, and habitat restoration in the Arroyo Seco 
Watershed.
    City of San Bernardino, California.--The bill includes 
$250,000 for the Corps of Engineers to initiate a feasibility 
study of flooding problems and environmental restoration 
opportunities in the City of San Bernardino, California.
    City of Santa Clarita, California.--The Committee has 
provided $100,000 for the Corps of engineers to undertake a 
reconnaissance study of flood control improvements and 
environmental restoration opportunities in the City of Santa 
Clarita, California.
    Coast of California, Los Angeles, County, California.--The 
Committee has provided $400,000 for the Corps of Engineers to 
continue the feasibility phase of the study of long-term 
shoreline changes, as well as coastal processes information 
needed to plan and design future shore protection projects.
    Huntington Beach, Coastal Bluff Erosion, California.--The 
bill includes $400,000 for preconstruction engineering and 
design for a project to correct a serious erosion problem of 
the coastal bluff adjacent to the Pacific Coast Highway in 
Huntington Beach, California.
    Murrieta Creek, California.--The Committee has included 
language in the bill which directs the Secretary of the Army to 
proceed with the Murrieta Creek, California, project in 
accordance with the cost sharing established for the project in 
Public Law 106-377.
    Newport Bay (LA-3 Site Designation Study), California.--The 
Committee has provided $300,000 for the Corps of Engineers to 
complete monitoring studies to secure a permanent designation 
of the LA-3 Ocean Disposal Site.
    Regional Conservation/Conjunctive Use Project, 
California.--The Committee has provided $200,000 for the Corps 
of Engineers to complete the reconnaissance and feasibility 
studies for the regional water conservation and recycling 
project within Placer County, El Dorado County, and the service 
area of the San Juan Water District.
    Riverside County Special Area Management Plan, 
California.--The Committee has provided $2,000,000 for the 
Corps of Engineers to continue work on Special Area Management 
Plans for the San Jacinto and Santa Margarita watersheds.
    Rock Creek-Keefer Slough Flood Control Project, 
California.--The Committee has included language in the bill 
which directs the Corps of Engineers to use the feasibility 
report prepared under the authority of section 205 of the Flood 
Control Act of 1948, as amended, as the basis for the Rock 
Creek-Keefer Slough Flood Control Project in Butte County, 
California, and has provided $200,000 for preconstruction 
engineering and design of the project.
    San Diego County Special Area Management Plan, 
California.--The Committee has provided $1,000,000 for 
completion of the Otay River Watershed Special Area Management 
Plan and initiation of the San Luis Rey River Watershed plan.
    San Diego County Shoreline, California.--The Committee has 
provided $750,000 to continue the study of the erosion of the 
City of Oceanside's beaches.
    Santa Ana River and Tributaries, Big Bear Lake, 
California.--The bill includes $100,000 for the Corps of 
Engineers to undertake a reconnaissance study of environmental 
restoration, water quality, and related issues at Big Bear 
Lake, California.
    Santa Barbara and Ventura County Shoreline, California.--
The Committee has provided $100,000 for the Corps of Engineers 
to undertake a reconnaissance study of shoreline erosion 
problems in Santa Barbara and Ventura Counties.
    Fountain Creek and Tributaries, Colorado.--The Committee 
has provided $175,000 to initiate the feasibility phase of the 
Fountain Creek and Tributaries study. The Committee recommends 
that the Corps of Engineers include erosion and sedimentation 
as a project purpose equal in priority to that of flood damage 
reduction and environmental restoration along Fountain Creek 
north of Pueblo, Colorado.
    Delaware Coast from Cape Henlopen to Fenwick Island, 
Fenwick Island, Delaware.--The Committee has provided $200,000 
for the Corps of Engineers to initiate preconstruction 
engineering and design for the Delaware Coast from Cape 
Henlopen to Fenwick Island, Fenwick Island, Delaware, project.
    Egmont Key Shoreline, Florida.--The Committee has provided 
$500,000 for the Corps of Engineers to study alternatives for 
shoreline stabilization at Egmont Key. Florida.
    Hillsborough River, Florida.--The bill includes $375,000 
for the Corps of Engineers to continue the study of water 
conservation, water supply, environmental restoration, and 
other related problems in the Hillsborough and Withlacoochee 
River Basins.
    New Savannah Bluff Lock and Dam, Georgia.--The Committee 
has provided $800,000 for preconstruction engineering and 
design of the project to rehabilitate the New Savannah Bluff 
Lock and Dam in preparation for transferring the project to the 
City of North Augusta and Aiken County, South Carolina.
    Illinois Beach State Park, Illinois.--The bill includes 
$250,000 for the Corps of Engineers to complete plans and 
specifications for the Illinois Beach State Park between 
Waukegan and Zion, Illinois.
    Illinois River Basin Restoration, Illinois.--The Committee 
has provided $2,000,000 for the Corps Engineers to initiate 
development of a comprehensive plan for the restoration of the 
Illinois River Basin.
    Upper Mississippi River Comprehensive Study, Illinois, 
Iowa, Missouri, Minnesota, and Wisconsin.--The bill includes 
$1,000,000 for the Corps of Engineers to prepare the Upper 
Mississippi River Comprehensive Plan in accordance with section 
459 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999.
    Indiana Harbor, Indiana.--The Committee has provided an 
additional $250,000 to accelerate work on the Indiana Harbor, 
Indiana, feasibility study.
    Fort Dodge, Iowa.--The Committee has provided $100,000 for 
the Corps of Engineers to undertake a reconnaissance study of 
enhancement of the Des Moines River at Fort Dodge, Iowa.
    North Fork Licking River, Kentucky.--The Committee has 
provided $100,000 for a reconnaissance study of flood control, 
water supply, and recreation at North Fork Lake in Bracken, 
Robertson, and Mason Counties, Kentucky.
    West Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana.--The Committee has 
provided $500,000 for the Corps of Engineers to undertake an 
expedited study of waterfront and riverine preservation, 
restoration, and enhancements of the Mississippi River, West 
Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana, project, and, if justified, 
proceed directly to preconstruction engineering and design, as 
authorized by section 517(5) of the Water Resources Development 
Act of 1999.
    West Shore, Lake Pontchartrain, Louisiana.--The Committee 
is aware of concerns expressed by St. John the Baptist Parish 
regarding proposed levee alignments north of Interstate 10. The 
Committee included report language on this issue last year, but 
understands that it remains unresolved. The Committee 
understands that the delay in resolving this issue could result 
in the delay of flood protection for citizens in St. John the 
Baptist Parish and directs the Crops of Engineers to make 
immediate resolution of this issue a top priority.
    Muddy River, Brookline, and Boston, Massachusetts.--The 
Committee has provided $600,000 for the Corps of Engineers to 
complete the feasibility study and initiate and complete 
preconstruction engineering and design for the Muddy River, 
Brookline, and Boston, Massachusetts, project.
    Cass River, Vassar, Michigan.--The Committee has provided 
$100,000 for a reconnaissance study of flooding problems at 
Vassar, Michigan.
    Belle Island Shoreline, Michigan.--The bill includes 
$150,000 for the Corps of Engineers to initiate feasibility 
phase studies for the Belle Island Shoreline project which will 
identify areas in need of stabilization and also identify where 
to employ innovative techniques for bank stabilization.
    Detroit River Master Plan, Michigan.--The bill includes 
$100,000 for the Corps of Engineers to develop a master plan 
for the riverfront and historic trails along the Detroit River, 
Detroit, Michigan.
    Rouge River Watershed, Michigan.--The Committee has 
provided $200,000 for a basin-wide watershed management study 
to address flood hazard reduction, riverine ecosystem 
restoration, and recreation needs in the Rouge River Watershed.
    New Madrid Harbor, Missouri.--The Committee has provided 
$50,000 for the Corps of Engineers to determine if federal 
maintenance of New Madrid Harbor is economically and 
environmentally feasible.
    St. Clair River and Lake St. Clair, Michigan.--The 
Committee has provided $200,000 for the Corps of Engineers to 
complete a comprehensive water management reconnaissance study 
for ecosystem restoration and related purposes in the St. Clair 
River and Lake St. Clair watershed in Michigan pursuant to 
section 426 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999.
    Hancock County, Mississippi.--The bill includes $100,000 
for the Corps of Engineers to undertake a reconnaissance study 
of the seawall in Hancock County, Mississippi.
    Lower Platte River Watershed, Nebraska.--The Committee has 
provided $200,000 for the Corps of Engineers to assess and plan 
for water quality improvements in the Lower Platte River 
watershed.
    Lower Las Vegas Wash Wetlands, Nevada.--The Committee has 
provided an additional $350,000 to accelerate completion of the 
Lower Las Vegas Wash Wetlands feasibility study.
    Goffle Brook, Borough of Hawthorne, New Jersey.--The 
Committee has provided $100,000 for the Corps of Engineers to 
undertake a reconnaissance study of flooding problems along 
Goffle Brook in the Borough of Hawthorne, New Jersey.
    New Jersey Shoreline Protection, Alternative Long-Term 
Nourishment Study, New Jersey.--The Committee has provided 
$250,000 for feasibility phase studies to develop comprehensive 
beach inlet and borrow area management strategies to 
efficiently manage New Jersey sand resources.
    Raritan Bay and Sandy Hook Bay, Keyport, New Jersey.--The 
bill includes $350,000 for the Corps of Engineers to initiate 
feasibility phase studies for the Raritan Bay and Sandy Hook 
Bay, Keyport, project.
    Southwest Valley Flood Damage Reduction Study, Albuquerque, 
New Mexico.--The Committee has provided $475,000 for the Corps 
of Engineers to continue, on an expedited basis, the 
feasibility phase for the Southwest Valley Flood Damage 
Reduction, Albuquerque, New Mexico, study. The Committee has 
included language in the bill which directs the Secretary of 
the Army to include in the study an evaluation of flood 
reduction measures that would otherwise be excluded based on 
policies regarding the frequency of flooding, the drainage 
areas, and the amount of runoff.
    Bronx River, New York.--The Committee has provided $300,000 
for the Corps of Engineers to continue the ongoing Bronx River 
ecosystem restoration study.
    Hudson-Raritan Estuary, New York and New Jersey.--The 
Committee directs the Corps of Engineers to direct sufficient 
resources from the Hudson-Raritan Estuary project to include in 
its study area the habitat restoration opportunities in the 
entirety of the Hackensack Meadowlands ecosystem located in 
northern New Jersey.
    Lake Montauk Harbor, New York.--The Committee has provided 
$200,000 for the Lake Montauk Harbor study. In conducting this 
study, the Corps of Engineers should determine if improvements 
for storm damage reduction for the eastern and western shores 
adjacent to Lake Montauk Inlet, in conjunction with possible 
improvements for navigation, are advisable at this time. 
Beneficial use of dredged material and sand bypassing should 
also be considered.
    Upper Susquehanna River Basin Study, New York.--The 
Committee has provided $250,000 for the Corps of Engineers to 
continue work on the Upper Susquehanna River Basin study.
    Surfside and North Topsail Beach, North Carolina.--The 
Committee has provided $300,000 for the Corps of Engineers to 
initiate the feasibility phase of the Surf City and North 
Topsail Beach, North Carolina, study.
    Mahoning River Environmental Dredging, Ohio.--The bill 
includes $300,000 for the Corps of Engineers to initiate 
feasibility phase studies for the project to remove 
contaminated sediments from the Mahoning River.
    Western Lake Erie Basin Study, Ohio.--The Committee has 
provided $300,000 for the Corps of Engineers to complete the 
reconnaissance level studies for the Western Lake Erie Basin 
watershed study.
    Miami and Vicinity, Oklahoma.--The bill includes $300,000 
for the Corps of Engineers to initiate feasibility phase 
studies for the Miami and Vicinity, Oklahoma, flood control 
study.
    Wister Lake Watershed, Oklahoma.--The Committee has 
provided $375,000 for the Corps of Engineers to initiate the 
feasibility phase of the study for watershed management at 
Wister Lake, Oklahoma.
    Schuylkill River, Wissahickon, Pennsylvania.--The Committee 
has provided $100,000 for reconnaissance study of environmental 
restoration opportunities along the Schuylkill River at 
Wissahickon, Pennsylvania.
    Charleston Harbor, South Carolina.--The Committee has 
provided $500,000 for the Corps of Engineers to undertake a 
reconnaissance study of the deepening of Charleston Harbor, 
South Carolina.
    Reedy River, South Carolina.--The Committee has provided 
$100,000 for the Corps of Engineers to undertake a 
reconnaissance study of ecosystem restoration, flood damage 
reduction, and streambank stabilization in the Reedy River 
basin in South Carolina.
    Chickamauga Lock, Tennessee.--The bill includes $500,000 
for the Corps of Engineers to initiate preconstruction 
engineering and design for the Chickamauga Lock project in 
Tennessee.
    Brazoria County, Texas.--The Committee has provided 
$100,000 for a reconnaissance study of flooding problems along 
Mustang Bayou in Brazoria County, Texas.
    Sulpher River Environmental Restoration, Texas.--The 
Committee has provided $200,000 for the Corps of Engineers to 
initiate feasibility phase studies for the Sulpher River 
environmental restoration and flood reduction study.
    Upper Trinity River Basin, Texas.--The Committee has 
provided additional funds for the Corps of Engineers to 
evaluate existing flood control improvements and identify 
additional measures needed to protect the urban center of Fort 
Worth, Texas at the confluence of the West and Clear Forks of 
the Trinity River.
    Fourmile Run, Virginia.--The Committee has provided 
$100,000 for the Corps of Engineers to undertake a 
reconnaissance study of flood control needs and environmental 
restoration opportunities in Fourmile Run, Virginia.
    Goshen Dam, Virginia.--The Committee has provided $500,000 
for the Corps of Engineers to complete plans and specifications 
for the dam safety improvements at Goshen Dam, Lake 
Merriweather, Virginia.
    Commencement Bay Environmental Dredging, Washington.--The 
Committee has provided $100,000 for reconnaissance study of 
environmental dredging needs in Commencement Bay, Washington.
    Walla Walla River Watershed, Washington.--The Committee has 
provided $1,000,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue the 
feasibility study to restore instream flows in the Walla Walla 
River in Washington and Oregon.
    Erickson/Wood County Public Port, West Virginia.--The bill 
includes $600,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue 
preconstruction engineering and design at the Erickson/Wood 
County public port site.
    Parkersburg/Vienna, West Virginia.--The Committee has 
provided $300,000 for the Corps of Engineers to complete the 
feasibility report and initiate preconstruction engineering and 
design for the Parkersburg/Vienna, West Virginia, project.
    Weirton Public Port, West Virginia.--The bill includes 
$400,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue preconstruction 
engineering and design at the Weirton public port site.
    Coastal Field Data Collection.--The Committee has provided 
an additional $1,000,000 for the Southern California Beach 
Process Study.
    Great Lakes Remedial Action Program.--The Committee has 
provided $1,000,000 to continue work on the Great Lakes 
Remedial Action Program.
    Planning Assistance to States.--Within the amount provided 
for the Planning Assistance to States Program, $50,000 is for 
the preparation of a Comprehensive Drainage Basin Plan for 
Francis Bland Floodway Ditch (Eight Mile Creek) and tributaries 
in the vicinity of Paragould, Arkansas, and $100,000 is for the 
Corps of Engineers to provide planning assistance to develop a 
master plan for Elk Creek Lake in Fleming County, Kentucky.
    Flood Plain Management Services.--Within the amount 
provided for Flood Plain Management Services, $100,000 is to 
update a flood plain study for Tripps Run in the City of Falls 
Church, Virginia. In addition, the amount provided for Flood 
Plain Management Services includes $1,300,000 for the 
development of a Foundational Floodplain Management Geographic 
Information System for East Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana, 
containing essential graphic and non-graphic detailed 
databases. The system will facilitate the wisest use and 
planning within the floodplain, as well as improving the 
response to emergency situations and watershed planning 
requirements.
    Research and Development.--The Committee has provided 
$27,300,000 for the Corps of Engineers Research and Development 
program. Within the amount provided, $3,300,000 is to continue 
the National Shoreline Erosion Control Development and 
Demonstration Program authorized by section 227 of the Water 
Resources Development Act of 1996. This program allows the 
Corps of Engineers to fund the demonstration of innovative 
techniques for promoting shoreline protection and preventing 
coastal erosion. Within the funds provided, the Committee has 
provided $1,300,000 for the Corps of Engineers to demonstrate 
the effectiveness of erosion control systems consisting of 
permeable groins installed perpendicular to the shoreline which 
reduce wave and current energy allowing a portion of the 
sediment load to fall out of suspension at Gulf State Park in 
Gulf Shores, Alabama. The Committee also expects the Corps to 
continue the research program being undertaken along the Lake 
Michigan shoreline which have revealed the significance of 
groundwater, rather than waves, as a primary cause of slumps 
and landslides.
    In addition, the Committee encourages the Corps of 
Engineers to fully investigate the use of electro-osmotic-pulse 
technologies at facilities where chronic water seepage and 
floods are problematic.
    Within the funds provided for the Research and Development 
Program, the Committee urges the Corps of Engineers to test the 
effectiveness of the Aqua Levee emergency flood control system, 
and report back to the Committee on the feasibility of 
deploying this emergency flood control system for use in 
fighting floods.
    Cooperation With Institutions of Higher Learning.--The 
Committee recognizes the ongoing problems associated with 
severe weather phenomena in coastal regions and encourages the 
Corps of Engineers, whenever possible, to collaborate with the 
engineering departments of post secondary institutions in the 
development of environmental, geotechnical, structural, and 
hydraulic systems to address and prevent damage caused by 
severe weather.

                         Construction, General




Appropriation, 2001...................................    $1,716,165,000
Budget Estimate, 2002.................................     1,324,000,000
Recommended, 2002.....................................     1,671,854,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2001...............................       -44,311,000
    Budget Estimate, 2002.............................      +347,854,000


