[House Report 108-554]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



108th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2d Session                                                     108-554

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



 
         ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2005

                                _______
                                

 June 18, 2004.--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. 4614]

    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, 2005, 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
                                                                     13
                Construction, general......................     3
                                                                     24
                Flood control, Mississippi River and 
                    Tributaries............................     6
                                                                     39
                Operation and maintenance, general.........     7
                                                                     42
                Regulatory program.........................     8
                                                                     59
                Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action 
                    Program................................     8
                                                                     60
                Flood control and coastal emergencies......
                                                                     60
                General expenses...........................     9
                                                                     61
                Administrative provisions..................    10

                Office of the Assistant Secretary of the 
                    Army (Civil Works).....................     9
                                                                     61
                General provisions.........................    10
                                                                     61
II. Department of the Interior:
        Central Utah Project completion account............    14
                                                                     63
        Bureau of Reclamation:
                Water and related resources................    14
                                                                     64
                Bureau of Reclamation loan program account.
                                                                     71
                California Bay-Delta ecosystem restoration.
                                                                     71
                Central Valley Project restoration fund....    16
                                                                     72
                Policy and administration..................    17
                                                                     73
                Working Capital Fund.......................

                Administrative provisions..................    17

                General provisions.........................    17
                                                                     73
III. Department of Energy:
        Introduction.......................................

        Energy supply......................................    19
                                                                     85
        Non-Defense Site Acceleration Completion...........    19
                                                                     95
        Non-Defense Environmental Services.................    20
                                                                     96
        Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and 
            Decommissioning Fund...........................    20
                                                                     95
        Science............................................    20
                                                                     97
        Nuclear waste disposal.............................
                                                                    102
        Departmental administration........................    21
                                                                    108
        Office of Inspector General........................    22
                                                                    110
        Atomic energy defense activities...................    22
                                                                    110
        National Nuclear Security Administration:
                Weapons activities.........................    22
                                                                    112
                Defense nuclear nonproliferation...........    23
                                                                    122
                Naval reactors.............................    23
                                                                    128
                Office of the Administrator................    24
                                                                    128
        Environmental and Other Defense Activities:
                Defense site acceleration completion.......    24
                                                                    132
                Defense environmental services.............    24
                                                                    134
                Other defense activities...................    25
                                                                    135
                Defense nuclear waste disposal.............    25
                                                                    138
        Power marketing administrations:
                Bonneville Power Administration............    25
                                                                    139
                Southeastern Power Administration..........    26
                                                                    140
                Southwestern Power Administration..........    26
                                                                    140
                Western Area Power Administration..........    27
                                                                    141
                Falcon and Amistad operating and 
                    maintenance fund.......................    28
                                                                    141
        Federal Energy Regulatory Commission...............    28
                                                                    142
        General provisions.................................    29
                                                                    158
IV. Independent agencies:
        Appalachian Regional Commission....................    38
                                                                    161
        Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board............    38
                                                                    161
        Delta Regional Authority...........................    38
                                                                    162
        Denali Commission..................................
                                                                    162
        Nuclear Regulatory Commission......................    39
                                                                    162
        Office of Inspector General........................    40
                                                                    164
        Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board...............    40
                                                                    164
V. General provisions:
        House reporting requirements.......................
                                                                    167

                Summary of Estimates and Recommendations

    The Committee has considered budget estimates which are 
contained in the Budget of the United States Government, 2005. 
The following table summarizes appropriations for fiscal year 
2004, the budget estimates, and amounts recommended in the bill 
for fiscal year 2005.

                                                                                    [In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                                      2005 recommendation compared with--
                                                                          2004                  2005 estimate          2005 recommendation   ---------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                                 2004 appropriation           2005 estimate
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Title I--Department of Defense--Civil.........................                $4,580,380                $4,120,000                $4,823,280                 $+242,900                 $+703,280
Title II--Department of the Interior..........................                   980,641                   970,333                 1,016,162                   +35,521                   +45,829
Title III--Department of Energy...............................                21,967,429                23,147,833                22,478,342                   510,913                  -669,491
Title IV--Independent Agencies................................                   227,925                   232,216                   202,216                   -25,709                   -30,000
                                                               ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal................................................                27,756,375                28,470,382                28,520,000                   763,625                    49,618
Scorekeeping adjustments......................................                  -502,912                  -532,000                  -532,000                   -29,088  ........................
                                                               =================================================================================================================================
      Grand Total of bill.....................................                27,253,463                27,938,382                27,988,000                   734,537                    49,618
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              Introduction

    The Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill for 
fiscal year 2005 totals $27,988,000, $49,618,000 above the 
President's budget request, and $734,537,000 above the amount 
appropriated in fiscal year 2004.
    Title I of the bill provides $4,823,280,000 for the 
programs of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, an increase of 
$242,900 over fiscal year 2004 and $703,280,000 over the budget 
request of $4,120,000,000. Due to constrained budgets in recent 
years, the Committee elects to concentrate on protecting 
existing infrastructure and completing ongoing projects and 
does not include new project study or construction starts or 
new project authorizations in fiscal year 2005.
    Title II provides $1,016,162,000 for the Department of the 
Interior and the Bureau of Reclamation, an increase of 
$35,521,000 above the amount appropriated in fiscal year 2004 
and $45,829,000 over the budget request of $970,333,000. The 
Committee does not provide funding for the California Bay-Delta 
Restoration program in California pending the enactment of 
authorizing legislation, but includes funding for several 
authorized components of this program.
    Title III provides $22,478,342,000 for the Department of 
Energy, an increase of $510,913,000 over fiscal year 2004 and 
$669,491,000 below the budget request of $23,147,833,000. The 
Committee funds the Yucca Mountain repository at the 
Administration's net budget request of $131,000,000, and does 
not include the proposed authorization language to reclassify 
the fees paid into the Nuclear Waste Fund. Within the Energy 
Supply account, the Committee recommendation provides 
$463,817,000 for the Office of Nuclear Energy, an increase of 
$51,223,000 over the budget request. The Committee provides an 
additional $168,246,000 above the request for the Office of 
Science to support basic research programs, increase the 
availability of DOE user facilities to the scientific 
community, and to support development of a new architecture and 
software for a leadership-class scientific computer.
    Funding for the National Nuclear Security Administration 
(NNSA), which includes nuclear weapons activities, defense 
nuclear nonproliferation, naval reactors, and the Office of the 
NNSA Administrator, is $9,027,171,000, an increase of 
$372,038,000 over fiscal year 2004 and a decrease of 
$21,529,000 from the budget request. Within the weapons 
activities account, the Committee provides no funds for 
advanced concepts research, the robust nuclear earth penetrator 
study, the modern pit facility, and enhanced test readiness, 
but provides significant increases for weapons dismantlement 
and for security upgrades. For defense nuclear 
nonproliferation, the Committee has provided $1,348,647,000, 
the same as the budget request and an increase of $28,868,000 
over fiscal year 2004.
    The Committee provides the requested amount of funding 
($943,346,000) for non-defense environmental management, which 
includes non-defense site acceleration completion, non-defense 
environmental services, and the uranium enrichment 
decontamination and decommissioning fund. For defense 
environmental management activities, which include defense site 
acceleration completion and defense environmental services, the 
Committee provides $6,888,813,000, an increase of $301,127,000 
over fiscal year 2004 and $64,494,000 less than the budget 
request. The Committee does not provide the full request of 
$350,000,000 for the Administration's high-level waste proposal 
for Waste Incident to Reprocessing, and does not support 
partial solutions that do not address all of the affected 
States.
    Title IV provides $202,216,000 for several Independent 
Agencies, a decrease of $25,709,000 from fiscal year 2004 and 
$30,000,000 below the budget request of $232,216,000. The 
requested funding is provided for the Defense Nuclear 
Facilities Board, the Delta Regional Authority, the Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission and its Inspector General, the Nuclear 
Waste Technical Review Board, and the Office of Inspector 
General for the Tennessee Valley Authority. Reduced funding is 
provided for the Appalachian Regional Commission and the Denali 
Commission.
                                TITLE I

                      DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL

                         Department of the Army

                       Corps of Engineers--Civil

                              INTRODUCTION

    The Administration's budget request for the Civil Works 
program of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers continues the 
unfortunate trend of recent years by drastically underfunding 
the Corps Civil Works program for fiscal year 2005. It is not 
uncommon for the Administration and the Congress to disagree on 
spending priorities for the Civil Works program, but the fiscal 
year 2005 budget request reflects a deeper philosophical 
disconnect about the Civil Works program.
    The Civil Works program represents a contract with the 
American people to protect their economic infrastructure (i.e., 
ports, inland waterways, flood control, water supply, and 
hydropower projects), their property and livelihood (i.e, 
through flood control, navigation, erosion control, and shore 
protection projects) and their environment. In some cases, this 
is an unwritten commitment on the part of Congress and the 
Executive Branch to meet the water resources needs of its 
citizens. In other cases, however, there are very explicit, 
written agreements regarding specific Corps projects and 
programs (i.e., Project Cooperation Agreements with local 
sponsors, construction contracts to complete ongoing projects, 
and bill language passed by both chambers of Congress and 
signed into law by the President). Unfortunately, the Fiscal 
Year 2005 budget request for the Civil Works program 
demonstrates a surprising willingness on the part of the Office 
of Management and Budget (OMB) to break such commitments, 
whether made by the Corps of Engineers, the Congress, or the 
President.
    While that strategy may be acceptable to the staff at OMB 
in their quest to restrain discretionary spending and limit the 
Civil Works activities of the Corps, it is not acceptable to 
this Committee. The Committee believes that the Corps, the 
Administration, and the Congress should honor the commitments 
made to the American people by protecting the investment in 
vital water resources infrastructure, completing ongoing 
projects, fulfilling commitments made to local sponsors, and 
addressing the critical water resources needs across the 
country.
    This disconnect is nothing new, and the Committee has made 
repeated offers to work with the Administration to resolve our 
differences. In the report accompanying the House Energy and 
Water Development Appropriations Bill for fiscal year 2004 
(House Report 108-212), this Committee made two requests of the 
Administration. The Committee encouraged the Administration to 
engage in a constructive dialog with Congress to close the vast 
gulf in our relative perspectives on the Corps Civil Works 
program and to set some clear priorities for the Corps. The 
Committee also encouraged the Administration to begin 
preparation of a long-term roadmap for the Civil Works program, 
so that Congress and the Administration can both see the 
current and future requirements of the Corps Civil Works 
program.
    The Administration's Fiscal Year 2005 budget request 
rejects both Committee requests. Therefore, in the absence of 
Administration leadership on these issues, the Committee takes 
responsibility for providing constructive, albeit unilateral, 
responses to both challenges. As outlined below, the Committee 
offers specific guidance on project priorities and on a long-
range roadmap for the Corps Civil Works program.
    Project Priorities.--One of the perceived problems with the 
Civil Works program is that it represents a mere agglomeration 
of projects of interest to Congress and the Administration, 
with no rhyme nor reason underlying the selection of which 
projects receive funding. There is some truth to this 
perception, and the Congress bears part of the responsibility 
for this situation. With the exception of a few programmatic 
components of the Civil Works program, such as the regulatory 
and research and development activities, most of what the Corps 
does relates to individual water resources projects. These may 
be large multi-state watershed projects or small local flood 
control projects, but they are all projects that lie in the 
districts of one or more Members. As a consequence, the 
Committee has in the past tried to satisfy Member interests by 
adding an ever-increasing list of projects to each Energy and 
Water Development Appropriations bill. Despite the common 
misperception that these Congressional priorities are ``pork'' 
projects, the vast majority of these Congressional projects 
have been separately authorized and have net economic or 
environmental benefits in excess of the project costs. However, 
the nature of the political process makes it difficult for 
Congress to take a broad, long-range perspective on water 
resources projects; the more common perspective is purely 
local.
    The Corps is not entirely blameless in this process, as 
many in the Corps believe that the addition of a multitude of 
Member projects ensures higher total funding for the Civil 
Works program, ensures full employment for the Corps Districts, 
and ensures a broad base of political support for the Corps 
Civil Works activities and organization. The Committee reminds 
the Corps that the Corps districts exist to support the 
workload--not the other way around.
    The unfortunate result of this approach is that the Civil 
Works program lacks any clear set of priorities to guide either 
development of the Administration budget request or the 
development of the Congressional appropriations bills. The lack 
of clear priorities, and the traditional addition of numerous 
Member projects in the House and Senate bills and in 
conference, may be in part responsible for OMB's lack of 
support for the Civil Works program. It is clear to this 
Committee, however, that more projects is not necessarily 
better. In times of constrained budgets, the addition of more 
projects has a major adverse consequence because it takes the 
Corps longer to complete individual projects. Instead of taking 
three years to complete a simple dredging or local flood 
control project, it may now take four or five years. 
Lengthening the schedule has the effect of increasing the cost 
to both the taxpayers and the local sponsors, and delaying the 
realization of public benefits to the economy and the 
environment.
    Within the limited resources available in fiscal year 2005 
for the Civil Works program, the Committee adopts the following 
set of priorities to guide its funding decisions for fiscal 
year 2005:

          1. The top priority is to protect the investment 
        already made in major water infrastructure in this 
        country. This includes the commercial ports, the inland 
        waterways, and the dams and other projects that provide 
        flood control, water supply, hydropower, and 
        environmental benefits. In current dollars, the Nation 
        has invested over $300 billion to date in this water 
        infrastructure, and it provides estimated annual 
        benefits of approximately $38 billion. The recent 
        experience in the reconstruction of Iraq provides an 
        abject lesson on the costs and consequences of letting 
        vital public infrastructure deteriorate by deferring 
        critical maintenance and repair activities. This 
        Committee places priority on funding the operation, 
        maintenance, repair, and rehabilitation of the major 
        elements of water resources infrastructure. This 
        priority does not extend to every boat ramp and 
        campground operated by the Corps, but does encompass 
        the major projects that yield significant local, 
        regional, and national benefits.
          2. The second priority is to complete projects that 
        are already under construction. In such cases, the 
        Congress has already decided that the benefits of the 
        project justify the costs, project cooperation 
        agreements have already been executed and in many cases 
        non-Federal funds have been committed, and contracts 
        have already been signed. The Committee believes 
        strongly that we should finish what we have started and 
        expedite realization of project benefits for projects 
        already under construction.
          To cite one example, the Napa River Flood Protection 
        Project, the optimum funding schedule would complete 
        the project in fiscal year 2007, with annual funding 
        requirements in the remaining fiscal years of 
        approximately $28 million per year. The Administration 
        proposed only $7 million for this project in fiscal 
        year 2005. Each year of delay subjects the community to 
        estimated direct flood damages of $15 million per year, 
        as well as foregone indirect economic benefits of $362 
        million per year. Each year of delay drives up the 
        total construction cost for the project by several 
        million dollars annually. The cumulative costs of 
        delay, therefore, can become enormous over time. The 
        Committee strives to fund this project, and others in a 
        similar situation, at a rate closer to the optimum than 
        the minimum. Instead of using the Civil Works program 
        to fund a large array of projects at the ``life 
        support'' level, the Committee chooses to focus on 
        expediting completion of projects already under 
        construction.
          3. The next priority is to move forward with 
        completing ongoing studies that appear to be justified 
        by their economic or environmental benefits. There are 
        major unresolved water resources problems in this 
        country, from communities experiencing recurrent 
        flooding and storm damage to constraints on our 
        commercial navigation network to altered environments 
        in need of restoration. OMB apparently believes that 
        the Corps invents these water resources problems and 
        these problems will vanish if the Corps Civil Works 
        budget is cut deeply enough. This Committee knows 
        otherwise.
          4. Throughout the entire Civil Works program, this 
        Committee intends to fulfill prior commitments made to 
        local sponsors, including those made on beach 
        renourishment projects. While the Committee understands 
        that commitments made during prior Administrations and 
        prior Congresses may not always reflect current 
        political priorities, the Committee wants the Federal 
        government to be one that keeps its promises to the 
        American people.

    Because of the large backlog of work in the Corps project 
pipeline, the Committee does not include any new starts for 
individually-authorized studies or construction projects in 
fiscal year 2005. The Committee also does not include any new 
project authorizations in this appropriations bill. There is a 
Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) that has been passed by 
the House and is under consideration by the Senate, and the 
WRDA is the proper vehicle for such authorizations.
    Five-Year Comprehensive Budget Planning.--The Committee 
directs the Corps to prepare and submit, beginning with the 
fiscal year 2006 budget submission and annually thereafter, a 
comprehensive five-year plan for the Civil Works program. The 
Committee believes strongly in the value of preparing five-year 
plans to guide Administration budget requests and Congressional 
spending decisions. Such plans force discipline in making 
budgetary decisions and encourage some stability from year to 
year. By giving Congress and the Administration a view of what 
lies ahead in the coming years of the Civil Works program, this 
five-year plan may alleviate some of the pressure to fund every 
project in the coming fiscal year. By providing a long-range 
view of the Civil Works program, this five-year plan should 
also begin to correct the perception that the Corps Civil Works 
program is nothing more than an assortment of individual 
projects lacking any coherent focus or guiding principles.
    As part of its project planning and budgeting system, the 
Corps already has developed future-year estimates of the costs 
and schedules for individual projects. The requirement to 
develop a five-year comprehensive budget plan for the Civil 
Works program will require the Corps to make the necessary 
tradeoffs to integrate these individual projects into a 
coherent future-years Civil Works program. The Committee 
directs the Corps to prepare this five-year plan with budget 
quality detail, and to use the Future Years Defense Plan (FYDP) 
prepared by the Department of Defense as a model. The existing 
Civil Works Strategic Plan for fiscal years 2004-2009, issued 
March 2004, is not of sufficient detail to guide spending 
decisions on specific projects. As in the Department of 
Defense, preparation of the five-year plan is not a one-time 
report but is an ongoing process that is updated regularly to 
reflect changing circumstances.
    The Committee recommends the Corps adopt the aforementioned 
set of priorities to guide development of its first five-year 
plan. The Committee is open to alternative priorities, but 
expects such to be developed through an open process with the 
involvement of the Committee and other stakeholders.
    Continuing Contracts.--The Committee strongly objects to 
the use of continuing contracts by the Corps Civil Works 
program. Under such contracts, the Corps contractors may 
perform more work than is budgeted in the current fiscal year, 
and by doing so can create an obligation for the government to 
pay for the extra work by reserving funds out of a future 
appropriation. In effect, when the contractors exhaust the 
available appropriation for the current fiscal year, the 
contractors can keep working with a commitment that the Corps 
will pay the additional amount due, plus interest in some 
circumstances, out of a future appropriation. Although 
authorized in several statutes dating back to the turn of the 
twentieth century, the Committee believes this is an unsound 
financial practice. Congress determines how much funding is 
available for each project in a given fiscal year, and the 
Corps is responsible for managing its contractors to work 
within these appropriation limits. The Corps abrogates its own 
management responsibilities, and improperly intrudes on the 
Congressional appropriations responsibility, when it allows its 
contractors to decide how much to spend on a given project. In 
the conference report accompanying the Energy and Water 
Development Appropriations Act, 2004, the conferees directed 
the Corps to curtail this practice; this guidance has not been 
followed. Therefore, the Committee renews its direction to 
prohibit the award of new continuing contracts.
    Reprogramming Authorities.--The Committee requires the 
Corps to inform the Committee promptly and fully when a change 
in program execution and funding is required during the fiscal 
year. The following guidance is provided for Corps Civil Works 
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.
          General Criteria for Reprogramming.--Reprogramming is 
        allowed only within an appropriation, with the 
        exception, as now exists, that Flood Control and 
        Coastal Emergency may be augmented when necessary from 
        other Corps Civil Works appropriations. Reprogramming 
        is allowed into only previously appropriated activities 
        or those identified in a bill as ``within available 
        funds.'' 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. The specific criteria outlined below apply 
        to amounts moved into or out of specific projects or 
        studies, and require written notification and approval 
        of the Committee. The Committee has not provided 
        statutory language to define reprogramming guidelines, 
        but expects the Corps to follow the spirit and the 
        letter of the guidance provided in this report.
          General Investigations.--For a single reprogramming 
        action, the threshold requiring Congressional 
        notification is $50,000 plus 25 percent of the base 
        funding level, which is defined as the amount 
        appropriated for the project or program in the budget 
        plus any amounts carried in from previous fiscal years 
        or reprogrammed during the budget year. There is also a 
        cumulative threshold of $250,000, above which any 
        movement of funds in or out of the project or program 
        requires Congressional approval. The individual and 
        cumulative thresholds apply to restoration of prior 
        year reprogrammings and savings and slippage 
        reductions.
          Construction, General.--For a single reprogramming 
        action, the threshold requiring Congressional 
        notification is $300,000 plus 20 percent of the base 
        funding level, which is defined as the amount 
        appropriated for the project or program in the budget 
        plus any amounts carried in from previous fiscal years 
        or reprogrammed during the budget year. There is also a 
        cumulative threshold of $4,000,000, above which any 
        movement of funds in or out of the project or program 
        requires Congressional approval. The individual and 
        cumulative thresholds apply to restoration of prior 
        year reprogrammings and savings and slippage 
        reductions.
          Operation and Maintenance.--For a single 
        reprogramming action, the threshold requiring 
        Congressional notification is $300,000 plus 20 percent 
        of the base funding level, which is defined as the 
        amount appropriated for the project or program in the 
        budget plus any amounts carried in from previous fiscal 
        years or reprogrammed during the budget year. There is 
        also a cumulative threshold of $4,000,000, above which 
        any movement of funds in or out of the project or 
        program requires Congressional approval. The individual 
        and cumulative thresholds apply to restoration of prior 
        year reprogrammings and savings and slippage 
        reductions.
          Mississippi River and Tributaries (MR&T).--The Corps 
        should follow the applicable thresholds for the General 
        Investigations, Construction, General, and Operation 
        and Maintenance accounts as provided above.
          Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program 
        (FUSRAP).--The Corps may reprogram up to 15 percent of 
        the base funding level between FUSRAP projects without 
        Committee approval; reprogramming of amounts in excess 
        of 15 percent, individually or cumulatively in a fiscal 
        year, requires Congressional approval.

    Within 30 days of enactment of this Act, the Secretary is 
directed to submit to the House and Senate Committees on 
Appropriations a report detailing the progress of the State of 
Florida in meeting water quality requirements set forth in the 
Consent Decree entered in the United States v. South Florida 
Water Management District. The Committee is aware that some 
aspects of this matter may be the subject of judicial 
proceedings, and directs that, if that is still the case thirty 
days from the date of enactment, the Secretary shall comply to 
the extent legally possible, and comply fully at the earliest 
possible date.
    In recent years, the Committee has become aware that the 
Corps of Engineers has a great deal more work to accomplish 
than funds with which to do it. In order to make the most of 
scarce dollars, the Committee has encouraged reprogramming from 
projects which cannot, for whatever reason, use available funds 
to those other projects which can. The Corps has been 
aggressive in carrying out that policy. It has repeatedly been 
brought to the attention of the Committee, however, that often 
the Corps is less aggressive in returning funds to donor 
projects when those projects clear their obstacles and require 
the funds appropriated for them. The Committee wishes to remind 
the Corps of Engineers that if it is to enjoy the continued 
confidence and cooperation of Members, it must be as diligent 
in returning funds to a project when it is ready as it was in 
taking funds when it was not.

                         GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS




Appropriation, 2004...................................      $116,259,000
Budget Estimate, 2005.................................        90,500,000
Recommended, 2005.....................................       145,000,000
Comparison:                                             ................
    Appropriation, 2004...............................       +28,741,000
    Budget Estimate, 2005.............................       +54,500,000


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



    American River Watershed (Folsom Dam Mini-Raise), 
California.--Funds for the American River Watershed (Folsom Dam 
Mini-Raise), California, project are shown in the Construction, 
General account.
    John T. Myers Lock and Dam, Indiana and Kentucky.--Funding 
for this project are shown in the Construction, General 
account.
    Ohio River Mainstem Ecosystem Restoration Study, Kentucky, 
Illinois, Indiana, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Ohio.--The 
Committee recommends an additional $1,000,000 for a systems 
analysis to address the level of investment needed to provide 
an efficient navigation system through the year 2060 for the 
Ohio River from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, to Cairo, Illinois.
    Eastern Shore-Mid Chesapeake Bay Island, Maryland.--The 
Committee recommends $1,500,000 to continue 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.--It is the intent of 
the Committee that the Holmes Run watershed in Virginia 
continue to be within the scope of this study.
    Middle Brazos River, Texas.--Within the funds provided for 
this project, the Committee recommends $100,000 to amend the 
existing reconnaissance report and initiate an interim 
feasibility study for Hearne, Texas.
    Upper Trinity River Basin, Texas.--The Committee recommends 
additional funds in the amount of $700,000 to proceed with 
Planning, Engineering and Design and continue preparation and 
coordination of an Environmental Impact Statement associated 
with the locally-preferred alternative for the Central City 
River Segment of the Trinity River Vision Master plan dated 
April 2003.
    Floodplain Management Services.--The Committee recommends 
$5,625,000 for the Flood Plain Management Services program, 
including $776,000 to complete the Geographic Information 
System for East Baton Rouge, Louisiana, and $200,000 for a 
Blind Brook, City of Rye, New York, hydrological analysis.
    Planning Assistance to States.--The amount recommended for 
the Planning Assistance to States includes $100,000 for the 
Arkansas River Corridor Master Plan; $100,000 to continue the 
Ingham County, Michigan, Geographic Information System Study; 
$100,000 to finish the Arkansas River Corridor Master Plan, 
Oklahoma; $100,000 to initiate geotechnical investigations of a 
proposed damsite near Mangum, Oklahoma; $250,000 to initiate a 
groundwater study for Greene County, Missouri; and $134,000 to 
complete the Memphis Riverfront Development, Tennessee, study. 
The amount recommended for the Planning Assistance to States 
program also includes $250,000 to continue a New Jersey Marine 
Fish Evaluation Study. The Corps of Engineers is urged to 
consider using the Fisheries Conservation Trust, formerly known 
as the Save the Fish Foundation, to carry out this 
investigation. Within funds provided for this program, the 
Corps of Engineers is directed to work with the Chagrin River 
Land Conservancy to develop strategies for preserving, and 
acquisition of funding for preservation of the properties known 
as Wilde Fields and Mayer Preserve in Cuyahoga County, Ohio.
    Coastal Field Data Collection.--The Committee includes 
$3,500,000 for the Coastal Field Data Collection program. The 
additional funds are provided to ensure not less than 
$1,000,000 for the Southern California Beach Process Study and 
not less than $1,000,000 for continuation of the Coastal Data 
Information Program.
    Research and Development.--The Committee has added 
$1,000,000 for Large Scale Submerged Aquatic Vegetation 
Restoration Research in the Chesapeake Bay, Maryland and 
Virginia.

