    [House Report 108-212]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

    108th Congress                                                   Report
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
     1st Session                                                    108-212

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

             ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2004

                                    _______

     July 16, 2003.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
                  State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                    _______

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

                                  R E P O R T

                            [To accompany H.R. 2754]

        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, 2004, and for other purposes.

                            INDEX TO BILL AND REPORT

    _______________________________________________________________________

                                                                Page Number

                                                                Bill Report
    Introduction...............................................
                                                                          4
    I. Department of Defense--Civil:
            Corps of Engineers--Civil:
                    Introduction...............................
                                                                          7
                    General investigations.....................     2
                                                                          9
                    Construction, general......................     3
                                                                         36
                    Flood control, Mississippi River and
                        Tributaries............................     4
                                                                         55
                    Operation and maintenance, general.........     5
                                                                         59
                    Regulatory program.........................     6
                                                                         80
                    Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action
                        Program................................     6
                                                                         81
                    Flood control and coastal emergencies......     6
                                                                         81
                    General expenses...........................     6
                                                                         82
                    Administrative provisions..................     7

                    General provisions.........................     7
                                                                         82
    II. Department of the Interior:
            Central Utah Project completion account............     9
                                                                         85
            Bureau of Reclamation:
                    Water and related resources................     9
                                                                         87
                    Bureau of Reclamation loan program account.    11
                                                                        104
                    California Bay-Delta ecosystem restoration.
                                                                        105
                    Central Valley Project restoration fund....    11
                                                                        105
                    Policy and administration..................    12
                                                                        106
                    Working Capitol Fund.......................    13
                                                                        106
                    Administrative provision...................    13

                    General provisions.........................    13
                                                                        107
    III. Department of Energy:
            Introduction.......................................
                                                                        109
            Energy supply......................................    16
                                                                        115
            Non-Defense Site Acceleration Completion...........    17
                                                                        123
            Non-defense environmental Services.................    17
                                                                        123
            Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and
                Decommissioning Fund...........................    18
                                                                        124
            Science............................................    18
                                                                        125
            Nuclear waste disposal.............................    18
                                                                        130
            Departmental administration........................    21
                                                                        136
            Office of Inspector General........................    22
                                                                        138
            Atomic energy defense activities:..................    23
                                                                        139
            National Nuclear Security Administration:
                    Weapons activities.........................    23
                                                                        141
                    Defense nuclear nonproliferation...........    23
                                                                        152
                    Naval reactors.............................    24
                                                                        159
                    Office of the administrator................    24
                                                                        159
            Environmental and Other Defense Activities:
                    Defense site acceleration completion.......    24
                                                                        162
                    Defense environmental services.............    25
                                                                        163
                    Other defense activities...................    25
                                                                        164
                    Defense nuclear waste disposal.............    26
                                                                        168
            Power marketing administrations:
                    Cerro Grande Fire Activities...............    26
                                                                        168
                    Bonneville Power Administration............    26
                                                                        169
                    Southeastern Power Administration..........    26
                                                                        170
                    Southwestern Power Administration..........    27
                                                                        170
                    Western Area Power Administration..........    28
                                                                        171
                    Falcon and Amistad operating and
                        maintenance fund.......................    29
                                                                        171
            Federal Energy Regulatory Commission...............    29
                                                                        172
            General provisions.................................    30
                                                                        189
    IV. Independent agencies:
            Appalachian Regional Commission....................    35
                                                                        193
            Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board............    36
                                                                        193
            Delta Regional Authority...........................    36
                                                                        193
            Denali Commission..................................
                                                                        194
            Nuclear Regulatory Commission......................    36
                                                                        194
            Office of Inspector General........................    37
                                                                        195
            Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board...............    38
                                                                        196
    V. General provisions......................................    38
                                                                        197
    House reporting requirements...............................
                                                                        199

                    Summary of Estimates and Recommendations

        The Committee has considered budget estimates which are
    contained in the Budget of the United States Government, 2004.
    The following table summarizes appropriations for fiscal year
    2003, the budget estimates, and amounts recommended in the bill
    for fiscal year 2004.

                                                                                        [in thousands of dollars]
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                                          2004 recommendation compared with--
                                                                              2003                  2004 estimate          2004 recommendation   ---------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                                     2003 appropriation           2004 estimate
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Title I--Department of Defense--Civil.........................                4,638,827                 4,194,000                 4,482,328                  (156,499)                  288,328
    Title II--Department of the Interior..........................                  972,294                   922,208                   947,904                   (24,390)                   25,696
    Title III--Department of Energy...............................               20,834,432                22,163,367                22,016,347                 1,181,915                  (147,020)
    Title IV--Independent Agencies................................                  206,642                   147,921                   138,421                   (68,221)                   (9,500)
                                                                   ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal................................................               26,652,195                27,427,496                27,585,000                   932,805                   157,504
    Scorekeeping adjustments......................................                 (514,000)                 (481,332)                 (505,000)                    9,000                   (23,668)
          Grand Total of bill.....................................               26,138,195                26,946,164                27,080,000                   941,805                   133,836
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                  Introduction

        The Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill for
    fiscal year 2004 totals $27,080,000,000, $133,836,000 above the
    President's budget request, and $941,805,000 above the amount
    appropriated in fiscal year 2003.
        For fiscal year 2004, the Committee has placed a high
    priority on the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository
    program. While the Department of Energy maintains that its
    fiscal year 2004 funding request is sufficient to meet its next
    major milestone, the submission of the License Application to
    the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in December 2004, it is clear
    that chronic funding shortfalls have forced the Department to
    delay work related to the acceptance and transport of spent
    nuclear fuel to support initial repository operations in 2010.
    The Committee believes that it is essential for safety and
    security to begin shipments of spent nuclear fuel, which is
    presently stored at commercial power plants and DOE sites
    around the country, to the repository site at the earliest
    possible date. Accordingly, the Committee has funded the budget
    request of $591,000,000 to ensure the License Application is
    submitted on schedule, and, in addition, has provided an
    additional $174,000,000 for transportation and supporting
    infrastructure development in Nevada, for national waste
    acceptance and transportation planning, and for other related
    purposes.
        Title I of the bill provides $4,482,328,000 for the
    programs of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, a decrease of
    $156,499,000 below fiscal year 2003 and $288,328,000 over the
    budget request of $4,194,000,000. Due to the severe budgetary
    constraints, the Committee has only been able to provide a
    modest increase for the civil works program and has not
    provided funds for new studies and construction projects. 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.
        Title II provides $947,904,000 for the Department of
    Interior and the Bureau of Reclamation, $24,390,000 below the
    amount appropriated in fiscal year 2003 and $25,696,000 over
    the budget request of $922,208,000. The Committee has not
    provided funding for the California Bay-Delta Restoration
    program in California pending the enactment of authorizing
    legislation.
        Title III provides $22,016,347,000 for the Department of
    Energy, an increase of $1,181,915,000 over fiscal year 2003 and
    $147,020,000 below the budget request of $22,163,376,000. The
    Committee recognizes the importance of basic research and
    science programs and has provided an increase of over $200
    million above the fiscal year 2003 level. In addition, $7.2
    billion is provided for environmental cleanup programs to
    remediate contaminated defense and non-defense sites throughout
    the nation.
        Funding for the National Nuclear Security Administration,
    which includes nuclear weapons activities, defense nuclear
    nonproliferation, naval reactors, and the office of the
    administrator is $8,508,184,000, an increase of $330,617,000
    over fiscal year 2003 and a decrease of $326,391,000 from the
    budget request. For nuclear nonproliferation, the Committee has
    provided $1,280,195,000, an increase of $259,335,000 over
    fiscal year 2003.
        The Committee views with skepticism the large increases
    that DOE's National Nuclear Security Administration's Weapons
    Activities account has received over the past three years.
    Since FY 2000, the weapons account grew by an average of 9.8
    percent a year, increasing from $4.5 billion in fiscal year
    2000 to $6.0 billion in fiscal year 2003. In the fiscal year
    2004 budget request, DOE proposes an additional 6.6 percent
    increase. The Department has consistently justified these large
    increases as necessary to meet nuclear weapons requirements
    established by the Department of Defense. Each year, the
    Committee is confronted with a flawed budget process in which
    the NNSA Weapons Activities request is determined by DoD
    requirements but funded by DOE. Absent in such an arrangement
    are the usual tradeoffs that any agency must perform in setting
    its budget priorities and reaching a reasonable balance among
    competing priorities. In this case, DoD sets requirements for
    DOE to maintain a Cold War stockpile and nuclear weapons
    complex, at no cost to DoD, and DOE has little option but to
    budget to meet those requirements. In its fiscal year 2004
    recommendations, the Committee has balanced the Weapons
    Activities request against the other important Energy and Water
    Development funding needs and adjusted funding levels to
    reflect the Committee's priorities.
        Title IV provides $138,421,000 for several Independent
    Agencies, a decrease of $68,621,000 from fiscal year 2003 and a
    decrease of $9,500,000 below the budget request of
    $147,921,000. Funding is provided for the Appalachian Regional
    Commission, the Defense Nuclear Facilities Board, the Delta
    Regional Authority, 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

        In recent years, this Committee has expressed a growing
    concern about a series of inadequate budget requests by the
    Administration for the Civil Works program of the U.S. Army
    Corps of Engineers. This year's request does nothing to relieve
    our concern. Once again, the Administration, particularly the
    Office of Management and Budget, demonstrates by the numbers it
    submits that it has a fundamental misunderstanding of the value
    of the Civil Works program to the Nation's well-being. Much of
    that value is expressed in the stewardship of the Corps of
    Engineers over an inadequate national infrastructure which
    supports much of the Nation's commerce and provides a physical
    safety net against natural disaster for many of our citizens.
        In the budget submission, the Administration highlights the
    need to reduce the growing backlog of construction projects
    within the Civil Works program. The Committee agrees that this
    requires attention. However, the Committee believes that the
    way the Administration proposes to deal with this backlog is
    somewhat myopic. The Office of Management and Budget appears to
    believe that the way to reduce the existing construction
    backlog is to keep the Civil Works budget static at a little
    over $4 billion while not initiating any new projects already
    authorized for construction, and by cutting off the flow of new
    commitments by intentionally slowing down projects that are
    currently in the study process and not initiating any new
    studies.
        The Committee believes that this is ill-advised and
    counterproductive for a variety of reasons. The foremost of
    these is that the water resources needs of the Nation are
    growing and cannot be adequately addressed with just the
    projects currently under construction. Our Nation's water
    resources infrastructure is already over-taxed. In order for
    the Nation to remain competitive in the world economy, we will
    continue to have to make improvements to our harbors and inland
    navigation system. As the population of the country continues
    to grow, more and more of our citizens will inevitably be
    placed in danger from floods and coastal storms. In addition,
    in recent years, the Congress has also assigned to the Corps of
    Engineers the responsibility of dealing with the problems of
    aging water supply systems and inadequate sewage treatment
    systems. To meet all of these National needs, we need to
    increase our investment in our water resources infrastructure,
    not allow it to stagnate.
        The second reason why the budget request is wrong for the
    future of the Nation is that the amount proposed by the
    Administration is inadequate to meet the funding needs of the
    projects included in the budget request. The Administration has
    chosen a handful of projects for full funding and appears to be
    content to have the others flounder, after which, most likely,
    it will call for their removal from the authorized backlog. The
    third reason is that there appears to be no sound scientific or
    economic basis for the selection of the Administration's
    favored projects, since it omits or shortchanges many of the
    projects which objective analysis would identify as producing
    the greatest benefit to the nation, its citizens, and its
    economy.
        Accordingly, the Committee has included an additional $288
    million over the budget request for the Corps of Engineers
    Civil Works program. Even with these additional funds, the
    Corps will not be able to carry out projects on their most
    efficient schedules. Though the Committee has provided no funds
    for new studies and construction projects, the added funds are
    inadequate for needed work on ongoing projects, including those
    included in the budget request and those for which the
    Administration chose not to request funds. The Committee has
    also reluctantly made minor reductions in some of the
    Administration's favored projects described above, believing
    that these reductions will not adversely affect these projects
    given the total amount appropriated for the Construction
    account and the Corps' ability to reprogram funds.
        Like many other Federal agencies, the Corps of Engineers is
    an organization confronted with the need to change in order to
    meet the challenges of the 21st century, including new
    responsibilities which will not respond readily to old methods
    and old management structures. The Committee is aware that the
    Corps is in the midst of a serious, thorough effort to
    modernize its vision, skills and culture, and wants to
    encourage these actions. Re-hashing the events of the past,
    even with the clearest of hindsight, is a waste of time and
    money in an atmosphere of rapid change and the Corps is to be
    congratulated on its courage and resolve.
        The Committee reminds that Administration that it has made
    every reasonable effort to undertake a dialog to learn the
    reasons why our Nation's infrastructure needs are of low
    priority to the Administration, and why the Administration
    appears to reject the premise that the Congress is entitled to
    at least an equal role in the formulation and funding of the
    Corps of Engineers budget. The Administration has not responded
    to our requests. It is the position of the Commission that
    coming to an understanding on these issues is worth the time
    and effort it would require and we renew our request to begin
    that conversation.
        We want to urge upon the Administration another issue, as
    well. There is no better time than the present to begin the
    process of laying out a roadmap for the role of infrastructure
    and its stewards for the rest of this new century. Several
    areas of cooperation need to be resolved in order to optimize
    the Nation's infrastructure. Which of our old harbors, locks,
    and dams are essential and must be rehabilitated, and which no
    longer serve a worthwhile purpose and can be retired, saving
    the cost of their operation and upkeep? Which emerging
    opportunities for the good of our economy and our people are to
    be the responsibility of the Congress and the Administration
    and which will be left to States and communities? We need to
    stop talking past each other and begin to answer these
    questions so that the Corps of Engineers can be given clear and
    unmistakable instructions on its role in a prosperous and
    secure future for our Nation.

                             GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS

    Appropriation, 2003...................................      $134,141,000
    Budget Estimate, 2004.................................       100,000,000
    Recommended, 2004.....................................       117,788,000
    Comparison:
        Appropriation, 2003...............................       -16,353,000
        Budget Estimate, 2004.............................       +17,788,000

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

        Matanuska River, Alaska.--The Committee has provided
    $250,000 to complete a reconnaissance report and initiate a
    feasibility study addressing erosion in the Matanuska River
    Watershed.
        Navajo Nation, Arizona, New Mexico and Utah.--The bill
    includes $250,000 to continue technical assistance as
    authorized by section 520 of the Water Resources Development
    Act of 1999.
        Arkansas River Navigation Study, Arkansas and Oklahoma.--
    The Committee is aware of the extensive coordination involved
    in preparing the reevaluation for this project and the need to
    continue the work. The Committee, therefore, has included
    $1,200,000 in the bill for the Corps of Engineers to continue
    work on this study.
        Hot Springs, Arkansas.--The committee has provided $31,000
    to complete reconnaissance studies for the purpose of
    identifying flood damage reduction measures and improved
    drainage in the Hot Springs, Arkansas, area.
        Red River, Southwest Arkansas, Arkansas and Louisiana.--The
    bill includes $100,000 to initiate preconstruction engineering
    and design of navigation alternatives between Shreveport,
    Louisiana, and Index, Arkansas.
        White River Minimum Flows, Arkansas and Missouri.--The
    Committee has included $200,000 to initiate preconstruction
    engineering and design of project modifications needed to meet
    minimum flows criteria if the pending reallocation report is
    favorable.
        White River Navigation, Arkansas.--The bill includes
    $150,000 to continue coordination with the sponsor, local
    interests, and resource agencies, and to continue work on the
    project reevaluation and environmental documentation.
        California Coastal Sediment Master Plan, California.--The
    committee has provided $300,000 to execute a feasibility cost
    sharing agreement and begin the feasibility phase of this
    study.
        San Diego County Special Area Management Plan,
    California.--The bill includes $250,000 for continuation of a
    special area management plan study for balancing aquatic
    resources protection and development in San Diego County.
        San Francisco Bay, California.--The bill does not include
    the $420,000 included in the budget request for a study of
    navigation hazards in the San Francisco Bay. The local sponsor,
    California State Lands, decided to terminate the study.
        Solana Beach--Encinitas, California.--The Committee has
    provided $944,000 to complete the feasibility study and report
    for the Solana Beach--Encinitas shoreline protection project.
        Tujunga Wash, California.--The bill includes $300,000 to
    continue the feasibility phase of the Tujunga Wash
    environmental restoration project in Studio City.
        Adams County, Colorado.--The Committee has included
    $100,000 to complete the reconnaissance phase and begin a
    feasibility study of an ecosystem restoration project on the
    South Platte River.
        Hagatna River, Guam.--The bill includes $150,000 to
    complete a reconnaissance study and initiate a feasibility
    study on the Hagatna River project. The Committee is aware that
    this project has previously been authorized and deauthorized,
    and that reauthorization would be required prior to the
    initiation of construction.
        Waikiki Beach, Oahu, HI.--The Committee has included
    $250,000 to continue preconstruction engineering and design of
    an erosion control project.
        Upper Mississippi River and Illinois River Navigation
    Study, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, and Wisconsin.--The
    Committee has provided $3,216,000 to complete the feasibility
    study on this vital waterway system. The Committee is aware of
    the need for hearings and reviews prior to completion, but
    urges that these take place as expediently as possible, so that
    the Division Commanders Notice may be published before the end
    of fiscal year 2004, as scheduled.
        Fort Dodge, Iowa.--The bill includes $217,000 for the
    completion of the feasibility phase of an ecosystem restoration
    project on the Des Moines river at Fort Dodge.
        Turkey Creek Basin, Kansas City, Kansas and Missouri.--The
    Committee has provided $205,000 for preconstruction engineering
    and design of a tunnel upgrade project.
        West Shore--Lake Pontchartrain, Louisiana.--The Committee
    has included $200,000 to initiate preconstruction engineering
    and design for a hurricane protection project.
        Anacostia River and Tributaries, Maryland and District of
    Columbia.--The bill includes $200,000 to develop work begun in
    the early 1990's into a Comprehensive Plan to prioritize
    restoration activities in the Anacostia River basin.
        Chesapeake Bay Shoreline Erosion, Maryland, New York,
    Virginia, and Pennsylvania.--The Committee has provided
    $400,000 for the study of shoreline erosion in the area of the
    Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries, including the management of
    sediment at dams on the Lower Susquehanna River.
        Eastern Shore--Mid Chesapeake Bay Island, Maryland.--The
    Committee has provided $1,000,000 to initiate the feasibility
    phase of this study, which will focus on the use of dredged
    material to restore and expand the habitat of a variety of
    animal life. It is the intent of the Committee that this
    funding be for the identification and study of existing islands
    in need of restoration, and not artificial islands.
        Middle Potomac Watershed, Maryland, District of Columbia,
    Virginia, West Virginia, and Pennsylvania.--The bill includes
    $250,000 to initiate one or more of a number of feasibility
    studies identified in the reconnaissance phase. It is the
    intent of the Committee that the Holmes Run watershed in
    Virginia continues to be within the scope of this study.
        Great Lakes Navigational System, Michigan, Illinois,
    Indiana, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and
    Wisconsin.--The bill includes $2,000,000 to continue work on a
    supplement to the reconnaissance report.
        Sand Creek Environmental Restoration Project, Nebraska.--In
    order to optimize needed coordination with highway work being
    performed by the State of Nebraska, the Committee directs the
    Secretary of the Army to work closely with the local sponsor on
    the Sand Creek Environmental Restoration project, accepting
    advance funds offered by the sponsor, and agreeing to credits
    and reimbursements, as appropriate, for work done by the
    sponsor, including work performed in connection with the design
    and construction of seven upstream detention storage
    structures.
        Great Egg Harbor Inlet to Townsends Inlet, New Jersey.--The
    Committee has provided $625,000 to complete preconstruction
    engineering and design of a shoreline protection program for
    this portion of the New Jersey coastline.
        Mid-Delaware River Basin Comprehensive Study, New Jersey,
    Pennsylvania, and Delaware.--The Committee has provided
    $100,000 to complete the reconnaissance phase and initiate
    feasibility studies.
        Passaic River Environmental Restoration, New Jersey.--The
    Committee has renamed the Lower Passaic River study as the
    Passaic River Environmental Restoration study and has included
    $100,000 to initiate the feasibility study, conduct public
    scoping activities, and collect survey data.
        Southwest Valley Flood Damage Reduction Study, Albuquerque,
    New Mexico.--The bill includes $100,000 to initiate
    preconstruction engineering and design for a flood damage
    reduction project in the southwest valley of the city of
    Albuquerque, New Mexico.
        Ohio Riverfront Study, Cincinnati, Ohio.--The Committee has
    provided $350,000 to continue the Riverfront Study in
    Cincinnati, Ohio. The Committee has also included language in
    the bill which provides that the non-Federal sponsor shall
    receive credit towards project costs for work it has performed.
        Susquehanna & Delaware River Basin, Pennsylvania.--The bill
    includes $75,000 to complete the reconnaissance phase of a
    study addressing aquatic system restoration, acid mine drainage
    abatement, floodplain management, flood control and water
    supply in the Southern Anthracite Region.
        Abilene, Texas.--The Committee has included $250,000 to
    reactivate a feasibility study for Elm Creek, in Taylor County
    and the city of Abilene, Texas. The City has requested that the
    Corps re-study this area in response to recent flooding.
        Colonias--Lower Rio Grande Basin, Texas.--The bill includes
    $250,000 to provide technical and design assistance for rural
    communities, along the U.S.-Mexican border, which lack basic,
    adequate water supply and wastewater infrastructure.
        Crown Bay, St. Thomas, United States Virgin Islands.--The
    Committee has provided $400,000 to complete preconstruction
    engineering and design for a project to improve the commercial
    harbor just west of downtown Charlotte Amalie, USVI.
        Skagit River, Washington.--The bill includes $1,000,000 to
    continue and accelerate the feasibility phase of a flood damage
    reduction project in the Skagit River Basin, north of Seattle.
        South Charleston Port, West Virginia.--The Committee has
    provided $164,000 to complete the feasibility study and
    initiate the master plan study for an inland port development
    in the Kanawha Valley of West Virginia.
        Coastal Field Data Collection.--The bill includes
    $3,500,000 for the Coastal Field Data Collection program. The
    additional funds are to be used for the Southern California
    Beach Process Study.
        Flood Plain Management Services.--The Committee has
    provided $7,200,000 for the Flood Plain Management Services
    program, including $500,000 to initiate mapping of areas of the
    Kenai Peninsula of Alaska which were heavily flooded in
    November 2002. Also provided is $100,000 for the Corps of
    Engineers to assist the Town of Rye, New York, in developing
    local floodplain management plans for Crawford Park.
        Other Coordination Programs.--Funding provided for Other
    Coordination Programs includes $150,000 for the Corps of
    Engineers to provide programmatic support to Lake Tahoe
    restoration activities, including coordination with the Federal
    Interagency Partnership and the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency,
    to implement the Environmental Improvement Program.
        Planning Assistance to States.--The amount recommended for
    the Planning Assistance to States includes $100,000 for a study
    to identify problems and potential solutions relating to
    current and future water treatment and conveyance in Butler,
    Kansas. For the study of a Conduit Hydroelectric Project at El
    Dorado Lake, on the Walnut River, in Butler County, Kansas,
    $50,000 is provided.
        The amount recommended for the Planning Assistance to
    States program includes $100,000 to begin a New Jersey Marine
    Fish Evaluation Study. The Corps of Engineers is urged to
    consider using the Save the Fish Foundation to carry out this
    investigation. To address the problem of sump pump discharges
    into the sanitary sewage system of the Township of Ewing, in
    Mercer County, New Jersey, $100,000 is provided in the amount
    for Planning Assistance to States.
        The Committee also urges the Corps of Engineers to use
    $400,000 to continue the project to upgrade the Daily Flow
    Model for the Delaware River Basin in New York.
        Provided a sponsor can be found, and matching funds made
    available, within the amount provided for the Planning
    Assistance to the States program, $100,000 is to be used by the
    Corps of Engineers to initiate and complete a comprehensive
    watershed plan to protect the Indian Brook Reservoir watershed,
    Ossining, New York.
        Within the funds provided for Planning Assistance to
    States, the Committee expects the Corps to use $100,000 to
    initiate an Arkansas River Corridor Master Plan study in the
    State of Oklahoma. Also provided is $200,000 for a study of
    water needs in Georgetown and Williamsburg Counties, South
    Carolina, specifically as relates to the viability of relieving
    the effects of drought with a desalination facility. The
    Committee urges the Corps of Engineers to use $100,000 to
    initiate a study of the development of the riverfront in
    Memphis, Tennessee. In addition, the Corps is urged to use
    $100,000 on a study of the Oliver Creek watershed, Shelby
    County, Tennessee.
        Within the funds provided for Planning Assistance to
    States, $100,000 should be used to identify a plan for regional
    water and wastewater development for Denison and Pottsboro,
    Texas, and to support environmentally sustainable economic
    development at Lake Texoma.
        Research and Development.--The bill includes $23,000,000
    for research and development, including $1,000,000 to be used
    for a continuation of a study of urban flooding by the Desert
    Research Institute of Nevada.

                             CONSTRUCTION, GENERAL

    Appropriation, 2003...................................    $1,744,598,000
    Budget Estimate, 2004.................................     1,350,000,000
    Recommended, 2004.....................................     1,642,911,000
    Comparison:
        Appropriation, 2003...............................      -101,687,000
        Budget Estimate, 2004.............................      +292,911,000