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


    Rio Salado, Phoenix and Tempe Reaches, Arizona.--The 
Committee has provided $22,000,000 for the Corps of Engineers 
to continue construction of the Rio Salado project in Arizona.
    Fourche Bayou Basin, Arkansas.--The bill includes $180,000 
for the Corps of Engineers to complete the Limited Reevaluation 
Report for the Fourche Bayou Basin, Arkansas, project.
    Red River Waterway, Index, Arkansas to Denison Dam, 
Texas.--The Committee has provided $3,000,000 for the Corps of 
Engineers to construct a bendway weir bank stabilization 
project along the Red River in the vicinity of the Oklahoma 
State Highway 271 bridge. This project will demonstrate the 
effectiveness of bendway weirs in preventing the severe bank 
erosion that is occurring on the Red River between Index, 
Arkansas and Denison Dam, Texas.
    City of Santa Clarita, California.--The Committee has 
provided $2,000,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue the 
study of perchlorate contamination and the planning for its 
removal within the Eastern Santa Clara River Basin in the City 
of Santa Clarita.
    Kaweah River, California.--The Committee has provided an 
additional $2,000,000 for the Kaweah River, California, 
project. The Committee is aware that the project sponsors have 
appropriated all their required funds for the entire project.
    Lower Walnut Creek, California.--The Committee has provided 
$250,000 for the Corps of Engineers to conduct a General 
Reevaluation Report which will detail a new project alternative 
that incorporates riparian restoration goals with flood control 
objectives.
    Petaluma River, California.--The bill includes $8,000,000 
for the Corps of Engineers to continue construction of the 
Petaluma River, California, project, and reimburse the local 
sponsor for expenses in excess of the required cost sharing.
    Sacramento River Deep Water Ship Channel, California.--The 
Committee has provided $300,000 for the Corps of Engineers to 
continue the Limited Reevaluation Report for the Sacramento 
River Deep Water Ship Channel project.
    Santa Ana River Mainstem, California.--The bill includes 
$10,000,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue construction 
of Reach 3B of the San Timoteo Creek feature of the Santa Ana 
River Mainstem project in California.
    San Lorezo River, California.--The Committee has provided 
$3,490,000 to continue work on the San Lorenzo River project. 
When the project authorization was modified in the Water 
Resources Development Act of 1999, it was the intent of 
Congress that the Corps of Engineers treat the modification as 
a seamless part of the original project, and that the bank 
erosion control portion of the project not be treated as a 
separate project subject to a separate new start decision.
    Surfside-Sunset and Newport Beach, California.--The bill 
includes $3,800,000 to continue the stage 11 nourishment at 
Surfside-Sunset beach.
    Brevard County, Florida.--The Committee has provided 
$8,500,000 for renourishment of the South Reach of the Brevard 
County, Florida, project.
    Broward County, Florida.--The bill includes $2,500,000 for 
the Corps of Engineers to reimburse Broward County for costs 
associated with the renourishment of the Broward County, 
Florida, project.
    Central and Southern Florida, Florida.--Within the funds 
provided for the Central and Southern Florida project, the 
Committee expects the Committee to use $600,000 to undertake a 
review and evaluation of the performance of the regional canal 
system in Miami-Dade County.
    Dade County, Florida.--The Committee has provided 
$14,857,000 for the Dade County, Florida, project. The 
additional funds will enable the Corps of Engineers to continue 
work on the Alternative Sand Test Beach project and renourish 
the Haulover Beach/Bal Harbour segment of the project. The 
funds provided will also permit the Corps of Engineers to 
undertake innovative beach erosion prevention and sand 
recycling initiatives.
    Duval County, Florida.--The bill includes $3,000,000 for 
renourishment of the Duval County, Florida, shore protection 
project.
    Fort Pierce Beach, Florida.--The Committee has provided 
$500,000 for the Corps of Engineers to complete the Bryzone 
study and prepare plans and specifications to permanently fix 
the erosion problem for the one mile of beach front adjoining 
the Federal project south of the inlet.
    Martin County, Florida.--The bill includes $3,000,000 to 
complete the renourishment of the Martin County, Florida, 
project.
    Palm Beach County, Florida.--The Committee has provided 
$4,500,000 for renourishment of the Delray Beach segment of the 
project.
    Pinellas County, Florida.--The Committee has provided 
$2,000,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue construction 
of the Pinellas County, Florida, project.
    Port Everglades, Florida.--The Committee has provided 
$4,000,000 for the Corps of Engineers to reimburse Port 
Everglades for the Federal share of the costs associated with 
widening and deepening the Southport Channel and the Turning 
Notch at Port Everglades, Florida.
    Sarasota County, Florida.--The Committee directs the Corps 
of Engineers to use available funds to reimburse the City of 
Venice, Florida, the Federal share of the construction costs of 
an artificial reef that is to be considered an integral part of 
the Sarasota County beach nourishment project, as well as the 
Federal share of the costs of constructing and/or relocating 
any stormwater outfall whose primary function is to drain storm 
water from public property.
    East St. Louis and Vicinity Interior Flood Control, 
Illinois.--The bill includes $688,000 for the Corps of 
Engineers to continue the General Reevaluation Report for the 
East St. Louis and Vicinity Interior Flood Control project.
    Olmsted Locks and Dam, Illinois.--The Committee has 
provided $40,000,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue 
construction of the Olmsted Locks and Dam project. Within the 
amount provided, the Committee urges the Corps to work with the 
Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission to develop tools 
to describe and monitor the biological processes of the Ohio 
River for the purpose of maintaining and improving water 
quality.
    Calumet Region, Indiana.--The bill includes $3,000,000 for 
the Corps of Engineers to continue construction of the Calumet 
Region, Indiana, project.
    Indiana Shoreline Erosion, Indiana.--The Committee has 
provided $1,000,000 to continue construction of the Indiana 
Shoreline Erosion, Indiana, project.
    Missouri River Levee System, Iowa, Nebraska, Kansas, and 
Missouri.--The Committee has provided an additional $700,000 
for the Unit L15 levee project.
    Carr Creek Lake, Kentucky.--The bill includes $1,000,000 
for the Corps of Engineers to modify the Carr Creek Lake, 
Kentucky, project by reallocating reservoir storage and 
undertaking measures at full Federal expense to mitigate the 
impacts of raising the seasonal pool elevation to provide 
additional water supply storage for the Upper Kentucky River 
Basin in accordance with the Louisville District Carr Creek 
Lake Water Supply Reallocation Study, dated January 2001.
    Louisville Waterfront, Kentucky.--The Committee has 
provided $500,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue design 
of the Louisville Waterfront project.
    Pond Creek, Kentucky.--The bill includes $425,000 for the 
Corps of Engineers to continue the study to evaluate the 
purchase and demolition of residences in the 100-year 
floodplain.
    Southern and Eastern Kentucky, Kentucky.--The bill includes 
$4,000,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue design and 
construction of selected environmental infrastructure projects 
in southern and eastern Kentucky.
    Inner Harbor Navigation Canal Lock, Louisiana.--The 
Committee is aware of the potential impacts on vehicular 
traffic as a result of the construction of a new lock on the 
Inner Harbor Navigation Canal. The Committee directs the Corps 
of Engineers to work with the Louisiana Department of 
Transportation and Development and the U.S. Coast Guard on a 
revised traffic study. The traffic study shall evaluate the 
feasibility of replacing existing bridges with a tunnel or 
higher elevation crossings with the goal of minimizing 
vehicular traffic delays resulting from the project. Further, 
the Committee expects the Corps to make traffic impacts a high 
priority when developing and implementing a community 
mitigation plan with local community leaders.
    Larose to Golden Meadow, Louisiana.--The Committee 
recognizes the life-threatening situations that have occurred 
several times by the closing of the Golden Meadow floodgates to 
protect its ``interior'' citizens from storm surges. While the 
Committee supports the use and operation of this flood control 
system, the Committee urges the Corps of Engineers to expedite 
to the fullest extent possible completion of the Leon Theriot 
Lock to allow for the unimpeded passage of mariners seeking 
safe harbor north of the floodgates at Bayou Lafourche.
    Anacostia River and Tributaries, Maryland.--The Committee 
has provided $2,000,000 for the Corps of Engineers to complete 
the project to restore wetland areas along the Anacostia River.
    Desoto County, Mississippi.--The Committee has provided 
$5,000,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue construction 
of the Desoto County, Mississippi, project.
    Bois Brule Drainage and Levee District, Missouri.--The 
Committee is aware of the devastating flooding and life 
threatening situation that occurred to residents of Perry 
County, Missouri, during the flood of 1993 when levee 
deficiencies resulted in failure of the existing Bois Brule 
Drainage and Levee District, Missouri, project authorized by 
the Flood Control Acts of 1936 and 1965. Therefore, the 
Committee has provided $1,200,000 for the project and directs 
the Secretary of the Army to initiate design and construction 
of deficiency correction work to restore the Bois Brule 
Drainage and Levee District project to its authorized level of 
protection using continuing contracts as appropriate, and with 
study and construction cost sharing consistent with the 
original project. Additionally, the Committee is aware that a 
portion of the study effort being performed under the Section 
205 program is attributable to the design deficiency project, 
and, therefore, directs the Secretary to transfer the 
associated study costs to the design deficiency project.
    St. Louis, Missouri.--The Committee has provided $4,000,000 
for the Corps of Engineers to continue to work with the St. 
Louis Metropolitan Sewer District to address critical flooding 
and water contamination problems in St. Louis, Missouri.
    Raritan River Basin, Green Brook Sub-Basin, New Jersey.--
The Committee has included language in the bill which directs 
the Secretary of the Army to construct the locally preferred 
plan for the Middlesex Borough element of the Raritan River 
Basin, Green Brook Sub-Basin, New Jersey, project.
    Atlantic Coast of New York City, Rockaway Inlet to Norton 
Point, New York.--The Committee has provided an additional 
$600,000 for the Corps of Engineers to prepare plans and 
specifications, modify the existing Project Cooperation 
Agreement, and advertise a contract for implementing the 
recommended T-groin alternative.
    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 in fiscal year 2002.
    Brunswick County Beaches, North Carolina.--The Committee 
has provided $800,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue 
preparation of a General Reevaluation Report for the Oak 
Island, Caswell Beach, and Holden Beach segments of the 
Brunswick County Beaches project in North Carolina.
    Manteo (Shallowbag) Bay, North Carolina.--The Committee has 
provided $300,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue 
shoreline monitoring, and complete the General Design 
Memorandum and Environmental Impact Statement supplement for 
the Oregon Inlet project.
    West Onslow Beach and New River Inlet, North Carolina.--The 
Committee has provided $700,000 for the Corps of Engineers to 
continue preparation of a General Reevaluation Report of the 
currently authorized project and the remaining shoreline at 
Topsail Beach.
    Lower Girard Lake Dam, Ohio.--The Committee has provided 
$1,000,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue work on the 
project to repair and rehabilitate the Lower Girard Lake Dam in 
Girard, Ohio.
    Mill Creek, Ohio.--The Committee has provided an additional 
$1,000,000 for the Mill Creek, Ohio, project. The funds are to 
be used to accelerate completion of the General Reevaluation 
Report and develop an early warning system to alert businesses 
and residents in the watershed of possible floods.
    Ohio Environmental Infrastructure, Ohio.--The bill includes 
$4,000,000 for the Ohio Environmental Infrastructure program, 
including $1,500,000 to assist the City of Springfield, Ohio, 
with its wastewater treatment and sewer improvement needs.
    Ottawa River, Ohio.--The Committee has provided $300,000 
for the Corps of Engineers to complete the reevaluation report 
and initiate plans and specifications for the Ottawa River, 
Ohio, project.
    Folly Beach, South Carolina.--The Committee has provided 
$200,000 for the Corps of Engineers to identify a new sand 
source for the Folly Beach, South Carolina, project.
    Black Fox, Murfree, and Oaklands Springs Wetlands, 
Tennessee.--The bill includes $2,000,000 to continue 
construction of the authorized Black Fox, Murfree, and Oaklands 
Springs Wetlands project in Murfreesboro, Tennessee. The Corps 
of Engineers is directed to use available funds for additional 
features at the Outdoor Classroom Space and at the passive and 
active park areas identified in Figure 10 of the authorizing 
document for the project.
    Red River Basin Chloride Control, Texas and Oklahoma.--The 
Committee has provided $2,100,000 for the Corps of Engineers 
complete a reevaluation study, continue construction, and 
continue environmental monitoring for the Red River Basin 
Chloride Control project.
    Red River Below Denison Dam, Texas, Arkansas, and 
Louisiana.--The Committee has provided $2,500,000 for the Red 
River Below Denison Dam project. Of the amount provided, 
$500,000 is to rehabilitate the Bowie County Levee in Texas. 
The remaining funds are to be used for the levee upgrade 
program in northwest Louisiana.
    San Antonio Channel Improvement, Texas.--The Committee has 
provided $1,200,000 for a General Reevaluation Report for the 
San Antonio Channel Improvement project to define the Federal 
interest in the environmental restoration and recreation 
components of the project. In addition, $200,000 is provided 
for expand ongoing hydraulic performance studies for the 
project.
    Greenbrier River Basin, West Virginia.--The Committee has 
provided $1,200,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue work 
on the Marlinton element of the project.
    Levisa and Tug Forks of the Big Sandy River and Upper 
Cumberland River, West Virginia, Virginia, and Kentucky.--The 
bill includes a total of $35,200,000 for the Levisa and Tug 
Forks of the Big Sandy River and Upper Cumberland River 
project. The amount provided includes: $4,500,000 for the 
Clover Fork, Kentucky, element of the project; $1,000,000 for 
the City of Cumberland, Kentucky, element of the project; 
$1,650,000 for the Town of Martin, Kentucky, element of the 
project; $2,100,000 for the Pike County, Kentucky, element of 
the project, including $1,100,000 for additional studies along 
the tributaries of the Tug Fork and continuation of a Detailed 
Project Report for the Levisa Fork; $3,850,000 for the Martin 
County, Kentucky, element of the project; $950,000 for the 
Floyd County, Kentucky, element of the project; $600,000 for 
the Harlan County, Kentucky, element of the project; and 
$800,000 for additional studies along the tributaries of the 
Cumberland River in Bell County, Kentucky.
    In addition, the Committee has provided $18,600,000 for the 
Corps of Engineers to continue work on the Grundy, Virginia, 
element of the project, $450,000 to complete the Buchanan 
County, Virginia, Detailed Project Report, and $700,000 to 
continue the Dickenson County, Virginia, Detailed Project 
Report. The Committee directs the Corps of Engineers to 
continue the Dickenson County Detailed Project Report as 
generally defined in Plan 4 of the Huntington District 
Engineer's Draft Supplement to the Section 202 General Plan for 
Flood Damage Reduction dated April 1997, including all Russell 
Fork tributary streams within the County and special 
considerations as may be appropriate to address the unique 
relocations and resettlement needs for the flood prone 
communities within the County.
    West Virginia and Pennsylvania Flood Control, West Virginia 
and Pennsylvania.--The Committee has provided $2,300,000 for 
the West Virginia and Pennsylvania Flood Control project. Of 
the amount provided, $600,000 is to complete the Detailed 
Project Reports for Philippi and Belington, West Virginia, and 
to implement an emergency flood warning system for the Tygart 
River Basin in West Virginia. In addition, $1,700,000 is 
provided for the Meyersdale flood damage reduction project in 
Somerset County, Pennsylvania, and the Hooversville flood 
damage reduction project in Somerset County, Pennsylvania.
    Shoreline Protection Projects (Section 103).--The Committee 
has provided the amount of $5,000,000 for the Section 103 
program. Within the amount provided, the recommendation 
includes: $400,000 for the Carpinteria Beach Erosion Control 
project, California, project; $212,000 for plans and 
specifications for the project at Nantasket Beach, Hull, 
Massachusetts; $1,000,000 for the Sylvan Beach Breakwater, New 
York, project; $556,000 for beach restoration and shore 
protection on the Hudson River, Dutchess County, New York; 
$200,000 to initiate and complete plans and specifications for 
the project on Lake Erie at Athol Springs, New York; and, 
$100,000 to initiate the feasibility phase on the project to 
restore the Bay Point Peninsula off of the City of Luna Pier, 
Michigan, in Maumee Bay.
    Small Navigation Projects (Section 107).--The Committee has 
provided $15,000,000 for the Section 107 program. Within the 
amount provided, the recommendation includes: $300,000 to 
determine the Federal interest in a project for navigation on 
the Tennessee River, Bridgeport, Alabama; $100,000 to complete 
the feasibility study on the Tennessee River, Barton River 
Port, Tuscumbia, Alabama; $1,000,000 to complete plans and 
specifications and to initiate construction on the Slackwater 
Harbor, Arkansas River, Russelville, Arkansas, project; 
$677,000 to complete the feasibility study of the Blytheville 
Slackwater Harbor, Arkansas; $250,000 to complete the 
feasibility phase for Pillar Point Harbor, California; $330,000 
for the project at Oyster Point Marina, California; $1,500,000 
to initiate construction of the Port Hueneme, California, 
project; $1,500,000 to initiate and complete plans and 
specifications and initiate construction of the San Diego Bay 
Harbor Deepening, California, project; $200,000 to complete the 
feasibility study of the Whiting Shoreline, Whiting, Indiana, 
project; $100,000 to initiate the feasibility study for Federal 
interest in navigation on the Rouge River, Michigan; $827,000 
to initiate and complete construction of the Pemiscot County 
Harbor, Missouri, project; $1,000,000 for the construction of 
the Buffalo-Inner Harbor Excavation Project, Buffalo, New York; 
$100,000 to initiate the feasibility study for Lake Erie at 
Sturgeon Point, Evans, New York; $100,000 to initiate the 
feasibility study for the West Side Rowing Club, Buffalo, New 
York; $2,000,000 to continue construction of the Lakeshore 
State Park, City of Milwaukee Navigation Improvement, 
Wisconsin; and $100,000 for Saxon Harbor, Wisconsin.
    The Committee's recommendation also includes the necessary 
funds to reimburse local interests for credits authorized by 
Section 323 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 
related to the construction of phase 1 of the New Madrid County 
Harbor, Missouri, project.
    Mitigation Damages Attributable to Navigation Projects 
(Section 111).--The Committee has provided $900,000 for the 
Section 111 program. Within the amount provided, the 
recommendation includes $350,000 to complete plans and 
specifications for the Saco River and Camp Ellis Beach, Saco, 
Maine, project; $190,000 for the Saugatuck Harbor Federal 
Navigation Structure project, Michigan; $260,000 for the 
initial assessment and feasibility study of Mattituck Inlet, 
Southold, New York; and $100,000 for the Puget Sound Shoreline, 
Washington, project.
    Project Modifications for the Improvement of the 
Environment (Section 1135).--The Committee has provided 
$25,000,000 for the Section 1135 program. Within the amount 
provided, the recommendation includes: $5,000,000 for the 
design and construction of the Garrow's Bend Basin Restoration, 
Mobile, Alabama; $340,000 for the Rillito/Swan Wetlands, 
Arizona, project; $100,000 to initiate and complete the 
feasibility study for Ditch 28, Arkansas; $650,000 initiate and 
complete plans and specifications and construction on the Bull 
Creek Channel Ecosystem Restoration, Sepulveda Flood Control 
Basin Restoration, California, project; $1,745,000 for the 
Gunnerson Pond, Lake Elsinore, California, project; $100,000 to 
complete the preliminary restoration plan and initiate the 
feasibility study on Pillar Point Harbor, California; 
$1,000,000 to initiate the feasibility study of the San Gabriel 
River Basin, Los Cerritos Wetlands Environmental Restoration, 
California; $750,000 to continue construction on the Colfax 
Reach, South Platte River, Colorado, project; $240,000 to 
complete the feasibility phase and initiate plans and 
specifications on the Sand Creek Ecosystem Restoration, Newton, 
Kansas, project; $1,000,000 to complete plans and 
specifications and initiate construction of the Kansas City 
Riverfront Habitat Restoration, Missouri, project; $685,000 to 
complete plans and specifications and initiate construction on 
the Little Sugar Creek Habitat Restoration, North Carolina, 
project; $200,000 for the Great South Bay Hard Clam 
Restoration, New York, project; $290,000 to complete the 
feasibility study and initiate plans and specifications on the 
Times Beach Environmental Improvement, Buffalo, New York, 
project; $200,000 to initiate a feasibility study of the Smokes 
Creek Relocation, Lackawanna, New York; $80,000 to complete 
plans and specifications for the Boyd's Marsh Restoration, 
Rhode Island, project; $60,000 to complete plans and 
specifications for the Allin's Cove, Rhode Island, project; 
$530,000 to complete plans and specifications and initiate 
construction of the San Antonio River, Eagleland Habitat 
Restoration, San Antonio, Texas, project; and $844,000 to 
complete the feasibility study and plans and specifications on 
the Richland Wye Shoreline Enhancement, Washington.
    Emergency Streambank and Erosion Control (Section 14).--The 
Committee has provided $9,000,000 for the Section 14 program. 
Within the amount provided, the recommendation includes: 
$100,000 to initiate and complete the planning and design 
analysis for the Ditto Landing Phase II, Huntsville, Alabama, 
project; $800,000 to initiate and complete bank stabilization 
on the Little Rock Slackwater Harbor, Arkansas, project; 
$75,000 to complete the planning and design analysis and 
initiate plans and specifications for the Powers Boulevard at 
East Fork of Sand Creek, Colorado Springs, Colorado, project; 
$140,000 to prepare the detailed project report and initiate 
plans and specifications for the Chelton Road Bridge over Sand 
Creek, Colorado Springs, Colorado, project; $220,000 for the 
Webster County, Iowa, project; $40,000 to initiate and complete 
the planning and design analysis for the Ackerman Creek in 
Morton, Illinois; $40,000 to initiate and complete the planning 
and design analysis for Farm Creek in Washington, Illinois; 
$40,000 to initiate the planning and design analysis for the 
Maumee River, Shoreline Erosion Protection, Fort Wayne, 
Indiana; $960,000 to complete the planning and design analysis 
and initiate construction of the Punch Island Road, Dorchester 
County, Maryland, project; $100,000 to continue the planning 
and design analysis at Belle Isle South Shore, Michigan; 
$188,000 to complete construction of the Lake Michigan Center, 
Muskegon, Michigan, project; $60,000 to initiate and complete 
planning and design for the Bakers Creek, Clinton, Mississippi, 
project; $635,000 to complete plans and specifications and 
initiate construction of the Poughkeepsie, New York, project; 
$140,000 to initiate and complete construction of the Dresden, 
Tennessee, project; $650,000 to complete the planning and 
design analysis and initiate construction of the Bogachiel 
River near La Push, Clallam County, Washington, project; and 
$40,000 to initiate the planning and design analysis on the 
Kenosha Harbor Retaining Wall, Shoreline Erosion Protection, 
City of Kenosha, Wisconsin.
    Beneficial Use of Dredge Material (Section 204).--The 
Committee has provided $1,500,000 for the Section 204 program. 
Within the amount provided, the recommendation includes: 
$219,000 for the Mississippi Gulf River Outlet, Louisiana and 
$90,000 for the Restoration of the Cat Island Chain, Wisconsin.
    Small Flood Control Projects (Section 205).--The Committee 
has provided $40,000,000 for the Section 205 program. Within 
the amount provided, the recommendation includes: $200,000 to 
initiate the feasibility study for the Brewton, Alabama, 
project; $200,000 for the Jasper, Alabama, project; $500,000 to 
complete the plans and specifications and initiate construction 
of the locally preferred plan for the Pinhook Creek, 
Huntsville, Alabama, project; $50,000 to complete the 
feasibility study of Bono Lake, Arkansas; $500,000 to initiate 
construction for the Indian Bayou in Lonoke and Jefferson 
Counties, Arkansas, project; $50,000 to complete the 
feasibility study of Spring Creek, St. Francis County, 
Arkansas; $113,000 to complete the detailed project report and 
initiate the feasibility study for Coyote Creek at Rock 
Springs, California; $2,000,000 to initiate construction on the 
Magpie Creek, Sacramento, California, project; $200,000 to 
continue the detailed project report of Magpie Creek on 
McClellan Air Force Base, California; $100,000 to continue the 
feasibility study of the City of Santa Clarita, Castaic Creek, 
Old Road Bridges, California, project; $400,000 for the 
feasibility study of Anaverde Creek, Palmdale, California; 
$375,000 for the City of Whittier, California, project; 
$300,000 for the City of Norwalk, California, project; $100,000 
to initiate a feasibility study for flood control at Huntington 
Beach, California; $200,000 to initiate the detailed project 
report for Contra Costa Canal (Rock Slough), Oakley and 
Knightsen, California; $200,000 to initiate the detailed 
project report for Mallard Slough, Pittsburg, California; 
$650,000 to determine Federal interest, design, and reconstruct 
the Santa Venetia Pump Replacement, California, project; 
$100,000 to initiate the feasibility study on Cheyenne Creek, 
Colorado Springs; $2,000,000 for construction of the Van 
Bibber-Arvada Plaza Drainage, Colorado, project; $115,000 to 
complete the feasibility study for flood protection of the Farm 
River, North Branford/East Haven, Connecticut; $100,000 to 
initiate the feasibility study of the Ocmulgee River Levee, 
Macon, Georgia; $70,000 to initiate a feasibility study at 
Monroe County, Illinois; $1,439,000 to continue construction of 
the East Peoria, Illinois, project; $30,000 for the feasibility 
study at Grafton, Illinois; $100,000 for the Prairie du Pont, 
Illinois, project; $100,000 to complete the preliminary 
assessment and feasibility study of the Mississinewa River, 
Marion, Indiana; $100,000 to initiate the feasibility study on 
the Southwest Branch, Cedar Falls, Iowa; $1,430,000 for East 
Boyer River Denison, Iowa, project; $450,000 for the Mad Creek, 
Muscatine, Iowa, project; $200,000 to expeditiously complete 
the feasibility study of the Whitewater and Walnut Rivers, 
Augusta, Kansas in light of the devastation that occurred 
during the Halloween flood of 1998, which resulted in millions 
of dollars in property damage to more that 600 homes and 
business; $454,000 for Cowskin Creek, Wichita, Kansas; $100,000 
to complete the preliminary project report and feasibility 
study at Versailles, Kentucky; $100,000 to complete the 
preliminary project report and feasibility study at Winchester, 
Kentucky; $350,000 to evaluate alternative solutions and 
resolve the issue of continued flooding associated with the 
Mayfield Creek and Tributaries, Kentucky, flood control 
project; $100,000 to complete the preliminary project report 
and feasibility study at Nicholasville, Kentucky; $100,000 to 
complete the preliminary project report and feasibility study 
of Banklick Creek, Kenton County, Kentucky; $2,972,000 for the 
construction of the Jean Laffitte (Fisher School Basin), 
Jefferson Parish, Louisiana, project; $300,000 to complete 
plans and specifications for the Rosethorn Basin, Jean Lafitte, 
Louisiana, project; $200,000 to initiate and complete plans and 
specifications for the Pailet Basin, Jefferson Parish, 
Louisiana, project; $100,000 to initiate a feasibility study of 
the Aberjona River, Winchester, Massachusetts; $25,000 for the 
Little River Diversion, Dutchtown, Missouri; $550,000 to 
complete construction of the Main Ditch 8, Pemiscot County, 
Missouri, project; $100,000 to initiate the feasibility study 
for the Trailwood Subdivision Area, Clinton, Mississippi; 
$750,000 to complete construction of the Mckeel Brook, Morris 
County, New Jersey, project; $100,000 to initiate the 
feasibility study of Jackson Brook, New Jersey; $500,000 to 
initiate construction of the Mill Brook, Highland Park, New 
Jersey, project; $200,000 to initiate plans and specifications 
for the Popular Brook, Monmouth County, New Jersey, project; 
$100,000 for the feasibility study of the Lower Palomas Creek, 
Sierra County, New Mexico; $50,000 for the Cazenovia Creek Ice 
Control Structure, West Seneca, New York, project; $100,000 for 
the feasibility study of Brentwood Brook, Harrison, New York; 
$100,000 for the feasibility study of Larchmont Reservoir, 
Larchmont, New York; $1,000,000 for the Red River, Wahepeton, 
North Dakota, project; $150,000 for the Dam Break Early Warning 
System, Silverton, Oregon; $100,000 to initiate the feasibility 
study for the City of Keizer, Labish Ditch, Oregon, project; 
$100,000 to initiate the feasibility study for Coloso Valley, 
Aquada, Puerto Rico; $188,000 to initiate plans and 
specifications for the Beaver Creek, Bristol, Tennessee and 
Virginia, project; $100,000 to complete the feasibility study 
and initiate plans and specifications for the Erwin, Tennessee, 
project; $195,000 to initiate and complete construction for the 
Baxter Bottom, Tipton County, Tennessee, project; $50,000 to 
complete the feasibility study at Covington, Tennessee; 
$100,000 to initiate and complete a feasibility study at 
Dresden, Tennessee; $75,000 to complete the feasibility study 
of the Dyer County Little Levee, Tennessee; $50,000 to complete 
the feasibility study of Oliver Creek, Shelby County, 
Tennessee; $100,000 to initiate the detailed project report of 
the Dry Canyon Storm Watershed, Utah; $210,000 to complete the 
feasibility study for Snoqualmie River at North Bend, 
Washington; and $210,000 for the feasibility study of Wind 
Lake, Wisconsin.
    The Committee notes that the Snoqualmie Flood Control 
Project is behind schedule and expects the Corps of Engineers 
to proceed with the project as expeditiously as possible.
    The Committee, in accordance with the authority provided in 
Section 332 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999, has 
also provided $700,000 for the Bois Brule Drainage and Levee, 
District, Missouri project under the Continuing Authorities 
Program and directs the Secretary to increase the authorized 
level of projection from 50-years to 100-years. The project 
costs allocated to the incremental increase in level of 
projection shall be cost shared consistent with Section 103(a) 
of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986, notwithstanding 
Section 202(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996, 
and this increment should be constructed concurrently with the 
deficiency correction work to ensure a technically sound and 
cost effective solution is provided to the flooding problems in 
this area.
    Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration (Section 206).--The Committee 
has provided $20,000,000 for the Section 206 program. Within 
the amount provided, the recommendation includes: $105,000 to 
complete the ecosystem report for the Aqua Caliente Wash, Pima 
County, Arizona, project; $225,000 to initiate the feasibility 
study for the Santa Clara Basin Watershed Management 
Initiative, California; $100,000 for the Arundo Donax, Santa 
Clara River, Santa Clarita, California, project; $450,000 for 
the Delta Science Center, California; $500,000 for the 
Huntington Beach Aquatic Restoration, California, project; 
$175,000 for the Mill River Corridor Revitalization, 
Connecticut, project; $200,000 to complete the feasibility 
study of the Stevenson Creek Estuary, Florida; $700,000 for the 
East Pass Opening (Channel), Panama City Harbor, Florida, 
project; $425,000 for the Hogan's Creek Restoration, Florida, 
project; $700,000 for the Dinner Key (Sea Plane) Aquatic 
Ecosystem Restoration, Florida, project; $201,000 for the Duck 
Creek, Davenport, Iowa, project; $45,000 for the Chouteau 
Island, Madison County, Illinois, project; $225,000 to initiate 
the feasibility study for Squaw Creek Basin, Illinois; $400,000 
to prepare plans and specifications and initiate construction 
of the Hoffman, Armitage, and Fairbanks Dams, Illinois, 
modification project; $275,000 for the Kankakee River Basin 
aquatic ecosystem restoration, Illinois, project; $1,000,000 
for the Wolf Lake, Indiana, project; $400,000 for construction 
of the Lake Nemaha Wetlands, Seneca, Kansas, project; $100,000 
to initiate the feasibility study for the Lost River Valley 
Wetlands Development, Bowling Green, Kentucky; $200,000 for the 
Luling Oxidation Pond, St. Charles Parish, Louisiana, project; 
$118,000 for the St. James Parish Ecosystem Restoration, 
Louisiana; $200,000 for the Nashawannuck Pond, Easthampton, 
Massachusetts, project; $160,000 to complete the feasibility 
study of the Hennepin Marsh, Grosse Ile Township, Michigan, 
project; $50,000 to initiate the feasibility study for the 
Black Lagoon, Trenton, Michigan; $600,000 for the Rivers South 
Recreation Plan, River Des Peres, Missouri; $100,000 to 
initiate the feasibility study for the David City Wetlands, 
Butler County, Nebraska; $210,000 for the feasibility study of 
Lake Weamaconk, New Jersey; $50,000 for the Cazenovia, New 
York, project; $200,000 to prepare a preliminary restoration 
plan and feasibility study for Chenango Lake, Chenango County, 
New York; $100,000 for the Oyster Reef Creation, Port 
Jefferson, New York, project; $100,000 to initiate a 
feasibility study of the Oak Orchard Creek and Tonawanda Creek 
Watersheds, New York; $100,000 for the feasibility study of the 
Nepperhan River Outlet, Yonkers, New York; $180,000 for the 
Weir Creek, Bronx, New York, project; $10,000 for the initial 
assessment of the Sheldrake and Goodlife Pond, New Rochelle and 
Mamaroneck, New York; $10,000 for the initial assessment of the 
Mamaroneck Reservoir, Mamaroneck, New York; $10,000 for the 
initial assessment of the Duck Pond Restoration, Harrison, New 
York; $350,000 to complete plans and specifications and 
initiate construction on the Little Sugar Creek Aquatic 
Ecosystem Restoration, North Carolina, project; $125,000 to 
initiate a feasibility study of Middle Cuyahoga River, Kent Dam 
Restoration, Portage County, Ohio; $250,000 to continue the 
feasibility study of the Lake Carl Blackwell Aquatic Ecosystem 
Restoration, Oklahoma; $1,000,000 for the Springfield Millrace, 
Oregon, project; $400,000 for the Kettle Creek Watershed, Dents 
Run, Pennsylania, project; $250,000 for the environmental 
restoration report for the Wetland Education Center, University 
of Texas Marine Science Institute, Port Aransas, Texas; 
$250,000 to complete the ecosystem restoration report and 
initiate plans and specifications for the West Jordan, Utah, 
project; $400,000 for the Ely/Pucketts Creek, Viriginia, 
project; $100,000 to determine Federal interest and initiate 
design of the Duwamish Waterway Marsh Restoration, Washington, 
project; and $150,000 for the Lake Koshkonong Aquatic Ecosystem 
Restoration, Wisconsin, project.
    Snagging and Clearing (Section 208).--The Committee has 
provided $1,000,000 for the Section 208 program. Within the 
amount provided, the recommendation includes: $324,000 for 
construction of the Big Slough Ditch, Craighead County, 
Arkansas, project; $100,000 for construction of the Ditch 2, 
Craighead County, Arkansas, project; $80,000 to construct the 
Farrenburg Ditch, Missouri, project; and $205,000 to complete 
the planning and design analysis and initiate and complete 
construction of the Lateral No. 3, Missouri, project.
    Aquatic Plant Control Program.--Within the amount provided 
for the Aquatic Plant Control Program: $150,000 is for the 
eradication of aquatic weeds in Clear Lake, California; $50,000 
is for the removal of aquatic weeds in the Lavaca and Navidad 
Rivers in Texas; $300,000 is for the removal of aquatic weeds 
in Caddo Lake, Texas; and $100,000 is for the removal of 
aquatic growth in the Potomac River in Virginia, Maryland, and 
the District of Columbia.
    Dam Safety and Seepage/Stability Correction Program.--
Within the amount provided for the Dam Safety and Seepage/
Stability Correction Program, the Committee has provided 
$3,000,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue critical dam 
safety repairs to Waterbury Dam in Vermont.

            Flood Control, Mississippi River and Tributaries

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




Appropriation, 2001...................................      $350,458,000
Budget Estimate, 2002.................................       280,000,000
Recommended, 2002.....................................       347,655,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2001...............................        -2,803,000
    Budget Estimate, 2002.............................       +67,655,000


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


General investigations

    Donaldsonville to the Gulf, Louisiana.--The Committee has 
provided an additional $800,000 for the Corps of Engineers to 
expedite the feasibility study of solutions for flooding in the 
area.
    Horn Lake and Tributaries, Tennessee and Mississippi.--The 
Committee is aware of the residual flooding problems along the 
urban areas of Horn Lake Creek and the need for a higher level 
of flood protection to be provided. The Committee, therefore, 
has provided $300,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue 
the reevaluation of the project.
    Bayou Meto Basin, Arkansas.--The Committee is aware of the 
need to complete the reevaluation of the Bayou Meto Basin 
project, conditionally authorized by Section 363(a) of the 
Water Resources Development Act of 1996. The Committee, 
therefore, has included $2,573,000 for the Corps of Engineers 
to complete the reevaluation and preconstruction engineering 
and design.
    Morganza to the Gulf of Mexico, Louisiana.--The Committee 
has provided an additional $2,500,000 to continue the expedited 
engineering and design of the Houma Lock and completion of the 
Morganza to the Gulf feasibility study this calendar year.

Construction

    Channel Improvement.--The Committee recognizes the critical 
need of providing navigation along the Mississippi River and 
the efficiency in the construction of dikes as they reduce 
dredging requirements. Therefore, the Committee has included 
$43,905,000 for the project, $500,000 above the budget request, 
to initiate dike construction at Keyes Point, Arkansas; Kate 
Aubrey, Arkansas; and Ashport-Goldust, Arkansas and Tennessee.
    Mississippi River Levees.--The Committee recognizes the 
importance of the Mississippi River Levees and has provided an 
additional amount of $6,543,000 above the budget request of 
$43,457,000. Further, the committee is aware of the conditions 
of the levee in the vicinity of New Madrid, Missouri. This 
condition is primarily the result of stone being placed along 
the slope of the levee by the Corps of Engineers during flood 
situations to protect the levee from wave wash and from 
dilapidated structures that exist in the vicinity of the levee 
section. These conditions pose a threat to safe public access 
and prevent satisfactory maintenance of the levee. The 
Committee, therefore, directs the Corps to construct 
improvements under the Mississippi River Levees authority, 
which have been identified in a report prepared by the Memphis 
District. The Committee has included $4,100,000 within the 
additional amount to construct these improvements.
    St. Francis Basin, Arkansas and Missouri.--The Committee is 
aware of the frequent and prolonged flooding of lands and 
improvements along the uncompleted portion of the St. Francis 
Basin project. Therefore, the Committee has provided an 
additional $1,000,000 above the budget request of $3,230,000 to 
complete construction of Ditches 1 & 6, Missouri.
    Mississippi Delta Region, Louisiana.--The Committee has 
included $1,300,000 above the budget request of $1,600,000 for 
the project features at the Davis Pond area. Additionally, 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 the project.
    Demonstration Erosion Control, Mississippi.--The work to 
date by the Corps of Engineers and the Natural Resources 
Conservation Service has shown positive results in the 
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 recognize 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.
    Upper Yazoo Project, Mississippi.--The Committee has 
provided an additional $5,000,000 to continue construction on 
the Upper Yazoo Project, Mississippi.
    St. Johns Bayou and New Madrid Floodway, Missouri.--The 
Committee has provided an additional $850,000 for a total of 
$1,000,000 to advance construction of elements within the State 
of Missouri on the St. Johns Bayou and New Madrid Floodway.
    Nonconnah Creek, Flood Control Feature, Tennessee and 
Missouri.--The Committee has provided $1,615,000 of which 
$200,000 is to be used to reevaluate the extension of the flood 
control project upstream five miles and $115,000 is to be used 
to investigate recreational and environmental enhancements for 
the Nonconnah Creek project.

Maintenance

    St. Francis Basin, Arkansas and Missouri.--The Committee 
recognizes the critical backlog of maintenance items on this 
project and has provided an additional $8,367,000 above the 
budget request to address this problem. The funds are to be 
used for levee maintenance, scour repairs, and channel cleanout 
at various locations of the St. Francis Basin, Arkansas and 
Missouri, project.
    Bonnet Carre, Louisiana.--The Committee has provided an 
additional $960,000 for the replacement of critical operating 
equipment bringing the total funds provided to $2,814,000 on 
the Bonnet Carre, Louisiana, project.
    Yazoo Basin, Mississippi.--The Committee provides the 
following additional amounts for the maintenance of the Yazoo 
Basin projects: $4,000,000 for Arkabutla Lake, $2,700,000 for 
Big Sunflower River, $2,500,000 for Enid Lake, $2,100,000 for 
Grenada Lake, $3,000,000 for Sardis Lake, and an additional 
$847,000 for the Yazoo Tributaries, Mississippi.
    Wappapello Lake, Missouri.--The Committee provides an 
additional $500,000 above the budget request for a total of 
$8,500,000. The additional funds are to be used for road 
relocation as part of the Wappapello Lake Missouri, project.

                   Operation and Maintenance, General

------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriation, 2001..................................     $1,897,775,000
Budget Estimate, 2002................................      1,745,000,000
Recommended, 2002....................................      1,864,464,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2001..............................        -33,311,000
    Budget Estimate, 2002............................       +119,464,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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