                         CONSTRUCTION, GENERAL




Appropriation, 2004...................................    $1,712,157,000
Budget Estimate, 2005.................................     1,421,500,000
Recommended, 2005.....................................     1,871,680,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2004...............................      +159,523,000
    Budget Estimate, 2005.............................      +450,180,000


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



    Red River below Denison Dam (Bowie County Levee), Arkansas, 
Louisiana, and Texas.--The Committee is aware that additional 
work is required to develop the scope and prepare a design 
document that describes a locally preferred option to provide 
flood damage reduction along the Red River in Bowie County, 
Texas. To that end, the Committee directs the Secretary to use 
funds previously appropriated for the project to develop the 
scope and design of a revised locally preferred plan, and if 
technically sound and environmentally acceptable, construct the 
project in accordance with the cost sharing provisions of 
Section 10 of the Flood Control Act of 1946.
    McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation System, Arkansas 
and Oklahoma.--The Committee recommends $3,000,000 to continue 
reevaluation studies for the Arkansas-White cutoff.
    American River Watershed (Folsom Dam Mini-Raise), 
California.--Within funds provided for the American River 
Watershed (Folsom Dam Mini-Raise), California, project, the 
Corps is directed to continue design to the Folsom Dam 
replacement road and permanent bridge to assure their 
completion at the earliest possible date consistent with the 
pace of the Mini-Raise project as a whole.
    The Committee includes language directing the Corps of 
Engineers to expend its full capability, up to $5,000,000, to 
advance the permanent bridge to replace Folsom Bridge Dam Road, 
Folsom, California, as authorized by the Energy and Water 
Development Appropriations Act, 2004 (P.L. 108-137) with all 
remaining funds devoted to the Mini-Raise. The Committee is 
aware of reports that there have been attempts to place 
obstacles in the way of this work, and insists that it be 
allowed to proceed, unimpeded.
    Sacramento Area, California.--The bill includes $3,500,000 
for the Sacramento Area, California, project authorized by 
section 502 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999. The 
amount provided includes funding for the water meter retrofit 
program in the City of Roseville; the Placer County Water 
Agency meter replacement, water line replacement, and canal 
lining project; hydraulic improvements at the San Juan District 
water treatment plant; the redundant water supply intake at 
Folsom Reservoir; and the San Juan Water District, groundwater 
well development for conjunctive use program.
    Santa Ana River Mainstem, California.--The Committee 
recommends $20,500,000 for continued construction of the Santa 
Ana River Mainstem project, including $7,500,000 for the 
continuation of work on the San Timoteo Creek element.
    Manatee Harbor, Florida.--The Committee recommends 
$2,000,000 to continue work on the turning basin and wideners 
as well as the design and award of a construction contract for 
the south channel extension authorized as a modification to the 
Manatee Harbor Project in Section 156 of the Energy and Water 
Development Appropriations Act, 2004 (P.L. 108-137).
    Mississippi Environmental Infrastructure Program, 
Mississippi.--The Committee recommends $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 particularly the De Soto County Wastewater 
Treatment Facility.
    New York and New Jersey Harbors, New York and New Jersey.--
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.
    New York City Watershed, New York.--Within the funds 
provided for the New York City Watershed, New York, the 
Committee urges the Corps of Engineers to give priority 
consideration to the Bovina Community Wastewater Project; the 
Highway Stormwater Inventory, Assessment, and Prioritization 
Program of Delaware County; and the Terrace Avenue and South 
Street Projects, Walton, New York.
    Ohio Environmental Infrastructure, Ohio.--The bill contains 
$22,000,000 for the Ohio Environmental Infrastructure program 
authorized by section 594 of the Water Resources Development 
Act of 1999. The amount provided includes: $15,000 for the 
Winchester Vega Road, Bloomfield Township, water line project; 
$100,000 for the Morgan County, Bishopville, water project; 
$475,000 for the Morgan County, McConnelsville, storm water 
project; $1,000,000 for the Muskingum County, Zanesville, 
wastewater treatment facility; $25,000 for the Vinton County, 
Arbaugh/Hope water line extension; $350,000 for the Buckeye 
Lake, water line project; $500,000 for the Hancock County, 
Village of Jenera, wastewater collection system; $1,000,000 for 
the Village of West Jefferson, water treatment facility; 
$1,000,000 for the City of Louisville, protection for 
wastewater treatment plant; $1,000,000 for the Stark County, 
Zimber Ditch project; $1,000,000 for the City of Louisville, 
sanitary sewer system; $500,000 for the Noble County, sewer 
system; $500,000 for the Youngstown, Orchard Meadow Combined 
Sewer Overflow project; $500,000 for the Liberty Little Squaw 
Creek sewer upgrade; $1,000,000 for the Lake County, Concord 
Township sanitary sewer line improvement; $100,000 for the Lake 
County, Perry Township, Shepard Road waterline extension; 
$900,000 for the Lake County, Perry Township, Sanitary sewer 
system; $1,000,000 for the Toledo Combined Sewer Overflow 
project; $1,000,000 for the Tech Town Dayton Technology Campus 
water and sewer project; $2,500,000 for the University of 
Dayton, Brown and Stewart water and sewer project; $640,000 for 
the Clinton County, Clinton Massie School District sewer 
project; $1,500,000 for the Springfield Applied Research and 
Technology Park water and sewer project; $700,000 for the Clark 
County, Southwest Regional Waste Water Treatment Plant 
expansion; $500,000 for the Clark County, Village of 
Donnelsville sewer system project; $1,500,000 for the Fayette 
County, Village of Bloomingberg, Waste Water Treatment Plant; 
$100,000 for the Pickaway County, Harrison and Madison Township 
water and sewer project; $1,880,000 for the Scioto County, 
Minford Wastewater Treatment Facility; and $250,000 for the 
City of Dayton, Northeast Quadrant water and sewer 
infrastructure.
    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.
    South Central Pennsylvania Environmental Infrastructure 
Program, Pennsylvania.--The Committee recommends $8,000,000 for 
the South Central Pennsylvania Environmental Infrastructure 
Program, Pennsylvania. When executing this program, the Corps 
of Engineers is encouraged to consider the needs of Union 
Township (Clearfield County), Pennsylvania; the Industrial Park 
in Mifflin County, Pennsylvania; and the Borough of Lewistown, 
Pennsylvania.
    Black Fox, Murfree, and Oaklands Springs Wetlands, 
Murfreesboro, Tennessee.--In the fiscal year 2004 
appropriation, the Committee provided funding in the amount 
which the Corps of Engineers stated would be needed to complete 
this project. Within available funds, the Corps is directed to 
complete this project without further delay.
    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 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 recommends 
$2,250,000 to continue construction of such project. The 
Secretary of Army shall use a portion of these funds and 
subsequent funding appropriated for the San Antonio Channel 
Improvement Project, Texas to design and construct these 
combined improvements in accordance with the draft report of 
the Ft. Worth District Engineer for plan DC3B.
    Aquatic Plant Control Program.--Within the amount provided 
for the Aquatic Plant Control program, $250,000 is for aquatic 
plant control in the State of South Carolina and $100,000 is 
for the control of aquatic nuisance vegetation 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 believes that success in 
the management of these invasive species is dependent upon a 
strong, stable research program.
    Beneficial Uses of Dredged Material.--The Committee 
recommends $6,000,000 for the beneficial uses of dredged 
material (Section 933) program. The additional funds are to 
continue the beneficial placement of sand from the dredging of 
the Morehead City, North Carolina, harbor.
    Shoreline Erosion Control Development and Demonstration 
Project.--The Committee has added $200,000 for continued work 
on the Sacred Falls Beach Park Demonstration Project, Oahu, 
Hawaii.
    Continuing Authorities Program (CAP).--The Committee 
departs from its usual practice in the presentation of CAP 
projects chosen for funding. In previous Committee reports, CAP 
funding for individual projects was presented in an 
unstructured text form. For fiscal year 2005, in order to 
increase uniformity and simplify use of the report, CAP funding 
will be shown in a table, with information limited to 
identification of the CAP authority under which the project is 
authorized, the name of the project, and the amount of funding 
provided.
    The Committee is aware that many projects selected for 
funding under the Continuing Authorities Program have not 
received any funds due to overwhelming demand and limited 
funding authority within the Continuing Authorities Program. 
The Committee directs that such projects should receive 
priority consideration for any available funds, in fiscal 2005, 
and in the future.
    Small Flood Control Projects (Section 205).--Funding for 
the Zimber Ditch, Stark County, Ohio, project is now provided 
under the Ohio Environmental Infrastructure program. The 
Committee is informed that $700,000 in funding was provided for 
Butler Lake, Illinois, in fiscal year 2004, most of which has 
not been expended, and directs that, if true, the Corps of 
Engineers utilize funding provided to initiate construction on 
an expedited basis.



            Flood Control, Mississippi River and Tributaries


  ARKANSAS, ILLINOIS, KENTUCKY, LOUISIANA, MISSISSIPPI, MISSOURI, AND 
                               TENNESSEE




Appropriation, 2004...................................      $322,309,000
Budget Estimate, 2005.................................       270,000,000
Recommended, 2005.....................................       325,000,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2004...............................        +2,691,000
    Budget Estimate, 2005.............................       +55,000,000


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



                         GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS

    Bayou Meto Basin, Arkansas.--The Committee recommends 
$2,447,000 to complete Preconstruction, Engineering and Design 
on this project.

                              CONSTRUCTION

    McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation System, Arkansas & 
Oklahoma.--Within the funds provided, the Corps of Engineers is 
directed to continue to study and construct demonstration 
projects to address a cutoff between the Arkansas and White 
Rivers.
    Mississippi River Levees, Arkansas, Illinois, Kentucky, 
Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, and Tennessee.--The Committee 
recognizes the critical need of continuing to advance 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 $45,000,000 for 
Mississippi River Levees, and urges the Corps of Engineers to 
prioritize its work so that high-value projects under way may 
be finished as quickly as possible, affording the greatest 
possible protection for the investment.
    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 
$6,610,000 for this project, including $1,625,000 to continue 
10 & 15 Mile Bayous, Arkansas, relocations; $1,600,000 to 
continue construction on 10 & 15 Mile Channel improvement in 
Arkansas; and $385,000 to continue construction of Steele 
Bypass Weir, Steele, Missouri.

                              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 recommends $9,000,000 for the project. The 
additional funds are intended to allow the Corps to address 
several specific items, including the need to maintain or 
replace gravel surfaces on levees, including those below 
Helena, Arkansas; to provide for environmental improvements at 
the Drinkwater II pumping station in Missouri, and to scour 
repair at Blue Bank Outlet Channel in Tennessee.

                   OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, GENERAL




Appropriation, 2004...................................    $1,956,314,000
Budget Estimate, 2005.................................     1,931,000,000
Recommended, 2005.....................................     1,982,000,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2004...............................       +25,686,000
    Budget Estimate, 2005.............................       +51,000,000


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



    Black Warrior and Tombigbee Rivers, Alabama.--On the Black 
Warrior and Tombigbee Rivers, Alabama, project, the Committee 
recommends an additional $700,000 to complete bankhead gate 
installation.
    Los Angeles County Drainage Area, California.--The 
Committee urges that the Corps of Engineers remove all debris 
dumped by the Corps into the Hansen Dam Lower Lakes in 2003 and 
undertake all appropriate mitigation.
    Delaware River, Philadelphia to the Sea, New Jersey, 
Pennsylvania, Delaware.--The Committee recommends an additional 
$500,000 for bank stabilization action for the preservation of 
historic structures on Pea Patch Island.
    Stockton Lake, Missouri.--The bill provides an additional 
$340,000 for continued investigations of the pre-historic Big 
Eddy archaeological site at Stockton Lake, Missouri. The 
Committee is not unmindful of the need to replace the 
administration building, but needs additional information about 
the planned structure before appropriating funds for it.
    Illinois Waterway (MVR portion), Illinois and Indiana.--The 
Committee recommends $33,643,00 for operation and maintenance 
of the Rock Island District portion of the Illinois Waterway, 
Illinois and Indiana, including $370,000 for the Sangamon River 
(Beardstown) Sediment Trap. The Committee directs that, within 
available funds, $100,000 under the Illinois Waterway Operation 
and Maintenance, General to continue reporting activities 
associated with Lucas Berg Pit, Worth, Illinois, which is part 
of the Illinois Waterway (MVR Portion), Illinois and Indiana 
project.
    Kaskaskia River Navigation, Illinois.--The Committee 
commends the Corps of Engineers for shifting its project 
evaluation to a watershed approach. The Committee believes that 
the consensus building among partners and stakeholders and 
interagency cooperation between Federal, State, and Local 
government that results from a watershed approach will produce 
overall cost savings without sacrificing service or safety; 
economic development that is built and operated in a 
sustainable manner; and improved environmental quality within 
watersheds. The Kaskaskia River, Illinois, watershed, cited in 
the Corps of Engineers Civil Works Strategic Plan, March 2004, 
is an outstanding example of this concept. The Committee notes 
the dramatic underfunding of this project by the 
Administration, and recommends additional funding. The 
Committee directs the Corps to continue in this direction and 
to develop watershed performance measures that will provide 
measurable results of such initiatives and directs the Corps to 
submit to the Committees, within 180 days of enactment of this 
Act, a report that outlines these procedures.
    Burns Harbor, Indiana.--The Committee directs the Corps to 
address issues related to the Bailey pumping station located at 
Burns Harbor, Indiana.
    Muskingum River Lakes, Ohio.--The Committee has provided 
$8,276,000 for the operation and maintenance at all Muskingum 
River Lakes projects, including $500,000 to continue efforts to 
correct the seepage problem at Bolivar Dam, $500,000 for 
seepage study at Mohawk Dam; and $500,000 to analyze outlet 
tunnel deterioration at Atwood, Clendenning, Leesville, 
Piedmont, and Tappan Lakes. The Committee has provided an 
additional $2,000,000 to enable the Corps of Engineers to 
initiate a comprehensive review, study and update of the lake, 
replacing paper files which are out of date and available to 
only a few decisionmakers with digital mapping, hydrographic 
surveys widely available in order to better manage the assets 
within the basin.
    Cape Cod Canal, Massachusetts.--The Committee recommends an 
additional $2,030,000 for acquisition of a vessel 
identification system for the Cape Cod Canal, and to expedite 
the sandblasting and painting of the Bourne Highway Bridge.
    Clearwater Lake, Missouri.--The Committee recommends 
$2,874,000 for Clearwater Lake Missouri, including $900,000 to 
complete a new Water Control Plan for this reservoir project.
    Garrison Dam, Lake Sakakawea, North Dakota.--The Committee 
recommends an additional $100,000 for mosquito control and 
prevention at Garrison Dam, Lake Sakakawea, North Dakota.
    Whitney Lake, Texas.--The Committee directs the Corps of 
Engineers to consider solutions to existing conditions in and 
around Ham Creek Park, and within available funds, to identify 
modernization possibilities in the vicinity of Kimble Bend 
Park.
    Columbia and Lower Willamette Rivers below Vancouver, 
Washington, and Portland, Oregon.--In the fiscal year 2004 
appropriation, the Committee provided an additional $1,600,000 
to complete the rehabilitation of the breakwater at the East 
Astoria Boat Basin. The Corps of Engineers now states that it 
needs an additional $1,200,000 to complete this work. Within 
the amount provided, $19,768,000, the Committee directs the 
Corps to complete this long-delayed project.
    Tennessee River, Tennessee.--Within the funds provided for 
this project, the Committee recommends $500,000 for the removal 
of debris.
    Aquatic Nuisance Research Program.--Within the funding 
provided for the Aquatic Nuisance Research Program, the Corps 
of Engineers is directed to undertake an aggressive program to 
determine the causes of, and to discover methods for the 
control or elimination of, the coastal phenomena known as ``red 
tide''. In pursuit of these goals, the Corps is urged to seek 
out and work with academic and industry experts already 
involved in similar study.
    Regional Sediment Management Demonstration Program.--The 
Committee recommends an additional $200,000 for field 
investigation and related work on the Southeast Coast of Oahu, 
Hawaii.

                           Regulatory Program





Appropriation, 2004...................................      $139,174,000
Budget Estimate, 2005.................................       150,000,000
Recommended, 2005.....................................       140,000,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2004...............................          +826,000
    Budget Estimate, 2005.............................       -10,000,000


    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 2005, the Committee recommends an 
appropriation of $140,000,000, which is $10,000,000 less than 
the budget request and $826,000 more than the amount 
appropriated in fiscal year 2004.

            Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program





Appropriation, 2004...................................      $139,174,000
Budget Estimate, 2005.................................       140,000,000
Recommended, 2005.....................................       190,000,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2004...............................       +50,826,000
    Budget Estimate, 2005.............................       +50,000,000


    The Committee recommendation for the Formerly Utilized 
Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP) is $190,000,000, an 
increase of $50,826,000 over the current fiscal year and 
$50,000,000 over the requested amount of $140,000,000. The 
Committee provides the additional $50,000,000 to expedite 
completion of ongoing FUSRAP projects and to address pending 
new FUSRAP projects.
    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, 2004...................................  ................
Budget Estimate, 2005.................................       $50,000,000
Recommended, 2005.....................................  ................
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2004...............................  ................
    Budget Estimate, 2005.............................       -50,000,000


    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 2005, the Committee has recommended no 
additional funding, which is $50,000,000 less than the budget 
request and the same as appropriated in fiscal year 2004.
    Within available funds, the Corps of Engineers is directed 
to begin pilot tests of systems alternative to sandbags, such 
as the Rapid Deployment Flood Wall. The Committee is aware that 
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Districts use Geographic 
Information Systems (GIS) and GIS applications as part of the 
technological tool kit for a broad range of business activities 
including emergency management. These include Corps support to 
FEMA during disasters as part of the Federal Response Plan and 
the Corps' Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies authority 
(P.L. 84-99). The Committee encourages the Corps to look at 
Rapid Environmental Decision Support Environment software to 
fill current technology gaps in GIS-based approaches with 
respect to fire, post-fire flooding, and landslide analysis.

                            General Expenses





Appropriation, 2004...................................      $159,056,000
Budget Estimate, 2005.................................       167,000,000
Recommended, 2005.....................................       167,000,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2004...............................        +7,944,000
    Budget Estimate, 2005.............................  ................


    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 
$167,000,000, the same as the budget request and $7,944,000 
above the fiscal year 2004 amount.
    The recommendation also includes bill language prohibiting 
the use of funds to support a congressional affairs office 
within the executive office of the Chief of Engineers. This 
language has been included in Energy and Water Development 
Appropriations Act since fiscal year 2000.
    The Committee is aware of the many efforts which the Corps 
of Engineers is making to improve its management structure and 
toolset, and commends this desire to continue to improve its 
performance. These include reorganization initiatives, 
primarily USACE 2012, and massive supporting software systems 
like P2 and FEM. In order to realize the greatest degree of 
synergy possible out of these efforts, the Committee urges the 
Corps to consider adding a data visualization component to its 
software suite.

      Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works)

    The Committee recommendation includes $2,600,000 for the 
Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) in 
fiscal year 2005. This office has previously been funded under 
the defense appropriation for Operation and Maintenance, Army.

                           General Provisions


                       Corps of Engineers--Civil

    Section 101. The Committee includes language proposed by 
the Administration that 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.
    Section 102. The Committee includes language prohibiting 
the expenditure of funds related to a proposed landfill in 
Tuscarawas County, Ohio.
    Section 103. The Committee includes language prohibiting 
the transfer of Civil Works missions, functions, or 
responsibilities to other government agencies without specific 
direction by Congress.
    Section 104. The Committee includes language prohibiting 
the expenditure of funds related to a proposed landfill in 
Stark County, Ohio.
    Section 105. The Committee includes language regarding the 
level of protection and the cost share for the flood detention 
basin for the City of Alamogordo, New Mexico.
    Section 106. The Committee includes language amending the 
Water Resources Development Act of 2000 extending the date by 
which the Secretary may accept funding contributed by non-
Federal interests to expedite the evaluation of permits.
    Section 107. The Committee includes language, included in 
the fiscal year 2004 conference report, directing the Secretary 
to complete the General Reevaluation Report for the Mill Creek, 
Ohio, project at 100 percent Federal cost.
    Section 108. The Committee includes language addressing the 
non-Federal share of the environmental dredging project at 
Ashtabula River, Ohio.
    Section 109. The Committee includes language directing the 
Secretary to design the Central Riverfront Park project on the 
Ohio Riverfront in Cincinnati, Ohio.
    Section 110. The Committee includes language restricting 
use of the Revolving Fund for performance of certain proposed 
expenditures on specific Corps of Engineers dredges.


                                TITLE II

                       DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

                          Central Utah Project

                CENTRAL UTAH PROJECT COMPLETION ACCOUNT




Appropriation, 2004...................................       $37,965,000
Budget Estimate, 2005.................................        48,009,000
Recommended, 2005.....................................        48,009,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2004...............................       +10,044,000
    Budget Estimate, 2005.............................  ................


    The Central Utah Project Completion Act (Titles II-VI of 
P.L. 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 2005 to carry 
out the provisions of the Act is $48,009,000, the same as the 
budget request and $10,044,000 above the amount appropriated in 
fiscal year 2004. The Committee recommendation includes the 
requested amount of $15,469,000, an increase of $6,102,000 over 
fiscal year 2004 funding, for deposit into the Utah Reclamation 
Mitigation and Conservation Account for use by the Utah 
Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Commission.

                         Bureau of Reclamation

    The funds provided in this bill for the Bureau of 
Reclamation include the following accounts: Water and Related 
Resources, the Bureau of Reclamation Loan Program, the Central 
Valley Project Restoration Fund, California Bay-Delta 
Restoration, and Policy and Administration. The Committee 
recommendation provides a total of $968,153,000 for the Bureau 
of Reclamation in fiscal year 2005, an increase of $25,477,000 
over fiscal year 2004 and $45,829,000 over the request.

                      Water and Related Resources




Appropriation, 2004...................................      $852,439,000
Budget Estimate, 2005.................................       794,476,000
Recommended, 2005.....................................       855,305,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2004...............................        +2,866,000
    Budget Estimate, 2005.............................       +60,829,000


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


    Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Project, Title I, 
Arizona.--The Committee recommends additional funds for the 
Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Project, Title I, and 
urges that, within the funds provided, sufficient funding be 
dedicated to the Yuma desalting plant so that one-third 
operational capacity may be achieved by the end of calendar 
year 2006.
    South/Central Arizona Investigations Program, Arizona.--The 
Committee recommends $1,380,000 for the South/Central Arizona 
Investigations Program, including $200,000 for the West Salt 
River Water Management Study, an additional $60,000 for the 
Central Arizona Salinity Study, and $250,000 to continue the 
Sierra Vista Subwatershed Study, also known as the Upper San 
Pedro Watershed Study.
    Colorado River Front Work and Levee System, Arizona and 
California.--The Committee recommends an additional $700,000 to 
continue planning and design of regulating reservoirs near the 
All-American Canal.
    Central Valley Project, American River Division, 
California.--Within the funds provided for the Central Valley 
Project, American River Division, $3,000,000 is for the 
continuation of the design for the El Dorado Irrigation 
District temperature control device at Folsom Dam and 
Reservoir, California.
    Central Valley Project, Auburn/Folsom South Unit, 
California.--The Committee is aware that, when the Bureau of 
Reclamation closed the road on Folsom Dam to public traffic in 
February 2003, it did so out of a genuine concern for public 
security and safety. However, many responsible people in the 
community, in the Congress, and elsewhere believe this closure, 
with its attendant impact on the commuters and businesses of 
the region, was precipitous and unwise. The Committee is also 
aware that the Bureau is exploring the possibility of a limited 
re-opening of the Dam Road, and urges that this be given the 
highest possible priority and accomplished at the earliest 
possible date, if it may be done within acceptable limits when 
all risk factors are considered.
    Central Valley Project, Delta Division, California.--The 
Committee recommends an additional $1,000,000 to continue work 
on the Delta Mendota Canal-California Aqueduct Intertie 
project, and an additional $500,000 for Reclamation to continue 
participation in planning and study activities associated with 
enlarging Los Vaqueros reservoir.
    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, Sacramento Division, California.--
Congress has provided a total of $1,100,000 over the past three 
fiscal years for the implementation of the Colusa Basin 
Integrated Resources Management Plan, and the Committee is 
disturbed at reports alleging that the Bureau has allocated 
less than half that amount to the program. The Committee 
directs the Bureau to continue project-level implementation of 
the Colusa Basin plan in fiscal year 2005. Within the amount 
made available for the Sacramento River Division, the Committee 
recommends an additional $2,000,000 to reimburse the Glenn-
Colusa Irrigation District for costs associated with the fish 
passage improvement project.
    Sacramento River Diversion Study, California.--The 
Committee recommends $1,000,000 for continuation of the 
Sacramento River Diversion Study by the Placer County Water 
Agency, pursuant to Public Law 106-554.
    Central Valley Project, West San Joaquin Division, 
California.--The Committee recommendation does not provide the 
funds requested for payment of settlement costs in the case of 
Sumner Peck Ranch v. Bureau of Reclamation. The Committee 
recommendation includes an additional $1,000,000 for 
implementation of the Westside Regional Drainage Plan, which 
includes the Grassland Area Regional Drainage Plan.
    Central Valley Project, Miscellaneous Project Programs, 
California.--The Committee recommendation includes an 
additional $163,000 to complete the Kaweah River Delta Corridor 
Enhancement study, an additional $300,000 for the Mokelumne 
River Regional Water Storage and Conjunctive Use Appraisal, and 
an additional $500,000 for work with the California 
Agricultural Water Management Council. The Committee also 
includes 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.
    Southern California Investigations Program, California.--
The Committee recommends $1,240,000 for the Southern California 
Investigations Program, including an additional $500,000 for 
the Los Angeles Basin Watershed Water Supply Augmentation 
study.
    Salton Sea Research Project, California.--The Committee 
recommends $3,500,000 for the Salton Sea Research Project, 
including $2,000,000 to continue environmental restoration 
efforts at the New and Alamo Rivers, and for other authorized 
pilot projects.
    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.
    Oklahoma Investigations Program, Oklahoma.--The Committee 
recommends an additional $500,000 for the Bureau of Reclamation 
to continue studying ways to improve management of the 
Arbuckle-Simpson Aquifer.
    Klamath Project, Oregon and California.--The Committee 
recommends an additional $4,000,000 for the Klamath Project 
water bank program within available funds, the Committee 
includes $1,000,000 for water quality multi-probe and flow 
measurement instrumentation.
    Washington Investigations Program, Washington.--The 
Committee recommendation provides an additional $250,000 for 
appraisal of the Odessa Subaquifer.
    Yakima River Basin Storage Study, Washington.--The 
Committee recommends $1,500,000 for the Bureau of Reclamation 
to continue work on the feasibility study of options for 
additional water storage in the Yakima River Basin.
    Science and Technology Program.--The Committee has provided 
an additional $1,000,000 for the Bureau of Reclamation to 
continue its successful 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. The 
Committee is aware of the serious water shortage issues in 
Central Texas. There is significant potential to address these 
issues if salinity problems in the Lake Whitney watershed could 
be ameliorated. The Bureau is encouraged to work with local and 
State officials as well as researchers at Baylor University to 
address this problem.
    Title XVI, Water Reclamation and Reuse Program.--The 
Committee recommends $2,655,000 for the Title XVI Water 
Reclamation and Reuse Program. Within the amount made 
available, $1,000,000 is to continue support to the WateReuse 
Foundation's research program and $125,000 is provided for the 
Bureau to work with the Mission Springs, California, Water 
District to evaluate further the possibilities of using 
recycled water for groundwater recharge or other non-potable 
uses.
    Wetlands Development.--The Committee recommends $1,000,000 
for the Bureau of Reclamation to continue work on the East 
Wetlands Restoration project in Yuma, Arizona.

               BUREAU OF RECLAMATION LOAN PROGRAM ACCOUNT




Appropriation, 2004...................................          $199,000
    Budget Estimate, 2005.............................  ................
Recommended, 2005.....................................  ................
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2004...............................          -199,000
    Budget Estimate, 2005.............................  ................


    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.
    Consistent with the budget request, the Committee provides 
no funds for the loan program in fiscal year 2005.

                    California Bay-Delta Restoration





Appropriation, 2004...................................  ................
Budget Estimate, 2005.................................       $15,000,000
Recommended, 2005.....................................  ................
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2004...............................  ................
    Budget Estimate, 2005.............................       -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 
this account for the CALFED effort in fiscal years 2001, 2002, 
2003, and 2004.
    The Committee remains 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 2005, 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 will reconsider funding as the bill 
moves through the appropriations process. Certain elements of 
the CALFED program which have prior authorizations are funded 
individually under the Water and Related Resources account.

                CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT RESTORATION FUND




Appropriation, 2004...................................       $39,366,000
Budget Estimate, 2005.................................        54,695,000
Recommended, 2005.....................................        54,695,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2004...............................       +15,329,000
    Budget Estimate, 2005.............................  ................