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

        Duck River, Cullman, Alabama.--The Committee has provided
    $1,000,000 to continue assisting the Cullman-Morgan Water
    District with contract administration and construction
    management activities on its water supply infrastructure
    upgrade project.
        Nogales Wash, Arizona.--The bill includes $2,000,000 to
    continue construction of this flood warning and damage
    reduction project in Southern Arizona.
        Greers Ferry Lake, Arkansas.--The Committee has provided
    $2,000,000 for modernization of the Dam Site Park to a more
    current standard and to make facilities accessible to the
    handicapped.
        Petaluma River, California.--The bill includes $7,300,000
    for completion, including required reimbursements, of the flood
    control project within the city of Petaluma, California.
        Sacramento Area, California.--The bill includes $8,600,000
    for the Sacramento Area, California, project authorized by
    section 502 of the Water Resources Act of 1999. The amount
    provided includes: $1,000,000 for the project to replace water
    meters and water lines, and undertake canal lining for the
    Placer County Water Agency; $1,000,000 for the City of
    Roseville Water Meter Retrofit Program; $4,600,000 for
    Technical Design and Construction Assistance on the El Dorado
    Irrigation District, Deer Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant;
    $800,000 for the Redundant Water Supply Intake at Folsom
    Reservoir; and $1,200,000 for the El Dorado Irrigation District
    Sly Park Recreation Area water system.
        Santa Ana River Mainstem, California.--The Committee has
    provided $25,700,000 for continued construction of the Santa
    Ana River Mainstem project, including $10,000,000 for the
    acceleration of work on the San Timoteo Creek element.
        Everglades Restoration, Florida.--The recent enactment of
    certain laws in Florida is widely perceived to presage or to
    permit a decline in support for Everglades restoration by non-
    Federal interests crucial to the success of the entire
    restoration effort. Under these circumstances, the Committee is
    naturally concerned about the wisdom of making full Federal
    funding available without additional safeguards over these
    funds. The Committee has, therefore, included language in the
    bill which will allow funds appropriated for Everglades
    restoration to be freed for other worthwhile uses if non-
    Federal participants do not meet their agreed-upon
    responsibilities under the governing consent decree.
        Pinellas County, Florida.--The bill includes $2,500,000 for
    the renourishment of Long Key and Treasure Island in Pinellas
    County, Florida.
        Tybee Island, Georgia.--The Committee has provided $225,000
    to initiate a general reevaluation study of the existing shore
    protection project to identify needed modifications and to
    determine the feasibility of including the north end of Tybee
    Beach.
        Rural Idaho, Idaho.--The Committee has provided $4,450,000
    for environmental infrastructure projects as authorized in
    section 595 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999, as
    amended, in rural Idaho. Funds are to be used as follows: City
    of Burley, Idaho, $2,000,000; Coolin Sewer District, Idaho;
    $1,900,000; City of Horseshoe Bend, Idaho, $300,000; Upper St.
    Joe Distribution Line, Idaho, $250,000.
        Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal, Illinois.--The bill
    includes $800,000 for the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal
    dispersal barrier demonstration project which is intended to
    prevent the movement of invasive aquatic nuisance species
    between Lake Michigan and the Mississippi River. Of the amount
    provided, $500,000 is intended for operating of the existing
    barrier, and $300,000 is to be used to initiate the design work
    necessary to make this barrier permanent. In addition, $750,000
    is provided in a section 1135 ``continuing authorities
    project'' to continue work on a second barrier.
        Lock and Dam 19, Mississippi River, Iowa.--The Committee
    has provided $500,000 to continue the major rehabilitation of
    Mississippi River Lock and Dam 19, in Keokuk, Iowa.
        Southern and Eastern Kentucky, Kentucky.--The bill includes
    $3,000,000 for development and upgrade of wastewater facilities
    in southern and eastern Kentucky, as authorized by section 531
    of the Water Resources Development Act, as amended.
        Mississippi River--Gulf Outlet, Louisiana.--The bill
    includes $813,000 to complete the reevaluation study, including
    the investigation of ecosystem restoration issues, of the
    Mississippi River, Gulf Outlet project.
        George W. Kuhn Drain, Michigan.--The Committee has provided
    $388,000 to initiate design of Phase 2 of the George W. Kuhn
    Drain, previously known as the Twelve Towns Drain Retention
    Treatment Facility, Oakland County, Michigan.
        DeSoto County, Mississippi.--The bill contains $8,000,000
    to complete currently authorized wastewater treatment work in
    DeSoto County, in northeast Mississippi.
        Mississippi Environmental Infrastructure, Mississippi.--The
    Committee has provided $2,000,000 for the Mississippi
    Environmental Infrastructure program authorized by section 592
    of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999. The Committee
    expects the Corps of Engineers to continue to address the most
    critical water resources needs within the State of Mississippi.
    Of the funds provided, $100,000 is for a study of an
    alternative water supply for the Northeast Mississippi Regional
    Water Supply District.
        Bois Brule Levee and Drainage District, Missouri.--The bill
    includes $1,200,000 for continuation of the design deficiency
    on the Bois Brule Levee and Drainage District, Missouri,
    project. The sponsor has decided that the Section 205 project
    to increase the level of protection is not presently feasible
    and should be placed on hold.
        St. Louis, Missouri.--The Committee has provided $2,000,000
    for the Corps of Engineers to continue to work in coordination
    with the St. Louis Metropolitan Sewer District to address
    critical water contamination problems in St. Louis, Missouri.
        Table Rock Lake, Missouri.--The bill contains $2,500,000
    for the Corps of Engineers to modernize facilities at its
    Campbell Point, Cape Fair, Indian Point, and Baxter Parks, at
    Table Rock Lake, Missouri.
        Rural Montana, Montana.--The Committee has provided
    $2,000,000 for environmental infrastructure projects as
    authorized in section 595 of the Water Resources Development
    Act of 1999, as amended, in rural Montana. Funds are to be used
    as follows: City of Conrad, Montana, $1,000,000; City of
    Laurel, Montana, $1,000,000.
        Rural Nevada, Nevada.--The Committee has provided
    $2,050,000 for environmental infrastructure projects as
    authorized in section 595 of the Water Resources Development
    Act of 1999, as amended, in rural Nevada. Funds are to be used
    as follows: Boulder City, Nevada, $750,000; City of Mesquite,
    Nevada, $1,000,000; and Tonopah, Nevada, $3,00,000.
        Passaic River, New Jersey.--The bill contains $4,000,000 to
    accelerate the Passaic River Preservation of Natural Flood
    Storage Areas, in the Central Basin of the Passaic River, New
    Jersey.
        Central New Mexico, New Mexico.--The Committee has provided
    $2,000,000 for design and construction assistance to non-
    Federal interests as authorized under section 593 of the Water
    Resources and Development Act of 1999. Of these funds,
    $,1,000,000 is to be used for the Black Mesa, New Mexico, Area
    Flood Management Project.
        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 requirements in fiscal year 2004.
        New York and New Jersey Harbors, New York and New Jersey.--
    The Committee is aware of the difficulty posed by the
    requirement that a second shipper be in place on the Port
    Jersey element of the project before the construction may
    begin, and has included language in the bill to change the
    requirement to allow work to proceed whenever the sponsor has
    identified and secured commitments to ship from a second user.
    In addition, the Committee directs the Corps of Engineers to
    use $2,000,000 of the funds provided for the project to plan
    for and enter into an agreement with a state or non-Federal
    sponsor to develop a dredged material processing facility that
    would accomplish the objectives of reducing the cost of dredged
    material management in the port, preparing dredged material for
    beneficial uses, and implementing innovative dredged material
    management technologies.
        Dare County, North Carolina.--The bill includes $1,000,000
    for preconstruction monitoring and real estate acquisition on
    the Bodie County element of the Dare County, North Carolina,
    beaches project.
        Holes Creek, West Carrollton, Ohio.--The Committee has
    provided $2,000,000 for floodwall completion and relocations,
    to complete the Holes Creek, Ohio, flood damage reduction
    project.
        Ohio Environmental Assistance, Ohio.--The bill contains
    $17,000,000 for the Ohio Environmental Assistance program
    authorized by section 592 of the Water Resources Development
    Act of 1999. The amount provided includes: $1,500,000 for the
    City of Chardon, Geauga County, Ohio; $1,000,000 for a
    Wastewater Treatment Plant, Toledo, Ohio; $3,000,000 for Clark
    County and Lower Mad River Valley Sewer Infrastructure, Ohio;
    $2,000,000 for Clark County & Lower Mad River Valley Storm
    Water Management Infrastructure, Ohio; $1,500,000 for the
    Dayton International Airport Sites Sewer & Drainage, Ohio;
    $200,000 for a Drain Line Replacement, Lafayette Township,
    Coshocton County, Ohio; $300,000 for the Oxbow and Sand Road
    Pond Water Pollution Control Facility, City of Fremont, Ohio;
    $1,000,000 for a Sanitary Sewer Collection and Wastewater
    Treatment System, Village of Hartford, Hartford Township,
    Licking County, Ohio; $1,000,000 for a Sanitary Sewer Line
    Extension, City of Wellston, Jackson County, Ohio; $1,000,000
    for Hospital Site Preparation, Springfield, Ohio; $268,000 for
    the State Route 285 Water Line Project, Noble County, Ohio;
    $2,500,000 for Environmental Restoration, Tech Town, Ohio;
    $375,000 for design of a project for Mason Run, Turkey Run &
    Walnut Creek, Ohio; and $1,000,000 for the Water Line Project,
    Guernsey County, Ohio.
        Elk Creek Lake, Oregon.--Funds provided in this Act and
    funds previously appropriated for the Elk Creek Lake, Oregon,
    project are available to plan and implement long-term
    management measures at the project to maintain the project in
    an uncompleted state, including design and construction of a
    permanent trap-and-haul facility to replace the existing,
    interim facility. Funds may not be used for any further work on
    the Corps of Engineers proposal to remove a section of the dam
    for fish passage.
        Conemaugh River, Nanty Glo, Pennsylvania.--The bill
    includes $1,000,000 to complete construction of the Nanty Glo,
    Pennsylvania, Environmental Restoration project.
        South Central Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania.--The Committee
    has provided $15,000,000 for environmental improvement in South
    Central Pennsylvania. When executing this program, the Corps of
    Engineers is encouraged to consider the needs of Pleasantville,
    Pennsylvania; Union Township, Pennsylvania; Juniata Terrace
    Borough, Pennsylvania; and the Industrial Park in Mifflin
    County, Pennsylvania.
        Southeastern Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania.--The Committee has
    provided $750,000 to continue work on the Cobbs Creek and Mill
    Creek watersheds in West Philadelphia, as authorized by section
    566 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996.
        Black Fox, Murfree, and Oaklands Springs Wetlands,
    Murfreesboro, Tennessee.--The bill includes $1,072,000 to
    complete all remaining authorized work at the Black Fox,
    Murfree, and Oaklands Springs Environmental Restoration project
    in Murfreesboro, Tennessee.
        Dallas Floodway Extension, Texas.--The Committee has
    provided $9,280,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue
    construction of the Dallas Floodway Extension project in Texas.
        San Antonio Channel Improvement Project, Texas.--Consistent
    with existing project authorities for the San Antonio Channel
    Improvement Project in Texas, with specific reference to
    Section 335 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000,
    which modified the project to include environmental restoration
    and recreation as project purposes, the Committee directs the
    Secretary of Army to designate all components of the project
    for flood control, environmental restoration and recreation as
    one integral and combined project. The Committee has provided
    $1,000,000 to continue construction of such project. Subject to
    the Secretary's approval of the General Reevaluation Report,
    the Secretary of Army is directed to use a portion of these
    funds and subsequent funding appropriated for the San Antonio
    Channel Improvement Project to design and subsequently
    construct these combined improvements.
        James River, Virginia.--The bill includes $1,150,000 to
    initiate preconstruction engineering and design for
    improvements to the turning basin on the James River, Virginia,
    navigation project.
        Roanoke River Upper Basin, Virginia.--The Committee directs
    the Secretary of the Army to use open and unrestricted bidding
    in prosecuting all construction of the Roanoke River Upper
    Basin, Virginia, project.
        Levisa and Tug Forks of the Big Sandy River and Upper
    Cumberland River, West Virginia, Virginia, and Kentucky.--The
    Committee has provided a total of $50,400,000 for the Levisa
    and Tug Forks of the Big Sandy River and Upper Cumberland River
    project. This amount includes $17,000,000 for the City of
    Grundy, Virginia, element of the project; $1,500,000 for the
    Bell County, Kentucky, element of the project; $3,500,000 for
    the City of Cumberland, Kentucky, element of the project;
    $6,500,000 for the Clover Fork, Harlan County, Kentucky,
    element of the project; $2,000,000 for the Levisa Fork in Floyd
    County, Kentucky, element of the project; $4,500,000 for the
    Harlan County, Kentucky, element of the project; $900,000 for
    the Johnson County, Kentucky, element of the project;
    $1,000,000 for the Knox County, Kentucky, element of the
    project; $4,300,000 for the Tug Fork in Martin County,
    Kentucky, element of the project; $200,000 for the Levisa Basin
    in Pike County, Kentucky, element of the project; $4,000,000 in
    the Tug Fork in Pike County, element of the project; and
    $5,000,000 in the Town of Martin, Floyd County, element of the
    project.
        Aquatic Plant Control Program.--Within the amount provided
    for the Aquatic Plant Control program, $200,000 is for aquatic
    plant control at high priority sites in Texas, and $100,000 is
    for the control of Hydrilla in the Potomac and Tributaries,
    Virginia, Maryland, and District of Columbia. The Committee is
    aware of the growing aquatic invasive plant infestation problem
    around the country and supports efforts of the Corps, and the
    private sector, to develop new management and control
    technologies. The Committee further believes that success in
    the management of these invasive species is dependent upon a
    strong, stable research program.
        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 for construction of the Addison Creek, North
    Riverside, Illinois, project; $200,000 for construction of the
    Village of Riverside (Groveland Avenue Berm), Illinois,
    project; $60,000 to complete the planning and design analysis
    for the Ohio River, Rockport, Indiana, project; $200,000 to
    initiate and complete construction of the Ohio River, South
    Harrison County, Indiana, project; $100,000 for planning and
    design of the U.S. Highway 83 Bridge project in Garden City,
    Kansas; $330,000 for construction of the Nicholas County,
    Licking River, Kentucky, project; $31,000 for completion of
    plans and specifications for the Holmes Bay, Whiting, Maine,
    project; $24,000 for completion of plans and specifications for
    the Narraguagus River, Milbridge, Maine, project; $100,000 to
    initiate construction of the Belle Isle Park, Michigan,
    project; $61,000 to complete planning and design of the Belle
    Isle South Shore, Michigan, project; $750,000 to initiate
    construction of the Marquette, Michigan, project; $150,000 to
    initiate and complete construction of the County Road 228
    Bridge, Hubble Creek, Missouri, project; $40,000 for planning
    and design of the Borough of Rumson bulkhead replacement
    project in New York; $300,000 to initiate and complete
    construction of the Newton Creek, Bainbridge, New York,
    project; $250,000 to complete the feasibility study and plans
    and specifications for the Northport, Huntington, New York,
    project; $100,000 for planning and design for the Engel Park,
    Town of Ossining, New York, project; $40,000 for plans and
    specifications for the Losee Park, Village of Tarrytown, New
    York, project; $40,000 for plans and specifications for the
    Scarborough Park, Village of Briarcliff Manor, New York,
    project; $75,000 for plans and specifications for the Ottawa
    River, Shoreland Drive project in Toledo, Ohio; $40,000 for
    plans and specifications for the Hocking River, Athens, Ohio,
    project; $40,000 for plans and specifications for the Green
    River, Waynesboro, Tennessee, project; $40,000 for plans and
    specifications for the Hurricane Creek Road, Waynesboro,
    Tennessee, project; $175,000 to complete plans and
    specifications for the Hollywood Interceptor project in
    Memphis, Tennessee; $293,000 to complete plans and
    specifications and initiate construction for the Mount Moriah
    Culvert project in Tennessee; $100,000 to complete plans and
    specifications for the Terminal Road, Chattanooga, Tennessee,
    project; $100,000 to complete plans and specifications for the
    Town of Dandridge, Tennessee, project; $100,000 to complete
    plans and specifications for the Bogachiel River, Clallam
    County, Washington, project; and $40,000 for planning and
    design of the Concordia University, City of Mequon, Wisconsin,
    project.
        Shoreline Protection Project (Section 103).--The Committee
    has provided $3,500,000 for the Section 103 program. Within the
    amount provided, the recommendation includes: $100,000 to
    complete the initial appraisal report for the City of Solano
    Beach, California, project; $100,000 to complete the
    feasibility study for the Whiting Shoreline, Indiana, project;
    $100,000 to complete plans and specifications and execute a
    project cooperation agreement for the Nantasket Beach, Hull,
    Massachusetts, project; $100,000 to initiate the feasibility
    study for the Lake Erie Islands project in Ottawa County, Ohio;
    and $100,000 to initiate the feasibility study for the
    Sandusky, Ohio, Lakefront Restoration project.
        Small Navigation Projects (Section 107).--The Committee has
    provided $8,000,000 for the Section 107 program. Within the
    amount provided, the recommendation includes: $200,000 to
    complete the feasibility study for the Point Mallard Park,
    Decatur, Alabama, project; $640,000 to initiate and complete
    plans and specifications for the Blytheville Harbor, Arkansas,
    project; $850,000 for construction of the Russellville
    Slackwater Harbor project in Arkansas; $2,825,000 to complete
    construction of the Port Hueneme, California, project; $100,000
    for the feasibility study for the Port Tobacco River/Goose
    Creek, Maryland, project; $50,000 to complete design and
    execute a project cooperation agreement for the Bass Harbor,
    Tremont, Maine, project; $20,000 to continue the feasibility
    study for the Bucks Harbor, Machiasport, Maine, project;
    $50,000 to continue the feasibility for the Lubec Harbor,
    Maine, project; $86,000 to complete the feasibility study for
    the Detroit River project in Michigan; $75,000 to continue the
    feasibility study for the Mackinac Island Harbor, Michigan,
    project; $100,000 to initiate the feasibility study for the
    Grand Marais Harbor, Minnesota, project; $50,000 to complete
    the feasibility study for the Knife River Harbor, Minnesota,
    project; $500,000 to initiate construction of the Duluth
    (McQuade Road) Harbor, Minnesota, project; $500,000 to initiate
    construction of the Two Harbors, Minnesota, project; $583,000
    to complete the feasibility study and initiate plans and
    specifications for the Tri-State Commerce Park, Iuka,
    Mississippi, project; $200,000 to complete plans and
    specifications for the Buffalo Inner--South Basin Navigation
    Project in New York; $225,000 to initiate and complete the
    feasibility study for the Oconto, Wisconsin, project; and
    $305,000 to initiate and complete the feasibility study for the
    Olde Stone Quarry Park, Door County, Wisconsin, project.
        Mitigation Damages Attributable to Navigation Projects
    (Section 111).--The Committee has provided $500,000 for the
    Section 111 program. Within the amount provided, the
    recommendation includes: $125,000 to complete the feasibility
    study for the Grand River, City of Grand Haven, Michigan,
    project; and $100,000 to continue the feasibility study for the
    Mattituck Inlet, Southold, New York, project.
        Beneficial Use of Dredge Material (Section 204).--The
    Committee has provided $3,000,000 for the Section 204 program.
    Within the amount provided, the recommendation includes $70,000
    to continue the feasibility study for the Atchafalaya River,
    Bayous Chene, Boeuf, and Black, Louisiana, project; and
    $100,000 for plans and specifications for the Ottawa River,
    Ohio, project.
        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: $50,000 to
    initiate a feasibility study for the Grubbs, Arkansas, project;
    $25,000 to complete the feasibility study for the Higginson,
    Arkansas, project; $500,000 to initiate construction of the
    Indian Bayou, Arkansas, project; $75,000 to complete the
    feasibility study and initiate plans and specifications for the
    Spring Creek, Arkansas, project; $100,000 for a feasibility
    study of flooding problems in Yucca Valley, California;
    $460,000 to complete the feasibility study and initiate plans
    and specifications for the Anaverde Creek, Palmdale,
    California, project; $100,000 for the Santa Venetia,
    California, project; $250,000 to continue the feasibility study
    for the Flint River, City of Albany, Georgia, project;
    $1,000,000 to continue construction of the Deer Creek, Village
    of Ford Heights, Illinois, project; $1,500,000 to continue
    construction of the East Peoria, Illinois, project; $100,000 to
    initiate plans and specifications for the Oak Forest and
    Midlothian (Natalie Creek), Illinois, project; $100,000 to
    complete plans and specifications and initiate construction for
    the Stoney Creek, Oak Lawn, Illinois, project; $100,000 to
    initiate the feasibility study for the Olney, Illinois,
    project; $85,000 to complete the feasibility study for the
    Pankey Branch, Harrisburg, Illinois, project; $150,000 to
    initiate the feasibility study for the Shelly Creek, Montgomery
    County, Indiana, project; $200,000 to continue work on the
    Kankakee River (Sumava Resorts), Indiana, project; $115,000 to
    complete the feasibility study for the Cowskin Creek, Wichita,
    Kansas, project; $50,000 to initiate plans and specifications
    for the Whitewater and Walnut Rivers project in Augusta,
    Kansas; $175,000 to complete plans and specifications for the
    Lockport to Larose, Louisiana, project; $125,000 to continue
    plans and specifications for the Rosethorn Basin, Jean Lafitte,
    Louisiana, project; $145,000 to complete the feasibility study
    and initiate plans and specifications for the Winchester,
    Massachusetts, project; $100,000 for a study of flooding
    problems in Benton County, Minnesota; $250,000 for a study of
    flooding problems in Delano, Minnesota; $50,000 to complete the
    feasibility study and initiate plans and specifications for the
    Ada, Minnesota, project; $100,000 for a feasibility study for
    the Borup, Minnesota, project; $325,000 to initiate the
    feasibility study for the City of Roseau, Minnesota, project;
    $100,000 for a feasibility study for the Marsh Creek, Site 6,
    floodwater retention project in Minnesota; $350,000 to complete
    the feasibility study and initiate plans and specifications for
    the Hidden Valley Storm Drainage project in Greene County,
    Missouri; $50,000 to continue the feasibility study for the
    Goose Creek, Missouri, project; $50,000 to continue the
    feasibility study for the Hubble Creek, Missouri, project;
    $75,000 to continue the feasibility study for the Lilbourn,
    Missouri, project; $200,000 to initiate construction of the
    Little River Diversion project in Dutchtown, Missouri; $50,000
    to continue the feasibility study for the Williams Creek,
    Missouri, project; $200,000 to continue the feasibility study
    for the Greens Mill Run, Greenville, North Carolina, project;
    $500,000 to continue construction of the Wahpeton, North
    Dakota, project; $250,000 to complete plans and specifications
    for the Jackson Brook, New Jersey, project; $1,150,000 to
    complete construction of the McKeel Brook, New Jersey, project;
    $200,000 to continue the feasibility study for the Poplar
    Brook, Monmouth, New Jersey, project; $200,000 for plans and
    specifications for the Hatch, New Mexico, project; $100,000 to
    continue the feasibility study for the Hobbs, New Mexico,
    project; $300,000 to complete the feasibility study for the
    Fulmer Creek, New York, project; $45,000 to continue the
    feasibility study for the Great Gully Creek, Springport, New
    York, project; $300,000 to complete the feasibility study and
    initiate plans and specifications for the Moyer Creek, Village
    of Frankfort, New York, project; $238,000 to complete the
    feasibility study for the Steele Creek, Village of Ilion, New
    York, project; $100,000 for a study of flooding problems in
    Highland Falls, New York; $100,000 for a study of flooding
    problems along Moodna Creek in New Windsor, New York; $100,000
    for a study of flooding problems in the Town of Warwick, New
    York; $100,000 for a study of flooding problems along Blind
    Brook in the City of Rye, New York; $200,000 for plans and
    specifications for the Irondequoit Creek, Monroe County, New
    York, project; $1,000,000 for the Zimber Ditch, Stark County,
    Ohio, project; $75,000 to continue the feasibility study for
    the Little Mill and Mill Creeks, Pennsylvania, project;
    $100,000 for a study of flooding problems in Surfside Beach,
    South Carolina; $115,000 to continue plans and specifications
    for the Beaver Creek, Bristol, Tennessee, and Bristol,
    Virginia, project; $165,000 to complete plans and
    specifications and initiate construction for the Baxter Bottom,
    Tennessee, project; $55,000 to complete the feasibility study
    for the Dresden, Tennessee, project; $70,000 for a study of
    flooding problems along Jones Creek in Jackson, Tennessee;
    $250,000 for a feasibility study of flooding problems at the
    KellyUSA site in Bexar County, Texas; and $30,000 to continue
    coordination activities on the Estate La Grange, Estate Mon
    Bijou, Savan Gut, and Turpentine Run projects in the United
    States Virgin Islands.
        Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration (Section 206).--The Committee
    has provided $18,050,000 for the Section 206 program. Within
    the amount provided, the recommendation includes: $235,000 to
    complete the feasibility study and initiate plans and
    specifications for the Spring Creek, Tuscumbia, Alabama,
    project; $90,000 to complete the feasibility study for the
    Brownsville Branch, Arkansas, project; $100,000 to initiate the
    Ecosystem Restoration Report for the Carpinteria Creek Park,
    California, project; $60,000 to complete plans and
    specifications for the Upper Sulphur Creek restoration project
    in California; $300,000 for an Ecosystem Restoration Report for
    the City of Lodi, California, White Slough Water Pollution
    Control Facility; $100,000 for an Ecosystem Restoration Report
    for the Thompson Creek project in Santa Clara County,
    California; $200,000 for the Ecosystem Restoration Report for
    the Santa Paula Creek, California, project; $175,000 for the
    Ecosystem Restoration Report for the Sweetwater Reservoir
    Wetlands project in California; $100,000 for a Preliminary
    Restoration Plan for the English Creek, California, project;
    $200,000 for an Ecosystem Restoration Report for the Arroyo Los
    Positas, California, project; $360,000 for an Ecosystem
    Restoration Report for the St. Helena Napa River restoration
    project in California; $400,000 for the Ecosystem Restoration
    Report for the Upper York Creek Dam removal project in
    California; $40,000 for a Preliminary Restoration Plan for the
    South Boulder Creek, Colorado, project; $250,000 for plans and
    specifications for the Mill River, Stamford, Connecticut,
    project; $2,800,000 for the Stevenson Creek project in Pinellas
    County, Florida; $253,000 to complete the feasibility study for
    the Columbus Dam removal project in Georgia; $100,000 for a
    Preliminary Restoration Plan for the Mountain Park Dam project
    in Georgia; $200,000 to initiate construction of the Squaw
    Creek Basin project in Lake County, Illinois; $700,000 to
    continue construction of the Butler Lake, Illinois, project;
    $150,000 for plans and specifications for the Hofmann Dam,
    Illinois, project; $50,000 to continue the feasibility study
    for the Illinois and Michigan Canal, Willow Springs, Illinois,
    project; $111,000 to initiate and complete plans and
    specifications for the State Line Kankakee River project in
    Illinois; $850,000 to initiate construction of the South Bend
    dam removal project in South Bend, Indiana; $300,000 to
    complete the detailed project report for the Cedar Lake,
    Indiana, project; $500,000 to initiate construction of the Wolf
    Lake, Indiana, project; $200,000 to initiate construction of
    the Grass Lake, Illinois, project; $100,000 for plans and
    specifications for the Buras Marina, Louisiana, project;
    $200,000 to initiate the feasibility study for the Paint Branch
    fish passage and stream restoration project in Prince Georges
    County, Maryland; $125,000 for plans and specifications for the
    Mill Pond, Littleton, Massachusetts, project; $232,000 for
    plans and specifications for the Milford Pond, Milford,
    Massachusetts, project; $717,000 to initiate and complete
    construction of the Nashawannuck Pond, Easthampton,
    Massachusetts, project; $50,000 for the planning and design of
    the New Boulevard, Detroit River, Michigan, project; $180,000
    for plans and specifications for the Belle Isle Piers project
    in Detroit, Michigan; $72,000 to complete the feasibility study
    and initiate plans and specifications for the Secord and
    Smallwood Lakes project in Secord Township, Michigan; $296,000
    to initiate and complete construction of the Wiswall Dam, New
    Hampshire, project; $110,000 for an Ecosystem Restoration
    Report for the Rogers Pond, Franklin Township, New Jersey,
    project; $100,000 to continue the feasibility phase of the
    Bottomless Lakes State Park project in New Mexico; $300,000 to
    complete plans and specifications and initiate construction for
    the Las Cruces Wetlands Restoration, New Mexico, project;
    $50,000 for a Preliminary Restoration Plan for the Alley Creek,
    Queens, New York, project; $100,000 to continue the feasibility
    study phase of the Mud Creek, East Patchogue, New York,
    project; $100,000 to complete design and initiate construction
    of the Chenango Lake wetlands restoration project in Chenango
    County, New York; $300,000 to continue the feasibility study
    for the Oriskany Wildlife Management Plan in New York; $245,000
    for construction of the Greenwood Lake project in the Village
    of Greenwood, New York; $10,000 for a Preliminary Restoration
    Plan for the Kowawese Area in New Windsor, New York; $200,000
    for the feasibility study for the Echo Bay project in New
    Rochelle, New York; $200,000 to continue the feasibility study
    for the Sheldrake Lake/Goodlife Pond project in New York;
    $200,000 for the feasibility phase of the Concord Streams
    restoration project in Concord, North Carolina; $75,000 to
    continue work on the Little Sugar Creek, Mecklenburg County,
    North Carolina, project; $100,000 to continue the feasibility
    phase of the West Cary Stream restoration project in North
    Carolina; $100,000 for a study of ecosystem restoration and
    other improvements along the Lake Erie waterfront in Cuyahoga
    County, Ohio; $65,000 for a Preliminary Restoration Plan for
    the Sandusky, Ohio, beach restoration project; $250,000 to
    continue the feasibility study for the Lake Carl Blackwell
    aquatic ecosystem restoration project in Oklahoma; $175,000 to
    complete the feasibility study for the Westmoreland Park,
    Oregon, project; $1,000,000 to initiate construction of the
    Springfield Millrace ecosystem restoration project in Oregon;
    $300,000 to initiate construction of the Southampton Creek,
    Pennsylvania, project; $250,000 for a feasibility study for the
    Canonsburg Lake, Pennsylvania, project; $90,000 to complete
    planning and design of the Sheraden Park Stream and Chartiers
    Creek restoration project in Pennsylvania; $100,000 for a
    Preliminary Restoration Plan for the Upper Chartiers Creek,
    Pennsylvania, project; $800,000 to complete construction of the
    Lonsdale Drive-In Wetlands project in Rhode Island; $200,000 to
    complete the feasibility study for the Town of Jonesborough,
    Washington County, Tennessee, project; $700,000 to continue
    construction of the Ely/Pucketts Creek project in Virginia;
    $100,000 for a Preliminary Restoration Plan for Lake Anna,
    Virginia; $200,000 to continue the Walla Walla River project in
    Washington; $112,000 for plans and specifications for the Lake
    Koshonong, Wisconsin, project; $50,000 each for the Pike River,
    Trinity Creek, and Wolf River projects in Wisconsin; and
    $515,000 for the Cheat River Basin acid mine drainage project
    in West Virginia.
        The Committee recognizes that innovative technologies can
    provide time and cost savings and encourages the use of the
    rapid dewatering system for the Stevenson Creek project in
    Florida.
        Project Modifications for the Improvement of the
    Environment (Section 1135).--The Committee has provided
    $16,000,000 for the Section 1135 program. Within the amount
    provided, the recommendation includes: $85,000 to continue the
    feasibility study for the Ditch 28 project in Arkansas; $85,000
    to complete the feasibility study and initiate plans and
    specifications for the Horseshoe Lake, Arkansas, project;
    $100,000 to initiate the feasibility study for the Millwood,
    Grassy Lake, Arkansas, project; $2,000,000 to initiate
    construction of the Rillito/Swan Wetlands project in Pima
    County, Arizona; $300,000 to initiate the feasibility study for
    the Sand Cove Park, Sacramento River, California, project;
    $1,000,000 to initiate construction of the Chicago Sanitary and
    Ship Canal, Illinois, second dispersal barrier; $50,000 to
    complete plans and specifications for the Indian Ridge Marsh
    project in Chicago, Illinois; $150,000 to complete the
    ecosystem restoration report and initiate plans and
    specifications for the Spunky Bottoms Ecosystem Restoration in
    Brown County, Illinois; $250,000 to complete the feasibility
    report and initiate plans and specifications for the Sand Creek
    Ecosystem Restoration project in Newton, Kansas; $500,000 to
    continue construction of the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway,
    Plaquemine Lock, Louisiana, project; $50,000 to initiate plans
    and specifications for the Houma Navigation Channel, Mile 12 to
    Mile 31.4, Louisiana, project; $200,000 to complete plans and
    specifications for the Broad Meadows Marsh, Quincy,
    Massachusetts, project; $50,000 for a feasibility study of
    restoration opportunities in Cohasset, Massachusetts; $200,000
    to complete planning and design for the Nashua River, Fitchburg
    Urban Park, Massachusetts, project; $34,000 to complete the
    feasibility study and initiate plans and specifications for the
    Hennepin Marsh, Grosse Ile Township, Michigan, project; $50,000
    for plans and specifications for the Duck Creek, Stoddard
    County, Missouri, project; $100,000 for a feasibility study of
    the Old Number 7 Chute, Missouri, project; $150,000 for the
    Kansas City Riverfront Habitat Restoration project in Missouri;
    $150,000 to continue the feasibility study for the Pecos River
    Restoration project in Chavez, New Mexico; $500,000 to initiate
    construction of the Whitney Point Lake, Broome County, New
    York, project; $200,000 to complete the feasibility study and
    initiate plans and specifications for the Northport,
    Huntington, New York, project; $25,000 to complete the
    feasibility study for the Times Beach, New York, project;
    $50,000 to continue the feasibility for the Conneaut Harbor,
    Ohio, project; $250,000 to continue the feasibility study for
    the East Harbor State Park project in Marblehead, Ohio; $50,000
    to continue the feasibility study for the Sheldon's Marsh
    Nature Preserve project in Ohio; $125,000 to initiate
    construction of the Allin's Cove, Barrington, Rhode Island,
    project; $750,000 for construction of the Boyd's Marsh project
    in Portsmouth, Rhode island; $100,000 to initiate plans and
    specifications for the Lower Obion River, Tennessee, project;
    $200,000 to complete the feasibility study of fish passage
    improvements on the Walla Walla River in Washington; $80,000 to
    initiate and complete plans and specifications for the Lake
    Poygan, Wisconsin, project; and $533,000 for Sea Lamprey
    barriers at Black Mallard Creek, Michigan, Carp Lake River,
    Michigan, Kid's Creek, Michigan, Paw Paw River, Michigan,
    Schmidt Creek, Michigan, Conneaut Creek, Ohio, South Branch
    Galien River, Michigan, St. Marys River, Michigan, and Trail
    Creek, Indiana.

                Flood Control, Mississippi River and Tributaries

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

    Appropriation, 2003...................................      $342,334,000
    Budget Estimate, 2004.................................       280,000,000
    Recommended, 2004.....................................       301,054,000
    Comparison:
        Appropriation, 2003...............................       -41,280,000
        Budget Estimate, 2004.............................       +21,054,000

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

                             GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS

        Southeast Arkansas, Arkansas.--The Committee has included
    $350,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue the cost-shared
    feasibility study for the Southeast Arkansas, project to
    address flooding, agricultural water supply, and environmental
    problems and needs.
        Germantown, Tennessee.--The bill includes $61,000 to
    complete the feasibility phase of the flood control study in
    Germantown, Tennessee.
        Memphis Harbor, Memphis, Tennessee.--The bill includes
    $200,000 to continue the reformulation of the Memphis Harbor
    project.

                                  CONSTRUCTION

        Channel Improvement, Arkansas, Illinois, Kentucky,
    Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, and Tennessee.--The Committee
    recognizes the critical need to provide navigation along the
    Mississippi river, and the efficiency in the construction of
    dikes for the reduction of dredging requirements. Therefore,
    the Committee has included $41,742,000 for the Channel
    Improvement program, including $80,000 for the Below Williams,
    Kentucky, dike; $500,000 for the Caruthersville-Linwood Bend,
    Missouri, dike; $200,000 for the Moore Island, Missouri, dike;
    and $1,400,000 for the Drivers Bar, Tennessee, dike.
        Mississippi River Levees, Arkansas, Illinois, Kentucky,
    Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, and Tennessee.--The Committee
    recognizes the critical need of advancing much needed work in
    this project to ensure the integrity of the levee system and to
    protect people and property from flooding. Therefore the
    Committee has included $45,939,000 for Mississippi River
    Levees, including $500,000 for the initiation of Birds Point-
    New Madrid, Missouri, flowage easements; $450,000 to initiate
    St. Johns-New Madrid, Missouri, mitigation lands, box culverts,
    and levee closure; and $2,070,000 for Nash, Missouri, relief
    wells.
        St. Francis Basin, Arkansas and Missouri.--The Committee is
    aware of frequent and prolonged flooding along the uncompleted
    portions of the St. Francis Basin project. The bill includes
    $5,985,000 for this project, including $610,000 to continue 10
    & 15 Mile Bayous, Arkansas, relocations; $400,000 to initiate
    construction on 10 & 15 Mile Channel improvement in Arkansas;
    $225,000 to construct Ditch 13 Channel Enlargement in Arkansas;
    $685,000 to complete construction on the Buffalo Island Outlet,
    Arkansas; $500,000 to initiate construction on Piggott Seepage,
    Item 1, Arkansas; $400,000 to construct Steele Bypass Weir,
    Missouri; and $800,000 to continue project engineering & design
    and supervision & administration.
        Horn Lake Creek and Tributaries, Mississippi and
    Tennessee.--The bill includes $200,000 to continue the
    reevaluation phase of the Horn Lake Creek project.
        Yazoo Basin Mississippi, Delta Headwaters Project,
    Mississippi.--The Committee has provided $5,000,000 for the
    continuation of this project, formerly known as the
    Demonstration Erosion Control Program. The Committee continues
    to feel that this project offers great value on the investment,
    and that its results represent some of the most effective seen
    in reduction of flood damages, decreased erosion and
    sedimentation, and improvements to the environment. The
    Committee once again urges the Administration to request
    adequate annual funding for this project until it is finished.
        St. Johns Bayou and New Madrid Floodway, Missouri.--The
    Committee has provided $5,000,000 to continue construction of
    the St. Johns Bayou-New Madrid Floodway in the vicinity of East
    Prairie, Missouri.
        Nonconnah Creek, Tennessee and Mississippi.--The bill
    includes $3,018,000 for the Nonconnah Creek project. Additional
    funds are for the purpose of accelerating originally authorized
    work.
        West Tennessee Tributaries, Tennessee.--The Committee has
    added $100,000 to initiate a reevaluation of an alternative
    demonstration project.
        Wolf River, Memphis, Tennessee.--The bill includes $350,000
    for continuation of the restoration work on this project.

                                  MAINTENANCE

        Mississippi River Levees, Arkansas, Illinois, Kentucky,
    Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, and Tennessee.--The Committee
    is aware of the backlog of critical maintenance items in this
    project and has included $11,690,000 in the bill. The
    additional funds include $750,000 to repair or replace culverts
    at Mound Creek, Illinois and New Madrid, Missouri; $500,000 to
    repair the Cairo, Missouri floodwall; $600,000 to provide
    gravel surfacing to selected levee-top roads in Arkansas,
    Mississippi, and Louisiana; $2,000,000 to provide levee crown
    surfaces in Louisiana, and $1,500,000 to repair the Birds
    Point-New Madrid, Missouri, levee setback with lime injection.
        Yazoo Basin, Big Sunflower River, Mississippi.--The
    Committee has provided $670,000 for routine operation and
    maintenance and to continue preparation of a Supplemental
    Environmental Impact Statement on work to restore the project
    to design capacities.
        Wappapello Lake, Missouri.--The bill includes $5,765,000
    for Wappapello Lake, Missouri. Additional funds are for the
    continuation of road relocation work on Highway D.

                       OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, GENERAL

    Appropriation, 2003...................................    $1,966,556,000
    Budget Estimate, 2004.................................     1,939,000,000
    Recommended, 2004.....................................     1,932,575,000
    Comparison:
        Appropriation, 2003...............................       -33,981,000
        Budget Estimate, 2004.............................       -6,425,000

    Note: The FY 2003 amount includes $39,000,000 in emergency
      appropriations enacted in Public Law 108-11.

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

        Mobile Harbor, Alabama.--The Committee has provided an
    additional $3,500,000 to continue the environmental restoration
    project at Garrows Bend.
        Los Angeles County Drainage Area, California.--The bill
    includes $6,931,000 for operation and maintenance of the Los
    Angeles County Drainage Area project, including $2,000,000 to
    support Corps of Engineers assistance in local activities to
    revitalize the project areas for public safety, environmental
    restoration, recreation, aesthetics, community improvement, and
    related purposes.
        Pillar Point Harbor, California.--The Committee has
    provided $500,000 for repair of the east breakwater.
        San Francisco Bay Long Term Management Strategy,
    California.--The bill includes $2,000,000 for the Corps of
    Engineers to continue the San Francisco Bay Long Term
    Management Strategy, including evaluation of the effects of
    mercury in wetland restoration projects using dredged material
    and preparation of the Regional Dredged Material Management
    Plan and accompanying National Environmental Policy Act
    documentation.
        Treatment of Dredged Material from Long Island Sound,
    Connecticut.--The Committee has provided $750,000 for the Corps
    of Engineers to continue the demonstration program for the use
    of innovative technologies for the treatment of dredged
    materials at Bridgeport, Connecticut, in Long Island Sound.
        Potomac River Below Washington, District of Columbia.--The
    Committee has provided $320,000 for the Corps of Engineers to
    continue investigations of alternatives for placement of
    dredged material including upland placement sites and
    beneficial uses of dredged material.
        Apalachicola, Chattahoochee and Flint Rivers, Georgia,
    Alabama, and Florida.--The Committee has provided $5,000,000
    for operation and maintenance activities, including $3,500,000
    for annual dredging of the river system.
        West Point Dam and Lake, Georgia and Alabama.--The
    Committee has provided $6,900,000 for the West Point Dam and
    Lake, Georgia and Alabama, project. The additional funds will
    enable the Corps of Engineers to accomplish maintenance
    dredging of access channels and at recreational boat launch
    areas at the project in Troup County, Georgia.
        Illinois Waterway (MVR portion), Illinois and Indiana.--The
    bill includes $25,726,000 for operation and maintenance of the
    Rock Island District portion of the Illinois Waterway, Illinois
    and Indiana, including $1,000,000 for the Sangamon River
    (Beardstown) Sediment Trap.
        Kaskaskia River Navigation, Illinois.--The Committee has
    provided $2,188,000 for the Kaskaskia River Navigation,
    Illinois, project, including $500,000 for lock maintenance and
    maintenance dredging.
        Council Grove Lake, Kansas.--The Committee is aware that
    the Council Grove reservoir is flooding privately owned land at
    several sites and that a beneficial land exchange with the
    owner has been proposed. The Committee has provided $1,840,000
    for the Council Grove Lake, Kansas, project, including $80,000
    for administrative and environmental costs associated with the
    land exchange or land transfer.
        John Redmond Dam and Reservoir, Kansas.--The bill includes
    $2,100,000 for the John Redmond Dam and Reservoir, Kansas,
    including $75,000 to complete the reallocation study of raising
    the conservation pool at the project.
        Perry Lake, Kansas.--The Committee has provided an
    additional $800,000 for the completion of repairs to the four
    flood control gates at Perry Lake, Kansas.
        Atchafalaya River, Bayous Chene, Boeuf and Black,
    Louisiana.--The Committee has provided $19,367,000 operation
    and maintenance of the Atchafalaya River, Bayous Chene, Boeuf
    and Black, Louisiana project. For the past two years, the
    Committee has included report language directing the Corps to
    ``make the safe transit of this waterway a priority'', however,
    the ``fluff'' issue remains and the Corps has failed to
    maintain the authorized depth. The Committee directs the Corps
    to utilize these funds to ensure the proper depth is maintained
    for access to the Port of Morgan City and other facilities
    throughout this fiscal year.
        Mermentau River, Louisiana.--The Committee has provided
    $3,651,000 for the Mermentau River, Louisiana navigation
    project, including $1,000,000 for dredging between Grand
    Cheniere and the Gulf of Mexico.
        Jennings Randolph Lake, Maryland and West Virginia.--The
    Committee has provided $2,687,000 for Jennings Randolph Lake,
    including $913,000 for repair of the West Virginia access road
    and repair of the West Virginia outlet tunnel.
        Parish Creek, Maryland.--The Committee has provided $80,000
    to initiate engineering and design for maintenance dredging of
    the Parish Creek, Maryland, navigation project.
        Reservoirs at Headwaters of Mississippi River, Minnesota.--
    The Committee has provided $5,196,000 for Reservoirs at
    Headwaters of Mississippi River, Minnesota, including $750,000
    to continue the Reservoir Operating Plan Evaluation and
    $250,000 to continue rehabilitation of the stop log system at
    Winnibigoshish Dam.
        Clearwater Lake, Missouri.--The Committee has provided
    $2,634,000 for Clearwater Lake Missouri, including $675,000 to
    prepare a new Water Control Plan for this reservoir project.
        Stockton Lake, Missouri.--The bill provides an additional
    $339,000 for continued investigations of the pre-historic Big
    Eddy archeological site at Stockton Lake, Missouri.
        Table Rock Lake, Missouri.--The Committee has provided an
    additional $1,500,000 to modernize boat launch facilities and
    day use areas at Cape Fair and Campbell Point Parks.
        Comprehensive Upland Dredged Material Disposal Site
    Evaluation, New Hampshire.--The Committee has provided $250,000
    for a study to identify and evaluate upland disposal sites for
    dredged material from Federal navigation channels in New
    Hampshire.
        Albiquiu Dam, New Mexico.--The bill includes $2,312,000 for
    Albiquiu Dam, New Mexico, including $600,000 to address safety
    issues associated with bank stabilization at the dam.
        Oak Orchard Harbor, New York.--The Committee has provided
    $200,000 for maintenance dredging at Oak Orchard Harbor (Point
    Breeze), New York.
        Plattsburgh Harbor, New York.--The Committee has provided
    an additional $1,000,000 for the Corps of Engineers to initiate
    repair of the remaining deteriorated segments of the breakwater
    in Lake Champlain, Plattsburgh, New York.
        Rochester Harbor, New York.--The Committee has provided an
    additional $300,000 for maintenance dredging of the Rochester
    Harbor, New York project to improve access to Coast Guard
    facilities, and for other commercial users on the Genesee
    River.
        Shinnecock Inlet, New York.--The Committee has provided
    $1,216,000 for the Shinnecock Inlet, New York, project. This
    includes funding to complete repairs to the western jetty and
    an additional $800,000 to initiate maintenance dredging of the
    navigation inlet.
        Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, North Carolina.--The
    Committee has provided an additional $3,000,000 to accomplish
    maintenance dredging on the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway,
    North Carolina, from the Neuse River to the South Carolina
    State line.
        Garrison Dam, Lake Sakakawea, North Dakota.--The Committee
    has provided an additional $100,000 for mosquito control and
    prevention at Garrison Dam, Lake Sakakawea, North Dakota.
        Muskingum River Lakes, Ohio.--The Committee has provided
    $9,399,000 for the operation and maintenance at all Muskingum
    River Lakes projects, including $1,600,000 to correct the
    seepage problem at the Magnolia Levee at Bolivar Dam to ensure
    the project's safety.
        Columbia and Lower Willamette Rivers below Vancouver,
    Washington, and Portland, Oregon.--The Committee has provided
    an additional $1,600,000 to complete the rehabilitation of the
    breakwater at the East Astoria Boat Basin.
        Depoe Bay, Oregon.--The Committee has provided $350,000 to
    continue repair and stabilization of the harbor seawall and
    local landslide at Depoe Bay, Oregon.
        Siuslaw River, Oregon.--The Committee has provided $100,000
    to continue monitoring of the north and south jetties and to
    continue to study alternatives to repair these damaged
    structures.
        Tillamook Bay and Bar, Oregon.--The bill includes an
    additional $500,000 to initiate repair and restoration of the
    jetties at the Tillamook Bay and Bar project.
        Francis E Walter Dam, Pennsylvania.--The Committee has
    provided $1,181,000 for the operation and maintenance of
    Francis E Walter Dam, including $500,000 to continue relocation
    of the access road to improve safety and provide permanent
    access to vehicles.
        Johnstown, Pennsylvania.--The bill includes $2,497,000 for
    the Corps of Engineers to continue the major rehabilitation of
    the Johnstown, Pennsylvania, local flood protection project.
        Monongahela River, PA.--The bill includes $700,000 for
    additional maintenance at the Hildebrand, Morgantown, and
    Opekiska locks on the Monongahela River.
        Raystown Lake, Pennsylvania.--The Committee has provided
    $6,074,000 for operation and maintenance of Raystown Lake,
    including $400,000 to install a data automation system.
        Tioga-Hammond Lakes, Pennsylvania.--The Committee has
    provided $4,352,000 for operation and maintenance of Tioga-
    Hammond Lakes, including $500,000 to complete engineering and
    design and initiate construction of a new access road to the
    Lambs Creek Recreation Area.
        Tionesta Lake, Pennsylvania.--The Committee has provided an
    additional $550,000 to complete campground and facility
    upgrades at Tionesta Lake, Pennsylvania.
        Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, Lower Brule Sioux Tribe, and
    State of South Dakota Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat
    Restoration.--The Committee has provided $2,000,000 for the
    State and Tribes for approved cultural resource investigations
    and stewardship plans.
        Belton Lake, Texas.--The Committee has provided $4,613,000
    for operation and maintenance of the Belton Lake, Texas,
    project including $1,314,000 to refurbish and improve
    facilities at White Flint Park and for other backlog
    maintenance.
        Town Bluff Dam, B.A. Steinhagen Lake, Texas.--The Committee
    has provided an additional $925,000 to modernize and renovate
    recreation facilities at Camper's Cove Park and to modernize
    and renovate recreation facilities and reduce shoreline erosion
    to protect existing recreation facilities at Sandy Creek Park.
        Wright Patman Dam and Lake, Texas.--The bill includes
    $3,464,000 for scheduled operation and maintenance at Wright
    Patman Dam and Lake, Texas, including $60,000 to determine the
    feasibility of a second marina.
        Appomattox River, Virginia.--The Committee has provided
    $150,000 for an assessment of the suitability of the proposed
    dredged material placement site for the Appomattox River,
    Virginia, navigation channel.
        Deep Creek, Newport News, Virginia.--The Committee has
    provided $500,000 for maintenance dredging to remove hazardous
    shoals along the waterway.
        Pagan River, Virginia.--The Committee has provided $400,000
    for preparation of plans and specifications to remove hazardous
    shoals along the waterway.
        Tyler's Beach, Virginia.--The Committee has provided
    $100,000 for an assessment of the suitability of the dredged
    material placement site.
        Waterway on the Coast of Virginia, Virginia.--The bill
    includes $1,785,000 for continued maintenance dredging of the
    Waterway on the Coast of Virginia project, including $500,000
    to remove additional shoals in the waterway.
        Columbia River between Chinook and the Head of Sand Island,
    Washington.--The Committee has provided $500,000 for
    maintenance dredging for the Columbia River between Chinook and
    the Head of Sand Island, Washington.
        Grays Harbor and Chehalis River, Washington.--The bill
    includes $9,377,000 for operation and maintenance of the Grays
    Harbor and Chehalis project in Washington, including $1,000,000
    to further protect against breaching at the South Jetty near
    Half Moon Bay.
        R. D. Bailey Lake, West Virginia.--The Committee has
    provided an additional $150,000 to relocate a permanent trash
    boom and construct a drift and debris staging area.
        Coastal Inlet Research Program.--The Committee has provided
    $3,050,000 for the Coastal Inlet Research Program, including
    $300,000 to continue the development of applied hydrodynamic
    and sediment transport change models for existing navigation
    projects. Specifically, the Corps Engineering Research
    Development Center-Coastal and Hydraulics Laboratory will use
    this additional funding to work with the Corps Portland
    District to apply these models to the Grays Harbor Navigation
    Study and identify operations and maintenance changes to reduce
    annual maintenance dredging costs. The Committee recognizes
    that high quality data of tidal inlet processes and the
    associated response are essential to development of these
    models and will maximize their utility for Corps navigation
    projects nationwide.
        Hydropower Maintenance.--The budget includes a proposal for
    the Power Marketing Administrations (excluding the Bonneville
    Power Administration) to provide direct funding from power sale
    revenues for the operation and maintenance of Corps' hydropower
    facilities. Currently, hydropower operation and maintenance
    costs are appropriated from the General Fund. The
    Administration has submitted the necessary legislation to
    authorize this change. In anticipation of this change, the
    budget request includes $149 million for hydropower operation
    and maintenance, about $49,000,000 more than the amount
    normally recommended. Due to budgetary constraints, the
    Committee has not provided this additional funding pending
    action by the appropriate authorizing committees to enact the
    proposal.
        Inland Waterway Navigation Charts.--The Committee
    encourages the Corps of Engineers to continue upgrades and
    conversions of electronic navigation charting for important
    secondary waterways in our nation's inland navigation system,
    such as the Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway, and related
    waterways, and the Illinois, Cumberland and Arkansas Rivers.