    Alabama-Coosa River, Alabama.--The Committee has provided 
an additional $4,625,000 for annual operation and maintenance 
including lake and recreation maintenance, environmental 
studies, and replacement of spillway safety signs for the 
Alabama-Coosa River, Alabama, project.
    Bayou Coden, Alabama.--The Committee has provided an 
additional $500,000 for maintenance dredging of the Bayou 
Coden, Alabama, project.
    Bayou La Batre, Alabama.--The Committee has provided an 
additional $150,000 for maintenance dredging of the Bayou La 
Batre, Alabama, project.
    Black Warrior and Tombigbee Rivers, Alabama.--The Committee 
has provided an additional $2,600,000 for annual operation and 
maintenance including the locks and dams, recreation 
facilities, and upland disposal areas on the Black Warrior and 
Tombigbee Rivers
    Dauphin Island Bay, Alabama.--The Committee has provided an 
additional $350,000 for annual operation and maintenance on the 
Dauphin Island Bay, Alabama, project.
    Mobile Area Digital Area Mapping and Geographic Information 
System, Alabama.--The Committee has provided $3,000,000 for the 
Corps of Engineers to continue work begun in fiscal year 2001 
to develop an area-wide geographic information system for 
Mobile and Baldwin Counties in Alabama. This effort will 
continue the development of a geographic information system to 
organize, store, analyze, and maintain geospatial data 
associated with Federal projects in the area.
    Millers Ferry Lock and Dam, Alabama.--The Committee has 
provided an additional $2,300,000 for a debris disposal system 
and to replace a raw water piping system for the Millers Ferry 
Lock and Dam project.
    Mobile Harbor, Alabama.--The Committee has provided an 
additional $5,700,000 to dredge the bay and channel sumps, 
maintain Arlington channel, perform sediment reevaluation, 
continue data reporting, and develop the Chickasaw Creek 
disposal plan for the Mobile Harbor, Alabama, project.
    Robert F. Henry Lock and Dam, Alabama.--The Committee has 
provided an additional $600,000 to replace spillway safety 
signs on the Robert F. Henry Lock and Dam.
    Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway, Alabama.--The Committee has 
provided an additional $1,700,000 for the Tennessee-Tombigbee 
Waterway project. The additional funds above the budget request 
are to be used for deferred maintenance dredging, to repair and 
resite the historic snagboat, Montgomery, and to clear the 
channel from the downstream end of the Big Creek Bendway past 
the confluence with Big Creek.
    Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway Wildlife Mitigation, Alabama 
and Mississippi.--The Committee has provided $1,200,000 for the 
states of Mississippi and Alabama to administer 125,925 acres 
of wildlife mitigation lands for the Tennessee-Tombigbee 
Waterway.
    Anchorage Harbor, Alaska.--The Committee has provided an 
additional $1,000,000 for a model study of Anchorage Harbor, 
Alaska.
    Kodiak Harbor, Alaska.--The Committee has provided an 
additional $750,000 for maintenance dredging of Kodiak Harbor, 
Alaska.
    Helena Harbor, Phillips County, Arkansas.--The Committee 
has provided $340,000 for maintenance dredging of Helena 
Harbor, Arkansas.
    Narrows Dam, Lake Greeson, Arkansas.--The Committee has 
provided an additional $1,000,000 for recreation and powerhouse 
facilities rehabilitation on the Narrows Dam, Lake Greeson, 
Arkansas, project.
    Osceola Harbor, Arkansas.--The Committee has provided an 
additional $610,000 for maintenance dredging of Osceola Harbor, 
Arkansas.
    Yellow Bend Port, Arkansas.--The Committee has provided an 
additional $150,000 for maintenance dredging of Yellow Bend 
Port, Arkansas.
    Bodega Bay, California.--The Committee has provided 
$1,800,000 for the preparation of an upland disposal site for 
the dredging of the Bodega Bay, California, project.
    Isabella Lake, California.--The Committee expects the Corps 
of Engineers to use funds appropriated in the Act to conduct 
the measures required by the June 14, 2000, Biological Opinion 
issued by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, with respect to 
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.
    Los Angeles County Drainage Area, California.--The 
Committee has provided an additional $2,000,000 to grade and 
maintain the basin within Hansen Dam to enhance and maintain 
flood capacity and to provide for future use of the basin for 
compatible purposes consistent with the Master Plan, including 
recreation and environmental restoration on the Los Angeles 
County Drainage Area, California, project.
    Moss Landing Harbor, California.--The Committee has 
provided $2,500,000 for maintenance dredging of the Federal 
channel in Moss Landing Harbor, California.
    Redwood City Harbor, California.--The Committee has 
provided $2,000,000 for maintenance dredging of Redwood City 
Harbor, California.
    San Francisco Bay, Long Term Management Strategy, 
California.--The Committee has provided $200,000 to continue 
the development of a long term strategy for the disposal of 
dredged material for the San Francisco Bay, California, area.
    San Francisco Harbor and Bay (Drift Removal), California.--
The Committee has provided an additional $134,000 for debris 
removal activities in San Francisco Bay and Harbor, California.
    San Francisco Harbor, California.--The Committee has 
provided an additional $199,000 for maintenance dredging of San 
Francisco Harbor, California.
    San Joaquin River, California.--The Committee has provided 
an additional $2,802,000 for maintenance dredging on the San 
Joaquin River, California, project.
    Ventura Harbor, California.--The Committee has provided an 
additional $1,165,000 for repairs of the South Beach Groin on 
the Ventura Harbor, California, project.
    Cherry Creek Lake, Colorado.--None of the funds provided 
for operation and maintenance of the Cherry Creek Lake project 
in Colorado may be used to undertake a study of dam safety at 
the project.
    Intracoastal Waterway from Delaware River to Chesapeake 
Bay, Delaware and Maryland.--None of the funds provided for 
operation and maintenance of the Intracoastal Waterway from 
Delaware River to Chesapeake Bay project may be used to close 
or remove the St. Georges Bridge without prior authorization of 
the Congress.
    Canaveral Harbor, Florida.--The Committee has provided an 
additional $2,930,000 for maintenance dredging of the Canaveral 
Harbor, Florida, project.
    Carrabella Bay Harbor, Florida.--The Committee has provided 
$150,000 for a sand flat removal dredge management study at the 
Carrabella Bay Harbor, Florida, project.
    Fort Pierce Harbor, Florida.--The Committee has provided an 
additional $1,951,000 for maintenance dredging of the Fort 
Pierce Harbor, Florida, project.
    Miami River, Florida.--The Committee has provided 
$4,000,000 for maintenance dredging of the Miami River, 
Florida, project.
    Suwanee River, Florida.--The Committee has provided 
$2,000,000 for the dredging of McGriff Pass on the Suwanee 
River, Florida, project.
    Allatona Lake, Georgia.--The Committee has provided an 
additional $906,000 for recreational facility maintenance at 
the Allatona Lake, Georgia, project.
    Apalachicola, Chattahoochee and Flint Rivers, Georgia, 
Alabama, and Florida.--The Committee has provided an additional 
$6,818,000 to address the maintenance and dredging backlog on 
the Apalachicola, Chattahoochee, and Flint Rivers project.
    Of the funds provided, $540,000 is to restore fish and 
wildlife habitat and hydrologic connections to Florida River, 
Kennedy Creek, and Iamonia Lake within the Apalachicola system, 
and $500,000 is to restore the historic hydrologic connection 
between the Apalachicola River and Virginia Cut.
    Carters Dam and Lake, Georgia.--The Committee has provided 
an additional $1,200,000 for powerhouse repairs at the Carters 
Dam and Lake, Georgia, project.
    Savannah Harbor, Georgia.--The Committee has provided an 
additional $1,089,000 for operation and maintenance dredging on 
the Savannah Harbor, Georgia, project.
    Kaskaskia River Navigation, Illinois.--The Committee has 
provided an additional $491,000 for maintenance dredging on the 
Kaskaskia River Navigation project, Illinois.
    Buckhorn Lake, Kentucky.--The Committee has provided an 
additional $120,000 for recreational improvements on the 
Buckhorn Lake, Kentucky, project.
    Carr Creek Lake, Kentucky.--The Committee has provided an 
additional $120,000 for recreational improvements on the Carr 
Creek Lake, Kentucky, project.
    Elvis Stahr (Hickman) Harbor, Kentucky.--The Committee has 
provided $460,000 for maintenance dredging of the Elvis Stahr 
Harbor, Kentucky, project.
    Barataria Bay Waterway, Louisiana.--The Committee has 
provided $2,000,000 for dredging on the Barataria Bay Waterway 
project including Bayou Rigaurd and Barataria Pass in the 
vicinity of Grand Isle, Louisiana.
    Bayou Teche, Louisiana.--The Committee has provided 
$2,000,000 to dredge the bayou and East and West Calumet 
Floodgates on the Bayou Teche, Louisiana, project.
    Freshwater Bayou, Louisiana.--The Committee has provided an 
additional $2,000,000 to perform maintenance dredging on the 
Freshwater Bayou, Louisiana, between the Freshwater Bayou Lock 
and the Gulf of Mexico.
    J. Bennett Johnston Waterway, Louisiana.--The Committee has 
provided an additional $2,000,000 to address critical backlog 
maintenance on the J. Bennett Johnston Waterway, Louisiana, 
project.
    Mermentau River, Louisiana.--The Committee has provided an 
additional $300,000 to dredge between Grand Cheniere and the 
Gulf of Mexico on the Mermentau River, Louisiana.
    Mississippi River Gulf Outlet, Louisiana.--The Committee 
has provided an additional $2,000,000 for embankment 
stabilization on the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet, Louisiana, 
project. The Committee is very concerned about erosion problems 
on the channel.
    Waterway from Gulf Intracoastal Waterway to Bayou Dulac, 
Louisiana.--The Committee has provided $500,000 to maintain the 
waterway from the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway to Bayou Dulac, 
Louisiana.
    Jennings Randolph Lake, Maryland.--The Committee has 
provided an additional $1,000,000 to upgrade recreational 
facilities on the Jennings Randolph Lake, Maryland, project.
    Aunt Lydia's Cove, Massachusetts.--The Committee has 
provided $300,000 for the dredging of the Aunt Lydia's Cove, 
Massachusetts, project.
    Andrew's River, Massachusetts.--The Committee has provided 
$130,000 for the dredging of the Andrew's River, Massachusetts, 
project.
    Scituate Harbor, Massachusetts.--The Committee has provided 
$1,500,000 to dredge the Federal channel, anchorages, and 
repair the South Jetty on the Scituate Harbor, Massachusetts, 
project.
    St. Mary's River, Little Rapids Channel, Michigan.--The 
Committee has provided $1,000,000 for the St. Mary's River, 
Little Rapids Channel.
    Grand Marais, Michigan.--The Committee has provided 
$200,000 to conduct a major rehabilitation reevaluation of the 
harbor project at Grand Marais, Michigan.
    Caruthersville Harbor, Missouri.--The Committee has 
provided $240,000 for maintenance dredging of the project at 
Caruthersville Harbor, Missouri.
    Clearwater Lake, Missouri.--The Committee has provided an 
additional $1,635,000 for the relocation of recreation 
facilities and repairs due to ice storm damage on the 
Clearwater Lake, Missouri, project.
    New Madrid Harbor, Missouri.--The Committee has provided 
$290,000 for maintenance dredging of the project at New Madrid 
Harbor, Missouri.
    Southeast Missouri Port, Mississippi River, Missouri.--The 
Committee has provided $400,000 for maintenance dredging of the 
Southeast Missouri Port, Mississippi River, Missouri, project.
    Table Rock Lake, Missouri.--The Committee has provided an 
additional $2,000,000 to address the maintenance backlog and 
upgrade recreation areas on the Table Rock Lake, Missouri, 
project.
    Missouri National Recreation River, Nebraska.--The 
Committee has provided $275,000 for bank stabilization along 
the Missouri National Recreation River, Nebraska.
    Barnegat Inlet, New Jersey.--The Committee has provided 
$3,200,000 for the Barnegat Inlet, New Jersey, project. The 
additional funds above the budget request will enable the Corps 
to repair the south jetty and replace the north inlet bulkhead.
    Shrewsbury River, Main Channel, New Jersey.--The Committee 
has provided $130,000 for maintenance dredging of the 
Shrewsbury River, Main Channel, New Jersey, project.
    Flushing Bay and Creek, New York.--The Committee has 
provided an additional $1,000,000 to restore the channel to the 
Federally authorized depth on the Flushing Bay and Creek, New 
York, project.
    Plattsburgh Harbor, New York.--The Committee has provided 
$2,000,000 to repair the breakwater on the Plattsburgh Harbor, 
New York, project.
    Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, North Carolina.--The 
Committee has provided an additional $2,609,000 to address the 
critical dredging maintenance backlog along the Atlantic 
Intracoastal Waterway, North Carolina.
    Lockwoods Folly River, North Carolina.--The Committee has 
provided an additional $1,000,000 for maintenance dredging on 
the project at Lockwoods Folly River, North Carolina.
    Masonboro Inlet and Connecting Channels, North Carolina.--
The Committee has provided an additional $700,000 for 
maintenance dredging on the Masonboro Inlet and Connecting 
Channels, North Carolina, project.
    Garrison Dam, Lake Sakakawea, North Dakota.--The Committee 
has provided an additional $500,000 for maintenance and 
upgrading of recreational facilities on the Garrison Dam, Lake 
Sakakawea, North Dakota, project, and an additional $100,000 
for mosquito control in Williston, North Dakota.
    Hugo Lake, Oklahoma.--The Committee has provided an 
additional $130,000 for land transfers on the Hugo Lake, 
Oklahoma, project.
    Wister Lake, Oklahoma.--The Committee has provided an 
additional $70,000 for land transfers on the Wister Lake, 
Oklahoma, project.
    Columbia River and lower Willamette River below Vancouver 
and Portland, Oregon.--The Committee has provided an additional 
$3,000,000 for the East Astoria Boat Basin breakwater project.
    Tillamook Bay and Bar, Oregon.--The Committee has provided 
an additional $200,000 for a major maintenance report for the 
north and south jetties for the project at Tillamook Bay and 
Bar, Oregon.
    Yaquina Bay and Harbor, Oregon.--The Committee has provided 
an additional $100,000 to dredge the Newport South Beach Marina 
and Harbor to its Federally authorized depth at Yaquina Bay and 
Harbor, Oregon.
    Tionesta Lake, Pennsylvania.--The Committee has provided an 
additional $750,000 for upgrades of the recreation facility at 
the Tionesta Lake, Pennsylvania project.
    Murells Inlet, South Carolina.--The Committee has provided 
$200,000 for maintenance dredging on the Murrells Inlet, South 
Carolina, project.
    Houston Ship Channel, Texas.--The Committee has provided an 
additional $4,445,000 maintenance dredging on the Houston Ship 
Channel, Texas, project.
    Proctor Lake, Texas.--The Committee has provided an 
additional $600,000 for the planning of land acquisition on the 
Proctor Lake, Texas, project.
    Trinity River and Tributaries, Texas.--The Committee has 
provided an additional $1,000,000 for critical maintenance 
dredging on the Trinity River and Tributaries, Texas, project.
    Waco Lake, Texas.--The Committee understands the importance 
of having a reliable water supply source to ensure the economic 
viability of the central Texas region. The City of Waco has 
partnered with the Corps of Engineers to complete a study that 
was approved in 1984 to reallocate storage at Waco Lake, Texas, 
for increasing the available water supply storage. However, 
significant increases in project costs since completion of the 
study have delayed project implementation. A portion of the 
cost increase is due to the need to relocate existing 
recreation facilities. The Committee understands that the 
existing facilities are reaching the limits of their useful 
life and would need to be rehabilitated or replaced in the near 
future. To minimize further delays in implementing this much 
needed project, the Committee has provided an additional 
$1,500,000 to perform cultural resource mitigation and 
recreation improvements. Notwithstanding the provisions of 
Public Law 85-500, the costs for this work shall be 
accomplished at Federal expense.
    Whitney Lake, Texas.--The Committee has provided an 
additional $573,000 to initiate plans and specifications for 
the power house upgrade in compliance with the Major 
Rehabilitation Report dated March 2001, submitted to the Chief 
of Engineers.
    Winter Harbor, Virginia.--The Committee has provided 
$1,000,000 for maintenance dredging on the project at Winter 
Harbor, Virginia.
    Grays Harbor and Chehalis River, Washington.--The Committee 
has provided an additional $3,800,000 for the rehabilitation of 
the north jetty, to investigate improvements to the north 
jetty, and to continue the analysis of the south jetty on the 
Grays Harbor and Chehalis, Washington, project.
    Mud Mountain Dam, Washington.--The Committee has provided 
an additional $500,000 for the design of fish passage 
facilities at the Mud Mountain Dam, White River, Washington, 
project.
    Bluestone Lake, West Virginia.--The Committee has provided 
an additional $2,269,000 for continuing construction of the 
multi-level release tower and debris removal at the Bluestone 
Lake, West Virginia, project.
    Fox River, Wisconsin.--The Committee has provided an 
additional $5,000,000 for transfer of the lock system to the 
State of Wisconsin.
    Great Lakes Sediment Transport Models.--The Committee has 
provided an additional $500,000 for the development of the 
sediment transport model for the Maumee River, Ohio.
    Dredged Material Recycling Program.--The Committee has 
included language in the bill which directs the Corps of 
Engineers to fully investigate the development of an upland 
disposal site recycling program on the Black Warrior and 
Tombigbee Rivers project and the Apalachicola, Chattahoochee 
and Flint Rivers project. Many of the existing upland dredged 
disposal on these and other projects are nearing capacity and a 
program to recycle dredged material would enable necessary 
maintenance dredging to continue while reducing the need to 
develop new disposal sites in environmentally sensitive areas.
    Inland Waterway Navigation Charts.--The Committee has 
provided $4,000,000 for the Corps of Engineers to begin the 
process of making inland waterway navigation chart date 
available in electronic format. Electronic navigation chart 
data would enable towboats and other vessels to navigate more 
precisely, provide increased capability in poor visibility, and 
aid in the training of vessel operators.

                           Regulatory Program




Appropriation, 2001...................................      $124,725,000
Budget Estimate, 2002.................................       128,000,000
Recommended, 2002.....................................       128,000,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2001...............................        +3,275,000
    Budget Estimate, 2002.............................  ................


    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 2002, the Committee recommends an 
appropriation of $128,000,000, the same as the budget request 
and $3,275,000 more than the amount appropriated in fiscal year 
2001.

            Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program




Appropriation, 2001...................................      $139,692,000
Budget Estimate, 2002.................................       140,000,000
Recommended, 2002.....................................       140,000,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2001...............................          +308,000
    Budget Estimate, 2002.............................  ................


    The Committee recommendation for the Formerly Utilized 
Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP) is $140,000,000, the 
same as the budget request. In fiscal year 1998, Congress 
transferred responsibility for cleanup of contaminated sites 
under FUSRAP to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. In 
appropriating FUSRAP funds to the Corps of Engineers, the 
Committee intended to transfer only the responsibility for 
administration and execution of cleanup activities at eligible 
sites where remediation had not been completed. It did not 
intend to transfer ownership of and accountability for real 
property interests that remain with the Department of Energy. 
The Committee expects the Department to continue to provide the 
institutional knowledge and expertise needed to best serve the 
Nation and the affected communities in executing this program.
    The Corps of Engineers has extensive experience in the 
cleanup of hazardous, toxic, and radioactive wastes through its 
work for the Department of Defense and other Federal agencies. 
The Committee intends for the Corps expertise 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.
    The Committee is concerned that many of the stakeholders 
living near FUSRAP sites around the Nation are not fully aware 
of when these FUSRAP sites will be fully remediated. To ensure 
that such documentation is available to FUSRAP stakeholders, 
the Committee directs the Corps of Engineers to prepare a bi-
annual report which provides a brief summary on the status of 
remediation efforts on-going at all FUSRAP sites. Copies of 
this report should be made available by the Corps of Engineers 
to stakeholders, including the appropriate local, state and 
Federal officials.

                            General Expenses




Appropriation, 2001...................................      $151,666,000
Budget Estimate, 2002.................................       153,000,000
Recommended, 2002.....................................       153,000,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2001...............................        +1,334,000
    Budget Estimate, 2002.............................  ................


    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 
$153,000,000, the same as the budget request and $1,334,000 
above the fiscal year 2001 amount. 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.
    Corps of Engineering Hiring Practices.--The Committee 
understands that Army Corps of Engineers' district offices do 
not have authority to recruit and hire new applicants for 
positions within Corps of Engineers, and that this policy may 
impede the ability of the Corps to attract qualified candidates 
from Hispanic and other minority groups. The needs of the Corps 
of Engineers are different from those of the Army generally, as 
Corps district offices serve the regions of the country in 
which they are located, whereas other Army organizations serve 
the nation as a whole. The scope and complexity of the Army's 
centralized personnel management system for worldwide military 
service and combat operations may not be meeting the Corps need 
to hire from within the communities in which they operate in 
order to effectively resolve regional water management issues 
and to enhance relations with local communities. The 
centralized Army personnel management system is not designed to 
recruit personnel from local communities to meet Corps of 
Engineers regional district needs. Therefore, the Committee 
directs the Secretary of the Army to submit a report to the 
Appropriations Committees of Congress by September 1, 2001, on 
his plans to address this problem and how a demonstration 
program could be established in fiscal year 2002 to permit 
Corps regional offices more flexibility to recruit and hire 
locally, and to take advantage of untapped potential in 
Hispanic and other minority communities.

                           General Provisions


                       Corps of Engineers--Civil

    Sec. 101. The Committee has included language which amends 
the authorization for the San Gabriel Basin Restoration, 
California, program so that the San Gabriel Water Authority 
shall receive credit for prior expenditures.
    Sec. 102. The Committee has included language which 
provides that the dredge McFARLAND may only be operated in a 
ready reserve status for urgent dredging, emergencies, and in 
support of national defense.
    Sec. 103. The Committee has included language which directs 
the Secretary of the Army to include an alternatives analysis 
of a multipurpose Auburn Dam as part of the American River 
watershed, California, long-term study.
    Sec. 104. The Committee has included language directing the 
Secretary of the Army to transfer property at Tuttle Creek 
Lake, Kansas, to the Blue Township Fire District, Blue 
Township, Kansas.
    Sec. 105. The Committee includes language which directs the 
Secretary of the Army to carry out shore protection projects in 
accordance with the cost sharing provisions contained in 
existing Project Cooperation Agreements.
    Sec. 106. The Committee has included language which 
provides that none of the funds appropriated in this Act may be 
used to revise the Missouri River Master Water Control Manual 
if such revision provides for an increase in the springtime 
water release program during the spring heavy rainfall and snow 
melt period in States that have rivers draining into the 
Missouri River below the Gavins Point Dam.
                                TITLE II

                       DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

                          Central Utah Project

                Central Utah Project Completion Account




Appropriation, 2001...................................       $39,862,000
Budget Estimate, 2002.................................        36,228,000
Recommended, 2002.....................................        36,228,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2001...............................        -3,634,000
    Budget Estimate, 2002.............................  ................


    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 2002 to carry 
out the provisions of the Act is $36,228,000, the same as the 
budget request, and $3,634,000 less than the amount 
appropriated in fiscal year 2001.

                         Bureau of Reclamation

                      Water and Related Resources




Appropriation, 2001...................................      $678,953,000
Budget Estimate, 2002.................................       647,997,000
Recommended, 2002.....................................       691,160,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2001...............................       +12,207,000
    Budget Estimate, 2002.............................       +43,163,000


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


    Colorado River Front Work and Levee System, Arizona.--The 
Committee has provided an additional $1,000,000 for the Bureau 
of Reclamation to accelerate completion of design and National 
Environmental Policy Act compliance for water management 
reservoirs to be constructed along the All American Canal.
    Tres Rios Wetlands Demonstration, Arizona.--The Committee 
has provided $500,000 for the Bureau of Reclamation to continue 
the Tres Rios research and demonstration project.
    Central Valley Project, American River Division, 
California.--The bill includes $3,500,000 for the Bureau of 
Reclamation to reimburse the City of Folsom, California, for 
costs associated with the replacement of the Natoma Pipeline 
System, which is owned and operated by the Bureau of 
Reclamation, and is the single water supply source for the 
City.
    Central Valley Project, East Side Division.--The Committee 
has provided an additional $2,400,000 for water and sewer 
system upgrades and a visitor capacity study at New Melones 
Lake.
    Central Valley Project, Miscellaneous Project Programs.--
Within the amounts provided for the Central Valley Project, 
Miscellaneous Project Program, and the Central Valley Project 
Restoration Fund, the Committee expects the Bureau of 
Reclamation to completely fulfill its obligations under the San 
Joaquin River Agreement, including the timely payment to non-
Federal parties to the Agreement.
    Central Valley Project, Sacramento River Division, 
California.--The Committee has provided $7,371,000 for the 
Resources Management activity of the Sacramento River Division 
of the Central Valley Project, $3,300,000 above the budget 
request. Of the amount provided, $2,000,000 is for the Glenn-
Colusa Irrigation District (GCID) Fish Screen Improvement 
Project; $1,000,000 is for detailed, site-specific 
environmental assessment and permitting work associated with 
Sites Reservoir, including an evaluation of both the GCID Main 
Canal and the Tehama-Colusa Canal as a means to convey water to 
the proposed reservoir; and $300,000 is for the Colusa Basin 
Drainage District's Integrated Resources Management Plan for 
critical flood control, conjunctive use, and waterfowl habitat 
activities.
    Groundwater Replenishment System Project, California.--The 
Committee has included an additional $1,200,000 for the 
Groundwater Replenishment System project. This project was 
previously known as the Orange County Regional Water 
Reclamation project.
    Lake Tahoe Regional Wetlands Development, California.--The 
Committee has provided $2,000,000 for the Tahoe Airport Stream 
restoration project and $1,500,000 for the project to restore 
Third and Incline Creeks.
    Los Angeles Area Water Reclamation and Reuse Project, 
California.--The bill includes $740,000 to continue the Los 
Angeles Area Water Reclamation and Reuse project.
    Mission Basin Brackish Groundwater Desalting Demonstration 
Project, California.--The Committee has provided $400,000 for 
the Bureau of Reclamation to continue work on the Mission Basin 
Brackish Groundwater Desalting Demonstration project.
    North San Diego County Area Water Recycling Project, 
California.--The bill includes $3,000,000 to continue work on 
the North San Diego County Area Water Recycling project.
    Salton Sea Research Project, California.--The Committee has 
provided $2,000,000 for the Bureau of Reclamation to continue 
environmental work related to the preferred alternative for the 
restoration of the Salton Sea. In addition, the Committee has 
provided $1,500,000 for the Bureau of Reclamation to continue 
the program to perform research and construct river reclamation 
and wetlands projects to improve water quality in the Alamo 
River and New River, Imperial County, California.
    San Jose Water Reclamation and Reuse Program, California.--
The Committee has provided an additional $2,000,000 for the San 
Jose Water Reclamation and Reuse program.
    Animas La-Plata Project, Colorado.--The bill includes 
$16,000,000 for the Animas La-Plata project. The additional 
funds above the budget request will enhance the Bureau of 
Reclamation's ability to complete the project within the time 
period established by the Colorado Ute Settlement Act 
Amendments of 2000.
    Equus Beds Groundwater Recharge Demonstration Project, 
Kansas.--The pilot project for the Equus Beds is complete. As 
final reports are assembled, the Committee strongly encourages 
the Bureau of Reclamation to work with affected communities and 
the State of Kansas on design and engineering of the full-scale 
project.
    Fort Peck Dry Prairie Rural Water System, Montana.--The 
Committee has provided $4,000,000 to continue the Fort Peck Dry 
Prairie Rural Water System project in Montana.
    Albuquerque Metro Area Water Reclamation and Reuse Project, 
New Mexico.--The Committee has provided $2,000,000 for the 
continuation of the Albuquerque Metro Area Water Reclamation 
and Reuse Project.
    Deschutes Ecosystem Restoration Project, Oregon.--The 
Committee has provided an additional $500,000 to facilitate 
efforts to improve streamflows and improve water quality in the 
Deschutes River Basin.
    Deschutes Project, Oregon.--The Committee has provided an 
additional $600,000 to continue work on the project to install 
buried pipe in portions of the Tumalo Irrigation District's 
Bend Feed Canal to conserve water lost to seepage.
    Mid-Dakota Rural Water Project, South Dakota.--The bill 
includes an additional $5,000,000 to accelerate construction on 
the Mid-Dakota Water Rural Water project in South Dakota.
    Mni-Wiconi Project, South Dakota.--The Committee has 
provided an additional $5,000,000 to accelerate construction of 
the Mni-Wiconi project in South Dakota.
    El Paso Water Reclamation and Reuse Project, Texas.--The 
Committee has provided $1,000,000 to facilitate construction of 
the Central Portion of the El Paso Water Reclamation and Reuse 
project.
    Yakima River Basin Water Enhancement Project, Washington.--
The Committee has provided an additional $1,000,000 for the 
Yakima River Basin Water Enhancement project in Washington.
    Drought Emergency Assistance.--The Committee has provided 
$2,000,000 for the Bureau of Reclamation to establish a Weather 
Damage Modification Program, including a regional weather 
modification research program involving the states of Oklahoma, 
Texas, and Kansas.
    Wetlands Development.--Within the amount provided for the 
Wetlands Development Program, the Committee has provided 
$500,000 for the Bureau of Reclamation to undertake a project 
to restore natural vegetation along the lower Colorado River in 
the vicinity of Yuma, Arizona.

               Bureau of Reclamation Loan Program Account




Appropriation, 2001...................................        $9,348,000
Budget Estimate, 2002.................................         7,495,000
Recommended, 2002.....................................         7,495,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2001...............................        -1,853,000
    Budget Estimate, 2002.............................


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


                central valley project restoration fund





Appropriation, 2001...................................       $38,360,000
Budget Estimate, 2002.................................        55,039,000
Recommended, 2002.....................................        55,039,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2001...............................       +16,679,000
    Budget Estimate, 2002.............................  ................


    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.
    For fiscal year 2002, the Committee has provided 
$55,039,000, the same as the budget request.
    Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District Fish Screen Improvement 
Project.--In addition to the funds provided under the Central 
Valley Project, Sacramento River Division, the Committee has 
provided $2,000,000 from within funds made available through 
the Central Valley Project Restoration Fund for the Bureau of 
Reclamation to continue work on the Glenn-Colusa Irrigation 
District Fish Screen Improvement Project.
    Anadromous Fish Screen Program.--The Committee expects the 
Bureau of Reclamation to use up to $12,000,000 for the 
Anadromous Fish Screen program to continue work on the American 
Basin Fish Screen and Habitat Improvement Project (Natomas 
Mutual Water Company) as well as the fish screen projects being 
undertaken by the Sutter Mutual Water Company and Reclamation 
District 108.
    San Joaquin River Restoration Program.--The Committee 
intends that within the funds provided through the Central 
Valley Project Restoration Fund in fiscal year 2001, the 
$5,000,000 made available to the San Joaquin River Restoration 
Program remains available for that purpose until expended.

               california bay-delta ecosystem restoration




Appropriation, 2001...................................  ................
Budget Estimate, 2002.................................       $20,000,000
Recommended, 2002.....................................  ................
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2001...............................  ................
    Budget Estimate, 2002.............................       -20,000,000


    The California Bay-Delta Ecosystem 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 authorized the 
appropriation of $143,300,000 for ecosystem restoration 
activities in each of fiscal years 1998, 1999, and 2000. 
Attempts to reauthorize the program last year were 
unsuccessful. Accordingly, no funds were provided in fiscal 
year 2001.
    The Committee remains very supportive of the efforts that 
have been taken in the State of California to develop this 
program, which will provide a safe, clean, and reliable water 
system for millions of people while improving the environment. 
However, for fiscal year 2002, the Committee has again 
recommended no funding in the absence of authorizing 
legislation for this multi-year, multi-billion dollar effort. 
The Committee is aware that authorizing legislation has been 
introduced in the House and the Senate and will reconsider 
funding for the program as the bill moves through the 
appropriations process.

                       policy and administration




Appropriation, 2001...................................       $50,114,000
Budget Estimate, 2002.................................        52,968,000
Recommended, 2002.....................................        52,968,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2001...............................        +2,854,000
    Budget Estimate, 2002.............................  ................


    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 2002, the Committee has recommended 
$52,968,000, the same as the budget request, and $2,854,000 
above the fiscal year 2001 amount.

                           General Provisions


                       Department of the Interior

    Sec. 201. The Committee has included language which 
provides that none of the funds appropriated in this Act may be 
used by the Bureau of Reclamation to issue permits, either 
directly or by making funds available to an entity under a 
contract, for commercial rafting activities within the Auburn 
State Recreation Area, California, until the requirements of 
the National Environmental Policy Act and the Federal Water 
Pollution Control Act are met.
    Sec. 202. The Committee has included language which amends 
the authorization for the American and Sacramento Rivers, 
California, project.
                               TITLE III

                          DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

    Funds recommended in Title III provide for Department of 
Energy programs relating to: Energy Supply, Non-Defense 
Environmental Management, Uranium Facilities Maintenance and 
Remediation, Science, Nuclear Waste Disposal, Departmental 
Administration, the Inspector General, the National Nuclear 
Security Administration, Defense Environmental Management, 
Other Defense Activities, Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal, the 
Power Marketing Administrations, and the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission.

                        committee recommendation

    The Committee recommendation provides additional funding 
for several Department of Energy programs: renewable energy 
technologies, environmental cleanup activities, and nuclear 
nonproliferation programs. However, due to overall funding 
constraints, the Committee was forced to reduce other 
Departmental programs in order to add funding to these critical 
areas.

                         national energy policy

    The President's National Energy Policy Development Group 
released its National Energy Policy in May of 2001. The 
National Energy Policy includes a number of recommendations 
relevant to the Department of Energy, from increasing research 
in certain energy technologies to finding solutions to 
bottlenecks in the national transmission grid. The Committee 
encourages the Secretary of Energy to proceed as quickly as 
possible to complete the necessary reviews in order to 
implement the recommendations of the National Energy Policy.
    Unfortunately, the National Energy Policy was released too 
late to have an effect on the Department's fiscal year 2002 
budget request. If the Secretary needs to make changes to bring 
fiscal year 2002 program funding into alignment with the 
National Energy Policy, the Committee is receptive to making 
the necessary adjustments through the appropriations process 
and through fiscal year 2002 reprogrammings.
    The Secretary should place priority on those actions that 
can alleviate the electricity shortage that is especially acute 
in the West. In particular, the Secretary should expedite 
reviews of Path 15 in California and other transmission 
constraints, the projected financing needs of the Bonneville 
Power Administration, and projected needs of the other Federal 
power marketing administrations.
    The Committee wishes to emphasize that most of the 
Department's programs are not designed to provide immediate 
relief to the Nation's energy crisis. Instead, the Department's 
energy supply programs consist primarily of research and 
development into technologies intended to provide long-term 
solutions to the Nation's energy needs. Near-term deployment of 
available energy technologies is best accomplished through 
incentives other than appropriations.

                 basic research for energy technologies

    The Committee is concerned that the Department does not 
have an adequate plan or policy that relates the basic research 
being conducted by the Office of Science to the energy needs of 
the country. While the Committee understands that basic 
research can lead in many directions, there should be a focus 
on the underlying needs of the Department's energy portfolio. 
There appears to be minimal cooperation and coordination 
between the Office of Science and other Departmental offices on 
the fundamental research needed to improve energy technologies. 
Each year the Committee provides funding for the Office of 
Science to support basic research in energy programs. The 
Committee directs the Department to identify ways in which 
coordination can be improved and research conducted which is 
mutually beneficial and to report to the Committee by January 
15, 2002, on the Department's strategy for ensuring that the 
basic research programs also focus on energy technology needs.

                           project management

    The Department has established an Office of Engineering and 
Construction Management (OECM) to strengthen its project 
management capabilities. The Committee strongly supports this 
effort, but continues to be concerned with the placement of 
this Office in the Department's organizational structure. In 
its recent report to Congress, the National Research Council 
(NRC) reaffirmed its recommendation that the Office of 
Engineering and Construction Management ``. . . should be at 
the level of assistant secretary and report directly to the 
Deputy Secretary.'' The NRC also noted that, ``The most 
important unresolved issues are: (1) definition of the 
authority and scope of OECM; (2) the provision of adequate 
financial and staff resources to improve project management . . 
.''
    The Committee endorses the NRC recommendation that, ``. . . 
the authority of OECM and the PMSOs be strengthened and that 
the resources and personnel available to them be increased to 
support their responsibilities.'' In that regard, the Committee 
strongly urges the Department to elevate OECM to a level equal 
to an Assistant Secretary with a direct reporting relationship 
to the Deputy Secretary/Secretarial Acquisition Executive 
authority. The Committee believes that the director of the 
office should continue to be a career position rather than a 
political appointment. Further, it fully expects that OECM's 
existing personnel should continue in their current positions 
in OECM's new location. The Department also should place the 
facilities and infrastructure policy development and program 
oversight responsibilities and budget under OECM.
    Consistent with NRC's recommendation for strengthening 
available financial and staff resources, the Committee has 
provided $7,600,000 for OECM in fiscal year 2002 and expects 
the office to report directly to the Deputy Secretary.

                     facilities and infrastructure

    The Committee is aware of the continuing decline in the 
condition of the Department's facilities throughout the complex 
and of the Department's inability to properly evaluate and 
address the readiness and maintenance status of its facilities. 
Many of its aged, deteriorated facilities and infrastructure 
lack the functionality to provide adequate mission support.
    Focus on breakdown maintenance at the Department, in lieu 
of preventive maintenance programs and adequate capital 
investments for facility upgrades, has resulted in increasing 
deferred maintenance costs, further exacerbating the problem 
and increasing the risks for mission failures. This absence of 
adequate maintenance and capital investment has also resulted 
in facility operating costs which are inordinately high. The 
Committee is reluctant to continue funding costly mission-
critical repairs and facility upgrades that could have been 
prevented or corrected at less cost. The Department must 
develop an improved management system and allocation of 
resources for its facilities and infrastructure.
    The Committee is also aware that the Department has an 
increasing number of excess facilities that require extensive 
budgets for surveillance and maintenance. It is critical that 
the Department address its long-term operations budget 
requirements which must take into consideration approaches to 
the re-engineering of its complex, priorities for 
recapitalization, and removal of excess facilities.
    Therefore, the Committee directs the Department to:
           Contract with the National Research Council 
        to provide the Congress an evaluation of the steps the 
        Department is taking to improve its facility and 
        infrastructure management;
           Provide by December 15, 2001, information 
        regarding the current and projected total budgets 
        required for facilities and infrastructure and the 
        process being established to determine priorities and 
        return-on-investments;
           Initiate a Site Planning Pilot program to 
        demonstrate the reconfiguration of its facilities and 
        infrastructure to meet its mission and to address its 
        long-term operational costs and return on investments;
           Initiate a Pilot Site Program that can be 
        used as a model for a cost-efficient maintenance 
        program addressing mission requirements and life cycle 
        costs;
           Include in the fiscal year 2003 budget 
        request, for all construction projects and general 
        plant projects (GPP) initiated in fiscal year 2002 or 
        later, funds to eliminate excess facilities (based on 
        the greatest impact on long-term costs and risk) that 
        are at least equal to the square footage of the new 
        facilities which are being proposed;
           Identify in the fiscal year 2003 budget 
        request all maintenance and infrastructure costs and 
        the adequacy of this funding to meet mission 
        requirements by site and program; and
           Prepare Site Plans for each Department site 
        not slated for closure under the Environmental 
        Management program.