    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 (e.g., 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 2005, the Committee recommends $54,695,000, 
the same as the budget request and $15,329,000 above the amount 
appropriated in fiscal year 2004. The Committee again includes 
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.
    The Committee directs the Bureau of Reclamation to make 
available the $5,382,000 for the Anadromous Fish Screen Program 
to continue work on the American Basin Fish Screen and Habitat 
Improvement Project (Natomas Mutual Water Company) as well as 
the fish screen projects being undertaken by the Sutter Mutual 
Water Company and Reclamation District 108 provided under this 
heading in fiscal year 2003.

                       POLICY AND ADMINISTRATION




Appropriation, 2004...................................       $55,197,000
Budget Estimate, 2005.................................        58,153,000
Recommended, 2005.....................................        58,153,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2004...............................        +2,956,000
    Budget Estimate, 2005.............................  ................


    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 
2005, the Committee recommends $58,153,000, the same as the 
budget request and $2,956,000 above the fiscal year 2004 
amount.

                           General Provisions


                       Department of the Interior

    Section. 201. The Committee has included language 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.
                               TITLE III

                          DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

    Funds recommended in Title III provide for Department of 
Energy (DOE) programs relating to: Energy Supply, Non-Defense 
Environmental Management (Non-Defense Site Acceleration 
Completion, Non-Defense Environmental Services, and Uranium 
Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund), Science, 
Nuclear Waste Disposal, Departmental Administration, the 
Inspector General, the National Nuclear Security Administration 
(Weapons Activities, Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation, Naval 
Reactors, and Office of the Administrator), Defense 
Environmental Management (Defense Site Acceleration Completion, 
and Defense Environmental Services), Other Defense Activities, 
Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal, the Power Marketing 
Administrations, and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    Budget constraints limited the Committee's ability to fully 
fund the Administration's budget request for the Department of 
Energy. In addition, the Committee made a number of adjustments 
to reflect specific Congressional interests and priorities. 
Total funding for the Department of Energy is $22,478,342,000, 
an increase of $510,913,000 over fiscal year 2004 and 
$669,491,000 less than the budget request.

                        CONGRESSIONAL DIRECTION

    The Committee renews the direction provided in House Report 
108-212 requiring the Secretary to submit to the House 
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 report and the 
conference report accompanying the Energy and Water Development 
Appropriations Act, 2005.

                   BUDGET JUSTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS

    The fiscal year 2006 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). 
The budget justifications must also include a statement that 
all appropriate project management requirements from DOE Order 
413.3 will have been met at the time the budget justifications 
are submitted to Congress. The Committee understands that all 
such requirements may not be met, and need not be met, at the 
time the budget request is formulated. The Committee does 
expect, however, that these project management requirements 
will have been fulfilled at the time the fiscal year 2006 
budget request is delivered to Congress.

                    SAFEGUARDS AND SECURITY FUNDING

    The rapid increase in security funding to address the 
revised Design Basis Threat (DBT) leads the Committee to 
conclude that the Department should continue to provide direct 
funding for safeguards and security costs by including a 
separate line item for these costs within the major programs. 
The Committee concurs with the Department that it is not 
appropriate at this time to shift to indirect funding of 
safeguards and security costs. Until these costs stabilize, it 
is important to maintain the control and visibility afforded by 
direct funding of these costs.
    The Committee is aware that additional security funding is 
required to meet the revised DBT signed out by the Secretary in 
May 2003. However, based on the lack of information provided to 
date, the Committee has no confidence that the significant cost 
growth for safeguards and security activities is improving 
actual security in any measurable sense. The Committee is 
unaware of any DBT implementation guidance developed by the 
Department that would result in consistent and comparable cost 
estimates from the site contractors or security standards that 
might ensure some uniformity and cost control across the 
complex.
    The Committee expects the Secretary to direct the program 
offices under the purview of the Under Secretary for Energy, 
Science, and Environment, and the Under Secretary for National 
Security to develop their safeguards and security budgets and 
implementation plans in a DOE-wide framework and under standard 
criteria and policy management and guidance issued by the 
Secretary through the Office of Security and Safety 
Performance. The Committee directs the Secretary to submit a 
report with the fiscal year 2006 budget request to the House 
and Senate Committees on Appropriations and Armed Services 
outlining the Department's overall security strategy and how it 
will result in the revised DBT requirements being met by the 
end of fiscal year 2006.

                         FIVE-YEAR BUDGET PLANS

    Certain offices within the Department have prepared 
strategic plans or facility plans that attempt to define 
program priorities for the coming years. The National Nuclear 
Security Administration has prepared the Future Years Nuclear 
Security Plan (FYNSP) and the Facilities and Infrastructure 
Recapitalization Plan (FIRP). The Office of Science recently 
completed its Twenty-Year Science Facility Plan and a Twenty-
Year Strategic Plan. The Office of Environmental Management has 
detailed project management plans for each of its cleanup sites 
and has issued various complex-wide cleanup plans in the past.
    The Committee believes strongly in the value of five-year 
plans to guide Administration budget requests and Congressional 
spending decisions, to force discipline in making budgetary 
decisions, and to encourage some stability from year to year. 
In its recent report on project management at the Department, 
the National Research Council observed that ``[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.''
    Departmental program offices face four competing priorities 
for funding: maintaining and operating existing facilities and 
research instruments, investing in new facilities and research 
instruments, paying for research and production work done at 
the DOE laboratories and plants, and funding research work done 
outside of the DOE complex. Making the difficult trade-offs 
between these competing priorities is not easy, but without a 
methodological approach to such trade-offs, a strategic or 
facility plan is a mere wish list unconstrained by fiscal 
realities and other competing demands. The Department needs to 
prepare a comprehensive department-wide five-year budget plan 
that will make explicit the choices made between competing 
priorities such as science research versus nuclear 
nonproliferation versus environmental cleanup. Preparation of 
such a comprehensive five-year plan will no doubt be 
challenging for the Department, but the challenge is not 
fundamentally different from that facing the Department of 
Defense (DoD), which regularly produces and updates its Future 
Year Defense Plan (FYDP) to reflect future resource 
requirements among the various Services in DoD.
    Inherent in producing five-year budget plans for major 
programs and the entire Department is the need to define 
missions and activities, and therefore the future budget 
requirements, of the various laboratories. The large multi-
program labs (i.e., Argonne, Brookhaven, Lawrence Berkeley, 
Lawrence Livermore, Los Alamos, Oak Ridge, and Pacific 
Northwest) have been very aggressive in pursuing a wide range 
of new missions and funding sources--first climate change, then 
genomics, then nanotechnology, now advanced computing and 
proteinomics. And these labs continue to jockey for position at 
the homeland security funding trough.
    The Committee recognizes the vast pool of talent present in 
the labs, and the fact that such talent can be brought to bear 
on a wide range of problems facing the Nation. However, the 
Committee also believes that such talent requires more active 
guidance and supervision from the Headquarters program offices 
to be sure the labs are using DOE resources to tackle the right 
problems. In times of limited funding, the question can no 
longer be ``What can the labs do?'' but must instead be ``What 
should the labs do?'' Answering this latter question should not 
be left up to the contractors running the labs; it must be 
answered by the Federal managers in the Department. The five-
year plans prepared by the major program offices, and the 
comprehensive five-year plan for the Department, should include 
business plans for each of these laboratories. These business 
plans should include a clear statement of the primary mission 
of each laboratory as such mission relates to each lab's lead 
program office(s), a clear statement of secondary missions to 
support other DOE program offices and other Federal agencies, 
and a five-year plan identifying the research, facilities, and 
resource requirements necessary to fulfill these primary and 
secondary missions.
    Concurrent with the submission of the fiscal year 2006 
budget request, the Department should submit to Congress budget 
quality five-year program plans for weapons activities program 
of the NNSA (i.e., the FYNSP), the Office of Science, and the 
Office of Environmental Management. Beginning with submission 
of the fiscal year 2007 budget request and every fiscal year 
thereafter, the Department should submit to Congress detailed 
five-year budget plans for all major program offices and a 
consolidated five-year budget plan for the entire Department. 
The Committee considers the preparation of these five-year 
program plans and the comprehensive five-year DOE plan to be a 
Federal function. The Department should consult with its 
contractors in developing its five-year plans, but the actual 
preparation of these plans is not to be contracted out; this 
work is to be done by Federal employees of the Department of 
Energy.

                    NON-NNSA WORK AT NNSA FACILITIES

    Section 3213 of Public Law 106-65, as subsequently modified 
by Section 3157 of Public Law 106-398, imposes a statutory 
limitation on the individuals within the Department of Energy 
who can exercise authority, direction, and control over the 
officers, employees, and contractors of the National Nuclear 
Security Administration (NNSA). The law specifies that NNSA 
officers, employees, and contractors are subject to the 
authority, direction, and control only of the Secretary of 
Energy acting through the NNSA Administrator, and the NNSA 
Administrator's designee within the NNSA. Although Section 3123 
of Public Law 106-65 initially applied this constraint only to 
the functions of the NNSA, Section 3157 of Public Law 106-398 
subsequently modified this to apply to all work executed by the 
elements of the NNSA.
    The NNSA was officially established over four years ago on 
March 1, 2000. Since that time, this Committee has repeatedly 
expressed concerns about the propriety of non-NNSA program 
offices (e.g., Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Nuclear 
Energy, Science, and Technology, Science, Civilian Radioactive 
Waste Management, and Environmental Management) continuing to 
send non-NNSA program funding to NNSA elements, including the 
three nuclear weapons laboratories. Government program managers 
are responsible and accountable for ensuring their program 
funds are spent for the intended purpose, and they must 
exercise sufficient control over those funds to ensure that 
outcome. The plain language of the NNSA statute is very clear 
that NNSA officers, employees, and contractors are not subject 
to the authority, direction, and control of anyone in DOE other 
than the Secretary of Energy, the Administrator of the NNSA, or 
the Administrator's designee. Therefore, non-NNSA program 
offices are continuing to send significant program funding to 
NNSA laboratories that are, by statute, not subject to the 
authority, direction, or control of those non-NNSA offices. The 
NNSA statute does not allow NNSA employees or contractors to 
subject themselves voluntarily to the authority, direction, and 
control of non-NNSA program officials, nor does it allow the 
NNSA elements the option of waiving the statutory constraint 
for certain work.
    The Committee is concerned that non-NNSA program offices 
continue to send significant funding from the Energy Supply, 
Science, and Defense Site Acceleration Completion accounts to 
the three NNSA nuclear weapons laboratories and continue to 
exercise ``authority, direction, and control'' over the weapons 
labs for the execution of this non-NNSA work. Both the sending 
non-NNSA program offices and the recipient NNSA laboratories 
are operating in the same manner as they did prior to the 
establishment of the NNSA. This practice places the Department 
in clear violation of the statutes. The statutes do not 
preclude such transfers from non-NNSA program offices to NNSA 
laboratories, but these provisions specify the chain of command 
that must be followed. Unfortunately, the Department has not 
bothered to put in place a new process that ensures compliance 
with these statutory constraints. The Department is fully aware 
of the constraint imposed by Sections 3213 and 3157 as 
demonstrated by its proposal to modify the statutory language 
as part of its legislative proposal to consolidate the 
counterintelligence office.
    The Committee directs the Office of Science, the Office of 
Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology, the Office of 
Electricity Transmission and Distribution, the Office of 
Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, the Office of Energy 
Efficiency and Renewable Energy, and the Office of 
Environmental Management to suspend immediately any further 
funding transfers to elements of the NNSA until the Secretary 
establishes procedures that comply fully with the letter of the 
law established in Section 3213 of Public Law 106-65, as 
amended by Section 3157 of Public Law 106-398. It is the 
Committee's view that these statutory provisions require all 
taskings to the NNSA elements be routed through the Secretary 
and the Administrator of the NNSA to the recipient NNSA 
employees and contractors. The Committee does not agree with 
the Department's farcical interpretation that passing the work 
order from the non-NNSA program office through the NNSA site 
office or service center and then to the M&O contractor somehow 
satisfies the statutory requirements. The use of middlemen and 
pass-throughs does not relieve the Department of the 
responsibility of complying with the plain language of the law. 
With the exception of environmental cleanup, all of this work 
is optional and could be executed outside of the NNSA. The 
Committee directs the Department to place priority on 
establishing procedures to enable the Environmental Management 
work to continue uninterrupted at the NNSA laboratories, 
plants, and sites.

                           PROJECT MANAGEMENT

    The Committee continues to emphasize the importance of 
improving the project management culture within the Department. 
The Committee considers compliance, by all parts of the 
Department, with Project Management Order 413.3 to be 
essential. The Committee also expects that all elements of the 
Department, including the NNSA, will comply with the 
requirements of Project Management Manual 413.3-1 for capital 
asset acquisition. The Committee 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. As noted above, the Committee expects 
compliance with Project Management Order 413.3 requirements for 
all projects included in future budget submissions. When 
Congress directs funding for a new facility, the Department 
should deem the requirement for CD-0 (i.e., determination of 
mission need) has been met and should proceed forward from the 
CD-0 milestone and continue implementation of the project 
management process.

                      COST AND SCHEDULE BASELINES

    The estimated cost for the Waste Treatment and 
Immobilization Plant (Project 01-D-416) at Hanford increased 33 
percent, or $1.4 billion, in fiscal year 2003. Based on that 
increase, the Committee directed the Department to transfer 
funds to the Corps of Engineers to conduct an independent 
review of the cost and schedule baseline for this project. In 
addition to revealing the risk of significant future cost 
growth on this particular project, the completed Corps review 
identified several problems that are likely systemic with DOE's 
cost and schedule baselines: inadequate government estimating, 
inadequate government contract management, and inadequate 
contingency amounts.
    The uncontrolled cost growth experienced at the Hanford 
Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant is apparent at other 
major projects such as the Tritium Extraction Facility, the 
Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility, the Elimination of 
Weapons Grade Plutonium Production (EWGPP) plants in Russia, 
and the Depleted Uranium Hexaflouride (DUF6) Conversion 
Project. The Committee has little confidence in the accuracy of 
the current cost and schedule baselines for these projects and 
even less confidence in the ability and motivation of DOE and 
its contractors to control these costs.
    Therefore, the Committee directs the Department to notify, 
in writing, the House and Senate Appropriations Committee 
immediately when there is a projected increase of 10 percent or 
more in the total estimated cost (TEC) for all line-item 
construction projects with a TEC in excess of $20 million. The 
baseline for triggering this requirement is the TEC as 
presented in the fiscal year 2005 budget justification. The 
written notification shall be handled like a reprogramming 
request, and will require the Department to provide a detailed 
justification for the cost increase and identify funding 
sources to pay for the increased costs. The notification to 
Congress must include a copy of the government estimate for the 
cost increase, and a written statement confirming that the 
project's cost and schedule baseline (prior to the proposed 
cost increase) has been verified through a detailed External 
Independent Review.
    In several instances (i.e., the depleted uranium 
hexaflouride conversion plants and the elimination of weapons 
grade plutonium production plants in Russia), the Committee 
directs the Department to use the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 
expertise in cost engineering to conduct independent 
verifications of the cost and schedule baselines for these 
specific projects. For other projects over the $20 million 
threshold, the Committee encourages the Department to use the 
Corps, other qualified Federal agencies, or qualified 
independent contractors to conduct independent reviews of cost 
and schedule baselines.
    In considering the cost growth in DOE projects, it is 
unclear that there are any consequences for DOE managers who 
provide erroneous estimates to Congress (i.e., estimates that 
are well below what an external and independent cost estimate 
would have stated). Unrealististically low estimates deprive 
the Secretary of Energy and the Congress of the opportunity to 
consider alternatives before contracts are let and major 
construction is begun. The Committee, therefore, directs that 
before any further construction projects in excess of $20 
million are initiated, the Secretary establish a baseline cost 
and schedule estimate for the project and will establish 
consequences within the Department for DOE managers who 
significantly underestimate costs (i.e., by more than 15 
percent) and report to Congress his action.

                     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 National Nuclear 
Security Administration is to be commended for establishing its 
Facilities and Infrastructure Recapitalization Program (FIRP) 
and maintaining management focus on this program. The Committee 
is concerned whether the Office of Science is paying sufficient 
attention to its facilities and infrastructure, given the 
precipitous decline in the budget request for Science 
Laboratories Infrastructure. The Committee is also concerned 
about the Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology, 
which, as the new landlord of the Idaho National Laboratory and 
the Idaho cleanup site, will have to pay much more attention to 
this issue than it has in the past. The five-year plans for 
each program and for the entire Department must provide a clear 
strategy for protecting the Federal investment in existing 
facilities and infrastructure throughout the DOE complex.
    The Committee directs 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 also directs that the costs of D&D for the facilities 
that are being replaced be included 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 directed a 
series of compliance audits to identify the backlog of safety 
deficiencies at the Department's non-defense Science 
laboratories; additional funding was provided in fiscal year 
2004, and is provided again in fiscal year 2005, to correct 
these deficiencies. In the conference report for fiscal year 
2004, the conferees directed the Department to submit an annual 
report, beginning in fiscal year 2005, on the backlog of 
safety-related deficiencies at NNSA and defense cleanup sites, 
and present an estimate and schedule for the corrective 
actions. The Committee directs the Department to budget 
explicitly for actions to correct safety deficiencies 
throughout the DOE complex beginning with the fiscal year 2006 
budget submission.

          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 useful for attracting and 
retaining scientific talent at the laboratories.
    However, the Committee continues to have serious 
reservations about the financial execution of this program, 
specifically with how the Department's laboratories levy the 
LDRD ``tax'' on work being performed for other agencies (Work 
for Others). The Secretary is currently required to include in 
the annual LDRD report to Congress an affirmation that ``all 
LDRD activities derived from funds of other agencies have been 
conducted in a manner . . . consistent with the Appropriations 
Acts that provided funds to those agencies.'' The Department 
has implemented this guidance by including boilerplate language 
into its standard project proposal and funding acceptance 
documents that it requires the funding WFO agencies to sign. 
According to a review conducted last year 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.
    More troubling, a recent review by the General Accounting 
Office (GAO-04-489) reveals the lack of controls on LDRD work 
conducted for other agencies. In fiscal year 2003, the nine DOE 
laboratories that conduct LDRD (Argonne, Brookhaven, Idaho, 
Lawrence Berkeley, Lawrence Livermore, Los Alamos, Oak Ridge, 
Pacific Northwest, and Sandia) received total Federal funding 
of $7.656 billion, of which $356 million (or 4.5 percent) was 
for LDRD; research that is solely at the discretion of the 
laboratory directors and is outside of effective Federal 
control. Of this amount for LDRD, $293 million (or 84.4 
percent) was funded from DOE sources and $54 million (or 15.6 
percent) was funded from other agencies.
    The GAO analysis of LDRD performed for other agencies 
revealed a bizarre rationale by DOE regarding how this WFO-
related LDRD is actually funded. DOE claims that it is not 
actually ``spending'' the funds appropriated to other agencies 
when it conducts LDRD, and therefore is not bound by any 
statutory requirements attached to other agencies' 
appropriations. Instead, when DOE agrees to perform 
reimbursable work for another agency, it automatically levies 
its LDRD tax (up to 6 percent) as an overhead cost and 
initiates the LDRD work using its own DOE funds. Then, at the 
end of the reimbursable work, DOE reimburses its overhead 
accounts using the funds received from the other agencies.
    The Committee does not support and does not provide funds 
for the Department to continue this practice. Specific 
statutory guidance is provided in the General Provisions at the 
end of this title. Beginning in fiscal year 2005, the 
Department may not use the funds appropriated in this bill to 
finance the cost of doing LDRD for other agencies. The other 
federal agencies are encouraged to continue using the 
capabilities of DOE's national laboratories, on a reimbursable 
basis, to conduct specific work. When the other agencies desire 
less constrained research by the DOE labs to support those 
other agencies' mission, the other agencies are free to hire 
DOE for such assistance.
    Beginning with the fiscal year 2006 budget submission, the 
Committee directs the Department to request direct funding for 
LDRD activities within each major appropriation in this bill 
(e.g., Energy Supply, Science, Weapons Activities, Defense 
Nuclear Nonproliferation, etc.). The amount allocated to each 
laboratory shall be decided explicitly by the program managers 
at DOE Headquarters responsible for each major appropriation. 
Beginning in fiscal year 2006, laboratories, sites, plants, and 
other elements in the DOE complex will not be permitted to fund 
LDRD from any other funding source. Given the magnitude of LDRD 
work being performed annually, and the apparent lack of control 
by the DOE program offices over this research, the Committee 
insists on the visibility and control provided by direct-funded 
LDRD activities in the future.

                   SAVANNAH RIVER NATIONAL LABORATORY

    On May 7, 2004, the Secretary of Energy declared, without 
any consultation with the Committees on Appropriations, that 
the existing Savannah River Technology Center would become the 
Savannah River National Laboratory. This Committee believes 
that the Department already has too many national laboratories, 
and that the Secretary has not lived up to his prior promise to 
make the Idaho National Laboratory into the Nation's 
centerpiece for nuclear energy research. The Department should 
be looking seriously at reducing the number of its national 
laboratories, not adding to the list. Therefore, no funds are 
provided in this bill for the Savannah River National 
Laboratory. Funds are provided within the various accounts, 
primarily Defense Site Acceleration Completion, Weapons 
Activities, and Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation, to continue 
activities in fiscal year 2005 at the existing Savannah River 
Technology Center.

                        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 2005 shall not 
exceed 220, the same as the fiscal year 2004 ceiling.
    Report on M&O contractor and subcontractor employees.--The 
Department is to provide a report to the Committee at the end 
of fiscal year 2004 on the use of M&O employees and M&O 
subcontractors assigned to the Washington metropolitan area. 
The report is to identify all M&O 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, 2003 
through September 30, 2004, and is due to the Committee on 
January 31, 2005.
    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 
description and 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, 2003 through September 30, 2004, and is 
due to the Committee on January 31, 2005.
    Inspector General review of M&O report.--The Committee is 
concerned that recent M&O reports are not entirely accurate and 
fail to identify many M&O employees and M&O subcontractors who 
are assigned to the Washington metropolitan area. The Committee 
directs the Inspector General to review the fiscal year 2004 
M&O report before it is submitted to the Committee.

                        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 preference 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 2005, 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 by the Department's Chief Financial Officer 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, 2004...................................      $738,161,000
Budget Estimate, 2005.................................       835,266,000
Recommended, 2005.....................................       817,126,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2004...............................       +78,965,000
    Budget Estimate, 2005.............................       -18,140,000


    The Energy Supply account includes the following programs: 
Renewable Energy Resources; Nuclear Energy; Electricity 
Transmission and Distribution; and Environment, Safety and 
Health (non-defense). The Department's fiscal year 2005 
proposal also includes contributions to Civilian Radioactive 
Waste Management, the new Office of Future Liabilities, and the 
Office of Legacy Management. The Committee recommends that the 
funds for Energy Supply activities remain available until 
expended.
    The Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) 
should give top priority to full funding of grants, contracts 
and cooperative agreements selected through open competition 
and peer review. The Congress is aware that in fiscal year 
2004, some of those receiving funds under the Superconductivity 
for Electric Power Systems program received significantly less 
than the agreed level of funding. Funding for such groups 
outside DOE, whose research proposals are competitively 
selected and peer reviewed, should be provided before this 
Office gives funds to DOE laboratories.
    The Committee expects that the House and Senate will 
designate during conference certain Congressionally-directed 
projects within the various Energy Supply programs. These 
Congressionally-directed projects, as well as the projects and 
programs requested by the Department, are subject to the cost 
sharing requirements specified in the Energy Policy Act of 1992 
(P.L. 102-486) and other relevant statutes.

                       RENEWABLE ENERGY RESOURCES

    The total Committee recommendation for renewable energy 
resources is $343,172,000, a decrease of $31,640,000 compared 
to the budget request. This reduction is due primarily to the 
reduction in the Hydrogen Technology program.
    The Committee supports the efforts by the Assistant 
Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) and 
his staff to strengthen project management in EERE, and 
provides the requested funds in the Program Direction line to 
implement the EERE Project Management Center. The Committee 
also notes continued improvement in the presentation of metrics 
in the budget request to show the performance to date and 
potential future contributions of the various renewable energy 
technologies.

                     RENEWABLE ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES

    Renewable Energy Technologies include biomass and 
biorefinery systems R&D, geothermal technology, hydrogen 
technology, hydropower, solar energy, and wind energy.
    Biomass and Biorefinery Systems R&D.--The Committee 
recommendation for integrated research and development on 
biomass and biorefinery systems is $72,596,000, the same as the 
budget request. Within available funds, the Committee 
recommendation includes $1,500,000 for the Consortium for Plant 
Biotechnology Research (CPBR).
    Geothermal Technology.--The Committee provides $25,800,000 
for geothermal technology development, the same as the budget 
request. The Department is directed to maintain funding for 
university research at the fiscal year 2004 funding level.
    Hydrogen Technology.--The fiscal year 2005 budget request 
seeks $95,325,000 for hydrogen research, an increase of 
$17,785,000 or 23 percent over the fiscal year 2004 enacted 
level. In House Report 108-212 and again in the statement of 
managers accompanying the fiscal year 2004 conference report 
(House Report 108-357), this Committee reminded the Department 
of the competition and cost-sharing requirements specified in 
the Hydrogen Future Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-271) and directed the 
Department to compete the hydrogen research program to the 
fullest extent possible. Unlike most DOE research programs, the 
hydrogen technology research has a specific statutory 
authorization with specific conditions attached.
    The Department blatantly ignored the Congressional 
direction contained in statute and report language regarding 
competition and cost sharing and announced in April 2004 the 
award of $150 million in new hydrogen storage research 
projects. Of this amount, approximately $120 million is 
dedicated to establishing three hydrogen storage ``centers of 
excellence'' that are led by DOE national laboratories. The so-
called competition was restricted to DOE laboratories, each of 
which selected its other laboratory, industry, and academic 
partners without competition. None of these funds for the 
``centers or excellence'' were awarded consistent with the 
Congressional view of competition; only the $30 million awarded 
to fifteen independent storage projects was awarded 
competitively. The Department was clearly determined to award 
the bulk of these hydrogen storage funds to its national 
laboratories without full and open competition and to persist 
in the fiction of ``pre-competitive R&D'' despite explicit 
Committee guidance to the contrary. Further, the $150 million 
of federal funding for hydrogen storage is to be matched by 
only $20 million of private sector funding. The Hydrogen Future 
Act of 1996 directs the Secretary to require a commitment from 
non-Federal sources of at least 20 percent of the cost of 
proposed hydrogen research and development projects; the 
Secretary may reduce or eliminate the cost-sharing requirement 
if the Secretary determines that the research and development 
is of a basic or fundamental nature. However, the Department 
requested $21.4 million for basic research on hydrogen under 
the Basic Energy Sciences program within the Office of Science. 
It is this Committee's view that the hydrogen research 
conducted and funded by the Office of Energy Efficiency and 
Renewable Energy is applied research and is subject to the 
minimum cost sharing requirements established by the Hydrogen 
Future Act.
    The Committee recommends $64,285,000 for hydrogen 
technology work by the Office of Energy Efficiency and 
Renewable Energy in fiscal year 2005, a reduction of 
$31,040,000 from the budget request. This reduction represents 
the proposed fiscal year 2005 funding for the DOE laboratories 
that was awarded without full and open competition and without 
any cost sharing. The reduction includes the proposed awards 
for the three hydrogen storage ``centers of excellence'' that 
were awarded to DOE laboratories, and their chosen industry and 
academic partners, without full and open competition. No funds 
are provided for the proposed $7 million effort on hydrogen 
education. The Committee continues to support hydrogen research 
and provides funds for the Office of Nuclear Energy, Science, 
and Technology and the Office of Science for hydrogen-related 
research, with the expectation that those offices understand 
the distinction between basic and applied research and 
understand the Committee's guidance regarding competition and 
cost sharing. The Committee directs the Department to submit 
its budget request for fiscal year 2006 with all basic research 
on hydrogen included within the Office of Science; all 
hydrogen-related research of an applied nature is to be funded 
within the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy or 
the Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology. The 
Committee expects the Department to comply with the spirit and 
the letter of the statutory cost-sharing requirements for 
applied research on hydrogen technologies, and to compete this 
work fully and openly. The awards to DOE laboratories, which 
this Committee views as non-competitive, are not funded under 
this fiscal year 2005 appropriation, and the Committee does not 
intend to fund such non-competitive awards in future fiscal 
years.
    Hydropower.--The Committee recommends $5,000,000 for 
hydropower research, $1,000,000 less than the budget request 
and essentially the same as provided in fiscal year 2004. As 
directed previously, 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. The proposed increase for advanced hydropower 
technology should be funded by the agencies that own and 
operate the Federal hydropower facilities, not by the 
Department of Energy.
    Solar Energy.--Solar energy technologies include: 
photovoltaic energy systems; solar heating and lighting, and 
concentrating solar power. These subprograms are combined into 
a single account for solar energy, and the control level for 
fiscal year 2005 continues at the solar energy program account 
level. The total Committee recommendation for solar energy in 
fiscal year 2005 is $82,733,000, an increase of $2,400,000 over 
the budget request. The Committee believes that the Department 
continues to underfund Concentrating Solar Power (CSP) 
technologies despite recent analyses documenting the potential 
of these technologies. The additional funds are provided to 
conduct CSP research at a level comparable to fiscal year 2004. 
The Committee directs Solar Heating and Lighting subprogram to 
be equally split between the Heating and Lighting research 
areas.
    Wind energy systems.--The Committee recommends $41,600,000 
for wind energy systems, the same as the budget request.
    Intergovernmental activities.--The Committee recommends 
$17,000,000 for intergovernmental activities, an increase of 
$1,000,000 over the budget request. This amount includes 
$6,500,000 for the international renewable energy program, 
including $1,500,000 for the International Utility Electricity 
Partnership (IUEP), $5,500,000 for tribal energy, and 
$5,000,000 for the Renewable Energy Production Incentive 
(REPI).