                               Regulatory Program

    Appropriation, 2003...................................      $138,096,000
    Budget Estimate, 2004.................................       144,000,000
    Recommended, 2004.....................................       144,000,000
    Comparison:
        Appropriation, 2003...............................        +5,904,000
        Budget Estimate, 2004.............................  ................

        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 2004, the Committee recommends an
    appropriation of $144,000,000, the same as the budget request
    and $5,904,000 more than the amount appropriated in fiscal year
    2003.
        St. Charles Parish, Louisiana.--The Committee is aware of a
    reported lack of enforcement actions taken by the U.S. Army
    Corps of Engineers for barge fleeting permit violators in the
    vicinity of St. Charles Parish, Louisiana, and directs the
    Corps to immediately ensure barge fleeting activities in the
    vicinity of St. Charles Parish are consistent with permitted
    activities. Within 90 days from the enactment of this
    legislation, the Corps shall provide a report to the committee
    on enforcement actions taken in the most recent fiscal year for
    which complete data is available.

                Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program

    Appropriation, 2003...................................      $144,057,000
    Budget Estimate, 2004.................................       140,000,000
    Recommended, 2004.....................................       140,000,000
    Comparison:
        Appropriation, 2003...............................        -4,057,000
        Budget Estimate, 2004.............................  ................

        The Committee recommendation for the Formerly Utilized
    Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP) is $140,000,000, the
    same as the budget request and $4,057,000 below fiscal year
    2003 funding. The Corps may reprogram up to $1,000,000 among
    FUSRAP projects; reprogramming of amounts equal to or greater
    than $1,000,000 require Committee approval.
        Congress transferred FUSRAP from the Department of Energy
    (DOE) to the Army Corps of Engineers in fiscal year 1998. 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
    FUSRAP sites where DOE had not completed cleanup. The Committee
    did not intend to transfer to the Corps ownership of and
    accountability for real property interests, which remain with
    DOE. The Committee expects DOE to continue to provide its
    institutional knowledge and expertise to serve the Nation and
    the affected communities to ensure the success of this program.
        The Committee renews its guidance to the Corps to prepare a
    bi-annual report that provides a brief summary on the status of
    remediation efforts ongoing at all FUSRAP sites. Copies of this
    report should be made available to Congress, local
    stakeholders, and appropriate local, state, and Federal
    officials.

                     Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies

    Appropriation, 2003...................................       $14,902,000
    Budget Estimate, 2004.................................        70,000,000
    Recommended, 2004.....................................        40,000,000
    Comparison:
        Appropriation, 2003...............................       +25,098,000
        Budget Estimate, 2004.............................       -30,000,000

        The Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies appropriation
    funds flood emergency preparation, flood fighting and rescue
    operations, and repair of flood control and Federal hurricane
    or shore protection works. It also provides funds for emergency
    supplies of drinking water where the source has been
    contaminated, and, in drought distressed areas, provides for
    adequate supplies of water for human and livestock consumption.
        For fiscal year 2004, the Committee has recommended
    $40,000,000, $25,089,000 above the amount appropriated in
    fiscal year 2003 and $40,000,000 below the budget request.
        The Committee is aware that a number of innovative systems
    have been developed for use in flood fights. One such system is
    the Rapid Deployment Flood Wall, which utilizes a series of
    interconnecting plastic cells which, when filled with sand,
    form a flood protection barrier. The Committee continues to
    encourage the Corps of Engineers to invest in the Rapid
    Deployment Flood Wall technology to evaluate the improvement in
    flood fighting that could be achieved through the use of this
    technology.

                                General Expenses

    Appropriation, 2003...................................      $154,143,000
    Budget Estimate, 2004.................................       171,000,000
    Recommended, 2004.....................................       164,000,000
    Comparison:
        Appropriation, 2003...............................        +9,857,000
        Budget Estimate, 2004.............................        -7,000,000

        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
    $164,000,000, $7,000,000 below the budget request and
    $9,857,000 above the fiscal year 2003 amount.
        The Committee is concerned that the budget request included
    $7,000,000 for an audit of the Corps of Engineers, and has not
    included the requested funds in the bill. The requirement that
    the Corps of Engineers be audited on an annual basis is not
    new; only the requirement that the audit be done be
    accomplished by expensive private-sector practitioners at a
    cost to the taxpayer of millions of dollars is new. The
    Committee directs the Corps of Engineers to continue to produce
    the same audit-ready reports as in previous years, and urges
    the Secretary of the Army to make every reasonable effort to
    arrive at a suitable arrangement for having the Corps audited
    by government auditors.
        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. This
    language has been included in Energy and Water Development
    Appropriations Act since fiscal year 2000.
        Reprogramming of Funds.--Over the years, Committee has
    granted the Corps of Engineers great latitude to reprogram
    funds from studies, construction projects, and maintenance
    activities which are either delayed or are being terminated to
    those where the funds can be effectively used to keep projects
    moving and accelerate completion. The Committee believes that
    the ability to reprogram funds is essential to the Corps'
    ability to effectively manage its program. Accordingly, the
    Committee was very concerned to learn that the Corps of
    Engineers has not been reprogramming funds from a number of
    projects which are obviously not moving forward. It has been
    and continues to be the intent of the Committee that when any
    project is not moving forward, the Corps of Engineers look to
    reprogram the funds appropriated for that project to one where
    the funds can be effectively utilized unless explicitly
    instructed not to do so by the Committee on Appropriations.

                               General Provisions

                           Corps of Engineers--Civil

        Sec. 101. The Committee has included language proposed by
    the Administration which places a limit on credits and
    reimbursements allowable per project and annually for all
    projects. The Administration also proposed that this provision
    be made permanent law; however, the Committee has elected not
    to make that change.
        Sec. 102. The Committee has included language prohibiting
    the expenditure of funds related to a proposed landfill in
    Tuscarawas County, Ohio.
        Sec. 103. The Committee has included language prohibiting
    the expenditure of funds related to a proposed landfill in
    Stark County, Ohio.
        Sec. 104. The Committee has included language renaming Lock
    and Dam 3 on the Allegheny River in Pennsylvania.
                                    TITLE II

                           DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

                              Central Utah Project

                    CENTRAL UTAH PROJECT COMPLETION ACCOUNT

    Appropriation, 2003...................................       $35,992,000
    Budget Estimate, 2004.................................        44,191,000
    Recommended, 2004.....................................        38,191,000
    Comparison:
        Appropriation, 2003...............................        +2,199,000
        Budget Estimate, 2004.............................        -6,000,000

        The Central Utah Project Completion Act (Titles II--VI of
    Public Law 102-575) provides for the completion of the Central
    Utah Project by the Central Utah Water Conservancy District.
    The Act also: authorizes the appropriation of funds for fish,
    wildlife, and recreation mitigation and conservation;
    establishes an account in the Treasury for the deposit of these
    funds and of other contributions for mitigation and
    conservation activities; and establishes a Utah Reclamation
    Mitigation and Conservation Commission to administer funds in
    that account. The Act further assigns responsibilities for
    carrying out the Act to the Secretary of the Interior and
    prohibits delegation of those responsibilities to the Bureau of
    Reclamation.
        The Committee recommendation for fiscal year 2003 to carry
    out the provisions of the Act is $39,191,000, $6,000,000 below
    the budget request and $2,199,000 above the amount appropriated
    in fiscal year 2003.
        Section 402(b)(3)(B) of the Central Utah Project Completion
    Act directed that the Secretary of Energy, out of funds
    appropriated to the Western Area Power Administration,
    contribute funds annually to the Utah Reclamation Mitigation
    and Conservation Fund. The amount to be contributed is
    currently $6,000,000. On May 9, 2003, the Administration
    submitted a budget amendment proposing to transfer that
    responsibility to the Secretary of the Interior and requesting
    an additional $6,000,000 in this account for that purpose. The
    Committee believes that this matter should be addressed by the
    appropriate authorizing committee and has not, therefore,
    included the proposed amendment to the Central Utah Project
    Completion Act. The Committee has also not included the
    additional funds requested by the Administration.

                             Bureau of Reclamation

        In May of this year, the Secretary of the Interior
    announced a new initiative--Water 2025: Preventing Water Crises
    and Conflict in the West. The fiscal year 2004 budget request
    for the Bureau of Reclamation includes $11,000,000 to initiate
    this effort, the purpose of which is to prevent water supply
    problems from reaching the crisis stage.
        The Committee supports this effort and has provided the
    funds requested by the Administration. However, the Committee
    is troubled by other actions taken in the fiscal year 2004
    budget request that seem to contradict the goals of the Water
    2025 program.
        One of the ways the Department proposes to meet the
    challenge of inadequate water supplies is through improved
    technology. The Department states, ``Wastewater, salty and
    other impaired water can be purified to increase their
    utility.'' In fact, while additional research in this area is
    important, the technology already exists to make use of
    wastewater and other impaired waters. Title 16 of Public Law
    102-575 authorized the Secretary of the Interior to ``to
    undertake a program to investigate and identify opportunities
    for reclamation and reuse of municipal, industrial, domestic,
    and agricultural wastewater, and naturally impaired ground and
    surface waters, for the design and construction of
    demonstration and permanent facilities to reclaim and reuse
    wastewater, and to conduct research, including desalting, for
    the reclamation of wastewater and naturally impaired ground and
    surface waters.'' Under this program, 25 individual water
    reclamation and reuse projects have been authorized for
    construction. These projects directly accomplish the goals of
    the Water 2025 program by developing new sources of usable
    water through the use of state-of-the-art technology. In
    addition, the overwhelming majority of the cost of these
    projects is borne by local interests. However, for some reason,
    the Administration has determined that continued funding for
    these projects is not a high priority. For fiscal year 2004,
    the Administration has requested $12,680,000 for water
    reclamation and reuse projects, $17,770,000 below the amount
    appropriated in fiscal year 2003 in spite of the fact that the
    Administration recognizes that ``these water reuse and
    recycling projects help expand water supplies in areas that
    routinely face severe water shortages, and are especially
    important in helping to shift California from its dependence on
    Colorado River water.'' While obviously not the solution to all
    of the water problems in the West, these projects make an
    important contribution, and the Committee urges the
    Administration to reconsider its lack of support for this
    program.
        The Committee is also very troubled by the by the lack of
    funding requested for rural water supply projects. The purpose
    of the Water 2025 program is to address water supply problems
    before they reach the crisis stage; however, there are areas of
    the west, particularly in the upper Great Plains, where a
    crisis already exists because of the poor quality of available
    groundwater supplies. As the Department of the Interior has
    stated, ``In some rural communities and Indian reservations,
    this salty groundwater is unusable for human consumption,
    limiting growth and prosperity.'' In fact, the poor quality
    groundwater does more than limit growth and prosperity, it
    causes significant health problems. To address this problem,
    the Congress has authorized Federal participation in a number
    of projects that will replace impaired groundwater with clean
    surface water supplies from a variety of sources. Some of these
    projects have been under construction for a number of years.
    The Committee is particularly concerned that the
    Administration's budget request would essentially halt
    construction on those projects, resulting in increased costs,
    and more importantly, forcing people to continue to drink
    unhealthy water. Accordingly, the Committee has provided funds
    to allow ongoing projects to continue and urges the
    Administration to do the same in future budget requests.

                          Water and Related Resources

    Appropriation, 2003...................................      $833,203,000
    Budget Estimate, 2004.................................       771,217,000
    Recommended, 2004.....................................       817,913,000
    Comparison:
        Appropriation, 2003...............................       -15,290,000
        Budget Estimate, 2004.............................      +46,696,000

    Note: The fiscal year 2003 amount includes $25,000,000 in supplemental
      appropriations enacted in Public Law 108-11.

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

        Central Arizona Project, Arizona.--The Committee is aware
    that under the proposed Gila River Indian Community Water
    Rights Settlement, the Federal government has agreed to forgo
    over $158 million in debt to agricultural subcontractors who
    voluntarily relinquish their long-term Central Arizona Project
    water contracts. The Committee believes that pending the
    enactment of the legislation to enact the settlement, those
    contractors should not be forced to repay that debt. As the
    bill moves through the appropriations process, the Committee
    will consider adding language to the bill which permits the
    Secretary of the Interior to extend, on an annual schedule, the
    repayment schedules for that debt.
        Colorado River Front Work and Levee System, Arizona and
    California.--The Committee has provided an additional
    $1,000,000 for the Bureau of Reclamation to continue planning
    and design of regulating reservoirs near the All-American
    Canal.
        Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Project, Title I,
    Arizona.--The Committee is concerned that the Bureau of
    Reclamation is having to make excess releases of more than
    100,000 acre-feet of water per year from storage in Colorado
    River reservoirs in order to meet the delivery requirements of
    the 1944 Treaty with Mexico. This is due to not counting
    Wellton-Mohawk Irrigation and Drainage District drainage flows
    that are bypassed to the Cienega de Santa Clara as part of the
    1.5 million acre-feet required to satisfy the Treaty. This loss
    of water has become particularly acute due to the drought in
    the Colorado River Basin. The loss of more than 100,000 acre-
    feet per year robs all seven basin states of badly needed
    water.
        Title I of the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act
    identified construction and operation of the Yuma Desalting
    Plant as the solution to the agreement between the United
    States and Mexico preferred by all the parties. However, except
    for a six-month test period beginning in late 1992 when the
    plant was operated at one-third capacity, the plant has not
    been operated and has been maintained in a ready reserve
    status. The test operation identified a number of design
    deficiencies that need to be corrected in order for the plant
    to be placed in operation. In addition, certain environmental
    compliance activities would need to be undertaken before the
    plant can be operated. The Bureau of Reclamation currently
    estimates that one-third operation could be accomplished in 24
    to 30 months and full operation could be accomplished in 60
    months. The Committee believes the ability to operate the plant
    is critical and, therefore, directs the Bureau of Reclamation
    to expedite its modifications of the plant to accomplish state
    of the art operation, and accelerate the permitting and
    environmental compliance activities needed for operation of the
    plant. The Bureau of Reclamation is directed to report to the
    Committee on the status of those activities by December 31,
    2003.
        The artificial environmental conditions of the Cienega de
    Santa Clara are an inadvertent environmental benefit of the
    facilities constructed pursuant to Title I of the Colorado
    River Basin Salinity Control Act. As noted above, delivery of
    water to the Cienega is not currently counted as the delivery
    of water under the Treaty. Using funds provided for this
    project, the Committee directs the Bureau of Reclamation to
    work with the United States Section of the International
    Boundary and Water Commission, in consultation with the seven
    Basin states, to identify alternatives for operation of the
    Yuma Desalting Plant recognizing the need to maintain the
    unique ecology of the Cienega, including the capability of
    Mexico to maintain the Cienega with its share of Treaty waters.
    The Bureau of Reclamation should submit a joint report with the
    United States Section on the results of those investigations to
    the Committee on Appropriations by April 1, 2004.
        Tres Rios Wetlands Demonstration, Arizona.--The Committee
    has provided $630,000 for the Tres Rios Wetlands Demonstration
    project in Arizona, the same as the budget request. The
    Committee believes that the data being generated by this
    program is essential to support construction of the Tres Rios
    environmental restoration project being undertaken by the Corps
    of Engineers, and directs the Bureau of Reclamation to continue
    its research and development activities at this project beyond
    fiscal year 2004.
        Central Valley Project, American River Division,
    California.--The Committee is aware that there is a need to
    construct a temperature control device on the El Dorado
    Irrigation District water intake at Folsom Dam in California
    and that legislation has been introduced to provide the
    necessary increase in the authorized funding level that is
    needed for the project to be completed. Should the
    authorization be enacted, the Committee will consider funding
    for this project as the bill moves through the appropriations
    process. The Committee is also aware that legislation has been
    introduced to authorize the construction of a parallel water
    supply line from Folsom Dam to serve the City of Roseville and
    the San Juan Water District. The Committee will also consider
    providing funding for this project as the bill moves through
    the appropriations process.
        Central Valley Project, Delta Division, California.--The
    Committee has provided an additional $1,400,000 for the Bureau
    of Reclamation to continue work on the Delta Mendota Canal-
    California Aqueduct Intertie project.
        Central Valley Project, Friant Division, California.--The
    Committee has provided an additional $2,000,000 for the Bureau
    of Reclamation to continue the Upper San Joaquin River Basin
    storage investigation.
        Central Valley Project, Miscellaneous Project Programs,
    California.--The bill includes an additional $400,000 to
    continue the Kaweah River Delta Corridor Enhancement study. The
    Committee has also provided an additional $5,000,000 for the
    continuation of work on the Natomas Mutual Water Company,
    Reclamation District 108, and Sutter Mutual Water Company fish
    screen projects.
        Central Valley Project, Sacramento River Division,
    California.--Within the amount provided for the Sacramento
    River Division, $400,000 is to continue the Colusa Basin
    Integrated Resources Management Plan.
        The Committee has also provided $2,422,000 for the Glenn-
    Colusa Irrigation District fish passage improvement project,
    including an additional $2,000,000 for the Bureau of
    Reclamation to reimburse the Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District
    for costs incurred by the District in excess of its non-Federal
    cost-sharing requirement.
        In addition, the Committee has provided $1,500,000 for the
    Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District (GCID) and the Tehana-Colusa
    Canal Authority to continue to carry out, in coordination with
    the Bureau of Reclamation, detailed, site specific
    environmental assessment and permitting work with respect to
    Sites Reservoir, including an evaluation of the utilization of
    both the GCID Main Canal and the Tehama-Colusa Canal as a means
    to convey water to the proposed reservoir.
        Central Valley Project, West San Joaquin Division,
    California.--The bill includes an additional $1,000,000 for
    implementation of the Westside Regional Drainage Plan. The
    Committee has not provided the funds requested for payment of
    settlement costs in the case of Sumner Peck Ranch v. Bureau of
    Reclamation.
        Long Beach Water Reclamation Project, California.--The
    Committee has provided $700,000 to continue work on the
    Alamitos Barrier Reclaimed Water Project unit of the Long Beach
    Water Reclamation Project.
        Salton Sea Research Project, California.--The bill includes
    $5,500,000 for the Salton Sea Research Project, including
    $1,000,000 to continue environmental restoration efforts at the
    New and Alamo Rivers, $1,000,000 to continue the Imperial
    Valley groundwater assessment in cooperation with the Lawrence
    Livermore National Laboratory, and $2,500,000 for additional
    work needed to prepare for the construction of pilot
    desalination demonstration facilities.
        San Gabriel Basin Restoration Fund, California.--The bill
    includes language which provides that $10,000,000 of the funds
    appropriated for Water and Related Resources shall be deposited
    in the San Gabriel Basin Restoration Fund to continue the
    program to design, construct, and operate projects to contain
    and treat the spreading groundwater contamination in the San
    Gabriel and Central Groundwater Basins in California.
        Santa Margarita Conjunctive Use Project, California.--The
    Committee has provided $500,000 for the Bureau of Reclamation
    to continue the Santa Margarita Conjunctive Use Project, which
    will provide additional water supplies to Camp Pendleton, and
    the Fallbrook Public Utilities District.
        Southern California Investigations Program, California.--
    The Committee has provided $2,235,000 for the Southern
    California Investigations Program, including $500,000 to
    continue the Chino Basin Conjunctive Use Project, and an
    additional $600,000 for the Los Angeles Basin Watershed Water
    Supply Augmentation study.
        Boise Area Projects, Idaho.--The Committee has provided an
    additional $270,000 to offset costs associated with water
    service contract renewals from Lucky Peak Reservoir in Idaho.
    The Committee directs the Bureau of Reclamation to not seek
    reimbursement of these funds from water users.
        Columbia and Snake Rivers Salmon Recovery Project, Idaho.--
    The budget request includes $19,000,000 for the Columbia and
    Snake Rivers Salmon Recovery Project. Of the total requested,
    $4,000,000 is for construction activities that require
    additional authorization. The Committee has not provided those
    funds.
        Equus Beds Groundwater Recharge Demonstration Project,
    Kansas.--The Committee is aware that the pilot program for the
    Equus Beds project is complete. The Committee strongly urges
    the Bureau of Reclamation to work with the impacted 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 for the Fort Peck Dry Prairie
    Rural Water System project in Montana. These funds will permit
    the completion of the pipeline which will bring treated water
    from Culbertson to Medicine Lake, where the existing treatment
    plant is inoperable.
        North Central Montana Rural Water Supply System, Montana.--
    The bill includes $915,000 for the completion of the Final
    Engineering Report, Environmental Assessment, and Water
    Conservation Plan for the North Central Montana Rural Water
    Supply System project.
        Santee Sioux Reservation Water System, Nebraska.--The
    Committee is aware that the Santee Sioux Tribe and the Bureau
    of Reclamation have completed a needs assessment of water
    resources on the Santee Sioux Reservation. The Committee has
    provided $500,000 for the Bureau of Reclamation to determine
    the most feasible method of developing a safe and adequate
    municipal, rural and industrial water system for the Santee
    Sioux Reservation and the surrounding communities.
        Santa Fe Water Reclamation and Reuse Project, New Mexico.--
    The Committee has provided $500,000 for the continuation of
    work on the Santa Fe Water Reclamation and Reuse project. The
    Committee supports the efforts by the City and County of Santa
    Fe to mitigate present drought effects and to achieve water
    supply reliability and sustainability for the future through
    comprehensive, regional water development and management. The
    funds provided are intended to help the City and County address
    short-term drought relief needs, and longer-term drought
    protection and water supply reliability and stenvironmental
    protection needs. The Committee expects the Bureau of
    Reclamation, to the greatest degree practicable, to build upon
    the design work and environmental evaluation currently being
    undertaken by the City and County to meet these objectives.
        Garrison Diversion Unit, North Dakota.--The Committee has
    provided additional funds for the continuation of work on the
    Tribal and State municipal, rural, and industrial water supply
    programs.
        Oklahoma Investigations Program, Oklahoma.--The Committee
    has provided an additional $700,000 for the Bureau of
    Reclamation to continue studies of ways to better manage the
    resources of the Arbuckle-Simpson Aquifer.
        Klamath Project, Oregon and California.--The Committee has
    provided an additional $3,000,000 for the Klamath Project water
    bank program, and an additional $500,000 for long-term planning
    for the Klamath and Tulelake Wildlife Refuges. In addition, the
    Committee has provided $2,600,000 for the reimbursement of
    operation and maintenance expenses incurred by those who did
    not receive project water.
        Mni Wiconi Project, South Dakota.--The Committee has
    provided $20,000,000 for the continued construction of the Mni
    Wiconi project in South Dakota, including additional funds for
    construction of the core pipeline system to the Pine Ridge
    Indian Reservation.
        El Paso Water Reclamation and Reuse Project, Texas.--The
    Committee has provided $370,000 to continue the Haskell Street
    feature of the El Paso Water Reclamation and Reuse Project in
    Texas.
        Lower Rio Grande Valley Water Resources Conservation and
    Improvement, Texas.--The Committee has provided $3,000,000 to
    continue work on the Lower Rio Grande Valley Water Resources
    Conservation and Improvement Program authorized by Public Laws
    106-576 and 107-351.
        Yakima River Basin Water Storage, Washington.--The
    Committee has provided $2,000,000 for the Bureau of Reclamation
    to continue work on the feasibility study of options for
    additional water storage in the Yakima River Basin, with an
    emphasis on the feasibility of the storage of Columbia River
    water in the potential Black Rock Reservoir.
        Departmental Irrigation Drainage Program.--The Committee
    has provided an additional $750,000 for the Bureau of
    Reclamation to continue to participate with the Uncompahgre
    Valley Water Users Association in a project to reduce salinity
    and selenium loading to the Colorado River.
        Drought Emergency Assistance Program.--The Committee has
    provided an additional $1,000,000 for drought emergency
    assistance in Nebraska and an additional $1,000,000 for drought
    emergency assistance on the Navajo Nation in Arizona and New
    Mexico.
        Efficiency Incentives Program.--The bill includes $350,000
    for the continued work on the Ganado Irrigation Water
    Conservation Project in Arizona. The Committee understands that
    these funds will complete the Bureau of Reclamation's
    participation in this effort.
        Endangered Species Recovery Implementation Program.--The
    Committee has provided $1,500,000 for the Bureau of Reclamation
    to continue to participate in an endangered species recovery
    implementation program for the Platte River Basin in Wyoming,
    Colorado, and Nebraska, $1,000,000 below the budget request.
    The Committee is very concerned about the lack of clear
    authority for the Bureau of Reclamation to participate in this
    large, multi-year effort. Although the cost of the first
    increment of this program is currently estimated at
    $75,000,000, the Bureau of Reclamation indicates that costs
    could be as much as $150,000,000. In addition, there are no
    estimates of the cost of the program beyond the first
    increment. However, the budget states that the only authority
    for the Bureau of Reclamation to participate in this effort is
    the Endangered Species Act, which would seem to limit
    Reclamation's participation to addressing impacts of operation
    of its projects on the species at risk. In response to a
    question from the Subcommittee, the Commissioner of Reclamation
    testified that a specific authorization for the program would
    provide clearer guidance for the expenditure of funds. The
    Committee agrees with that assessment and urges the
    Administration to work with the states and other Federal
    agencies to develop a specific authorization for this multi-
    year, multi-million dollar undertaking.
        Lower Colorado River Investigations Program.--The Committee
    is concerned about a potentially serious pollution threat on
    the Lower Colorado River below Hoover Dam that could adversely
    impact the drinking water of more than 20 million Americans.
    This threat remains notwithstanding the extraordinary financial
    commitments at the local level by members of the Colorado River
    Regional Sewer Coalition. The Committee recognizes that there
    is also a Federal responsibility to address the related water
    supply and quality issues, and directs the Bureau of
    Reclamation to act as the lead agency in conducting a study of
    the remaining technical, structural, and intergovernmental
    steps that must be taken to protect the River. The Bureau is
    instructed to work expeditiously with appropriate Federal,
    state, local, and private parties, including the Environmental
    Protection Agency, the Council on Environmental Quality, and
    the Colorado River Regional Sewer Coalition in conducting this
    study. The Committee has provided $200,000 for this purpose.
        Science and Technology Program.--The Committee has provided
    an additional $1,000,000 for the Bureau of Reclamation to enter
    into a strategic alliance with the International Center for
    Water Resources Management at Central State University in Ohio,
    the Ohio View Consortium, and Colorado State University for the
    development of advanced remote sensing technologies for use in
    operational decisions to deal with the current drought
    conditions, and to develop optimal strategies for managing
    water resources to deal with future constraining events.
        Title XVI Water Reclamation and Reuse Program.--The
    Committee has provided $3,930,000 for the Title XVI Water
    Reclamation and Reuse Program. The amount provided includes
    $2,500,000 to continue support to the WateRuse Foundation's
    research program.
        Western Water Initiative.--The Committee has provided
    $11,000,000, the same as the budget request, for the Western
    Water Initiative proposed by the Administration. Within the
    Enhanced Water Management and Conservation program element, the
    Committee encourages the Bureau of Reclamation to undertake a
    pilot project for innovative water conservation measures within
    the Klamath Basin Project.
        Wetlands Development.--The bill includes $1,500,000 for the
    Bureau of Reclamation to continue work on the East Wetlands
    Restoration project in Yuma, Arizona.

                   BUREAU OF RECLAMATION LOAN PROGRAM ACCOUNT

    Appropriation, 2003...................................  ................
    Budget Estimate, 2004.................................          $200,000
    Recommended, 2004.....................................           200,000
    Comparison:
        Appropriation, 2003...............................          +200,000
        Budget Estimate, 2004.............................  ................

        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.
        For fiscal year 2004, the Committee has provided $200,000
    for the administration of existing loans, the same as the
    budget request.

                        California Bay-Delta Restoration

    Appropriation, 2003...................................  ................
    Budget Estimate, 2004.................................       $15,000,000
    Recommended, 2004.....................................  ................
    Comparison:
        Appropriation, 2003...............................  ................
        Budget Estimate, 2004.............................       -15,000,000

        The purpose of the California Bay-Delta Ecosystem
    Restoration account is to fund 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 have thus
    far been unsuccessful. Accordingly, no funds were provided in
    fiscal years 2001, 2002, and 2003 in support of the CALFED
    effort through this account.
        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 2004, the Committee has again
    recommended no funding in the absence of authorizing
    legislation for this multi-year, multi-billion dollar effort.
    Should this program be reauthorized, the Committee reconsider
    funding as the bill moves through the appropriations process.

                    CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT RESTORATION FUND

    Appropriation, 2003...................................       $48,586,000
    Budget Estimate, 2004.................................        39,600,000
    Recommended, 2004.....................................        39,600,000
    Comparison:
        Appropriation, 2003...............................        -8,986,000
    Budget Estimate, 2004.................................  ................

        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 2004, the Committee has provided
    $39,600,000, the same as the budget request, and $8,986,000
    below the amount appropriated in fiscal year 2003.
        Within the Anadromous Fish Restoration Program, the
    Committee urges the Bureau of Reclamation to use $500,000 to
    participate with the Orange Cove Irrigation District to
    evaluate fishery restoration opportunities in the Mill Creek
    watershed.
        The Committee has included language in the bill which
    provides that none of the funds made available from the Central
    Valley Project Restoration Fund may be used for the acquisition
    or leasing of water for in-stream purposes if the water is
    already committed to in-stream purposes by a court adopted
    decree or order.

                           POLICY AND ADMINISTRATION

    Appropriation, 2003...................................       $54,513,000
    Budget Estimate, 2004.................................        56,525,000
    Recommended, 2004.....................................        56,525,000
    Comparison:
        Appropriation, 2003...............................        +2,012,000
        Budget Estimate, 2004.............................  ................

        The Policy and Administration account 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 2004, the Committee recommends $56,525,000,
    the same as the budget request, and $2,012,000 above the fiscal
    year 2003 amount.
        The Committee is concerned that the Bureau of Reclamation
    is not adhering to its guidelines, described in the ``Corrosion
    Prevention Criteria and Requirements'', with respect to the use
    of ductile iron pipe and steel pipe. With respect to both
    products, the Bureau of Reclamation should be attempting to
    establish good engineering practices which address the long-
    term value and cost effectiveness of facilities constructed
    over time. The Committee recognizes that additional work is
    needed to develop a more definitive corrosion standard on which
    to decide the best product for a particular application.
    Accordingly, the Committee directs the Commissioner of
    Reclamation to conduct a study on the current corrosion
    criteria and to report to the Committee on Appropriations by
    March 1, 2004, on its recommendations for a more definitive
    standard. Until a more appropriate standard is in place, which
    reflects the basic principle of long-term cost effectiveness,
    the current criteria should continue to be used.