                        augmenting federal staff

    The Committee continues to believe there is too much 
reliance on support service contractors and other non-Federal 
employees throughout the Department of Energy. The Department 
reduced the number of management and operating (M&O) contractor 
employees assigned to the Washington metropolitan area to 220 
in fiscal year 2001. The Committee expects the Department not 
to exceed this number in fiscal year 2002. However, at 
Headquarters the Department also continues to rely extensively 
on support service contractors for technical assistance and 
oversight despite the large number of Federal employees also on 
staff.
    Report on M&O contractor employees.--The Department is to 
provide a report to the Committee at the end of fiscal year 
2001 on the use of M&O contractor employees assigned to the 
Washington metropolitan area. 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 Headquarters program organization sponsoring each M&O 
employee, 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, 2000 through September 30, 2001, and is 
due to the Committee on January 31, 2002.
    Report on support service contractors.--The report is to 
include for each support service contract at Headquarters: 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. This report is to include actual 
data for the period October 1, 2000 through September 30, 2001, 
and is due to the Committee on January 31, 2002.

                     department of energy staffing

    The Committee continues to be concerned with the staffing 
levels in many Departmental organizations. Despite expectations 
expressed by Congress during establishment of the National 
Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) in fiscal year 2001 that 
the new organization should incorporate many organizational and 
management efficiencies, there appear to be few changes in the 
regular way of doing business. The result of the new 
organization has been an increase in the number of field 
offices and additional staff at Headquarters. The remainder of 
the Department has also maintained the same staffing levels 
despite the creation of the NNSA and its separation from most 
of the Department's support organizations. This failure to 
address organizational and management efficiencies that were 
expected both in the NNSA and the remainder of the Department 
is a disappointment. It was hoped that the Department and NNSA 
would use this opportunity to revamp the operation of an agency 
that is widely viewed as overly bureaucratic and process-
oriented.
    To jump-start a process that should have been implemented 
one year ago, the Committee directs the Department to prepare 
an overall staffing plan that implements organizational and 
management efficiencies throughout the Department and the NNSA 
and that could lead to a reduction in overall staffing during 
fiscal year 2003. Each program organization at Headquarters, 
each support and administrative organization at Headquarters, 
and each field office should be included in this review. If 
legislation permitting early retirements or excepted civil 
service hiring is required to implement this plan, the 
Department should request this authority when submitting the 
organization and staffing plan to the Committee. This plan is 
due by January 31, 2002.

                          external regulation

    The Department of Energy is currently self-regulating with 
respect to nuclear safety and worker safety at most of its 
facilities under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act of 
1954. The Committee directs the Department to prepare an 
implementation plan to transition to external regulation at the 
Department's non-defense science laboratories. The Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission (NRC) would assume responsibility for 
nuclear safety at the Department's non-defense science 
laboratories and the Occupational Safety and Health 
Administration (OSHA) would assume responsibility for worker 
safety at these same sites. The Department is directed in 
fiscal year 2002 to prepare a plan for implementation of 
external regulation, with a proposed effective date for the 
actual implementation of external regulation of October 1, 
2002. This plan is due by March 31, 2002.
    For planning purposes, external regulation will apply to 
the five multiprogram national laboratories under the Office of 
Science: Argonne National Laboratory; Brookhaven National 
Laboratory; Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory; Oak Ridge 
National Laboratory; and Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. 
External regulation shall also apply to the five single-purpose 
laboratories under the Office of Science: Ames Laboratory, 
Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory; Princeton Plasma Physics 
Laboratory; Stanford Linear Accelerator Center; and Thomas 
Jefferson National Accelerator Facility. The requirement to 
plan for the transition to external regulation is not 
applicable to the nuclear weapons laboratories, plants, or test 
facilities, nor to the Department's environmental remediation 
sites or other laboratories and research facilities.

                           CONTRACTOR TRAVEL

    The Committee has not included a statutory limitation on 
contractor travel in fiscal year 2002. However, each program 
organization within the Department is expected to ensure that 
contractor travel is limited to critical mission functions and 
that administrative travel to Washington is limited. The 
Committee directs the Department to maintain a tracking system 
that will allow for periodic reviews of contractor travel costs 
and destinations.

                          INDEPENDENT CENTERS

    The Department is directed to provide a report to the 
Committee by January 15, 2002, on all independent centers 
funded in fiscal year 2002. The report should identify all 
independent centers at each laboratory or facility, the annual 
cost, number of employees, and the source of funding; i.e., 
multiple programs, laboratory directed research and development 
funds, and overhead accounts. The report should be at the level 
of detail included in the fiscal year 2001 report to Congress. 
All centers should be specifically identified in the fiscal 
year 2003 budget submission.

                   BUDGET JUSTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS

    The fiscal year 2003 budget justifications submitted by the 
Department should include the following: a section identifying 
the last year that authorizing legislation was provided by 
Congress for each program; funding within each construction 
project data sheet for elimination of excess facilities at 
least equal to the square footage of the new facilities being 
requested; and funding to eliminate excess facilities at least 
equal to the square footage of new facilities being constructed 
as general plant projects (GPP). The Department should work 
with the Committee on the specific information needed for each 
requirement.

                              SALE OF LAND

    The Department recently sold 182 acres of land in Oak 
Ridge, Tennessee, for $54 per acre to a private development 
company. The Department claimed that the Atomic Energy Act 
provided the authority to sell land in the performance of a 
programmatic function without regard to standard Federal 
practices. It is not clear that the land was sold at fair 
market value, and the Committee is concerned that the 
Department did not act in the best interest of the Federal 
government and the taxpayers. The Department is directed to 
notify the Committee at least 60 days in advance of any 
proposed sale of land which does not follow the standard 
Federal practices for property sales and provide a detailed 
explanation for the waiver of Federal practices for the sale of 
the property.

                        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 a 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 2002, 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.

                       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, 2001...................................      $659,918,000
Budget Estimate, 2002.................................       544,245,000
Recommended, 2002.....................................       639,317,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2001...............................       -20,601,000
    Budget Estimate, 2002.............................       +95,072,000


    The Energy Supply account includes the following programs: 
Renewable Energy Resources; Nuclear Energy; Environment, Safety 
and Health (non-defense); and Technical Information Management. 
As in fiscal year 2001, the Committee recommends that the funds 
for Energy Supply activities remain available until expended.

                       RENEWABLE ENERGY RESOURCES

    The National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA) in 
March 2000 identified a number of deficiencies in the 
management and organization of the Office of Energy Efficiency 
and Renewable Energy (EERE), including the absence of clear 
goals and priorities, an integrated work program linked to 
those goals and priorities, and milestones reflecting program 
results. In fiscal year 2001, the Committee noted that ``[a]ll 
of the renewable programs are requesting increases of 30 to 50 
percent with no clear integration or explanation of why such 
increases are warranted in all programs simultaneously.'' The 
opposite situation exists in fiscal year 2002, where the 
initial budget request proposed reductions of nearly 50 percent 
in most renewable energy programs. A budget amendment of $39.1 
million restored funding in some but not all of these renewable 
energy programs. Again, there is no clear rationale provided to 
explain the selective budget cuts, and no sense that the 
Department is conducting an integrated program with a well-
defined scheme for measuring success. There is also no apparent 
coordination between the budget request, which was submitted to 
Congress in April 2001 and amended in early May 2001, and the 
National Energy Policy, which was released shortly after 
submission of the amended budget request.
    The total Committee recommendation for renewable energy 
resources is $376,817,000, an increase of $100,164,000 over the 
amended budget request and $1,032,000 over fiscal year 2001 
funding.
    Metrics.--The objective of federal research on renewable 
energy resources should be to develop significant quantities of 
clean, reliable and affordable energy from renewable resources. 
The Secretary of Energy reports that, from fiscal year 1977 
through fiscal year 2001, the cumulative Federal investment by 
the Department of Energy in renewable energy technologies 
totals over $6.1 billion. The Committee is concerned that we 
continue to expend federal research dollars on various 
renewable technologies without a clear relation between the 
money invested and the power generated. As the NAPA report 
noted, there is within EERE an ``emphasis on process rather 
than on product.'' The Department needs to develop a clear set 
of metrics that can be used by the Congress and the 
Administration to compare the effectiveness of the federal 
investment in alternate energy sources. These metrics should 
include the cumulative federal investment to date in each 
technology, the current cost per kilowatt-hour generated, a 
realistic assessment of likely future costs and performance 
with additional research and development, the current total 
amount of power generated in the United States by each source, 
a realistic assessment of the potential future power generation 
capacity available from each source, and an estimate of the 
environmental advantages and disadvantages of each technology. 
Past and present subsidies to each technology should be clearly 
identified. The metrics should also indicate the progress of 
each technology along the research, development and deployment 
spectrum so that it is clear when a particular technology is 
mature enough to hand off to the private sector, recognizing 
the need to overcome various market barriers and infrastructure 
gaps. The Department should submit the above-referenced metrics 
as part of the detailed budget justification for Renewable 
Energy Resources in the fiscal year 2003 budget request and in 
subsequent budget requests.
    Strategic Review.--The Committee is supportive of the 
Department's recently announced strategic review of its 
renewable energy programs. Such a review is consistent with the 
need for reliable and quantifiable measures of success, as 
outlined in the preceding paragraph, which can be used to guide 
future funding decisions. Upon completion of this strategic 
review, the Department should submit, if necessary, a 
reprogramming request to align fiscal year 2002 spending on the 
most cost-effective renewable energy technologies.

Renewable energy technologies

    Renewable Energy Technologies include biomass/biofuels 
energy systems, geothermal technology development, hydrogen 
research, hydropower, solar energy, and wind energy systems.
    Biomass/Biofuels Energy Systems.--The Committee 
recommendation for biomass/biofuels energy systems is 
$88,960,000, which is an increase of $7,005,000 over the 
amended budget request and $2,000,000 over the fiscal year 2001 
funding level. This amount includes $41,010,000 for power 
systems and $47,950,000 for the transportation program.
    The funds provided for power systems include: $2,000,000 
for research and development on biopower from switchgrass; 
$1,000,000 to support a cost-shared Agricultural Waste Methane 
Power Generation Facility in California; $1,000,000 to support 
a cost-shared agricultural mixed waste biorefinery in Alabama 
using the thermal-depolymerization technology; and $1,000,000 
to support the Black Belt Bioenergy Demonstration Project in 
Alabama. The funds provided for the transportation program 
include $1,000,000 for microcombustion research at the Oak 
Ridge National Laboratory.
    The control level for fiscal year 2002 is at the program 
account level of biomass/biofuels energy systems.
    Geothermal technology development.--The Committee provides 
$27,000,000 for geothermal technology development, an increase 
of $13,100,000 over the budget request and the same as the 
fiscal year 2001 funding level. The Committee is particularly 
concerned about preserving a strong knowledge base on 
geothermal energy in the university community. The budget 
request, however, proposed to reduce university research on 
geothermal technologies by over 80 percent. Therefore, the 
Committee recommendation includes sufficient funding in the 
geothermal technology development account to maintain 
university research on geothermal technologies at the fiscal 
year 2001 funding level of $2,600,000. The Committee 
recommendation also includes $2,000,000 in final funding for 
the Lake County Basin geothermal project in California.
    Hydrogen research.--The National Energy Policy of May 2001 
noted the promise of hydrogen as a clean-burning, limitless 
fuel of the future, and recommended continued research on next-
generation hydrogen technologies. Funding of $27,000,000 is 
provided for hydrogen research, an increase of $119,000 over 
the amended budget request and the same as fiscal year 2001 
funding.
    Hydropower.--A major focus of the Department's recent 
research on hydropower has been on the development of more 
environmentally friendly turbine designs that will reduce fish 
mortality. While a worthwhile objective, such research is more 
appropriately funded by turbine manufacturers and by the 
federal agencies with responsibility for building and operating 
federal hydropower facilities, principally the Army Corps of 
Engineers, the Bureau of Reclamation, and the power marketing 
administrations. The Committee recommends $3,000,000 for 
hydropower research by the Department of Energy, $2,000,000 
less than fiscal year 2001 and $1,989,000 less than the amended 
budget request.
    Solar Energy.--Solar energy technologies include: 
concentrating solar power; photovoltaic energy systems; and 
solar building technology research. The total Committee 
recommendation for solar energy is $94,657,000, an increase of 
$51,725,000 over the budget request and $1,132,000 over fiscal 
year 2001.
    The Committee recommends $7,932,000 for concentrating solar 
power, an increase of $6,000,000 over the budget request and 
$5,868,000 less than fiscal year 2001. Both solar troughs and 
solar dish/Stirling engine technologies have the potential to 
be more efficient than solar tower technology. Therefore, 
$6,000,000 is provided to the Department for field testing of 
these technologies, and $1,932,000 is provided to the national 
laboratories for materials research, reliability testing, and 
support.
    Photovoltaic energy systems are funded at $81,775,000, an 
increase of $6,000,000 over fiscal year 2001 and $42,775,000 
over the budget request. The recommendation includes $8,700,000 
for basic research/university programs and $18,500,000 for the 
thin film partnership program. The Committee supports 
cooperation with universities and industry to develop the 
science and engineering base required to move photovoltaic 
technology from the laboratory bench to the assembly line.
    The Committee recommends $4,950,000 for solar building 
technology research, an increase of $1,000,000 over fiscal year 
2001 and $2,950,000 over the budget request.
    The control level for fiscal year 2002 is at the solar 
energy program account level.
    Wind energy systems.--The Committee recommends $40,000,000 
for wind energy systems, the same as in fiscal year 2001 and an 
increase of $19,500,000 over the budget request. The Committee 
supports the Department's current focus on developing the next 
generation of wind turbines that will be able to generate 
electricity at a competitive cost per kilowatt-hour in moderate 
(i.e., Class 4) winds without the need for a continuing federal 
subsidy. The Department is encouraged to work with private 
turbine manufacturers and the utility industry to develop, 
test, and bring such turbines to market at the earliest 
opportunity.

Electric energy systems and storage

    The electric energy systems and storage program is funded 
at $60,000,000, $8,000,000 more than in fiscal year 2001 and 
$8,254,000 more than the amended budget request. Under this 
program, the Department conducts research and development on 
advanced technologies for the generation, transmission, 
storage, and distribution of electric power. The Committee 
encourages the Department to continue its work to support the 
timely deployment of distributed energy resources.
    The Committee recommends $39,870,000 for high temperature 
superconducting research and development, $3,051,000 more than 
the amended budget request and $2,870,000 more than provided in 
fiscal year 2001. For energy storage systems, the Committee 
provides $7,130,000, $1,143,000 more than the budget request 
and $1,130,000 more than fiscal year 2001. For transmission 
reliability, the Committee recommends $13,000,000, an increase 
of $4,000,000 over the funding level in fiscal year 2001 and an 
increase of $4,060,000 over the budget request. Within the 
funds available for transmission reliability, the Department 
should initiate the field testing of advanced composite 
conductors, which have the potential to increase the capacity 
of existing transmission lines.
    The control level for fiscal year 2002 is at the electric 
energy systems and storage program account level.

Renewable support and implementation

    The renewable support and implementation program includes 
departmental energy management, international renewable energy, 
the renewable energy production incentive (REPI), renewable 
Indian energy resources, and renewable program support. The 
Committee recommendation for renewable support and 
implementation is $12,500,000, an increase of $2,950,000 over 
the budget request and a decrease of $9,100,000 compared to the 
fiscal year 2001 funding level. This recommendation provides 
$2,500,000 for departmental energy management, $3,000,000 for 
the international renewable energy program, $4,000,000 for the 
renewable energy production incentive program, and $3,000,000 
for renewable program support. Consistent with the budget 
request, the Committee has provided no funding for renewable 
Indian energy resources, with available funds directed to other 
renewable energy work.

National Renewable Energy Laboratory

    The Committee recommendation for the National Renewable 
Energy Laboratory (NREL) in Golden, Colorado, is $5,000,000, 
the same as the budget request and an increase of $1,000,000 
over the fiscal year 2001 funding level. NREL is one of the 
Department's newer laboratories, and it is essential that the 
Department maintain this facility properly so that it does not 
require a larger investment later in time, as is the case with 
much of the infrastructure elsewhere in the DOE complex.

Program direction

    The Committee notes with disapproval that the Department 
requested a three percent increase for program direction at the 
same time as it proposed a 36 percent reduction in the total 
funding for Renewable Energy Resources. The program direction 
funding, and the Federal staff supported by this funding, 
should be proportional to the funding available for substantive 
research and development work on renewable energy resources. 
The Committee, therefore, recommends $18,700,000 for program 
direction, the same as the fiscal year 2001 level and a 
reduction of $500,000 from the budget request.
    The Committee supports the Department's initiative to 
improve the project management capabilities in the Golden Field 
Office. Centralized project management by the federal staff in 
Golden should offer efficiencies compared to the current 
fragmented approach in which renewable energy projects are 
managed by a variety of other field offices and laboratories. 
However, the Committee does not believe that this initiative 
requires additional funding and FTEs. Instead, the Department 
should look first at retraining the existing federal workforce 
in the Golden Field Office and then gradually shift more 
project management responsibilities as their capabilities 
improve.

                        NUCLEAR ENERGY PROGRAMS

    The Department's programs support a wide variety of 
applications of nuclear energy, from powering spacecraft to 
treating cancer to developing reactor technologies that provide 
20 percent of the Nation's electricity. The Committee 
recommendation for nuclear energy programs is $224,130,000, an 
increase of $1,008,000 over the budget request but a decrease 
of $35,795,000 from the fiscal year 2001 funding level.
    Advanced Radioisotope Power Systems.--The Committee 
recommendation is $28,200,000, a reduction of $894,000 from the 
budget request and $4,000,000 below the enacted level for 
fiscal year 2001. The Committee acknowledges the importance of 
maintaining the infrastructure and institutional knowledge base 
necessary to provide radioisotope power systems for space and 
national security missions. However, given the funding 
constraints on the overall Department of Energy budget, the 
Department should seek additional support for radioisotope 
power systems from the user agencies.
    Isotopes.--The amount provided for isotope support and 
production is $22,683,000, a reduction of $2,000,000 from the 
budget request and $2,032,000 compared to fiscal year 2001. 
Funding for the Isotope Production Facility at Los Alamos 
National Laboratory is $2,494,000, the same as the budget 
request. With the use of offsetting collections of $9,000,000 
in fiscal year 2002, the net appropriation for isotopes is 
$16,177,000, $2,000,000 less than the budget request. The 
recommendation includes $900,000 for alpha emitting isotopes, 
the same level as provided in fiscal year 2001.
    For the extraction of alpha emitting isotopes from excess 
uranium 233 presently stored in Building 3019 at the Oak Ridge 
National Laboratory, the Department should submit a project 
plan to the Committee by December 31, 2001, and include the 
proposal as part of the fiscal year 2003 budget request. This 
proposal should clearly identify all project costs, including 
the costs for storage and final disposal of the excess uranium 
233 and for decontamination and decommissioning of Building 
3019. The Department's proposal should include a baseline 
estimate for these activities, so that it can be determined 
whether or not the extraction of alpha emitting isotopes would 
increase the ultimate cleanup costs for the excess uranium 233 
and for Building 3019. The Department's proposal should also 
address the cost-effectiveness of acquiring the medically-
valuable isotopes from the Russian nuclear complex.
    University Reactor Fuel Assistance and Support.--The 
Committee recommendation is $15,895,000, an increase of 
$3,921,000 over the budget request and $3,895,000 over fiscal 
year 2001. The Committee is concerned about the recent decline 
in the number of graduates specializing in nuclear science and 
engineering. One of the major impediments to the construction 
of next-generation nuclear power plants in the United States 
may not be the technology itself, but rather the lack of 
skilled scientists and engineers who can design, license, 
build, and operate these new reactor designs. The Committee, 
therefore, provides additional funding for both the fuel to 
support the university reactors and for the various grants and 
fellowships that support nuclear science and engineering 
education.
    The Committee is aware that several universities are 
currently deciding whether to continue operating their reactors 
for teaching, research, and service. Past support for these 
reactors has been inadequate in view of their importance in 
forging the nation's nuclear technology capabilities. The 
Committee directs DOE to work with the nuclear engineering 
community, the nuclear medicine community, and the Nuclear 
Energy Research Advisory Committee to provide, through a peer-
reviewed process, enhanced long-term support for key university 
facilities, possibly including staff support and 
instrumentation. The Department should submit a report to the 
Committee by December 31, 2001, presenting the Department's 
plan to accomplish this objective.
    Research and Development.--The Committee strongly supports 
continued research and development to make the current 
generation of nuclear power plants safer and more efficient, 
and to develop the next generation of reactors. The total 
Committee recommendation for nuclear energy research and 
development is $32,579,000, an increase of $5,500,000 over the 
budget request and a decrease of $14,921,000 relative to fiscal 
year 2001.
    For the nuclear energy plant optimization (NEPO) program, 
the Committee provides $5,000,000, the same amount as in fiscal 
year 2001 and $500,000 more than the budget request. As 
directed in fiscal year 2001, all NEPO projects should have 
industry contributions that equal or exceed the Federal share.
    The Committee recommendation for the nuclear energy 
research initiative (NERI) is $23,079,000, an increase of 
$5,000,000 over the budget request and a decrease of 
$11,921,000 compared to fiscal year 2001. In addition to 
partnering with industry, the Department should ensure that 
universities play a major role in the NERI program.
    The Committee provides $4,500,000 for nuclear energy 
technologies, the same as the budget request and $3,000,000 
less than the fiscal year 2001 funding level. In addition to 
its efforts on developing Generation IV reactor technologies, 
the Department should take steps to facilitate the near-term 
deployment of existing advanced reactor designs. However, the 
Committee is not persuaded that the Federal government needs to 
fund the licensing of advanced reactor designs. No funds are 
made available for activities related to the deployment of 
small modular reactors in remote locations.
    Infrastructure.--The Committee provides a total of 
$80,529,000, $750,000 less than the budget request and 
$11,631,000 less than fiscal year 2001. This includes 
$33,357,000 for ANL-West operations, $38,439,000 to implement 
the permanent deactivation of the Fast Flux Test Facility 
(FFTF), and $8,733,000 for Test Reactor Area (TRA) landlord 
costs. No funds are provided for initiation of conceptual 
design for a remote-handled facility for transuranic waste at 
ANL-West. Included within the TRA landlord appropriation is 
$500,000 for fire and life safety improvements and $950,000 for 
the electrical utility upgrade.
    Nuclear facilities management.--The Committee 
recommendation is $30,250,000, a reduction of $207,000 from the 
budget request and $4,600,000 from the fiscal year 2001 funding 
level. The recommendation includes $4,200,000 for EBR-II 
shutdown, $16,200,000 for the disposition of spent nuclear fuel 
and legacy materials, and $9,850,000 for disposition 
technology.
    Program direction.--The Committee is concerned that the 
Department proposes to increase program direction funding by 
8.8 percent at the same time it proposes to reduce the total 
program funding by 8.4 percent. Such a disproportionate 
increase in program direction funding is not supportable. 
Accordingly, the Committee recommendation for program direction 
funding is $20,500,000, a reduction of $1,500,000 from fiscal 
year 2001 and $4,562,000 from the budget request.

                     ENVIRONMENT, SAFETY AND HEALTH

    The Committee recommendation is $31,500,000, a reduction of 
$4,000,000 from the budget request and $4,498,000 from fiscal 
year 2001.
    As directed in section 308 of the General Provisions part 
of this Act, the Department is to prepare for the transition to 
external regulation of nuclear safety and worker health and 
safety for the non-defense science laboratories. The effective 
date for the transition to external regulation of these 
facilities will be October 1, 2002. The Department should 
transfer $4,000,000 to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) 
to cover NRC's costs to prepare for the transition to external 
regulation. The Department should transfer $720,000 to the 
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), $120,000 
for external regulation preparations and $600,000 for worker 
health and safety at those sites transferred to non-Federal 
entities and for the Department's non-nuclear facilities not 
covered under the Atomic Energy Act.
    The Department should plan on reducing its current 
headquarters staffing levels by at least 10 percent upon the 
implementation of external regulation in fiscal year 2003, and 
should determine whether reductions in field staffing are 
appropriate as well. The Department should also take steps to 
reduce its reliance on support contractors for the environment, 
safety, and health function.
    The Committee supports the efforts of the Department and 
its contractors on the Voluntary Protection Program (VPP). 
Modeled after a successful OSHA program, VPP encourages the 
Department's contractors to apply industry best practices for 
health and safety.

                    TECHNICAL INFORMATION MANAGEMENT

    The Committee recommendation for the Technical Information 
Management program is $7,870,000, a reduction of $1,100,000 
from the budget request and $730,000 from the enacted level for 
fiscal year 2001. Funding for program support is $1,400,000, 
and funding for program direction is $6,470,000. The Committee 
is concerned that the Department is duplicating technical 
information services that are already available from the 
private sector. The Department should carefully review its 
information services such as PubSCIENCE to be sure that such 
efforts remain focused on appropriate scientific journals and 
do not compete improperly with similar services available from 
the private sector.

                  Non-Defense Environmental Management





Appropriation, 2001...................................      $277,200,000
Budget Estimate, 2002.................................       228,553,000
Recommended, 2002.....................................       227,872,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2001...............................       -49,328,000
    Budget Estimate, 2002.............................          -681,000


    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 
activities resulted in radioactive, hazardous, and mixed waste 
contamination which requires remediation, stabilization, or 
some other type of action. The major activities are: Site 
Closure for cleanup projects to be completed by the end of 
fiscal year 2006, and for which no further DOE mission is 
anticipated; Site/Project Completion for cleanup projects that 
will be completed by 2006, but where DOE programs will 
continue; Post 2006 Completion for cleanup projects that will 
extend beyond 2006; and Excess Facilities for final disposition 
of excess contaminated facilities. The Committee recommendation 
is $227,872,000, a decrease of $681,000 from the budget 
request.
    The fiscal year 2001 supplemental appropriations bill 
contains additional funding of $11,950,000 for this program. An 
additional $10,000,000 was provided for cleanup activities at 
the Brookhaven National Laboratory and $1,950,000 to study 
remediation options at the former Atlas Corporation's uranium 
mill tailings site near Moab, Utah.

                              Site closure

    The recommendation for site closure is $43,000,000, the 
same as the budget request, which will maintain the Weldon 
Spring Site cleanup for completion in 2002.

                        Site/project completion

    The recommendation for site/project completion is 
$64,119,000, the same as the budget request.

                          Post 2006 completion

    The recommendation for post 2006 completion is 
$115,753,000, a decrease of $4,300,000 from the budget request 
of $120,053,000. Additional funding of $3,700,000 has been 
provided to maintain the cleanup activities at the Energy 
Technology Engineering Center in California consistent with 
fiscal year 2001.
    Atlas.--The Committee recommendation includes $2,000,000 
for stabilization activities at the Atlas uranium mill tailings 
site in Moab, Utah. The budget requested no funding for this 
activity. The Committee also provided funds in the fiscal year 
2001 supplemental budget request to prepare a remediation plan 
for the Atlas in Moab, Utah. The Department is required to 
prepare this remediation plan, with the assistance of the 
National Academy of Sciences, by the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (P.L. 106-398) before it 
can proceed with site remediation.
    West Valley.--The Committee recommendation for the West 
Valley Demonstration Project in New York is $85,115,000, a 
reduction of $10,000,000 from the budget request of 
$95,115,000. This recommendation includes $38,000,000 for high-
level waste vitrification and tank heel high activity waste 
processing and $3,000,000 for spent nuclear fuel, both funded 
at the same level as the budget request. The amount for site 
transition, decommissioning, and project completion is 
$44,115,000, a reduction of $10,000,000 from the budget 
request, but only $271,000 less than fiscal year 2001. The 
Department is to spend these funds performing the most critical 
activities necessary to maintain the West Valley site in a safe 
and stable condition.
    The Committee is concerned about the impasse in 
negotiations between the Department and the State of New York 
over a number of critical issues, including the scope of 
Federal cleanup activities at the site, the duration of the 
Federal presence at the site, non-Federal funding for 
disposition of vitrified high level waste and spent nuclear 
fuel, and the respective Federal and non-Federal cost shares. 
The lack of agreement does not impede completion of 
vitrification at West Valley, and the Department has indicated 
that certain other decontamination and waste management 
activities can proceed absent a final agreement with the State 
of New York. However, some site transition, decommissioning, 
and project completion activities are deferred pending 
resolution of this impasse.
    The General Accounting Office (GAO) recently completed an 
analysis of the situation in a report entitled ``Nuclear Waste: 
Agreement Among Agencies Responsible for the West Valley Site 
is Critically Needed'' (GAO-01-314). This report identified the 
lack of agreement between the Department of Energy and the 
State of New York as the most significant impediment to 
completing cleanup of the West Valley site. The GAO found the 
differences between the Department and the State so serious 
that agreement is unlikely without Congressional intervention.
    The Department may submit a reprogramming request for 
additional funds for remaining site transition, 
decommissioning, and project completion activities only upon 
successful conclusion of an agreement with the State of New 
York. Such agreement must be consistent with the project scope 
and cost-sharing requirements as defined in the West Valley 
Demonstration Project Act of 1980, and with the terms of the 
Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended, regarding the 
disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste. Any 
proposal by the Department to exceed the constraints of 
existing law must be transmitted in advance to the Committee 
with an explanation of why such a proposal is in the Federal 
interest. Offers made by the Department on behalf of the 
Federal government may not be protected from Congressional 
oversight by a confidentiality agreement.

                           Excess facilities

    The environmental management program is responsible for 
final disposition of excess contaminated facilities throughout 
the Department. Funds are currently being expended only for 
surveillance and maintenance of most excess facilities, and 
these costs will continue until decontamination and 
decommissioning (D&D) is completed. The Committee strongly 
urges the Department to seek new, innovative, and less costly 
ways to accomplish final D&D of these facilities.
    The Committee has provided $5,000,000 for the excess 
facility program, an increase of $3,619,000 over the budget 
request. The budget requested only surveillance and maintenance 
costs for the excess facilities transferred to the program in 
fiscal year 2002. In addition to these surveillance and 
maintenance costs, the recommendation includes $3,619,000 to 
initiate a program to begin the actual D&D of excess facilities 
already owned by the environmental management program. These 
funds must be used to dispose of those facilities that will 
provide the greatest impact on reducing long-term costs and 
risk.

             Uranium Facilities Maintenance and Remediation





Appropriation, 2001...................................      $392,502,000
Budget Estimate, 2002.................................       363,425,000
Recommended, 2002.....................................       393,425,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2001...............................          +923,000
    Budget Estimate, 2002.............................       +30,000,000


    Congress created the Uranium Facilities Maintenance and 
Remediation account in fiscal year 2001 to consolidate the 
programs previously funded in two separate accounts: one set of 
activities funded by the Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and 
Decommissioning Fund and managed by the Office of Environmental 
Management, and the other set of related uranium activities 
that had been managed by the Office of Nuclear Energy, Science, 
and Technology. The consolidated Uranium Facilities Maintenance 
and Remediation account is managed by the Office of 
Environmental Management and includes two subaccounts, the 
Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund, 
and Other Uranium Activities. The Committee recommendation is 
$393,425,000, an increase of $30,000,000 over the budget 
request and $923,000 more than fiscal year 2001.
    Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning 
Fund.--This fund was established by the Energy Policy Act of 
1992 (P.L. 102-486) to carry out environmental remediation at 
the nation's three gaseous diffusion plants, at the East 
Tennessee Technology Park in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, at 
Portsmouth, Ohio, and at Paducah, Kentucky. Title X of the 1992 
Act also authorized use of a portion of the Fund to reimburse 
private licensees for the Federal government's share of the 
cost of cleaning up uranium and thorium processing sites.
    The Committee recommends $272,641,000 for activities funded 
from the Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning 
Fund, an increase of $20,000,000 over the budget request and a 
reduction of $72,397,000 compared to fiscal year 2001. Funding 
for the depleted uranium hexaflouride (DUF6) conversion 
facilities is shifted to the Other Uranium Activities 
subaccount, as it was appropriated in fiscal year 2001. The 
Committee recommendation for the Uranium Enrichment 
Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund includes a portion of 
the funds necessary to provide for winterization and cold 
standby at the Portsmouth plant; the balance of the funds are 
provided under Other Uranium Activities. The net increase over 
the budget request, $30,000,000 in consideration of the shift 
of DUF6 activities to Other Uranium Activities, is to be 
divided with $10,000,000 to the Paducah site and $20,000,000 to 
the East Tennessee Technology Park.
    The Committee recommendation includes the requested amount, 
$1,000,000, for uranium and thorium reimbursements as 
authorized by Title X of the Energy Policy Act of 1992. Because 
of significantly increased funding for this activity in fiscal 
year 2001, the Department indicates that the backlog of 
reimbursements has been eliminated and $1,000,000 will be 
sufficient for anticipated claims in fiscal year 2002.
    Other Uranium Activities.--The Committee recommendation is 
$120,784,000, an increase of $10,000,000 over the budget 
request. This $10,000,000 reflects the transfer of DUF6 
activities from the Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and 
Decommissioning Fund subaccount to the Other Uranium Activities 
subaccount. In addition to funds for the DUF6 conversion 
project at Portsmouth and Paducah, the Other Uranium Activities 
subaccount includes maintenance of enrichment facilities and 
inventories, financial liabilities arising prior to the 
privatization of the United States Enrichment Corporation, and 
the balance of the winterization and cold standby activities 
for the Portsmouth plant. These are funded at the 
Administration's requested levels: $99,000,000 for maintenance 
of facilities and inventories, including the winterization/cold 
standby work at Portsmouth; $11,784,000 for pre-existing 
liabilities; and $10,000,000 for the DUF6 conversion facilities 
(transferred from the Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and 
Decommissioning Fund).