                 DEPARTMENTAL ENERGY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

    The Committee recommendation for Departmental Energy 
Management is $1,967,000, the same as the budget request.

             NATIONAL CLIMATE CHANGE TECHNOLOGY INITIATIVE

    The Committee recommendation provides no funds for the 
National Climate Change Technology Initiative (NCCTI), a 
reduction of $3,000,000 from the budget request. Given the 
plethora of other Department research that is related to 
climate change science and technology, the Committee does not 
see a need for this additional $3,000,000 for NCCTI.

                     FACILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE

    The Committee recommendation for renewable energy 
Facilities and Infrastructure is $11,480,000, the same as the 
budget request and a decrease of $1,642,000 compared to fiscal 
year 2004. This amount includes $4,800,000 for operations and 
maintenance of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) 
in Golden, Colorado, and $6,680,000 to continue construction of 
the new Science and Technology facility at NREL (project 02-E-
001).

                           PROGRAM DIRECTION

    The Committee recommendation for program direction is 
$20,711,000, the same as the requested amount and an increase 
of $8,185,000 over fiscal year 2004. This increase includes the 
requested amounts to improve project management at the Golden 
Field Office and to provide analytical and technical support to 
the U.S. Climate Change Technology Program.

               ELECTRICITY TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION

    The Committee recommendation for Electricity Transmission 
and Distribution is $75,354,000, $15,526,000 less than the 
budget request and $6,537,000 less than fiscal year 2004. The 
Committee does not support the requested 176 percent increase 
for program direction, which was to support a doubling of 
Federal staff. Instead, the Committee recommends $4,400,000 for 
program direction activities, which funds program direction at 
the fiscal year 2004 level plus $700,000 for the 6 FTEs related 
to the Import/Export Authorization activity. Funding for the 
proposed GridWorks and GridWise initiatives is not provided in 
this account; these initiatives are funded instead under the 
Energy Assurance program within Other Defense Activities. 
Detailed allocations are shown on the attached table at the end 
of Title III. The Committee recommendation provides $775,000 
for the Department to continue the Project Engineering and 
Design work for the Energy Reliability and Efficiency 
Laboratory (project 04-E-001) at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, 
which was initiated in fiscal year 2004.

                        NUCLEAR ENERGY PROGRAMS

    The Committee recommendation for nuclear energy programs 
under the Energy Supply appropriation is $339,470,000, an 
increase of $39,723,000 over the budget request and $40,481,000 
over the current fiscal year. Of the total funding of 
$466,817,000 provided for Nuclear Energy programs and 
facilities, $124,347,000 represents costs allocated to the 050 
budget function (i.e., defense activities); these defense-
related costs, which include $3,003,000 representing the 
security charges for reimbursable work, are funded under the 
Other Defense Activities and Naval Reactors accounts.
    The Secretary announced in July 2002 that the Idaho 
National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory would become 
the Nation's leading center for nuclear energy research and 
development. Unfortunately, the Secretary's rhetoric has not 
been matched by the Department's budget request for nuclear 
energy research and development. In fact, nuclear energy 
research and development at the Idaho National Laboratory would 
actually decrease by over $6 million under the Administration's 
fiscal year 2005 budget request. The Committee intends to 
reverse this trend by providing sufficient funds in fiscal year 
2005 for research and facilities at Idaho to deliver on the 
Secretary's promise to make the Idaho National Laboratory the 
epicenter of nuclear energy research in this country.
    The Committee strongly endorses the Administration's 
commitment to cooperate with the People's Republic of China in 
its expansion of nuclear power. As China begins a substantial 
program of nuclear power plant construction to meet its rising 
energy requirements, the Committee supports making the most 
advanced U.S. reactor technology available to ensure a safe and 
efficient nuclear power sector in China.

             UNIVERSITY REACTOR FUEL ASSISTANCE AND SUPPORT

    The Committee recommends $24,000,000, an increase of 
$3,000,000 over the budget request and $639,000 over the 
current year. The Committee continues to support DOE's programs 
to sustain existing university reactors and provide grants and 
fellowships that support nuclear science and engineering 
education. The additional funds are to be used to fund 
university reactor consortia under the Nuclear Infrastructure 
and Education (NIE) program.

                NUCLEAR ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

    The Committee believes that we will not build another 
nuclear power plant in this country until the spent fuel 
disposal question is resolved and the Yucca Mountain repository 
is on a secure path to licensing, construction, and operation. 
However, the Committee supports continued research and 
development to assist with the development of the next 
generation of reactor designs, and to develop advanced fuel 
cycles to minimize waste and proliferation concerns. The 
Committee recommendation for nuclear energy research and 
development is $122,546,000, an increase of $26,500,000 from 
the budget request.
    Nuclear Energy Plant Optimization.--The Committee concurs 
with the Administration's proposal to eliminate funding for the 
nuclear energy plant optimization (NEPO) program in fiscal year 
2005.
    Nuclear Energy Research Initiative.--The Committee concurs 
with the Department's proposal to integrate nuclear energy 
research initiative (NERI) activities into the other nuclear 
R&D programs: Nuclear Power 2010, Generation IV Nuclear Energy 
Systems, Nuclear Hydrogen, and the Advanced Fuel Cycle 
Initiative. Consistent with the request, no separate funds are 
provided for NERI in fiscal year 2005.
    Nuclear Power 2010.--The Committee provides $5,000,000 for 
Nuclear Power 2010, a reduction of $5,246,000 from the budget 
request. The Committee generally supports the efforts of the 
Department, working with industry, to facilitate the deployment 
of a Generation III+ reactor by demonstrating the Early Site 
Permit and combined Construction and Operation License 
processes. However, in the absence of a licensed repository for 
spent nuclear fuel, the Committee does not believe the Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission should license any new reactor plants in 
this country.
    Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems.--The Committee 
supports the Department's collaborative efforts on the research 
and development of a Generation IV reactor design that will be 
safer, more cost effective, and more proliferation resistant 
than current designs. Further, the Committee encourages the 
Department to focus on early deployment of a Next Generation 
Nuclear Plant (NGNP) at the Idaho National Laboratory, and 
believes the Department's efforts are better spent on the 
demonstration of a Generation IV NGNP rather than a Generation 
III+ plant under Nuclear Power 2010. The Committee recommends a 
total of $40,546,000 for Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems, 
an increase of $10,000,000 over the budget request. Of these 
additional funds, $6,000,000 is for work on the NGNP and 
$4,000,000 is for Generation IV R&D. The Committee directs the 
Department to spend all of these additional funds at the Idaho 
National Laboratory. Included in this research should be an 
aggressive effort to improve the reliability of ceramic-coated 
fuel granules that are critical to achieving many of the 
benefits of Generation IV designs.
    Nuclear hydrogen initiative.--The Committee provides 
$9,000,000 for the nuclear hydrogen initiative, the same as the 
budget request. The Committee expects the Department to meet 
the requirements of the Hydrogen Future Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-
271) for competition and industry cost sharing, and expects the 
Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology to coordinate 
the nuclear hydrogen initiative fully with the other hydrogen 
research being conducted by the Office of Science and the 
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
    Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative.--The Committee 
recommendation for the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative (AFCI) is 
$68,000,000, an increase of $401,000 over the current year and 
$21,746,000 more than the budget request. The additional funds 
are to be used for separations technology development and 
advanced fuels development. Not less than half of the total 
funding provided for AFCI shall be spent at the Idaho National 
Laboratory. The Committee expects the Department to focus its 
AFCI research efforts on selecting the most promising 
technologies to be incorporated into the Next Generation 
Nuclear Plant early in the next decade.

                   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. 
These outside users fund DOE's actual operational, production, 
and research activities on a reimbursable basis. The Committee 
is concerned that the Department is not dedicating sufficient 
resources to maintain and upgrade its radiological facilities 
necessary to support this work. The Department's current 
policies allow the customers to pay only their share of 
operational costs at these facilities, with the Department 
assuming full responsibility for the costs of constructing, 
maintaining, and upgrading the necessary supporting 
infrastructure. The Committee directs the Department to review 
its current policies with respect to funding these facilities 
and make, not later than December 31, 2004, one of two possible 
recommendations to Congress--either the Department should 
maintain its current policies, in which case the Department 
must budget sufficient funds for these facilities beginning in 
the fiscal year 2006 budget request, or the Department must 
change its policies to require the users of these facilities to 
pay not only the operational costs but also their fair share of 
the capital cost of building, repairing, and upgrading these 
facilities. If the Department decides on the latter course of 
action, it must notify the users of these facilities promptly 
so that those agencies can budget sufficient funds in their 
respective fiscal year 2006 budget requests.
    Space and defense infrastructure.--The Committee 
recommendation is $33,800,000, the same as the budget request. 
This includes the requested amounts to complete the transfer of 
radioisotope power systems capabilities from Mound to the Idaho 
National Laboratory, for the plutonium-238 facilities at Los 
Alamos National Laboratory, and for nepturnium-237 storage 
facilities at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory.
    Medical isotopes infrastructure.--The Committee 
recommendation is $34,810,000, the same as the budget request. 
Included within this program amount is the requested funding of 
$13,616,000 for continuation of work on Building 3019 for the 
U-233 disposition project at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, and 
for various facility costs at Brookhaven, Los Alamos, Oak 
Ridge, and Sandia national laboratories.
    Enrichment facility infrastructure.--The Committee 
recommendation includes the requested $500,000 for oversight of 
enrichment facilities at the Government-owned, USEC-operated 
gaseous diffusion plant at Paducah.

                      IDAHO FACILITIES MANAGEMENT

    This program funds the operations and construction 
activities at the Idaho National Laboratory (INL), including 
ANL-West and the Test Reactor Area. The Committee provides 
$123,050,000 for Idaho Facilities Management, an increase of 
$15,000,000 over the budget request. Of this total, $92,269,000 
is allotted to the 270 budget function and the balance, 
$30,886,000, is allotted to the 050 function and funded under 
Other Defense Activities and Naval Reactors.
    Idaho National Laboratory operations.--The Committee 
recommends $123,050,000, an increase of $15,000,000 over the 
budget request. Included in the Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 
operations request is $43,800,000 for laboratory transition and 
restructuring to prepare the site to complete its cleanup 
mission and meet new program missions. The Committee notes that 
the Secretary has done little to deliver on his promise of 
nearly two years ago to make INL the Department's and the 
Nation's lead laboratory for nuclear science and engineering. 
Although INL has unique facilities such as the Advanced Test 
Reactor (ATR), and will hopefully have the Next Generation 
Nuclear Plant sometime in the next decade, INL presently lacks 
a modern building to provide flexible office and laboratory 
space for resident and visiting researchers. Further, much of 
the existing office and laboratory space will be demolished in 
the near future as a result of the accelerated cleanup efforts 
at the Idaho site. Therefore, the Committee provides $8,000,000 
of additional funds in the laboratory transition and 
restructuring program to begin planning and design for a new 
office-laboratory building at INL to replace those facilities 
that will be eliminated under the accelerated cleanup program. 
The Department is directed to include line-item PED funds for 
this facility in the fiscal year 2006 budget request. The 
Committee notes that the Naval Reactors program is the 
principal user of the ATR and includes an additional 
$10,000,000, to be transferred from the Naval Reactors program, 
to fund necessary repairs and upgrades to the ATR.
    INL Construction.--The Committee recommends $1,523,000 for 
Idaho facilities construction, the same as the budget request. 
This includes the requested amount to complete project 99-E-
200, the electrical utility upgrade at the Test Reactor Area.

                 IDAHO SITEWIDE SAFEGUARDS AND SECURITY

    Consistent with the budget request, this activity is funded 
at the requested level of $58,103,000 as a 050 defense activity 
under the Other Defense Activities account.

                     SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL MANAGEMENT

    The Committee recommendation for spent nuclear fuel 
management is $6,723,000. The Committee recommendation provides 
the requested amount of funding, $5,223,000, plus an additional 
$1,500,000 (funded from Other Defense Activities) to inspect 
and repackage the spent fuel stored at the Lynchburg Technology 
Center in Virginia. The Department proposed to transfer 
responsibility for the management and operation of two NRC-
licensed, Department-owned independent spent fuel storage 
installations (Ft. St. Vrain in Colorado and INTEC in Idaho) 
from the Office of Environmental Management to the Office of 
Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. The Department also 
proposed to transfer responsibility for the transportation of 
domestic research reactor fuel, from NRC-licensed university 
reactors and the High Flux Isotope Reactor at Oak Ridge 
National Laboratory, from the Office of Nuclear Energy, Science 
and Technology to the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste 
Management. Given the low funding level provided to the Office 
of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management under the 
Administration's budget request for fiscal year 2005, the 
Committee does not support the proposed transfers to the Office 
of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management at this time. Because 
the Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology already 
manages the Ft. St. Vrain and INTEC spent fuel storage 
installations, and is already responsible for university 
reactor fuel as well, the Committee directs the Office of 
Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology to assume these 
responsibilities that were proposed for transfer to the Office 
of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management.

                           PROGRAM DIRECTION

    The Committee recommends a total funding level for program 
direction of $60,285,000, the same as the budget request and 
$1,434,000 more than the current fiscal year. Of this amount, 
$26,427,000 is funded in the Energy Supply appropriation under 
budget function 270, and $33,858,000 is funded in the Other 
Defense Activities appropriation under budget function 050.

                 CIVILIAN RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT

    As noted above, the Committee does not agree with the 
Department's proposed transfer from the Office of Environmental 
Management to the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste 
Management. The activities proposed for transfer are funded in 
the Spent Nuclear Fuel Management program of the Office of 
Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology.

                     ENVIRONMENT, SAFETY AND HEALTH

    The Committee recommendation is $28,000,000, a reduction of 
$2,474,000 from the budget request but an increase of 
approximately $5,135,000 over fiscal year 2004. Within this 
amount, the Department is directed to transfer $1,000,000 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. The Department requested a 133 
percent increase in funding for policy, standards and guidance, 
in part justified by the need to publish and implement the new 
occupational safety and health rule (10 CFR 851) as required by 
the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2002. 
The Committee does not support the new safety rule as proposed 
by the Department, and does not agree to fund such a rule with 
non-defense funds (i.e., 270 budget function dollars in the 
Energy Supply appropriation). In addition, the Department has 
voluntarily withdrawn this proposed rule based on adverse 
comments received from the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety 
Board, among others. Therefore, the Committee provides no funds 
for the Department to finalize or implement this proposed 
safety rule in fiscal year 2005.

                           FUTURE LIABILITIES

    The Committee does not agree with the proposal to establish 
a new Office of Future Liabilities. The Department should 
maintain these responsibilities within the existing Office of 
Environmental Management. Accordingly, no funds are provided in 
the Energy Supply appropriation to fund the non-defense 
activities of the proposed Office of Future Liabilities.

                           LEGACY MANAGEMENT

    The Committee recommendation includes $31,130,000 for the 
Office of Legacy Management, the same as the budget request. 
This funding is provided for the long-term surveillance and 
maintenance of non-defense DOE sites where remediation has been 
substantially completed, to oversee post-retirement benefits 
for former DOE contractor employees, and for records management 
and retrieval.

                  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 Non-Defense Environmental Management 
activities are funded in three separate accounts: Non-Defense 
Site Acceleration Completion for accelerated cleanup and 
closure activities; Non-Defense Environmental Services for 
those activities that indirectly support closure activities, or 
that support other missions of the Department; and the Uranium 
Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund for 
environmental management responsibilities at the three gaseous 
diffusion enrichment plants (Oak Ridge, Portsmouth, and 
Paducah) and for reimbursement of licensees conducting cleanup 
of uranium and thorium processing sites.
    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, 2004...................................      $162,411,000
Budget Estimate, 2005.................................       151,850,000
Recommended, 2005.....................................       151,850,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2004...............................       -10,561,000
    Budget Estimate, 2005.............................  ................


    The committee recommendation for Non-Defense Site 
Acceleration Completion is $151,850,000, the same as the budget 
request.
    Accelerated Completions, 2006.--The recommendation provides 
$45,435,000, the same as the budget request, including 
$29,017,000 for soil and water remediation at Brookhaven 
National Laboratory; $8,453,000 for graphite research reactor 
decontamination and decommissioning at Brookhaven National 
Laboratory; $4,070,000 for soil and water remediation at 
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory; $2,500,000 for soil and 
water remediation at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center; 
and $1,395,000 for various cleanup activities at Argonne 
National Laboratory, the Inhalation Toxicology Laboratory, and 
the Laboratory for Energy-Related Health Research. The 
Committee encourages the Department to maintain its accelerated 
schedule for completion of several of these remediation 
projects during fiscal year 2005.
    Accelerated Completions, 2012.--The recommendation provides 
$98,191,000, the same as the budget request, including 
$41,000,000 for solid waste stabilization and disposition at 
the West Valley Demonstration Project; $32,000,000 for nuclear 
facility decontamination and decommissioning at West Valley; 
$19,000,000 for nuclear facility decontamination and 
decommissioning at the Energy Technology Engineering Center; 
$5,734,000 for decontamination and decommissioning of the High 
Flux Beam Reactor at Brookhaven National Laboratory; and 
$457,000 for cleanup work at Argonne National Laboratory and 
various sites in California.
    Accelerated Completions, 2035.--The recommendation provides 
$8,224,000, the same as the budget request. This amount 
includes the requested $7,773,000 for soil and water 
remediation measures at the former Atlas uranium mill tailings 
site at Moab, Utah, consistent with the recommendations of the 
final Environmental Impact Statement; and $451,000 for 
decontamination and decommissioning of the Tritium System Test 
Assembly Facility at Los Alamos National Laboratory.

      Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund





Appropriation, 2004...................................      $414,027,000
Budget Estimate, 2005.................................       500,200,000
Recommended, 2005.....................................       500,200,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2004...............................       +86,173,000
    Budget Estimate, 2005.............................  ................


    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 $500,200,000 for activities funded 
from the Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning 
Fund, the same as the budget request. This amount includes 
$399,586,000 for decontamination and decommissioning activities 
at the gaseous diffusion plants and $100,614,000 for uranium 
and thorium reimbursements.

                   Non-Defense Environmental Services





Appropriation, 2004...................................      $337,465,000
Budget Estimate, 2005.................................       291,296,000
Recommended, 2005.....................................       291,296,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2004...............................       -46,169,000
    Budget Estimate, 2005.............................  ................


    The committee recommendation for Non-Defense Environmental 
Services is $291,296,000, the same as the budget request. This 
amount includes the requested funding of $245,123,000 for Non-
Closure Environmental Activities ($7,987,000 for nuclear 
materials stabilization at East Tennessee Technology Park; 
$4,931,000 for nuclear materials stabilization at Paducah; 
$51,000,000 for the depleted uranium hexaflouride conversion 
facility at Paducah; $11,705,000 for nuclear materials 
stabilization at Portsmouth; $51,000,000 for the depleted 
uranium hexaflouride conversion facility at Portsmouth; 
$20,000,000 for decontamination and decommissioning (D&D) of 
the gaseous diffusion plant at Portsmouth; and $98,500,000 for 
cold standby and technetium-99 removal at Portsmouth). The 
Committee allows the Department to reprogram funds between the 
Portsmouth D&D and cold standby subaccounts and encourages the 
Department to focus on cost-effective cleanup of the former gas 
centrifuge plant by June 2006 to facilitate deployment of the 
advanced centrifuge program, while meeting cold standby 
requirements as necessary. The Committee directs the Department 
to use its existing authorities to complete the uranium 
inventory exchange described in the June 17, 2002, agreement 
between the Department and the U.S. Enrichment Corporation, and 
to use uranium assets to finance the full costs of the 
technetium-99 removal program in fiscal year 2005.
    The total for Non-Defense Environmental Services also 
includes the requested amount of $46,083,000 for 
decontamination and decommissioning of the Fast Flux Test 
Reactor and $90,000 for community and regulatory support at 
Brookhaven and Oakland. Note that funds for Legacy Management 
previously appropriated in this account are funded in Energy 
Supply in fiscal year 2005.
    Depleted Uranium Hexaflouride Conversion Project.--Since 
the Department's previous budget request, the construction 
schedule for these two depleted uranium hexaflouride (DUF6) 
conversion plants, one at Portsmouth, Ohio, and the other at 
Paducah, Kentucky, has slipped by half a year, and the estimate 
of total project cost has increased by approximately ten 
percent. The Congressionally-directed independent review of the 
cost and schedule baseline for the Hanford Waste Treatment 
Plant identified a number of significant problems in the 
Department's estimating, change control, and contract 
management processes at that project. These results have not 
inspired confidence in the reliability of the Department's cost 
and schedule baselines for other Environmental Management 
projects. Given the recent increases to the cost and schedule 
for the DUF6 conversion project, the Committee directs the 
Department to transfer $1,250,000 each from the Portsmouth and 
Paducah DUF6 plants to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers center 
of expertise on cost engineering to conduct a thorough 
independent review of the cost and schedule baseline for these 
two plants. In addition, this review should evaluate the 
recommendations of the DOE Inspector General (see DOE/IG-0642) 
regarding the economic advantages of adding another processing 
line to the Portsmouth plant. The Corps should provide a report 
on its review to DOE not later than May 15, 2005, and should 
provide a concurrent submission to the Committees on 
Appropriations.

                                Science





Appropriation, 2004...................................    $3,482,283,000
Budget Estimate, 2005.................................     3,431,718,000
Recommended, 2005.....................................     3,599,964,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2004...............................      +117,681,000
    Budget Estimate, 2005.............................      +168,246,000


    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 $3,599,964,000, an increase of 
$168,246,000 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 Office of Science user facilities; 
nanoscale science research; 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 continue 
essential research and development and preconceptual design for 
the Rare Isotope Accelerator.
    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. Upon completion of these audits, the Office of 
Science was tasked to prepare estimates of the costs to correct 
the identified deficiencies and bring these ten laboratories 
into compliance with NRC and OSHA safety standards.
    The compliance audits revealed a backlog of safety-related 
deficiencies at the Department's ten Science 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 added funding in fiscal year 2004 to address these 
safety deficiencies and is disappointed that the Department did 
not consider these safety deficiencies of sufficient importance 
to request any funding in fiscal year 2005. The Committee 
recommendation includes $5,000,000 in fiscal year 2005 to 
continue resolving these outstanding safety deficiencies.
    Through the direction of this Committee and with the 
cooperation of the ten Science laboratories, the Department's 
principal substantive objections to external regulation (i.e., 
unknown cost savings and unknown transition costs) have been 
resolved. The benefits of external regulation appear 
significant and the transition costs appear manageable. The 
Department's sole remaining objection to external regulation 
seems to be nothing more than a bureaucratic determination to 
preserve the Secretary's discretion to continue business as 
usual. In the Committee's view, the exercise of Secretarial 
discretion to continue neglecting worker safety by preserving 
the current ineffective scheme of self-regulation is not good 
public policy. When faced with mounting evidence of the 
efficacy and cost-effectiveness of external regulation, the 
Committee is unable to understand the Department's continued 
intransigence on this matter.
    Open Competition.--In general, the Committee believes that 
new research facilities for the Office of Science should be 
openly competed among universities, private entities, federal 
laboratories and others qualified to build and operate such 
facilities. There are obviously exceptions, as when the new 
facility is specifically dependent on an existing reactor, 
light source, or accelerator located at an existing DOE 
laboratory or when the new facility represents a replacement of 
an existing facility. However, there should not be a default 
assumption that such facilities must be built at DOE national 
laboratories. The Committee is aware that research experiments 
associated with NASA flight missions, including those involving 
the development and delivery for flight of sophisticated 
instruments, are openly competed with universities, private 
companies, government laboratories, and others all able to 
submit proposals. The Committee is also aware that DOE 
laboratories compete, actively against universities, private 
companies, and other government laboratories, for work from 
other Federal agencies. The Committee expects the Office of 
Science to apply the same standard of open competition for its 
own DOE-funded facilities. Accordingly, to enable many of 
Science facilities proposed in the Twenty-Year Facility Outlook 
to proceed, DOE is directed to determine how to accomplish such 
competition under current law and regulation or to develop 
proposals for changes to law or regulations to enable such 
competitions to proceed.
    Performance Measures.--The Committee commends the Office of 
Science for its efforts to develop quantifiable performance 
measures for its research activities. Some of the measures 
(e.g., inverse picobarns) are less comprehensible to Congress 
than others, but the overall approach to quantitative 
performance measurement is worthwhile. The Office of Science 
presented clear data on operating time for user facilities 
within each Science subaccount, but future budget requests 
should include a standardized summary presentation for all 
Office of Science user facilities.

                          HIGH ENERGY PHYSICS

    The Committee recommends a total of $753,380,000 for high 
energy physics, an increase of $16,000,000 over the budget 
request. The control level is at the High Energy Physics level. 
The additional funds are provided to meet increased electricity 
costs at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (SLAC) and to 
increase operating time and enhance user support at SLAC and 
the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory. The Committee 
supports the Department's collaboration with the National 
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) on the Gamma-ray 
Large Area Space Telescope (GLAST), the Alpha Magnetic 
Spectrometer (AMS), and the Joint Dark Energy Mission (JDEM), 
and encourages NASA to maintain the planned schedule for these 
missions.

                            NUCLEAR PHYSICS

    The Committee recommendation for nuclear physics is 
$415,040,000, an increase of $14,000,000 over the budget 
request. An additional $7,000,000 is provided to continue 
research and development and initiate conceptual design 
activities for the Rare Isotope Accelerator, and an additional 
$7,000,000 is provided to increase utilization of the user 
facilities in the Nuclear Physics program.

                 BIOLOGICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH

    The Committee recommendation for biological and 
environmental research is $571,590,000, an increase of 
$75,000,000 over the budget request. The Committee 
recommendation provides an additional $75,000,000 to maintain 
the program at approximately the same funding level as fiscal 
year 2004, which included several Congressionally-directed 
projects.
    The Committee does not provide the requested $5,000,000 to 
initiate Project Engineering and Design for the proposed new 
facility for the production and characterization of proteins 
and molecular tags. The Committee does not agree with the 
Department's strategy of restricting competition for such a 
facility to only the DOE national laboratories. The Department 
should present in the fiscal year 2006 budget request an 
alternate procurement strategy for this and future Genomes to 
Life (GTL) facilities that will maximize rather than limit 
competition and will allow universities and other entities to 
compete with DOE national laboratories for these new GTL 
facilities. The Committee is aware that NASA has, for decades, 
conducted competitions for the development of research 
instrumentation among universities, NASA, DOE, and other 
government laboratories, and other entities. The Department is 
directed to develop a comparable approach to competition.