                              WORKING CAPITAL FUND

                                  (RESCISSION)

    Appropriation, 2003...................................  ................
    Budget Estimate, 2004.................................       -$4,525,000
    Recommended, 2004.....................................        -4,525,000
    Comparison:
        Appropriation, 2003...............................        -4,525,000
        Budget Estimate, 2004.............................  ................

        For fiscal year 2004, the Administration has proposed a
    one-time cancellation of $4,525,000 in unobligated balances
    available in the Working Capital Fund. These balances are the
    result of savings related to information technology reforms.
    The Committee has agreed with this proposal.

                               General Provisions

                           Department of the Interior

        Section 201. The Committee has included language proposed
    by the Administration regarding the San Luis Unit and the
    Kesterson Reservoir in California. This language has been
    included in Energy and Water Development Appropriations Acts
    for several years.
        Section 202. The Committee has included language which
    prohibits the use of funds for any water acquisition or lease
    in the Middle Rio Grande or Carlsbad Projects in New Mexico
    unless the acquisition is in compliance with existing State law
    and administered under State priority allocation.
        Section 203. Section 206 of Public Law 101-514 authorized
    and directed the Secretary of the Interior to enter into water
    supply contracts with the Sacramento County Water Agency and
    the San Juan Suburban Water District. The Committee has
    included language which amends Section 206 by removing the
    requirement that the contracts include an annual needs
    determination.
        Section 204. The Committee has included language which
    authorizes and directs the Secretary of the Interior to amend
    the Central Valley Project water supply contracts for the
    Sacramento County Water Agency and the San Juan Suburban Water
    District by deleting a provision requiring a determination of
    annual water needs.
        Section 205. The Committee has included language which
    provides that funds in the Lower Colorado River Basin
    Development Fund shall not be diverted to the General Fund of
    the Treasury pending the completion of an omnibus Arizona water
    rights settlement agreement.
        Section 206. The Committee has included language which
    provides that funds provided to the Bureau of Reclamation may
    be used for the payment of claims not exceeding $5,000,000.
        The Committee has not included language proposed by the
    Administration authorizing the Secretary of the Interior,
    acting through the Commissioner of Reclamation, to continue the
    program of providing grants to institutions of higher learning
    to support the training of Native Americans to manage their
    water resources. The fiscal year 2003 Energy and Water
    Development Appropriations Act made this provision permanent.
                                   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 Enrichment Decontamination
    and Decommissioning, 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 generally supports the
    Administration's budget request for the Department of Energy
    and adjusts funding for some programs to reflect specific
    Congressional interests and priorities. Total funding for the
    Department of Energy is $22,016,347,000, an increase of
    $1,181,915,000 over fiscal year 2003 and $147,020,000 below the
    budget request.

                            CONGRESSIONAL DIRECTION

        The Committee modifies the direction provided in House
    Report 107-681 requiring the Secretary to submit to the House
    Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Energy and Water
    Development, a quarterly report on the status of all projects,
    reports, fund transfers, and other actions directed in this
    House bill and report, in the Energy and Water Development
    Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2004, and in the conference
    report accompanying that Act.

                       BUDGET JUSTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS

        The fiscal year 2005 budget justifications submitted by the
    Department must include the following: (1) a section
    identifying the last year that authorizing legislation was
    provided by Congress for each program; (2) 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 (3) funding to eliminate excess
    facilities at least equal to the square footage of new
    facilities being constructed as general plant projects (GPP).

                        SAFEGUARDS AND SECURITY FUNDING

        Starting in fiscal year 2001, the Department began
    providing direct funding for safeguards and security costs by
    including a separate line item for these costs within the major
    programs, as opposed to the prior practice of funding these as
    an indirect cost within each program. This Committee was
    instrumental in encouraging this change, believing that direct
    funding would provide increased visibility for safeguards and
    security funding and would prevent the programs from
    underfunding this important activity. However, safeguards and
    security costs have increased dramatically since the terrorist
    attacks of September 11, 2001, and these costs vary
    significantly as the threat level changes during the course of
    a fiscal year. Under these circumstances, direct funding of
    safeguards and security has functioned more like a funding
    ceiling, rather than a funding floor as originally intended.
    Having direct line item funding for safeguards and security
    requires frequent reprogramming actions to adjust to changing
    threat levels and security requirements.
        Therefore, the Committee directs the Department to resume
    indirect funding of safeguards and security costs beginning in
    fiscal year 2005. The Department should include in the fiscal
    year 2005 budget request an addendum identifying the proposed
    funding levels for all safeguards and security activities by
    site, and the Department should establish a mechanism to ensure
    that the safeguards and security costs are tracked separately
    within the indirect accounts. Also, the Department is to inform
    promptly the House and Senate Appropriations Committees of any
    significant deviations (i.e., increases or decreases in excess
    of $1,000,000) from these estimates during the course of the
    fiscal year.

                         HOMELAND SECURITY-RELATED WORK

        Many of the Department's contractors are performing
    homeland security-related activities and establishing centers
    for homeland security. The Committee wants to ensure that funds
    appropriated for Department of Energy missions are not diverted
    to homeland security activities. The Department is directed to
    provide a report to the Committee on March 31, 2004, and
    annually thereafter, on all homeland security activities being
    performed by the Department's contractors. This report should
    provide by contractor and facility, a brief description of each
    homeland security activity being performed, the annual cost of
    the activity, and the specific source of funds (including
    direct funding through Department of Energy programs, work for
    others from the Department of Homeland Security or other
    Federal or State agencies, laboratory directed research and
    development, or overhead charges).

                               PROJECT MANAGEMENT

        The National Research Council's Committee for Oversight and
    Assessment of U.S. Department of Energy Project Management
    recently completed its assessment of DOE's progress in
    improving project management. This report highlights the
    importance of DOE's Project Management Order 413.3 to changing
    the project management culture within DOE, and stated that
    ``DOE needs to maintain the project management policies and
    procedures it has defined long enough to convince both DOE and
    contractor personnel that the changes are permanent.'' This
    report also recognizes the value of the Project Management
    Career Development Program (PMCDP) and recommends central
    funding of PMCDP training to ensure broad implementation of the
    PMCDP throughout DOE.
        One of most salient points made in this National Research
    Council report deals with initial project selection and
    justification. According to the NRC committee, ``[p]erhaps the
    most important single point that the committee has stressed,
    and continues to stress, is the absolute need for DOE
    management to develop the strategic plans that define the need
    for capital improvement projects.'' Several program offices in
    the Department have made significant improvements in this area
    in the last several years. The National Nuclear Security
    Administration (NNSA) has issued its Future Years Nuclear
    Security Plan, its Facilities and Infrastructure
    Recapitalization Plan, and its Construction Management Plan,
    all designed to provide a more rational basis for NNSA's future
    capital investments. Similarly, the Office of Science is
    preparing a Twenty Year Facility Outlook, and the Office of
    Environmental Management has revised its facility plans in
    conjunction with its accelerated cleanup initiative. There is
    room for improvement in the Office of Nuclear Energy, Science,
    and Technology, particularly now that it has responsibility for
    the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory.
        The Committee is pleased with the Department's issuance of
    the Project Management Manual 413.3-1 for capital asset
    acquisition, and strongly supports the principles and
    requirements this manual contains. The Committee expects all
    that elements of the Department, including the NNSA, will
    comply with the Manual's requirements. The Committee also urges
    all elements of the Department, including the NNSA, to apply
    the project planning and management principles identified in
    the Manual in the management of the entire programmatic
    portfolio in addition to specific capital assets.

                         FACILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE

        The Committee continues to be concerned about the
    deterioration of the Department's facilities and the
    Department's inability to evaluate and address the readiness
    and maintenance status of its facilities. The Committee
    strongly supports the efforts of the Office of Management,
    Budget and Evaluation to strengthen and standardize management
    of the Department's facilities and infrastructure (F&I) program
    and to improve management of all F&I assets. The Committee
    supports current efforts to develop a directive establishing
    requirements for Department-wide implementation of an F&I
    program, and expects all the elements of the Department to
    comply with such corporate guidance. The F&I directive should
    establish a comprehensive program for the corporate management
    of all Departmental assets throughout their entire life-cycle
    and require appropriate data be provided to ensure that funds
    budgeted and spent on F&I assets can be tracked and outcomes
    measured. The F&I policy must also address the large inventory
    of excess facilities maintained throughout the complex and
    ensure that these facilities are decontaminated and
    decommissioned (D&D) as quickly and as cost-effectively as
    possible. The Committee also expects the Department to assign
    Federal staff at each site and Headquarters to provide
    oversight of this activity and ensure accountability.
        The Committee renews its direction that funds provided for
    the disposal of excess facilities should be competed to the
    maximum extent practicable, so that contractors with experience
    in the efficient decontamination, decommissioning, and
    demolition of facilities have the opportunity to bid on this
    work. The Committee is also concerned that a large number of
    new facilities are being requested and funded, particularly in
    the National Nuclear Security Administration, with no plans to
    eliminate the excess buildings that are being replaced. The
    Committee directs the Department to include the costs of D&D
    for the facilities that are being replaced in the costs of all
    construction projects and identify such D&D costs clearly in
    the construction project data sheets.

                            SAFETY AT DOE FACILITIES

        Improving safety at the Department's laboratories, sites,
    and plants continues to be one of this Committee's top
    priorities. In fiscal year 2003, this Committee provided
    funding and directed a series of compliance audits to identify
    the backlog of safety deficiencies at the Department's non-
    defense Science laboratories; additional funding is provided in
    fiscal year 2004 to begin correcting these deficiencies. For
    DOE's defense facilities under the NNSA and the Environmental
    Management program, the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board
    (DNFSB) serves as the independent safety overseer. The
    involvement of the DNFSB gives the Committee greater confidence
    that safety problems will be identified early. Resolving those
    safety problems, however, remains the sole responsibility of
    the Department. The Committee is concerned to learn that the
    Department is unable to quantify the backlog of safety-related
    deficiencies in its defense facilities and sites. The
    Department tracks the number of DNFSB recommendations that
    still need to be addressed, but does not obtain detailed
    information on the estimated cost of the corrective actions.
    Beginning in fiscal year 2005, the Department is directed to
    collect the necessary information and report to Congress
    annually on the backlog of safety-related deficiencies at NNSA
    and defense cleanup sites, and present an estimate and schedule
    for the corrective actions.

              LABORATORY DIRECTED RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT (LDRD)

        The Committee recognizes the value of conducting
    discretionary research at DOE's national laboratories. Such
    research provides valuable benefits to the Department and to
    other Federal agencies, and is crucial to attracting and
    retaining scientific talent at the laboratories. However, the
    Committee continues to have concerns about the financial
    execution of this program. One concern centers on the manner in
    which DOE levies the LDRD ``tax'' on all DOE and Work for Other
    programs, and then accumulates the funds into an overhead pool.
    This Committee typically deals with defense and non-defense
    allocations within the Energy and Water Development bill, and
    the line between those two allocations is not easily crossed.
    Under LDRD, however, the laboratory directors are able to pool
    defense and non-defense appropriations at will. The only
    obvious solution to this concern is to require DOE to establish
    and track separate LDRD accounts for defense and non-defense
    funding sources, and the Committee is not yet ready to direct
    that change.
        The other principal concern deals with the application of
    LDRD to work being performed for other agencies (Work for
    Others). The conference report accompanying the Energy and
    Water Development Appropriations Act, 2002 (P.L. 107-66)
    directed the Secretary to ``include in the annual report to
    Congress on LDRD activities an affirmation that all LDRD
    activities derived from funds of other agencies have been
    conducted in a manner that support science and technology
    development that benefits the programs of the sponsoring
    agencies and is consistent with the Appropriations Acts that
    provided funds to those agencies.'' The Department has
    implemented this guidance by including the following language
    into its standard project proposal and funding acceptance
    documents that it requires the funding WFO agencies to sign:
    ``The Department of Energy believes that LDRD efforts provide
    opportunities in research that are instrumental in maintaining
    cutting edge science capabilities that benefit all of the
    customers at the laboratory. The Department will conclude that
    by providing funds to DOE to perform work, you acknowledge that
    such activities are beneficial to your organization and
    consistent with appropriations acts that provide funds to
    you.'' This is too facile a solution for the Department.
    According to a review conducted by this Committee's
    investigative staff, only a little more than half of the WFO
    customers indicated they could reliably certify that DOE's LDRD
    activities are consistent with the funding agencies'
    appropriations acts. Nevertheless, most agencies sign the
    required certification letter to DOE because they see no real
    alternative. The Committee fully expects that there are terms
    and conditions attached to the appropriations acts for these
    other agencies that are being ignored through this so-called
    ``certification'' process for LDRD work.
        The Committee is considering changing the arrangement by
    which LDRD activities are funded to eliminate these concerns.
    The results of an ongoing General Accounting Office review will
    help to inform the Committee's choice. The Committee is
    receptive to streamlining the annual LDRD report to Congress,
    which is undoubtedly a significant burden for the Department to
    prepare and is of little value to this Committee in resolving
    the concerns identified above. The Department should work with
    Committee staff to develop a simpler and more useful LDRD
    report.

                            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, but particularly
    in the Department's Washington operations. The number of
    management and operating (M&O) contractor employees assigned to
    the Washington metropolitan area in fiscal year 2004 shall not
    exceed 220, the same as the fiscal year 2003 ceiling.
        Report on M&O contractor employees.--The Department is to
    provide a report to the Committee at the end of fiscal year
    2003 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
    or elsewhere in the Washington metropolitan area (e.g., the
    Congress, the Executive Office of the President, and other
    Federal agencies). 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, 2002 through September 30, 2003,
    and is due to the Committee on January 31, 2004.
        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 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, 2002 through September 30, 2003, and is
    due to the Committee on January 31, 2004.

              STRATEGIC INITIATIVE AND BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT FUNDS

        The Department's Inspector General recently completed an
    audit (DOE/IG-0601) of one DOE laboratory in which it found
    that the laboratory improperly used a Strategic Initiative
    Fund, financed as an indirect cost allocation on all direct-
    funded programs, to supplement Laboratory Directed Research and
    Development (LDRD) activities and to pay for advertising and
    marketing activities. The Committee shares these concerns
    regarding augmentation of LDRD funds and concurs with the
    Inspector General's recommendation that the Department needs to
    establish a clear policy defining the appropriate uses of
    mission development funds, segregating those funds from program
    funds, and prohibiting the use of such funds for advertising,
    marketing, and other activities designed to benefit the
    contractor rather than the Department.

                            REPROGRAMMING GUIDELINES

        The Committee requires the Department to inform the
    Committee promptly and fully 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 project 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 2004, 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, 2003...................................      $696,858,000
    Budget Estimate, 2004.................................       748,329,000
    Recommended, 2004.....................................       691,534,000
    Comparison:
        Appropriation, 2003...............................        -5,324,000
        Budget Estimate, 2004.............................       -56,795,000

        The Energy Supply account includes the following programs:
    Renewable Energy Resources; Nuclear Energy; and Environment,
    Safety and Health (non-defense). In support of the Secretary's
    decision to establish a separate office in the Department of
    Energy with responsibility for electricity transmission and
    distribution, the Committee provides a separate program line
    within the Energy Supply account dedicated to Electricity
    Transmission and Distribution activities. Also, in recognition
    of the assignment of landlord responsibilities for the Idaho
    site to the Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology,
    these landlord costs are now funded in the Energy Supply
    account and in the Other Defense Activities account. As in
    fiscal year 2003, the Committee recommends that the funds for
    Energy Supply activities remain available until expended.

                           RENEWABLE ENERGY RESOURCES

        The total committee recommendation for renewable energy
    resources is $330,144,000, a decrease of $114,063,000 compared
    to the budget request. Of this change, $77,047,000 is due to
    the transfer of activities to the new Electricity Transmission
    and Distribution program.
        The National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA)
    recently released its preliminary observations on the recent
    reorganization of the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable
    Energy (EERE) and generally found the new organization to be a
    ``reasonable structure for managing EERE.'' The Committee
    expects the Department to pay attention to the NAPA
    recommendations to facilitate full implementation of this new
    organizational model. The Committee also notes that the budget
    request for fiscal year 2004 includes estimates of the
    potential benefits of various renewable energy technologies, as
    required by the Government Performance and Results Act. These
    estimates, while falling short of the metrics that this
    Committee in House Reports 107-112 and 107-681 directed the
    Department to submit, are at least a step in the right
    direction. The Committee renews its guidance to the Department
    to submit with the next budget request a clear set of
    quantitative measures 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 Federal investment to date in each renewable energy
    technology and an estimate of the cost per kilowatt-hour that
    is forecast to be achievable with these technologies, with
    information on the comparable costs of other energy sources.
    Lastly, the Committee is appreciative of the efforts by the
    Assistant Secretary for Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency
    and his staff to improve the execution of Congressionally
    directed projects during this fiscal year.

                         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 integrated research and development on
    biomass and biofuels is $69,750,000, the same as the budget
    request. Within this amount, the Committee includes $2,000,000
    for the Consortium for Plant Biotechnology Research.
        Geothermal technology development.--The Committee provides
    $25,500,000 for geothermal technology development, the same as
    the budget request. The Department is directed to maintain
    funding for university research at the fiscal year 2003 funding
    level.
        Hydrogen research.-- The FY2004 budget request proposes a
    new initiative to focus on the infrastructure for the
    generation, storage, and delivery of hydrogen. The
    Administration's budget request proposes $87,982,000 for
    hydrogen research, more than double the funding level provided
    in fiscal year 2003. The Committee recommends $67,982,000 for
    hydrogen research, a decrease of $20,000,000 from the budget
    request but an increase of $28,242,000 over fiscal year 2003
    funding. The Committee reminds the Department that the
    requirements for competition and industry cost sharing, as
    specified in the Hydrogen Future Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-271, 42
    U.S.C. 12403), apply to this research. The Committee is
    troubled by the Department's stated intent to engage in ``pre-
    competitive R&D carried out by national laboratories'' and
    directs the Department to compete the hydrogen research program
    to the fullest extent possible.
        Hydropower.--The Committee recommends $5,489,000 for
    hydropower research, $2,000,000 less than the budget request
    for fiscal year 2003. As directed in the previous fiscal year,
    the Department should focus its efforts on completing a limited
    program of testing and demonstration of new turbine
    technologies and then transfer these technologies to other
    federal agencies and private sector firms for deployment.
        Solar Energy.--Solar energy technologies include:
    concentrating solar power; photovoltaic energy systems; and
    solar building technology research. As in fiscal year 2003,
    these subprograms are combined into a single account for solar
    energy. The total Committee recommendation for solar energy in
    fiscal year 2004 is $79,683,000, the same as the budget
    request. The Committee notes that the Department recently
    commissioned an outside energy consultant to prepare an
    independent analysis to reconcile conflicting forecasts of the
    potential for Concentrating Solar Power (CSP) technologies.
    This independent analysis found that Concentrating Solar Power
    (CSP) is a proven technology for energy production that can be
    cost-competitive with other technologies. Given the potential
    for CSP as a source of hydrogen as well as a source of
    electricity, the Committee expects the Department to take this
    latest information into account and to fund the CSP research
    program at no less than the fiscal year 2003 funding level. The
    control level for fiscal year 2004 continues at the solar
    energy program account level.
        Zero energy buildings.--The Committee recommendation does
    not include the requested $4,000,000 for this activity. The
    Committee believes this activity should be funded as part of
    the Building Technologies program under the Interior and
    Related Agencies appropriation.
        Wind energy systems.--The Committee recommends $41,600,000
    for wind energy systems, the same as the budget request.
        Electricity reliability.--The Department requested
    $76,866,000 for Electricity Reliability in fiscal year 2004;
    this program had been titled Electric Energy Systems and
    Storage in previous fiscal years. In support of the Secretary's
    decision to establish a new office for Electricity Transmission
    and Distribution, the Committee transfers $72,866,000 of the
    requested $76,866,000 into a new program line entitled
    Electricity Transmission and Distribution, under the Energy
    Supply account. The remaining $4,000,000 of the requested funds
    is for the Renewable Energy Production Incentive (REPI)
    program; these funds are transferred to the Intergovernmental
    Activities program.
        Intergovernmental activities.--The Committee recommends
    $16,500,000 for intergovernmental activities. This amount
    includes the requested $6,500,000 for the international
    renewable energy program, including $2,000,000 for the
    International Utility Electricity Partnership (IUEP) program,
    the requested $6,000,000 for tribal energy, and $4,000,000 for
    the Renewable Energy Production Incentive (REPI) transferred
    from the Electricity Reliability program.

                     DEPARTMENTAL ENERGY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

        The Committee recommendation for Departmental Energy
    Management is $2,300,000, the same as the budget request.

                 NATIONAL CLIMATE CHANGE TECHNOLOGY INITIATIVE

        The Department requested $15,000,000 for the Renewable
    Energy Resources portion of the Department's National Climate
    Change Technology Initiative (NCCTI). This funding was to be
    coupled with $2,279,000 from Nuclear Energy and $22,700,000
    from the Interior and Related Agencies appropriation to issue a
    competitive solicitation for new technologies to address
    climate change. The Committee supports the competitive approach
    to acquiring innovative climate change technologies from
    academia and the private sector, but does not support the
    pooling of funds from two separate appropriations bills into a
    single new program. The Committee does not provide any funds
    for NCCTI activities in fiscal year 2004, but does direct the
    Department to apply the competitive approach to the other
    funding already being spent on climate change within the
    Department. The Department's request for fiscal year 2004
    includes over $1.6 billion for research and development
    activities related to climate change, of which over $1.1
    billion is funded in the Energy and Water Development
    appropriations bill. The Committee directs the Department to
    report on the amount of Energy and Water-funded climate change
    work that was competitively awarded in fiscal year 2003, and to
    increase that amount by $100 million for fiscal year 2004.

                         FACILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE

        The Committee recommendation for renewable energy
    Facilities and Infrastructure is $9,100,000, an increase of
    $4,150,000 over the budget request. The Committee funds the
    recommended amount of $4,200,000 for the National Renewable
    Energy Laboratory (NREL) in Golden, Colorado, and includes an
    additional $4,900,000 to initiate construction of the new
    Science and Technology facility at NREL (project 02-EERE-001),
    for which project engineering and design is to be completed in
    the third quarter of the current fiscal year. The budget
    request of $750,000 for a new Energy Reliability and Efficiency
    Laboratory (project 04-E-TBD) at Oak Ridge National Laboratory
    is funded but is transferred to the new program line entitled
    Electricity Transmission and Distribution, under the Energy
    Supply account.

                               PROGRAM DIRECTION

        The Committee recommendation for program direction is
    $12,230,000, a reduction of $4,347,000 from the budget request
    reflecting the reduction in Renewable Energy program activities
    and a transfer of $3,431,000 to the new program line entitled
    Electricity Transmission and Distribution, under the Energy
    Supply account.

                   ELECTRICITY TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION

        The Secretary recently decided to establish a new office
    for Electricity Transmission and Distribution to serve as a
    focal point for these issues within the Department. Because
    this decision was made subsequent to the fiscal year 2004
    budget submission, the Department has proposed adjustments to
    the fiscal year 2004 request to provide a total of $77,377,000
    for this new office. The Committee recommendation provides the
    requested amount, $77,377,000, drawn from the following
    accounts and programs: $72,866,000 from electric reliability in
    Renewable Energy Resources, $750,000 for the new Energy
    Reliability and Efficiency Laboratory (project 04-E-TBD) at Oak
    Ridge National Laboratory from the facilities and
    infrastructure account within Renewable Energy Resources,
    $3,431,000 for program direction drawn from the program
    direction account within Renewable Energy Resources, and an
    additional $330,000 for program direction from policy and
    international affairs within the Departmental Administration
    account. The Committee recommendation removes the requirement
    for a fifty percent industry partner cost share for the Energy
    Reliability and Efficiency Laboratory at Oak Ridge as proposed
    in the budget request. The Committee interprets the National
    Transmission Grid Study language on industrial cost share as
    intended for research only and directs future budget requests
    to provide full funding for design, construction, and operation
    of this facility. Within available funds, the Department is
    directed to use up to $4,000,000 to continue field testing of
    aluminum matrix composite conductors.

                            NUCLEAR ENERGY PROGRAMS

        The Committee recommendation for nuclear energy programs is
    $268,016,000, a decrease of $9,109,000 from the budget request.
    The budget request for nuclear energy programs increased
    significantly compared to the fiscal year 2003 enacted level,
    but much of this increase is tied to the designation of the
    Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology as the lead
    office with landlord responsibilities for the Idaho site. Note
    that $112,306,000 of the funding proposed in the Nuclear Energy
    request represent costs allocated to the 050 budget function
    (i.e., defense activities); these costs are direct funded under
    the Other Defense Activities account.

                 UNIVERSITY REACTOR FUEL ASSISTANCE AND SUPPORT

        The Committee recommends $19,500,000, an increase of
    $1,000,000 over the budget request. The Committee remains
    concerned about the need for more graduates specializing in
    nuclear science and engineering, and provides additional
    funding to increase DOE's ability to support existing
    university reactors and for grants and fellowships that support
    nuclear science and engineering education. The Committee is
    also aware of proposals for a DOE laboratory or site to host a
    next-generation research reactor to serve the university
    community, and encourages the Department to continue
    exploration of such an option.

                    NUCLEAR ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

        The Committee supports research and development to make the
    current generation of nuclear power plants safer and more
    efficient, to assist with the development of the next
    generation of reactor designs, and to develop advanced fuel
    cycles to minimize waste and proliferation concerns. However,
    the Committee continues to believe that this country will not
    build another nuclear power plant until the Yucca Mountain
    repository is licensed and operational, and the Committee has
    focused its limited resources to keeping the nuclear waste
    repository program on schedule. The total Committee
    recommendation for nuclear energy research and development is
    $117,746,000, a decrease of $9,279,000 from the budget request.
    The Committee also notes that the Secretary has recently
    designated the Idaho National Environmental and Engineering
    Laboratory (INEEL) as the Nation's leading laboratory for
    nuclear energy research and development. To be consistent with
    this designation, the Committee expects the Secretary will re-
    align the distribution of fiscal year 2004 funding by site
    under the Nuclear Energy Research and Development program so
    that the majority of laboratory-expended funds for nuclear
    energy research and development will be allocated to INEEL.
        Nuclear Energy Plant Optimization.--As in the previous
    fiscal year, the Committee does not concur with the
    Administration's proposal to terminate funding for the nuclear
    energy plant optimization (NEPO) program in fiscal year 2004.
    For NEPO, the Committee provides $4,000,000, $4,000,000 more
    than the budget request. The Committee recognizes the
    improvements to the safety of existing reactors that have
    resulted from application of the Mechanical Stress Improvement
    Process (MSIP) in Russia, and provides $1,000,000 for AEA
    technology to expand the transfer of MSIP to other countries in
    the former Soviet Union.
        Nuclear Energy Research Initiative.--The Committee
    recommendation for the nuclear energy research initiative
    (NERI) is $10,000,000, a decrease of $2,000,000 from the budget
    request due to funding constraints.
        Nuclear energy technologies.--The Committee provides
    $42,721,000 for nuclear energy technologies, $5,279,000 less
    than the budget request. The Committee generally supports the
    Nuclear Power 2010 and Generation IV Nuclear Energy initiatives
    under nuclear energy technologies, subject to having the
    repository operational in 2010. As noted in the discussion
    under Renewable Energy Resources, the Committee does not
    support the pooling of funds from different appropriations
    bills for the National Climate Change Technology Initiative,
    and does not provide the requested $2,279,000 for this
    activity.
        Nuclear hydrogen initiative.--The Committee provides
    $2,500,000 for the nuclear hydrogen initiative, a reduction of
    $1,500,000 from the budget request. The requirements for
    competition and industry cost sharing, as outlined above in the
    discussion of the Hydrogen program under Renewable Energy
    Resources, should apply here as well.
        Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative.--The Committee
    recommendation for the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative (AFCI) is
    $58,525,000, a reduction of $4,500,000 from the budget request
    but comparable to the amount provided in fiscal year 2003.
    Within the funds available for AFCI, the Department is directed
    to provide $3,000,000 for the Idaho Accelerator Center. Of the
    funding requested for transmutation science education, the
    Committee recommendation funds only the $3,000,000 requested
    for the competitive award of fellowships in advanced fuel cycle
    research. The Committee is still awaiting the detailed program
    plan for the treatment of sodium-bonded spent fuel presently
    stored at the Idaho National Environmental and Engineering
    Laboratory, which the Department was directed to submit to
    Congress by March 31, 2003. The Committee is also awaiting the
    annual AFCI comparison report, which was due May 31, 2003.
    Absent these two reports, the Committee has no basis to provide
    an increase in funds for the AFCI effort.

                       RADIOLOGICAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT

        The purpose of the Radiological Facilities Management
    program is to maintain the critical infrastructure necessary to
    support users from the defense, space, and medical communities.
    The outside users fund DOE's actual operational, production,
    and research activities on a reimbursable basis.
        Space and defense infrastructure.--The Committee
    recommendation is $36,230,000, the same as the budget request.
    This includes the requested amounts for the transfer of
    radioisotope power systems capabilities from Mound to the Idaho
    National Environmental and Engineering Laboratory, the Pu-238
    facilities at Los Alamos National Laboratory, and the Np-237
    storage facilities at Oak Ridge National Laboratory.
        Medical isotopes infrastructure.--The Committee
    recommendation is $26,425,000, the same as the budget request.
    Included within this program amount is the requested funding
    for Phase I of the U-233 project at Oak Ridge National
    Laboratory, and for various facility costs at Brookhaven, Los
    Alamos, Oak Ridge, and Sandia national laboratories.

                          IDAHO FACILITIES MANAGEMENT

        This program funds the activities at the Idaho National
    Environmental and Engineering Laboratory (INEEL), including
    ANL-West operations and Test Reactor Area Landlord activities,
    as well as the Idaho landlord activities previously funded
    under the Environmental Management program. The Committee
    provides $44,145,000 for Idaho Facilities Management, the same
    as the budget request. This amount represents the portion of
    Idaho Facilities Management that is allotted to the 270 budget
    function; the balance, allotted to the 050 function, is funded
    under Other Defense Activities.
        ANL-West operations.--The Committee recommends $31,615,000,
    the same as the budget request, for ANL-West operations.
        INEEL Infrastructure.--The Committee recommends
    $10,190,000, the same as the budget request. An additional
    $21,415,000 is provided under Other Defense Activities.
        Construction.--The Committee recommends $2,340,000 for
    Idaho facilities construction, the same as the budget request.
    This includes the requested amounts of $500,000 for project 95-
    E-201 and $1,840,000 for project 99-E-200, both at the Test
    Reactor Area.

                     IDAHO SITEWIDE SAFEGUARDS AND SECURITY

        Consistent with the budget request, this activity is funded
    at the requested level of $56,654,000 as an 050 defense
    activity under the Other Defense Activities account..

                               PROGRAM DIRECTION

        The Committee recommends a total funding level of
    $58,207,000, a reduction of $2,000,000 from the budget request
    due to reduced program levels. The requested amount increased
    significantly over the fiscal year 2003 funding level because
    the Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology is
    assuming lead responsibility for the Idaho site and the Idaho
    Operations Office. Of this amount, $23,970,000 is funded here
    under budget function 270, and $34,237,000 is funded as budget
    function 050 under Other Defense Activities.

                         ENVIRONMENT, SAFETY AND HEALTH

        The Committee recommendation is $24,000,000, a reduction of
    $6,000,000 from the budget request but an increase of
    approximately $1,500,000 over the fiscal year 2003 funding
    level. Within this amount, the Department is directed to
    transfer $2,000,000 to OSHA for the costs of OSHA regulation of
    worker health and safety at the Department's non-nuclear
    facilities not covered under the Atomic Energy Act and to
    complete the compliance audits of the ten Science laboratories
    that were initiated in fiscal year 2003. It is the Committee's
    intention that the funds appropriated in FY03 and transferred
    to OSHA and NRC for these compliance audits shall remain
    available until expended. Based on the results of the audits
    completed to date, NRC and OSHA should focus their efforts in
    the remaining audits on identifying major hazards that would
    require significant capital investments to remedy. Given the
    late start on these audits in fiscal year 2003, the Committee
    revises the completion date for the audits and associated cost
    estimates to May 31, 2004.

                              FUNDING ADJUSTMENTS

        A general reduction of $5,000,000 has been applied to the
    Energy Supply account, and the recommendation includes an
    offset of $3,003,000 for the safeguards and security charge for
    reimbursable work, as proposed in the budget request.

                      NON-DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT

        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 that requires remediation, stabilization, or some
    other type of action. The Department has restructured its
    budget for Non-Defense Environmental Management to focus on
    activities that support the primary goals of site cleanup and
    closure. Activities that had previously been funded under the
    Non-Defense Environmental Management account are now funded in
    two separate accounts: Non-Defense Site Acceleration Completion
    for accelerated cleanup and closure activities, and Non-Defense
    Environmental Services for those activities that indirectly
    support and closure activities, or that support other missions
    of the Department. Activities previously funded under the Other
    Uranium Activities subaccount of the Uranium Facilities
    Maintenance and Remediation, including the depleted uranium
    hexaflouride plants at Portsmouth and Paducah, are also
    transferred into the new Non-Defense Environmental Services
    account.
        Economic development.--None of the Non-Defense
    Environmental Management funds, including those provided in the
    Non-Defense Site Acceleration Completion, Non-Defense
    Environmental Services, and Uranium Enrichment Decontamination
    and Decommissioning Fund, are available for economic
    development activities.

                    Non-Defense Site Acceleration Completion

    Appropriation, 2003...................................      $158,846,000
    Budget Estimate, 2004.................................       170,875,000
    Recommended, 2004.....................................       170,875,000
    Comparison:
        Appropriation, 2003...............................       +12,029,000
        Budget Estimate, 2004.............................  ................

        The committee recommendation for Non-Defense Site
    Acceleration Completion is $170,875, the same as the budget
    request.
        2006 Accelerated Completions.--The recommendation provides
    $48,677,000, the same as the budget request, including
    $38,840,000 for soil and water remediation and graphite
    research reactor decommissioning at Brookhaven National
    Laboratory, $3,272,000 for soil and water remediation at
    Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, and $2,416,000 for soil
    and water remediation at the Stanford Linear Accelerator
    Center. The budget request indicates that the spent nuclear
    fuel presently stored at the West Valley Demonstration Project
    will be shipped to the Idaho National Engineering and
    Environmental Laboratory by the end of fiscal year 2004; the
    Committee expects the Department to adhere to this schedule
    with no further slippages.
        2012 Accelerated Completions.--The recommendation provides
    $119,750,000, the same as the budget request, including
    $99,558,000 for solid waste stabilization and disposition and
    nuclear facility decontamination and decommissioning at the
    West Valley Demonstration Project, and $18,467,000 for nuclear
    facility decontamination and decommissioning for the Energy
    Technology Engineering Center.
        2035 Accelerated Completions.--The recommendation provides
    $2,448,000, the same as the budget request. This amount
    includes the requested $2,000,000 to continue stabilization
    measures and complete the Environmental Impact Statement for
    remediation of the former Atlas uranium mill tailings site at
    Moab, Utah, and $448,000 for decontamination and
    decommissioning of the Tritium System Test Assembly Facility at
    Los Alamos National Laboratory.

                       Non-Defense Environmental Services

    Appropriation, 2003...................................      $144,510,000
    Budget Estimate, 2004.................................       292,121,000
    Recommended, 2004.....................................       320,468,000
    Comparison:
        Appropriation, 2003...............................      +175,958,000
        Budget Estimate, 2004.............................       +28,347,000

        The committee recommendation for Non-Defense Environmental
    Services is $320,468,000 an increase of 28,347,000 above the
    budget request. This amount includes the requested funding of
    $12,394,000 for East Tennessee Technology Park, $45,000,000 for
    the depleted uranium hexaflouride conversion facility and
    $4,267,000 for nuclear material stabilization and disposition
    at Paducah, $45,000,000 for the depleted uranium hexaflouride
    conversion facility and $16,523,000 for nuclear material
    stabilization and disposition at Portsmouth, $20,000,000 for
    accelerated decontamination and decommissioning of the GCEP
    facilities at Portsmouth, and $102,082,000 to maintain the
    Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant in cold standby and to
    continue with deposit removal. The Committee recognizes the
    additional cleanup needs at the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion
    Plant to support deployment of an advanced uranium enrichment
    technology and will work with the Senate in conference to
    determine if additional funding can be made available for this
    purpose. The committee recommendation also includes the
    requested funding of $43,842,000 for decontamination and
    decommissionings of the Fast Flux Test Facility. The additional
    $28,347,000 in the Committee's recommendation represents the
    nondefense share for legacy management, the balance of which is
    funded under Other Defense Activities.

          Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund

    Appropriation, 2003...................................      $338,117,000
    Budget Estimate, 2004.................................       418,124,000
    Recommended, 2004.....................................       392,002,000
    Comparison:
        Appropriation, 2003...............................       +53,885,000
        Budget Estimate, 2004.............................       -26,122,000

        Congress created the Uranium Facilities Maintenance and
    Remediation account in fiscal year 2001 to consolidate two
    previously separate programs. The consolidated Uranium
    Facilities Maintenance and Remediation account was managed by
    the Office of Environmental Management and included two
    subaccounts, the Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and
    Decommissioning Fund, and Other Uranium Activities. As
    explained above, beginning in fiscal year 2004 the activities
    previously funded under the Other Uranium Activities subaccount
    are transferred into the new Non-Defense Environmental Services
    account.
        The Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning
    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 $392,002,000 for activities funded
    from the Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning
    Fund, a reduction of $26,122,000 from the budget request. This
    amount includes $341,002,000 for decontamination and
    decommissioning activities at the gaseous diffusion plants and
    $51,000,000 for uranium and thorium reimbursements. In fiscal
    year 2003, the Administration proposed, and Congress agreed to,
    an accelerated cleanup initiative for DOE sites. Sites would
    receive additional funding in the near term in order to
    accelerate cleanup and reduce funding requirements in the
    outyears. The Department's fiscal year 2004 budget request
    assumed that it would reach agreement with all of the involved
    State regulators on accelerated cleanup plans. Where such
    agreement has not been reached, the Committee does not provide
    the additional increment of funding that was requested for
    accelerated cleanup. The $26,122,000 reduction reflects the
    failure to reach agreement on accelerated cleanup for the
    Paducah site.

                                    Science

    Appropriation, 2003...................................    $3,272,328,000
    Budget Estimate, 2004.................................     3,310,935,000
    Recommended, 2004.....................................     3,480,180,000
    Comparison:
        Appropriation, 2003...............................      +207,852,000
        Budget Estimate, 2004.............................      +169,245,000

        The Science account funds the Department's work on high
    energy physics, nuclear physics, biological and environmental
    sciences, basic energy sciences, advanced scientific computing,
    maintenance of the laboratories' physical infrastructure,
    fusion energy sciences, safeguards and security, science
    workforce development, and science program direction. The
    Committee recommendation is $3,480,180,000, an increase of
    $169,245,000 compared to the budget request.
        The Committee has provided additional funding for the
    Office of Science to address the following Committee
    priorities: high performance computing; additional operating
    time, equipment upgrades, and staffing to support increased
    research opportunities at the Office of Science user
    facilities; remediation of safety deficiencies at DOE Science
    laboratories; and restoration of domestic fusion funding
    displaced by the new international fusion initiative. The
    Committee also provides additional funding to perform essential
    research and development and preconcept design for one new
    project (i.e., the Rare Isotope Accelerator). The Committee may
    consider different or additional priorities for new research
    facilities once the Office of Science releases its Twenty Year
    Facility Outlook.
        External Regulation of DOE Science Laboratories.--In July
    2002, the Department produced a Committee-directed
    implementation plan for external regulation. The Department
    identified several key unresolved questions about external
    regulation, specifically the unknown costs of transitioning to
    external regulation and the unknown cost savings that might
    result from such a transition. However, the Department stated
    that it ``believes that these issues can be resolved'' and
    ``favors the prospect of a transition to external regulation .
    . .'' The Committee has subsequently taken steps to resolve
    these questions, tasking the General Accounting Office (GAO) to
    identify the current costs of DOE's self-regulation of the
    Science laboratories and the potential savings that might
    result under external regulation. In its report (GAO-03-633R),
    the GAO found that the Department could save as much as $41
    million annually by shifting to external regulation of its
    Science laboratories. To address the question of transition
    costs, the Committee in the Energy and Water Development
    Appropriations Act, 2003, directed the transfer of funds from
    the Department of Energy to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
    (NRC) and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration
    (OSHA) to conduct compliance audits of the ten DOE Science
    laboratories. The audits are to be completed for four
    laboratories by September 30, 2003, and for all ten labs by
    March 31, 2004. Upon completion of these audits, the
    laboratories are also to prepare estimates of the costs to
    correct the identified deficiencies and bring these ten
    laboratories into compliance with NRC and OSHA safety
    standards. In recognition of the late start on these audits in
    fiscal year 2003, the Committee revises the completion date for
    the audits and associated cost estimates to May 31, 2004.
        In response to the Committee's concerns about continued
    self-regulation, the Office of Science in November 2002
    directed its ten laboratories to conduct their own assessment
    of the potential costs of bringing those laboratories into
    compliance with NRC and OSHA standards. The Committee
    recognizes the crude nature of this estimate, particularly as
    it was conducted without the participation of the NRC and OSHA.
    Nevertheless, this self-assessment by the Science laboratories
    represents the only existing estimate of the costs of
    transitioning the laboratories to external regulation. These
    laboratories estimated their transition costs to be
    approximately $75 million. This estimate, approximate as it is,
    reveals the existence of a significant backlog of safety
    deficiencies at these laboratories. The existence and
    persistence of such a backlog is one of the unfortunate
    consequences of the Department's adherence to its current
    scheme of self-regulation. The Department is able to identify
    safety problems but is unable or unwilling to dedicate the
    necessary resources to correct these problems.
        The Committee believes it is important to the health and
    safety of laboratory employees, of visiting researchers, and of
    the population in the surrounding communities that these safety
    deficiencies be corrected expeditiously. Therefore, the
    Committee has transferred $25,000,000 from the Departmental
    Administration account to the Science Laboratories
    Infrastructure subaccount to address these safety deficiencies
    at the ten Science laboratories; these funds may not be
    reprogrammed for other purposes. In addition, the Committee
    directs the Department to request sufficient funding in the
    budget requests for fiscal years 2005 and 2006 to correct the
    remainder of these safety deficiencies over the next two fiscal
    years. The completion of the NRC and OSHA compliance audits
    should permit the preparation of a more accurate estimate of
    these costs. Regardless of whether the Department continues to
    regulate itself or makes the overdue transition to external
    regulation, this backlog of unresolved safety deficiencies must
    be addressed promptly.

                              HIGH ENERGY PHYSICS

        The Committee recommends a total of $747,978,000 for high
    energy physics, an increase of $10,000,000 over the budget
    request. The control level is at the High Energy Physics level.
    The additional funds are provided to increase operating time
    and enhance user support at the user facilities located at the
    Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory and the Stanford Linear
    Accelerator Center. The Committee recommendation includes the
    requested amount, $12,500,000, for construction of the
    Neutrinos at the Main Injector project at Fermilab. The
    Committee recognizes the efforts of the staff from the Office
    of Science, Fermilab, and the other laboratories to bring the
    Tevatron luminosity upgrade back on schedule. The Committee
    also encourages the Department to accelerate progress on the
    Supernova/Accelerator Probe (SNAP), which will provide an
    important tool to advance our understanding of the history of
    the universe.

                                NUCLEAR PHYSICS

        The Committee recommendation for nuclear physics is
    $399,430,000, an increase of $10,000,000 over the budget
    request. An additional $7,500,000 is provided to increase
    operating time and enhance user support at the user facilities
    located at the Brookhaven National Laboratory and the Thomas
    Jefferson National Accelerator Facility. The Committee
    recommendation includes $6,000,000 for research and development
    and pre-conceptual design activities in support of the Rare
    Isotope Accelerator, an increase of $2,500,000 over the
    requested amount for this project. The Committee strongly
    encourages the Department to make a prompt CD0 decision for the
    12 GeV upgrade to the Continuous Electron Beam Accelerator
    Facility at the Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility
    and to include adequate PED funding for this project in the
    fiscal year 2005 budget request.

                     BIOLOGICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH

        The Committee recommendation for biological and
    environmental research is $562,035,000, an increase of
    $62,500,000 over the budget request. The additional funds are
    provided to increase operating time and enhance user support at
    the user facilities located at various DOE laboratories that
    support the biological and environmental sciences user
    community, and to provide for additional university research
    grants for biological and environmental research.

                             BASIC ENERGY SCIENCES

        The Committee recommendation for basic energy sciences is
    $1,016,575,000, an increase of $8,000,000 over the budget
    request. For purposes of reprogramming during fiscal year 2004,
    the Department may allocate funding among all operating
    accounts within Basic Energy Sciences.
        Research.--The Committee recommendation includes
    $575,711,000 for materials sciences and engineering, and
    $220,914,000 for chemical sciences, geosciences, and energy
    biosciences. The additional $8,000,000 in the material sciences
    and engineering account is provided to increase operating time
    and enhance user support at Basic Energy Sciences user
    facilities. Also included within this account is $7,673,000 for
    the Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research
    (EPSCoR), the same as the budget request.
        Construction.--The Committee recommendation includes
    $219,950,000 for construction, the same as the requested
    amount. The Committee recommendation provides the requested
    funding of $124,600 for the Spallation Neutron Source (SNS),
    $35,000,000 for the Molecular Foundry, $29,850,000 for the
    Center for Integrated Nanotechnologies, $20,000,000 for the
    Center for Nanophase Material Sciences, $7,500,000 for PED for
    the Linac Coherent Light Source, and $3,000,000 for PED for the
    Center for Functional Nanomaterials at Brookhaven National
    Laboratory.

                     ADVANCED SCIENTIFIC COMPUTING RESEARCH

        The Committee continues to support efforts to advance U.S.
    supercomputing technology and is encouraged that the
    President's fiscal year 2004 budget identifies supercomputing
    as a critical component of its Networking and Information
    Technology Research and Development program. The Committee
    views the Department of Energy as a key player in the Federal
    government's efforts in supercomputing. At the same time, the
    Committee recognizes that a number of other Federal agencies
    are involved with the development of, and have critical needs
    for, more advanced computing capabilities. The Committee notes
    that the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy
    (OSTP) has recently established the multi-agency High End
    Computing Revitalization Task Force (HEC RTF). This task force,
    of which the Department is a participant, has been charged with
    developing a coordinated, interagency plan for supercomputing
    research and development that addresses issues of capability,
    capacity, and accessibility for scientific applications. The
    Committee strongly supports this interagency HEC RTF effort,
    and expects the Department to participate fully and to follow
    the HEC RTF plan for ongoing and future research and
    development, facility operations, and hardware procurement of
    its advanced scientific computing resources.
        The Committee recommendation is $213,490,000, an increase
    of $40,000,000 over the budget request. The Committee provides
    these funds for the Department to acquire additional advanced
    computing capability to support existing users in the near term
    and to initiate longer-term research and development on next
    generation computer architectures. The Committee directs the
    Department to use these funds in a manner fully consistent with
    the recommendations of the HEC RTF. The Committee also expects
    that, to the maximum extent practicable, these funds will be
    awarded using a merit-based, competitive process.

                      SCIENCE LABORATORIES INFRASTRUCTURE

        The Committee recommendation provides a total of
    $71,535,000 for Science Laboratories Infrastructure, an
    increase of $27,945,000 over the budget request. The majority
    of this increase, $25,000,000, is transferred from the
    Departmental Administration account to correct safety
    deficiencies at the Science laboratories. The funding provided
    for Science Laboratory Safety Measures may not be reprogrammed
    for other purposes. The Committee recommendation also provides
    an additional $2,945,000 for excess facilities disposition,
    bringing this account total to $8,000,000, comparable to the
    fiscal year 2003 enacted level. The Committee is disappointed
    that the Department's budget request recommended closing the
    88-inch cyclotron at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory yet
    failed to provide any funding for the decontamination and
    decommissioning (D&D) of this facility. Once a particular
    Science facility is no longer useful, the Department should
    take prompt action to reduce its landlord costs and make that
    space available for other purposes. The added increment of
    funding for excess facilities is to be applied to D&D of the
    88-inch cyclotron. The Committee recommendation provides the
    requested funding of $1,520,000 for infrastructure support,
    $5,079,000 for Oak Ridge landlord costs, $2,000,000 for Science
    Laboratories Infrastructure 04-SC001, specifically to initiate
    PED for project MEL-001-36 at the Stanford Linear Accelerator
    Center, and $29,936,000 for construction of various subprojects
    under the MEL-001 infrastructure project.

                             FUSION ENERGY SCIENCES

        The Committee recommendation for fusion energy sciences is
    $268,110,000, an increase of $10,800,000 over the budget
    request. The Committee is cautiously supportive of the
    Administration's proposal to re-engage in the International
    Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) project, but is
    disappointed that the budget request provides $12,000,000 in
    funding for the U.S. ITER effort only at the expense of
    displacing ongoing domestic fusion research. The additional
    $10,800,000 includes $4,000,000 for burning plasma experiments,
    including support for ITER and for the domestic FIRE project,
    $5,200,000 for fusion technology, and $1,600,000 for advanced
    design and analysis work. If the Department intends to
    recommend ITER participation in the fiscal year 2005 budget
    request, the Committee expects the Department will do so
    without harm to domestic fusion research or to other programs
    in the DOE Science budget.

                            SAFEGUARDS AND SECURITY

        The Committee recommends $51,887,000, an increase of
    $3,760,000 over the budget request, to meet additional
    safeguards and security requirements.

                         SCIENCE WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT

        The Department requested $6,470,000 for Science Workforce
    Development in fiscal year 2004, including $1,000,000 to
    initiate a pilot program at Argonne National Laboratory
    providing intensive, hands-on training for approximately 60
    science, engineering, and mathematics teachers. The Committee
    is very supportive of this initiative, but would like to see it
    applied at all five multiprogram Science laboratories. The
    Committee recommendation provides $7,470,000, including
    $2,000,000 for the Laboratory Science Teacher Professional
    Development initiative, to be distributed among all five
    multiprogram laboratories.

                           SCIENCE PROGRAM DIRECTION

        The Committee recommendation is $147,053,000 for Science
    program direction. This amount includes: $80,102,000 for
    program direction at DOE field offices, $58,157,000 for program
    direction at DOE headquarters, $7,774,000 for Technical
    Information Management; and $1,020,000 for Energy Research
    Analyses. The request for program direction for field offices
    was reduced by $3,720,000 and the amount transferred to the
    Safeguards and Security line. The control level for fiscal year
    2004 is at the program account level of Science Program
    Direction.

                              FUNDING ADJUSTMENTS

        The Committee recommendation includes an offset of
    $4,383,000 for the safeguards and security charge for
    reimbursable work, as proposed in the budget request. A general
    reduction of $1,000,000 has been applied to the Science
    account.

                             Nuclear Waste Disposal

    Appropriation, 2003...................................      $144,058,000
    Budget Estimate, 2004.................................       161,000,000
    Recommended, 2004.....................................       335,000,000
    Comparison:
        Appropriation, 2003...............................      +190,942,000
        Budget Estimate, 2004.............................      +174,000,000

        The Federal government has a clear statutory
    responsibility, assigned by Congress in the Nuclear Waste
    Policy Act of 1982, as amended, to provide for the permanent
    disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive
    waste. The Department of Energy was required by statute to
    accept commercial spent nuclear fuel for disposal beginning on
    January 31, 1998, and entered into legally enforceable
    contracts with utilities to execute that obligation.
    Unfortunately, the Department has been unable to meet that
    deadline, resulting in a number of lawsuits over the
    Department's failure to meet its statutory and contractual
    obligation and a growing financial liability over that failure.
    The Court of Federal Claims has found the Department to be in
    breach of its contractual obligations and is proceeding to
    determine the extent of damages.
        The primary consequence of the Department's failure to
    begin accepting spent nuclear fuel is not, however, the
    existence of lawsuits and damage claims; it is that vast
    quantities of commercial spent nuclear fuel remain in temporary
    storage at reactor sites scattered around the country, many
    located near major population centers. The Committee is not
    questioning the current safety and security of spent nuclear
    fuel stored at commercial sites in accordance with Nuclear
    Regulatory Commission criteria. The Committee does, however,
    believe that the safety and security of these materials will be
    enhanced the sooner they are placed in the underground
    repository at Yucca Mountain. After the events of September 11,
    2001, the Committee believes it is more essential than ever to
    move aggressively to get the Yucca Mountain repository
    licensed, built, and operating at the earliest possible date.
        Chronic funding shortfalls, however, have starved the
    program of the resources necessary to keep the repository
    program on schedule. The Department's latest schedule calls for
    opening the repository and beginning to accept spent fuel in
    2010 at the earliest, over 12 years behind schedule. Most
    recently, the Department requested a total of $591,000,000 for
    the nuclear waste disposal program in fiscal year 2003, yet
    received only $457,000,000, a funding shortfall of
    $134,000,000. Such funding shortfalls have forced the
    Department to concentrate its limited resources on preparing
    the repository License Application, which is presently
    scheduled for submission to the NRC in December 2004. The
    Department's emphasis on the License Application has meant that
    other activities, especially those relating to the
    transportation of materials to the repository to support
    initial operations in 2010, have suffered major delays.
        The Committee recommends $335,000,000 for nuclear waste
    disposal, an increase of $174,000,000 over the budget request
    of $161,000,000. The intent of this funding level is to make
    sure that the Department has the necessary funds to support a
    timely and technically robust License Application, and to
    provide additional funds for activities related to initial
    repository operations in 2010, primarily for development of a
    safe and secure transportation system in Nevada. Combined with
    the appropriation of $430,000,000 from the Defense Nuclear
    Waste Disposal account, this provides a total of $765,000,000
    for Nuclear Waste Disposal activities in fiscal year 2004, an
    increase of $174,000,000 over the budget request.
        The Committee is also concerned about a number of delays in
    the repository program that have been caused, not by shortfalls
    in funding provided by Congress, but by internal legal and
    policy decisions made within the Department. The Secretary, the
    General Counsel, and the Director of the Office of Civilian
    Radioactive Waste Management are reminded that Congress expects
    the Department to take all the actions necessary to keep this
    repository on schedule for initial operations in 2010. Delaying
    the resolution of pending litigation and avoiding potential
    future litigation are not the objectives of this program. The
    Department cannot minimize its legal exposure simply by taking
    no new actions; the Department must make the decisions and take
    the actions necessary to execute its nuclear waste disposal
    responsibilities as mandated by law, and accept the legal
    consequences of those actions. The Committee strongly believes
    that the best way to minimize the liability of the Federal
    government for spent nuclear fuel is to get on with the
    repository program in an expeditious manner.
        License application.--The Department is directed to submit
    the License Application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
    not later than December 31, 2004. Any delays in this submission
    will cause unacceptable delays in the start of repository
    operations, which will not only increase the Federal
    government's liability on commercial spent fuel, but will also
    impact 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 may affect the government's
    ability to meet legally enforceable cleanup milestones at those
    sites. The Committee has provided sufficient resources to
    ensure that the License Application can be submitted on
    schedule by the Department and can withstand the technical and
    legal challenges it will face in the licensing process.
        License support network.--The Committee directs the
    Department that Congressional communications between the
    Members and staffs of the House and Senate Committees on
    Appropriations and the Department are not to be included in
    documentation posted on the License Support Network.
        Nevada transportation and site preparation activities.--The
    Committee notes the concerns of the State of Nevada about the
    selection of a transportation corridor within the State,
    particularly about any corridor that runs through or near the
    Las Vegas metropolitan area. The Secretary's continued delay in
    issuing the Record of Decision to designate a preferred
    transportation corridor within the State of Nevada has not been
    helpful in resolving these concerns. The Committee does not
    approve of any further consideration of alternative rail routes
    that would transport spent nuclear fuel and high-level
    radioactive waste through the environs of metropolitan Las
    Vegas. Therefore, the Committee includes bill language
    providing that none of the funds in this or any other
    appropriations Act may be used for the planning or development
    of the Valley Modified Corridor and the Jean Corridor, and
    variations thereof, as those corridors are delineated in the
    Final Environmental Impact Statement for a Geologic Repository
    for the Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level
    Radioactive Waste at Yucca Mountain, Nye County, Nevada, dated
    February 2002. Of the remaining alternatives that avoid the Las
    Vegas Metropolitan Area, the information provided from the
    Department leads the Committee to believe that the Caliente
    Corridor, though not the cheapest, is the most feasible rail
    corridor to implement. The Committee allows the Secretary
    discretion in selecting the preferred rail corridor, as long as
    the selected corridor does not pass through the Las Vegas
    Metropolitan Area. The Committee includes bill language
    requiring the Secretary to designate rail as the preferred mode
    of transportation within Nevada and to select a Nevada rail
    corridor within 60 days after enactment, and then to conduct
    the full scale environmental and engineering analysis to select
    a specific rail alignment within the selected rail corridor and
    issue a final Record of Decision on the Nevada transportation
    system designating the specific rail alignment by June 30,
    2005.
        The Committee directs the Department to focus its efforts
    on accelerating the development of a rail line in Nevada, with
    the objective of being ready to begin physical construction of
    the rail line immediately after receipt of the construction
    authorization for the repository, which is presently scheduled
    for 2007. This means the Department should have all planning,
    design, right-of-way acquisition, and land withdrawal actions
    complete in time to support such a 2007 construction start. If
    the Secretary selects the Caliente corridor as the preferred
    rail corridor, the Secretary may spend up to $3,000,000 to
    initiate planning and design activities to support the
    construction of a rail-to-truck intermodal transfer facility to
    be located at Caliente, Lincoln County, Nevada, to support
    limited legal-weight truck transportation until the rail system
    is fully operational. These funds for the Caliente intermodal
    transfer facility are separate from the external oversight
    funds provided to affected units of local government. The
    Committee recommendation provides a total of $70,000,000 for
    Nevada transportation activities. Development of this Nevada
    rail corridor for spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive
    waste will also benefits the safe transportation of low level
    waste and transuranic waste to and from the State of Nevada.
        Without prejudging the outcome of the NRC licensing
    process, and recognizing that the repository might not be
    licensed, the Secretary should perform all the necessary
    planning, site preparation, and preliminary construction needed
    to assure that, if construction authorization is received from
    NRC on schedule in 2007, the construction of the underground
    repository as well as the above-ground facilities and
    supporting infrastructure can proceed on a schedule to support
    the start of repository operations by 2010. The Committee views
    this ``at-risk'' planning, site preparation, and preliminary
    construction as necessary to support initial operations in 2010
    if the NRC authorizes repository construction. The Committee
    recommendation provides a total of $20,000,000 to initiate site
    preparation activities.
        To the maximum extent practicable, the Department shall
    ensure that funds provided for the development of
    infrastructure in the State of Nevada shall be spent through
    contracts awarded to contractors and subcontractors who are
    party to labor agreements applicable to all of its employees
    who are residents of that State and who perform manual labor
    and other work pursuant to such contract or subcontract.
        Local Impact Assistance.--Section 116 of the Nuclear Waste
    Policy Act of 1982, as amended, authorizes financial assistance
    to the State of Nevada and affected units of local government
    to mitigate any potential economic, social, public health and
    safety, and environmental impacts of the repository. With the
    repository siting decision having been made last year and
    Nevada transportation decisions in process as directed in the
    preceding paragraph, the Committee believes the time has come
    to begin providing this impact assistance to the State and
    affected local governments along the selected rail corridor.
    The Committee recommendation makes available a total of up to
    $30,000,000 for such impact assistance, contingent upon
    submission of a plan and approval of the plan by the Director
    of the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. The
    Committee considers the transportation, emergency response, and
    medical services measures proposed in the plan already prepared
    by Nye County, Nevada, the ``Nye County, Nevada, Community
    Protection Plan,'' dated August 2001, to be representative of
    the kind of impact assistance contemplated under this section.
        Comprehensive national acceptance and transportation
    plan.--The Committee has previously expressed concerns about
    the Department's inadequate preparation for waste acceptance,
    storage, and transportation to the repository. Although the
    Committee recognizes that funding shortfalls have forced the
    Department to concentrate its limited resources on the License
    Application, the Committee believes the Department must
    maintain its focus on the actions necessary to support the
    start of repository operations in 2010. The Department has
    already stated that it will issue a National Transportation
    Strategic Plan later this year to serve as a framework for
    having a national transportation system operational by 2010.
    While the Committee looks forward to receiving this National
    Transportation Strategic Plan, the Committee believes the
    Department should be working more actively with the contract
    holders and the DOE sites that will be shipping spent nuclear
    fuel and high-level waste to the repository to develop a
    detailed and comprehensive acceptance and transportation plan
    for the years 2010-2020. The Department should submit this
    comprehensive plan to the House and Senate Committees on
    Appropriations not later than December 31, 2004. This plan
    should be developed to maximize efficient transportation and
    minimize the costs of continued on-site storage at contract
    holder and DOE sites. DOE should not allow the existence of
    ongoing litigation over DOE's failure to begin accepting
    commercial spent fuel on the statutorily mandated date to
    preclude having the essential discussions with contract
    holders. DOE should negotiate with contract holders to reach a
    timely decision on the schedule for acceptance of spent nuclear
    fuel stored in existing NRC-licensed storage and transport
    systems. In addition, the Department should either ensure that
    the detailed acceptance criteria that will be part of the
    license application will include appropriate criteria and
    specifications for greater-than-class-C waste, or present
    Congress with a separate plan proposing an alternative disposal
    path for greater-than-class-C waste. The comprehensive
    acceptance and transportation plan shall ensure that spent
    nuclear fuel and high-level waste from those reactor sites that
    are undergoing decommissioning, including the Dairyland Power
    Cooperative La Crosse Boiling Water Reactor, shall be accepted
    and transported as soon as practicable to facilitate the
    closure of these sites. Finally, the Committee expects the
    Department to commence the institutional coordination and
    procurement actions necessary to support a national
    transportation campaign to begin shipping spent nuclear fuel
    and high-level waste to the repository beginning in 2010. The
    Committee recommendation provides $35,000,000 for comprehensive
    national acceptance and transportation activities. The
    Committee directs the Department to provide not less than
    $20,000,000 to the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental
    Laboratory (INEEL) to use the expertise developed at INEEL on
    the handling, packaging, and transportation of spent fuel and
    high-level waste to execute the tasks outlined in this section.
        Updated Project Decision Schedule.--The Committee directs
    the Department to submit an updated Project Decision Schedule
    (PDS) as required by subsection 114(e) of the Nuclear Waste
    Policy Act of 1982, as amended. Not later than December 31,
    2003, the Department shall submit the updated PDS to the House
    and Senate Committees on Appropriations, the House Energy and
    Commerce Committee, and the Senate Committee on Energy and
    Natural Resources. The updated PDS shall identify all steps
    required to initiate repository operations in 2010, including
    but not limited to: all waste acceptance, storage, and
    transportation elements; all surface and subsurface actions at
    the repository, including supporting infrastructure; all
    actions and decisions relating to federal and non-federal
    casks; and all training and emergency response assistance
    necessary for transportation of spent nuclear fuel. The updated
    PDS shall be fully resource-loaded and shall identify the
    budgetary resources required in each fiscal year to support the
    start of repository operations in 2010. As provided in
    subsection 114(e) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as
    amended, the PDS shall include a description of the objectives
    and a sequence of deadlines for all Federal agencies to take
    required actions related to repository construction and
    operations. The PDS shall identify those actions by the
    Department and by other Federal agencies that are on the
    critical path and for which a delay in completion will cause a
    delay in the start of repository operations. The Committee
    expects the Department to use the updated PDS to move
    aggressively to implement the provisions of paragraph (2) of
    subsection 114(e) to identify and resolve differences with
    other Federal agencies that could cause delays in the start or
    conduct of repository operations. The Committee also directs
    the Department to submit as part of its budget request for
    fiscal year 2005 a comprehensive legislative package that
    identifies all statutory language that will be necessary for
    repository operations to begin in 2010, including but not
    limited to: a proposal to ensure the availability of long-term
    funding for the repository program; land withdrawal and right-
    of-way acquisition for the repository site and for all
    supporting infrastructure, including the Nevada rail corridor
    and the Caliente intermodal transfer facility, and any other
    required legislative actions. The Committee recommendation
    provides $6,000,000 for the preparation of an updated and
    resource-loaded project decision schedule.
        Early acceptance of spent nuclear fuel.--Since the last
    time that Congress considered authorizing the early acceptance
    of spent fuel, there have been two major changes in national
    circumstances. First, a majority of Members in both chambers of
    Congress voted in 2002 to confirm Yucca Mountain as the site of
    the nuclear repository. Second, the events of September 11,
    2001, made clear that facilities we once assumed to be safe
    from terrorist attack may no longer be so. The Committee
    believes that the continued storage of spent nuclear fuel at
    reactor sites around the country, while in compliance with
    Nuclear Regulatory Commission standards, poses a greater safety
    and security risk than previously assumed. The Committee
    further believes that safety and security would be improved if
    this spent fuel could be moved to a centralized surface storage
    facility, located at the Yucca Mountain repository site, at the
    earliest possible date. The Committee directs the Department to
    prepare a plan for early acceptance of commercial spent nuclear
    fuel presently stored at commercial power plants and storage
    sites, and for early shipment of such spent fuel to a surface
    storage facility at the Yucca Mountain repository site. This
    plan should identify the budgetary resources needed and provide
    the draft statutory language that would be required to initiate
    such early shipments upon receipt of the construction
    authorization for the underground repository. This plan should
    also address the possibility of early shipment of spent fuel
    and high-level waste presently stored at a variety of DOE
    sites. The early acceptance plan should include a thorough
    analysis of the casks that will be required for transport and
    interim storage at the repository site, and should propose an
    aggressive cask procurement strategy to allow for the movement
    of significant quantities of spent nuclear fuel beginning in
    2007, assuming the timely receipt of the construction
    authorization. The plan should analyze the potential cost
    savings that could result from placing cooled fuel, presently
    stored in spent fuel pools, into dual use casks rather than
    separate storage and transportation casks. The Department is
    directed to submit this plan to the House and Senate Committees
    on Appropriations not later than December 31, 2003. The
    Committee recommendation provides $4,000,000 for early
    acceptance activities.
        External oversight funds.--The fiscal year 2004 budget
    request did not include any external oversight funds for the
    State of Nevada or affected units of local government. The
    Committee recommendation provides an amount not to exceed
    $2,500,000 for the State of Nevada and an amount not to exceed
    $6,500,000 for the affected units of local government to
    conduct their respective external oversight responsibilities,
    essentially the same as provided in fiscal year 2003. The
    Committee is aware that the Department of Energy Inspector
    General conducted separate audits of the external oversight
    funds provided to the State of Nevada (DOE-IG Audit Report CR-
    C-02-01, dated August 2002) and to the affected units of local
    governments (DOE-IG Audit Report DOE/IG-0600, dated May 2003),
    and found irregularities in a number of expenditures. The
    Committee lacks sufficient information to offer guidance on
    whether the Department should seek to recover Federal funds
    used for questioned oversight expenses; that judgment remains
    with the Department. However, the Committee is concerned enough
    about the problems identified by the Inspector General to
    direct that the external oversight funds for fiscal year 2004
    should not be released to the State of Nevada and affected
    units of local government until the Director of the Office of
    Civilian Radioactive Waste Management has reviewed and approved
    in advance the State and local government oversight plans for
    fiscal year 2004. The Department is reminded that it is
    required to audit these funds annually to ensure that they are
    spent consistent with the statutory restrictions and with the
    approved oversight plans.
        Long-term program funding.--The Committee was disappointed
    that the Department failed to champion effectively the budget
    cap adjustment that was proposed in the fiscal year 2004 budget
    request. As the program moves out of the site characterization
    phase and into license application, design, and construction
    phases, the funding requirements will increase significantly in
    coming fiscal years. Therefore, it is even more critical that
    the Department develops an integrated long-term budget plan for
    this program, and submits the legislative proposal necessary to
    secure future funding for the repository. The Committee
    reiterates its direction that the Department should submit its
    long-term budget plan for the repository program, including the
    necessary changes to existing law, as part of its next budget
    submission to the Congress.

                          DEPARTMENTAL ADMINISTRATION

                              GROSS APPROPRIATION

    Appropriation, 2003...................................      $205,280,000
    Budget Estimate, 2004.................................       326,306,000
    Recommended, 2004.....................................       224,329,000
    Comparison:
        Appropriation, 2003...............................       +19,049,000
        Budget Estimate, 2004.............................      -101,977,000

                             MISCELLANEOUS REVENUES

    Appropriation, 2003...................................     -$120,000,000
    Budget Estimate, 2004.................................      -146,668,000
    Recommended, 2004.....................................      -123,000,000
    Comparison:
        Appropriation, 2003...............................        -3,000,000
        Budget Estimate, 2004.............................       +23,668,000

        The Committee recommendation for Departmental
    Administration is $224,329,000, a decrease of $101,977,000 from
    the budget request of $326,306,000. Funding recommended for
    Departmental Administration provides for general management and
    program support functions benefiting all elements of the
    Department of Energy including the National Nuclear Security
    Administration. The account funds a wide array of headquarters
    activities not directly associated with program execution.
        After the changes in the use of prior year balances and the
    transfer from Other Defense Activities are factored out, the
    Department's gross budget request for Departmental
    Administration amounts to an increase of $44,347,000, or
    roughly 14 percent, over the fiscal year 2003 level. The
    Committee does not concur with this large increase for DOE
    headquarters functions and funds Departmental Administration at
    roughly five percent over fiscal year 2003 levels, applying the
    additional funds to other higher priority needs. In particular,
    the Committee believes these requested funds would be better
    applied to address the backlog of safety deficiencies at the
    ten Science laboratories, a backlog which developed under the
    nose of the DOE employees charged with establishing the
    policies and regulating safety at DOE laboratories. This
    backlog is an unfortunate byproduct of the Department's
    continued reliance on self-regulation of nuclear and worker
    safety at its Science laboratories. Therefore, the Committee
    recommends transferring $25,000,000 from Departmental
    Administration to the Science Laboratories Infrastructure
    subaccount within the Science appropriation to protect the
    health and safety of laboratory employees, visiting
    researchers, and the population of the communities surrounding
    these ten Science laboratories.
        Within the available funds, the Department is directed to
    conduct a study on how to increase the proportion of small
    business participation in DOE contracts; the contract for such
    a study should be awarded to a qualifying small business.
        Chief Information Officer.--The Committee is generally
    supportive of the I-MANAGE and cybersecurity initiatives of
    this office, but does not concur with all of the requested 46
    percent increase for this office. The Committee recommendation
    provides an additional $6,000,000 over the fiscal year 2003
    funding level for implementation of STARS and of the data
    warehouse for the Department's financial data.
        General Counsel.--The Committee disagrees with a number of
    legal and policy positions taken recently by the Office of
    General Counsel, and is concerned that the Secretary, the
    Congress, and the American taxpayer are not being well-served
    by this office. The Committee recommendation is $20,000,000, a
    reduction of $2,879,000 from the budget request.
        Office of Management, Budget and Evaluation.--The Committee
    believes that the Office of Engineering and Construction
    Management within the Office of Management, Budget and
    Evaluation continues to provide a strong focal point for the
    improvement of project management capabilities throughout the
    Department. The Committee recommendation transfers $5,000,000
    from other accounts (i.e., Weapons Activities and Defense Site
    Acceleration Completion) to continue external independent
    reviews of proposed projects and programs. To continue to train
    and certify DOE project managers, the Committee directs the
    Department to make available not less than $2,500,000 from the
    Working Capital Fund to fund training under the Project
    Management Career Development Program.
        Working Capital Fund.--The Committee renews its guidance as
    presented in House Report 107-681 regarding management of the
    Working Capital Fund.
        Cost of Work for Others.--The recommendation for the cost
    of work for others program is $69,682,000, the same as in
    fiscal year 2003.
        Use of Prior Year Balances.--The recommendation does not
    include the use of prior year funds to be carried over from
    fiscal year 2003 to offset the fiscal year 2004 funding
    requirements.
        Revenues.--The recommendation for revenues is $123,000,000,
    consistent with the estimate of revenues provided by the
    Congressional Budget Office.
        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 the Department's funding is provided
    in the national security and defense-related cleanup programs
    account for approximately 75 percent of the Department's total
    budget. The Committee recommendation distributes these costs
    more equitably in fiscal year 2004 and transfers $86,679,000
    from Other Defense Activities for national security programs,
    an increase of $61,679,000 over the budget request.