                                Science





Appropriation, 2001...................................    $3,180,341,000
Budget Estimate, 2002.................................     3,159,890,000
Recommended, 2002.....................................     3,166,395,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2001...............................       -13,946,000
    Budget Estimate, 2002.............................        +6,505,000


    The Science account funds the Department's work on high 
energy physics, nuclear physics, biological and environmental 
sciences, basic energy sciences, advanced scientific computing, 
energy research analyses, facilities support for the 
multiprogram energy laboratories, fusion energy sciences, 
safeguards and security, and program direction. The Committee 
is very supportive of most of the research conducted by the 
Department's Office of Science, but funding constraints 
preclude significant increases this fiscal year. The Committee 
recommendation is $3,166,395,000, an increase of $6,505,000 
over the budget request and $13,946,000 less than the fiscal 
year 2001 funding level.

                          High Energy Physics

    The Committee recommends $716,100,000 for high energy 
physics, the same as the budget request and $10,030,000 less 
than fiscal year 2001.
    Research and technology.--The Committee recommendation for 
research and technology in high energy physics is $247,870,000, 
the same as the budget request and $13,150,000 more than 
provided in fiscal year 2001.
    Facility operations.--The Committee recommends $456,830,000 
for facility operations, the same as the budget request and 
$2,180,000 less than fiscal year 2001. This amount includes 
$244,739,000 for Fermilab and $125,078,000 for the Stanford 
Linear Accelerator Center to provide for full operation of 
these facilities.
    Construction.--The Committee recommendation for 
construction of the Neutrinos at the Main Injector project at 
Fermilab is $11,400,000, the same as the budget request.

                            Nuclear Physics

    The Committee recommendation for nuclear physics is 
$361,510,000, $1,000,000 more than the budget request, but 
$8,380,000 less than provided in fiscal year 2001. Additional 
funds are provided for university research in nuclear physics.

                 Biological and Environmental Research

    The Committee recommendation for biological and 
environmental research is $445,880,000, an increase of 
$2,910,000 over the budget request but $55,380,000 less than in 
fiscal year 2001.
    This amount includes $19,470,000, the same as the budget 
request, to continue the Microbial Cell Project and to initiate 
the Genomes to Life program. The National Institute for Global 
Environmental Change (NIGEC), which is integrated throughout 
the Environmental Processes subaccount, is funded at the 
requested funding level of $8,763,000.
    Joint Genome Institute.--The Committee recommendation 
provides the requested amount for the Joint Genome Institute, 
$57,200,000. The Committee encourages the Joint Genome 
Institute to utilize its sequencing capacity to provide 
sequences and draft sequences of the gene-rich regions of plant 
and microbial organisms of economic importance to agriculture, 
such as corn, wheat, and plant pathogens.
    Construction.--The Committee recommendation includes 
$11,405,000, an increase of $1,405,000 over the budget request, 
to complete the construction of the Laboratory for Comparative 
Functional Genomics at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory. The 
total project cost for this facility is only $14,420,000. By 
completing construction in two rather than three fiscal years, 
this will enable beneficial occupancy of the new facility in 
May 2003 instead of May 2004. This accelerated project 
completion will save the costs of utilities and maintenance for 
the old facility, plus the site usage fee at the Y-12 site, 
yielding a total net savings to the Federal government of 
approximately $800,000.

                         Basic Energy Sciences

    The Committee recommendation for basic energy sciences is 
$1,006,705,000, $2,000,000 more than the budget request and a 
reduction of $6,665,000 from fiscal year 2001. For purposes of 
reprogramming during fiscal year 2002, the Department may 
allocate funding among all operating accounts within basic 
energy sciences.
    Spallation Neutron Source.--The Committee recommends the 
requested amount for construction of the Spallation Neutron 
Source (SNS), $276,300,000. This represents an increase of 
$16,800,000 compared to fiscal year 2001. The Committee 
appreciates the recent improvements made in the management of 
this project, but cautions the Department to maintain a close 
watch on the various components of the SNS being produced by 
other national laboratories.
    Intense Pulsed Neutrino Facility.--The Committee recognizes 
the value of such a facility in conjunction with the Spallation 
Neutron Source, but budget constraints preclude funding an 
intense pulsed neutrino facility in fiscal year 2002.
    Nanoscale Science Research.--The Committee supports the 
creation of several regional nanoscale science research centers 
consistent with the September 1999 recommendations of the 
Interagency Working Group on Nanoscience, Engineering and 
Technology of the National Science and Technology Council. The 
Committee also supports the efforts of the Department to seek 
the active involvement of the academic community in the 
development of these centers. However, the Committee reminds 
the Department that its efforts to involve universities must 
reach broadly and openly rather than selectively. Consistent 
with existing policies for current user facilities, discussions 
regarding the characteristics and equipment to be provided in 
these planned nanoscience user facilities should be open to all 
U.S. universities via published notice, workshops, and other 
formal mechanisms. The external users of the Department's 
resources must be determined through the competitive peer-
review process. Any partnership arrangements between the 
involved national laboratories and academic institutions, or 
any other non-federal partners, must follow procedures to 
ensure full and open competition, as required by section 309 of 
this Act.
    The Committee recommendation includes $3,000,000 to 
initiate project engineering and design (PED) for three 
nanoscale science research centers in fiscal year 2002. This is 
a reduction of $1,000,000 from the budget request of 
$4,000,000. Any additional centers should be requested as part 
of the fiscal year 2003 budget request. The detailed budget 
justification for fiscal year 2003 should also provide more 
accurate cost estimates for the three centers receiving PED 
funds in fiscal year 2002. The Committee expects the Department 
to maintain tight cost and schedule controls on these three 
facilities.
    The additional $3,000,000 included over the budget request 
is to be made available for university research in nanoscale 
science and engineering.
    Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research 
(EPSCoR).--The Committee recommendation includes $10,000,000 
within available funds for EPSCoR, an increase of $2,315,000 
over the budget request and $3,185,000 over fiscal year 2001.

                 Advanced Scientific Computing Research

    The Committee recommendation is $163,050,000, the same as 
the budget request and $6,950,000 less than the funding in 
fiscal year 2001. The Committee is supportive of the objectives 
of the Advanced Scientific Computing Research (ASCR) program, 
but is concerned that the effort not duplicate the work already 
being done on the defense side of the Department in the 
Advanced Scientific Computing Initiative (ASCI). The Department 
should submit a report not later than December 31, 2001, that 
specifically outlines the differences between the objectives 
and current and proposed work activities of ASCR and ASCI. The 
Department is also directed to maximize the involvement of 
universities in the ASCR program, so that both the Department 
and the academic community can share in the latest technology 
developments in this field.

                        Energy Research Analyses

    The Committee recommendation for energy research analyses 
is $1,000,000, the same as the budget request and the fiscal 
year 2001 funding level.

          Multi-Program Energy Laboratories Facilities Support

    The multi-program energy laboratories facilities support 
program provides funding to support the infrastructure at the 
five multi-program national laboratories under the direction of 
the Office of Science. This program also provides funding for 
landlord costs for the centralized Oak Ridge Operations Office. 
The Committee recommendation is $30,175,000, the same as the 
budget request but $3,755,000 less than in fiscal year 2001. 
This amount includes the requested funds of $3,183,000 for 
project engineering design for three new projects: Phase I of 
the mechanical and control systems upgrade at Argonne National 
Laboratory--East, laboratory systems upgrades at Pacific 
Northwest National Laboratory, and the research support center 
at Oak Ridge National Laboratory (project 02-SC-001). Also 
included is $18,613,000, the same as the budget request, for 
various infrastructure improvement projects at the five multi-
program national laboratories (project MEL-001).

                         Fusion Energy Sciences

    The Committee recommendation for fusion energy sciences is 
$248,495,000, $6,505,000 less than the fiscal year 2001 funding 
level but the same as the amended budget request. The Committee 
concurs with the National Energy Policy's assessment of the 
potential for fusion energy, but funding constraints prevent 
additional research funding at this time. The Committee has 
also provided $25,000,000 in the inertial confinement fusion 
program for high average power lasers which is complementary to 
the work performed in fusion energy sciences.

                     Facilities and Infrastructure

    The Committee has provided $10,000,000 for a new Facilities 
and Infrastructure program to improve the facilities and 
infrastructure at the Department's science laboratories. The 
Administration's budget proposal included no funding for this 
program. These funds should be used to reduce the backlog of 
maintenance and infrastructure upgrades and dispose of excess 
facilities.
    The Committee is aware of the need for funding a facilities 
and infrastructure program, but is concerned the Department 
does not have in place a facilities management structure to 
ensure the funds are used to address those items which will 
have the greatest impact on reducing long-term costs and risk. 
The Department is to provide a semi-annual report to the 
Committee on the status of the facilities and infrastructure 
program. The report should include the current priority list of 
proposed facilities and infrastructure projects including cost 
and schedule requirements. For each site, the report is to 
include: a current ten-year site plan that demonstrates the 
reconfiguration of its facilities and infrastructure to meet 
its missions and to address its long-term operational costs and 
return on investment; the current budget for all facilities and 
infrastructure funding in this program as well as all funding 
for maintenance and infrastructure upgrades funded through 
other parts of the budget; and the current status of each 
facilities and infrastructure project compared to the original 
baseline cost, schedule, and scope.
    The Committee directs that at least 25 percent of the 
facilities and infrastructure funding be used to dispose of 
excess facilities that will provide the greatest impact on 
reducing long-term costs and risk. New and innovative 
decontamination and decommissioning (D&D) practices must be 
implemented to reduce costs and expedite site cleanups. There 
are clearly savings to be realized throughout the complex as 
evidenced by a recent contractor innovation at the Rocky Flats 
site that reduced the cost of D&D for a building from an 
estimated $3,500,000 using existing DOE practices and 
procedures to approximately $700,000 using commercial 
practices. Potential cost savings of this magnitude have also 
been identified at other sites through the use of standard 
commercial practices for D&D.

                        Safeguards and Security

    Beginning in fiscal year 2001, the cost of safeguards and 
security activities at the multi-program and single-purpose 
science laboratories are now direct funded in the Science 
appropriation. The Committee recommends $55,412,000, the same 
as the budget request and $5,594,000 more than fiscal year 
2001.

                           Program Direction

    The Committee recommendation is $134,980,000, a reduction 
of $4,265,000 from fiscal year 2001 and $7,405,000 less than 
the amended budget request. The control level for fiscal year 
2002 is at the program account level of program direction.

                         Nuclear Waste Disposal





Appropriation, 2001...................................      $190,654,000
Budget Estimate, 2002.................................       134,979,000
Recommended, 2002.....................................       133,000,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2001...............................       -57,654,000
    Budget Estimate, 2002.............................        -1,979,000


    The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended, 
established the Federal government's responsibility for the 
permanent disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level 
radioactive waste, and established the statutory framework to 
guide the selection and development of a site for a permanent 
repository. This law also created the Nuclear Waste Fund to 
finance the disposal of commercially generated spent nuclear 
fuel through the collections of fees from the owners and 
generators of such spent fuel. The costs for disposal of high-
level radioactive waste generated from the atomic energy 
defense activities of the Department of Energy, and the spent 
nuclear fuel generated by the Department of Defense, are funded 
by the Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal appropriation.
    The Department was required by statute to accept commercial 
spent nuclear fuel for disposal beginning on January 31, 1998, 
and has entered into legally enforceable contracts with 
utilities to execute that obligation. It is now anticipated 
that the Department will submit the Site Recommendation to the 
President in early fiscal year 2002. Assuming the President and 
the Congress accept the Department's recommendation, the 
Department will then submit a License Application to the 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission in fiscal year 2003. This will, 
at best, lead to initial repository operations beginning in 
2010, twelve years after the Department was supposed to begin 
accepting spent nuclear fuel for disposal. During that time, 
the liability of the Federal government for its failure to meet 
its statutory and contractual obligation to accept commercial 
spent fuel beginning in January 1998 will continue to grow. The 
repository is also essential to the ability of the Department 
to remove defense-related high level radioactive waste and 
spent nuclear fuel from other sites in the DOE complex, and the 
delay in repository completion may affect the government's 
ability to meet legally enforceable cleanup milestones at those 
sites.
    The Committee is disappointed with the latest slippage in 
the Department's schedule for submission of the Site 
Recommendation from fiscal year 2001 into fiscal year 2002, and 
the consequent delay in the License Application to the Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission from fiscal year 2002 to fiscal year 
2003. Nevertheless, it is critical for the Department to 
complete the site selection process in fiscal year 2002 so that 
it can move forward expeditiously with the design, licensing, 
and construction of the repository.
    The Committee recommends $133,000,000 from the Nuclear 
Waste Fund in fiscal year 2002. Combined with the appropriation 
of $310,000,000 from the Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal 
account, this provides a total of $443,000,000 for Nuclear 
Waste Disposal activities in fiscal year 2002, a reduction of 
$1,979,000 from the budget request. When coupled with the 
Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal appropriation, this represents a 
total increase of $48,074,000 over the funding provided to the 
Department for nuclear waste disposal in fiscal year 2001.
    State and local government funds.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $6,000,000 for the affected units of 
local government and $2,500,000 for the State of Nevada to 
conduct their respective external oversight responsibilities. 
These are the same funding levels as provided in fiscal year 
2001. After being reassured that prior problems with improper 
use of Federal funds provided to the State of Nevada had been 
corrected, the Committee restored funding to the State in 
fiscal year 2001. These funds were provided through the 
Department to the Nevada Division of Emergency Management, for 
use in executing appropriate scientific and technical oversight 
activities. The State is prohibited from using these external 
oversight funds to pay the salaries and expenses of State 
employees, nor can it use Federal funds to engage in lobbying 
against the repository. Unfortunately, the Department has not 
yet conducted an audit to confirm whether this new funding 
arrangement is working as intended and is not repeating the 
problems of past years. The Committee is aware of the State's 
request for additional external oversight funding as the 
critical site selection decision will be made in early fiscal 
year 2002. The Committee is also aware that the State 
legislature has approved the Governor's request for $4,000,000 
in State funds for use in lobbying and litigation to block the 
repository. In the absence of an independent audit to verify 
that funding provided in fiscal year 2001 has been spent 
properly by the State, the Committee recommends no increase in 
State funding for fiscal year 2002. The Department is directed 
to audit the Federal funds provided to Nevada at the earliest 
opportunity to confirm that these funds have been used in a 
manner consistent with Congressional guidance.
    The Administration proposed changing the recipient of the 
external oversight funds for the State of Nevada from the 
Nevada Division of Emergency Management to the Nevada Office of 
Science, Engineering and Technology. In the absence of any 
justification from the Department for this change, and without 
an audit or other evidence to show that the present recipient 
(i.e., the Division of Emergency Management) is using the 
fiscal year 2001 Federal funds improperly, the Committee does 
not make the requested change in recipient.
    Future program funding.--The Department has acknowledged 
that the current funding arrangement will not provide 
sufficient funds for design and construction of the repository. 
The one mil fee paid by the consumers of electricity generated 
by nuclear power yields annual collections in the $600 to $700 
million range. With the improved operating efficiency of 
reactors in recent years and the extension of several reactor 
licenses, this collection is expected to exceed $700 million in 
fiscal year 2001. The Nuclear Waste Fund presently has a 
balance of over $10 billion from collections of this one mil 
fee in prior years.
    The balance in the Waste Fund and the annual revenue 
generated by the one mil fee, coupled with the contribution 
from the Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal appropriation for 
defense-generated waste and spent fuel, should provide more 
than sufficient funds for the design, construction, and 
operation of the repository. In recent years, an annual 
appropriation of $300 to $400 million has been sufficient to 
cover the expenses of the program for site characterization 
work. Once the program moves out of the study phase and into 
the design and construction phases, the annual funding 
requirements will increase significantly, exceeding $1 billion 
annually for several fiscal years. This will exceed the annual 
collections from the one mil fee, requiring either a major 
increase in the defense contribution or expenditure from the 
balance in the Nuclear Waste Fund, which would be scored as a 
new outlay. The Committee expects that the Department's budget 
request for fiscal year 2003 will include a specific 
legislative proposal to resolve future funding requirements for 
this program.
    Waste acceptance.--Because of concerns about the 
Department's commitment to the timely removal of spent nuclear 
fuel, the Committee in fiscal year 2001 directed the Department 
to submit its plan for the fabrication and deployment of waste 
acceptance capabilities. In January 2001, the Department 
submitted a report entitled ``Plan for Transportation Cask 
Fabrication and Deployment of Waste Acceptance Capability.'' 
This report merely confirms that the Department's strategy is 
to defer any concrete actions on waste acceptance pending final 
site selection. The Committee remains concerned that the 
Department will not be ready to fulfill its waste acceptance 
responsibilities consistent with the repository schedule, 
particularly for spent fuel from reactors presently undergoing 
decommissioning. The Committee recommendation includes 
$1,800,000 within available funds to initiate the procurement 
of one transportation cask for each of the six reactor sites 
presently undergoing dismantlement and decommissioning. Such 
procurement does not constitute a settlement or fulfillment of 
the Secretary's obligation to take acceptance of spent nuclear 
fuel.
    Transportation planning and readiness.--The United States 
has an exemplary safety record in shipping commercial and naval 
spent nuclear fuel. Nevertheless, a major point of public 
concern about the permanent repository is the perceived risk of 
such shipments. As with waste acceptance, the Department has 
opted to defer serious transportation planning until after 
completion of the final site selection. With the site 
recommendation now scheduled for completion in early fiscal 
year 2002, the Department needs to take a more aggressive 
approach in educating the public and working with state and 
local governments to develop safe transportation routes to the 
repository. One of the first steps should be to work with the 
State of Nevada to specify the transportation modes and routes 
that will avoid the Las Vegas metropolitan area. The Department 
should use available funds in fiscal year 2002 to initiate the 
selection of transportation routes in Nevada and other States, 
in cooperation with the States, and to begin planning for 
construction of a rail line to the repository site.
    Alternatives to the repository.--The National Research 
Council's Committee on Disposition of High-Level Radioactive 
Waste Through Geological Isolation recently completed a report 
entitled ``Disposition of High-Level Waste and Spent Nuclear 
Fuel: The Continuing Societal and Technical Challenges.'' The 
National Research Council found that ``geological disposition 
and surface storage are the only options that the committee 
found to be feasible now or in the foreseeable future . . . ''. 
The National Research Council also makes clear that neither 
reprocessing nor transmutation of spent nuclear fuel, while 
having the potential to reduce the total volume of radioactive 
wastes and especially the volume of long-lived radionuclides, 
eliminates the need for a repository. Not only does the 
accelerator transmutation of waste approach still require a 
repository, but the National Research Council cites data 
provided by the Department of Energy showing that transmutation 
will cost significantly more and take longer than the current 
geologic repository program. The West Valley Demonstration 
Project, now estimated to cost $4.5 billion and take 40 more 
years to clean up, is testimony to the fact that spent fuel 
reprocessing is not without its own environmental impacts and 
waste streams. Accordingly, the Committee does not provide any 
funds in this bill for the Department to pursue these so-called 
alternatives to the repository.

                      Departmental Administration


                          Gross Appropriation




Appropriation, 2001...................................      $225,942,000
Budget Estimate, 2002.................................       221,618,000
Recommended, 2002.....................................       209,611,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2001...............................       -16,331,000
    Budget Estimate, 2002.............................       -12,007,000


                         Miscellaneous Revenues




Appropriation, 2001...................................     -$151,000,000
Budget Estimate, 2002.................................      -137,810,000
Recommended, 2002.....................................      -137,810,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2001...............................       +13,190,000
    Budget Estimate, 2002.............................  ................


    The Committee recommendation for Departmental 
Administration is $209,611,000, a decrease of $12,007,000 from 
the budget request of $221,618,000. Funding recommended for 
Departmental Administration provides for general management and 
program support functions benefiting all elements of the 
Department of Energy and the National Nuclear Security 
Administration. The account funds a wide array of activities 
not directly associated with program execution. Funding for 
many offices has been reduced due to funding constraints and 
the availability of prior year carryover balances.
    The Committee has provided bill language allowing the 
Department to transfer funds previously appropriated for Year 
2000 (Y2K) activities to the Departmental Administration 
account. In conjunction with Y2K conversion efforts begun in 
late 1998, the Department initiated full-scale modernization of 
its core financial systems under the on-going Business 
Management Information System (BMIS). BMIS is replacing out-of-
date financial and budgeting systems and requires substantially 
greater federal support to assure operational reliability by 
2003. Balances remaining from funds made available in the 
Departmental Administration, Defense Environmental Restoration 
and Waste Management, and Defense Facilities Closure Projects 
accounts, estimated to total $1,480,000, are transferred to and 
merged with the funding in this account. These funds, which 
otherwise would expire on September 30, 2001, will remain 
available until expended for the Federal costs associated with 
the success of these continuing information technology 
enhancement activities.
    Engineering and Project Management.--The Committee 
recommendation includes a separate account for the personnel 
and activities of the Office of Engineering and Construction 
Management in line with the recommendation that the Office be 
provided greater authority within the Department's 
organizational structure. Funding for the facilities and 
infrastructure group has also been transferred to this office. 
The Committee recommendation of $7,600,000 does not include the 
budget proposal to fund central project management activities 
through a tax on other organizations.
    Working Capital Fund.--The Department is using a charge-
back program similar to a working capital fund which charges 
benefiting programs and organizations with 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 2002, 
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 $71,837,000, 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 recommendation for revenues is $137,810,000, 
the same as the budget request.
    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. 
Consistent with the budget request, the Committee has 
distributed these costs more equitably in fiscal year 2002 and 
provided $25,000,000 from national security programs.

                      Office of Inspector General





Appropriation, 2001...................................       $31,430,000
Budget Estimate, 2002.................................        31,430,000
Recommended, 2002.....................................        32,430,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2001...............................        +1,000,000
    Budget Estimate, 2002.............................        +1,000,000


    The Office of Inspector General performs agency-wide audit, 
inspection, and investigative functions to identify and correct 
management and administrative deficiencies that 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 inspection 
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. During fiscal 
year 2001, the Department has received payments exceeding $10 
million from Inspector General investigations which resulted in 
settlements in favor of the Government.
    The Committee recommendation is $32,430,000, an increase of 
$1,000,000 over the budget request. The Committee is aware that 
additional duties assigned to the Office of the Inspector 
General by Congress have not been fully funded in prior years. 
This funding increase addresses that concern.

                    Atomic Energy Defense Activities

    The Atomic Energy Defense Activities programs of the 
Department of Energy include the National Nuclear Security 
Administration which consists of Weapons Activities, Defense 
Nuclear Nonproliferation, Naval Reactors, and the Office of the 
Administrator; 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.

                NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

    The Department of Energy is responsible for enhancing U.S. 
national security through the military application of nuclear 
technology and reducing the global danger from the 
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. The National 
Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), a semi-autonomous 
agency within the Department, carries out these 
responsibilities. Established in March 2000 pursuant to Title 
32 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2000 (Public Law 106-65), NNSA is responsible for the 
management and operation of the Nation's nuclear weapons, naval 
reactors, and nuclear nonproliferation activities. Three 
offices within the NNSA carry out the Department's national 
security mission: the Office of Defense Programs, the Office of 
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation, and the Office of Naval 
Reactors.

                           Weapons Activities





Appropriation, 2001...................................    $5,006,153,000
Budget Estimate, 2002.................................     5,300,025,000
Recommended, 2002.....................................     5,123,888,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2001...............................      +117,735,000
    Budget Estimate, 2002.............................      -176,137,000


    The goal of the Weapons Activities program is to maintain 
confidence in the safety, security, reliability and performance 
of the Nation's nuclear weapons stockpile. The program seeks to 
maintain and refurbish nuclear weapons to sustain confidence in 
their safety and reliability indefinitely under the nuclear 
testing moratorium and arms reduction treaties. The Committee's 
recommendation for Weapons Activities is $5,123,888,000, a 
decrease of $176,137,000 from the budget request of 
$5,300,025,000, but an increase of $117,735,000 over fiscal 
year 2001.
    The fiscal year 2001 supplemental appropriations bill 
contains additional funding of $140,000,000 for weapons 
activities. An additional $54,000,000 was provided for directed 
stockpile work, $9,000,000 for campaigns, and $47,000,000 for 
readiness in technical base and facilities. In addition, 
$30,000,000 was provided to establish a new program, Facilities 
and Infrastructure, to reduce maintenance backlogs and dispose 
of excess facilities.
    Strategic Review.--The Administration is currently 
conducting a review of the Nation's nuclear weapons strategy, 
but the results of this review are not yet known. The Committee 
is aware that the outcome of this review could significantly 
change the weapons activities funding requirements for fiscal 
year 2002 and will make appropriate adjustments as needed 
during the appropriations process.
    Reprogramming Authority.--The Committee recommends limited 
reprogramming authority within weapons activities for the 
production plants to provide flexibility to achieve cost 
savings and programmatic efficiencies during the year. In 
fiscal year 2002, each plant may transfer between programs up 
to $5,000,000 or 10 percent of the funding, whichever is lower, 
if it can be shown that cost savings and efficiencies will 
result. This reprogramming authority is not to be used to cover 
cost overruns and schedule slips for any project or program. 
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 
30 days of the use of this reprogramming authority.

                        DIRECTED STOCKPILE WORK

    Directed Stockpile Work includes all activities that 
directly support weapons in the nuclear stockpile, including 
maintenance, research, development, engineering, and 
certification activities. The Committee recommendation is 
$1,043,791,000, the same as the budget request, and an increase 
of $133,188,000 over fiscal year 2001.

                               CAMPAIGNS

    Campaigns are focused efforts involving the three weapons 
laboratories, the Nevada Test Site, the weapons production 
plants, and selected external organizations to address critical 
capabilities needed to achieve program objectives. Campaigns 
have definitive milestones, specific work plans, and specific 
end dates. The Committee recommendation is $1,945,413,000, a 
decrease of $51,000,000 from the budget request of 
$1,996,413,000.
    Inertial Confinement Fusion.--The Committee recommends 
$492,943,000 for the inertial confinement fusion program, an 
increase of $25,000,000 over the budget request of 
$467,943,000. The recommendation includes $25,000,000 to 
continue development of high average power lasers and 
supporting science and technology. The Committee is 
disappointed that the Department has not yet supported this 
activity despite recommendations by the Fusion Energy Science 
Advisory Committee and the Secretary of Energy's Advisory Board 
and the continuing progress of the research. The Committee 
recommendation also includes the budget request of $10,000,000 
for the Naval Research Laboratory and $33,450,000 for the 
University of Rochester.
    The Department is also directed to initiate a study to 
determine the programmatic need for a Petawatt laser facility.
    The Committee recommendation provides $245,000,000 for 
construction of the National Ignition Facility (NIF), the same 
as the budget request. While the Department has stated that the 
NIF is back on track, a recent General Accounting Office (GAO) 
follow-up review of NIF expressed some continuing concerns. GAO 
notes that, while past internal reviewers have concluded that 
NIF's milestones are challenging but doable, most major 
performance milestones will not occur until 2004, and some 
reviewers have recommended that more near-term milestones be 
added to assess laser performance. Other issues that GAO 
believes continue to place NIF at risk are: persistent DOE 
oversight problems (i.e., the same people have performed 
oversight since 1999 when NIF's cost and schedule grew 
unnoticed); the NIF project does not manage about $700 million 
in research and development that directly support NIF; and NIF 
still lacks an independent external review process. The 
Committee expects the Department to address these concerns in 
an expeditious manner.
    Advanced simulation and computing.--The Committee 
recommendation for the Advanced Simulation and Computing 
program is $638,032,000, a reduction of $100,000,000 from the 
budget request of $738,032,000. The Committee has consistently 
supported this program, but believes that recent events could 
require a modification to the proposed program strategy. While 
the Department's schedule for a 100 trillion operations per 
second (100 TeraOPS) computer has slipped beyond the original 
date of 2004, a private company has begun an effort to increase 
computing capability with the goal of achieving 100 TeraOPS by 
2004. In addition, the Committee is funding the Advanced 
Scientific Computing Research program at a level in excess of 
$160,000,000 in the DOE non-defense laboratories. The 
Department must ensure that the current program strategy takes 
into full account these changes which have occurred since the 
program was initiated in 1996.
    Pit manufacturing and certification.--The Committee 
recommendation for pit manufacturing readiness is $128,545,000, 
the same as the budget request. The Department is currently 
unable to demonstrate that it has a viable plan to manufacture 
and certify pits on the schedule dictated by national security 
needs. The Department's management and the national 
laboratory's execution of this project have been quite 
deficient--the project is years behind schedule and hundreds of 
millions of dollars over the original cost estimate. The NNSA 
has established a separate project office to oversee pit 
manufacturing and certification. The Committee will base its 
judgment on the success of the NNSA on how well this project 
succeeds. At this time the proposed certification date is years 
away and does not meet national security requirements for a new 
pit. The Department is directed to submit to the Committee a 
comprehensive report on the status of this project on a 
quarterly basis beginning October 1, 2001.
    Secondary readiness.--The Committee has provided an 
additional $24,000,000 in secondary readiness for the Y-12 
Plant in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. These additional funds are for 
direct support to the stockpile life extension program, 
demonstration of technologies for the Special Materials Complex 
facility, and modernization planning.

               READINESS IN TECHNICAL BASE AND FACILITIES

    The Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities program 
supports the physical and operational infrastructure at the 
laboratories, the Nevada Test Site, and the production plants. 
The Committee recommendation is $1,481,988,000, an increase of 
$35,000,000 over the budget request of $1,446,988,000. 
Additional funding of $25,000,000 has been provided for the 
Pantex plant in Texas and $10,000,000 for the Y-12 Plant in 
Tennessee to meet facility needs.
    Construction projects.--Funding of $9,500,000 has been 
provided for Project 02-D-101, the Microsystems and Engineering 
Sciences Applications (MESA) Complex at Sandia National 
Laboratories, an increase of $7,500,000 over the budget 
request. Funding of $7,500,000 for infrastructure activities 
has been transferred to the MESA line item construction project 
from Project 01-D-103, Project Engineering and Design (PE&D). 
The budget request of $45,5379,000 for Project 01-D-103, PE&D, 
has been reduced accordingly to $37,879,000. In its fiscal year 
2003 budget request for MESA, the Department is directed to 
revise the project data sheet to include the cost of disposing 
of excess facilities that are equal to or greater than the new 
space that will be created by this project.
    Underground Nuclear Testing.--The Department of Energy was 
slow to provide detailed justification for its supplemental 
appropriations funding request for fiscal year 2001 to the 
Committee. The information it provided to the Committee was 
informal and on an ad-hoc rather than a formal basis. After the 
Committee had made its funding recommendations for the bill, 
DOE submitted formal justification material to justify its 
request. The formal material mentions funding to increase the 
state of readiness of underground nuclear testing.
    If the Nation were to decide to invest funds to restore 
underground nuclear testing to a higher level than presently, 
this could only be done: (1) once the Secretary of Defense 
concluded his strategic review; (2) once the President made a 
recommendation to the Congress; (3) once it was approved by the 
Armed Services Committees of the House and the Senate; and (4) 
only if it were subsequently approved by Congress. None of 
these activities has occurred. It is not the Committee's intent 
to provide funding in this Act, the supplemental appropriations 
Act for fiscal year 2001, or any prior Act for activities to 
increase the readiness for underground nuclear testing. None of 
the funds in such Acts may be used for that purpose.

                     FACILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE

    The Committee has provided $17,000,000 for the Facilities 
and Infrastructure program to address the serious shortfall in 
maintenance throughout the nuclear weapons complex. The 
Administration's budget proposal included no funding for this 
program. These funds should be used to reduce the backlog of 
maintenance and infrastructure upgrades and dispose of excess 
facilities. Funding of $30,000,000 was also provided in the 
fiscal year 2001 supplemental appropriations bill.
    The Committee is aware of the need for funding a facilities 
and infrastructure program, but is concerned the Department 
does not have in place a facilities management structure to 
ensure the funds are used to address those items which will 
have the greatest impact on reducing long-term costs and risk. 
The Department is to provide a semi-annual report to the 
Committee on the status of the facilities and infrastructure 
program. The report should include the current priority list of 
proposed facilities and infrastructure projects including cost 
and schedule requirements. For each site, the report is to 
include: a current ten-year site plan that demonstrates the 
reconfiguration of its facilities and infrastructure to meet 
its missions and to address its long-term operational costs and 
return on investment; the current budget for all facilities and 
infrastructure funding in this program as well as all funding 
for maintenance and infrastructure upgrades funded through 
other parts of the budget; and the current status of each 
facilities and infrastructure project compared to the original 
baseline cost, schedule, and scope.
    The Committee directs that at least 25 percent of the 
facilities and infrastructure funding be used to dispose of 
excess facilities that will provide the greatest impact on 
reducing long-term costs and risk. New and innovative 
decontamination and decommissioning (D&D) practices must be 
implemented to reduce costs and expedite site cleanups. There 
are clearly savings to be realized throughout the complex as 
evidenced by a recent contractor innovation at the Rocky Flats 
site that reduced the cost of D&D for a building from an 
estimated $3,500,000 using existing DOE practices and 
procedures to approximately $700,000 using commercial 
practices. Potential cost savings of this magnitude have also 
been identified at other sites through the use of standard 
commercial practices for D&D.