                         BASIC ENERGY SCIENCES

    The Committee recommendation for basic energy sciences is 
$1,076,530,000, an increase of $13,000,000 over the budget 
request. For purposes of reprogramming during fiscal year 2005, 
the Department may allocate funding among all operating 
accounts within Basic Energy Sciences.
    Research.--The Committee recommendation includes 
$612,228,000 for materials sciences and engineering, and 
$232,422,000 for chemical sciences, geosciences, and energy 
biosciences. The additional $13,000,000 in these accounts is to 
fund additional research on nanoscale science, including 
research on low cost nanoparticles using plasma reactors at the 
Idaho National Laboratory, and increase operating time on the 
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 
$231,880,000 for Basic Energy Sciences construction projects, 
the same as the requested amount. The Committee recommendation 
provides the requested funding of $80,535,000 for the 
Spallation Neutron Source (99-E-334) at Oak Ridge National 
Laboratory; $32,085,000 for the Molecular Foundry (04-R-313) at 
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory; $30,897,000 for the 
Center for Integrated Nanotechnologies (03-R-313) at Los Alamos 
and Sandia National Laboratories; $20,075,000 for PED (03-SC-
002) and $30,000,000 for long-lead procurements (05-R-320) for 
the Linac Coherent Light Source at the Stanford Linear 
Accelerator Center; $18,465,000 for the Center for Functional 
Nanomaterials (05-R-321) at Brookhaven National Laboratory; 
$17,811,000 for the Center for Nanophase Material Sciences (03-
R-312) at Oak Ridge National Laboratory; and $2,012,000 for PED 
to support the various nanoscale science research centers (02-
SC-002).

                 ADVANCED SCIENTIFIC COMPUTING RESEARCH

    The Committee recommendation is $234,340,000, an increase 
of $30,000,000 over the budget request, with not more than 
$25,000,000 of the increase devoted to hardware. The Committee 
provides these additional funds to support the Office of 
Science initiative to develop the hardware, software, and 
applied mathematics necessary for a leadership-class 
supercomputer to meet scientific computation needs. The 
Committee is disappointed that the efforts of the High End 
Computing Revitalization Task Force (HEC RTF), under the lead 
of the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), did not 
translate into increased fiscal year 2005 funding requests for 
advanced scientific computing by any non-defense agencies other 
than the Department of Energy. The Department is encouraged to 
make substantial time available on its new leadership-class 
supercomputer to the laboratories of other government agencies, 
universities, and others with a compelling need for this 
capability, and to select these external users on a competitive 
basis as is presently done for users of the National Energy 
Research Scientific Computing Center.

                  SCIENCE LABORATORIES INFRASTRUCTURE

    The Committee recommendation provides a total of 
$42,336,000 for Science Laboratories Infrastructure, an 
increase of $13,246,000 over the budget request but $11,931,000 
less than the current fiscal year. Of this increase, $4,500,000 
additional is provided to continue infrastructure subproject 18 
under MEL-001 to support continuing activities at the Pacific 
Northwest National Laboratory to replace the infrastructure 
being displaced by the closure of the 300 Area at the Hanford 
site. The Committee directs the Department to include 
sufficient funds in the fiscal year 2006 budget request to 
continue this activity. An additional $3,500,000 is provided to 
accelerate the other laboratory infrastructure projects under 
MEL-001. The Committee does not concur with the lack of a 
budget request to correct safety deficiencies at the Office of 
Science laboratories and provides $5,000,000 to continue the 
corrective actions necessary to address the estimated $56.6 
million of deficiencies identified at these laboratories by the 
Occupational Safety and Health Administration and the Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission. An additional $246,000 is provided to 
meet the Department's obligation for PILT payments at Argonne 
National Laboratory-East in fiscal year 2005 without offsetting 
reductions.

                         FUSION ENERGY SCIENCES

    The Committee recommendation for fusion energy sciences is 
$276,110,000, an increase of $12,000,000 over the budget 
request. The additional $12,000,000 is to be used to increase 
the utilization of existing large and small experiments; 
further work in inertial fusion technology; take advantage of 
opportunities in High Energy Density Physics, including 
research on fast ignition, and large-scale scientific 
computing; and provide for cost-effective construction and 
development of the National Compact Stellarator Experiment. The 
Committee notes the delay in site selection for the 
International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) and 
expects the Department to reduce its planned expenditures on 
ITER in fiscal year 2005 in consideration of this delay.

                        SAFEGUARDS AND SECURITY

    The Committee recommends $73,315,000, the same as the 
budget request, to meet additional safeguards and security 
requirements at Office of Science facilities.

                     SCIENCE WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT

    The Committee provides $7,660,000 for Science Workforce 
Development in fiscal year 2005, the same as the requested 
amount.

                       SCIENCE PROGRAM DIRECTION

    The Committee recommendation is $155,268,000 for Science 
program direction. This amount includes: $89,341,000 for 
program direction at DOE field offices and $65,927,000 for 
program direction at DOE headquarters. The control level for 
fiscal year 2005 is at the program account level of Science 
Program Direction.

                          FUNDING ADJUSTMENTS

    The Committee recommendation includes an offset of 
$5,605,000 for the safeguards and security charge for 
reimbursable work, as proposed in the budget request.

                         Nuclear Waste Disposal





Appropriation, 2004...................................      $188,879,000
Budget Estimate, 2005.................................       749,000,000
Recommended, 2005.....................................  ................
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2004...............................      -188,879,000
    Budget Estimate, 2005.............................      -749,000,000


    The Department of Energy requested a total of $880,000,000 
for work on the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository in 
fiscal year 2005, $749,000,000 for Nuclear Waste Disposal and 
$131,000,000 for Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal. However, the 
Department also assumed in its budget request that the full 
amount of $749,000,000 for Nuclear Waste Disposal would be 
offset through the enactment of legislation to reclassify the 
fees paid into the Nuclear Waste Fund. The net request for 
discretionary spending for the repository in fiscal year 2005 
is, therefore, only $131,000,000. The Committee recommendation 
for Yucca Mountain mirrors the Administration's net request for 
discretionary spending in fiscal year 2005: $0 for Nuclear 
Waste Disposal and $131,000,000 for Defense Nuclear Waste 
Disposal. Within these limited funds, the Committee directs the 
Department to focus on maintaining the schedule for a December 
2004 submittal of the License Application to the Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission.
    This Committee strongly supports the proposed 
reclassification legislation, and encourages the House and 
Senate authorizing committees to pass promptly such legislation 
and the President to sign it into law. At this time, however, 
there are no indications that the reclassification language 
will be enacted in the near future. At best, the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) made an unwise budget calculation 
to assume this offset; at worst, OMB took a foolish political 
gamble by assuming that reclassification legislation would be 
enacted this year.
    The consequences of this miscalculation are far-reaching. 
In response to an April 29, 2004, request from the Chairman and 
Ranking Member of the Energy and Water Development 
Subcommittee, the Department of Energy provided on May 24, 
2004, the following information on the impacts of funding the 
repository at $131,000,000 in fiscal year 2005:
    Effect on submission of the license application.--
Approximately 70 percent of the 2,400 person Federal/contractor 
workforce would have to be eliminated. The remaining workforce 
would focus on completing the license application document. 
However, because the Reduction-In-Force (RIF) would likely 
cause turmoil within the program and result in the loss of 
highly skilled technical personnel, the submittal of the 
license application would be at risk.
    Effect on planned initiation of repository operations in 
2010.--The Department would be unable to initiate repository 
operations in 2010. With a shutdown of most program activities 
and the enormous challenge associated with replacing the 
Federal and contractor workforce should funds become available 
after such a shutdown, there would be an indefinite delay in 
opening the repository.
    Effect on ongoing Federal and contract work on the 
repository.--The current payroll for the more than 2,200 
contractors and 231 Federal staff working on the Program is 
approximately $400 million in fiscal year 2004. The Department 
would direct its contractors to begin reduction-in-force 
activities, and would begin a reduction of the Federal 
workforce. In order to do this, the Department would have to 
undertake a radical descoping of the contract and begin 
reduction-in-force notifications to Federal staff by no later 
than July 31, 2004, in order to have RIFs take effect on 
October 1, 2004. An orderly shutdown would not be possible with 
such a precipitous reduction (nearly 80 percent) in resources 
from the previous fiscal year.
    Effect, on state-by-state basis, on total Federal and 
contractor employment.--The program has approximately 231 
Federal employees (Department of Energy and U.S. Geological 
Survey) and over 2,200 contractor employees who would be 
subject to a RIF. Site specific impacts would be:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Federal     Contractor
                                                 employees    employees
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nevada........................................          105        1,650
Idaho.........................................  ...........          161
California....................................  ...........          159
New Mexico....................................  ...........           96
Washington, DC metropolitan area..............           92           92
Colorado......................................           34           34
Washington....................................  ...........           63
Tennessee.....................................  ...........            5
Arizona.......................................  ...........            2
Texas.........................................  ...........            2
                                               -------------------------
      Totals..................................          231        2,264
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, Nevada and local government employees and 
their contractors who are supported by the over $36 million 
budgeted in fiscal year 2005 for State, local government and 
university funding would not receive this funding.
    DOE sites which possess high-level radioactive waste for 
disposal at Yucca Mountain.--There are three Department Sites 
in three states that possess high-level radioactive waste 
slated for disposal at Yucca Mountain.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 State                                 Site
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Idaho..................................  Idaho National Engineering and
                                          Environmental Laboratory
                                          (Idaho Falls).
South Carolina.........................  Savannah River (Aiken).
Washington.............................  Hanford (Richland).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE sites, and any other Federal sites, which possess spent 
nuclear fuel for disposal at Yucca Mountain.--There are 15 
Department or Federal sites in 9 states which possess spent 
nuclear fuel slated for disposal at Yucca Mountain.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 State                                 Site
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Colorado...............................  Fort St. Vrain (Platteville).
                                         U.S. Geological Survey
                                          (Denver).
Idaho..................................  Idaho National Engineering and
                                          Environmental Laboratory
                                          (Idaho Falls).
                                         Naval Reactors Facility (Idaho
                                          Falls).
                                         Argonne National Laboratory--
                                          West (Idaho Falls).
Illinois...............................  Argonne National Laboratory--
                                          East (Argonne).
Maryland...............................  National Institute of Standards
                                          and Technology (Gaithersburg).
                                         Armed Forces Radiobiology
                                          Research Institute (Bethesda).
                                         U.S. Army Aberdeen Proving
                                          Grounds (Aberdeen).
New Mexico.............................  White Sands Missile Range
                                          (White Sands).
                                         Sandia National Laboratory
                                          (Albuquerque).
New York...............................  Brookhaven National Laboratory
                                          (Upton).
South Carolina.........................  Savannah River (Aiken).
Tennessee..............................  Oak Ridge National Laboratory
                                          (Oak Ridge).
Washington.............................  Hanford (Richland).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Non-federal sites, including commercial reactors, 
commercial storage sites, university reactors, and private 
research reactors, which possess spent nuclear fuel for 
disposal at Yucca Mountain.--There are 72 commercial reactor 
sites in 33 states that possess spent nuclear fuel slated for 
disposal at Yucca Mountain.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 State                       Commercial reactor sites
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama................................  Browns Ferry 1,2,3 (Decatur).
                                         Farley 1, 2 (Dothan).
Arizona................................  Palo Verde 1, 2, 3
                                          (Wintersburg).
Arkansas...............................  Arkansas Nuclear 1, 2
                                          (Russellville).
California.............................  Diablo Canyon 1, 2 (Avila
                                          Beach).
                                         Rancho Seco 1 (lone).
                                         San Onofre 1, 2, 3 (San
                                          Clemente).
                                         Humboldt Bay 3 (Eureka).
Connecticut............................  Haddam Neck (Haddam).
                                         Millstone 1, 2, 3 (Waterford).
Florida................................  Crystal River 3 (Red Level).
                                         St. Lucie 1,2 (Hutchinson
                                          Island).
                                         Turkey Point 3, 4 (Florida
                                          City).
Georgia................................  Hatch 1, 2 (Baxley).
                                         Vogtle 1, 2 (Waynesboro).
Illinois...............................  Clinton 1 (Clinton).
                                         Quad Cities 1, 2 (Cordova).
                                         Braidwood 1, 2 (Braidwood).
                                         Zion 1, 2 (Zion).
                                         Byron 1, 2 (Byron).
                                         Dresden 1, 2, 3 (Morris).
                                         LaSalle County 1, 2 (Seneca).
Iowa...................................  Duane Arnold (Palo).
Kansas.................................  Wolf Creek (Burlington).
Louisiana..............................  Waterford 3 (Taft).
                                         River Bend 1 (St.
                                          Francisville).
Maine..................................  Maine Yankee (Wiscasset).
Maryland...............................  Calvert Cliffs 1, 2 (Lusby).
Massachusetts..........................  Pilgrim 1 (Plymouth).
                                         Yankee-Rowe (Rowe).
Michigan...............................  Enrico Fermi 2 (Newport).
                                         Cook 1, 2 (Bridgeman)
                                         Palisades (South Haven).
                                         Big Rock Point (Charlevoix).
Minnesota..............................  Monticello (Monticello).
                                         Prairie Island 1, 2 (Red Wing).
Mississippi............................  Grand Gulf (Port Gibson).
Missouri...............................  Callaway 1 (Fulton).
Nebraska...............................  Cooper (Brownville).
                                         Fort Calhoun (Calhoun).
New Hampshire..........................  Seabrook (Seabrook).
New Jersey.............................  Oyster Creek (Forked River).
                                         Salem 1, 2/Hope Creek 1 (Lower
                                          Alloways).
New York...............................  FitzPatrick/Nine Mile Point 1,
                                          2 (Scriba).
                                         Indian Point 1, 2, 3
                                          (Buchanan).
                                         Ginna (Ontario).
North Carolina.........................  Brunswick 1, 2 (Southport).
                                         Harris (New Hill).
                                         McGuire 1, 2 (Cornelius).
Ohio...................................  Davis-Besse (Oak Harbor).
                                         Perry (Perry).
Oregon.................................  Trojan (Prescott).
Pennsylvania...........................  Susquehanna 1, 2 (Berwick).
                                         Limerick 1, 2 (Pottstown).
                                         Peach Bottom 2, 3 (Delta).
                                         Three Mile Island 1
                                          (Middletown).
                                         Beaver Valley 1, 2
                                          (Shippingport).
South Carolina.........................  Robinson 2 (Hartsville).
                                         Catawba 1, 2 (Clover).
                                         Oconee 1, 2, 3 (Seneca).
                                         Summer (Parr).
Tennessee..............................  Sequoyah 1, 2 (Soddy-Daisy).
                                         Watts Barr (Spring City).
Texas..................................  Comanche Peak 1, 2 (Glen Rose).
                                         South Texas Project 1, 2
                                          (Palacios).
Vermont................................  Vermont Yankee (Vernon).
Virginia...............................  North Anna 1, 2 (Mineral).
                                         Surry 1, 2 (Gravel Neck).
Washington.............................  Columbia Generating Station
                                          (Richland).
Wisconsin..............................  Point Beach 1, 2 (Two Creeks).
                                         Kewaunee (Carlton).
                                         LaCrosse (Genoa).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There are two commercial storage sites in two states with 
spent nuclear fuel slated for Yucca Mountain.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 State                       Commercial storage sites
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Illinois...............................  General Electric (Morris).
Virginia...............................  BWX Technologies, Inc.
                                          (Lynchburg).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There are 33 University and Private Research Reactor sites 
in 22 States with spent nuclear fuel slated for Yucca Mountain.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         University and private research
                 State                               reactors
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arizona................................  University of Arizona (Tucson).
California.............................  University of California
                                          (Irvine).
                                         General Electric (Pleasanton).
                                         University of California at
                                          Davis (Sacramento).
                                         General Atomics (2) (San
                                          Diego).
                                         Aerotest Research (San Ramon).
Florida................................  University of Florida
                                          (Gainesville).
Idaho..................................  Idaho State University
                                          (Pocatello).
Illinois...............................  University of Illinois (2)
                                          (Urbana).
Indiana................................  Purdue University (West
                                          Lafayette).
Kansas.................................  Kansas State University
                                          (Manhattan).
Maryland...............................  University of Maryland (College
                                          Park).
Massachusetts..........................  University of Lowell (Lowell).
                                         Massachusetts Institute of
                                          Technology (Cambridge).
                                         Worcester Polytechnic Institute
                                          (Worchester).
Michigan...............................  Dow Chemical Company (Midland).
Missouri...............................  University of Missouri
                                          (Columbia).
                                         University of Missouri (Rolla).
New Mexico.............................  University of New Mexico
                                          (Albuquerque).
New York...............................  State University of New York
                                          (Buffalo).
                                         Manhattan College (Bronx).
                                         Rensselaer Polytechnic
                                          Institute (Troy).
North Carolina.........................  North Carolina State University
                                          (Raleigh).
Ohio...................................  Ohio State University
                                          (Columbus).
Oregon.................................  Oregon State University
                                          (Corvallis).
                                         Reed College (Portland).
Pennsylvania...........................  Pennsylvania State University
                                          (University Park).
Rhode Island...........................  Rhode Island Atomic Energy
                                          Commission (Narragansett).
Texas..................................  Texas A&M University (2)
                                          (College Station).
                                         University of Texas (Austin).
Utah...................................  University of Utah (Salt Lake
                                          City).
Washington.............................  Washington State University
                                          (Pullman).
Wisconsin..............................  University of Wisconsin
                                          (Madison).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Reactor sites that are undergoing or have completed 
decontamination and decommissioning which possess high-level 
waste or spent nuclear fuel slated for disposal at Yucca 
Mountain.--There are 13 commercial and Federal reactor sites in 
10 States that are shutdown and are undergoing or have 
completed decontamination which possess spent nuclear fuel.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 State                             Reactor site
------------------------------------------------------------------------
California.............................  Rancho Seco 1 (lone).
                                         Humboldt Bay 3 (Eureka).
                                         General Atomics (2) (San
                                          Diego).
Colorado...............................  Fort St. Vrain.
Connecticut............................  Haddam Neck (Haddam).
Illinois...............................  University of Illinois (2)
                                          (Urbana).
Maine..................................  Maine Yankee (Wiscasset).
Maryland...............................  U.S. Army Aberdeen Proving
                                          Grounds (Aberdeen).
Massachusetts..........................  Yankee-Rowe (Rowe).
Michigan...............................  Big Rock Point (Charlevoix).
New York...............................  State University of New York
                                          (Buffalo).
                                         Manhattan College (Bronx).
Oregon.................................  Trojan (Prescott).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, there are two commercial reactor sites in two 
States that are shutdown that have not begun decontamination.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 State                             Reactor site
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Illinois...............................  Zion 1,2.
Wisconsin..............................  LaCrosse.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    All other domestic sites that possess material, either 
high-level radioactive waste or spent nuclear fuel, which is 
destined for disposal at Yucca Mountain.--Three other domestic 
sites in three States possess material that may be disposed at 
Yucca Mountain either high-level radioactive waste or spent 
nuclear fuel.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 State                                 Site
------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Mexico.............................  Los Alamos National Laboratory
                                          (Albuquerque).
New York...............................  West Valley Demonstration
                                          Project (West Valley).
Texas..................................  Pantex Plant (Amarillo).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    All foreign reactor sites that possess spent nuclear fuel 
or high-level waste destined for disposal at Yucca Mountain.--
The Department's 1995 Record of Decision on the Foreign 
Research Reactor (FRR) Acceptance Program Final Environmental 
Impact Statement identified 104 reactors in 41 countries that 
are eligible to participate in the program. The reactors 
conduct research activities and are significantly smaller than 
any commercial reactor. The FRR Acceptance Program was designed 
to promote the United States' non-proliferation objectives by 
returning spent fuel containing enriched uranium of U.S. origin 
from other countries. Although 104 reactors were identified as 
eligible, the Department does not expect that all reactors will 
choose to participate in the program. It is estimated that 
about 19 metric tons of spent fuel from these foreign reactors 
would require disposal at Yucca Mountain.
    Legal and financial consequences for the Federal government 
if it fails to remove high-level radioactive waste from the 
Department's cleanup sites such as Hanford, Idaho, and Savannah 
River.--If the Federal government fails to remove waste from 
the Department's cleanup sites, the Department will incur costs 
of continued storage of the high-level waste until such time as 
it can be removed. In fact, the cost of storing and handling 
this waste is estimated to increase by up to $500 million for 
each year that removal is delayed.
    Legal and financial consequences for the Federal government 
if it fails to remove spent nuclear fuel from existing Federal 
storage sites such as the Idaho National Laboratory.--The 
Department has an agreement with the State of Idaho regarding 
removal of spent nuclear fuel from existing Federal storage 
sites, such as the Idaho National Environmental and Engineering 
Laboratory (INEEL), that was memorialized in a 1996 settlement 
agreement. This agreement, referred to as the ``Batt 
Agreement,'' sets out the rights and responsibilities of the 
State of Idaho and the Departments of Energy and the Navy 
regarding management or storage of various types of nuclear 
fuel, including spent nuclear fuel. The Batt agreement provides 
that if the Federal government fails to remove all spent fuel 
from INEEL by 2035, then, subject to the availability of 
appropriations provided in advance, the Federal parties will 
pay to the State of Idaho $60,000 for each day such removal 
requirement has not been met. Additionally, to the extent DOE 
fails to meet substantive obligations or requirements under the 
agreement, e.g., exceeding shipment limitations set out in the 
agreement, shipments of DOE spent fuel to INEEL will be 
suspended until such time that the obligations or requirements 
are satisfied.
    Similarly, the Department has an agreement with the State 
of Colorado that provides if the Federal government fails to 
remove all the spent fuel located at Fort St. Vrain, Colorado, 
from the State by January 1, 2035, then, subject to the 
availability of appropriations provided in advance for this 
purpose, the Department will provide annual funding to the 
State of Colorado in the amount of $15,000 for each day after 
January 1, 2035, until the fuel is removed.
    Legal and financial consequences for the Federal government 
if it continues to be unable to accept spent nuclear fuel from 
commercial reactors, as is required by the Nuclear Waste Policy 
Act of 1982, as amended, and by the Department's contracts with 
the utilities operating those reactors.--To date, more than 65 
claims have been filed by utilities in the Court of Federal 
Claims for breach of contract to recover monetary damages 
incurred as a result of the Department's delay. For each year 
of delay beyond 2010 that the Department is unable to begin 
accepting spent nuclear fuel from commercial reactors pursuant 
to the Department's contracts with utilities, the Department 
estimates that the utilities will incur costs of $500 million a 
year to store their spent fuel at utility sites, some portion 
of which the Department would be liable for. A delay in opening 
the repository could substantially increase the Department's 
liability.

                      DEPARTMENTAL ADMINISTRATION


                          GROSS APPROPRIATION




Appropriation, 2004...................................      $215,255,000
Budget Estimate, 2005.................................       261,873,000
Recommended, 2005.....................................       243,876,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2004...............................       +28,621,000
    Budget Estimate, 2005.............................       -17,997,000


                         MISCELLANEOUS REVENUES




Appropriation, 2004...................................     $-123,000,000
Budget Estimate, 2005.................................      -122,000,000
Recommended, 2005.....................................      -122,000,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2004...............................        +1,000,000
    Budget Estimate, 2005.............................  ................


    The Committee recommendation for Departmental 
Administration is $243,876,000, a decrease of $17,997,000 from 
the budget request of $261,873,000. 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.
    Of the total $261,873,000 requested for Departmental 
Administration, the majority ($213,336,000) represents salaries 
and benefits for the Federal employees at DOE headquarters, and 
for related expenses (i.e., travel, training, and support 
service contracts). The Committee is concerned that the 
requested funding for the Departmental Administration salaries 
and expenses accounts increased on average by 12 percent in 
fiscal year 2005 compared to fiscal year 2004. Several accounts 
(e.g., Office of the Secretary, Chief Information Officer, and 
Policy and International Affairs) show increases of 
approximately 30 percent, and other accounts (e.g., 
Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs, Economic Impact 
and Diversity, General Counsel, and Public Affairs) show 
increases in excess of 10 percent. When the Administration's 
proposed pay raise for Federal civilian workers is only 1.7 
percent in fiscal year 2005, and when staffing levels stay 
relatively constant from fiscal year 2004 to fiscal year 2005, 
the Committee considers any proposed increase for salaries and 
expenses greater than 10 percent to be excessive and 
unjustified. Therefore, the Committee reduces the various 
salaries and expenses accounts within Departmental 
Administration to limit increases to no more than 10 percent in 
fiscal year 2005. The Committee also reduced the large (i.e., 
58 percent) increase requested for the Corporate Management 
Information Program due to budget constraints.
    Office of Engineering and Construction Management.--The 
Committee continues to support the Office of Engineering and 
Construction Management within the Office of Management, Budget 
and Evaluation as the focal point for improving project 
management within the Department. An essential part of this 
project management effort is the External Independent Review 
(EIR) conducted by this office to verify the accuracy of cost 
and schedule baseline estimates. The recent Corps of Engineers 
review of the baseline for the Hanford Waste Treatment Plant 
implies that existing EIRs may not have sufficient depth and 
detail to identify cost increases such as occurred with the 
Waste Treatment Plant. The Committee directs the Chief 
Financial Officer to reserve the appropriate amount of funds in 
the first quarter of the fiscal year from the Offices of 
Nuclear Energy, Science, Environmental Management, the National 
Nuclear Security Administration, and any other program offices 
with construction projects to conduct EIRs at a sufficient 
level of detail to verify project baselines as required under 
Project Management Order 413.3.
    Working Capital Fund.--The Committee renews its guidance as 
presented in House Report 107-681 regarding management of the 
Working Capital Fund.
    Revenues.--The recommendation for revenues is $122,000,000, 
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. In fiscal year 2004, the Committee directed the 
Department to submit its fiscal year 2005 budget request 
showing a proportional contribution to Departmental 
Administration from Other Defense Activities. The Committee 
recommendation transfers $92,440,000 from Other Defense 
Activities for national security programs, the same as the 
amount requested in the budget and authorized by the House 
Armed Services Committee.

                      Office of Inspector General





Appropriation, 2004...................................       $39,229,000
Budget Estimate, 2005.................................        41,508,000
Recommended, 2005.....................................        41,508,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2004...............................        +2,279,000
    Budget Estimate, 2005.............................  ................