                          Office of Inspector General

    Appropriation, 2003...................................       $37,426,000
    Budget Estimate, 2004.................................        39,462,000
    Recommended, 2004.....................................        39,462,000
    Comparison:
        Appropriation, 2003...............................        +2,036,000
        Budget Estimate, 2004.............................  ................

        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 inspections
    function provides independent inspections and analyses of the
    effectiveness, efficiency, and economy of programs and
    operations. The investigative function provides for the
    detection and investigation of improper and illegal activities
    involving programs, personnel, and operations.
        The Committee recommendation is $39,462,000, the same as
    the budget request.

                        Atomic Energy Defense Activities

        The Atomic Energy Defense Activities programs of the
    Department of Energy include the National Nuclear Security
    Administration that consists of Weapons Activities, Defense
    Nuclear Nonproliferation, Naval Reactors, and the Office of the
    Administrator; Defense Environmental Management programs which
    include Site Acceleration Completion and Defense Environmental
    Services; 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
    complex, 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.
        The Committee recommendation for the NNSA is
    $8,508,184,000, a decrease of $326,391,000 from the budget
    request of $8,834,575,000, but an increase of $330,617,000 over
    fiscal year 2003.
        Nuclear weapons budget requirements.--This Committee
    continues to believe that our nation's nuclear arsenal provides
    a vital deterrent to potential aggressors. In order to maintain
    a modern nuclear stockpile, the Nation needs to have a modern,
    efficient, and flexible nuclear weapons complex with the
    necessary design, production, testing, refurbishment, and
    dismantlement capabilities. Unfortunately, the country
    possesses neither a modern stockpile nor a modern nuclear
    weapons complex. Instead, both are largely carryovers from the
    Cold War era. After careful consideration, the Committee has
    concluded that much of the current situation results from a
    flawed budget process. Under the current process, the
    Department of Defense (DoD) establishes the military
    requirements for Nation's nuclear weapons stockpile (i.e.,
    numbers and types of warheads), which in turn dictates the
    requirements that DOE must meet to ensure the safety, security,
    and reliability of those weapons. The size, capability and cost
    of DOE's weapons complex is a direct result of the specific
    requirements established by DoD for warhead refurbishments,
    design modifications, testing, and dismantlement. However, when
    DoD develops their requirements their decision process is not
    constrained by the normal types of budget trade-offs that an
    agency confronts in the process of formulating a budget
    request. In effect, DoD sets the requirements and leaves it up
    to DOE to come up with the budget to support the nuclear
    weapons complex each year. If these costs were funded directly
    by DoD, the nuclear weapons activities would be considered
    against other national defense priorities, such as developing
    improved conventional weapons, procuring more of existing
    weapon systems, paying ever-increasing operational and training
    costs, and providing a better quality of life for our soldiers,
    sailors, and airmen. Similarly, if the costs of the nuclear
    weapons complex were solely determined by the DOE, they would
    be balanced against other DOE priorities, such as
    nonproliferation, science research, improving the Nation's
    energy supply, or accelerating the cleanup of contaminated
    sites. Instead, the weapons activities portion of the NNSA
    budget is effectively insulated from any such tradeoffs--DoD
    sets requirements that another agency has to fund, and DOE
    treats the weapons activities budget as untouchable because DoD
    set the requirements.
        There needs to be a serious debate about whether the
    approximately $6 billion spent annually on DOE's nuclear
    weapons complex is a sound national security investment. Until
    that debate occurs and the DOE weapons budget request is
    subject to meaningful budget trade-offs, this Committee will
    not assume that all of the proposed nuclear weapons requests
    are legitimate requirements.
        Future Years Nuclear Security Program.--The Committee
    expects the NNSA Administrator to continue to address the
    deficiencies noted by the Committee in the past so that the
    NNSA's Future Years Nuclear Security Program (FYNSP) can be
    used by both the Department and Congress as an effective multi-
    year programming and budgeting resource, which includes
    realistic resource constraints that force meaningful decisions
    on potential tradeoffs between programs. The Committee notes
    particular support for the ongoing effort of the NNSA to
    implement a Planning, Programming, Budgeting and Evaluation
    (PPBE) structure and a budgeting by weapons type budget
    process. The Committee will work with the Department to
    implement a budgeting by weapons type pilot in fiscal year 2004
    and full implementation in fiscal year 2005 and urges the
    Department to maintain a management focus on this transition to
    ensure a successful implementation process.
        The Committee notes that the DOE Inspector General is
    conducting an independent review of the NNSA's PPBE process and
    structure, including its comparability to that of the
    Department of Defense. The early indications from that review
    indicate that the NNSA has made significant progress in
    implementing their planning, programming, budgeting, and
    evaluation process. However, there are several areas where
    improvements need to be made before it is fully operational.
    Specifically, the NNSA needs to address independent cost
    validation of contractor cost estimates that form the basis for
    Department's budget estimates. The Committee will withhold any
    recommendations pending the final IG report.

                               Weapons Activities

    Appropriation, 2003...................................    $5,981,409,000
    Budget Estimate, 2004.................................     6,378,000,000
    Recommended, 2004.....................................     6,117,609,000
    Comparison:
        Appropriation, 2003...............................      +136,200,000
        Budget Estimate, 2004.............................      -260,391,000

        The goal of the Weapons Activities program is to ensure 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 under the nuclear testing moratorium and arms
    reduction treaties. The Committee's recommendation for Weapons
    Activities is $6,117,609,000, a decrease of $260,391,000 from
    the budget request of $6,378,000,000, but an increase of
    $136,200,000 over fiscal year 2003.
        Within the total amount appropriated in fiscal year 2003
    the wartime supplemental appropriations bill contained
    additional funding of $67,000,000 for weapons activities. An
    additional $47,000,000 was provided for increased safeguards
    and security requirements and $20,000,000 for activities of the
    Office of Secure Transportation Asset.
        Availability of funds.--Consistent with the provisions of
    H.R. 1588, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
    Year 2004, the funds in this account are available until
    September 30, 2006.
        Stockpile Review.--The Committee is still waiting for the
    Nuclear Weapons Stockpile report required in the Conference
    Report accompanying the Energy and Water Development
    Appropriations Act, 2003 (Pub. L. 108-7). This stockpile review
    is to present a revised nuclear weapons stockpile plan
    structured to support the President's announcement on November
    13, 2001, to draw down our nuclear forces toward the goal of
    1,700-2,200 operationally deployed strategic nuclear warheads
    between now and 2012. As the Committee noted in the FY 2003
    House Report 107-681, ``The National Nuclear Security
    Administration has not been able to reconcile the recently
    announced dramatic reductions planned for deployed operational
    nuclear warheads to its strategic weapons modernization plans,
    some of which will cost billions of dollars each, and which are
    currently structured to upgrade the maximum number of
    warheads.'' One year later, the situation has not changed. The
    Department of Defense (DoD) is responsible for establishing the
    military requirements that are incorporated into the
    Presidentially approved Nuclear Weapons Stockpile Plan (NWSP).
    Until a revised NWSP is finalized, the NNSA continues to plan
    and budget for a weapons program that maintains the nuclear
    weapons stockpile in accordance with the Strategic Arms
    Reduction Treaty (START I) active and inactive stockpile
    quantities. The fiscal year 2004 budget request is the second
    budget request delivered to the Committee that is loosely
    justified on the requirements of the Nuclear Posture Review
    (NPR) policy document but lacking a formal plan that specifies
    the changes to the stockpile reflecting the President's
    decision. The Committee was hopeful that the outcome of the
    Administration's review would provide a definitive inventory
    objective for each weapons system to allow the NNSA to plan and
    execute a program to support defense requirements based on what
    is needed rather than the continuation of a nuclear stockpile
    and weapons complex built to fight the now defunct Soviet
    Union. While the conventional forces in the Defense Department
    go through a 21st-Century transformation to meet the challenges
    of a new era, the NNSA is forced, through inertia and
    indecision, to maintain all contingencies regardless of how
    unlikely the threat. The Department of Defense needs to
    determine the composition of the stockpile required to support
    the President's announced stockpile reductions, and then
    coordinate with DOE to establish the nuclear weapons complex
    requirements based on deliberate, timely, well-justified
    decisions supported by Congress. Because the results of the
    stockpile review will not be provided to Congress in time to
    justify the fiscal year 2004 budget request, the Committee has
    to view the significant budget growth proposed for the current
    program with skepticism.
        W80 life extension project.--The Committee has had a
    special interest in the W80 warhead stockpile life extension
    project (W80 LEP) and has consistently asked for unambiguous
    answers from the NNSA and the Air Force, the military user of
    the W80 weapons system, justifying the significant budget
    increases and the aggressive schedule for the W80 LEP. In
    fiscal year 2000, the Nuclear Weapons Council agreed to a W80
    LEP schedule assuming a W80 LEP First Production Unit (FPU) in
    fiscal year 2006. However, the Committee understands that both
    NNSA and the Defense Department are currently reviewing the Air
    Force requirement for the W80 FPU and the NNSA is rebaselining
    the W80 LEP program to meet a revised delivery date to the Air
    Force in fiscal year 2008 or fiscal year 2009. However, the
    existing fiscal year 2006 FPU baseline continues to drive the
    budget request and the Committee has yet to receive an
    acceptable military justification for supporting such an
    aggressive W80 LEP program. Until a revised W80 LEP baseline
    has been finalized and justified to Congress, the Committee
    will continue to view the large proportion of the NNSA budget
    proposed for accelerated W80 LEP activities as unnecessary. As
    a result, the Committee has reduced the weapons activity budget
    for the W80 LEP.
        Stockpile Life Extension Program budget request.--The
    General Accounting Office is currently conducting a review of
    the NNSA's Stockpile Life Extension Program (SLEP) addressing
    the comprehensiveness and reliability of the SLEP budget
    requests for each of the four specific warhead life extension
    projects: W87, W80, W76, and the B61. The Department's life
    extension activities are designed to extend the service life of
    the existing nuclear weapons stockpile by providing new
    subsystems and components for each warhead thereby extending
    the operational service life. Preliminary results from the GAO
    review identify concerns that question the reliability of the
    SLEP fiscal year 2004 budget request. The Committee is
    particularly concerned that the NNSA has yet to develop a
    managerial cost accounting system that provides the full cost
    of the refurbishments programs and validates the cost estimates
    that are used to develop the budget requests. The Committee has
    consistently requested comprehensive cost estimates for the
    individual weapon type SLEPs. While the NNSA is making progress
    in budgeting by weapons type, the weapons activities campaign
    costs are still unassigned by weapon type even though the
    budget justifications for many of the proposed campaigns
    activities are tied to the life extension requirements. The
    Committee will withhold any recommendations pending the final
    GAO report.
        Life-of-Program buys.--The Committee notes that the W76 and
    W80 life extension programs include procurement actions
    referred to in the Selected Acquisition Reports as ``Life-of-
    Program buys.'' Such procurements assume the purchase of
    sufficient units to supply the entire inventory of weapons
    (i.e., every Block) to be refurbished during the life extension
    program. The purpose of the ``life of program buy'' concept is
    to ensure the availability of commercial parts and minimize the
    scope of required qualifications and surveillance programs. The
    Committee appreciates the potential program efficiencies of a
    ``life-of-program buy'' including a simplified qualification
    process and subsequent surveillance program. However, if the
    NNSA's current planning assumes refurbishing the entire START I
    stockpile and the ongoing Administration's review of the
    stockpile results in significant changes to the number of
    warheads required for the relevant weapon system, such
    procurements risk buying significantly more units than are
    necessary. This is another instance where the continued delay
    in the decision-making and implementation of a revised
    stockpile plan risks wasting resources. The Administrator is
    directed to include all ``life-of-program buy'' procurements
    for each currently planned LEP in the Selected Acquisition
    Reports submitted with the fiscal year 2005 budget request,
    including the number of warheads to be refurbished assumed in
    procurement, how much is budgeted for each procurement, the
    procurement schedule and the specific rationale for proposing a
    Life-of-Program buy.
        Reprogramming Authority.--The conference agreement provides
    limited reprogramming authority within the Weapons Activities
    account without submission of a reprogramming to be approved in
    advance by the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations.
    The reprogramming thresholds will be as follows: directed
    stockpile work, science campaigns, engineering campaigns,
    inertial confinement fusion, advanced simulation and computing,
    pit manufacturing and certification, readiness campaigns, and
    operating expenses for readiness in technical base and
    facilities. This should provide the needed flexibility to
    manage these programs.
        In addition, funding of not more than $5,000,000 may be
    transferred between each of these categories and each
    construction project subject to the following limitations: only
    one transfer may be made to or from any program or project; the
    transfer must be necessary to address a risk to health, safety
    or the environment or to assure the most efficient use of
    weapons activities funds at a site; and funds may not be used
    for an item for which Congress has specifically denied funds or
    for a new program or project that has not been authorized by
    Congress.
        The Department must notify Congress within 15 days of the
    use of this reprogramming authority. Transfers during the
    fiscal year which would result in increases or decreases in
    excess of $5,000,000 or which would be subject to the
    limitations outlined in the previous paragraph require prior
    notification and approval from the House and Senate Committees
    on Appropriations.

                            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's recommendation is
    $1,343,786,000, a decrease of $21,000,000 from the budget
    request, but an increase of $117,343,000 over fiscal year 2003.
        The Committee notes an increase of over $138,343,000 in the
    fiscal year 2004 request over the fiscal year 2003 enacted
    level in the Directed Stockpile Work account. Because of the
    still undefined outyear DOD requirements for the W80 weapons
    system, the Committee is reducing DSW workload concerning the
    W80 Life Extension Program a total of $20,000,000. The
    Committee notes that the Selected Acquisition Report for the
    W80 shows a growth of $42,000,000 in DSW from fiscal year 2003
    to fiscal year 2004. However, the Committee recognizes a
    portion of this increase is associated with the ``first user
    concept'' under which funding is assigned to a specific weapons
    type on the basis of first required utilization of facilities
    or activities on the part of a specific weapon refurbishment.
    The Committee agrees with this cost accounting concept and
    expects the NNSA to continue to use it for budgeting by weapons
    system. The Committee expects the NNSA to maintain the fiscal
    year 2003 level of effort as it rebaselines the W80 LEP to be
    consistent with revised Air Force plans and requirements. DSW
    Stockpile Research and Development is reduced $13,000,000 to
    slow activity consistent with the W80 LEP rebaselining. The
    Committee's recommendation increases Stockpile Maintenance a
    net $9,000,000 by reducing W80 LEP activities by $6,000,000 and
    increasing funding by $15,000,000 for the Y-12 Plant in
    Tennessee to complete and closeout the W87 LEP activities in
    fiscal year 2004. Stockpile Evaluation is reduced $1,000,000 to
    slow activity consistent with the W80 LEP rebaselining.
        Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator and Advanced Concepts
    research.--The Committee notes that the National Nuclear
    Security Administration has requested $21,000,000 in DSW
    Stockpile R&D to explore advanced weapons concepts, including
    $15,000,000 to continue feasibility and cost studies for the
    Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator (RNEP) and $6,000,000 for other
    advanced concepts definition studies. The Committee provides
    $5,000,000 for RNEP and eliminates funding for additional
    advanced concepts research in favor of higher priority current
    mission requirements. The Committee is concerned the NNSA is
    being tasked to start new activities with significant outyear
    budget impacts before the Administration has articulated the
    specific requirements to support the President's announced
    stockpile modifications. Under current plans, the NNSA is
    attempting to modernize the industrial infrastructure of the
    weapons complex and restore production plant capability in
    order to refurbish the entire START I stockpile, reengineer the
    federal management structure of the complex and downsize the
    workforce by 20 percent by the end of fiscal year 2004, while
    struggling to successfully demonstrate its core mission of
    maintaining the existing stockpile through the Stockpile
    Stewardship Program. Before any of the existing program goals
    have been successfully demonstrated, the Administration is now
    proposing to spend millions on enhanced test readiness while
    maintaining the moratorium on nuclear testing, aggressively
    pursue a multi-billion dollar Modern Pit Facility before the
    first production pit has even been successfully certified for
    use in the stockpile, develop a robust nuclear earth penetrator
    weapon and begin additional advanced concepts research on new
    nuclear weapons. It appears to the Committee the Department is
    proposing to rebuild, restart, and redo and otherwise exercise
    every capability that was used over the past forty years of the
    Cold War and at the same time prepare for a future with an
    expanded mission for nuclear weapons. Nothing in the past
    performance of the NNSA convinces this Committee that the
    successful implementation of Stockpile Stewardship program is a
    foregone conclusion, which makes the pursuit of a broad range
    of new initiatives premature. Until the NNSA has demonstrated
    to the Congress that it can successfully meet its primary
    mission of maintaining the safety, security, and viability of
    the existing stockpile by executing the Stockpile Life
    Extension Program and Science-based Stewardship activities on
    time and within budget, this Committee will not support
    redirecting the management resources and attention to a series
    of new initiatives.
        The Committee directs that funding provided for the Robust
    Nuclear Earth Penetrator (RNEP) be used for research on the
    problem of deep earth penetration through hard or hardened
    surfaces, including modeling and simulation of the use of
    advanced materials, and varied trajectories and speeds. The
    Committee further directs that the National Nuclear Security
    Administration (NNSA) coordinate the RNEP research program with
    ongoing programs at the Department of Defense relating to
    research on earth penetration to maximize the dual-use
    applicability for both conventional and nuclear weapons.
        The fiscal year 2004 budget request identified specific
    funding amounts by weapons system in the Selected Acquisition
    Reports that accompanied the submission of the President's
    budget request. The Committee is to be notified in advance if
    the proposed funding levels for any weapons system change from
    the estimate provided in the Selected Acquisition Reports
    submitted with the fiscal year budget justification.
    Congressional approval will be required before any actual RNEP
    modifications are initiated.

                                   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. The
    Committee recommendation is $2,268,455,000, a decrease of
    $127,000,000 below the budget request of $2,395,455,000.
        In order to facilitate review of the President's annual
    budget request, the Committee continues to direct the
    Department to provide project baseline data for each campaign
    to include a brief description of the campaign with planned
    completion dates, the total estimated cost of each campaign,
    the costs by fiscal year for each major component of the
    campaign, and a list of major milestones by year. The Committee
    expects the Department to provide detailed project baseline
    data for each campaign showing the annual and five-year costs,
    schedule, scope, and deliverables for individual project
    activities as part of the fiscal year 2005 budget request.
        From within funds provided for the various campaigns,
    $4,300,000 is for the University Research Program in Robotics.
        Science campaigns.--The Committee recommendation for
    science campaigns is $236,548,000, a reduction of $33,000,000
    from the budget request. The dynamic materials properties
    campaign is reduced by $5,000,000 because of slower progress
    than anticipated in Atlas experiments in fiscal year 2003, and
    the advanced radiography campaign is reduced by $20,000,000 due
    to reduction in the level of R&D work in the development of the
    multi-axis multi-time radiography. The primary certification
    campaign was reduced $8,000,000 by limiting the increase in the
    Boost Physics activity to $5,000,000 over current year and
    limiting the Materials Science Integration and Analysis
    increase to $3,516,000 over current year consistent with W80
    LEP rebaselining.
        Inspector General report.--The Committee is very concerned
    about the recent DOE Inspector General report (DOE/IG-0599) on
    the Dual Axis Radiographic Hydrodynamic Test Facility (DARHT)
    project that included findings that, notwithstanding the NNSA
    announcement that DARHT construction project had been completed
    on time and within budget, the facility would not be fully
    operational until June 2004. In addition to the 15-month delay
    from the projected completion date of March 2003, the IG noted
    a lack of a viable baseline and the shifting of at least $57.5
    million of additional costs that were transferred to other work
    elements but should have been identified with the DARHT total
    project cost. The Committee has consistently urged the NNSA to
    strengthen its federal project management oversight expertise
    and reviews such as the DARHT audit reinforces the Committee's
    position on that recommendation.
        Engineering campaigns.--The Committee recommendation for
    engineering campaigns is $298,187,000, a decrease of
    $33,000,000 from the budget request. The enhanced surety
    campaign is reduced $5,000,000 to slow down the level of effort
    identified for advanced use denial elements and options for the
    W80 Block 2, which under current W80 LEP schedule is not
    scheduled to start until fiscal year 2011. The Committee
    reduces the large increase for the enhanced surveillance
    campaign by $3,000,000 within the nonnuclear components,
    nonnuclear materials, and systems work activities.
        Construction projects.--The Committee recommends
    $36,800,000 a reduction of $25,000,000 from the budget request,
    for Project 01-D-108, Microsystem and engineering science
    applications (MESA), SNL, New Mexico, to rebalance the current
    financial state of the construction project. The Committee is
    supportive of the MESA project, however, the significant
    uncosted balances associated with the project in addition to
    the significant increases over the requested budget levels
    provided over the past two years represent a serious project
    management challenge for the NNSA and a serious concern for the
    Committee.
        Inertial Confinement Fusion.--The Committee recommends
    $511,769,000 for the inertial confinement fusion program, an
    increase of $45,000,000 over the budget request of
    $466,769,000. Consistent with the recommendation of the House-
    passed National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004,
    the Committee recommendation provides $58,337,000 for
    Experimental Support Technologies, a reduction of $5,000,000
    from the request, but an increase of $27,975,000 over current
    year. The Committee recognizes the recent successes on the NIF
    project and expects NNSA to focus on the core NIF project to
    maintain cost and schedule performance. The recommendation
    includes $25,000,000 to continue development of high average
    power lasers and supporting science and technology. The
    Committee recommendation also includes the budget request of
    $10,467,000 for the Naval Research Laboratory, and $68,132,000
    for the University of Rochester, an increase of $25,000,000
    over the budget request. This additional funding has been
    provided to the University of Rochester's Laboratory for Laser
    Energetics for the OMEGA Extended Performance Facility in
    support of the nation's stockpile stewardship program.
        The Committee recommendation provides $150,000,000 for
    construction of the National Ignition Facility (NIF), the same
    as the budget request.
        Advanced simulation and computing.--The Committee
    recommendation for Advanced Simulation and Computing is
    $715,626,000, a reduction of $35,000,000 below the budget
    request of $750,626,000, but an increase of $15,763,000 over
    the current year. Within the ASCI campaign, the Committee
    provides $52,102,000 for Simulation Support, a reduction of
    $5,000,000 from the budget request; $135,000,000 for Physical
    Infrastructure and Platforms, a reduction of $5,000,000 from
    the budget request; $61,534,000 for Computational Systems,
    reduction of $5,000,000 from the budget request; $10,000,000
    for PathForward, a reduction of $5,000,000 from the budget
    request; $2,250,000 for ASCI Integration, a reduction of
    $5,000,000 from the budget request; and $37,600,000 for
    University Partnerships, a reduction of $10,000,000 from the
    budget request.
        Pit Manufacturing and Pit Certification.--The Committee
    recommendation for pit manufacturing and certification campaign
    is $273,228,000, a reduction of $47,000,000 from the budget
    request, but an increase of $12,228,000 over the current year
    budget. The Committee strongly supports the progress the NNSA
    and the Los Alamos National Laboratory have demonstrated in
    turning around the performance in the pit manufacturing and
    certification activities. The Committee urges the Department to
    continue to concentrate its management attention on meeting the
    fiscal year 2007 schedule for a certified pit and challenges
    the NNSA to reduce the total estimated cost required to meet
    the fiscal year 2007 certification goal. The Committee provides
    $116,773,000 for W88 Pit Manufacturing and $98,592,000 for W88
    Certification. The Department is requesting $19,700,000 for pit
    manufacturing capability to develop manufacturing technologies
    for pits other than the W88. The Committee has determined this
    level of technology development for manufacturing capability in
    a facility that is a minimum of 15 years away from planned
    operational capability is premature. The Committee
    recommendation is $4,700,000 in FY 2004, an increase of
    $2,000,000 over the current year program level.
        The Committee recommendation is $10,810,000 for the modern
    pit facility (MPF), a reduction of $12,000,000 from the
    request. The Committee supports the budget request in fiscal
    year 2004 for continued conceptual design work on a Modern Pit
    Facility, but urges the NNSA to look diligently at ways to more
    effectively utilize TA-55 at Los Alamos National Laboratory to
    address Stockpile Stewardship Program pit manufacturing
    requirements in the near term and take a less aggressive
    planning approach for a new multi-billion dollar facility. The
    Committee feels the Department's rush to commit to an MPF
    design and siting decision is premature without the development
    of a detailed analysis of outyear pit production capacity
    requirements tied to the 2012 stockpile.
        The Committee provides the budget request for Pit Campaign
    support activities at the Nevada Test Site.
        Readiness campaigns.--The Committee recommendation for
    Readiness Campaigns is $233,097,000, a reduction of $24,000,000
    from the budget request. The Committee recommends $45,158,000,
    for Stockpile Readiness. The Committee reduces the Establish
    Near-Term Process Capability $10,000,000 to reduce the growth
    in procurements for capital equipment associated with the W80
    LEP to be consistent with W80 LEP rebaselining. The Committee
    recommends $19,649,000 for High Explosives Manufacturing &
    Weapons Assembly/Disassembly, a reduction of $10,000,000 from
    the budget request to slow the growth of high explosive
    manufacturing, product requalification, and science-based
    manufacturing activities consistent with W80 LEP rebaselining.
    The Committee recommends $33,397,000 for Nonnuclear Readiness,
    a reduction of $4,000,000 from the budget request, to reduce
    the level of effort associated with the W80 readiness of
    production operations. The Committee recommends $134,893,000
    for Tritium Readiness, the same as the budget request.

                   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 $1,511,080,000, a reduction of
    $102,391,000 below the budget request of $1,613,471,000.
        Operations of facilities.--The Committee recommendation for
    Operations of facilities is $997,773,000, an increase of
    $25,000,000 over the budget request. Additional funding of
    $20,000,000 has been provided for the Pantex plant in Texas and
    $5,000,000 for the Y-12 Plant in Tennessee to meet facility
    needs.
        Program Readiness.--The Committee recommends $106,202,000,
    a reduction of $24,891,000 from the budget request for Program
    Readiness. The budget request proposes $24,891,000 for enhanced
    test readiness activities. The increase over the base program
    for Nevada site readiness is proposed to fund the transition
    from the current 24 to 36 month time-to-test requirement to an
    18-month test readiness posture at the Nevada Test Site. The
    Committee is concerned with the open-ended commitment to
    increase significantly funding for the purpose of Enhanced Test
    Readiness without any budget analysis or program plan to
    evaluate the efficiency or effectiveness of this funding
    increase. Recent reports done by the DOE Inspector General and
    two NNSA management studies done at the Committee's request all
    identified significant problems with the current test readiness
    program, but the Department's proposal does not address the
    fundamental difficulties in maintaining test readiness during a
    testing moratorium.
        The September 2002 Office of Inspector General audit (DOE/
    IG-0566) identified several problem areas impacting the ability
    to resume testing within the existing 24 to 36 month
    requirement: decline in the number of employees with testing
    experience; the deterioration of necessary systems and
    equipment; the inability to keep pace with new technology; and
    a delay in conducting required safety studies. The Committee
    notes that the IG identified these problems assuming the
    current 24 to 36 month test readiness posture rather than the
    proposed test readiness time frame of 18 months. As the IG
    audit noted, if the current testing infrastructure and
    personnel resources are moribund due to eleven years of
    inactivity, the Committee fails to see how the NNSA's enhanced
    test readiness proposal puts in place a program that precludes
    a similar state of disarray ten years into the future. Neither
    past performance nor any program or planning documentation
    provided to the Committee supports the Department's contention
    that an additional $100 million over three years and a $45
    million increment every year thereafter is likely to result in
    a consistent 6 to 12 month improvement in test readiness
    posture when the current requirement has not been successfully
    maintained.
        The Department's rationale for the change to an 18-month
    posture was included in the April 2003 Report to Congress on
    Nuclear Test Readiness, ``An 18 month posture is appropriate
    because this is the minimum time we would expect it would take,
    once a problem was identified, to assess the problem, develop
    and implement a solution, and plan and execute a test that
    would provide the information needed to certify the fix.'' The
    NNSA's July 2002 Enhanced Test Readiness Cost Study stated that
    even during the Cold War era of routine testing, the national
    labs required 18-24 months to design and field a nuclear test
    with full diagnostics. The Committee questions a proposal to
    move to and attempt to indefinitely maintain a test readiness
    state that is the absolute minimum amount of time necessary to
    conduct a test designed to produce meaningful diagnostic
    results. The proposal reflects a disturbing ``cost is no
    object'' perspective in the Department's decisionmaking
    process.
        The Committee supports the continued maintenance of the
    Nevada Test Site as a valuable resource for the NNSA nuclear
    weapons complex. Indeed, the Committee provides significant
    resources every year to fund a wide variety of activities at
    NTS that support the overall Stockpile Stewardship program.
    However, the Committee will not spend money on a perceived
    problem when the Department has not provided a rationale or a
    plan that addresses the underlying problems inherent in
    maintaining a testing capability during a testing moratorium.
    The Department's report states, ``The NNSA has made a
    deliberate decision, in consultation with DOD and other
    agencies with the Administration, to move to an 18-month
    nuclear test readiness posture by the end of fiscal year
    2005.'' The Committee does not recognize the NNSA declaring a
    revised test readiness posture as a new requirement nor is it
    convinced that the decision can be successfully implemented
    based on the planning information provided to date. The
    Committee challenges the NNSA to work within the significant
    funding provided each year for its site readiness activities to
    demonstrate the ability to meet its current requirements before
    additional funds are added to meet a more problematic goal.
        The Committee provides no funds for Enhanced Test Readiness
    as proposed by the Department in fiscal year 2004 pending
    better definition of the national security requirement.
        Special Projects.--The Committee recommendation for Special
    Projects is $34,975,000, a reduction of $8,000,000 from the
    budget request. The Committee concurs with the concerns
    identified in the Report accompanying the House-passed Fiscal
    Year 2004 National Defense Authorization Act and recommends the
    elimination of the $8,000,000 of funding assistance for the Los
    Alamos School District.
        The Committee recommendation for material recycle and
    recovery is $76,189,000, the same as the budget request. The
    Committee recommendation for containers is $16,006,000, the
    same as the budget request. The Committee recommendation for
    storage is $11,365,000, the same as the budget request. The
    Committee recommendation for nuclear weapons incident response
    is $89,694,000, the same as the budget request.
        Construction projects.--
        Project 04-D-101, Test capabilities revitalization, SNL,
    Albuquerque, NM. The Committee recommends $36,450,000, the same
    as the budget request. The Committee notes the importance of
    the test capabilities being available for the out year
    stockpile life extension programs.
        Project 04-D-102, Exterior Communications Infrastructure
    Modernization, SNL, NM. The Committee recommends the
    modernization of the exterior communications infrastructure at
    Sandia National Lab be delayed until fiscal year 2005 and
    redirects the funds to higher priorities.
        Project 04-D-104, National Security Sciences building,
    LANL, NM. The Committee recommends the LANL office building,
    Project 04-D-104, be delayed until fiscal year 2005 and
    redirects the funds to higher priority requirements.
        Project 04-D-125, Chemistry and Metallurgy Research
    Facility Replacement (CMR-R)--LANL. The Committee recommends no
    funding for Project 04-D-125 in fiscal year 2004. Due to the
    complexity of this project, the Committee directs the
    completion of the project management decision process for the
    CMR-R in fiscal year 2004 prior to actual start of construction
    in fiscal year 2005. The Committee notes the Department has not
    completed the project engineering steps concerning CMR-R,
    including reaching critical decision one (CD-1) to commence the
    acquisition strategy or any baseline cost validation. The
    current cost estimate is based on pre-conceptual planning while
    the baseline cost validation will not be completed until
    reaching critical decision two. Although the Committee
    continues to be a strong adherent of the Department's new
    project management process, the Committee must question the
    actual commitment of the Department to its own process by
    allowing this project to go forward in the fiscal year 2004
    budget request.
        Project 03-D-121, Gas Transfer Capacity Expansion, Kansas
    City, The Committee recommends $11,300,000, a reduction of
    $4,000,000 from the request. The construction activity is
    slowed consistent with the W80 life extension program FPU
    rebaselining.

                 FACILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE RECAPITALIZATION

        The Committee recommendation for Facilities and
    Infrastructure Recapitalization Program (FIRP) is $255,123,000,
    a reduction of $10,000,000 from the budget request, but an
    increase of $14,187,000 over the current year. The Committee
    remains encouraged by the execution of this program and holds
    the NNSA to its commitment to ensure the results of this
    funding are quantifiable and provide measurable improvements at
    each site.
        FIRP is a corporate program to restore, rebuild, and
    revitalize the physical infrastructure of the nuclear weapons
    complex. Its purpose is to stem the deterioration of the
    complex and address the backlog of maintenance, repair, and
    upgrade projects. The Committee directs NNSA to ensure that
    funds for recapitalization are not diverted to fund ongoing
    maintenance and programmatic needs while at the same time
    guarding against the inefficiency of large uncosted balances.
    The Committee recognizes the effort to revitalize the physical
    infrastructure of the weapons complex is in its early phases
    however, the Committee cannot continue to support such
    significant budget increases for FIRP unless the funds are
    being utilized efficiently.
        The Committee directs that at least $50,000,000 of the
    facilities and infrastructure funding in fiscal year 2004 be
    used to dispose of excess facilities. The Committee encourages
    continuation of the strides made during the first two years of
    this program to reduce the overall facilities footprint of the
    complex. The use of new and innovative decontamination and
    decommissioning (D&D) practices must continue to be implemented
    to reduce costs and expedite site cleanups. The Committee
    continues to expect that services for D&D and demolition of
    excess facilities services be procured through open-competition
    where such actions provide the best return on investment for
    the federal government. The Committee directs the NNSA to
    continue a free and open competition process for at least 70
    percent of the funds provided for disposing of excess
    facilities.

                          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 $182,400,000,
    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 $585,750,000, the same as the budget request.
    Consistent with the recommendation of the House-passed National
    Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004, the Committee
    recommends no funding in the weapons activities safeguards and
    security for the new research and development initiatives in
    cyber and physical security. The Committee notes that security
    R&D activities are more appropriately funded within the
    Department's Office of Security. The Committee directs an
    additional $10,000,000 for Y-12 National Security Complex to
    implement available security technologies to minimize
    additional manpower increases to meet new security
    requirements. As the Committee noted last year 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.

                              FUNDING ADJUSTMENTS

        The budget request included an offset of $28,985,000 for
    the safeguards and security charge for reimbursable work.

                        Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation

    Appropriation, 2003...................................    $1,168,860,000
    Budget Estimate, 2004.................................     1,340,195,000
    Recommended, 2004.....................................     1,280,195,000
    Comparison:
        Appropriation, 2003...............................      +111,335,000
        Budget Estimate, 2004.............................       -60,000,000

        The Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation account includes
    funding for Nonproliferation and Verification Research and
    Development; Nonproliferation and International Security;
    Nonproliferation Programs with Russia including International
    Materials Protection, Control, and Cooperation, Russian
    Transition Initiative, Highly Enriched Uranium (HEU)
    Transparency Implementation, International Nuclear Safety,
    Elimination of Weapons-Grade Plutonium Production; Accelerated
    Materials Disposition; Fissile Materials Disposition; and
    Program Direction. Descriptions of each of these programs are
    provided below.
        Risk based priority setting.--The Committee concurs with a
    recent DOE Inspector General audit (DOE/IG-0603) wherein the IG
    noted that the NN program had not established a formal, risk-
    based approach to allocating program funding. Despite several
    requests from the Committee, the Department has yet to produce
    any sort of qualitative or quantitative analysis that compares
    the costs of various nonproliferation initiatives against the
    presumed benefits in terms of reduced risk. The Committee
    acknowledges that such a comparison, especially on a
    quantitative basis, is not simple, nor can it be the sole
    decision making rationale. However, for the purpose of
    evaluating budget requests and making funding decisions the
    Committee requires a stronger analytical decision-making
    justification to determine the appropriate use of the marginal
    budget dollar for nonproliferation activities. The Committee
    directs the NNSA to submit as part of its fiscal year 2005
    budget request for nonproliferation activities a budget
    justification including a program analysis applying a risk-
    based evaluation of different activities proposed in the budget
    request.
        Availability of funds.--Consistent with the provisions of
    H.R. 1588, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
    Year 2004, as passed by the House of Representatives, the funds
    in this account are available until September 30, 2006.