                      SECURE TRANSPORTATION ASSET

    The Secure Transportation Asset program provides for the 
safe, secure movement of nuclear weapons, special nuclear 
materials, and non-nuclear weapon components between military 
locations and nuclear weapons complex facilities within the 
United States. The Committee recommendation is $121,800,000, 
the same as the budget request.

                        SAFEGUARDS AND SECURITY

    This program provides for all safeguards and security 
requirements at NNSA landlord sites. The Committee 
recommendation is $448,881,000, the same as the budget request, 
but an increase of nearly 14 percent over fiscal year 2001. 
Physical safeguards and security measures are only part of the 
solution to address security concerns throughout the weapons 
complex. With program needs going unmet and infrastructure 
deteriorating, the Committee strongly encourages the NNSA to 
review these growing costs and seek smarter and more efficient 
ways to meet security needs.

                           PROGRAM DIRECTION

    The Committee recommendation of $250,000,000 for program 
direction is a reduction of $21,137,000 from the budget request 
of $271,137,000, and $566,000 below fiscal year 2001. Congress 
assumed that creation of the NNSA would lead to efficiencies 
and streamlined management. However, the result has been an 
increase in staff at Headquarters and in the field. The 
conference report to accompany the Fiscal Year 2001 National 
Defense Authorization Act (P.L. 106-398) decreased program 
direction funding for fiscal year 2001 because the conferees 
believed the Office of Defense Programs to be overstaffed. The 
conferees urged the Department to eliminate duplicative efforts 
and streamline management control and directed the Department 
to reorganize and realign headquarters and field offices roles 
and responsibilities. The Committee expects the NNSA to address 
this issue during fiscal year 2002 and seek additional 
efficiencies throughout the Headquarters and field 
organizations during fiscal year 2003.

                          FUNDING ADJUSTMENTS

    The recommendation includes an adjustment of $184,985,000. 
This consists of a $28,985,000 security charge for reimbursable 
work as included in the budget request and a general reduction 
of $156,000,000.

                    Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation





Appropriation, 2001...................................      $872,273,000
Budget Estimate, 2002.................................       773,700,000
Recommended, 2002.....................................       845,341,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2001...............................       -26,932,000
    Budget Estimate, 2002.............................       +71,641,000


    The Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation account includes 
funding for Nonproliferation and Verification Research and 
Development, Arms Control, International Materials Protection, 
Control, and Accounting, Russian Transition Assistance, HEU 
Transparency Implementation, International Nuclear Safety, 
Fissile Materials Disposition, and Program Direction. 
Descriptions of each of these programs are provided below.
    The Department requested $7,000 for official reception and 
representation expenses in this account. The Committee 
recommendation transfers this funding and combines it with the 
request of $5,000 for official reception and representation 
expenses in the Office of the Administrator for a total of 
$12,000.

       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 $216,102,000, an increase 
of $10,000,000 over the budget request of $206,102,000. The 
recommendation provides an additional $10,000,000 for ground-
based systems for treaty monitoring which was reduced from 
$22,510,000 in fiscal year 2001 to $12,510,900 in the budget 
request.
    Competitive Research.--Concerns have been raised repeatedly 
that there should be more opportunity for open competition in 
certain areas of the nonproliferation and verification research 
and development program. A report by an outside group 
established by the Department to review the Office of 
Nonproliferation Research and Engineering included a similar 
recommendation. The Committee expects the Department to act in 
good faith on the recommendations provided by the external 
review group and directs the Department to continue a free and 
open competitive process for 25 percent of its research and 
development activities during fiscal year 2002 for ground-based 
systems treaty monitoring. The competitive process should be 
open to all Federal and non-Federal entities.

                              ARMS CONTROL

    The Committee recommendation has restructured the Arms 
Control program to provide more visibility for program 
activities. The arms control and nonproliferation program seeks 
to detect, prevent, and reverse the proliferation of weapons of 
mass destruction materials, technology, and expertise. The 
major functional areas of the program include: policy analysis; 
reduced enrichment research and test reactor (RERTR); 
international safeguards; export control operations; treaty 
agreements; New Independent States (NIS) nonproliferation; and 
international security.
    The Committee recommendation for Arms Control is 
$75,741,000, a reduction of $25,759,000 from the budget request 
of $101,500,000. Funding of $4,000,000 included in the Arms 
Control program for Second Line of Defense activities has been 
transferred to the International Materials Protection, Control 
and Accounting program. Funding of $28,759,000 included in the 
budget request in the NIS nonproliferation program for the 
Initiatives for Proliferation Prevention (IPP) and the Nuclear 
Cities Initiative (NCI) programs has been transferred to a new 
program, ``Russian Transition Assistance.'' Within Arms 
Control, total funding of $15,945,000, an increase of 
$7,000,000 over the budget request, has been provided to 
maintain the schedule for completing the spent fuel activities 
in Kazakhstan.

                 NONPROLIFERATION PROGRAMS WITH RUSSIA

    The Department of Energy funds many nonproliferation 
programs with Russia. These programs help secure Russian 
nuclear weapons materials, prevent the outflow of scientific 
expertise from Russia, eliminate excess nuclear weapons 
materials, and help downsize the Russian nuclear weapons 
complex.
    In January of this year, ``A Report Card on the Department 
of Energy's Nonproliferation Programs with Russia'' was 
released by the Russian Task Force co-chaired by Howard Baker 
and Lloyd Cutler. The Committee has reviewed this report and 
supports the major recommendation which states that, ``The 
President, in consultation with Congress and in cooperation 
with the Russian Federation, should quickly formulate a 
strategic plan to secure and/or neutralize in the next eight or 
ten years all nuclear weapons-usable material located in Russia 
and prevent the outflow from Russia of scientific expertise 
that could be used for nuclear or other weapons of mass 
destruction.'' The Task Force further notes that, ``While 
emphasizing that enhanced efforts are needed from the U.S., the 
Task Force underscores that enhanced efforts are also required 
from Russia. Ultimately, Russia will be responsible for 
securing its remaining nuclear arsenal.'' Within available 
funding, the Committee has sought to support the 
recommendations of this Task Force.
    Highly Enriched Uranium (HEU) Agreement.--Several external 
reviews have urged that excess quantities of Russian Highly 
Enriched Uranium (HEU) be reduced as quickly as possible. 
Excess Russian HEU is currently being managed under the 
auspices of the HEU Purchase Agreement established in 1994. 
This agreement authorized the U.S. to purchase 500 metric tons 
of Russian HEU that was to be converted to low enriched uranium 
for commercial uses over 20 years at a cost of $12 billion. 
While more than 110 metric tons of HEU have been down-blended, 
implementation of the HEU Purchase Agreement has been slower 
and more difficult than anticipated. The Committee strongly 
urges the Department to work with the United States Enrichment 
Corporation (USEC) to explore ways to accelerate the current 
purchase agreement.
    With the continued downsizing of the Russian nuclear 
weapons stockpile, more HEU is becoming available. The 
Administration is urged to expand the amount of HEU purchases 
included in the original agreement, which covers less than half 
of Russia's total HEU stockpile. The Committee is aware of the 
concerns that additional purchases could adversely impact the 
world market for uranium. The Administration should explore 
options such as securing a second U.S. executive agent for the 
purchase; down-blending the material but leaving it in Russia 
until it can be sold onto international markets without adverse 
impacts; and working with the international community to 
purchase additional blended-down Russian HEU. The Committee 
understands that much of the Russian funding for its nuclear 
weapons complex conversion programs comes from the HEU purchase 
agreement, so any increase in purchases should also ensure that 
the additional revenue is used for these conversion 
initiatives.
    Limitation on Russian Program Funds.--The Department is 
still not adequately addressing the concern that too much of 
the money for Russian programs is being spent in the U.S. at 
the Department's own national laboratories rather than going to 
the facilities in Russia. The Department's contracting 
mechanisms are resulting in excess funds going to pay 
laboratories for contract administration and oversight that 
would be better performed by Federal personnel. The 
Department's national laboratories should be used to provide 
technical oversight and programmatic guidance in those areas 
where they have special expertise.
    The Committee directs that not more than 25 percent of the 
funding for Russian programs may be spent in the United States. 
The Department is not adequately reviewing the types of 
administrative and programmatic guidance that are needed for 
these programs and choosing the proper contractual mechanism. 
This leads to excessive costs for administration and less 
funding going to Russia. The Department should report to the 
Committee by December 15, 2001, on the steps being taken to 
meet the 25 percent limitation.

       INTERNATIONAL MATERIALS PROTECTION, CONTROL AND ACCOUNTING

    The International Materials Protection, Control and 
Accounting (MPC&A) activities are designed to work 
cooperatively with Russia to secure weapons and weapons-usable 
nuclear material. The focus is to improve the physical security 
at facilities that possess or process significant quantities of 
nuclear weapons-usable that are of proliferation concern. 
Activities include installing monitoring equipment, 
inventorying nuclear material, improving the Russian security 
culture, and establishing a security infrastructure.
    The Committee recommendation is $190,000,000, an increase 
of $51,200,000 over the budget request of $138,800,000, and 
$16,144,000 over fiscal year 2001. Funding of $4,000,000 is 
provided for the Second Line of Defense program which was 
transferred from the Arms Control program. The Committee has 
provided a significant increase in funding for fiscal year 
2002. This increase should be targeted toward projects to 
consolidate materials and reduce the number of buildings and 
facilities holding nuclear materials. The Committee also 
directs the Department to increase the level of program funding 
that goes to employing Russian workers and purchasing Russian-
made equipment and reduce the amount of funding that is spent 
in the United States.

                     RUSSIAN TRANSITION ASSISTANCE

    The Committee has transferred the Initiatives for 
Proliferation Prevention (IPP) and the Nuclear Cities 
Initiative (NCI) programs from Arms Control and established a 
new program, ``Russian Transition Assistance.'' The Committee 
recommendation is $40,000,000 for projects to employ Russian 
weapons scientists and downsize the Russian weapons complex. 
The Committee recommendation provides $30,000,000 for IPP and 
$10,000,000 for NCI.
    A recent General Accounting Office (GAO) report suggested 
several areas of improvement for the NCI program and 
recommended combining the NCI and IPP programs since they share 
a common goal--employing Russian weapons scientists in 
nonmilitary work--and, in many cases, are implementing similar 
types of projects. At this time, the Committee has maintained 
the two separate programs, but expects the Department to 
provide a single program manager responsible for both. The 
program manager should also ensure close coordination with 
other Federal agencies that direct money to scientists working 
in closed cities, such as the State Department's International 
Science and Technology Center.
    Management of the IPP program has improved considerably in 
recent years, while the NCI program appears to be suffering the 
same problems that IPP has overcome. The NCI program could be 
strengthened significantly by using the same standards, 
applications, and approval procedures already in place in the 
IPP program. While the Committee believes that non-
proliferation projects should continue to take place within the 
closed cities, such projects should be guided by an emphasis on 
private sector involvement using the commercialization 
principles inherent in the IPP program.
    To ensure that the appropriate amount of funding goes to 
facilities in Russia and the NIS, the Committee directs that 
not more than 25 percent of the funds be spent at the 
Department of Energy laboratories and that these funds be used 
by the laboratories only for technical validation of projects. 
The Committee also recommends that the Department direct the 
United States Industry Coalition (USIC) to assume 
responsibility for all business-related activities including 
structuring contracts and intellectual property rights 
arrangements.
    A near-term measure of success for this program will be the 
number of technologies that are commercialized, the number of 
jobs created in Russia, and the amount that the Russian weapons 
complex is downsized. The ultimate measure of success will be 
elimination of U.S. aid to support these commercialization 
ventures. The Committee expects the program to increase the 
amount of cost sharing required from U.S. industry 
participants, and directs the Department to establish a 
revolving fund to support the program, and ultimately, 
eliminate Federal government funding of projects.
    The Department is directed to report to the Committee by 
January 15, 2002, on the level of coordination with other 
Federal agencies and the implementation of the GAO 
recommendations to: evaluate all ongoing NCI projects; 
establish quantifiable goals and milestones for jobs creation 
and downsizing the weapons complex; and strengthen efforts to 
reduce national laboratories' costs to implement the program. 
The report should also address whether the two programs should 
be consolidated into a single effort and whether cost savings 
and other programmatic and administrative efficiencies would be 
possible through consolidation.

          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 $13,950,000, 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 $10,000,000, a reduction of $3,800,000 from the 
budget request of $13,800,000, due to funding constraints. The 
Committee expects U.S. participation in this program to be 
completed by 2005.
    From within available funds, $1,500,000 is to be used to 
transfer and implement the proven U.S.-developed Mechanical 
Stress Improvement Process technology requested by the Russian 
Federation. The Department is to provide a status report on the 
progress of this project by March 31, 2002.
    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. In 
addition, the report should provide summary tables of total 
annual resources expended and planned at: each reactor and each 
project/activity receiving funding outside explicit reactors 
for fiscal years 1993-2005, which total to the annual amount 
provided and projected to complete the program. The report 
should include a strategic plan outlining the most urgent and 
pressing safety priorities that remain and need to be addressed 
in order to close out the program by 2005.

                     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 
$290,089,000, the same as the budget request, and an increase 
of $40,640,000 over fiscal year 2001. Funding of $130,089,000, 
the same as the budget request, is provided for U.S. surplus 
materials disposition and $57,000,000, the same as the budget 
request, for the Russian plutonium disposition program. The 
U.S. portion of the fissile materials disposition program is 
not to be counted in the 25 percent limitation on funds for 
Russian programs to be spent in the U.S.
    The Department's budget request for fissile materials 
disposition is insufficient to proceed with the simultaneous 
design and construction of three key plutonium disposition 
facilities. To accommodate the shortfall, DOE proposes to move 
ahead with the development of a mixed oxide (MOX) Fuel 
Fabrication Facility while delaying work on the other two U.S. 
facilities until closer to the time when they are needed. At 
the same time, DOE is examining various technical alternatives 
to make greater use of existing facilities at Savannah River to 
reduce the costs of plutonium disposition.
    The Department's approach is understandable in light of the 
fact that irradiating MOX fuel in nuclear reactors is key to 
working with Russia to dispose of stocks of surplus Russian 
plutonium. However, the Committee wants to remind DOE that it 
is essential to provide an unambiguous and timely pathway out 
of Savannah River for plutonium brought there from other sites 
for disposition. Should unanticipated problems make proceeding 
with the irradiation of MOX fuel infeasible, the Department 
should proceed promptly with immobilization to dispose of 
surplus U.S. plutonium. Only in this manner does the Committee 
believe that DOE can honor commitments to South Carolina, avoid 
billions of dollars in long-term storage costs, and assure that 
Savannah River does not become the de facto dumping ground for 
stockpiles of surplus U.S. weapons plutonium.

                           PROGRAM DIRECTION

    The Committee recommendation of $51,459,000 for program 
direction is the same as the budget request.

                             Naval Reactors





Appropriation, 2001...................................      $688,645,000
Budget Estimate, 2002.................................       688,045,000
Recommended, 2002.....................................       688,045,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2001...............................          -600,000
    Budget Estimate, 2002.............................  ................


    The Naval Reactors program is responsible for all aspects 
of naval nuclear propulsion--from technology development 
through reactor operations to ultimate reactor plant disposal. 
The 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 97 reactors in operating nuclear-powered 
submarines and surface ships and to development of the next 
generation reactor.
    The Committee recommendation is $688,045,000, the same as 
the budget request.

                      Office of the Administrator





Appropriation, 2001...................................        $9,978,000
Budget Estimate, 2002.................................        15,000,000
Recommended, 2002.....................................        10,000,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2001...............................           +22,000
    Budget Estimate, 2002.............................        -5,000,000


    The Office of the Administrator of the National Nuclear 
Security Administration (NNSA) provides corporate planning and 
oversight for Defense Programs, Defense Nuclear 
Nonproliferation, and Naval Reactors, including the NNSA field 
offices in New Mexico, Nevada, and California. The Committee 
recommendation is $10,000,000, a reduction of $5,000,000 from 
the budget request, and $22,000 more than fiscal year 2001.
    The Committee recommendation provides $12,000 for official 
reception and representation expenses for the NNSA. This 
combines the request of $7,000 included in the Defense Nuclear 
Nonproliferation account with the $5,000 requested in this 
account.

               Environmental and Other Defense Activities


         Defense Environmental Restoration and Waste Management





Appropriation, 2001...................................    $4,963,533,000
Budget Estimate, 2002.................................     4,548,708,000
Recommended, 2002.....................................     5,174,539,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2001...............................      +211,006,000
    Budget Estimate, 2002.............................      +625,831,000


    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 Uranium Facilities 
Maintenance and Remediation.
    The fiscal year 2002 budget request for environmental 
management activities was not adequate to maintain cleanup 
progress at each of the Department's sites. While the Committee 
strongly supports the Secretary's internal review of these 
programs, certain on-going cleanup projects must be funded.
    The Committee's recommendation for Defense Environmental 
Restoration and Waste Management is $5,174,778,000, an increase 
of $625,831,000 over the budget request of $4,548,708,000. 
Additional funding of $100,000,000 was provided in the fiscal 
year 2001 supplemental appropriations bill to support a variety 
of cleanup activities in this account. Details of the 
recommended funding levels follow.

                                GENERAL

    The Secretary has ordered a top-to-bottom review of the 
environmental management programs. The Committee supports this 
effort and hopes to realize significant cost savings and 
program efficiencies from new and innovative cleanup strategies 
throughout the complex.
    Low level waste disposal costs.--The Department expects to 
generate 10.6 million cubic meters of low level radioactive 
waste (LLW) and mixed low level waste (MLLW) needing disposal; 
of this amount, only 1.2 million cubic meters is projected for 
disposal at commercial facilities. The Committee is concerned 
that the Department is relying too heavily on the use of 
Federal on-site and off-site disposal cells, effectively 
inhibiting the development of a viable and competitive 
commercial disposal industry. Commercial off-site disposal 
facilities may offer the Department the lowest overall life-
cycle cost for disposal of this waste, particularly if the 
Department can foster some competition for its disposal 
business. The General Accounting Office (GAO), in its report 
entitled ``Nuclear Cleanup: DOE Should Reevaluate Waste 
Disposal Options Before Building New Facilities,'' (GAO-01-441, 
May 2001), investigated three sites which had decided to build 
on-site disposal facilities. The GAO found that the Department 
had not used the latest estimates of waste volumes and 
transportation costs when deciding between on-site and off-site 
disposal. The Committee is further concerned that the 
Department has implemented a rate structure for the disposal of 
low-level waste and mixed low-level waste disposal at the 
Nevada Test Site (NTS) which understates the true life-cycle 
cost of disposal at NTS, thus making a fair comparison with 
commercial disposal alternatives impossible.
    The Committee expects the Department, where cost-effective, 
to use existing Federal contracts for the disposal of low-level 
and mixed low-level waste at commercial off-site disposal 
sites. The Department is directed to prepare an objective 
analysis of the life-cycle costs of LLW and MLLW disposal for 
the various Federal and commercial disposal options. This cost 
analysis should include the specific costs (on a unit volume of 
waste basis) for: preparation of the waste; packaging of the 
waste for transport; transportation of the waste to the 
disposal site; actual disposal of the waste at the disposal 
site; long-term closure and stewardship costs at the disposal 
site; and the means and timing (as measured in cost of money) 
for payments for disposal. The Department is directed to submit 
a report to the Committee by February 1, 2002, with the 
detailed cost data as specified above.
    Project Changes.--The Department is directed to provide a 
report by January 30, 2002, showing the initial funding 
allocation by site for each individual project. After that 
date, the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations must be 
notified of any change that increases or decreases funding for 
any project by more than 25 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 2002, each site 
manager may transfer up to $5,000,000 between Defense 
Environmental Restoration and Waste Management program 
activities such as site/project completion, 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 of the use of this reprogramming 
authority.
    Economic development.--None of the environmental management 
funds are available for economic development activities.

                        SITE/PROJECT COMPLETION

    The site/project completion account provides 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 recommendation for site/project completion 
activities is $1,041,996,000, an increase of $130,010,000 over 
the budget request of $911,986,000. Additional funding of 
$95,000,000 is provided for the Idaho site to support 
activities necessary to meet deadlines for shipping waste out 
of the State; $20,000,000 for the Savannah River Site for 
plutonium packaging and stabilization activities and 
restoration of infrastructure funding; and $34,300,000 for the 
Hanford site to support the River Corridor Initiative. Funding 
for Project 01-D-414, Project Engineering and Design, has been 
reduced by $3,500,000, and Project 92-D-140, F&H Canyon Exhaust 
Upgrades, has been reduced by $15,790,000 due to deferral and 
elimination of some activities.
    The Committee is extremely concerned that projects 
previously scheduled for completion by 2006 are slipping beyond 
that date. The Department should be very careful not to 
underestimate the strong interest of the Committee that site/
project cleanups remain on schedule. The Department must 
demonstrate that it is capable of completing projects on 
schedule and within cost. It appears that the Department is 
much too quick to slip the schedule rather than pursue creative 
solutions to maintain the schedule within cost. Problems that 
arise during the course of project execution must be dealt with 
quickly to ensure project completion. During fiscal year 2002, 
the Department is to notify the Committee in writing of any 
project that slips beyond 2006 and provide a detailed 
explanation of the cause of the delay as well as proposed 
solutions for getting the project back on schedule for 2006 
completion.

                          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 recommendation for Post 2006 Completion is 
$3,393,472,000, an increase of $473,271,000 over the budget 
request of $2,920,201,000. Additional funding is provided to 
support current cleanup schedules and fiscal year 2001 levels 
of funding at the following sites: $109,290,000 for Savannah 
River; $105,200,000 for Hanford; $16,700,000 for Idaho; and 
$12,600,000 for the Waste Isolation Pilot Project in New 
Mexico.
    From within available funds for the Savannah River Site, 
funding of $8,000,000 has been provided for the Savannah River 
Ecology Laboratory, an increase of $2,000,000 over the budget 
request of $6,000,000.
    Funding of $8,481,000 has been provided for the Hazardous 
Waste Worker Training Program, an increase of $7,481,000 over 
the budget request, and the same as fiscal year 2001.
    Consistent with the recommendations contained in the GAO 
report on low-level waste disposal, the Department should 
perform an updated cost comparison of on-site versus off-site 
disposal costs before committing to construction of a new 
CERCLA waste disposal cell at the Idaho National Engineering 
and Environmental Laboratory.
    For the Office of River Protection, an additional 
$56,000,000 is provided for tank farm operations. Additional 
funding of $165,000,000 has been provided for Project 01-D-416, 
the Hanford Waste Treatment Plant, for a total of $665,000,000 
in fiscal year 2002. This funding is necessary to maintain the 
current schedule for operations.
    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.
    Health Effects Studies.--The Committee recommendation does 
not include any funding for worker and public health effects 
studies.

                         SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

    The Office of Science and Technology conducts a national 
program that provides a full range of resources and 
capabilities--from basic research through development, and 
demonstration, and technical and deployment assistance--that 
are needed to deliver scientific and technological solutions to 
cleanup and long-term environmental stewardship problems. The 
Committee recommendation for science and technology is 
$226,850,000, an increase of $30,850,000 over the budget 
request of $196,000,000.
    One-year funding agreements.--It is a continuing source of 
frustration to the Committee that the Department signs 
agreements with universities and other entities committing to 
five years of funding at a specified level and then fails to 
request funding in the budget to support these agreements. This 
leads to much frustration among the entities which believe that 
the agreement was a legitimate contract and the Committee which 
receives numerous requests to add funds to meet these 
commitments. The Committee has no role in making these 
agreements and should not be put in the position each year to 
correct the failures of the Department. Thus, the Department is 
directed to sign no funding agreement with any entity that 
commits more than one year of funding for science and 
technology activities.
    Technology deployment.--The Committee urges the Department 
to make every effort to seek alternative cost-effective cleanup 
technologies from outside the Department in cleaning up its 
legacy waste. The Committee is aware that the international 
agreement with AEA Technology has been very successful in 
bringing cheaper and more efficient technologies to bear on the 
Department's cleanup problems and urges the Department to renew 
this agreement. The budget request included $2,000,000 for this 
agreement in fiscal year 2002, but the Committee has provided 
$4,000,000, the same as fiscal year 2001.
    Environmental management science program.--The Committee is 
disappointed that the Department was again unable to provide 
funding for new grants in fiscal year 2002. This is a 
collaborative program between the Department's Office of 
Environmental Management and the Office of Science 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 has 
provided $5,000,000 for the next round of new and innovative 
research grants in fiscal year 2002.
    Idaho validation and verification program.--The Committee 
has provided $20,000,000 for basic research activities at the 
Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory. The 
Department had requested no funds to continue this program.
    University Research Program in Robotics.--The Committee has 
provided $4,350,000 for the university research program in 
robotics, an increase of $1,850,000 over the budget request of 
$2,500,000 and the same as fiscal year 2001.
    Florida International University.--Funding of $5,000,000 
has been provided for the Department's cooperative agreement 
with the Florida International University to support 
environmental cleanup technologies. This is an increase of 
$2,500,000 over the budget request and the same as fiscal year 
2001.

                           EXCESS FACILITIES

    The environmental management program is responsible for 
final disposition of excess contaminated facilities throughout 
the Department. Funds are currently being expended for 
surveillance and maintenance of these excess facilities, and 
these costs will continue until decontamination and 
decommissioning (D&D) is completed.
    The Committee has provided $10,000,000 for the excess 
facilities program, an increase of $8,700,000 over the budget 
request. The budget requested only surveillance and maintenance 
costs of $1,300,000 for the excess facilities transferred to 
the program in fiscal year 2002. In addition to these 
surveillance and maintenance costs, the recommendation includes 
$8,700,000 to initiate a program to begin the actual D&D of 
excess facilities already owned by the environmental management 
program. These funds should be used to dispose of those 
facilities that will provide the greatest impact on reducing 
long-term costs and risk.
    The Committee directs the Department to implement new D&D 
practices to reduce costs and expedite site cleanups. There are 
clearly savings to be realized throughout the complex as 
evidenced by a recent contractor innovation at the Rocky Flats 
site that reduced the cost of D&D for a building from an 
estimate of $3,500,000 using existing DOE practices and 
procedures to approximately $700,000 using commercial 
practices. Potential cost savings of this magnitude have also 
been identified at other sites through the use of standard 
commercial practices. The Department is to keep the Committee 
informed of the D&D projects that are to be performed and the 
cost of each project.

                        SAFEGUARDS AND SECURITY

    The safeguards and security program ensures appropriate 
levels of protection against unauthorized access, theft, 
diversion, or destruction of Departmental assets and hostile 
acts that may impact national security or the health and safety 
of DOE and contractor employees. The Committee recommendation 
for the safeguards and security program is $205,621,000, the 
same as the budget request.

                           PROGRAM DIRECTION

    The Committee recommends $355,761,000 for program 
direction, the same as the budget request. However, within this 
amount, the Committee has reduced salaries and benefits by 
$3,000,000 and provided funding only for the current on-board 
staff. No additional funding is provided for staff increases 
proposed at any site; increased site staffing needs must be met 
from within current staffing levels. In reviewing site staffing 
levels, there appear to be many discrepancies in the size of 
the Federal staff, the amount of contractor funding at the 
site, and the complexity of the cleanup. The Department is 
urged to see if there are greater efficiencies that can be made 
particularly at sites slated for closure.
    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 includes the following funding 
adjustments; prior year balances of $36,770,000 and a security 
charge for reimbursable work of $5,391,000 as requested in the 
budget, and a general reduction of $17,000,000.

                  Defense Facilities Closure Projects





Appropriation, 2001...................................    $1,080,331,000
Budget Estimate, 2002.................................     1,050,538,000
Recommended, 2002.....................................     1,092,878,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2001...............................       +12,547,000
    Budget Estimate, 2002.............................       +42,340,000


    The Defense Facilities Closure Projects account includes 
funding for sites which have established a goal of completing 
cleanup by the end of fiscal year 2006. After completion of 
cleanup, no further Departmental mission is envisioned, except 
for limited long-term surveillance and maintenance, and the 
sites may be available for some alternative use. Sites in this 
account include the Rocky Flats Closure Project in Colorado, 
and several sites in Ohio--Ashtabula, Columbus, Fernald, and 
Miamisburg.
    This account is intended to highlight those sites where 
cleanup can be accelerated and substantial savings achieved by 
reducing long-term program costs and ongoing support costs. The 
Committee strongly supports this program, and the 
recommendation for fiscal year 2002 funding is $1,092,878,000, 
an increase of $42,340,000 over the budget request. Additional 
funding of $21,000,000 was provided in the fiscal year 2001 
supplemental appropriations bill to support the Ohio closure 
sites. Fiscal year 2002 funding for each closure site is 
discussed below.

                      rocky flats closure project

    The Department has prepared a baseline schedule showing 
closure of the Rocky Flats Site in Colorado by 2006. 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 must ensure that complex-wide policy 
and funding issues are addressed as they relate to the closure 
of the Rocky Flats Site. The development of the Rocky Flats 
Integrated Closure Project Baseline is an important step in 
meeting this commitment. It is only through successful site 
closures 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 2002 funding of 
$620,504,000, a reduction of $8,073,000 from the budget 
request. Funding for some safeguards and security activities 
was incorrectly included in the Rocky Flats project and has 
been transferred to the safeguards and security account.

                               ohio sites

    The Committee is aware that each of the Ohio cleanup sites 
is in danger of slipping beyond the 2006 closure date. While it 
is not surprising that cleanups are encountering some 
unexpected conditions, it is very discouraging that the Federal 
program managers and contractors appear to be unable to 
maintain the schedules--rather than meeting challenges with 
innovations, the solution always seems to be increase the cost 
and slip the schedule. The Committee has consistently provided 
the funding requested by the Department to maintain these 
projects on a 2006 closure schedule and has provided additional 
funding in fiscal year 2002 to maintain constant funding 
levels.
    The Committee expects the Department to aggressively review 
the baseline closure plans for each Ohio cleanup site and take 
all steps necessary to meet the 2006 closure date. If during 
fiscal year 2002, it appears that any of these projects will 
not meet the 2006 closure date, the Department is to notify the 
Committee immediately, reduce site funding to the minimum 
necessary to maintain safe surveillance and maintenance 
conditions, and submit a reprogramming to remove the site from 
the Defense Facilities Closure Project account.
    The Committee recommendation is $418,399,000 for the four 
Ohio sites, an increase of $52,061,000 over the budget request, 
in an attempt to maintain funding at the fiscal year 2001 
levels. Funding for the Ashtabula site is $16,000,000, an 
increase of $6,279,000 over the budget request of $9,721,000. 
Funding for the Columbus Environmental Management Project is 
$16,100,000, an increase of $6,000,000 over the budget request 
of $10,100,000.
    Fernald.--The Fernald site in Ohio is now operating under a 
recent contract modification that assumes closure of the site 
by 2010. Cleanup at the site has been slowed by the failure of 
several projects; however, there are contract incentives for 
closing the site by 2006. Additional funding of $20,000,000 has 
been provided in the fiscal year 2001 supplemental 
appropriations bill to support this accelerated closure 
schedule. The Committee expects the Department and the 
contractor to demonstrate during fiscal year 2002 that the site 
schedule can actually be accelerated to 2006. Significant cost 
savings can be achieved with early closure, and the Committee 
strongly supports this approach. The Committee recommendation 
for the Fernald site is $295,299,000, an increase of 
$10,000,000 over the budget request.
    Mound.--The Committee is very concerned with the delays in 
the cleanup of the Mound site in Miamisburg, Ohio. Cleanup of 
the site is continuing to slip and now appears to extend 
significantly beyond fiscal year 2006. The Committee expects 
the Department to develop a baseline closure plan that supports 
the 2006 closure date. There are clearly many steps that can be 
taken at this site to accelerate cleanup activities and reduce 
managerial, bureaucratic, and worker inefficiencies while still 
protecting the health and safety of the workers and the 
community. The Committee strongly encourages the Department to 
explore alternative approaches to the cleanup that are truly 
innovative and will restore the schedule and reduce overall 
costs. The Committee also believes the Department should 
consider other health and safety regulatory oversight processes 
that could reduce costs and accelerate cleanup of the site. The 
Committee understands that increased resources over current 
levels may be needed to meet the 2006 closure date, but will 
not consider additional funding until the Department 
demonstrates that substantial changes have been made to current 
operations to ensure successful cleanup by 2006. The Committee 
recommends $91,000,000, an increase of $20,061,000 over the 
budget request of $70,939,000, and consistent with fiscal year 
2001 funding levels. Additional funding of $1,000,000 has been 
provided in the fiscal year 2001 supplemental appropriations 
bill to support the closure activities.

                        safeguards and security

    The safeguards and security program ensures appropriate 
levels of protection against unauthorized access, theft, 
diversion, or destruction of Departmental assets and hostile 
acts that may impact national security or the health and safety 
of DOE and contractor employees. The Committee recommendation 
for the safeguards and security program is $53,975,000, an 
increase of $8,073,000 over the budget request. This funding 
for safeguards and security activities, incorrectly included in 
the Rocky Flats project, has been transferred to this account.