    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 $41,508,000, 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 (P.L. 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 Office of the NNSA Administrator oversees all 
NNSA programs.
    The Committee recommendation for the NNSA is 
$9,027,171,000, a decrease of $21,529,000 from the budget 
request of $9,048,700,000, but an increase of $372,038,000 over 
fiscal year 2004.
    Nuclear Weapons Complex Wide Review.--The Committee 
commends the Department for finally submitting a revised 
Nuclear Weapons Stockpile Report that reflects the President's 
commitment, announced back 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. The revised Stockpile Plan makes a significant 
reduction to the total stockpile size in recognition of post-
Cold War realities. During the fiscal year 2005 budget 
hearings, the Committee pressed the Secretary on the need for a 
systematic review of requirements for the weapons complex over 
the next twenty-five years, and the Secretary committed to 
conducting such a review. The Secretary's report should assess 
the implications of the President's decisions on the size and 
composition of the stockpile, the cost and operational impacts 
of the new Design Basis Threat, and the personnel, facilities, 
and budgetary resources required to support the smaller 
stockpile. The report should evaluate opportunities for the 
consolidation of special nuclear materials, facilities, and 
operations across the complex to minimize security requirements 
and the environmental impact of continuing operations.
    The Secretary should assemble a team of outside experts to 
assist with this review. Prior reviews have largely been 
conducted by insiders from the weapons complex, who produce the 
predictable but not very credible recommendation that the 
Department should preserve the status quo and maintain all 
existing facilities and capabilities. As part of the five-year 
integrated budget plan for the entire Department that is 
directed elsewhere in this report, the Secretary will have to 
balance NNSA requirements against competing needs for other DOE 
programs. This will require an objective review that is only 
possible with the help of independent experts who are not, and 
have not been, part of the NNSA weapons complex.
    The Committee directs the Secretary to submit a written 
report on his findings and recommendations on the NNSA complex 
to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations and Armed 
Services not later than April 30, 2005.
    Nevada Test Site Land Withdrawal.--The Committee supports 
the efforts of the NNSA to find expanded uses for the unique 
capabilities associated with the Nevada Test Site (NTS). The 
recent NNSA announcement outlining plans to build a new complex 
for testing and evaluating sensor systems for border crossings, 
ports, and other transportation facilities at the NTS is an 
important effort to integrate many of the vital research and 
development activities done by the Department's national 
laboratories in support of new homeland security requirements. 
The Committee notes, however, that the original administrative 
land withdrawal in 1952 (Public Land Order 805) transferred 
land from the Bureau of Land Management to the Atomic Energy 
Commission for use as a ``weapons testing site.'' Although the 
Nevada Test Site is presently being used for a number of other 
purposes, and is being proposed for new uses as outlined above, 
the Department has not updated the original land withdrawal to 
reflect the multitude of existing and proposed uses in addition 
to weapons testing. The Committee directs the Department of 
Energy to enter into formal consultations with the Department 
of the Interior regarding the multiple uses and, if necessary, 
revise and update the land withdrawal to reflect those 
additional uses.

                           Weapons Activities





Appropriation, 2004...................................    $6,235,502,000
Budget Estimate, 2005.................................     6,568,453,000
Recommended, 2005.....................................     6,514,424,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2004...............................      +278,922,000
    Budget Estimate, 2005.............................       -54,029,000


    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 $6,514,424,000, a decrease of $54,029,000 from 
the budget request of $6,568,453,000, but an increase of 
$278,922,000 over fiscal year 2004.
    NNSA production plant revitalization.--The Committee is 
concerned with the condition of the operating facilities and 
security infrastructure of the weapons complex production 
plants. The Committee's concern derives from the systematic 
under-funding of the production plants after the cessation of 
full weapons production and testing over a decade ago. In 
subsequent years, the weapons activities budget increases went 
primarily to the weapons complex laboratory facilities to 
support the unproven experiment of science-based stockpile 
stewardship, but at the expense of funding for infrastructure 
requirements at the production plants. As the NNSA resumes 
production activities to refurbish the enduring stockpile under 
the Life Extension Programs (LEPs), the work requirements on 
the production plants will increase significantly. Inadequate 
production plant budgets will not support the maintenance of 
LEP schedules while at the same time meeting increased security 
requirements, an increased pace of dismantlements, and safely 
operating sixty-year-old industrial facilities. The Committee 
has made supporting the revitalization of the production plants 
a priority for the fiscal year 2005 weapons activity budget.
    Budgeting by warhead number.--The Committee notes that the 
Directed Stockpile Work for fiscal year 2005 budget request was 
developed so that Congress can appropriate and the NNSA can 
manage by the individual weapons systems that make up the U.S. 
nuclear stockpile. The Committee commends the NNSA for 
achieving this milestone and will work with the NNSA to ensure 
that the transition to budgeting by weapons system creates a 
more efficient and transparent budget process for both the 
Congress and the Executive Branch.
    While the NNSA has made great progress in budgeting by 
weapons type, the weapons activities campaign costs are still 
unassigned to specific weapons systems even though the budget 
justifications for many of the proposed campaign activities are 
tied directly to the life extension requirements. 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 
directs the NNSA to assign the associated life extension costs 
by weapons type associated with each campaign, and thereby 
provide a comprehensive cost accounting of each life extension 
program.
    Reprogramming Authority.--The Committee 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 control levels will be as follows: directed 
stockpile work, retired warheads stockpile systems, science 
campaigns, engineering campaigns, advanced simulation and 
computing, pit manufacturing and certification, readiness 
campaigns, and operating expenses for readiness in technical 
base and facilities. The reprogramming control level for 
inertial confinement fusion ignition and high yield campaign is 
at the major technical effort subprogram level reflected in the 
Committee Report table. 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. 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 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 by the Department's Chief 
Financial Officer and approval from the House and Senate 
Committees on Appropriations.

                        DIRECTED STOCKPILE WORK

    Directed Stockpile Work (DSW) includes all activities that 
directly support weapons in the nuclear stockpile, including 
maintenance, research, development, engineering, certification 
and dismantlement and disposal activities. The Directed 
Stockpile Work account has been restructured to budget by 
weapons system beginning with the fiscal year 2005 budget 
request. The DSW account provides all the direct funding for 
the Department's life extension activities, which are designed 
to extend the operational service life of the existing nuclear 
weapons stockpile, by providing new subsystems and components 
for each warhead.
    The Committee's recommendation is $1,324,878,000, a 
decrease of $81,557,000 from the budget request. The Committee 
notes that the submittal of the new Stockpile Plan with lower 
overall stockpile numbers obviates the need for any 
programmatic acceleration in the Life Extension Program 
activities for the B61, W76, and W80. The Committee reiterates 
its direction to the Department to reassess the entire scope 
and schedule of the stockpile refurbishment efforts to account 
for the changes mandated in the revised Stockpile Plan.
    The Committee recommendation includes $437,438,000 for the 
DSW Life Extension Programs, a reduction of $40,000,000 from 
the budget request. The Committee directs the reduction to be 
taken against the W80 LEP activity. The Committee provides 
$496,095,000 for the DSW Stockpile Systems activities, a 
decrease of $40,000,000 from the budget request. The Committee 
recommendation includes a $40,000,000 reduction to the DSW 
Stockpile Systems activities of the W80 and the W87 to reduce 
the significant program increase over current year levels 
pending the recommendations of the weapons complex review.
    Retired Warhead Stockpile Systems.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $130,258,000 for Retired Warhead 
Stockpile Systems, an increase of $65,000,000 over the budget 
request. The Committee expects the NNSA to develop a robust 
program of continuous dismantlements, with aggressive near-term 
milestones, rather than treating dismantlement as low priority 
work used to fill in during lulls in the LEP schedule. The 
Committee notes with disappointment the funding levels for 
warhead dismantlement in the out-years of the NNSA Future Years 
Nuclear Security Plan. The NNSA's fiscal year 2005 budget 
request of $65,258,000 drops to less than $14,000,000 in fiscal 
year 2007 and continues at a level insufficient to accomplish 
the dismantlements required as a logical outcome of the 
Presidentially-directed reductions to the overall stockpile 
inventory of weapons. The Committee directs the NNSA to develop 
a dismantlement program plan to be submitted with the fiscal 
year 2006 budget request that details the reduction goals and 
budget requirements year by year to achieve the 2012 stockpile 
levels agreed to in the Moscow Treaty. The Committee encourages 
the NNSA to examine expanding warhead dismantle capacity within 
the weapons complex by using the Device Assembly Facility at 
the Nevada Test Site. The Committee expects the NNSA to request 
a funding level sufficient to continue the aggressive 
dismantlement work in the fiscal year 2006 budget request.
    The Committee provides $261,087,000 for DSW Stockpile 
Services, a reduction of $66,557,000 from the budget request. 
The Committee recommendation provides $147,986,000 for research 
and development certification and safety, a decrease of 
$10,000,000 from the budget request, and $113,101,000 for 
stockpile services management, technology, and production, a 
decrease of $20,000,000 from the budget request. DSW Stockpile 
Services activities funds are unallocated to a specific weapons 
system life extension program. In light of the reductions in 
the revised Nuclear Stockpile Plan, the Committee's reductions 
should be assessed against accelerated DSW stockpile services 
activities not directly associated with a specific life 
extension program pending the recommendations in the Complex 
wide review.
    Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator and Advanced Concepts 
research.--The Committee provides no funds for the Advanced 
Concept Initiative and the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator 
(RNEP) feasibility study. The National Nuclear Security 
Administration requested $36,557,000 in Directed Stockpile Work 
to explore advanced weapons concepts, including $27,557,000 to 
continue feasibility and cost studies for the Robust Nuclear 
Earth Penetrator (RNEP) and $9,000,000 for other advanced 
concepts definition studies. The Committee eliminates funding 
for RNEP and additional advanced concepts research in favor of 
higher priority current mission requirements. The Committee 
continues to oppose the diversion of resources and intellectual 
capital away from the most serious issues that confront the 
management of the nation's nuclear deterrent. The NNSA Future 
Years Nuclear Security Plan includes a funding profile with 
$484.7 million for the RNEP over the next five years and 
indicates plans to move the program all the way to Phase 6.4, 
one step short of production. The Department has not provided 
the Committee with any budget justification describing how a 
study to modify an existing nuclear weapon could conceivably 
cost half a billion dollars.
    Given the FYNSP funding profile, the Committee remains 
unconvinced by the Department's superficial assurances that the 
RNEP activity is only a study and that advanced concepts is 
only a skills exercise for weapons designers. The Committee 
notes that the management direction for fiscal year 2004 sent 
to the directors of the weapons design laboratories left little 
doubt that the objective of the program was to advance the most 
extreme new nuclear weapon goals irrespective of any 
reservations expressed by Congress. The Committee cautions the 
Department to be more consistent in the tone and content of its 
communication exchanges with the Congress and subsequent 
Departmental policy direction sent to its employees and 
contractors. The use of artful language to communicate one 
message with Congress and another with its employees on issues 
of special interest erodes the credibility of the NNSA and 
destroys the trust necessary for a useful dialogue in setting 
public policy.
    The Committee recognizes the dilemma the NNSA's nuclear 
weapon design laboratories find themselves in after the Cold 
War. In the absence of a Cold War between nuclear-armed 
superpowers, the importance of nuclear weapons to the war 
fighters in the Pentagon has steadily diminished. The pressure 
on the nuclear weapon design laboratories to maintain the 
canonical role for their weapons in order to justify increasing 
budgets becomes very difficult. By contrast, the Committee's 
priorities are maintaining our Nation's nuclear deterrent in a 
safe and secure condition and maintaining our Nation's 
integrity in the international effort to halt the proliferation 
of weapons of mass destruction. The Department's obsession with 
launching a new round of nuclear weapons development runs 
counter to those priorities. The Committee directs the NNSA to 
focus wholly on 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.

                               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 $2,252,048,000, a decrease of 
$141,792,000 below the budget request of $2,393,840,000.
    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 key deliverables for individual project 
activities as part of the fiscal year 2006 budget request.
    From within funds provided for the various campaigns, the 
Committee directs that $4,350,000 be provided to continue the 
University Research Program in Robotics (URPR) for the 
development of advanced robotic technologies for strategic 
national applications.
    Science campaigns.--The Committee recommendation for 
science campaigns is $256,962,000, a reduction of $44,000,000 
from the budget request. The primary assessment technology 
campaign was reduced $15,000,000 to limit the enhanced test 
readiness initiative to the goal of achieving a 24-month test 
readiness posture. The Committee continues to oppose the 18-
month test readiness posture and refers the Department to the 
unambiguous Congressional language provided in the fiscal year 
2004 Conference Report requiring the Department to achieve and 
maintain a 24-month test readiness posture. The Committee has 
not been kept informed, as requested in the fiscal year 2004 
Conference Report, on the progress of the Department's efforts 
to restore the current 24-month test readiness requirement and, 
therefore, continues to have unanswered questions on the 
efficacy of the overall test readiness initiative. The 
Committee recommendation includes $81,521,000 for dynamic 
materials properties campaign, a reduction of $10,000,000 from 
the budget request. The Committee recommendation includes 
$48,371,000 for the advanced radiography campaign, a reduction 
of $14,000,000 from the budget request. The Committee is 
disappointed with the continued delay in the commissioning of 
the Dual-Axis Radiographic Hydrotest facility (DARHT), which is 
significantly over budget and behind schedule. The secondary 
assessment technologies campaign recommendation is $60,597,000, 
a reduction of $5,000,000 to the significant increase proposed 
over the current year funding level pending the outcome of the 
Secretary's review of the weapons complex.
    Engineering campaigns.--The Committee recommendation for 
engineering campaigns is $222,984,000, a decrease of 
$20,000,000 from the budget request. The Committee 
recommendation for the enhanced surety campaign is $33,121,000, 
a reduction of $5,000,000 to the budget request. The 
Committee's recommendation maintains current year funding 
levels. The Committee provides $27,270,000 for the Weapons 
Systems Engineering Assessment Technology campaign, the same as 
the budget request. The Committee questions the continued high 
level of funding requested in the Nuclear Survivability 
campaign to assess the ability of the weapons in the stockpile 
to continue to function as designed during a massive nuclear 
exchange. In the post-Cold War world with no new weapon 
production ongoing, this activity is a waste of scarce 
resources. The Committee provides $9,460,000 for the Nuclear 
Survivability campaign, a reduction of $15,000,000 to the 
budget request. The Committee recommendation for the enhanced 
surveillance campaign is $99,879,000, the same as the budget 
request.
    Construction projects.--The Committee recommends 
$48,654,000, the same as the budget request, for Project 01-D-
108, Microsystems and engineering science applications (MESA), 
at Sandia National Laboratories in New Mexico.
    Inertial Confinement Fusion Ignition and High Yield 
Campaign.--The Committee recommends $545,034,000 for the 
inertial confinement fusion program, an increase of $53,000,000 
over the budget request of $492,034,000.
    The Committee is greatly concerned by the Department's 
fiscal year 2005 budget justification as it related to the 
program goals for the National Ignition Facility (NIF). In the 
budget justification, the NNSA seemed to waiver in its 
commitment to NIF by delaying the proposed date for achieving 
ignition from 2010 to 2014. The Committee views ignition as the 
sole benchmark for success in this program and is very 
concerned the four-year slip in the ignition milestone buried 
in the NNSA's budget justification documents represents a 
change in the Department's commitment to ignition in favor of 
less challenging goals for the NIF. The Committee's priority is 
on completion of the project in 2008 and achieving the 
functional requirement of first ignition in 2010. The Committee 
directs that no funds be expended, directly or indirectly, for 
additional capabilities for NIF that are not specified in the 
current baseline until the NIF project is completed in 2008 and 
ignition attempted in 2010. Any diversions represent 
significant risk to a project that has already experienced 
well-publicized cost and schedule problems. The Committee's 
appropriation for the ICF campaign will be controlled at the 
major technical effort (MTE) subprogram level noted in the 
Committee Report tables. Neither the Department nor the 
national laboratory will divert funds from within the control 
levels as appropriated without first submitting a formal 
reprogramming request to the Appropriations and Armed Services 
Committees.
    The Committee directs the NNSA to develop a management 
process that is consistent with DOE Order 413.3 and manages the 
ignition, diagnostic, cryogenic and experimental subprograms as 
projects incorporating a work breakdown structure to track 
scope, cost, schedule, and key milestones within a management 
control system. The Committee directs the NNSA to report 
quarterly on the milestone cost and schedule variance within 
the respective experimental programs from the NIF 2000 
rebaselined program.
    The Committee notes that the Defense Science Board (DSB) 
has been asked to review the NIF Activation and Early Use Plan. 
The Committee expects the NNSA to submit a copy of the NIF 
Activation and Early Use Plan to the Committee by September 30, 
2004, and a copy of the DSB report when it is completed. The 
Committee expects the NNSA to insist on a review body that 
represents the best independent external review capability, 
free of professional or personal relationships that may lead to 
the appearance of partiality in the content of the report.
    The Committee recommendation provides $130,000,000 for 
construction of the National Ignition Facility (NIF), the same 
as the budget request.
    The Committee recommendation includes $25,000,000 to 
continue development of high average power lasers and 
supporting science and technology within the Inertial Fusion 
Technology line. The Committee recommendation includes the 
budget request of $11,049,000 for the Naval Research 
Laboratory, and $73,469,000 for the University of Rochester, an 
increase of $28,000,000 over the budget request. The additional 
funding has been provided for the University of Rochester's 
Laboratory for Laser Energetics within the High-Energy Petawatt 
Laser Development MTE to accelerate the OMEGA Extended 
Performance capability, a four beam super-high-intensity, high-
energy laser facility for support of the nation's stockpile 
stewardship program. The Committee notes that, other than the 
few operational beams of NIF, the OMEGA facility is the only 
large laser implosion facility available for NNSA weapons work 
and will continue to be a primary laser facility for NNSA 
Stockpile Stewardship activities. The Committee notes that the 
University of Rochester is providing over $20 million for the 
building to house the OMEGA extended performance.
    Advanced simulation and computing (ASCI).--The Committee 
recommendation for Advanced Simulation and Computing is 
$666,260,000, a reduction of $75,000,000 from the budget 
request. The Committee has consistently requested budget 
justifications that include project plans with scope, cost, 
schedule and key milestones tied to ASCI program goals in order 
to understand and track program progress in the NNSA's 
computing activities. The Committee requests that NNSA work 
with the Committee to define and develop ASCI program products 
with associated milestones to make progress transparent for the 
Committee and the Department in future years. Within available 
funds, the Committee recommendation provides $10,000,000 for 
power and fiber-optic upgrades, development of a technology 
training center, and hardware and software upgrades in 
conjunction with the Ohio Supercomputer Center at Springfield, 
Ohio, and $2,500,000 to complete the three-dimensional chip-
scale packaging integrated with spray cooling at Pacific 
Northwest National Laboratory.
    Pit Manufacturing and Pit Certification.--The Committee 
recommendation for the pit manufacturing and certification 
campaign is $295,681,000, a reduction of $40,792,000 from the 
budget request. The Committee's recommendation maintains the 
current year funding level. The Committee commends the Los 
Alamos National Laboratory for its work restoring the pit 
production capability to the nuclear weapons production 
complex. The Committee continues to oppose the Department's 
accelerated efforts to site and begin construction activities 
on a modern pit facility and urges the Department to continue 
to concentrate its management attention on meeting the fiscal 
year 2007 schedule for a certified pit ready for the stockpile. 
The Committee provides $142,005,000, a $10,000,000 increase to 
the budget request, for W88 Pit Manufacturing and $101,470,000 
for W88 Certification, the same as the budget request. The 
Committee provides the additional $10,000,000 in pit 
manufacturing to accelerate the ongoing work to expand the 
capacity of TA-55 at Los Alamos National Laboratory to address 
near-term pit manufacturing requirements as a production hedge 
while the Department completes the accelerated plutonium aging 
experiments.
    The Committee provides no funds for pit manufacturing 
capability, a reduction of $20,992,000 to the budget request. 
The Committee continues to believe that work on pit 
manufacturing should be focused on expansion of the pit 
production capability of TA-55 at Los Alamos National 
Laboratory and notes that the sooner an expanded capability 
comes on line, the smaller its capacity needs to be to meet 
future stockpile requirements. Accordingly, the Committee 
provides no funds for the modern pit facility (MPF) pending the 
outcome of the Secretary's review of the weapons complex and 
the accelerated pit aging experiments. The current suite of DOE 
facilities (e.g. NIF, Hanford vitrification plant, DARHT) that 
were proposed with great promise only to experience extended 
schedule delays and enormous cost overruns leads this Committee 
to take a very cautious approach with the taxpayers' money when 
considering another major infrastructure investment. The 
Committee will consider a modern pit facility design only when 
the pit aging experiments are completed and the future MPF 
capacity requirements as a function of the 2012 stockpile and 
the expanded TA-55 production capability are determined.
    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 $265,127,000, a reduction of $15,000,000 
from the budget request. The Committee recommends $45,812,000, 
for Stockpile Readiness, the same as the budget request. The 
Committee recommends $34,220,000 for High Explosives 
Manufacturing and Weapons Assembly/Disassembly, the same as the 
budget request. The Committee recommends $30,457,000 for 
Nonnuclear Readiness, a reduction of $5,000,000 from the budget 
request. The Committee recommendation includes $74,788,000 for 
Advanced Design and Production Technologies, a reduction of 
$10,000,000 from the budget request. The Committee's reductions 
limit program growth and maintain current year funding levels. 
The Committee recommends $79,850,000 for Tritium Readiness, the 
same as the budget request.

               READINESS IN TECHNICAL BASE AND FACILITIES

    The Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities (RTBF) 
program supports the physical and operational infrastructure at 
the laboratories, the Nevada Test Site, and the production 
plants. The Committee recommendation is $1,652,454,000, an 
increase of $178,000,000 above the budget request of 
$1,474,454,000.
    Operations of facilities.--The Committee recommendation for 
Operations of facilities is $1,151,557,000, an increase of 
$134,000,000 over the budget request. Additional funding of 
$45,000,000 has been provided for the Pantex Plant in Texas, 
$5,000,000 for the Kansas City Plant in Kansas, and $80,000,000 
for the Y-12 Plant in Tennessee to address chronic under-
funding in the maintenance of production plant facilities. The 
Committee encourages the NNSA to accelerate the reduction of 
the facility footprint at the Y-12 plant in order to modernize 
operations and reduce security costs. The Committee provides an 
additional $4,000,000 to accelerate the relocation of the 
special nuclear material at TA-18 in Los Alamos National 
Laboratory to the Device Assembly Facility at the Nevada Test 
Site.
    Program Readiness.--The Committee recommendation is 
$101,204,000, a decrease of $5,000,000 to the budget request. 
The Committee does not support the Department's proposal for 
NNSA to fully fund the Nuclear Criticality Safety Program 
(NCSP). The Committee directs the Department to continue to 
fund this DOE-wide infrastructure program with multiple DOE 
program sponsors.
    Special Projects.--The Committee recommendation for Special 
Projects is $15,534,000, a reduction of $5,000,000 from the 
budget request. The Committee recommendation reduces Special 
Project funding for independent and internal reviews and 
independent cost estimating requirements for RTBF activities. 
The Committee directs the NNSA to include direct funding for 
those activities within the construction activities.
    The Committee recommendation for Material Recycle and 
Recovery is $86,965,000, the same as the budget request. The 
Committee recommendation for Containers is $17,910,000, the 
same as the budget request. The Committee recommendation for 
Storage is $18,982,000, the same as the budget request.
    Construction projects.--
    Project 05-D-140, Project engineering and design (PED)--
RTBF, various locations. The Committee recommends $21,600,000, 
an increase of $10,000,000. The additional PED funds are 
provided to begin planning and design for impact-resistant 
bunkers for additional warhead storage facilities for nuclear 
warheads with conventional high explosives at the Pantex Plant 
in Texas.
    Project 05-D-401, Building 12-64 Upgrade, Pantex Plant, 
Amarillo, TX. The Committee recommends $25,100,000, the same as 
the budget request.
    Project 05-D-402, Beryllium Capability (BeC) Project, Y-12 
National Security Complex, Oak Ridge, TN. The Committee 
recommends $3,627,000, the same as the budget request.
    Project 03-D-102, LANL Administration Building, LANL, Los 
Alamos, NM. The Committee recommends $37,348,000, the same as 
the budget request.
    Project 04-D-125, Chemistry and Metallurgy Research 
Facility Replacement (CMRR)--LANL. The Committee recommends 
$10,000,000 for the CMRR project, a decrease of $14,000,000 
from the budget request. The NNSA's fiscal year 2005 budget 
justification states that significant budget reductions in 
fiscal year 2004 and Departmental reductions to the fiscal year 
2005 request will impact the outyear funding profile and 
schedule for this project. The NNSA concludes in its budget 
justification that additional analysis is required to validate 
cost estimates that are coming in at the high end of the pre-
conceptual baseline range. Due to the complexity of this 
project and the uncertainty of the current estimates, the 
Committee directs the NNSA to complete its pre-conceptual 
baseline cost estimating and include in the fiscal year 2006 
budget request the revised schedule and cost estimates.
    Project 04-D-128, TA-18 mission relocation project, LANL, 
Los Alamos, NM. The Committee recommends $8,000,000, an 
increase of $8,000,000 over the budget request. The Committee's 
recommendation accelerates the relocation of the special 
nuclear material at TA-18 in Los Alamos National Laboratory to 
the Device Assembly Facility at the Nevada Test Site.
    Project 01-D-124, Highly Enriched Uranium Materials 
Facility, Y-12 National Security Complex, Oak Ridge, TN. The 
Committee recommends $114,000,000, an increase of $50,000,000 
over the budget request. Consistent with the Secretary of 
Energy's security initiatives announced in May 2004, the 
Committee directs the Department to accelerate the construction 
and operational start of the HEU Materials Facility to the 
maximum extent practicable to provide for consolidated storage 
of HEU at the Y-12 Plant. This acceleration is intended to 
address security issues raised by the General Accounting Office 
and internal Departmental security reviews related to multiple 
HEU storage locations at the facility.

             FACILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE RECAPITALIZATION

    The Committee recommendation for Facilities and 
Infrastructure Recapitalization Program (FIRP) is $273,544,000, 
a reduction of $42,680,000 from the budget request, but an 
increase of $34,838,000 over the current year.
    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 directs that at least $50,000,000 of the 
facilities and infrastructure funding in fiscal year 2005 be 
used to dispose of excess facilities. The Committee encourages 
continuation of this program to reduce the overall facilities 
footprint of the complex. 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.
    Facility Infrastructure and Recapitalization Construction 
Projects.--The Committee recommendation provides $24,681,000 
for FIRP construction projects, the same as the budget request.

                      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 $201,300,000, 
the same as the budget request.

                   NUCLEAR WEAPONS INCIDENT RESPONSE

    The Committee recommendation for nuclear weapons incident 
response is $99,209,000, the same as the budget request. This 
activity was funded at $89,167,000 in Readiness in Technical 
Base and Facilities in fiscal year 2004.

                        SAFEGUARDS AND SECURITY

    This program provides for all safeguards and security 
requirements at NNSA landlord sites. The Committee 
recommendation is $740,991,000, an increase of $34,000,000 over 
the budget request. The Committee increase includes $30,000,000 
for the Y-12 National Security Complex to accelerate security 
infrastructure upgrades and consolidate the facility footprint. 
The Committee provides $4,000,000 for safeguard and security 
upgrades at the Device Assembly Facility (DAF) at the Nevada 
Test Site to accelerate the Secretary of Energy's security 
initiative to remove all category I and II nuclear material 
from TA-18 at Los Alamos National Laboratory as soon as 
practicable. The Committee urges the Department to bring 
innovative technology to bear on the problems of increased 
physical safeguards and security measures. Additional manpower 
is only a stopgap 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 $30,000,000 for 
the safeguards and security charge for reimbursable work, the 
same as the budget request.

                    Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation





Appropriation, 2004...................................    $1,364,514,000
Budget Estimate, 2005.................................     1,348,647,000
Recommended, 2005.....................................     1,348,647,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2004...............................       -15,867,000
    Budget Estimate, 2005.............................  ................


    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, Elimination of Weapons-Grade 
Plutonium Production, and Fissile Materials Disposition; and 
Offsite Source Recovery Project. Descriptions of each of these 
programs are provided below.