           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 counter nuclear smuggling effort
    and the entire Chemical and Biological National Security
    component formerly a part of the nonproliferation and
    verification research and development office were transferred
    to the Department of Homeland Security on March 1, 2003.
        The Committee recommendation is $203,873,000, the same as
    the budget request, and includes $108,536,000 for proliferation
    detection; $89,277,000 for nuclear explosion monitoring, of
    which $25,000,000 is for ground-based systems for treaty
    monitoring; and $6,333,000 for supporting activities.
        The Committee has continuing concerns with the management
    of the research and development program. The Department needs
    to involve the end users in the project proposal process, not
    allow laboratories and Headquarters program managers to come up
    with ideas and then shop around in search of potential end
    users. While funds for research and development are increasing,
    there is a gap not being filled between long-term laboratory
    research and development and what private industry is currently
    developing. The potential users of these technologies are
    looking for short-term improvements to existing products, not
    long-term research and development projects. The need to bring
    incrementally improved technologies to the marketplace quickly
    has never been more urgent.
        Competitive Research.--The capability of the Department to
    develop and apply technology rapidly to meet growing
    nonproliferation and terrorism challenges is a continuing
    concern of the Committee. The Technical Support Working Group
    (TSWG) is the focal point in the federal government to conduct
    the national interagency research and development program for
    combating terrorism requirements. TSWG seeks technology
    solutions that address operational and technological shortfalls
    identified by government agency users. Using a solicitation
    format called a Broad Agency Announcement (BAA), TSWG solicits
    industry, academia, and government laboratories for innovative
    research and development solutions to these requirements,
    including nuclear, radiological, chemical, and biological
    countermeasures. The Committee directs the Department to use
    the TWSG BAA process for all nonproliferation and verification
    research and development activities during fiscal year 2004.
    The Committee believes that TSWG will help the Department
    identify and prioritize requirements and develop technology
    solutions more quickly.
        Annual Report Requirement.--The Committee directs the
    Department to prepare an annual report of each project with the
    baseline cost, scope and schedule, deliverables, lab performing
    the research and development, and the proposed user and submit
    this with the fiscal year 2005 budget.

                  NONPROLIFERATION AND INTERNATIONAL SECURITY

        The nonproliferation and international security program
    (formerly the Arms Control 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: nonproliferation policy;
    international safeguards; export control; and treaties and
    agreements. The Committee recommendation for nonproliferation
    and international security is $105,734,000, an increase of
    $4,000,000 from the budget request to fund the accelerated
    activities in Reduced Enrichment for Research and Test Reactors
    (RERTR) and the HEU Research Reactor Fuel Purchase proposed
    under the AMD initiative.
        Within the nonproliferation policy program is the Reduced
    Enrichment for Research and Test Reactor (RERTR) program to
    prevent proliferation of nuclear weapons by minimizing and
    possibly eliminating the use of highly enriched uranium (HEU)
    in civilian nuclear programs worldwide. The RERTR program
    develops the technologies needed to substitute LEU for HEU in
    research and test reactors, and proposes to complete this
    activity by 2009. The recommendation includes $8,860,000, an
    increase of $3,000,000 from the budget request to fund the
    accelerated activities in Reduced Enrichment for Research and
    Test Reactors (RERTR) proposed under the Accelerated Materials
    Disposition initiative.
        Also in the nonproliferation policy program is the Russian
    Foreign Research Reactor Fuel Return (RFR) initiative to
    prevent proliferation of nuclear weapons by repatriating to
    Russia civilian HEU fuel from Russian-supplied research
    reactors in various countries, including those located in
    regions of proliferation concern. The recommendation includes
    the budget request of $9,691,000.
        Also in the nonproliferation policy program is the
    Kazakhstan Spent Fuel Disposition initiative to secure three
    tons of weapons-grade plutonium in the BN-350 reactor spent
    fuel at Aktau, Kazakhstan. The recommendation includes the
    budget request of $8,270,000. The Committee has serious
    reservations concerning the baseline plan, which assumes
    transporting the spent fuel out of its secure location in
    Aktau, across the country, to an as-yet-unbuilt storage
    facility in eastern Kazakhstan. The Department is directed to
    conduct an updated vulnerability analysis (VA) applying the
    revised Postulated Threat statement to the existing VA data to
    evaluate the costs and risks of transporting the material to
    the storage site area assumed in the baseline compared to
    securing the material in a dry storage option on site at the
    BN-350 reactor in Aktau. None of the funds provided for this
    activity in fiscal year 2004, or previous fiscal years, may be
    obligated for transportation equipment or activities without
    first notifying the Committee.

                     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.
        Limitation on Russian Program Funds.--The Committee remains
    concerned that the Department is not putting a high enough
    management priority on ensuring as much of the funds
    appropriated for the Russian programs as practical, be spent in
    Russia rather than at the Department's own national
    laboratories in the U.S. 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 Committee
    expects more direct contracting will be a result of the Nuclear
    Nonproliferation office achieving its Federal staffing goals in
    FY 2004. 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 35 percent of the
    funding for Russian programs may be spent in the United States.
    The Department's failure to review the types of administrative
    and programmatic guidance that are needed for these programs
    and to choose the proper contractual mechanism leads to
    excessive costs for administration and less funding going to
    Russia. The Department should report to the Committee by
    December 15, 2003, on the steps being taken to meet the 35
    percent limitation.

          INTERNATIONAL MATERIALS PROTECTION, CONTROL AND COOPERATION

        The International Nuclear Materials Protection and
    Cooperation program is 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 $255,000,000, an increase
    of $29,000,000 over the budget request. The Committee
    recommendation includes $1,000,000 for accelerating the
    Material Consolidation and Conversion (MCC) program as proposed
    under the Accelerated Materials Disposition initiative. The
    Committee continues to direct 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.
        Megaports initiative.--The fiscal year 2003 wartime
    supplemental included $84,000,000 for developing and deploying
    radiation detectors at mega seaports. The Megaports initiative
    is a new activity in fiscal year 2003 intended to install
    radiation detection equipment at the top 20 major overseas
    seaports to detect and interdict special nuclear material prior
    to arrival in the U.S. The top 20 foreign seaports identified
    in the Megaports initiative as priority upgrades are the source
    of 70% of the container traffic from all overseas ports
    destined for U.S. ports. The Committee is fully supportive of
    the Megaports concept of interdicting source material for a
    weapon of mass destruction as far from the U.S. border as
    feasible and directs the department to expand this new program
    in fiscal year 2004. The Committee provides $28,000,000 within
    International Materials Protection, Control and Cooperation,
    Second Line of Defense, for Megaports. The Department did not
    include funding for Megaports activities in the department's
    budget request for fiscal year 2004; however, the Committee
    expects the Department to request funding for this high
    priority activity in the fiscal year 2005 budget request.
        Standards for Cleanup after RDD Event.--The Emergency
    Wartime Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2003, provided
    $17,000,000 to expand efforts under the International Nuclear
    Materials Protection and Cooperation program to secure
    materials that may be used to construct a radioactive dispersal
    device (RDD) and to develop standards for the cleanup of
    contamination resulting from a potential RDD event. In its
    efforts to help develop appropriate cleanup standards for an
    RDD event, the Committee expects the Department to coordinate
    fully with the other Federal agencies that have responsibility
    for setting radiation standards in the United States, namely
    the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Environmental
    Protection Agency.

                         RUSSIAN TRANSITION INITIATIVE

        The Committee recommendation for the Russian Transition
    Initiative program is $40,000,000, the same as the budget
    request. This includes the Initiative for Proliferation
    Prevention (IPP) program and the Nuclear Cities Initiatives
    (NCI) to develop projects to employ Russian weapons scientists
    and downsize the Russian weapons complex.

           HIGHLY ENRICHED URANIUM (HEU) TRANSPARENCY IMPLEMENTATION

        The highly enriched uranium (HEU) transparency
    implementation program develops and implements mutually
    agreeable transparency measures for the February 1993 agreement
    between the United States and the Russian Federation. This
    agreement, which has an estimated value of $12 billion, covers
    the purchase over 20 years of low enriched uranium (LEU)
    derived from 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
    Committee recommendation is $18,000,000, the same as the budget
    request.

                  INTERNATIONAL NUCLEAR SAFETY AND COOPERATION

        With the completion of the Soviet-designed reactor safety
    program in fiscal year 2003, the international nuclear safety
    and cooperation program should plan to complete all ongoing
    activities by the end of fiscal year 2004. The Committee does
    not support an expanded mission for the program beyond the
    original mandate of the Soviet-designed reactor safety program.
    The Committee notes that the security of nuclear materials and
    facilities is the mission of other offices within the Office of
    Nuclear Nonproliferation, and that other Federal and
    international entities already have nuclear safety as a primary
    mission. The Committee recommendation is $6,083,000, a
    reduction of $8,000,000 from the budget request of $14,083,000.
    The Committee reallocates the funds to continue and accelerate
    the Megaports initiative in fiscal year 2004.

               ELIMINATION OF WEAPONS-GRADE PLUTONIUM PRODUCTION

        The Elimination of Weapons-Grade Plutonium Production
    Program (EWGPP) was transferred from the Department of Defense
    to the Department of Energy in fiscal year 2003. This is a
    cooperative effort with the Federation of Russia to stop
    plutonium production at three nuclear reactors still in
    operation in Russia, two located at Seversk and one at
    Zheleznogorsk. The three reactors have approximately 15 years
    of remaining lifetime and could generate an additional 25
    metric tons of weapons-grade plutonium. They also provide heat
    and electricity required by the surrounding communities. The
    current approach is to shutdown these three reactors within six
    years by providing alternate fossil-fueled energy plants to
    supply heat and electricity to the surrounding communities. The
    total estimated cost to shutdown the three nuclear reactors and
    build two new fossil-fuel plants is $470,000,000. The Committee
    recommendation is $50,000,000, the same as the budget request.
        The Committee appreciates that the Administrator of the
    NNSA choose to complete the EWGPP fossil fuel construction
    projects in accordance with the direction of the Committee and
    expects to be kept informed of program progress.

                        ACCELERATED MATERIAL DISPOSITION

        The Department has proposed a new initiative to augment
    activities currently conducted under the 1993 HEU/LEU Purchase
    Agreement with the Russian Federation to reduce weapons useable
    high enriched uranium (HEU) to low enriched uranium (LEU) for
    fuel to be used in civilian power producing reactors in the
    U.S. The Accelerated Material Disposition initiative proposes
    to directly purchase HEU and HEU converted to LEU material from
    the Russia Federation for storage and use by the U.S.
    government. The Accelerated Material Disposition initiative has
    a ten-year projected cost estimate of $710 million to $1.13
    billion in order to eliminate an additional 15 Metric Tons (MT)
    of excess HEU in Russia. Under the existing 1993 HEU/LEU
    Purchase Agreement, 30 MT per year are presently being
    eliminated by downblending to low enriched uranium at no cost
    to the taxpayer.
        The Committee is disappointed that the Administration's
    highest profile nonproliferation initiative imposes a
    government solution at significant cost to the taxpayer for a
    nonproliferation issue that has been successfully addressed for
    nearly a decade using a free market approach under the HEU/LEU
    Purchase Agreement. At a time of constrained resources when the
    Department is ignoring an obvious unmet need such as nuclear
    material detection at foreign seaports, the Committee cannot
    support such a significant commitment of outyear budgets for
    what is a marginal nuclear nonproliferation gain. The Committee
    concurs with the recent DOE Inspector General audit (DOE/IG-
    0603) wherein the IG noted that the NN program had not
    established a formal, risk-based approach to allocating program
    funding. A proposal such as the AMD initiative demonstrates
    that the NN program requires a stronger analytical decision-
    making model to determine the appropriate use of the marginal
    budget dollar.
        The Committee notes that the $14,000,000 provided for
    fiscal year 2003 will most likely remain uncosted, as the
    implementing agreement negotiations with the Russians have not
    been completed. Considering the ongoing concern of the
    Committee regarding the large uncosted balances in the
    Nonproliferation programs the request for AMD has been reduced
    pending conclusion of negotiations with the Russians.
    Consistent with the direction provided in the House-passed
    Fiscal Year 2004 National Defense Authorization Act the
    Committee provides $5,000,000, a reduction of $25,000,000 for
    the Accelerated Material Disposition proposal.
        The Committee recommended funding for accelerated Reduced
    Enrichment for Research and Test Reactors (RERTR) and the HEU
    Research Reactor Fuel Purchase and the Material Consolidation
    and Conversion (MCC) program in the appropriate NN program
    account where the existing base programs are funded.

                         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 $656,505,000, the same as
    the budget request. Funding of $193,805,000 is provided for
    U.S. surplus materials disposition and $47,100,000 for the
    Russian plutonium disposition program.
        The U.S. portion of the fissile materials disposition
    program is not to be counted in the 35 percent limitation on
    funds for Russian programs to be spent in the U.S.
        Construction projects.--The Committee recommendation
    includes $402,000,000 for Project 99-D-143, the Mixed Oxide
    Fuel Fabrication facility project. Funding of $13,600,000 is
    provided for Project 99-D-141, the Pit Disassembly and
    Conversion Facility project.

                              FUNDING ADJUSTMENTS

        The Committee recommendation includes the use of
    $60,000,000 of prior year balances. The Committee reiterates
    its concern over the ever-increasing uncosted balances in the
    Nuclear Nonproliferation program. The Department estimates that
    the end of fiscal year 2003 uncosted balances for NN will be
    over $1,000,000,000. The Committee questions whether the
    program is achieving its program goals with uncosted balances
    at such levels. These balances represent a serious management
    challenge for the NNSA and the Committee expects these funds
    will be efficiently utilized in a timely manner.

                                 Naval Reactors

    Appropriation, 2003...................................      $702,196,000
    Budget Estimate, 2004.................................       768,400,000
    Recommended, 2004.....................................       768,400,000
    Comparison:
        Appropriation, 2003...............................       +66,204,000
        Budget Estimate, 2004.............................  ................

        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 ensuring the
    safety and reliability of 102 operating Naval reactor plants
    and to developing the next generation reactor. The Committee
    recommendation is $768,400,000, the same as the budget request.

                          Office of the Administrator

    Appropriation, 2003...................................      $325,102,000
    Budget Estimate, 2004.................................       347,980,000
    Recommended, 2004.....................................       341,980,000
    Comparison:
        Appropriation, 2003...............................       +16,878,000
        Budget Estimate, 2004.............................        -6,000,000

        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 $341,980,000, a reduction of $6,000,000 from
    the budget request to reflect the reduction in overall program
    activities.
        The NNSA formally delivered to Congress a management
    reengineering plan on December 20, 2002, with a goal of
    consolidating functions, clarifying lines of authority and
    reducing federal employment levels by 20 percent throughout the
    complex by the end of fiscal year 2004. The Committee fully
    supports the successful implementation of the NNSA
    reengineering effort and will work with the Administrator to
    achieve the fiscal year 2004 goal. The Committee expects
    regular updates on the reengineering implementation progress
    throughout fiscal year 2004.
        The Committee directs the Administrator of NNSA to provide
    at least $5,000,000 for the Office of Engineering and
    Construction Management for External Independent Reviews (EIRs)
    of NNSA projects and continue to provide financial support for
    training and mentoring programs to improve the skills of NNSA
    project managers.
        Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation.--The Committee provides
    $58,000,000 for the Federal employees in the Office of Defense
    Nuclear Nonproliferation to allow greater management
    flexibility for that office in hiring Federal employees. The
    Committee continues to identify the Defense Nuclear
    Nonproliferation separately to maintain the transparency and
    management attention on achieving the FY 2004 goal of 244 on-
    board Federal employees.
        The Committee recommendation provides $12,000, the same as
    the budget request, for official reception and representation
    expenses for the NNSA.

                   Environmental and Other Defense Activities

                        Defense Environmental Management

    Appropriation, 2003...................................    $6,723,090,000
    Budget Estimate, 2004.................................     6,809,814,000
    Recommended, 2004.....................................     6,748,457,000
    Comparison:
        Appropriation, 2003...............................       +25,367,000
        Budget Estimate, 2004.............................       -61,357,000

        The Defense Environmental Management program is responsible
    for identifying and reducing risks and managing waste at sites
    where the Department carried out defense-related nuclear
    research and production activities that resulted in
    radioactive, hazardous, and mixed waste contamination requiring
    remediation, stabilization, or some other type of cleanup
    action. These responsibilities include facilities and areas at
    114 geographic sites. These sites are located in 30 states and
    one territory and occupy an area equal to that of Rhode Island
    and Delaware combined-or about two million acres.
        The Department has restructured its Defense Environmental
    Management budget for fiscal year 2004 to focus on accelerated
    cleanup and closure. The former Defense Environmental
    Management accounts (Defense Environmental Restoration and
    Waste Management, Defense Facilities Closure and Defense
    Privatization) have been collapsed into the new Defense Site
    Acceleration Completion and Defense Environmental Services
    accounts. Defense Site Acceleration Completion, by far the
    largest account at a request of $5.8 billion, has as its
    primary mission the closure of cleanup sites centered on three
    timeframes: 2006, 2012 and 2035. Defense Environmental Services
    are those activities that support closure (e.g. federal
    salaries, and payments to States and communities) and non-
    mission environmental work (e.g. storage of spent nuclear fuel
    and high-level waste, management of newly generated low level
    radioactive waste for other programs).
        The Committee's recommendation for Defense Environmental
    Management totals $6,748,457,000, a reduction of $61,357,000
    from the budget request of $6,809,814,000. Details of the
    recommended funding levels follow below for the specific
    Defense Environmental Management accounts.
        The Committee continues to support the Department's efforts
    to reform the Environmental Management program and realize
    significant cost and schedules savings and accelerate risk
    reduction. The Department should focus on reducing risk,
    accelerating cleanup, eliminating activities that do not
    contribute to risk reduction and cleanup, and improving the
    structure, scope, and management of cleanup contracts. The
    Committee does have several significant concerns about the
    execution of the accelerated cleanup initiative, as detailed
    below.
        Lack of Agreement for Accelerated Performance Management
    Plans.--As noted above in the discussion for the Uranium
    Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund,
    Congressional support for accelerated cleanup, specifically in
    the form of additional near-term funding for accelerated
    cleanup, is predicated on the concurrence of the involved State
    regulators to the accelerated Performance Management Plans
    (PMPs). Where the Department has not been able to reach
    agreement with State regulators for specific accelerated PMPs,
    the Committee does not provide the additional increment of
    funding requested to support accelerated cleanup. The Committee
    encourages the Department to continue working with these State
    regulators so that the funds to support accelerated cleanup may
    be restored in a future fiscal year. The Committee is watching
    closely the negotiations between the Department and the State
    of Washington regarding accelerated cleanup at Hanford. For the
    present, the Committee recommendation includes the requested
    accelerated cleanup funds for Hanford because the Committee
    believes the Department and the State are making substantial
    progress toward agreement. However, if the Department is not
    able to resolve its differences with the State in the next
    several months, the Committee reserves the right at conference
    to redirect the additional funds to other sites that are more
    committed to accelerated cleanup.
        Review of Cost and Schedule Baselines.--The Department
    recently notified the Committee that the total estimated cost
    for the Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant (project 01-D-
    416) at Hanford has increased from $4.35 billion to $5.78
    billion. This represents an increase of $1.43 billion, or
    roughly 33 percent. Some of this increase is a result of
    changes to the project scope resulting from the accelerated
    cleanup schedule at Hanford, but much of this increase stems
    from the dubious quality of the previous estimate. The Office
    of Engineering and Construction Management has completed an
    External Independent Review (EIR) on this latest project
    baseline cost and schedule and confirmed it to be reasonable,
    and the Committee has no real alternative but to accept that
    judgment. However, the dramatic cost increase for this one
    project does call into question the reliability of the
    baselines for the other major projects within the accelerated
    cleanup program. The Committee directs the Department to review
    the baseline cost and schedule estimates for all of the line
    item construction projects included in the fiscal year 2004
    budget request. To fund these reviews, $2,500,000 should be
    provided from within funds made available for the appropriate
    Defense Environmental Management accounts.
        Statutory Changes Required for Accelerated Cleanup.--The
    Department's contractor for the cleanup of the Fernald, Ohio,
    site recently proposed a statutory change to allow the material
    stored in the Fernald silos to be treated as 11(e)(2) material
    for purposes of disposal in a commercial disposal facility.
    Such a statutory change is not required to meet the current
    cleanup baseline, but apparently is necessary if the contractor
    is to achieve the maximum possible schedule acceleration and
    receive the maximum possible performance fee from the
    Department. The Committee does not disagree with the merits of
    this proposal regarding the classification of the Fernald silo
    material for disposal purposes. However, the Committee strongly
    objects to the Department sending forth its contractors to
    advocate for legislative changes that are necessary to execute
    accelerated cleanup plans. If these statutory changes are
    responsible and for the benefit of the Government and the
    taxpayer, then the Department should submit such changes as
    part of a formal legislative proposal from the Administration
    to the Congress. The Committee directs the Department to review
    its current PMPs and cleanup contracts and identify any other
    instances where statutory changes are required to execute
    accelerated cleanup. The Department is directed to report to
    the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations within 60
    days after enactment of this Act with the results of this
    review, and to submit a comprehensive legislative proposal with
    the fiscal year 2005 budget request including all such proposed
    changes to existing law.
        Legacy Management.--A recent report by the National
    Research Council on the status of Long-Term Stewardship of DOE
    legacy waste sites raised concerns that departmental cleanup
    planning and decision making was decoupled from long-term
    stewardship planning. The Committee expects the department to
    consider explicitly the long-term stewardship requirements when
    implementing its accelerated cleanup plans to ensure that long-
    term stewardship is not used as a substitute for complete and
    effective site cleanup. The PMPs should identify the resources
    that will be required to execute legacy responsibilities at
    each site.
        Economic development.--None of the Defense Environmental
    Management funds are available for economic development
    activities unless specifically authorized by law.

                      Defense Site Acceleration Completion

        The Defense Site Acceleration Completion account is a new
    account largely incorporating the programs, projects, and
    activities from the previous site/project completion and post-
    2006 completion subaccounts within the Defense Environmental
    Restoration and Waste Management account, the site closure
    activities within the Defense Facilities Closure Projects
    account, and the Defense Environmental Management Privatization
    account, as well as the Environmental Management Cleanup Reform
    initiative proposed by the Department in fiscal year 2003. The
    Committee recommendation for defense site acceleration
    completion in fiscal year 2004 is $5,758,278,000, a reduction
    of $56,357,000 from the budget request of $5,814,635,000.
        Reprogramming Authority.--The Committee continues to
    support the need for flexibility to meet changing funding
    requirements at sites which are undergoing accelerated cleanup
    activities. In fiscal year 2004, each site manager may transfer
    up to $5,000,000 between Defense Site Acceleration Completion
    subaccounts (i.e., accelerated completions 2006, accelerated
    completions 2012, accelerated completions 2035, and line item
    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.
        Accelerated Completions, 2006.--The Committee
    recommendation provides $1,242,751,000, a reduction of
    $2,420,000 from the budget request to reflect the lack of
    regulatory agreement on accelerated 2006 cleanup activities for
    the Sandia National Laboratories. This funding supports the
    closure by the year 2006 of the Rocky Flats, West Jefferson,
    Fernald, Miamisburg, and Ashtabula sites, and the completion of
    significant cleanup projects at various other sites such as
    Melton Valley.
        Accelerated Completions, 2012.--The Committee
    recommendation provides $2,216,587,000, a reduction of
    $11,727,000 from the budget request to reflect the lack of
    regulatory agreement on accelerated 2012 cleanup activities for
    the Los Alamos National Laboratory and the Pantex site. This
    amount includes the requested funding of $23,500,000 for
    project engineering and design of two projects at the Savannah
    River Site (SRS) and the Idaho National Engineering and
    Environmental Laboratory (INEEL) (project 04-D-414), $1,134,000
    for construction of container surveillance capability at SRS
    (project 04-D-423), $1,126,000 for construction of the INTEC
    cathodic protection system expansion project at INEEL (project
    02-D-402), and $690,000,000 for construction of the Waste
    Treatment and Immobilization Plant at Hanford (project 01-D-
    416).
        Accelerated Completions, 2035.--The Committee
    recommendation provides $1,961,387,000, a reduction of
    $17,210,000 from the budget request to reflect the lack of
    regulatory agreement on accelerated 2035 cleanup activities for
    the Los Alamos National Laboratory. This amount includes the
    requested funding of $13,954,000 for construction of the
    Immobilized High Level Waste Interim Storage Facility at
    Hanford (project 03-D-403), $51,500,000 to continue design of
    the Salt Waste Processing Facility Alternative at SRS (project
    03-D-414), and $20,259,000 for construction of Glass Waste
    Storage Building #2 at SRS (project 04-D-408).
        Safeguards and Security.--The Committee recommendation
    provides $299,977,000, the same as the budget request.
        Technology Development and Deployment.--The Committee
    recommendation provides $63,920,000, the same as the budget
    request. Within available funds, the Committee provides
    $5,000,000 to continue the five-year international agreement
    with AEA Technology, and $7,000,000 to continue the five-year
    agreement with Florida International University's Hemispheric
    Center for Environmental Technology.
        Funding adjustments.--The Committee recommendation includes
    an offset of $1,344,000, the same as the budget request, for
    the security costs associated with reimbursable work, and a
    general reduction of $25,000,000 to be applied primarily to
    activities with the least impact on near-term cleanup and
    closure.

                         DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES

        The Defense Environmental Services account is a new account
    incorporating the activities that indirectly support the
    cleanup and closure of contaminated sites. These include
    activities such as the management of non-legacy spent nuclear
    fuel and newly-generated waste and the recovery and disposal of
    sealed radioactive sources, as well as community and regulatory
    support, the Federal contribution to the Uranium Enrichment
    Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund, and program direction
    for the Department's environmental management efforts. The
    Committee recommendation for Defense Environmental Services in
    fiscal year 2004 is $990,179,000, a reduction of $5,000,000
    from the budget request.
        Community and Regulatory Support.--The Committee
    recommendation is $61,337,000, the same as the budget request.
        Federal Contribution to Uranium Enrichment Decontamination
    and Decommissioning Fund.--The Energy Policy Act of 1992,
    Public Law 102-486, created the Uranium Enrichment
    Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund to pay for the cost of
    cleanup of the gaseous diffusion facilities located in Oak
    Ridge, Tennessee; Paducah, Kentucky; and Portsmouth, Ohio. The
    Committee recommendation includes the budget request of
    $452,000,000 for the Federal contribution to the Uranium
    Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund as
    authorized in Public Law 102-486.
        Non-Closure Environmental Activities.--The Committee
    recommendation is $189,698,000, the same as the budget request,
    including the requested amounts for spent nuclear fuel
    stabilization and disposition at the Idaho National Engineering
    and Environmental Laboratory, Lawrence Livermore National
    Laboratory, and Savannah River Site, and solid waste
    stabilization and disposition of newly generated waste at the
    Oak Ridge National Laboratory. The Department is to fund the
    Hazardous Waste Worker Training Program at the fiscal year 2003
    level from within available funds.
        Program Direction.--The Committee recommendation for
    program direction is $292,144,000, the same as the budget
    request.
        Funding adjustments.--The Committee recommendation includes
    a general reduction of $5,000,000.
        Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP).--
    The Committee continues to expect the Department to fulfill its
    responsibilities at FUSRAP sites, exclusive of the remedial
    actions to be performed by the Corps of Engineers.

                            Other Defense Activities

    Appropriation, 2003...................................      $515,659,000
    Budget Estimate, 2004.................................       636,154,000
    Recommended, 2004.....................................       666,516,000
    Comparison:
        Appropriation, 2003...............................      +150,857,000
        Budget Estimate, 2004.............................       +30,362,000

        This account provides funding for Energy Security and
    Assurance; the Office of Security; 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.

                         ENERGY SECURITY AND ASSURANCE

        The operational component of this office was transferred to
    the Department of Homeland Security on March 1, 2003. The
    remaining Department of Energy component will be maintained as
    an office for the purpose of advising the Secretary of Energy
    in the development of policy to ensure the reliability of the
    nation's energy infrastructure. The Committee recommendation
    for energy security and assurance is $2,472,000, a reduction of
    $1,800,000 from the budget request. The Committee notes the FTE
    level dropped from 22 to 8 from fiscal year 2003 to 2004.

                               OFFICE OF SECURITY

        The Office of Security provides a domestic safeguards and
    security program for protection of nuclear weapons, nuclear
    materials, nuclear facilities, and classified and unclassified
    information 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
    $211,757,000, the same as the budget request.
        In fiscal year 2004, the Department of Energy will spend
    over $1 billion on safeguards and security activities at
    Headquarters and field locations. The $211,757,000 provided to
    the Office of Security is for Headquarters activities only.
    Funding for safeguards and security activities at Departmental
    facilities and laboratories in the field is included within
    each program budget.
        The Committee notes that safeguards and security is not a
    mission of the Department of Energy; instead it is a
    requirement that must be met when conducting activities to meet
    the actual defense, science, and environmental clean up
    missions of the Department. When implementing the needed
    security enhancements to meet increased requirements, the
    Committee will look to the Department's use of improved
    technology and the efficient restructuring and consolidation of
    material and facilities requiring the highest levels of
    security with the goal of improving S&S and reducing the
    percentage of the budget that must be used for safeguards and
    security.

                             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 $39,823,000, the same as the budget
    request.

                         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 $45,955,000, the same as the budget
    request.

                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 $22,575,000, the same as the
    budget request.

                    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 $107,686,000,
    the same as the budget request. With a significant Headquarters
    staff of Federal employees, the Committee continues to believe
    that outside contractor assistance can be reduced.
        The recommendation for health effects studies is
    $48,160,000, the same as the budget request. 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.

                        WORKER AND COMMUNITY TRANSITION

        The Committee's recommendation for the worker and community
    transition program is $15,000,000, the same as the budget
    request. Funding has remained stable or increased in many
    Departmental programs, and there are no significant contractor
    reductions requiring additional funds in fiscal year 2004. The
    Committee has provided $1,400,000 from within available funds
    for the Pinellas Community Reuse Organization to complete the
    STAR Center transition. 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
    and now exceeds $1 billion. With program funds increasing in
    fiscal year 2003 and fiscal year 2004 at NNSA and environmental
    cleanup sites, the Committee sees no need to increase funding
    for severance benefits above the budget request for fiscal year
    2004.
        Program direction.--The Committee recommendation of
    $2,679,000 for program direction, the same as the budget
    request.

                               LEGACY MANAGEMENT

        The fiscal year 2004 budget request proposes to establish
    the Office of Legacy Management to manage the long-term
    stewardship responsibilities at the Department of Energy clean
    up sites after remediation activities are completed. The
    functions of the Office will include long-term surveillance and
    maintenance of DOE facilities where remediation measures are
    substantially completed and the management of the post-closure
    benefits of former contractor employees. The Committee expects
    the Department's legacy management plans and activities will be
    coordinated with the Office of Environmental Management to
    ensure clean up and long term stewardship is appropriately
    integrated. The Committee recommendation for the Office of
    Legacy Management activities includes $47,525,000, the same as
    the budget request, of which $19,178,000 is provided in Other
    Defense Activities and the balance is provided in nondefense
    Environmental Services. The Committee directs the Legacy
    Management appropriation account line to continue to be
    identified separately in future departmental budget requests.

                    FUNDING FOR DEFENSE ACTIVITIES IN IDAHO

        The Committee recommendation includes $112,306,000 to fund
    the defense-related (050 budget function) activities at the
    Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL)
    and associated Idaho cleanup sites. This amount includes
    $21,415,000 for INEEL infrastructure, the same as the budget
    request, for activities at this site previously funded under
    the Defense Environmental Management account; 56,654,000 for
    Idaho sitewide safeguards and security, the same as the budget
    request; and $34,237,000 for program direction to support
    Headquarters and Idaho Field Office personnel previously funded
    under Defense Environmental Management.

               NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT

        The Committee recommendation includes $86,679,000, to
    provide administrative support for programs funded in the
    atomic energy defense activities accounts. This will fund
    Departmental activities performed by offices such as the
    Secretary, Deputy Secretary and Under Secretary, the General
    Counsel, Chief Financial Officer, Human Resources,
    Congressional Affairs, and Public Affairs, which support the
    organizations and activities funded in the atomic energy
    defense activities accounts.

                         OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

        The Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) is responsible for
    all of the Department's adjudicatory processes, other than
    those administered by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
    The Committee recommendation is $3,797,000, the same as the
    budget request.

                              FUNDING ADJUSTMENTS

        The Committee recommendation for funding adjustments
    includes an offset of $712,000 for the safeguards and security
    charge for reimbursable work, the same as the budget request.

                         Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal

    Appropriation, 2003...................................      $312,952,000
    Budget Estimate, 2004.................................       430,000,000
    Recommended, 2004.....................................       430,000,000
    Comparison:
        Appropriation, 2003...............................      +117,048,000
        Budget Estimate, 2004.............................  ................

        Since passage of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as
    amended, the Nuclear Waste Fund has incurred costs for
    activities related to the disposal of high-level waste and
    spent nuclear fuel generated from the atomic energy defense
    activities of the Department of Energy. At the end of fiscal
    year 2002, the balance owed by the Federal government to the
    Nuclear Waste Fund was $1,212,000,000 (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 2002, a total of $1,693,129,000 has been
    appropriated to support nuclear waste repository activities
    attributable to atomic energy defense activities.
        The Committee recommendation is $430,000,000, the same as
    the budget request. Combined with the funding recommended for
    Nuclear Waste Disposal, this will provide a total of
    $765,000,000 for nuclear waste disposal activities in fiscal
    year 2004.

                          Cerro Grande Fire Activities

        The Committee has included language proposed by the
    Administration canceling $75,000,000 of remaining available
    balances from the Cerro Grande Fire activities. The Committee
    directs the Secretary of Energy to deobligate the funds to be
    cancelled.

                        Power Marketing Administrations

        Management of the Federal power marketing functions was
    transferred from the Department of 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 2004 does not
    support the Administration proposal to continue the phase-out
    of federal financing of the customers' purchase power and
    wheeling expenses for the Southeastern Power Administration,
    the Southwestern Power Administration, and the Western Area
    Power Administration. Also, the Committee recommendation does
    not at this time incorporate the Administration proposal for
    the Power Marketing Administrations to fund directly from
    revenues the costs of operation and maintenance of federal
    hydropower facilities at Corps of Engineers dams, as this
    proposal is presently under consideration by the authorizing
    committees.
        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.
        Purchase power and wheeling.--The Committee finds no
    compelling reason to continue the phase out of purchase power
    and wheeling, particularly since this activity is budget
    neutral. The Committee recommendation for fiscal year 2004
    maintains purchase power and wheeling activities at
    approximately the fiscal year 2002 level. The Committee will
    continue to establish ceilings on the use of receipts for
    purchase power and wheeling, and also establish the amount of
    offsetting collections.

                        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, and exchanges and markets surplus
    power with Canada and California.
        The Committee continues to have concerns about Bonneville's
    financial situation, particularly in light of the $700 million
    in additional borrowing authority provided to Bonneville in the
    Energy and Water Development Act, 2003. At the same time that
    the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations were
    conferencing the fiscal year 2003 appropriations bill and
    deciding whether to provide this additional borrowing
    authority, Bonneville realized that it had a 74 percent
    probability that it would miss its loan repayment to the
    Federal Treasury in fiscal year 2003. Unfortunately, Bonneville
    neglected to inform Congress of this critical change in its
    financial circumstances until after the fiscal year 2003
    appropriations conference was completed.
        The Committee has asked the General Accounting Office (GAO)
    to conduct a thorough review of the Bonneville Power
    Administration. The GAO has provided the following preliminary
    findings and observations: (1) increasing borrowing authority
    for the transmission side of BPA will increase BPA's overall
    costs but will not resolve its current financial difficulties
    on the power generation side of BPA (i.e., low cash reserves
    and poor bond rating); (2) BPA is currently overextended as a
    result of committing to provide more power than it can generate
    from the Federal hydropower system, creating greater volatility
    in costs and revenues; (3) stakeholders see a lack of
    sufficient oversight and a lack of incentives to control costs;
    and (4) the present rate structure insulates customers from
    natural fluctuations in hydropower availability, thus
    eliminating any price signal when electricity is scarce. The
    net result is that Bonneville continues to operate at
    significant financial risk, which impacts both ratepayers in
    the region and taxpayers in the rest of the country.
        The Committee directs the Secretary to conduct an
    independent review of Bonneville's mission, management, and
    financial condition to address the GAO findings and
    conclusions. The Committee expects the Secretary to make
    specific recommendations to Congress to show how Bonneville
    might focus its mission on delivering the electricity generated
    by the Federal hydropower system and reduce the risk to the
    ratepayers in the region and to the Federal Treasury. The
    Secretary should submit this report to the House and Senate
    Committees on Appropriations not later than December 31, 2004.