             Defense Environmental Management Privatization





Appropriation, 2001...................................       $65,000,000
Budget Estimate, 2002.................................       141,537,000
Recommended, 2002.....................................       143,208,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2001...............................       +78,208,000
    Budget Estimate, 2002.............................        +1,671,000


    The Committee recommendation for the Defense Environmental 
Management Privatization program is $143,208,000, an increase 
of $1,671,000 over the budget request. The recommendation 
includes $52,000,000 for the Advanced Mixed Waste Treatment 
Project at Idaho, an increase of $12,000,000 over the budget 
request of $40,000,000. Additional funding of $27,472,000 has 
been provided in the fiscal year 2001 supplemental 
appropriations bill to support this project.
    Funding for two new projects has been provided in fiscal 
year 2002: $3,000,000 for the Paducah Disposal Facility, a 
reduction of $10,329,000 from the budget request, and 
$2,000,000 for the Portsmouth Disposal Facility, the same as 
the budget request. In light of the recent General Accounting 
Office report on low-level waste disposal practices at the 
Department, the Committee directs the Department to perform a 
detailed cost and risk assessment to compare on-site versus 
off-site disposal to determine whether off-site disposal at a 
commercial facility would be more cost-effective in view of 
long-term stewardship costs and risks before proceeding with 
either of these projects.
    Consistent with the budget request, $49,332,000 has been 
provided for Spent Nuclear Fuel Dry Storage at Idaho, 
$26,050,000 for the Environmental Management/Waste Treatment 
Facility at Oak Ridge, and $10,826,000 for the Transuranic 
Waste Treatment Facility at Oak Ridge.

                        Other Defense Activities





Appropriation, 2001...................................      $582,466,000
Budget Estimate, 2002.................................       527,614,000
Recommended, 2002.....................................       487,464,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2001...............................       -95,002,000
    Budget Estimate, 2002.............................       -40,150,000


    This account provides funding for Security and Emergency 
Operations; Intelligence; Counterintelligence; Independent 
Oversight and Performance Assurance; Environment, Safety and 
Health (Defense); Worker and Community Transition; National 
Security Programs Administrative Support; and the Office of 
Hearings and Appeals. Descriptions of each of these programs 
are provided below.

                   SECURITY AND EMERGENCY OPERATIONS

    Security and emergency operations provides a domestic 
safeguards and security program for protection of nuclear 
weapons, nuclear materials, nuclear facilities, and classified 
and unclassified information, including cyber systems, against 
sabotage, espionage, terrorist activities, or any loss or 
unauthorized disclosure that could endanger the national 
security or disrupt operations. The Committee recommendation 
for security and emergency operations is $249,927,000, a 
reduction of $19,323,000 from the budget request of 
$269,250,000.
    The Department's safeguards and security programs seem to 
careen from one incident to another--alleged loss of nuclear 
weapons secrets, misplaced computer hard drives with classified 
information, and alleged discriminatory actions toward 
visitors. The Department of Energy spends over $1 billion 
annually on safeguards and security activities, but none of 
these security incidents were caused by lack of funding. The 
Committee urges the new Administration to review the underlying 
basis for each of the Department's security practices to 
determine if current procedures result in excessive costs 
without commensurate protection for employees, facilities, and 
national security programs.
    Public access to DOE facilities.--The Committee is 
concerned about the practice used by the Department of Energy 
to require identification of citizenship as a security 
screening tool. The Committee notes that the Department of 
Defense, whose security needs are no less important than those 
of the Department of Energy, does not use this procedure at the 
Pentagon. The Department of Energy's practice to require 
identification of citizenship for entry into its facilities, 
even for unclassified visits in non-secure areas, fosters the 
perception of racial profiling no matter how well intended. In 
a recent alarming incident, admittance to DOE headquarters was 
refused to a Chinese-American Member of Congress, who was 
participating in a DOE celebration of Asian Pacific American 
Heritage Month. The Congressman was asked three times if he was 
an American, and two guards refused to accept his congressional 
identification for admittance or that of an Asian American aide 
who accompanied him. The Committee directs that the Secretary 
of Energy review security procedures for access to DOE 
facilities to determine whether the use of identification of 
citizenship is a proper, effective, and sensitive method and is 
consistent with procedures at other Federal facilities where 
classified information is kept. The Secretary shall report his 
findings to the Appropriations Committees of Congress by 
September 1, 2001.
    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 is $108,000,000, a 
reduction of $13,188,000 from the budget request of 
$121,188,000. Funding for outside contractor assistance has 
been reduced. The Committee has also included $2,000,000 to 
continue the procurement of security locks that meet the 
Federal specifications for containers that hold sensitive 
classified material.
    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 $44,927,000, the same as the budget 
request.
    Corporate Management Information Program.--The Committee 
recommendation is $20,000,000, the same as the budget request.
    Program Direction.--The Committee recommendation is 
$77,000,000 for program direction, a decrease of $6,135,000 
from the budget request of $83,135,000. With a Headquarters 
staff of 329 Federal employees, the Committee believes that 
funding for technical assistance and expertise from outside 
contractors should be reduced.

                         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, a reduction of 
$4,785,000 from the budget request, and the same as fiscal year 
2001.

                     OFFICE OF COUNTERINTELLIGENCE

    The Office of Counterintelligence seeks 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 threats directed at the Department's 
facilities, personnel, information, and technologies. The 
Committee recommendation is $45,200,000, a reduction of 
$1,189,000 from the budget request, and the same as fiscal year 
2001.

            INDEPENDENT OVERSIGHT AND PERFORMANCE ASSURANCE

    The Office of Independent Oversight and Performance 
Assurance is the focal point for independent evaluation of 
safeguards, security, emergency management, and cyber security. 
The Committee recommendation is $14,904,000, the same as the 
budget request, and $33,000 below fiscal year 2001.

                ENVIRONMENT, SAFETY AND HEALTH (DEFENSE)

    The Office of Environment, Safety and Health develops 
programs and policies to protect the workers and the public, 
conducts independent oversight of performance, and funds health 
effects studies. The Committee recommendation is $105,293,000, 
a decrease of $9,307,000 from the budget request of 
$114,600,000.
    Oversight.--Funding for additional contractor support for 
oversight activities has been reduced by $3,369,000 to 
$6,000,000. With a Headquarters staff of almost 300 Federal 
employees, the Committee believes that outside technical 
assistance can be significantly reduced.
    Health Effects Studies.--The recommendation for health 
effects studies is $50,000,000, a decrease of $3,438,000 from 
the budget request of $53,438,000. The Department funds several 
programs for occupational medicine, public health studies, and 
epidemiologic monitoring. The Committee expects the Department 
to review all these activities to achieve efficiencies through 
consolidation.
    Marshall Islands.--For over 40 years, the DOE has provided 
a Congressionally-mandated program of medical monitoring to the 
residents of Rongelap and Utrik atolls in the Marshall Islands 
who were exposed to high levels of radioactive fallout from a 
U.S. nuclear test, Castle Bravo, that occurred on March 1, 
1954. The program managed by the Pacific Heath Research 
Institute of Honolulu through a cooperative agreement currently 
provides care for the remaining 123 of the original 253 
individuals who enrolled in the program in 1954.
    The U.S. government is currently renegotiating its 
diplomatic, defense and economic relationship with the 
Government of the Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI). In 
those negotiations, the Committee believes it is time for the 
U.S. government to provide a single, combined package of 
assistance to support the medical and public health 
infrastructure needs of the Marshall Islands. This support 
should be managed by the U.S. Public Health Service, the 
Federal agency that has the greatest experience in providing 
public health care in the U.S. and abroad.
    DOE's radiological monitoring, dose assessment and 
mitigation strategy research will conclude by 2006 and will 
complete over 30 years of scientific effort to thoroughly 
characterize the extent and nature of radiological 
contamination from U.S. atmospheric testing in the northern 
atolls of Bikini, Enewetak, Rongelap and Utrik. With completion 
of this task, the responsibility for the use of these 
assessments and mitigation strategies now falls to the RMI 
government in making decisions regarding resettlement and land 
use in the northern atolls. The Committee directs the 
Department to transition the environmental monitoring program 
to a program of direct support to the RMI. This will allow the 
RMI to conduct its own assessments and reach its own 
conclusions about which mitigation strategies to use in making 
resettlement and land use decisions.
    The Committee recommendation for the Marshall Islands is 
$6,300,000, the same as the budget request.
    Radiation Effects Research Foundation (RERF).--Through the 
RERF program, the United States has supported studies for more 
than 50 years on the health effects of radiation on the 
survivors of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic bombings. The 
Committee recommendation is $13,500,000, the same as the budget 
request.
    Energy Employees Compensation Initiative.--Title 36 of the 
National Defense Authorization Act of 2001 (P.L. 106-398) 
established the Energy Employees Occupational Illness 
Compensation Program to provide benefits to DOE contractor 
workers made ill as a result of exposures from nuclear weapons 
production. The Department is responsible for establishing 
procedures to assist workers in filing compensation claims. The 
Committee recommendation is $15,000,000, the same as the budget 
request.
    Program Direction.--The Committee recommendation for 
program direction is $20,793,000, a reduction of $2,500,000 
from the budget request. This amount of funding will support 
employees currently on board through fiscal year 2002.

                    WORKER AND COMMUNITY TRANSITION

    The Committee's recommendation for the worker and community 
transition program is $21,900,000, a reduction of $2,546,000 
from the budget request of $24,446,000, due to funding 
constraints. Funding has been restored to many programs which 
the Department had proposed to reduce so there should be no 
significant contractor reductions requiring additional funds in 
fiscal year 2002. The Committee has provided $900,000 for 
infrastructure improvements at the former Pinellas weapons 
plant. The Committee expects the Department to adequately fund 
and fulfill the commitment that was made to the Miamisburg 
Mound Community Improvement Corporation, and to grant priority 
to those communities which received no funds 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.
    The worker and community transition program was established 
to mitigate the impacts on workers and communities of 
contractor workforce reductions as a result of the end of the 
Cold War. Funds are provided for enhanced severance payments to 
employees at former defense sites, and for assisting community 
planning for defense conversion through Federal grants. 
However, the cost of this program has not been insignificant. 
Through fiscal year 2000, enhanced severance payments and 
benefits to workers and grants to communities have totaled more 
than $1 billion.
    Program direction.--The Office of Worker and Community 
Transition currently has 19 employees at Headquarters. The 
budget proposed to reduce the staff to 18 employees, but 
provided $207,000 for additional support service contractor 
assistance to offset the reduction. The Committee 
recommendation of $2,900,000 for program direction, a reduction 
of $300,000 from the budget request, allows the staff 
reduction, but does not provide the additional support service.

           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, the General Counsel, 
Chief Financial Officer, Human Resources, Congressional 
Affairs, and Public Affairs, which support the activities of 
the National Nuclear Security Administration.

                     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 $2,893,000, the same as the 
budget request.

                          FUNDING ADJUSTMENTS

    The Committee recommendation for funding adjustments is 
$13,712,000, an increase of $3,000,000 over the budget request. 
Adjustments include the use of $13,000,000 in prior year 
balances which is an increase of $3,000,000 over the budget 
request, and a reduction of $712,000 for a security charge for 
reimbursable work as proposed in the budget.

                     Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal





Appropriation, 2001...................................      $199,725,000
Budget Estimate, 2002.................................       310,000,000
Recommended, 2002.....................................       310,000,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2001...............................      +110,275,000
    Budget Estimate, 2002.............................  ................


    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 2000, the balance owed by the 
Federal government to the Nuclear Waste Fund was $1,385,000,000 
(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 2000, a total of 
$1,216,400,000 has been appropriated to support the nuclear 
waste repository activities attributable to atomic energy 
defense activities.
    The Committee recommendation is $310,000,000, the same as 
the budget request. Eliminating the outstanding balance owed by 
the Federal government will require a significant increase in 
the amount paid each year and could require as much as 
$500,000,000 annually in future years. Since shipment of 
defense high level waste to the repository is contingent upon 
full payment of the balance owed at the time the repository is 
opened, the Committee believes it is prudent to address this 
funding shortfall sooner rather than later.

                    Power Marketing Administrations

    Management of the Federal power marketing functions was 
transferred from the Department of the Interior to the 
Department of Energy by the Department of Energy Organization 
Act (P.L. 95-91). These functions include the power marketing 
activities authorized under section 5 of the Flood Control Act 
of 1944 and all other functions of the Bonneville Power 
Administration, the Southeastern Power Administration, the 
Southwestern Power Administration, and the power marketing 
functions of the Bureau of Reclamation that have been 
transferred to the Western Area Power Administration.
    All power marketing administrations except the Bonneville 
Power Administration are funded annually with appropriated 
funds. Revenues collected from power sales and transmission 
services are deposited in the Treasury to offset expenditures. 
The Committee recommendation for fiscal year 2002 includes the 
Administration proposal to fund purchase power and wheeling 
from power revenues for the Southeastern Power Administration, 
the Southwestern Power Administration, and the Western Area 
Power Administration.
    Operations of the Bonneville Power Administration are self-
financed under the authority of the Federal Columbia River 
Transmission System Act (P.L. 93-454). Under this Act, the 
Bonneville Power Administration is authorized to use its 
revenues to finance the costs of its operations, maintenance, 
and capital construction, and to sell bonds to the Treasury if 
necessary to finance any additional capital program 
requirements.

                    Bonneville Power Administration

    The Bonneville Power Administration is the Department of 
Energy's marketing agency for electric power in the Pacific 
Northwest. Bonneville provides electricity to a 300,000 square 
mile service area in the Columbia River drainage basin. 
Bonneville markets the power from Federal hydropower projects 
in the Northwest, as well as power from non-Federal generating 
facilities in the region. Bonneville also exchanges and markets 
surplus power with Canada and California.
    Borrowing Authority.--Bonneville Power Administration has 
available $3,750,000,000 in permanent borrowing authority, 
authorized by the Transmission System Act (P.L. 93-454). For 
fiscal year 2002, the Committee recommendation includes an 
estimate of use of $374,500,000 of authorized borrowing 
authority, the same as the budget request and $50,000,000 more 
than fiscal year 2001. This borrowing authority is available 
for capital investments in power systems (including fish and 
wildlife measures), transmission systems, and capital 
equipment. With this borrowing authority, Bonneville forecasts 
that it will have a total of $834,000,000 in borrowing 
available in fiscal year 2002.
    The Committee is aware that Bonneville has recently 
proposed a $2 billion increase in its borrowing authority to 
address infrastructure needs arising from an anticipated 
increase in generation from a variety of sources in the 
Bonneville service area. The Committee does not at this time 
have enough information to support such an increase. Consistent 
with the recommendation contained in the National Energy 
Policy, the Secretary of Energy has already been tasked to 
examine the national grid, identify transmission bottlenecks, 
and identify measures to remove such bottlenecks. The National 
Energy Policy also recommends a review of Bonneville's capital 
and financing requirements to determine if additional Federal 
financing or an increase in borrowing authority is warranted. 
Bonneville's proposal for increased borrowing authority must be 
considered within the context of all of the Administration's 
proposed actions for the power marketing administrations and in 
view of the combined impact on the various regions of the 
country.

      Operation and Maintenance, Southeastern Power Administration





Appropriation, 2001...................................        $3,891,000
Budget Estimate, 2002.................................         4,891,000
Recommended, 2002.....................................         4,891,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2001...............................        +1,000,000
    Budget Estimate, 2002.............................  ................


    The Southeastern Power Administration markets the 
hydroelectric power produced at 23 Corps of Engineers projects 
in eleven states in the Southeast. Southeastern does not own or 
operate any transmission facilities, so it contracts to 
``wheel'' its power using the existing transmission facilities 
of area utilities.
    The Committee recommendation for the Southeastern Power 
Administration is $4,891,000, the same as the budget request 
and a $1,000,000 increase over fiscal year 2001. The total 
program level for Southeastern in fiscal year 2002 is 
$39,354,000, with $34,463,000 for purchase power and wheeling 
and $4,891,000 for program direction. The purchase power and 
wheeling costs will be offset by collections of $34,463,000, 
leaving a net appropriation of $4,891,000. The offsetting 
collections total of $34,463,000 includes $26,463,000 made 
available in Public Law 106-377 for use in fiscal year 2002, 
plus an additional $8,000,000 provided in this Act.

      Operation and Maintenance, Southwestern Power Administration





Appropriation, 2001...................................       $28,038,000
Budget Estimate, 2002.................................        28,038,000
Recommended, 2002.....................................        28,038,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2001...............................  ................
    Budget Estimate, 2002.............................  ................


    The Southwestern Power Administration markets the 
hydroelectric power produced at 24 Corps of Engineers projects 
in the six-state area of Arkansas, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, 
Oklahoma and Texas. Southwestern operates and maintains 1,380 
miles of transmission lines, with the supporting substations 
and communications sites. Southwestern gives preference in the 
sale of its power to publicly and cooperatively owned 
utilities.
    The Committee recommendation for the Southwestern Power 
Administration is $28,038,000, the same as the budget request 
and the fiscal year 2001 funding level. The total program level 
for Southwestern in fiscal year 2002 is $29,838,000, including 
$3,339,000 for operating expenses, $1,800,000 for purchase 
power and wheeling, $18,668,000 for program direction, and 
$6,031,000 for construction. The offset of $1,800,000 from 
collections for purchase power and wheeling yields a net 
appropriation of $28,038,000. The offsetting collections total 
of $1,800,000 includes $288,000 made available in Public Law 
106-377 for use in fiscal year 2002, plus an additional 
$1,512,000 provided in this Act.

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





Appropriation, 2001...................................      $165,465,000
Budget Estimate, 2002.................................       169,465,000
Recommended, 2002.....................................       172,165,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2001...............................        +6,700,000
    Budget Estimate, 2002.............................        +2,700,000


    The Western Area Power Administration is responsible for 
marketing the electric power generated by the Bureau of 
Reclamation, the Corps of Engineers, and the International 
Boundary and Water Commission. Western also operates and 
maintains a system of transmission lines nearly 17,000 miles 
long. Western provides electricity to 15 Central and Western 
states over a service area of 1.3 million square miles.
    The Committee recommendation for the Western Area Power 
Administration is $172,165,000, an increase of $2,700,000 over 
the budget request and $6,700,000 more than the fiscal year 
2001 funding level. The total program level for Western in 
fiscal year 2002 is $358,289,000, which includes $18,764,000 
for construction and rehabilitation, $37,796,000 for system 
operation and maintenance, $186,124,000 for purchase power and 
wheeling, $114,378,000 for program direction, and $1,227,000 
for Utah mitigation and conservation. Offsetting collections 
for purchase power and wheeling total $186,124,000, leaving a 
net appropriation of $172,165,000. The offsetting collections 
total of $186,124,000 includes $33,500,000 made available in 
Public Law 106-377 for use in fiscal year 2002, plus an 
additional $152,624,000 provided in this Act.
    The amount for construction and rehabilitation includes 
$2,700,000 to fund high priority portions of the South of 
Phoenix portion of the Parker-Davis Project transmission 
system. The Federal share of the upfront costs is to be 
recovered through the transmission rates of the Parker-Davis 
Project. Western should pursue additional funds from those 
utilities requiring additional transmission capacity, and the 
Committee expects that any funding received will be used to 
offset future appropriations requirements.

           Falcon and Amistad Operating and Maintenance Fund





Appropriation, 2001...................................        $2,663,000
Budget Estimate, 2002.................................         2,663,000
Recommended, 2002.....................................         2,663,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2001...............................  ................
    Budget Estimate, 2002.............................  ................


    Falcon Dam and Amistad Dam are two international water 
projects located on the Rio Grande River between Texas and 
Mexico. Power generated by hydroelectric facilities at these 
two dams is sold to public utilities through the Western Area 
Power Administration. The Foreign Relations Authorization Act 
for Fiscal Years 1994 and 1995 created the Falcon and Amistad 
Operating and Maintenance Fund to defray the costs of 
operation, maintenance, and emergency activities. The Fund is 
administered by the Western Area Power Administration for use 
by the Commissioner of the U.S. Section of the International 
Boundary and Water Commission.
    The Committee recommendation is $2,663,000, the same as the 
budget request and as the fiscal year 2001 funding level.

                  Federal Energy Regulatory Commission


                         salaries and expenses




Appropriation, 2001...................................      $175,200,000
Budget Estimate, 2002.................................       181,155,000
Recommended, 2002.....................................       181,155,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2001...............................        +5,955,000
    Budget Estimate, 2002.............................  ................


                            revenues applied




Appropriation, 2001...................................     -$175,200,000
Budget Estimate, 2002.................................      -181,155,000
Recommended, 2002.....................................      -181,155,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2001...............................        -5,955,000
    Budget Estimate, 2002.............................  ................


    The Committee recommendation is $181,155,000, the same as 
the budget request and an increase of $5,955,000 over the 
fiscal year 2001 funding level. Revenues for FERC are 
established at a rate equal to the budget authority, resulting 
in a net appropriation of $0.
    The Committee understands that the Commission is 
establishing precedent in implementing 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 directs that 
the Commission, in this context, use a methodology that 
contains a recovery period sufficient to ensure the recovery of 
all generating asset investments included in states approved 
rates used to serve the departing customers.
    The Committee has included language in the bill which 
prohibits the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission from using 
the funds provided in this or any other Act to complete the 
remaining reviews and issue further authorizations to proceed 
with the Gulfstream Natural Gas Project.

                        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, or award a significant extension or 
expansion to an existing 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, in detail, 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 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 those instances 
where it is clearly in the taxpayers' interest, the Committee 
would not object to a contract extension.
    Limitation on Benefits for Federal Employees.--Section 302 
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 
303 provides that none of the funds in this Act may be used to 
augment the $21,900,000 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 304 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 been approved and funded by Congress.
    Transfer and Merger of Unexpended Balances.--Section 305 
permits the transfer and merger of unexpended balances of prior 
appropriations with appropriation accounts established in this 
bill.
    Limitation on Bonneville Power Administration.--Section 306 
provides that none of the funds provided in this or any other 
Act may be used by the Administrator of the Bonneville Power 
Administration to perform energy efficiency services outside 
the legally defined Bonneville service territory.
    Limitation on Funds Used for LDRD.--Section 307 provides 
that none of the funds appropriated by Congress in any 
appropriation act other than Energy and Water Development 
appropriations acts may be used for Department of Energy 
laboratory directed research and development (LDRD).
    The Department of Energy's laboratory directed research and 
development program allows laboratory directors to divert up to 
six percent of funds they receive to other projects at the 
laboratories at the sole discretion of the laboratory 
directors. The Department, however, has implemented the program 
in a manner which extends this policy to the funds received 
from other Federal agencies. The Committee is concerned that 
the Department of Energy through this policy has inadvertently 
allowed its laboratory directors to divert funds from the 
purpose for which they were appropriated in other 
Appropriations Acts, unwittingly violating the statutory 
language of those acts. The Committee is particularly concerned 
about funds that Congress has provided or added in defense 
appropriations acts for national missile defense and classified 
programs, which were provided for specific high-priority 
national security purposes to meet specific objectives. 
Diversion of these funds to unrelated laboratory directed 
research does not contribute to the purpose for which Congress 
appropriated the funds, but rather detracts from it. The 
Committee, therefore, recommends section 307 which limits the 
Department of Energy's laboratory directed research and 
development program to the funds provided by the Congress for 
the Department of Energy in this bill and ensures the integrity 
of funds provided to other Federal agencies in other 
appropriations bills.
    External Regulation of Science Laboratories.--The 
Department of Energy (DOE) is currently self-regulating with 
respect to nuclear safety and worker safety at most of its 
facilities under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act of 
1954. Section 308 directs the DOE to prepare an implementation 
plan to transition to external regulation of DOE's non-defense 
science laboratories. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) 
would assume responsibility for nuclear safety at DOE's non-
defense science laboratories, and the Occupational Safety and 
Health Administration (OSHA) would assume responsibility for 
worker safety at these same sites. The Department is directed 
in fiscal year 2002 only to prepare a plan for implementation 
of external regulation, with a proposed effective date for the 
actual implementation of external regulation being October 1, 
2002.
    For purposes of the implementation plan required by this 
section, external regulation will apply to the five 
multiprogram national laboratories under the Office of Science: 
Argonne National Laboratory; Brookhaven National Laboratory; 
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory; Oak Ridge National 
Laboratory; and Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. External 
regulation shall also apply to the five single-purpose 
laboratories under the Office of Science: Ames Laboratory, 
Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory; Princeton Plasma Physics 
Laboratory; Stanford Linear Accelerator Center; and Thomas 
Jefferson National Accelerator Facility. The requirement to 
plan for the transition to external regulation is not 
applicable to the nuclear weapons laboratories, plants, or test 
facilities, or to the Department's environmental remediation 
sites or other laboratories and research facilities.
    The Department's external regulation implementation plan is 
to be prepared in consultation with the agencies that will 
assume regulatory responsibility from the Department, the NRC 
and OSHA. The Department should transfer $4,000,000 to the NRC 
and $120,000 to OSHA, from within the funds appropriated in 
fiscal year 2002 for Environment, Safety, and Health to cover 
their respective costs to prepare for the transition to 
external regulation, to coordinate with each other and with 
DOE, to conduct site visits as necessary and to assist DOE in 
the preparation of the external regulation implementation plan. 
Note that the transfer to OSHA for external regulation planning 
is in addition to the $600,000 transferred to OSHA for worker 
health and safety at those sites transferred to non-Federal 
entities and for the Department's non-nuclear facilities not 
covered under the Atomic Energy Act.
    The Department should complete the external regulation 
implementation plan by March 31, 2001, and should submit the 
completed plan to the House and Senate Committees on 
Appropriations, the House Energy and Commerce Committee, the 
House Science Committee, the House Education and Workforce 
Committee, the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, 
the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, and the 
Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. The 
implementation plan should address the specific details on how 
external regulation will be implemented at the named Science 
laboratories, including the estimated staffing and funding 
requirements for NRC and OSHA as they assume their additional 
regulatory responsibilities, and the corresponding reduction in 
staffing and funding for DOE as it loses this regulatory 
responsibility. The implementation plan should identify any 
specific facilities or class of facilities for which external 
regulation cannot be reasonably implemented on October 1, 2002, 
and make recommendations on how to address nuclear and worker 
safety at those facilities. The implementation plan should 
address the modifications needed to existing management and 
operating contracts to reflect the change in federal regulatory 
oversight. The Committee expects that the NRC will, upon the 
effective date for external regulation, assume regulatory 
responsibility for regulating nuclear safety at accelerators in 
the named DOE Science laboratories. The responsibility for 
regulating accelerators located on Federal facilities is not to 
be delegated to the NRC Agreement States. The implementation 
plan should identify any statutory changes needed and propose 
the necessary legislative language. The Committee expects the 
NRC and the OSHA to enter into a memorandum of understanding 
prior to the effective transition date of October 1, 2002, to 
define the respective responsibilities of the two agencies at 
the named DOE laboratories.
    User Facilities.--The Committee is very supportive of the 
Department's efforts to involve universities in the 
Department's research efforts. User facilities were created by 
Congress in the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-486) in 
order to make the Department's unique energy research 
capabilities available broadly to universities, industry, 
private laboratories, other Federal laboratories, and others. 
The Department has adopted the user facility concept and 
extended it successfully to other DOE programs, including the 
National Nuclear Security Administration. The Department's 
laboratories and research instruments represent a valuable 
asset to the Nation, as well as a major investment of public 
funding. As such, the Department must make certain that 
universities, as well as other potential users, have an equal 
opportunity to take advantage of the Department's unique 
research facilities.
    This Committee believes the Department already has in place 
procedures to ensure that the Department's research funds are 
distributed through a competitive, peer-reviewed process. The 
Committee also believes that similar competitive, peer-reviewed 
procedures are in place with respect to research conducted at 
DOE facilities using non-DOE funds. This section addresses 
several related parts of the process. When the Department makes 
a user facility available to universities and other potential 
users, it must provide notice of such availability in a manner 
that notifies the potential user community to the greatest 
extent practicable. The Department should publish its notices 
in the Commerce Business Daily as well as the appropriate 
scientific and technical journals, and should make use of 
workshops and other mechanisms to provide broad public notice. 
Similarly, when the Department seeks the input of universities 
and other potential users regarding significant changes to an 
existing user facility, or seeks their input regarding the 
features needed in a proposed new user facility, the Department 
must provide broad notice. The Committee is concerned that some 
of the initial outreach for the proposed nanoscale science 
research centers was conducted with select universities; other 
interested universities may not have been aware of the 
opportunity to provide input to DOE on these planned user 
facilities.
    In certain instances other than management and operating 
contracts, the Department may choose to enter into a 
partnership arrangement with a university or other potential 
users to assist in the establishment or operation of a user 
facility. In such instances, this section requires the 
Department to conduct a full and open competition to select 
such a partner or partners. The opportunity to partner with one 
of the Department's national laboratories in the operation of a 
user facility is a valuable albeit limited opportunity. As 
such, the Department must take steps to ensure that potential 
partners have an equal chance to compete for that opportunity.
    For purposes of this section, the term ``user facility'' 
includes, but is not limited to: a user facility as described 
in section 2203(a)(2) of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (42 
U.S.C. 13503(a)(2)); a National Nuclear Security Administration 
Defense Programs Technology Deployment Center/User Facility; 
and any other Department facility designated by the Department 
as a user facility. Note that the Department may not 
redesignate a facility as something other than a user facility 
in order to avoid the notice and competition requirements of 
this section. Whenever the Department opens its research 
facilities to outside users, it must do so on a fair and equal 
basis.
    Language not included by the Committee.--The Administration 
requested language authorizing intelligence activities of the 
Department of Energy and amending the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000. The Committee 
recommendation does not include this proposed legislation.
                                TITLE IV

                          INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

                    Appalachian Regional Commission




Appropriation, 2001...................................       $66,254,000
Budget Estimate, 2002.................................        66,290,000
Recommended, 2002.....................................        71,290,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2001...............................        +5,036,000
    Budget Estimate, 2002.............................        +5,000,000


    The Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC) is a regional 
economic development agency established in 1965. It is composed 
of the Governors of the thirteen Appalachian states and a 
Federal Co-Chairman who is appointed by the President. The 
Committee recommendation is $71,290,000, an increase of 
$5,000,000 over the budget request. Funding of $5,000,000 has 
been provided for a child development research center at the 
University of Alabama.

                Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board

                         Salaries and Expenses




Appropriation, 2001...................................       $18,459,000
Budget Estimate, 2002.................................        18,500,000
Recommended, 2002.....................................        18,500,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2001...............................           +41,000
    Budget Estimate, 2002.............................  ................


    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.
    The Committee recommendation is $18,500,000, the same as 
the budget request.

                        Delta Regional Authority




Appropriation, 2001...................................       $19,956,000
Budget Estimate, 2002.................................        19,992,000
Recommended, 2002.....................................  ................
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2001...............................       -19,956,000
    Budget Estimate, 2002.............................       -19,992,000


    The Committee recommends no funding for the Delta Regional 
Authority in fiscal year 2002. The Delta Regional Authority was 
established by Congress in fiscal year 2001, but it has not yet 
been organized. Prior year funds of at least $17,000,000 will 
be carried over from fiscal year 2001 and will be available for 
expenditure in fiscal year 2002.

                           Denali Commission




Appropriation, 2001...................................       $29,934,000
Budget Estimate, 2002.................................        29,939,000
Recommended, 2002.....................................  ................
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2001...............................       -29,934,000
    Budget Estimate, 2002.............................       -29,939,000


    The Committee has recommended no funding for the Denali 
Commission in fiscal year 2002 due to funding constraints.