       NONPROLIFERATION AND VERIFICATION RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

    The nonproliferation and verification research and 
development program conducts applied research, development, 
testing, and evaluation of science and technology for 
strengthening the United States response to threats to national 
security and to world peace posed by the proliferation of 
nuclear weapons and special nuclear materials. Activities 
center on the design and production of operational sensor 
systems needed for proliferation detection, treaty 
verification, nuclear warhead dismantlement initiatives, and 
intelligence activities.
    The Committee recommendation is $241,500,000, an increase 
of $21,500,000 over the budget request, and includes 
$118,044,000 for proliferation detection, an increase of 
$6,500,000 over the budget request for high priority research 
requirements; $111,931,000 for nuclear explosion monitoring, an 
increase of $10,000,000 over the request, of which $25,000,000 
is for ground-based systems for treaty monitoring; and 
$11,525,000 for supporting activities, an increase of 
$5,000,000 over the request. The Committee provides the 
additional $5,000,000 within Supporting Activities for project 
engineering and design funding to support the relocation of 
laboratory personnel and facilities displaced by the planned 
shutdown and cleanup of the 300 Area at the Hanford reservation 
in Washington. The Committee supports the timely development of 
replacement infrastructure at the Pacific Northwest National 
Laboratory (PNNL) and directs the Office of Nuclear 
Nonproliferation to coordinate closely with the Office of 
Science on the transition schedule and construction plans to 
maintain the national security capabilities resident at PNNL. 
As the largest single programmatic customer of PNNL, the NNSA 
should work with the Office of Science and request sufficient 
funds in the fiscal year 2006 budget request to maintain the 
construction schedule to replace facilities at PNNL to 
accommodate the 300 Area closure. From within available funds, 
the Committee recommendation provides $2,000,000 for testing of 
high-pressure xenon radiation detectors at the Brookhaven 
National Laboratory Rad-Tech facility for portal applications.
    The Committee expects the Department to continue to provide 
greater opportunity for open competition, where appropriate, 
for nonproliferation and verification research and development 
activities and directs the Department to continue a free and 
open competitive process for at least 50 percent of its 
research and development activities during fiscal year 2005 for 
ground-based systems treaty monitoring. The competitive process 
should be open to all Federal and non-Federal entities.
    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 2006 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; treaties and 
agreements; and international emergency management and 
cooperation. The Committee recommendation for Nonproliferation 
and International Security is $124,000,000, the same as the 
budget request. The recommendation includes $63,216,000 for 
Nonproliferation Policy, $31,330,000 for International 
Safeguards, $22,246,000 for Export Control activities, 
$3,208,000 for Treaties and Agreements, and $4,000,000 for 
International Emergency Management and Cooperation. From within 
available funds, the Committee recommendation provides $150,000 
to continue the successful collaboration between Texas A&M and 
Russian universities on nuclear facilities safety, nuclear 
materials management, and decontamination and decommissioning 
technologies.
    While the Committee has consistently been a strong 
supporter of nuclear nonproliferation activities conducted by 
the Department, the Secretary of Energy's recent announcement 
outlining a new nonproliferation initiative called the Global 
Threat Reduction Initiative was poorly timed for consideration 
during the current appropriations process. The Committee does 
not support initiatives with substantial funding requirements 
without sufficient prior consultation and coordination with the 
appropriate Congressional Committees. The Committee looks 
forward to considering a funding request for this new 
initiative when the Department either submits a formal 
reprogramming request with appropriate offsets or requests a 
fiscal year 2005 budget amendment. Given the current austere 
budget environment, the Committee directs the Department to 
include with any proposed budget amendment or reprogramming 
request a justification including a detailed description of the 
nonproliferation risk-based priority setting process as it 
relates to relative risk and resource allocation.
    The Committee recommendation includes the budget request of 
$2,000,000 for the Kazakhstan Spent Fuel Disposition initiative 
to secure three tons of weapons-grade plutonium in the BN-350 
reactor spent fuel at Aktau, Kazakhstan. None of the funds 
provided for this activity in fiscal year 2005, or previous 
fiscal years, may be obligated for transportation equipment or 
activities without first notifying the Appropriations and Armed 
Services Committees.

                 NONPROLIFERATION PROGRAMS WITH RUSSIA

    The Department of Energy funds many nonproliferation 
programs with Russia. These programs help secure Russian 
nuclear weapons and weapons material, prevent the outflow of 
scientific expertise from Russia, eliminate excess nuclear 
weapons materials, and 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 that as much of the funds 
appropriated for the Russian programs as practical are 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 
the current year. 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 40 percent of the funding 
for Russian programs may be spent in the U.S.

       INTERNATIONAL NUCLEAR MATERIALS PROTECTION AND COOPERATION

    The International Nuclear Materials Protection and 
Cooperation program, commonly know as Materials Protection 
Control and Accounting (MPC&A), 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 materials 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 $415,250,000 an increase of 
$177,250,000 over the budget request. The Committee's increase 
to the MPC&A program is provided to take advantage of the 
expanded opportunities for additional high priority work in 
Russia that came to light after the budget request was 
submitted to the Congress. The Committee supports the 
Department's efforts to continue to negotiate greater access to 
the Russian serial production enterprise and move promptly to 
secure material when site access is granted. The Committee 
recognizes the importance of expanding new opportunities and 
supports the MPC&A program's aggressive nonproliferation work 
while other areas of the Nuclear Nonproliferation program 
continue to be mired in bureaucratic battlefields accomplishing 
nothing for the taxpayer. The Committee will concentrate its 
limited nonproliferation resources on the vast quantities of 
highly attractive material that exists in Russia. The Committee 
views the hundreds of metric tons of nuclear material in Russia 
still stored under inadequate security and subject to theft or 
diversion as the highest risk potential for diversion of 
weapons-usable nuclear materials.
    Within funds provided for MPC&A, the Committee provides an 
additional $32,000,000 for Strategic Rocket Forces activities 
to accelerate securing nuclear warhead sites in Russia. The 
Committee recommendation includes $78,250,000, for the MinAtom 
Weapons Complex, an increase of $35,250,000 to begin MPC&A 
upgrades at one serial production enterprise site and to begin 
construction of a central storage facility for weapons-usable 
material. The Committee provides an additional $20,000,000 for 
the Second Line of Defense program to accelerate installation 
activities in the Baltic and Caucasus regions and other 
critical border activities. The Committee provides $45,000,000 
in the Second Line of Defense program for the MegaPorts 
initiative, a $30,000,000 increase over the budget request. An 
increase of $60,000,000 is provided for other high priority 
MPC&A activities, to include countries outside the former 
Soviet Union.

                     RUSSIAN TRANSITION INITIATIVE

    The Committee recommendation for the Russian Transition 
Initiative (RTI) program is $41,000,000, the same as the budget 
request. The Russian Transition Initiative 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. The Committee expects the Department to accelerate by 
two years, from 2008 to 2006, its Annual Performance target for 
the RTI program to achieve matching contributions of non-US 
Government sources from the current goal of 80 percent of 
project funds to a 100 percent full match in 2006.

       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 $20,950,000, the same as the budget 
request.

       ELIMINATION OF WEAPONS-GRADE PLUTONIUM PRODUCTION PROGRAM

    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 shut down these three reactors within 
six years by providing two alternate fossil-fueled energy 
plants to supply heat and electricity to the surrounding 
communities. The original cost estimate provided to the 
Committee in 2002 included a high-end estimate of $470,000,000 
for the total cost of the program. A preliminary revised cost 
estimate discussed with the Committee in May 2004 now indicates 
a total program cost approaching $1.2 billion. The Committee is 
unprepared to perpetuate the Department's preference for 
proposing new initiatives with inadequate cost estimates, only 
to be confronted with significant cost increases once Congress 
has begun funding the activity. From within available funds, 
the Committee directs the Department to transfer $4,000,000 to 
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to conduct a detailed 
independent cost estimate for both fossil fuel plant projects 
in Russia. This independent cost estimate should be completed 
no later than April 30, 2005. Faced with such significant cost 
growth, the Committee must consider other alternatives to 
control costs or terminate the project. The Committee 
recommendation is $15,097,000, a $35,000,000 reduction to the 
President's request.

                     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 is greatly concerned with 
the continued impasse between the United States and Russia on 
negotiations over liability protections for U.S. companies and 
personnel conducting nonproliferation work in Russia. Because 
Congress requires both the U.S. and Russian disposition 
programs proceed in parallel, the protracted liability 
negotiations have already resulted in a one-year delay in the 
planned construction start in Russia and the U.S. from summer 
2004 to summer 2005. The Committee has no reason to proceed 
with fiscal year 2005 budget decisions under the assumption 
that the liability dispute is nearing resolution.
    While the Committee supports successful implementation of 
the department's nuclear nonproliferation activities, the 
inability of the Department to maintain the continuity of the 
government-to-government implementing agreements for Plutonium 
Disposition activities calls into question its commitment to 
completing this program. Given the Committee's budget 
constraints, it would be irresponsible to allocate hundreds of 
millions for a program that is currently prohibited from 
spending the funds. The Committee notes that the program 
received full funding in the current year anticipating a 
construction start in July 2004, and the subsequent one-year 
delay results in the carryover of significant uncosted funds. 
If the liability negotiations are concluded successfully and 
program activities can proceed on schedule in 2005, the 
Committee directs the department to seek a reprogramming to 
restore the required funding.
    The Committee recommendation is $483,250,000, a reduction 
$165,750,000 from the budget request, to accommodate a delay in 
full funding until program activities can continue under a 
revised U.S.-Russia Plutonium Disposition implementing 
agreement. Funding of $184,700,000 is provided for U.S. surplus 
materials disposition and $31,500,000 for the Russian plutonium 
disposition program.
    Construction projects.--The Committee recommendation 
includes $234,750,000 for Project 99-D-143, the Mixed Oxide 
Fuel Fabrication facility project, a reduction of $133,250,000 
from the budget request. Funding of $32,300,000 is provided for 
Project 99-D-141, the Pit Disassembly and Conversion Facility 
project.

                    OFF-SITE SOURCE RECOVERY PROJECT

    The Off-Site Source Recovery Project recovers excess and 
unwanted sealed sources from non-Department of Energy sites and 
stores the material at Department facilities to reduce and 
ultimately eliminate the risk these sources pose to homeland 
security by their possible use in a radiological dispersal 
device. The Committee recommendation is $7,600,000, an increase 
of $2,000,000 above the budget request. The additional 
$2,000,000 is provided for the Nuclear and Other Hazardous 
Materials Transportation Research Project at the South Carolina 
State University's Transportation Center.

                             Naval Reactors





Appropriation, 2004...................................      $761,878,000
Budget Estimate, 2005.................................       797,900,000
Recommended, 2005.....................................       807,900,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2004...............................       +46,022,000
    Budget Estimate, 2005.............................       +10,000,000


    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 $807,900,000, an increase of $10,000,000 over 
the budget request. This additional amount is to be transferred 
to the Office of Nuclear Energy to support the Idaho National 
Laboratory's Advanced Test Reactor (ATR). As the primary user 
of the Advanced Test Reactor, the Naval Reactors program should 
ensure its future budget requests support the ongoing 
requirements to upgrade and maintain the ATR.

                      Office of the Administrator





Appropriation, 2004...................................      $337,974,000
Budget Estimate, 2005.................................       333,700,000
Recommended, 2005.....................................       356,200,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2004...............................       +18,226,000
    Budget Estimate, 2005.............................       +22,500,000


    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 $356,200,000, an increase of $22,500,000 
above the budget request. This additional amount is provided to 
increase the NNSA contribution to the Department's support for 
Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs). The 
Committee's recommendation for the Office of the Administrator 
removes the separate line for the Office of Defense Nuclear 
Nonproliferation program direction to allow greater management 
flexibility for the Administrator. However, the Committee 
expects the Administrator to continue to maintain separate 
program direction budget and reporting accounting codes for the 
Office of Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation to maintain cost 
accountability between the separate programs within the NNSA.
    The Committee directs the Administrator of NNSA to provide 
at least $5,000,000 for the NNSA 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. The Committee recommendation provides 
$12,000, the same as the budget request, for official reception 
and representation expenses for the NNSA.
    Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs).--The 
Committee is troubled by the level of the NNSA's support for 
Historically Black Colleges and Universities. Funding data 
provided to the Committee by the Department documents this 
disappointing level of support. Annual funding for the NNSA is 
now in excess of nine billion dollars, while the NNSA 
contribution to the nation's HBCUs in fiscal year 2003 (the 
last year of available cost data) was a paltry $1.2 million. 
The Committee finds it difficult to reconcile the NNSA's level 
of support for the HBCUs juxtaposed against the level of 
discretionary funding available to the NNSA's national 
laboratories under the authority of the Laboratory Directed 
Research and Development (LDRD) program, which the Department 
justifies principally as a means to recruit and retain 
competent scientific and technical staff. In fiscal year 2003, 
the three weapons labs taxed appropriated program funds to 
create an LDRD pool of more than $250,000,000 that was spent at 
the sole discretion of the individual laboratory directors and 
was neither controlled by the Congress nor managed by the 
Federal managers at the Department. Given that degree of 
financial flexibility built into the NNSA's weapons budget, the 
Committee feels it is in the Nation's best interest to support 
the HBCU educational institutions across the country in order 
to deepen the recruiting pool of diverse scientific and 
technical staff available to the NNSA and its national 
laboratories in support of the nation's national security 
programs.
    The Committee recommendation provides $22,500,000, one-
quarter of one percent of the NNSA budget request, to support 
the HBCUs scientific and technical programs. The Committee 
recommendation includes $2,000,000 each for Wilberforce 
University and Central State University in Wilberforce, Ohio; 
and $2,000,000 each for Claflin College in Orangeburg, SC and 
Allen University in Columbia, SC; $500,000 each for Morris 
College in Sumter, SC and Benedict College in Columbia, SC; and 
$1,000,000 for Voorhees College in Denmark, SC. The Committee 
notes that the NNSA provided $19,800,000 million in fiscal year 
2003 in support of Hispanic Serving Institutions (HSIs). The 
Committee encourages continued generous support of the HSIs and 
intends the addition of fiscal year 2005 funding for the HBCUs 
will result in year-to-year funding parity for both sets of 
institutions in future fiscal years.

               Environmental and Other Defense Activities


                    Defense Environmental Management

    The Committee's recommendation for Defense Environmental 
Management totals $6,888,813,000, a reduction of $64,494,000 
from the budget request of $6,953,307,000. Details of the 
recommended funding levels follow below for the specific 
Defense Environmental Management accounts.
    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.
    Defense Environmental Management activities are funded in 
two separate accounts: Defense Site Acceleration Completion and 
Defense Environmental Services. Defense Site Acceleration 
Completion, with a request of $5.97 billion, has as its primary 
mission the closure of cleanup sites centered on three 
timeframes: 2006, 2012 and 2035. Defense Environmental 
Services, with a request of $982 million, represents 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, and management of newly generated low level 
radioactive waste for other programs).
    High Level Waste Legislative Proposal (Waste Incidental to 
Reprocessing).--In 2003, a Federal district court in Idaho held 
that the Department does not have the authority to reclassify 
certain high-level wastes as ``waste incidental to 
reprocessing'' and dispose of them as other than high-level 
waste. The Department proposed legislation in late fiscal year 
2003 to overturn the court decision, but neither chamber of 
Congress passed such legislation. In its fiscal year 2005 
budget request, the Department identified $350,000,000 of work 
at the Hanford, Idaho, and Savannah River sites that cannot 
proceed in light of the Idaho court decision. While the 
Department is seeking to overturn the Idaho district court 
decision on appeal, the Department is also working to overturn 
the court decision through legislation affirming the 
Department's authority to reclassify radioactive waste.
    The Committee supports resolution of this issue through the 
judicial appeals process or through comprehensive legislation 
that would address the problem in a consistent manner 
nationwide. Unfortunately, the State of South Carolina and the 
Department have elected to pursue a strategy that would only 
resolve the issue for the Savannah River site, and by doing so, 
may very well hinder a solution for the other affected sites. 
The Committee does not support such an approach, and directs 
the Department to continue working toward a comprehensive 
solution. The Committee encourages the Department to take 
advantage of the radioactive waste rules already promulgated by 
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (10 C.F.R. Part 61), rather 
than insisting that the Department have the authority to make 
its own discretionary determination as to which wastes are 
high-level and which are low-level. This determination should 
be based on quantitative, objective measurements using the NRC 
criteria, not based on the Department's subjective 
determination or on the court's literal interpretation of the 
Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982.
    The Committee agrees with the Department that two specific 
projects at the Savannah River site, the Salt Waste Processing 
Facility (05-D-401) and the Salt Waste Process Facility 
Alternative (03-D-414), would be prohibited by the court 
decision, and no funds are provided for these projects in 
fiscal year 2005. The balance of the $350,000,000 requested for 
waste incidental to reprocessing is provided to the Hanford 
($64,100,000), Idaho ($97,300,000), and Savannah River 
($112,942,000) sites, and the Committee directs the Department 
to spend these funds at these three sites on other cleanup 
activities that are not precluded by the court decision.
    Cost and Schedule Baselines.--Based on the 33 percent 
increase last year in the estimated cost for the Waste 
Treatment and Immobilization Plant (project 01-D-416) at 
Hanford, the Committee directed the Department to transfer 
funds to the Corps of Engineers to conduct an independent 
review of the cost and schedule baseline for this project. The 
Corps completed this review and reached several significant 
conclusions: (1) the Department and its contractor have known 
for quite a while that the real cost of the project would be 
much higher than the previously-claimed cost of $4.35 billion; 
(2) there is a high probability the cost will increase above 
the current baseline of $5.8 billion; (3) there has been 
insufficient contingency through the life of the project; (4) 
DOE agreed to a $1.4 billion modification to this project 
without preparing an independent government estimate; (5) the 
current contract arrangement of cost-plus-incentive-fee is not 
the best contract mechanism for this type of project; and (6) 
the greatest risk of cost and schedule overruns lies with the 
commissioning phase of the project.
    The Committee is greatly troubled by these findings, and 
even more troubled by DOE management's apparent lack of concern 
about these findings. The history of uncontrolled cost growth 
on this project, and the underlying management deficiencies 
that led to such cost growth, does not inspire Congressional 
confidence in the cost and schedule estimates for other major 
cleanup projects, nor for the Department's claims of cost 
savings resulting from accelerated cleanup.
    While the Hanford Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant 
is too far along to terminate, and to do so would cause 
irreparable harm to the Department's plans to remediate the 
high-level radioactive waste at Hanford, the Committee intends 
to limit any further cost increases for this project. The 
language accompanying the introductory section for Title III of 
this report imposes new notification, reporting, and cost 
estimating requirements on the Department for all projects with 
total estimated costs (TECs) in excess of $20 million. This 
requirement applies to a number of line-item projects with the 
Defense Site Acceleration Completion account, including the 
Hanford Waste Treatment and Immobilization Project. As part of 
this requirement, the Committee directs the Department to 
conduct detailed independent reviews of the existing cost and 
schedule baselines for those projects with TECs in excess of 
$20 million. The Committee understands that the Department is 
already using the estimating expertise of the Corps of 
Engineers at a number of DOE sites, and the Committee strongly 
encourages the Department to have the Corps conduct these 
independent reviews, as was done for the Hanford Waste 
Treatment and Immobilization Plant, on a reimbursable basis. 
The External Independent Reviews, as presently conducted by the 
Office of Engineering and Construction Management (EIR), are 
too cursory to be of much value.
    Statutory Changes Required for Accelerated Cleanup.--In the 
statement of managers accompanying the conference report for 
the Energy and Water Development Act, 2004, the Committee 
directed the Department to submit a report to Congress 
identifying all changes to existing statutory law that are 
necessary to execute accelerated cleanup. This report was due 
to Congress within 60 days of enactment; five months later, the 
Committee is still waiting for this report. There are two 
possible explanations for this lengthy delay: either the 
Department does not know what statutory changes are required 
and is waiting for its contractors to tell it what to do, or 
the Department knows but is reluctant to inform Congress. 
Neither alternative explanation leads Congress to trust the 
Department's claims for accelerated cleanup.
    State Agreement for Accelerated Performance Management 
Plans.--The Committee recommendation for fiscal year 2005 
funding assumes, based on information provided to the Committee 
by the Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management at the 
end of May 2004, that the relevant State regulators have agreed 
to all of the Department's accelerated Performance Management 
Plans (PMPs). If that situation changes during the course of 
the fiscal year such that a State indicates it no longer agrees 
with or supports one or more accelerated PMPs, the Department 
is to inform the Committee immediately and submit a 
reprogramming request within 60 days to direct the affected 
funds to another site that has a valid State agreement for 
accelerated cleanup.
    Economic development.--None of the Defense Environmental 
Management funds are available for economic development 
activities unless specifically authorized by law.
    Reprogramming Authority.--The Committee continues to 
support the need for flexibility to meet changing funding 
requirements at sites which are undergoing accelerated cleanup 
activities. However, the cost growth at Hanford and other sites 
leads the Committee to reduce some of the flexibility 
previously provided to the Department. In fiscal year 2005, 
each site manager may transfer up to $3,000,000 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 
$3,000,000 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.

                  Defense Site Acceleration Completion





Appropriation, 2004...................................    $5,617,719,000
Budget Estimate, 2005.................................     5,970,837,000
Recommended, 2005.....................................     5,930,837,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2004...............................      +313,118,000
    Budget Estimate, 2005.............................       -40,000,000


    The Committee recommendation for Defense Site Acceleration 
Completion in fiscal year 2005 is $5,930,837,000, a reduction 
of $40,000,000 from the budget request of $5,970,837,000, but 
an increase of $313,118,000 over the current fiscal year.
    Accelerated Completions, 2006.--The Committee 
recommendation provides $1,264,999,000, an increase of 
$13,200,000 over the budget request. 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, Kansas City, and Savannah River. The additional 
$13,200,000 is provided to cover pension shortfalls and 
accelerate low-level waste shipments during fiscal year 2005 
from the Miamisburg Closure Project. The Committee directs the 
Department to provide Congress, not later than March 31, 2005, 
with a plan and estimate for remediating the OU-1 landfill at 
the Miamisburg site. The Committee encourages the Department to 
work with the State of Nevada and other affected States to 
resolve the impasse over disposal of 11e.(2) waste from the 
Fernald site. The language included in the Energy and Water 
Development Appropriations Act, 2004, was intended to allow the 
Department to consider commercial NRC-regulated disposal 
options as well as use of Government-owned disposal sites.
    Accelerated Completions, 2012.--The Committee 
recommendation provides $2,150,641,000, the same as the budget 
request. This amount includes the requested funding for cleanup 
of the East Tennessee Technology Park and Oak Ridge 
Reservation, Hanford, Idaho, Los Alamos National Laboratory, 
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Nevada Test Site, 
Pantex, and various other sites. The primary components include 
$690,000,000 for the Office of River Protection at Hanford, 
$524,818,000 for the Hanford site, and $415,178,000 for the 
Idaho Cleanup Project.
    Accelerated Completions, 2035.--The Committee 
recommendation provides $1,893,339,000, the same as the budget 
request. This amount includes the requested funding of 
$43,827,000 for construction of the Glass Waste Storage 
Building #2 at the Savannah River Site (project 04-D-408) and 
the requested funding for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, the 
Idaho Cleanup Project, the Y-12 and Oak Ridge National 
Laboratory sites, Hanford and the Office of River Protection, 
Savannah River, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Nevada Test 
Site, and various other sites and facilities.
    Waste Incidental to Reprocessing.--Of the $350,000,000 
requested for activities that are precluded by the court 
decision on waste incidental to reprocessing, the Committee 
provides $274,342,000 and directs the Department to apply these 
funds to other cleanup activities that are not prohibited by 
the court decision. The Committee recommendation provides 
$64,100,000 for the Hanford site, $97,300,000 for the Idaho 
site, and $112,942,000 for the Savannah River site. The 
Committee directs the Department to submit a reprogramming 
request within 30 days of enactment identifying how these funds 
will be used for other cleanup activities at these three sites.
    Safeguards and Security.--The Committee recommendation 
provides $265,059,000, the same as the budget request.
    Technology Development and Deployment.--The Committee 
recommendation provides $82,600,000, an increase of $22,458,000 
over the budget request. The additional funds are provided for 
the Department to conduct a competitive evaluation of the 
various advanced remediation technologies available in the 
private sector. If testing and evaluation with surrogate 
materials is not sufficient, the Department should consider 
using one of the many existing contaminated facilities that are 
scheduled for decontamination and decommissioning within the 
next several years at sites such as Idaho or the 300 Area of 
Hanford to conduct testing with real radioactive materials. 
Within remaining 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 $143,000 the same as the budget request, for the 
security costs associated with reimbursable work.

                     Defense Environmental Services





Appropriation, 2004...................................      $985,296,000
Budget Estimate, 2005.................................       982,470,000
Recommended, 2005.....................................       957,976,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2004...............................       -27,320,000
    Budget Estimate, 2005.............................       -24,494,000


    The Defense Environmental Services account incorporates 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 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 2005 is $957,976,000, a decrease of $24,494,000 from the 
budget request.
    Community and Regulatory Support.--The Committee 
recommendation is $60,547,000, 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 
$463,000,000 for the Federal contribution to the Uranium 
Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund.
    Non-Closure Environmental Activities.--The Committee 
recommendation is $146,038,000, a reduction of $41,826,000 to 
the budget request resulting from the transfer of safety, 
health and security activities to Office of Security and Safety 
Performance Assurance. Within available funds, the Committee 
directs the Department to provide $10,000,000 for the Hazardous 
Waste Worker Training Program and $8,000,000 for the Volpentest 
Hazardous Materials Management and Emergency Response (HAMMER) 
training and education center.
    Spent Nuclear Fuel Management.--The Department proposed to 
transfer responsibility for the management and operation of the 
DOE national spent fuel program, the foreign research reactor 
spent nuclear fuel acceptance program, and the management of 
chemical processing plant 666 at Idaho from the Office of 
Environmental Management to the Office of Civilian Radioactive 
Waste Management. The Secretary announced in April 2004 that 
the Office of Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation would henceforth 
manage the foreign research reactor spent fuel acceptance 
program. At the present time, the Committee does not agree with 
the proposed transfer of the remaining two programs (i.e., DOE 
national spent fuel program and management of chemical 
processing plant 666) and directs the Department to continuing 
managing these activities under the Office of Environmental 
Management. The Committee recommendation includes the requested 
amounts of $8,217,000 for the DOE national spent fuel program, 
$8,055,000 for management of chemical processing plant 666, and 
$1,060,000 for associated program direction costs. It is the 
Committee's expectation that these activities will continue to 
be managed at the Idaho site.
    Program Direction.--The Committee recommendation for 
program direction is $271,059,000, the same as the budget 
request.
    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, 2004...................................      $670,510,000
Budget Estimate, 2005.................................       663,636,000
Recommended, 2005.....................................       697,059,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2004...............................       +26,549,000
    Budget Estimate, 2005.............................       +33,423,000


    This account provides funding for Energy Security and 
Assurance; the Office of Security; Independent Oversight and 
Performance Assurance; Intelligence; Counterintelligence; 
Environment, Safety and Health (Defense); Legacy Management; 
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 Committee recommendation for the office of energy 
security and assurance is $21,000,000, an increase of 
$10,400,000 above the budget request. The Committee 
recommendation includes $5,000,000 to accelerate the operation 
of the national SCADA testbed at the Idaho National Laboratory. 
The Committee provides $5,500,000 for the GridWorks initiative, 
the same as the budget request and $6,500,000 for the GridWise 
initiative to address grid security and reliability through the 
application of modern information technologies. The Committee 
recommendation provides an additional $1,500,000 in GridWise 
for a regional demonstration project. These activities were 
originally proposed within the Office of Electric Transmission 
and Distribution budget request.
    Program direction.--The Committee recommendation includes 
$3,000,000 for program direction, a reduction of $1,500,000 
from the budget request.

                           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, and security operations 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 $306,374,000, an increase of 
$51,273,000 over the budget request. The Committee's 
recommendation provides additional capability to oversee the 
implementation of the new Design Basis Threat.
    In fiscal year 2005, the Department of Energy will spend 
over $1.4 billion on safeguards and security activities at 
Headquarters and field locations. The $306,374,000 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.

                         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.

                     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.

            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 $24,669,000, 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 $119,519,000, 
the same as the budget request.

                           LEGACY MANAGEMENT

    The Committee recommendation provides a total of 
$63,525,000 for the Office of Legacy Management to manage the 
long-term stewardship responsibilities at the Department of 
Energy clean up sites. From within available funds, the 
Committee provides $1,200,000 to complete the transition of the 
STAR Center in Pinellas County, Florida and $4,000,000 for the 
final payment, subject to the existing requirement for matching 
funds, to the Miamisburg Mound Community Improvement 
Corporation. The Committee recommendation provides $32,395,000 
in Other Defense Activities and the balance of $31,130,000 is 
provided in the non-defense Energy Supply account.