          Operation and Maintenance, Southeastern Power Administration

    Appropriation, 2003...................................        $4,505,000
    Budget Estimate, 2004.................................         5,100,000
    Recommended, 2004.....................................         5,100,000
    Comparison:
        Appropriation, 2003...............................          +595,000
        Budget Estimate, 2004.............................  ................

        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 $5,100,000, the same as the budget request.
    The total program level for Southeastern in fiscal year 2003 is
    $39,100,000, with $34,000,000 for purchase power and wheeling
    and $5,100,000 for program direction. The purchase power and
    wheeling costs will be offset by collections of $34,000,000.
    The offsetting collections total of $34,000,000 includes
    $15,000,000 made available in Public Law 106-377 for use in
    fiscal year 2004, plus an additional $19,000,000 provided in
    this Act.

          Operation and Maintenance, Southwestern Power Administration

    Appropriation, 2003...................................       $27,200,000
    Budget Estimate, 2004.................................        28,600,000
    Recommended, 2004.....................................        28,600,000
    Comparison:
        Appropriation, 2003...............................        +1,400,000
        Budget Estimate, 2004.............................  ................

        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 $28,600,000, the same as the budget request.
    The total program level for Southwestern in fiscal year 2004 is
    $30,400,000, including $4,663,000 for operating expenses,
    $1,800,000 for purchase power and wheeling, $19,205,000 for
    program direction, and $4,732,000 for construction. The offset
    of $1,800,000 from collections for purchase power and wheeling
    yields a net appropriation of $27,378,000. The offsetting
    collections total of $1,800,000 includes $288,000 made
    available in Public Law 106-377 for use in fiscal year 2004,
    plus an additional $1,512,000 provided in this Act. The
    Committee recommendation also provides authority for
    Southwestern to accept advances from non-Federal entities to
    provide interconnections to Southwestern's transmission system.

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

    Appropriation, 2003...................................      $167,760,000
    Budget Estimate, 2004.................................       171,000,000
    Recommended, 2004.....................................       171,000,000
    Comparison:
        Appropriation, 2003...............................        +3,240,000
        Budget Estimate, 2004.............................  ................

        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 $171,000,000, the same as the budget request.
    The total program level for Western in fiscal year 2003 is
    $360,992,000, which includes $12,200,000 for construction and
    rehabilitation, $36,204,000 for system operation and
    maintenance, $186,000,000 for purchase power and wheeling, and
    $126,588,000 for program direction. Consistent with the budget
    request, no funds are provided for Utah mitigation and
    conservation. Offsetting collections for purchase power and
    wheeling total $186,000,000; with the use of $3,992,000 of
    offsetting collections from the Colorado River Dam Fund (as
    authorized in P.L. 98-381), this requires a net appropriation
    of $171,000,000. The offsetting collections for purchase power
    and wheeling includes $20,000,000 made available in Public Law
    106-377 for use in fiscal year 2004, plus an additional
    $166,000,000 provided in this Act.
        Within available funds, the Committee recommendation
    includes $4,825,000 for upgrades of the Phoenix substation.

               Falcon and Amistad Operating and Maintenance Fund

    Appropriation, 2003...................................        $2,716,000
    Budget Estimate, 2004.................................         2,640,000
    Recommended, 2004.....................................         2,640,000
    Comparison:
        Appropriation, 2003...............................           -76,000
        Budget Estimate, 2004.............................  ................

        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 $2,640,000, the same as the
    budget request.

                      Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

                             SALARIES AND EXPENSES

    Appropriation, 2003...................................      $192,000,000
    Budget Estimate, 2004.................................       199,400,000
    Recommended, 2004.....................................       192,000,000
    Comparison:
        Appropriation, 2003...............................  ................
        Budget Estimate, 2004.............................        -7,400,000

                                REVENUES APPLIED

    Appropriation, 2003...................................     -$192,000,000
    Budget Estimate, 2004.................................      -199,400,000
    Recommended, 2004.....................................      -192,000,000
    Comparison:
        Appropriation, 2003...............................  ................
        Budget Estimate, 2004.............................        +7,400,000

        The Committee recommendation for the Federal Energy
    Regulatory Commission (FERC) is $192,000,000, the same as the
    fiscal year 2003 funding level and a decrease of $7,400,000
    compared to the fiscal year 2004 budget request. Revenues for
    FERC are established at a rate equal to the budget authority,
    resulting in a net appropriation of $0.
        The Committee has concerns regarding the integration of
    various Midwestern companies into a regional transmission
    organization (RTO) under the FERC order issued July 31, 2002.
    To protect consumers in the Midwestern States, the Committee
    expects FERC will require that the conditions of its July 31,
    2002, order be met before proceeding with any irreversible
    integration of transmission systems. The Committee may address
    this issue in more detail at conference, pending receipt of a
    report from FERC on the status of this integration.
        The Federal Power Act requires FERC to establish and
    collect reasonable annual charges for the use of federal lands
    for non-federal hydropower projects. Since 1987, FERC has
    charged land rents for hydropower projects based on a system
    used by the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management
    for linear rights-of-way (e.g., power lines, pipelines, etc.)
    The General Accounting Office (GAO), in response to a request
    from this Subcommittee and the Subcommittee on Interior
    Appropriations, conducted an analysis of these land rents
    charged by FERC for non-federal hydropower projects located on
    federal lands. In its completed report (GAO-03-383), GAO
    concludes that FERC is collecting only two percent of the fair
    market value of these Federal lands used for non-federal
    hydropower. This represents a significant loss of revenues to
    the Treasury and also a significant subsidy for non-Federal
    hydropower projects.
        Based on preliminary results from this GAO review last
    year, in House Report 107-681 the Committee directed FERC to
    submit in its fiscal year 2004 budget request a proposal to
    revise the existing fee schedule to capture more of the real
    market value of these federal lands. The Committee did not
    direct FERC to make a change to the existing fee schedule, and
    certainly did not suggest that these land rents should be
    increased overnight by a factor of 50 or more. However, the
    Committee did expect to receive a serious proposal from FERC on
    how the current land rent fees could be revised over time to
    capture more of the real value of these lands for the U.S.
    Treasury. Instead, FERC submitted a 2-page letter report
    explaining its reservations about adopting the GAO net benefits
    methodology (which the Committee did not direct FERC to do),
    noting that a shift to a more complex methodology will require
    additional resources (which the Appropriations Committee
    already realized), and stating that FERC intends to wait until
    the Forest Service revises its right-of-way index before it
    will consider making any changes to the FERC methodology.
        The Committee considers this FERC response to be wholly
    inadequate. The Committee does not support increased budget
    authority for FERC at this time. Further, the Committee
    strongly recommends that the House Budget Committee and the
    Office of Management and Budget take a closer look at the
    revenues being foregone by FERC's continued use of the existing
    fee schedule for land rents.

                            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.--The Committee is very concerned that
    the Department continues to maintain a number of management and
    operating (M&O) contracts that have never been competed, some
    since their inception over 60 years ago. The general provision
    carried in previous Energy and Water Development Appropriations
    Acts, requiring competition of these contracts but allowing the
    Secretary to waive the requirement upon notification to
    Congress, has not been effective in changing the Department's
    continued reliance on noncompetitive contract awards and
    contract extensions. Therefore, this Committee has included
    bill language barring the use of appropriated funds to continue
    to pay for M&O contracts that have not been competitively
    awarded within the past fifty fiscal years (i.e., since fiscal
    year 1954). For M&O contracts that have not been competitively
    awarded within that time period, the Department may continue to
    fund such contracts only if the Secretary announces his intent
    to compete these contracts when their current terms expire. The
    Secretary must publish such notification in the Federal
    Register, and must submit a written notification to the House
    and Senate Committees on Appropriations, within 60 days of
    enactment of this Act. The specific reference to section
    303(c)(1) of the Title III of the Federal Property and
    Administrative Services Act of 1949 (41 U.S.C. 253(c)(3)) in
    included to ensure that the Department does not continue to use
    the status of DOE laboratories as federally funded research and
    development centers (FFRDCs) as an excuse for not competing
    these laboratory contracts.
        It is not the Committee's intent to disrupt contracts that
    have been competitively awarded in recent years (e.g.,
    Brookhaven, NREL, Sandia), nor to undo decisions the Secretary
    has already made to extend non-competitively the existing
    contracts at Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory and Pacific Northwest
    National Laboratory. However, the Committee does intend to
    change the Department's contracting practice going forward. The
    Committee is hopeful that the Secretary's Blue Ribbon
    Commission on the Use of Competitive Procedures for DOE
    Laboratories will be able to provide the Secretary with
    specific guidance on how to evaluate the performance of the
    incumbent contractors, how to structure a full and open
    competition that is fair to incumbents and competitors alike,
    and how to compete the contracts for those laboratories
    situated on university property. The Committee also expects
    that these changes will help to stimulate a larger pool of
    qualified for-profit, non-profit, and academic contractors to
    compete for these M&O contracts.
        To the Department's credit, it has recently announced its
    intent to compete the M&O contracts for the Idaho National
    Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL) and for the
    Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), and has made significant
    improvements in competing the contracts for the cleanup of
    Environmental Management sites. However, the Secretary has
    imposed several conditions on the competition of the LANL
    contract that this Committee believes will unduly bias any
    competition in favor of the incumbent LANL contractor.
    Specifically, the Secretary has directed that any competition
    of the LANL contract must protect all of the existing workforce
    and all of the pension benefits of the existing workforce. In
    addition, the Administrator of the National Nuclear Security
    Administration (NNSA) has recently suggested that the incumbent
    contractor for LANL may be able to charge its proposal
    preparation costs to the existing contract. Any incumbent
    contractor already enjoys enormous advantages over potential
    competitors in proposal preparation, both in terms of having a
    known record of performance and of having inside knowledge of
    lab operations that other competitors will not have. The
    Department should not offer to pay the incumbent's proposal
    costs unless the Department is prepared to offer the same
    benefit to all competitors, an obviously expensive and
    impractical solution. Therefore, the Committee includes bill
    language prohibiting the inclusion of any condition to an M&O
    contract that has the effect of biasing the competition in
    favor of the incumbent contractor or otherwise establishing
    something less than full and open competition. The prohibition
    on such conditions does not extend to defining the scope of the
    contract, for which the incumbent enjoys a natural advantage,
    or to crediting the incumbent's past performance when
    evaluating its qualifications for a future contract.
        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. This provision was
    included in the Energy and Water Development Appropriations
    Act, 2003.
        Limitation on Funding for Section 3161 Benefits.--Section
    303 provides that none of the funds in this Act may be used to
    augment the $15,000,000 made available for obligation in this
    Act for enhanced severance payments to contractors 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. This
    provision was included in the Energy and Water Development
    Appropriations Act, 2003.
        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. This provision was
    included in the Energy and Water Development Appropriations
    Act, 2003.
        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. This provision was included in the Energy and Water
    Development Appropriations Act, 2003.
        Limitation on Bonneville Power Administration.--Section 306
    provides that none of the funds 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 unless the
    Administrator certifies in advance that such services are not
    available from private sector businesses. This provision was
    included in the Energy and Water Development Appropriations
    Act, 2003.
        User Facilities.--Section 307 establishes certain notice
    and competition requirements with respect to the involvement of
    universities in Department of Energy user facilities. This
    provision was included in the Energy and Water Development
    Appropriations Act, 2003. The detailed guidance on the
    application of this provision was provided in House Report 107-
    681 and continues to apply.
        Research, Development and Demonstration Activities.--
    Section 308 provides authority for up to 2 percent of national
    security funding at the Kansas City, Pantex, and Y-12 plants,
    the Savannah River Plant, and the Nevada Test Site to be used
    for research, development, and demonstration activities. This
    provision was included in the Energy and Water Development
    Appropriations Act, 2003.
        Authorization of Intelligence Activities.--Section 309
    authorizes intelligence activities of the Department of Energy
    for purposes of section 504 of the National Security Act of
    1947 during fiscal year 2004 until the enactment of the
    Intelligence Authorization Act for fiscal year 2004.
        Authorization for Continued External Regulation Analyses.--
    Section 310 provides that, notwithstanding any other provision
    of law, the Secretary of Energy shall proceed with planning and
    analyses for external regulation of the Department's
    laboratories under the Office of Science.
                                    TITLE IV

                              INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

                        Appalachian Regional Commission

    Appropriation, 2003...................................       $70,827,000
    Budget Estimate, 2004.................................        33,145,000
    Recommended, 2004.....................................        33,145,000
    Comparison:
        Appropriation, 2003...............................       -37,682,000
        Budget Estimate, 2004.............................  ................

        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 $33,145,000, the same as the budget
    request.

                    Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board

                             SALARIES AND EXPENSES

    Appropriation, 2003...................................       $18,876,000
    Budget Estimate, 2004.................................        19,559,000
    Recommended, 2004.....................................        19,559,000
    Comparison:
        Appropriation, 2003...............................          +683,000
        Budget Estimate, 2004.............................  ................

        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 $19,559,000, the same as
    the budget request.

                            Delta Regional Authority

    Appropriation, 2003...................................        $7,948,000
    Budget Estimate, 2004.................................         2,000,000
    Recommended, 2004.....................................         2,000,000
    Comparison:
        Appropriation, 2003...............................        -5,948,000
        Budget Estimate, 2004.............................  ................

        The Committee recommends $2,000,000 for the Delta Regional
    Authority for fiscal year 2004, the same as the budget request.
        The conference report accompanying the fiscal year 2003
    Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act directed the
    Authority to submit a detailed budget justification if funds
    were requested in fiscal year 2004. The Authority did not
    comply with this requirement. If no budget justification is
    submitted with the fiscal year 2005 budget request, the
    Committee will not provide funding for the Authority.

                               Denali Commission

    Appropriation, 2003...................................       $47,688,000
    Budget Estimate, 2004.................................         9,500,000
    Recommended, 2004.....................................  ................
    Comparison:
        Appropriation, 2003...............................       -47,688,000
        Budget Estimate, 2004.............................        -9,500,000

        The Committee has recommended no funding for the Denali
    Commission in fiscal year 2004 due to funding constraints.
        The conference report accompanying the fiscal year 2003
    Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act directed the
    Commission to submit a detailed budget justification if funds
    were requested in fiscal year 2003. The Commission did not
    comply with this requirement. The Committee again directs the
    Commission to submit a detailed budget justification if funds
    are requested in fiscal year 2005.

                         Nuclear Regulatory Commission

    Appropriation, 2003...................................      $577,806,000
    Budget Estimate, 2004.................................       618,800,000
    Recommended, 2004.....................................       618,800,000
    Comparison:
        Appropriation, 2003...............................       +40,994,000
        Budget Estimate, 2004.............................  ................

                                    REVENUES

    Appropriation, 2003...................................     $-520,087,000
    Budget Estimate, 2004.................................      -538,844,000
    Recommended, 2004.....................................      -538,844,000
    Comparison:
        Appropriation, 2003...............................       -18,757,000
        Budget Estimate, 2004.............................  ................

                               NET APPROPRIATION

    Appropriation, 2003...................................       $57,719,000
    Budget Estimate, 2004.................................        79,956,000
    Recommended, 2004.....................................        79,956,000
    Comparison:
        Appropriation, 2003...............................       +22,237,000
        Budget Estimate, 2004.............................  ................

        The Committee recommendation for the Nuclear Regulatory
    Commission (NRC) salaries and expenses is $618,800,000, the
    same as the budget request. This amount is offset by estimated
    revenues of $538,844,000, resulting in a net appropriation of
    $79,956,000. The recommendation includes the requested amount
    of $33,100,000 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 in fiscal year 2004 to recover
    92 percent of its budget authority, less the appropriation from
    the Nuclear Waste Fund, by assessing license and annual fees.
    Of the $618,800,000 gross appropriation, $33,100,000 is drawn
    from the Nuclear Waste Fund, 92 percent of the balance of
    $585,700,000 (i.e., $538,844,000) is funded by fees collected
    from NRC licensees, and the remaining eight percent (i.e.,
    $46,856,000) is funded from the General Fund of the Treasury.
    This amount funded from the General Fund is available to fund
    those activities, such as NRC corporate homeland security
    expenses, that may not be appropriate to assess to NRC
    licensees.
        Repository Licensing.--The Committee is concerned about the
    extent of documentation that the Department of Energy may be
    required to post as part of the License Support Network (LSN).
    The Committee has provided guidance in Title III of this report
    directing DOE that Congressional communications between the
    Members and staffs of the House and Senate Committees on
    Appropriations and the Department are not to be included in
    documentation the Department posts on the LSN. The Committee
    encourages the Commission to review its regulatory requirements
    and guidance regarding the LSN to ensure they do not require
    duplication of information otherwise easily obtainable, focus
    on information that is truly relevant to substantive decisions
    that will have to be made, and establishes a timeframe in
    accord with the traditional conduct of an adjudicatory
    proceeding. The Committee expects the Commission to work with
    the Department to ensure that all significant and relevant
    documents are made available in the License Support Network to
    support sound decisionmaking on the License Application, but to
    also ensure that the care and feeding of the License Support
    Network does not expand to consume a disproportionate amount of
    DOE and NRC resources.
        Reports.--The Committee directs the Commission to continue
    to provide monthly reports on the status of its licensing and
    other regulatory activities.

                          Office of Inspector General

                              Gross Appropriation

    Appropriation, 2003...................................        $6,797,000
    Budget Estimate, 2004.................................         7,300,000
    Recommended, 2004.....................................         7,300,000
    Comparison:
        Appropriation, 2003...............................          +503,000
        Budget Estimate, 2004.............................  ................

                                    Revenues

    Appropriation, 2003...................................       $-6,392,000
    Budget Estimate, 2004.................................        -6,716,000
    Recommended, 2004.....................................        -6,716,000
    Comparison:
        Appropriation, 2003...............................          -324,000
        Budget Estimate, 2004.............................  ................

                               Net Appropriation

    Appropriation, 2003...................................          $405,000
    Budget Estimate, 2004.................................           584,000
    Recommended, 2004.....................................           584,000
    Comparison:
        Appropriation, 2003...............................          +179,000
        Budget Estimate, 2004.............................  ................

        The Committee recommends an appropriation of $7,300,000,
    the same as the budget request and an increase of $503,000 over
    fiscal year 2003. The Commission is required by law to recover
    92 percent of this budget authority in fiscal year 2004 through
    the assessment of license and annual fees. Therefore, the
    revenue estimate is $6,716,000, resulting in a net
    appropriation for the NRC Inspector General of $584,000.

                      Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board

    Appropriation, 2003...................................        $3,179,000
    Budget Estimate, 2004.................................         3,177,000
    Recommended, 2004.....................................         3,177,000
    Comparison:
        Appropriation, 2003...............................            -2,000
        Budget Estimate, 2004.............................  ................

        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 Committee sees the
    Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board as having a continuing
    independent oversight role, as is specified in Section 503 of
    the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended, as the
    Department begins to focus on the packaging or transportation
    of high-level radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel.
        The Committee recommends an appropriation of $3,179,000 for
    the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board, the same as the
    budget request and a decrease of $2,000 from fiscal year 2003
    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.
        Transfer of Funds.--Section 503 provides that none of the
    funds made available in this Act may be transferred to any
    department, agency, or instrumentality of the United States
    Government, except pursuant to a transfer made by, or transfer
    authority provided in, this Act or any other appropriation Act.
                  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 Commission of the United States of America which states:

              No money shall be drawn from the Treasury bill in
            consequence of Appropriations made by law * * *

        Appropriations contained in this Act are made pursuant to
    this specific power granted by the Constitution.

                       Comparison With Budget Resolution

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

                                                [In millions of dollars]
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       302(b) allocation                       This bill
                                             -----------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Budget authority       Outlays      Budget authority       Outlays
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Discretionary...........................            27,080            27,211            27,080            27,173
    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 Outlays 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..............................................    27,080
    Outlays:
        2004......................................................    17,975
        2005......................................................     7,786
        2006......................................................     1,285
        2007......................................................        22
        2008 and beyond...........................................         7

                   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..............................................        32
    Fiscal year 2004 outlays resulting therefrom..................         3

                               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 $57,330,000 shall be available for
            transfer to the Upper Colorado River Basin Fund and
            $33,570,000 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: * * *
              * * * Provided further, That $10,000,000 of the funds
            appropriated herein shall be deposited in the San
            Gabriel Restoration Fund established by section 110 of
            division B, Title I of Public Law 106-554, as amended *
            * *

        Under Title III, Weapons Activities:

              * * * Provided further, that not less than
            $10,000,000 of the funds provided in this paragraph
            shall be transferred to the Chief Financial Officer of
            the Department of Energy for the sole purpose of
            upgrading the Department of Energy's accounting and
            financial systems to track National Nuclear Security
            Administration costs by weapon system.

        Under Title III, Environmental Cleanup Reform:

              * * * Provided, That these amounts may be transferred
            to and merged with accounts under this title which fund
            specific cleanup activities only after the Secretary of
            Energy enters into an agreement satisfactory to the
            Secretary and the appropriate State and Federal
            regulators, for each site for which these funds may be
            used.

        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 has also been included under General Investigations
    providing credit for work done by local interests on the Ohio
    Riverfront, Cincinnati, Ohio, project.
        Language has been included under Construction, General,
    permitting the use of funds from the Inland Waterways Trust
    Fund and the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund. Language is also
    included under Construction, General, directing the Corps of
    Engineers to proceed with the New York Harbor Deepening project
    under certain conditions and placing a limitation on the use of
    funds for activities related to restoration of the Everglades.
        Language has been included under Operation and Maintenance,
    General stating that funds may be used for providing security
    at facilities owned and operated by or on behalf of the Corps
    of Engineers, including the Washington Aqueduct.
        Language has been included under Operation and Maintenance,
    General, stating the following:

              * * * for the maintenance of harbor channels provided
            by a State, municipality or other public agency that
            serve needs of general commerce * * *

        Language has been included under Operation and Maintenance,
    General, providing for construction, operation, and maintenance
    of outdoor recreation facilities and permitting the use of
    funds from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund.
        Language has been included under the Regulatory Program
    regarding the regulation of navigable waters and wetlands.
        Lanaguage 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.
        Lanaguage 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 proposed by
    the Administration which places a limit on credits and
    reimbursements allowable per project and annually for all
    projects.
        Sec. 102. The Committee has included language prohibiting
    the expenditure of funds related to a proposed landfill in
    Tuscarawas County, Ohio.
        Sec. 103. The Committee has included language prohibiting
    the expenditure of funds related to a proposed landfill in
    Stark County, Ohio.
        Sec. 104. The Committee has included language renaming Lock
    and Dam 3 on the Allegheny River in Pennsylvania.

                        TITLE II--DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR

        Language has been included under Water and Related
    Resources providing that funds are available for fulfilling
    Federal responsibilities to Native Americans and for grants to
    and cooperative agreements with state and local governments and
    Indian tribes. Language is included under Water and Related
    Resources providing that such sums as necessary may be advanced
    to the Colorado River Dam Fund. Language is included under
    Water and Related Resources which permits fund transfers within
    the overall appropriation to the Upper Colorado River Basin
    Fund and the Lower Colorado River Basin Development Fund.
    Language is included under Water and Related Resources
    providing that funds may be 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. 4601-6a(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 providing that $10,000,000 shall be deposited
    in the San Gabriel Basin Restoration Fund. 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 Account 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 is included under the Central Valley
    Project Restoration Fund providing that none of the funds
    provided may be used for the acquisition or lease of water for
    in-stream purposes if the water is already committed to in-
    stream purposes be a court adopted decree or order.
        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 included under the Working Capital Fund
    rescinding unobligated balances.
        Language has been provided under General Provisions as
    follows:
        Section 201. The Committee has included language proposed
    by the Administration regarding the San Luis Unit and the
    Kesterson Reservoir in California. This language has been
    included in Energy and Water Development Appropriations Acts
    for several years.
        Section 202. The Committee has included language which
    prohibits the use of funds for any water acquisition or lease
    in the Middle Rio Grande or Carlsbad Projects in New Mexico
    unless the acquisition is in compliance with existing State law
    and administered under State priority allocation.
        Section 203. The Committee has included language which
    amends Section 206 of Public Law 101-514 regarding water supply
    contracts for the Sacramento County Water Agency and the San
    Juan Suburban Water District by removing the requirement that
    the contracts include an annual needs determination.
        Section 204. The Committee has included language which
    authorizes and directs the Secretary of the Interior to amend
    the Central Valley Project water supply contracts for the
    Sacramento County Water Agency and the San Juan Suburban Water
    District by deleting a provision requiring a determination of
    annual water needs.
        Section 205. The Committee has included language which
    provides that funds in the Lower Colorado River Basin
    Development Fund shall not be diverted to the General Fund of
    the Treasury pending the completion of an omnibus Arizona water
    rights settlement agreement.
        Section 206. The Committee has included language which
    provides that funds provided to the Bureau of Reclamation may
    be used for the payment of claims not exceeding $5,000,000.

                        TITLE III--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

        Language has been included under Energy Supply providing
    for the purchase of not to exceed 12 passenger motor vehicles
    of replacement only, including 2 buses.
        Language has been included under Science providing for the
    purchase of not to exceed 15 passenger motor vehicles for
    replacement only, including not to exceed one ambulance.
        Language has been included under Nuclear Waste Disposal
    providing that none of the funds provided in this or any other
    appropriations Act may be used for the planning, design, or
    development of the rail corridors that pass near the Las Vegas
    Metropolitan Area, specifically the Valley Modified Corridor
    and the Jean Corridor, and providing that $65,000,000 of the
    $70,000,000 made available in this Act for Nevada rail
    transportation shall be available only if the Secretary
    designates rail as the preferred mode of transportation within
    Nevada and selects a Nevada rail corridor within 60 days of
    enactment of this Act and commences the necessary environmental
    and engineering analysis to develop and issue a record of
    Decision for a specific rail alignment within the selected rail
    corridor by June 30, 2005.
        Language has been included under the 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 Naval Reactors providing
    for the purchase of not to exceed one bus.
        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 Naval Reactors providing
    for the purchase of not to exceed one ambulance for replacement
    only.
        Language has been included rescinding $75,000,000
    previously appropriated for Cerro Grande Fire activities.
        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 in fiscal year 2004.
        Language has been included under Southwestern Power
    Administration providing that, notwithstanding 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, notwithstanding 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 providing that notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302,
    beginning in fiscal year 2004 and thereafter such funds as are
    received by the Southwestern Power Administration from any
    state, municipality, corporation, association, firm, district,
    or individual as advance payment for work that is associated
    with Southwestern's transmission facilities, consistent with
    that authorized in section 5 of the Flood Control Act, shall be
    credited to this account and be available until expended.
        Language has been included under the Construction,
    Rehabilitation, Operation and Maintenance, Western Area Power
    Administration account providing 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 appropriate acts.
        Language has been included under Department of Energy,
    General Provisions, providing that no funds may be used to pay
    for management and operating contracts that have not been
    competitively awarded within the past fifty fiscal years unless
    the Secretary, within 60 days of enactment, announces his
    intent to compete those contracts when the current contract
    term expires.
        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 unless
    a reprogramming is submitted to the Committee.
        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 establish 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, requiring the Department of Energy to
    ensure broad 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.
        Language has been included under Department of Energy,
    General Provisions, providing the manager of a nuclear weapons
    production plant or the Nevada Test Site to engage in research,
    development, and demonstration activities using no more than 2
    percent of the amounts available from national security
    programs.
        Language has been included under Department of Energy,
    General Provisions, providing that, notwithstanding the
    provisions of any other law, the Secretary may proceed with
    planning and analyses for external regulation of the
    Department's Science laboratories.
        Language has been included under Department of Energy,
    General Provisions, providing that funds for intelligence
    activities are deemed to be specifically authorized for
    purposes of section 504 of the National Security Act of 1947
    during fiscal year 2003.

                         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 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 extend 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 transfer of funds in this Act except pursuant
    to a transfer made by, or transfer authority provided in, this
    Act or any other Appropriation Act.

             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 the 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 301 of Public Law
    102-250, the Reclamation States Emergency Drought Relief Act of
    1991, as follows:
        Except as otherwise provided in section 2243 of this title
    (related to temperature control devices at Shasta Dam,
    California), there is authorized to appropriate not more than
    $90,000,000 in total for fiscal years 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995,
    1996, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, [and 2003] 2003, and 2004.
        The accompanying bill would amend subsection 206(b) of
    Public Law 101-514 as follows:

              (b)(1) The Secretary of the Interior is authorized
            and directed to enter into the following contracts: (A)
            a municipal and industrial water supply contract with
            the Sacramento County Water Agency, not to exceed
            22,000 acre-feet annually, to meet the immediate needs
            of Sacramento County and a municipal and industrial
            water supply contract with the San Juan Suburban Water
            District, not to exceed 13,000 acre-feet annually, for
            diversion from Folsom Lake[, with annual quantities
            delivered under these contracts to be determined by the
            Secretary based upon the quantity of water actually
            needed within the Sacramento County Water Agency
            service area and San Juan Suburban Water District after
            considering reasonable efforts to: (i) promote full
            utilization of existing water entitlements within
            Sacramento County, (ii) implement water conservation
            and metering programs within the areas served by the
            contract, and (iii) implement programs to maximize to
            the extent feasible conjunctive use of surface water
            and groundwater]; and (B) a municipal and industrial
            water supply contract with the El Dorado County Water
            Agency, not to exceed 15,000 acre-feet annually, for
            diversion from Folsom Lake or for exchange upstream on
            the American River or its tributaries, considering
            reasonable efforts to implement water conservation
            programs within areas to be served by the contracts.
            The contracts required by this subsection are intended
            as the first phase of a contracting program to meet the
            long-term water supply needs of Sacramento and El
            Dorado Counties. The Secretary shall promptly initiate
            the necessary analysis for the long-term water supply
            contracts. The Secretary shall include in these
            contracts terms and conditions to ensure that the
            contracts may be amended in any respect required to
            meet the Secretary's obligations under applicable State
            law and the Federal environmental laws.

        The accompanying bill would amend subsection Public Law
    102-377 as follows:

    ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS

               *       *       *       *       *       *       *

        Appropriations for the Bureau of Reclamation in this Act or
    in subsequent Energy and Water Development Appropriations Acts
    shall hereafter be available for payment of claims for damages
    to or loss of property, personal injury, or death arising out
    of activities of the Bureau of Reclamation, not to exceed
    $5,000,000 for each causal event giving rise to a claim or
    claims; * * *

                      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
                   Agency/program                   Last year of    Authorization   in last year of   Appropriations
                                                   authorization        level        authorization     in this bill
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Corps of Engineers:
        Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action             (\1\)            (\1\)            (\1\)          140,000
         Program................................
    Department of Energy:
        Energy Supply:
            Biomass/Biofuels....................             1993            (\2\)            (\4\)           69,750
            Geothermal Energy...................             1993           23,000            (\4\)           25,500
            Hydrogen............................             2001           40,000           27,000           67,982
            Hydropower..........................             1982           11,700            (\4\)            5,489
            Solar Energy........................             1993            (\2\)            (\4\)           79,693
            Wind Energy Systems.................             1993            (\2\)            (\4\)           41,600
            Intergovernmental activities                     1995            (\7\)            (\4\)           16,500
             Renewable Energy Production
             Incentive..........................
            Renewable Energy Production
             Incentive..........................
            International Renewable Energy                   1996            (\3\)            (\4\)  ...............
             Program............................
            Electricity Transmission and                     1994            (\3\)            (\4\)           77,377
             Distribution.......................
            Departmental Energy Management......             1984            (\3\)            (\4\)            2,300
            Renewable Program Support...........             1984            (\3\)            (\4\)            2,059
            National Renewable Energy Laboratory             1984            (\3\)            (\4\)            9,100
            Program Direction...................             1984            (\3\)            (\4\)           12,230
        Nuclear Energy:
            Space and defense infrastructure....             1992            (\2\)            (\4\)           36,230
            Isotopes............................             1974            (\2\)            (\4\)           26,425
            University Reactor Fuel Assistance               1974            (\2\)            (\4\)           19,500
             and Support........................
            Research and Development............             1994            (\7\)            (\4\)          117,746
            Radiological Facilities Management..             1974            (\2\)            (\4\)           62,655
            Program Direction...................             1992            (\2\)            (\4\)           23,970
        Environment, Safety and Health..........             1974            (\2\)            (\4\)           24,000
    Non-Defense Site Acceleration Completion....             1984            (\5\)            (\5\)          170,875
    West Valley Demonstration Project...........             1981            5,000            5,000           99,558
    Non-Defense Environmental Services            ...............  ...............  ...............          292,121
     (including Other Uranium Activities).......
    Science.....................................             1984          500,000          635,417        3,480,180
        High Energy Physics.....................             1984            (\3\)          477,947          747,978
        Nuclear Physics.........................             1984            (\3\)          155,220          399,430
        Biological and Environmental Research...             1994            (\3\)          388,298          562,035
        Basic Energy Sciences...................             1994            (\3\)          743,590        1,016,575
        Advanced Scientific Computing Research..             1996          169,000          111,068          213,490
        Science Laboratories Infrastructure.....             1994            (\3\)           39,327           71,535
        Fusion Energy Sciences..................             1994          380,000          322,277          268,110
        Science Program Direction...............             1984            (\2\)            (\4\)          147,053
            Energy Research Analysis............             1994            (\3\)            3,507            1,020
            Technical Information Management....             1981            (\2\)            (\4\)            7,774
    Nuclear Waste Disposal......................            (\8\)            (\2\)          190,654          335,000
    Departmental Administration.................             1984          246,963          185,682          101,329
    Office of the Inspector General.............             1984            (\2\)           14,670           39,462
    Atomic Energy Defense Activities:
        National Nuclear Security
         Administration:
            Weapons Activities..................             2002        5,343,567        5,901,641        6,117,609
            Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation....             2002          776,886        1,104,130        1,280,195
            Naval Reactors......................             2002          688,445          706,790          768,400
            Office of the NNSA Administrator....             2002          312,596          325,929          341,980
    Defense Environmental Restoration and Waste              2002        6,022,415        4,510,133  ...............
     Management.................................
    Defense Environmental Cleanup Reform........            (\6\)            (\6\)            (\6\)  ...............
    Defense Facilities Closure Projects.........             2002        1,080,538        1,109,314
    Defense Environmental Management                         2002          153,537          158,399  ...............
     Privatization..............................
    Defense site acceleration completion........  ...............  ...............  ...............        5,758,278
    Defense environmental services..............  ...............  ...............  ...............          990,179
    Other Defense Activities....................             2002          499,663          462,664          694,863
    Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal..............             2002          280,000          315,000          430,000
    Power Marketing Administrations:
        Southern Power Administration...........             1984           24,240           39,463           39,100
        Southwestern Power Administration.......             1984           40,254           29,288           30,400
        Western Area Power Administration.......             1984          259,700          237,037          360,992
        Falcon and Amistad Operating and                     1995            (\2\)            2,663            2,640
         Maintenance Fund.......................
    Federal Energy Regulatory Commission........             1984          275,000          175,200          192,000
    Independent Agencies:
        Defense Nuclear Facilities Study Board..             2002           18,500           18,459           19,559
        Nuclear Regulatory Commission...........             1985          460,000          448,200          618,800
        Nuclear Regulatory Commission--Office of             1985            (\9\)            (\9\)            7,300
         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 of this account.
    (\6\) New program in FY 2003.
    (\7\) Such sums as necessary.
    (\8\) Overall program authorized in 1982 and 1987, but without any authorization of appropriations.
    (\9\) The first separate appropriation for the Office of the Inspector General in the Nuclear Regulatory
      Commission was in FY 1990. Prior to that, the NRC-IG was included within the overall authorization and
      appropriations for the NRC.

        The Commission notes that the annual authorizing
    legislation for many of these programs is in various stages of
    the legislative process. It is anticipated these authorizations
    will be enacted into law later this year.

                                  Rescissions

        Pursuant to clause 3(f)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the
    House of Representatives, the following table is submitted
    describing the rescissions recommended in the accompanying
    bill:

                      RESCISSIONS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL

            Department or Activity                                    Amount
    Bureau of Reclamation: Working Capital Fund.............      $4,525,000
    Department of Energy: Cerro Grande Fire Activities......      75,000,000

                              Full Committe 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.