                     Nuclear Regulatory Commission


                          gross appropriation




Appropriation, 2001...................................      $481,825,000
Budget Estimate, 2002.................................       506,900,000
Recommended, 2002.....................................       516,900,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2001...............................       +35,075,000
    Budget Estimate, 2002.............................       +10,000,000


                                revenues




Appropriation, 2001...................................     -$447,958,000
Budget Estimate, 2002.................................      -463,248,000
Recommended, 2002.....................................      -473,520,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2001...............................       -25,562,000
    Budget Estimate, 2002.............................       -10,272,000


                           net appropriation




Appropriation, 2001...................................       $33,867,000
Budget Estimate, 2002.................................        43,652,000
Recommended, 2002.....................................        43,380,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2001...............................        +9,513,000
    Budget Estimate, 2002.............................          -272,000


    Nuclear energy received a strong endorsement in the 
National Energy Policy of May 2001, and serious industry 
interest has emerged in building a new generation of nuclear 
power plants in the United States to meet the nation's 
electricity demands. Industry has recently indicated intent to 
submit at least one early site permit application to the 
Nuclear Energy Commission (NRC) in fiscal year 2002, and 
several firms have already initiated preliminary discussions 
with the NRC regarding new reactor designs. The NRC needs to 
ensure that its regulatory infrastructure can be responsive to 
these potential new applications, some of which may involve new 
technologies not previously licensed by the NRC. Because these 
industry initiatives emerged only recently, the NRC's budget 
request does not include sufficient resources for these new 
activities. The NRC estimates that it may need an additional 
$15,000,000 to $18,000,000 in budget authority to be ready for 
these new activities. The Committee provides $10,000,000 in 
additional budget authority to the NRC so that it can 
adequately prepare for and respond to these new reactor 
initiatives without jeopardizing the safety of operating 
facilities and without impeding ongoing initiatives on license 
renewals, power uprates, and moving toward a more risk-informed 
regulatory environment. The remaining $5,000,000 to $8,000,000 
should be realized through implementing internal efficiencies 
in the NRC.
    The Committee recommendation for the NRC is $516,900,000, 
an increase in budget authority of $10,000,000 over the budget 
request and $35,075,000 over fiscal year 2001. This amount is 
offset by estimated revenues of $473,530,000, resulting in a 
net appropriation of $43,380,000. The recommendation includes 
$23,650,000 to be made available from the Nuclear Waste Fund to 
support the Department of Energy's effort to develop a 
permanent geologic repository for spent nuclear fuel and high-
level waste.
    Fee Recovery.--Pursuant to the agreement reached in fiscal 
year 2001, the NRC is required to recover 96 percent of its 
budget authority, less the appropriation from the Nuclear Waste 
Fund, by assessing license and annual fees.
    Monthly report.--The Committee directs the Commission to 
continue to provide monthly reports on the status of its 
licensing and other regulatory activities.
    Repository licensing regulations.--As the Department of 
Energy nears a determination on the suitability of Yucca 
Mountain as the site for the Nation's permanent geologic 
repository, the Committee believes that it is important that 
every effort be made to support the Department's schedule for 
the final Site Recommendation. The Environmental Protection 
Agency recently issued its final radiation standards for the 
Yucca Mountain repository. The next step will be for the NRC to 
conform its repository licensing regulations (10 C.F.R. part 
963) to the newly-issued radiation standard. The NRC is to 
issue these regulations later this summer, and the Committee 
expects the NRC to adhere to this schedule. Timely issuance of 
these NRC regulations will allow the Department of Energy to 
promulgate its own siting guidelines shortly thereafter.

                      Office of Inspector General


                          GROSS APPROPRIATION




Appropriation, 2001...................................        $5,500,000
Budget Estimate, 2002.................................         6,180,000
Recommended, 2002.....................................         6,180,000
Comparisons:
    Appropriation, 2001...............................          +680,000
    Budget Estimate, 2002.............................  ................


                                REVENUES




Appropriation, 2001...................................       -$5,390,000
Budget Estimate, 2002.................................        -5,933,000
Recommended, 2002.....................................        -5,933,000
Comparisons:
    Appropriation, 2001...............................          -543,000
    Budget Estimate, 2002.............................  ................


                           NET APPROPRIATION




Appropriation, 2001...................................          $110,000
Budget Estimate, 2002.................................           247,000
Recommended, 2002.....................................           247,000
Comparisons:
    Appropriation, 2001...............................          +137,000
    Budget Estimate, 2002.............................  ................


    By law, 96 percent of the budget authority appropriated to 
the Inspector General of the NRC must be recovered through the 
assessment of license and annual fees. The Committee recommends 
an appropriation of $6,180,000, the same as the budget request 
and an increase of $680,000 over fiscal year 2001. The revenue 
estimate is $5,933,000, resulting in a net appropriation for 
the NRC Inspector General of $247,000.

                  Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board





Appropriation, 2001...................................        $2,894,000
Budget Estimate, 2002.................................         3,100,000
Recommended, 2002.....................................         3,100,000
Comparisons:
    Appropriation, 2001...............................          +206,000
    Budget Estimate, 2002.............................  ................


    The Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board was established by 
the 1987 amendments to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 to 
provide independent technical oversight of the Department of 
Energy's nuclear waste disposal program. The role of the 
Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board becomes especially 
critical as the Department approaches issuance of the final 
site recommendation for the repository site.
    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $3,100,000 for 
the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board, the same as the 
budget request and an increase of $206,000 from fiscal year 
2001 funding.
                                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.
              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                            Budget
                                                 authority         Outlays         authority         Outlays
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary...............................           23,704           23,959           23,704           23,927
Mandatory...................................  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

         Statement of General Performance Goals and Objectives

    Pursuant to clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the following is a statement of 
general performance goals and objectives for which this measure 
authorizes funding:
    The Committee on Appropriations considers program 
performance, including a program's success in developing and 
attaining outcome-related goals and objectives, in developing 
funding recommendations.

                      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........................................          23,704
Outlays:
    2002................................................          15,420
    2003................................................           7,163
    2004................................................           1,073
    2005................................................              25
    2006 and beyond.....................................              16

               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........................................              74
Fiscal year 2002 outlays resulting therefrom............              12

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

          * * * of which $10,649,000 shall be available for 
        transfer to the Upper Colorado River Basin Fund and 
        $32,442,000 shall be available for transfer to the 
        Lower Colorado River Basin Development Fund; 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 III, Departmental Administration:

          * * * That of the funds provided to the Department of 
        Energy under title III of Public Law 105-277 for 
        activities related to achieving Year 2000 conversion of 
        Federal information technology systems and related 
        expenses, remaining balances, estimated to be 
        $1,480,000, may be transferred to this account, and 
        shall remain available until expended, for continuation 
        of information technology enhancement activities.

    Under Title III, General Provisions:

          Sec. 305. 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.

               Changes in the Application of Existing Law

    Pursuant to clause 3(f)(1)(A) 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 which 
directs the Secretary of the Army to use funds to continue 
preconstruction engineering and design of the Murrieta Creek, 
California, project; directs the Secretary of the Army to use a 
certain report as the basis for the Rock Creek-Keefer Slough, 
California, project; and provides that the Southwest Valley 
Flood Reduction Study in New Mexico shall include an evaluation 
of flood damage reduction measures that would otherwise be 
excluded from the feasibility analysis based on certain 
restrictive policies.
    Language has been included under Construction, General, 
permitting the use of funds from the Inland Waterways Trust 
Fund and the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund and which provides 
that $15,000,000 of the funds appropriated shall be deposited 
in the San Gabriel Restoration Fund. Language is also provided 
under Construction, General, which directs the Secretary of the 
Army to modify the Carr Creek Lake, Kentucky, project at full 
Federal expense, which directs the Secretary of the Army to 
undertake design deficiency repairs to the Bois Brule Levee and 
Drainage District, Missouri, project, and which directs the 
Secretary of the Army to increase the level of protection for 
the Bois Brule Levee and Drainage District, Missouri, project. 
Language is also included which directs the Secretary of the 
Army to construct the locally preferred plan for the Middlesex 
Borough element of the Raritan River Basin, Green Brook Sub-
Basin, New Jersey, project.
    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 is also 
included under Operation and Maintenance, General, which 
directs the Secretary of the Army to perform cultural resource 
mitigation and recreation improvements at Waco Lake, Texas; 
which directs the Secretary of the Army to grade the basin 
Hansen Dam in California; and which directs the Secretary of 
the Army to investigate the development of an upland disposal 
recycling program.
    Language has been included under the Regulatory Program 
regarding the regulation of navigable waters and wetlands.
    Language has been included under General Expenses regarding 
support of the Humphreys Engineer Support Center Activity, the 
Institute for Water Resources 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 has been included under Administrative Provision 
providing that funds are available for purchase and hire of 
motor vehicles.
    Language is included under General Provisions as follows:
    Sec. 101. The Committee has included language which amends 
the authorization for the San Gabriel Basin Restoration, 
California, program so that the San Gabriel Water Authority 
shall receive credit for prior expenditures.
    Sec. 102. The Committee has included language which 
provides that the dredge McFARLAND may only be operated in a 
ready reserve status for urgent dredging, emergencies, and in 
support of national defense.
    Sec. 103. The Committee has included language which directs 
the Secretary of the Army to include an alternatives analysis 
of a multipurpose Auburn Dam as part of the American River 
watershed, California, long-term study.
    Sec. 104. The Committee has included language directing the 
Secretary of the Army to transfer property at Tuttle Creek 
Lake, Kansas, to the Blue Township Fire District, Blue 
Township, Kansas.
    Sec. 105. The Committee has included language which directs 
the Secretary of the Army to carry out shore protection 
projects in accordance with the cost sharing provisions 
contained in existing Project Cooperation Agreements.
    Sec. 106. The Committee has included language which 
provides that none of the funds appropriated in this Act may be 
used to revise the Missouri River Master Water Control Manual 
if such revision provides for an increase in the springtime 
water release program during the spring heavy rainfall and snow 
melt period in States that have rivers draining into the 
Missouri River below the Gavins Point Dam.

                    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 provided under Water and Related Resources 
providing that funds may be used for activities under Public 
Law 106-163. Language is included under Water and Related 
Resources providing that funds may be used for work carried out 
by the Youth Conservation Corps. Language is included under 
Water and Related Resources providing that funds may be derived 
from the Reclamation Fund or 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 is included 
under Water and Related Resources amending the Reclamation 
States Emergency Drought Relief Act.
    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 Policy and Administration 
providing that funds may be derived from the Reclamation Fund 
and providing that no part of any other appropriation in the 
Act may be used for activities budgeted as policy and 
administration expenses.
    Language has been provided under General Provisions in 
section 201 which provides that none of the funds appropriated 
in this Act may be used by the Bureau of Reclamation to issue 
permits, either directly or by making funds available to an 
entity under a contract, for commercial rafting activities 
within the Auburn State Recreation Area, California, until the 
requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act and the 
Federal Water Pollution Control Act are met. The Committee has 
included language in section 202 which amends the authorization 
for the American and Sacramento Rivers, California, project.

                    title iii--department of energy

    Language has been included under Nuclear Waste Disposal 
providing that funds appropriated to the State of Nevada shall 
be made solely to the Nevada Division of Emergency Management 
for oversight activities.
    Language has been included under Departmental 
Administration, notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, and consistent 
with the authorization in Public Law 95-238, to permit the 
Department of Energy to use 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 Departmental 
Administration 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 Departmental 
Administration providing not to exceed $35,000 for official 
reception and representation expenses.
    Language has been included under the Office of the 
Administrator providing not to exceed $12,000 for official 
reception and representation expenses.
    Language has been included under the Bonneville Power 
Administration account providing not to exceed $1,500 for 
official reception and representation expenses, and precluding 
any new direct loan obligations.
    Language has been included under Southeastern Power 
Administration providing that, not withstanding the provisions 
of 31 U.S.C. 3302, amounts collected to recover purchase power 
and wheeling expenses shall be credited to the account as 
offsetting collections and remain available until expended for 
the sole purpose of making purchase power and wheeling 
expenditures.
    Language has been included under Southwestern Power 
Administration to permit Southwestern to utilize 
reimbursements, notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, and to provide 
not to exceed $1,500 for official reception and representation 
expenses. This language has been carried in previous 
appropriations Acts.
    Language has been included under Southwestern Power 
Administration providing that, not withstanding the provisions 
of 31 U.S.C. 3302, amounts collected to recover purchase power 
and wheeling expenses shall be credited to the account as 
offsetting collections and remain available until expended for 
the sole purpose of making purchase power and wheeling 
expenditures.
    Language has been included under the Construction, 
Rehabilitation, Operation and Maintenance, Western Area Power 
Administration account providing $1,227,000 for deposit into 
the Utah Reclamation mitigation and Conservation Account 
pursuant to Title IV of the Reclamation Projects Act of 1992, 
and not to exceed $1,500 for official reception and 
representation expenses.
    Language has been included under Construction, 
Rehabilitation, Operation and Maintenance, Western Area Power 
Administration providing that, not withstanding the provisions 
of 31 U.S.C. 3302, amounts collected to recover purchase power 
and wheeling expenses shall be credited to the account as 
offsetting collections and remain available until expended for 
the sole purpose of making purchase power and wheeling 
expenditures.
    Language has been included under the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission to permit the hire of passenger motor 
vehicles, to provide official reception and representation 
expenses, and to permit the use of revenues collected to reduce 
the appropriation as revenues are received. This language has 
been included in previous appropriation acts.
    Language has been included under the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission to prohibit the Commission from using 
funds appropriated in this or any other Act to complete the 
reamining reviews and issue further authorizations to proceed 
with the Gulfstream Natural Gas Project.
    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, 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, prohibiting the Administrator of the 
Bonneville Power Administration to enter into any agreement to 
perform energy efficiency services outside the legally defined 
Bonneville service territory.
    Language has been included under Department of Energy, 
General Provisions, prohibiting the use of laboratory directed 
research and development from programs and/or funds that were 
appropriated by Congress in other than Energy and Water 
Development Appropriations acts.
    Language has been included that directs the Secretary of 
Energy to submit a plan to Congress containing an 
implementation plan for transferring from the Department of 
Energy the regulatory authority over nuclear safety and worker 
safety at the Department's science laboratories.
    Language has been included requiring the Department of 
Energy to ensure public notice when it makes a national user 
facility available to universities and other potential users or 
seeks input regarding significant characteristics or equipment 
in a national user facility or a proposed national user 
facility, and requiring competition when the Department 
partners with a university or other entity for the 
establishment or operation of a user facility.

                     title iv--independent agencies

    Language has been included under the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission allowing the purchase of promotional items for use 
in recruiting new employees. 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, 
and 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.

         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 amend section 110(3)(B)(ii) of 
Division B, title I of Public Law 106-554 as follows:
    (ii) Non-Federal Responsibility.--The San Gabriel Basin 
Water Quality Authority shall be responsible for providing the 
non-Federal amount required by clause (i). The State of 
California, local government agencies, and private entities may 
provide all or any portion of such amount: Provided, That the 
Secretary shall credit the San Gabriel Water Quality Authority 
with the value of all prior expenditures by the non-Federal 
interests that are compatible with the purposes of this Act.
    The accompanying bill would amend section 301 of Public Law 
102-250, Reclamation States Emergency Drought Relief Act of 
1991, as follows:
    Except as otherwise provided in section 2243 of this title 
(relating to temperature control devices at Shasta Dam, 
California), there is authorized to be appropriated not more 
than $90,000,000 in total for fiscal years 1992, 1993, 1994, 
1995, 1996, 1999, 2000, [and 2001] 2001 and 2002.
    The accompanying bill would amend section 101(a)(6)(C) of 
the Water Resources Development Act as follows:
    [(C) Makeup of Water Shortages Caused By Flood Control 
Operation.--The Secretary of the Interior shall enter into, or 
modify, such agreements with the Sacramento Area Flood Control 
Agency regarding the operation of Folsom Dam and reservoir as 
may be necessary in order that, notwithstanding any prior 
agreement or provision of law, 100 percent of the water needed 
to make up for any water shortage caused by variable flood 
control operation during any year at Folsom Dam and resulting 
in a significant impact on recreation at Folsom Reservoir shall 
be replaced, to the extent the water is available for purchase, 
by the Secretary of the Interior.]
    (C) Makeup of Water Shortages Caused By Flood Control 
Operation.--The Secretary of the Interior shall enter into, or 
modify, such agreements with the Sacramento Area Flood Control 
Agency regarding the operation of Folsom Dam and Reservoir, as 
may be necessary, in order that, notwithstanding any prior 
agreement or provision of law, 100 percent of the water needed 
to make up for any water shortage caused by variable flood 
control operation during any year at Folsom Dam and resulting 
in a significant impact to the environment or to recreation 
shall be replaced, to the extent that water is available, as 
determined by the Secretary of the Interior, with 100 percent 
of the cost of such available water borne by the Sacramento 
Area Flood Control Agency.

                  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:

                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                  Appropriations
                                                     Last year of  Authorization   in last year   Appropriations
                  Agency/program                    authorization      level            of         in this bill
                                                                                   authorization
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Corps of Engineers:
    Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action                (\1\)          (\1\)           (\1\)         140,000
     Program......................................
Department of Energy:
    Energy Supply:
        Biomass/Biofuels..........................          1993          (\2\)           (\4\)          88,960
        Geothermal Energy.........................          1993         23,000           (\4\)          27,000
        Hydrogen..................................          2001         40,000          27,000          27,000
        Hydropower................................          1982         11,700           (\4\)           3,000
        Solar Energy..............................          1993          (\2\)           (\4\)          94,657
        Wind Energy Systems.......................          1993          (\2\)           (\4\)          40,000
        Electric energy systems & electric storage          1994          (\3\)           (\4\)          60,000
         systems..................................
        Renewable Energy Production Incentive.....          1995          (\7\)           (\4\)           4,000
        International Renewable Energy Program....          1996          (\3\)           (\4\)           3,000
        Departmental Energy Management............          1984          (\3\)           (\4\)           2,500
        Renewable Program Support.................          1984          (\3\)           (\4\)           3,000
        National Renewable Energy Laboratory......          1984          (\3\)           (\4\)           5,000
        Program Direction.........................          1984          (\3\)           (\4\)          18,700
    Nuclear Energy:
        Advanced Radioisotope Power System........          1992          (\2\)           (\4\)          28,200
        Isotopes..................................          1974          (\2\)           (\4\)          16,177
        University Reactor Fuel Assistance and              1974          (\2\)           (\4\)          15,895
         Support..................................
        Research and Development..................          1994          (\7\)           (\4\)          32,579
        Infrastructure............................          1974          (\2\)           (\4\)          80,259
        Nuclear Facilities Management.............          1974          (\2\)           (\4\)          30,250
        Program Direction.........................          1992          (\2\)           (\4\)          20,500
    Environment, Safety and Health................          1974          (\2\)           (\4\)          31,500
    Technical Information Management..............          1981          (\2\)           (\4\)           7,870
Non-Defense Environmental Management..............          1984          (\5\)           (\5\)         227,872
    West Valley Demonstration Project.............          1981          5,000           5,000          85,115
Uranium Facilities Maintenance and Remediation:
    Other Uranium Activities......................          1974          (\2\)           (\4\)         120,784
Science...........................................          1984        500,000         635,417       3,166,395
    High Energy Physics...........................          1984          (\3\)         477,947         716,100
    Nuclear Physics...............................          1984          (\3\)         155,220         361,510
    Biological and Environmental Research.........          1994          (\3\)         388,298         445,880
    Basic Energy Sciences.........................          1994          (\3\)         743,590       1,006,705
    Advanced Scientific Computing Research........          1996        169,000         111,068         163,050
    Energy Research Analysis......................          1994          (\3\)           3,507           1,000
    Multiprogram Energy Laboratories..............          1994          (\3\)          39,327          30,175
    Fusion Energy Sciences........................          1994        380,000         322,277         248,495
    Facilities and Infrastructure.................         (\6\)          (\6\)           (\6\)          10,000
    Program Direction.............................          1984          (\2\)           (\4\)         134,980
Nuclear Waste Disposal............................         (\8\)          (\2\)         190,654         133,000
Departmental Administration.......................          1984        246,963         185,682         209,611
Office of the Inspector General...................          1984          (\2\)          14,670          32,430
Atomic Energy Defense Activities:
National Nuclear Security Administration:
    Weapons Activities............................          2001      4,840,289       5,006,153       5,123,888
    Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation..............          2001        877,467         872,273         845,341
    Naval Reactors................................          2001        694,600         688,645         688,045
    Office of the NNSA Administrator..............          2001         10,000           9,978          10,000
Defense Environmental Restoration and Waste                 2001      5,973,692       4,963,533       5,174,539
 Management.......................................
Defense Facilities Closure Projects...............          2001          (\9\)       1,080,331       1,092,878
Defense Environmental Management Privatization....          2001         (\10\)          65,000         143,208
Other Defense Activities..........................          2001        523,822         582,466         487,464
Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal....................          2001        112,000         199,725         310,000
Power Marketing Administrations:
    Southeastern Power Administration.............          1984         24,240          39,463          39,354
    Southwestern Power Administration.............          1984         40,254          29,288          29,838
    Western Area Power Administration.............          1984        259,700         237,037         358,289
    Falcon and Amistad Operating and Maintenance            1995          (\2\)           2,663           2,663
     Fund.........................................
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission..............          1984        275,000         175,200         181,155
Independent Agencies:
    Appalachian Regional Commission...............          2001         70,000          66,254          71,290
    Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board.......          2001         18,500          18,459          18,500
    Nuclear Regulatory Commission.................          1985        460,000         448,200         516,900
    Nuclear Regulatory Commission--Office of                1985         (\11\)          (\11\)           6,180
     Inspector General............................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Program was initiated in 1972 and has never received a separate authorization.
\2\ No amount specified.
\3\ Authorized level provided for multiple programs with no separate program allowances.
\4\ Funding for these activities was spread throughout multiple programs with no individual amount specified.
\5\ Funding for these activities was spread throughout many programs with no amount specified. The last year of
  authorization was 1984. In 1989, cleanup activities were merged into the non-defense environmental management
  appropriation account. There has not been a separate authorization for this account.
\6\ New program in FY 2002.
\7\ Such sums as necessary.
\8\ Overall program authorized in 1982 and 1987, but without any authorization of appropriations.
\9\ Authorization for defense facilities closure projects included within overall Defense Environmental
  Restoration and Waste Management authorization of $5,973,692,000.
\10\ Net authorization of $0 (authorization of $90,092,000 for FY2001 less $90,092,000 in prior year balances).
\11\ The first separate appropriation for the Office of Inspector General in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
  was in FY 1990. Prior to that, the NRC-IG was included within the overall authorization and appropriation for
  the NRC.

                          Full Committee Votes

    Pursuant to the provisions of clause 3(b) of rule XIII of 
the Rules of the House of Representatives, the results of each 
rollcall 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:
    There were no rollcall votes.
    
    

                            ADDITIONAL VIEWS

                                overview

    The Majority fully cooperated with the Minority to develop 
this bill. It fairly represents the views of both. It is a 
bipartisan bill that Democrats can and will support.
    It is not a perfect bill since it overemphasizes funding 
for nuclear weapons and does not contain sufficient funding to 
address the nation's energy crisis. But given the constraints 
that are imposed on the Committee by the Majority's budget 
resolution, which preclude the Committee from fully addressing 
the nation's energy and water needs in this bill, it is 
nonetheless a reasonable and prudent response to the 
Administration's budget proposals. The Administration proposed 
unwarranted reductions to water programs, non-proliferation of 
nuclear materials in Russia, renewable energy technologies, and 
environmental cleanup of nuclear weapons production sites. This 
bill rejects that approach, and instead restores funding to 
these important programs near the funding levels appropriated 
by Congress last year.
    We commend the Majority for working with Democrats to 
fashion another bipartisan appropriations bill this year. We 
appreciate the many courtesies the Majority showed us as the 
bill was being developed, and the professionalism of the 
Majority staff.

                 response to the national energy crisis

    The major weakness of this bill is that it contains no 
significant increase in funding to address the nation's energy 
crisis or the President's recent National Energy Policy. It 
does not take a number of simple and straightforward steps that 
could be critical in boosting the near term availability of 
electrical power, protecting consumers from the extreme price 
gouging occurring in some segments of the industry and 
insulating the American economy from further damage from rising 
energy prices. It also does not invest a sufficient amount in 
developing renewable energy alternatives to fossil fuels.
    That is deeply disturbing since the recent House-passed 
Supplemental Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2001 and this 
bill are the best and--perhaps only--legislative vehicles that 
can put resources in place quickly to mitigate the national 
energy crisis. The Majority has missed the key opportunity to 
respond to the national energy crisis by failing to properly 
address these issues in the appropriations bills.

                           the energy problem

    The problems facing Americans today are in some respects 
quite different from those the country faced last fall when 
Appropriations were enacted for the current fiscal year. With 
gasoline prices up as much as 50 cents a gallon over the last 
year, a typical two car family can expect to pay about $600 a 
year more to the oil companies and see a similar increase in 
heating and electrical costs. This is about a thousand or so 
dollars per household that won't be available for replacing the 
family car, buying new clothes or saving for college education. 
As a result many businesses are suffering and the whole economy 
has gotten softer.
    While higher energy prices have affected households in 
every part of the United States, the impact on the West Coast 
has been much more severe. Many Americans in other parts of the 
United States are still not aware of how serious the situation 
is in the West and how much it may impact the overall national 
economy. Because more than one in eight Americans live in the 
three West Coast states and because so much of our export 
oriented and high tech industries are concentrated in those 
states, serious economic disruptions on the coast are certain 
to have a big impact on the economies of virtually all of the 
47 other states.
    Fluctuations in the cost of energy have played a major role 
in the performance of the American economy since the early 
1970s. Rising fuel prices have contributed to at least three 
recessions over the last three decades and falling fuel prices 
have caused dislocations and bankruptcies in our own energy 
producing states and wreaked serious havoc with the entire 
international financial system.
    The current situation differs from those of the past in 
that it is caused not only by an imbalance between the demand 
and supply of fossil fuels but also by serious emerging 
structural problems in the industries that generate and 
transmit electricity. While California and the West Coast 
provide the most obvious examples of these problems they are 
not strictly West Coast problems.
    The deregulation and restructuring of the electrical 
utility industry that began more than a decade ago has left 
investors with considerable uncertainty as to how far 
deregulation will eventually go and how competitive the market 
for electricity will be. As a result there has beenlittle 
growth in capacity for either generating or transmitting electrical 
power even though the economy has grown at a remarkable pace for most 
of that same period. As demand for electricity began to approach the 
capacity to generate it some producers came to realize that by 
withholding output they could force significantly higher prices in the 
newly deregulated environment. As a result, consumers are faced with a 
market that is neither competitive nor regulated.

Western States

    There are three fundamental reasons that this problem is 
more severe in California and on the West Coast. First, 
California's attempt at deregulation was particularly inept. 
Wholesale prices were unleashed while retail prices remained 
regulated. That worked only as long as the price of the oil and 
natural gas used for generating electricity continued to fall. 
Once oil and gas prices began to rise, retail suppliers were 
caught in an untenable squeeze and consumers were given no 
incentive to conserve.
    Second, the national power grid has never had significant 
capacity to transmit electricity from east of the Rockies to 
California and the West Coast. As a result, there is much less 
competition in the wholesale electricity market in the West 
than in other parts of the country.
    Third, the West has relied more heavily on hydroelectric 
power than most other parts of the country. Hydroelectric power 
is dependent on rainfall and the Pacific Northwest where most 
of the dams are located has been suffering from a severe 
drought.
    The combination of these factors has produced not only 
dramatic increases in the price of electricity but also in 
blackouts that jeopardize production and profitability in a 
wide array of industries. Producers are typically charging 
between 10 and 30 times the historical rate for electricity and 
in some instances they have been able to charge as much as 129 
times the historical rate. Typical homeowners in many parts of 
the state have seen their monthly electricity bills go from 
$100 to more than $800. In some communities more than half of 
all small businesses are either in bankruptcy or in the process 
of applying for bankruptcy protection. A significant number of 
larger employers have actually shut down operations. In total, 
electricity costs in California have gone from $7 billion a 
year to around $70 billion. Even in a state with a trillion 
dollar a year economy, that is a huge diversion of GDP from 
other sectors of the economy to the utility companies.
    That means that states like Wisconsin that produce capital 
goods have seen their California markets evaporate and now have 
surplus inventories. States like Michigan, Ohio and Missouri 
are seeing layoffs in the automobile industry. Sales are off in 
the publishing, recording and household products industries 
largely because of the bite the electricity market in 
California is taking out of that state's ability to grow and 
consume products from other parts of the United States.

What can be done?

    The United States faces both short-term and long-term 
problems with respect to energy. Under existing technologies 
our growing economy requires more and more energy, makes us 
more and more dependent on oil from the Persian Gulf, and 
therefore inevitably more vulnerable to political disruptions 
in that part of the world. At the same time it increases air 
and water pollution and jeopardizes the global climate. Finding 
ways to reduce our consumption of energy will help control 
prices, improve the quality of our air and water and reduce the 
vulnerability of our economy to events in Southwest Asia. 
Finding alternative forms of energy will also help achieve all 
three of those objectives. Those activities require the kind of 
long term and high-risk investments that the private sector is 
not likely to undertake and they should be funded in our 
regular appropriation bills as the high priority investments 
which any sensible assessment of our economic and security 
needs indicate they deserve.
    The Democrats on the Committee have recently proposed 
initiatives dealing with separate portions of the energy 
crisis. These include temporary cost-of-service price limits in 
Western states; $350 million for national electric power grid 
improvement loans; and $125 million for national hydroelectric 
power improvement loans. None of them were considered for 
inclusion in this bill.

Alternative renewable energy sources

    The Department of Energy leads the national research effort 
to develop clean, competitive, and reliable renewable energy 
and power delivery technologies for the 21st century.
    The combination of environmental concerns, current and 
potential constraints of large system power transmission and 
distribution systems, and technological advances are all 
causing distributed and hybrid systems and technologies such as 
combined heat and power system, fuel cells,photovoltaics, wind 
turbines, geothermal, and biomass systems to gradually augment and 
eventually replace conventional large-scale power generating 
technologies. This is the best way to reduce pollutant and greenhouse 
gas emissions from power generation within the United States in the 
long term.
    Although regulated utilities traditionally invested in 
power generation R&D, increased competitive pressures from the 
ongoing restructuring of the U.S. electric power industry has 
forced utilities and other companies to reduce or eliminate 
their R&D budgets. This makes federal R&D essential. This bill 
fails to make investments that are needed to address the 
national energy crisis in the near term by getting R&D out of 
the lab and into use:
          The bill includes no funds for the ``Million Solar 
        Roofs'' initiative, which is a bipartisan cost-shared 
        partnership between the Department of Energy and states 
        and local communities to get solar technology out of 
        the labs and into practical applications;
          The bill includes no funds for the ``Wind Powering 
        America'' initiative, which is a bipartisan cost-shared 
        partnership between the Department of Energy and states 
        and local communities to deploy advanced wind turbine 
        technology'
          The bill includes no funds for ``Geopowering the 
        West'', which is a bipartisan cost-shared partnership 
        between the Department of Energy and states and local 
        communities to deploy geothermal power generation 
        projects;
          The bill contains very little for distributed energy 
        resources, an area that the Department of Energy has 
        recently concluded offers potentially high payoff in 
        the future by reducing energy loss over long 
        transmission distances.
    The bill also fails to start increased investments in R&D 
that are needed to address the national energy crisis in the 
far term to meet goals set by the Department of Energy to:
          Triple installed U.S. electricity generation capacity 
        of non-hydroelectric renewable energy resources by 
        2015;
          Overcome barriers to distributed power to achieve a 
        20 percent market penetration of new generation 
        capacity by 2012;
          Maintain the high reliability of the Nation's 
        transmission and distribution systems during a period 
        of increased consumer demand for electricity, while 
        enduring numerous constraints on siting and building 
        new transmission and distribution systems; and
          To launch an ethanol industry by having (A) at least 
        one ethanol production facility using agricultural and/
        or municipal solid wastes operational or under 
        construction by 2004 and (B) a demonstration at a 
        commercial facility in 2005 using an energy crop or 
        closely related biomass to demonstrate a tenfold cost 
        reduction for converting biomass to ethanol.
    These are the things the Majority should have properly 
funded in this bill for fiscal year 2002 if they believe the 
President when he says there is an energy crisis.

                               auburn dam

    This bill contains legislation on Auburn Dam that should 
not be adopted because it is not good public policy.
    Section 103 of the bill directs the Army Corps of Engineers 
to include a multi-purpose detention dam in Auburn, California 
as part of the Final Supplemental Plan Formulation Report for 
the American River Watershed which is currently estimated to be 
published in August, 2001. Ongoing studies underway by the 
Corps of Engineers are limited only to flood control aspects of 
the American River. The Chief of the Army Corps of Engineers 
testified to the Committee earlier this year that ``Our belief 
is that carrying through the study as it is presently designed 
is probably the best way to go at this time.''
    This provision would delay the report and prevent 
Sacramento, California from securing additional flood 
protection for up to 14 additional years. Sacramento has been 
identified by the Corps of Engineers as the city with the least 
amount of flood protection for a city of its size in the 
nation. Over half a million people and more than $40 billion in 
property and infrastructure would be impacted by a flood in 
Sacremento, which is the capitol to the world's sixth largest 
economy.
    Current estimates of the cost of a multipurpose Auburn dam 
are roughly $2.5 billion. Construction of the dam was halted in 
the mid-1970s after a regional earthquake revealed multiple 
fault lines near the construction site. Auburn dam no longer 
enjoys support from local, state, or federal agencies. Its 
construction would do major environmental damage to a pristine 
part of California.
    The bill contains other legislative provisions, relating to 
the use of water within the region and to recreational rafting, 
that are aimed at putting roadblocks in place to pressure 
certain groups to support the Auburn dam project. These 
provisions are also improper, and should be removed from the 
bill.

                               conclusion

    It is a shame that this appropriations bill contains 
nothing of substance to address the immediate needs of American 
citizens who face a national energy crisis according to the 
President. The citizens in Western States will endure more 
hardship as the summer unfolds. Democrats offer national 
initiatives for real near-term solutions that could be 
implemented quickly on a bipartisan basis. It is unfortunate 
that Republicans reject such proposals, and instead have 
produced this appropriations bill that fails to respond to the 
national energy crisis in any meaningful way.

                                                     David R. Obey.

                                