            DEFENSE ACTIVITIES AT IDAHO NATIONAL LABORATORY

    The Committee recommendation includes $114,347,000 to fund 
the defense-related (050 budget function) activities at the 
Idaho National Laboratory (INL) and associated Idaho cleanup 
sites. This amount includes $20,886,000 for INL infrastructure, 
the same as the budget request, for activities at this site 
previously funded under the Defense Environmental Management 
account; $58,103,000 for Idaho site wide safeguards and 
security, the same as the budget request; and $33,858,000 for 
program direction to support Headquarters and Idaho Field 
Office personnel previously funded under Defense Environmental 
Management. The Committee provides an additional $1,500,000 for 
the Office of Nuclear Energy to inspect and repackage, as 
necessary, the 77 kilograms of nuclear fuel and highly enriched 
uranium (HEU) at the Lynchburg Technology Center in Virginia.

                 DEFENSE RELATED ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT

    The Committee recommendation includes $92,440,000, 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 $4,318,000, the same as the 
budget request.

                      OFFICE OF FUTURE LIABILITIES

    The Committee does not support the creation of a redundant 
Departmental office to address the planning function for long 
term environmental cleanup liabilities. The Committee views the 
more than seven billion dollars appropriated for the 
Department's environmental management activities as sufficient 
resources to address all possible planning activities. The 
Committee provides no funds for the Office of Future 
Liabilities.

                          FUNDING ADJUSTMENTS

    The Committee recommendation for funding adjustments 
includes the use of $15,000,000 in prior year balances and an 
offset of $3,003,000 for the safeguards and security charge for 
reimbursable work, the same as the budget request.

                     Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal





Appropriation, 2004...................................      $387,699,000
Budget Estimate, 2005.................................       131,000,000
Recommended, 2005.....................................       131,000,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2004...............................      -256,699,000
    Budget Estimate, 2005.............................  ................


    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. 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 2004, a total of $2.4 
billion has been appropriated to support nuclear waste 
repository activities attributable to atomic energy defense 
activities. An estimated defense contribution of $3.4 billion 
will be required from fiscal year 2005 to fiscal year 2010 to 
fulfill the remaining defense obligation.
    The Committee recommendation is $131,000,000, the same as 
the budget request. Because the Administration assumed that 
$749,000,000 of spending from the Nuclear Waste Fund would be 
offset through enactment of reclassification legislation, the 
Administration's net request for Yucca Mountain is only the 
$131,000,000 in Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal. Although 
program direction has traditionally been funded on the non-
defense side of nuclear waste disposal, the Committee directs 
the Department to use Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal to fund 
this activity in fiscal year 2005.

                    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 2005 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.
    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 2005 
maintains purchase power and wheeling activities at 
approximately the fiscal year 2004 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 (BPA) 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. In the fiscal year 2004 Conference Report 
the conferees tasked the Secretary of Energy to report to the 
House and Senate Committees on the mission, management, and 
financial condition of the BPA. The Committee notes two 
concerns with this reporting requirement. First, the report is 
overdue. Second, according to the Department's Quarterly 
Reporting on Congressional Requirements, the Secretary of 
Energy assigned the drafting of the report to the Bonneville 
Power Administration. Although no doubt knowledgeable on the 
subject the Committee questions the rationale of assigning the 
responsibility of an oversight report to the subject at issue.
    The Committee has asked the General Accounting Office (GAO) 
to conduct a thorough review of the Bonneville Power 
Administration. The Committee has received the GAO's 
preliminary findings that are structured to help BPA control 
future costs and implement a risk management process. The 
initial recommendations include (1) limiting the amount of 
power that BPA sells at its lowest cost-based rate, (2) 
charging incremental rates for any power sold beyond this 
amount that reflects BPA's cost of acquiring that power, and 
(3) consider using a rulemaking procedure under the 
Administrative Procedures Act to set these limits and the terms 
of incremental rates. The Committee will withhold its 
recommendations pending the final GAO report.

      Operation and Maintenance, Southeastern Power Administration





Appropriation, 2004...................................        $4,869,000
Budget Estimate, 2005.................................         5,200,000
Recommended, 2005.....................................         5,200,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2004...............................          +331,000
    Budget Estimate, 2005.............................  ................


    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 $5,200,000, the same as the budget request. 
The total program level for Southeastern in fiscal year 2005 is 
$39,200,000, with $34,000,000 for purchase power and wheeling 
and $5,200,000 for program direction. The purchase power and 
wheeling costs will be offset by collections of $34,000,000 
provided in this Act.

      Operation and Maintenance, Southwestern Power Administration





Appropriation, 2004...................................       $28,420,000
Budget Estimate, 2005.................................        29,352,000
Recommended, 2005.....................................        29,352,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2004...............................          +932,000
    Budget Estimate, 2005.............................  ................


    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 $29,352,000, the same as the budget request. 
The total program level for Southwestern in fiscal year 2005 is 
$31,152,000, including $4,676,000 for operating expenses, 
$1,800,000 for purchase power and wheeling, $19,324,000 for 
program direction, and $5,352,000 for construction. The offset 
of $1,800,000 from collections for purchase power and wheeling 
yields a net appropriation of $29,352,000. The offsetting 
collections for purchase power and wheeling include $1,800,000 
provided in this Act.

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





Appropriation, 2004...................................      $175,778,000
Budget Estimate, 2005.................................       173,100,000
Recommended, 2005.....................................       173,100,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2004...............................        -2,678,000
    Budget Estimate, 2005.............................  ................


    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 $173,100,000, the same as the budget request. 
The total program level for Western in fiscal year 2005 is 
$362,768,000, which includes $20,191,000 for construction and 
rehabilitation, $39,821,000 for system operation and 
maintenance, $186,000,000 for purchase power and wheeling, and 
$116,756,000 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 $3,668,000 of 
offsetting collections from the Colorado River Dam Fund (as 
authorized in P.L. 98-381), this requires a net appropriation 
of $173,100,000. The offsetting collections for purchase power 
and wheeling include $186,000,000 provided in this Act.
    The Committee has become increasingly concerned that the 
Western Area Power Administration has thus far failed to 
affiliate its Sierra-Nevada region's transmission operations 
with a parent control area operator, as identified in Federal 
Register Notice dated February 23, 2004. The Committee 
recognizes that the Bonneville Power Administration's tardy 
entry into this issue has helped create unanticipated timing 
issues. This failure has put many of the regional water and 
power users in an uncertain and unacceptable transmission cost 
environment. Pursuant to the established Federal Register 
Notice process, the Committee strongly urges Western and the 
Bonneville Power Administration to resolve concerns in order 
for the agency to join a regional control area by January 1, 
2005.
    Within available funds, the Committee recommendation 
includes $6,000,000 for Topock-Davis-Mead Transmission Line 
Upgrades to provide additional transmission capacity by using 
aluminum matrix composite conductor technology.

           Falcon and Amistad Operating and Maintenance Fund





Appropriation, 2004...................................        $2,624,000
Budget Estimate, 2005.................................         2,827,000
Recommended, 2005.....................................         2,827,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2004...............................          +203,000
    Budget Estimate, 2005.............................  ................


    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 $2,827,000, the same as the 
budget request.

                  Federal Energy Regulatory Commission


                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES




Appropriation, 2004...................................      $203,194,000
Budget Estimate, 2005.................................       210,000,000
Recommended, 2005.....................................       210,000,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2004...............................        +6,806,000
    Budget Estimate, 2005.............................  ................


                            REVENUES APPLIED




Appropriation, 2004...................................     $-203,194,000
Budget Estimate, 2005.................................      -210,000,000
Recommended, 2005.....................................      -210,000,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2004...............................        -6,806,000
    Budget Estimate, 2005.............................  ................


    The Committee recommendation for the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission (FERC) is $210,000,000, the same as the 
budget request. Revenues for FERC are established at a rate 
equal to the budget authority, resulting in a net appropriation 
of $0.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

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


                           General Provisions


                          DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

    Contract Competition.--Section 301 modifies language 
carried in the conference report for the Energy and Water 
Development Act, 2004 (P.L. 108-137), requiring the competition 
of the management and operating contracts for Ames, Argonne, 
Lawrence Berkeley, Lawrence Livermore, and Los Alamos national 
laboratories. The Committee appreciates the efforts of the 
Secretary and his staff to comply with the provisions of the 
existing Section 301 in P.L. 108-137 and to schedule 
competitions for these five laboratory contracts. The Committee 
continues the statutory requirement to compete these five 
contracts to be sure the Department follows through on the 
commitments made by the present Secretary.
    The Committee understands that the Secretary has decided to 
compete the Los Alamos contract initially, with the Lawrence 
Livermore contract to be competed one-to-two years later to 
allow the incorporation of lessons learned from the Los Alamos 
competition. The Committee had previously expressed opposition 
to bundling these two contracts into a single procurement and 
supports the Secretary's current strategy. In addition to the 
five laboratory contracts whose competitions are mandated by 
law, the Department has also elected to compete a number of 
other laboratory contracts, including the Fermi National 
Accelerator Laboratory, the Thomas Jefferson National 
Laboratory, and the Idaho National Laboratory. The Committee 
encourages the Department to use the flexibility provided 
within this section to stagger the award dates for these 
contracts, so as not to overwhelm the procurement capacity of 
the Department or the pool of potential bidders for these 
laboratory contracts.
    Section 301 also reiterates language from previous Energy 
and Water Development Acts requiring notification of Congress 
if the Secretary awards a management and operating contract in 
excess of $100 million in annual funding at a current or former 
management and operating contract site or facility, or awards a 
significant extension or expansion to an existing management 
and operating contract, or other contract covered by this 
section, unless such contract is awarded using competitive 
procedures, or the Secretary of Energy grants, on a case-by-
case basis, a waiver to allow for such a deviation. At least 90 
days before granting such a waiver, the Secretary of Energy 
must submit to the House and Senate Committees on 
Appropriations a report notifying the Committees of the waiver 
and setting forth, in specificity, the reasons for the waiver. 
Section 301 does not preclude extensions of a contract awarded 
using competitive procedures, but does establish a presumption 
of competition unless the Secretary invokes the waiver option. 
The waiver for non-competitive awards or extensions should be 
invoked only in truly exceptional circumstances or in the case 
of exceptional performance, not as a matter of routine. A non-
competitive award or extension may be in the taxpayers' 
interest, but the burden of proof is on the Department to make 
that case in the waiver request.
    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, 2004.
    Limitation on Funding for Section 3161 Benefits.--Section 
303 provides that none of the funds in this Act may be used 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.
    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, 2004.
    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, 2004.
    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, 2004.
    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, 2004. 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 to be used for research, development, and 
demonstration activities at the four nuclear weapons plants 
(i.e., Kansas City, Pantex, Savannah River, and Y-12) and at 
the Nevada Test Site. This provision was included in the Energy 
and Water Development Appropriations Act, 2004.
    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 2005 until the enactment of the 
Intelligence Authorization Act for fiscal year 2005.
    Siting of Modern Pit Facility.--Section 310 provides that 
none of the funds made available in this or any other 
appropriations act may be used to select a site for the Modern 
Pit Facility during fiscal year 2005. As explained in the NNSA 
section of this report, the Committee believes any siting 
decision on the Modern Pit Facility is premature at this time.
    Laboratory Directed Research and Development for Other 
Federal Agencies.--Section 311 provides that none of the funds 
made available in this act may be used to finance laboratory 
directed research and development (LDRD) activities on behalf 
of other federal agencies. The DOE laboratories may continue to 
conduct LDRD for other agencies, but only after the full 
reimbursement has been received by the Department from the 
other agencies. The other agencies may, of course, direct fund 
non-LDRD research by the DOE labs to directly serve the mission 
requirements of the other agencies.
    Limitation on Nuclear Technology Exports.--Section 312 
provides that none of the funds in this Act may be used to 
issue any license, approval, or authorization for export or 
reexport nuclear materials, equipment or sensitive nuclear 
technology to any country the Secretary of State has designated 
as engaged in state sponsorship of terrorist activities.
                                TITLE IV

                          INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

                    Appalachian Regional Commission




Appropriation, 2004...................................       $65,611,000
Budget Estimate, 2005.................................        66,000,000
Recommended, 2005.....................................        38,500,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2004...............................       +27,111,000
    Budget Estimate, 2005.............................       -27,500,000


    The Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC) is a regional 
economic development agency established in 1965. It is composed 
of the Governors of the thirteen Appalachian States and has a 
Federal co-chairman who is appointed by the President. The 
budget request is $66,000,000, of which $55,000,000 is for area 
development activities, $5,000,000 for local development 
districts, $1,000,000 for technical assistance, and $5,000,000 
for salaries and expenses.
    The ARC budget justification indicates that it targets only 
50 percent of its funds to distressed counties or distressed 
areas within the Appalachian region. In times of budget 
austerity, the Committee believes this should be the primary 
focus of the ARC. The Committee recommendation for ARC is 
$38,500,000, $27,500,000 less than the budget request. The 
reduction is to be taken from the area development activities 
that serve other than distressed counties and distressed areas.
    Within available funds, the Committee directs the 
Commission to provide $1,000,000 to facilitate construction of 
the Farmers' Ethanol biorefinery and supporting infrastructure 
in Perry County, Ohio.

                Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board

                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES




Appropriation, 2004...................................       $19,444,000
Budget Estimate, 2005.................................        20,268,000
Recommended, 2005.....................................        20,268,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2004...............................          +824,000
    Budget Estimate, 2005.............................  ................


    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 $20,268,000, the 
same as the budget request.

                        Delta Regional Authority




Appropriation, 2004...................................        $4,971,000
Budget Estimate, 2005.................................         2,096,000
Recommended, 2005.....................................         2,096,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2004...............................        -2,875,000
    Budget Estimate, 2005.............................  ................


    The conference report accompanying the Energy and Water 
Development Appropriations Act, 2003, directed the Delta 
Regional Authority to submit a detailed budget justification 
for future budget requests. The Committee commends the 
Authority for doing so as part of its fiscal year 2005 budget 
request. The Committee recommendation is $2,096,000, the same 
as the budget request.

                           Denali Commission




Appropriation, 2004...................................       $54,676,000
Budget Estimate, 2005.................................         2,500,000
Recommended, 2005.....................................  ................
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2004...............................       -54,676,000
    Budget Estimate, 2005.............................        -2,500,000


    In the absence of a detailed budget justification as 
previously directed by this Committee, the Committee 
recommendation does not provide any funds for the Denali 
Commission in fiscal year 2005.

                     Nuclear Regulatory Commission


                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES




Appropriation, 2004...................................      $618,328,000
Budget Estimate, 2005.................................       662,777,000
Recommended, 2005.....................................       662,777,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2004...............................       +44,449,000
    Budget Estimate, 2005.............................  ................


                                REVENUES




Appropriation, 2004...................................     $-538,844,000
Budget Estimate, 2005.................................      -534,354,000
Recommended, 2005.....................................      -534,354,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2004...............................        +4,490,000
    Budget Estimate, 2005.............................  ................


                           NET APPROPRIATION




Appropriation, 2004...................................       $79,484,000
Budget Estimate, 2005.................................       128,423,000
Recommended, 2005.....................................       128,423,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2004...............................       +48,939,000
    Budget Estimate, 2005.............................  ................


    The Committee recommendation for the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission (NRC) salaries and expenses is $662,777,000, the 
same as the budget request. This amount is offset by estimated 
revenues of $534,354,000, resulting in a net appropriation of 
$128,423,000. The recommendation includes the requested amount 
of $69,050,000 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 2005 to recover 
90 percent of its budget authority, less the appropriation from 
the Nuclear Waste Fund, by assessing license and annual fees. 
Of the $662,777,000 gross appropriation, $69,050,000 is drawn 
from the Nuclear Waste Fund, 90 percent of the balance of 
$593,727,000 (i.e., $534,354,000) is funded by fees collected 
from NRC licensees, and the remaining 10 percent (i.e., 
$59,373,000) is funded from the General Fund of the Treasury.
    Bar on New Reactor Licensing.--As stated elsewhere in this 
report, the Committee believes strongly that having an 
operational repository for the safe and secure long-term 
disposal of spent nuclear fuel is a necessary condition before 
any new commercial nuclear reactors can be built in the United 
States. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to license any 
new reactors without a certain disposal path for the spent 
nuclear fuel would be unjustifiable and irresponsible. The 
Committee includes bill language prohibiting the Commission 
from using funds made available in this Act or other 
appropriations Acts for fiscal year 2005, or for previous 
fiscal years, to issue a license during fiscal year 2005 for 
the construction or operation of a new commercial nuclear power 
plant. This prohibition extends to the full amount of the NRC 
appropriation, including that portion which is offset via 
revenues collected during the year. The prohibition does not 
extend to license extensions for existing reactors, nor to 
acceptance and evaluation of new reactor license applications.
    Spent Nuclear Fuel Storage.--In the conference report 
accompanying the Energy and Water Development Appropriations 
Act, 2004, the conferees directed the National Academy of 
Sciences (NAS) to conduct a study on the safety and security of 
spent nuclear fuel storage at commercial reactor sites. The NAS 
study committee will likely provide a number of technical 
recommendations, including recommendations to the Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission to: (1) take several immediate steps to 
improve the safety and security of wet storage facilities at 
commercial nuclear power plants; (2) perform additional 
analyses of the vulnerabilities of wet storage to specific 
types of terrorist attacks and, based on the results of these 
vulnerability analyses, take additional plant-specific actions 
to address any identified vulnerabilities; and (3) make changes 
in some operational procedures to enhance communications with 
operators about possible vulnerabilities and appropriate 
mitigative actions. The Committee expects the Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission to take the recommendations in the final 
NAS report seriously and to take actions to address these 
recommendations at the earliest possible date. The Committee 
directs the Commission to report back to the House and Senate 
Committees on Appropriations within 90 days of enactment 
identifying the specific actions being taken to address the NAS 
recommendations.
    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, 2004...................................        $7,297,000
Budget Estimate, 2005.................................         7,518,000
Recommended, 2005.....................................         7,518,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2004...............................          +221,000
    Budget Estimate, 2005.............................  ................


                                REVENUES




Appropriation, 2004...................................       $-6,716,000
Budget Estimate, 2005.................................        -6,766,000
Recommended, 2005.....................................        -6,766,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2004...............................           -50,000
    Budget Estimate, 2005.............................  ................


                           NET APPROPRIATION




Appropriation, 2004...................................          $581,000
Budget Estimate, 2005.................................           752,000
Recommended, 2005.....................................           752,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2004...............................          +171,000
    Budget Estimate, 2005.............................  ................


    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $7,518,000, 
the same as the budget request. The Commission is required by 
law to recover 90 percent of this budget authority in fiscal 
year 2005 through the assessment of license and annual fees. 
Therefore, the revenue estimate is $6,766,000, resulting in a 
net appropriation for the NRC Inspector General of $752,000.

                  Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board





Appropriation, 2004...................................        $3,158,000
Budget Estimate, 2005.................................         3,177,000
Recommended, 2005.....................................         3,177,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2004...............................           +19,000
    Budget Estimate, 2005.............................  ................


    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 and transportation 
of high-level radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel.
    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $3,177,000 for 
the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board, the same as the 
budget request and an increase of $21,000 over fiscal year 2004 
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.
    Transfers.--Section 503 includes language regarding the 
transfer of funds made available in this Act to other 
departments or agencies of the Federal government.
              HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES REPORT REQUIREMENTS

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

                        Constitutional Authority

    Clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives states that:

          Each report of a committee on a public bill or public 
        joint resolution shall contain the following: (1) A 
        statement citing the specific powers granted to 
        Congress in the Constitution to enact the law proposed 
        by the bill or joint resolution.

    The Committee on Appropriations bases its authority to 
report this legislation from Clause 7 of Section 9 of Article I 
of the Constitution of the United States of America which 
states:

          No money shall be drawn from the Treasury but in 
        consequence of Appropriations made by law.

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

                   Comparison With Budget Resolution

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

                                            [In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      302(b) Allocation                     This bill
                                             -------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Budget                            Budget
                                                 authority         Outlays         authority         Outlays
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary...............................           27,988           27,972           27,988           27,970
Mandatory...................................                0                0                0                0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

         Statement of General Performance Goals and Objectives

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

                      Five-Year Outlay Projections

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

                                                                Millions
Budget Authority........................................
Outlays:
    2005................................................          18,412
    2006................................................           8,130
    2007................................................           1,392
    2008................................................              48
    2009 and beyond.....................................               9

               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........................................              37
Fiscal year 2005 outlays resulting therefrom............               4

                           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 $53,299,000 shall be available for 
        transfer to the Upper Colorado River Basin Fund and 
        $33,794,000 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 further, That such transfers may be 
        increased or decreased within the overall 
        appropriations under this heading: * * *

    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, and requiring an 
evaluation of additional flood damage reduction measures for 
the Southwest Valley Flood Damage Reduction Study, Albuquerque, 
New Mexico.
    Language has been included under Construction, General, 
permitting the use of funds from the Inland Waterways Trust 
Fund and the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund.
    Language has been included under Construction, General, 
directing the Corps of Engineers to: continue construction of 
the Dallas Floodway Extension, Texas, project; accept advance 
funds from the non-Federal sponsor of the Los Angeles Harbor, 
California, project; proceed with the New York Harbor Deepening 
project under certain conditions; proceed with certain 
activities related to elements of the Big Sandy and Upper 
Cumberland River project; carry out additional activities for 
the Tampa Harbor, Florida, navigation project, under certain 
conditions; conduct activities relating to the Cape Girardeau, 
Missouri, project, under certain conditions; and proceed with 
Folsom Bridge Dam Road, California, under certain conditions.
    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; maintenance of 
harbor channels provided by a State, municipality, or other 
public agency that serve essential navigation needs of general 
commerce; and surveys and charting of northern and northwestern 
lakes and connecting waters, clearing and straightening 
channels, and removing obstructions to navigation.
    Language has been included under Operation and Maintenance, 
General, permitting the use of funds from the Harbor 
Maintenance Trust Fund; providing for use of funds from a 
special account for resource protection, research, 
interpretation, and maintenance activities at outdoor 
recreation areas; and allowing use of funds to cover the cost 
of operation and maintenance of dredged material disposal 
facilities for which fees have been collected.
    Language has been included under Operation and Maintenance, 
General, directing the use of funds to rehabilitate the 
existing dredged material disposal site for the Bodega Bay 
Harbor, California, project to continue maintenance dredging of 
the Federal channel, and to make excavated material from the 
site available to the non-Federal sponsor at no cost to the 
Federal Government for use in development of public facilities.
    Language has been included under General Expenses regarding 
support of the Humphreys Engineer Support Center Activity, the 
Institute for Water Resources, the United States Army Corps of 
Engineers Research and Development Center, and headquarters 
support functions at the United States Army Corps of Engineers 
Finance Center.
    Language has been included under General Expenses 
prohibiting the use of other Title I funds for the Office of 
the Chief of Engineers and the division offices, and 
prohibiting the use of funds to support an office of 
congressional affairs within the executive office of the Chief 
of Engineers.
    Language has been included to provide funding for the 
Office of Assistant Secretary of the Army.
    Language has been included under Administrative Provisions 
providing that funds are available for official reception and 
representation expenses, and for purchase and hire of motor 
vehicles.
    Language has been included under General Provisions, 
Section 101, placing a limit on credits and reimbursements 
allowable per project and annually for all projects.
    Language has been included under General Provisions, 
Section 102, prohibiting the expenditure of funds related to a 
proposed landfill in Tuscarawas County, Ohio.
    Language has been included under General Provisions, 
Section 103, prohibiting the use of funds to transfer any 
functions of the United States Army Corps of Engineers to other 
government agencies without specific Congressional direction.
    Language has been included under General Provisions, 
Section 104, prohibiting the expenditure of funds related to a 
proposed landfill in Stark County, Ohio.
    Language has been included under General Provisions, 
Section 105, modifying the flood protection project at 
Alamogordo, New Mexico.
    Language has been included under General Provisions, 
Section 106, amending Public Law 106-541 by changing the date 
to ``2007''.
    Language has been included under General Provisions, 
Section 107, directing completion of the general reevaluation 
report of the Mill Creek, Ohio, project, within 15 months of 
enactment of this Act.
    Language has been included under General Provisions, 
Section 108, providing credit to the non-Federal sponsor for 
work performed at the Ashtabula River, Ohio, project.
    Language has been included under General Provisions, 
Section 109, relating to design of the Central Riverfront Park 
project in Cincinnati, Ohio, and providing credit to the non-
Federal sponsor for work performed.
    Language has been included under General Provisions, 
Section 110, prohibiting the use of funds for certain 
activities on dredges operated by the Corps of Engineers.

                  TITLE II--DEPARTMENT OF THE 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 has been included under Water and Related 
Resources allowing fund transfers within the overall 
appropriation to the Upper Colorado River Basin Fund and the 
Lower Colorado River Basin Development Fund; providing that 
such sums as necessary may be advanced to the Colorado River 
Dam Fund; providing that funds may be used for work carried out 
by the Youth Conservation Corps; and providing that transfers 
may be increased or decreased within the overall appropriation.
    Language has been included under Water and Related 
Resources providing that funds may be derived from the 
Reclamation Fund or the special fee account established by 16 
U.S.C. 460l-6a(i); that funds contributed under 43 U.S.C. 395 
by non-Federal entities shall be available for expenditure; and 
that funds advanced under 43 U.S.C. 397a for operation and 
maintenance of reclamation facilities are to be credited to the 
Water and Related Resources account.
    Language has been included under Water and Related 
Resources permitting the use of funds available for the 
Departmental Irrigation Drainage Program for site remediation 
on a non-reimbursable basis.
    Language has been included under Water and Related 
Resources amending the Reclamation States Emergency Drought 
Relief Act of 1991.
    Language has been included under the Central Valley Project 
Restoration Fund directing the Bureau of Reclamation to assess 
and collect the full amount of additional mitigation and 
restoration payments authorized by section 3407(d) of Public 
Law 102-575.
    Language has been included under the Central Valley Project 
Restoration Fund providing that none of the funds may be used 
for the acquisition or lease of water for in-stream purposes if 
the water is already committed to in-stream purposes by 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 shall be available for activities budgeted as policy and 
administration expenses.
    Language has been provided under Administrative Provisions 
providing for the purchase of motor vehicles.
    Language has been included under General Provisions, 
Section 201, regarding the San Luis Unit and the Kesterson 
Reservoir in California. This language has been carried in 
prior appropriations Acts.
    Language has been included under General Provisions, 
Section 202, prohibiting 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.

                    TITLE III--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

    Language has been included under Energy Supply providing 
for the purchase of motor vehicles.
    Language has been included under Science providing for the 
purchase of motor vehicles.
    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, 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. This language has 
been carried in prior appropriations Acts.
    Language has been included under Departmental 
Administration providing not to exceed $35,000 for official 
reception and representation expenses.
    Language has been included under Weapons Activities 
providing for the purchase of motor vehicles.
    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 Defense Environmental 
Services providing for the purchase of not to exceed three 
ambulances.
    Language has been included under Bonneville Power 
Administration Fund providing not to exceed $1,500 for official 
reception and representation expenses, and precluding any new 
direct loan obligations.
    Language has been included under Southeastern Power 
Administration providing that, not withstanding the provisions 
of 31 U.S.C. 3302, amounts collected to recover purchase power 
and wheeling expenses shall be credited to the account as 
offsetting collections and remain available until expended for 
the sole purpose of making purchase power and wheeling 
expenditures.
    Language has been included under Southwestern Power 
Administration 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, and to provide 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 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 Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission to permit the hire of passenger motor vehicles, to 
provide official reception not to exceed $3,000 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 prior appropriation Acts.
    Language has been included under Department of Energy, 
General Provisions, Section 301, providing that none of the 
funds may be used to make payments for a noncompetitive 
management and operating contract unless certain conditions are 
met.
    Language has been included under Department of Energy, 
General Provisions, Section 302, 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, Section 303, 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, Section 304, 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, Section 305, providing that unexpended 
balances of prior appropriations may be transferred and merged 
with new appropriation accounts established in this Act.
    Language has been included under Department of Energy, 
General Provisions, Section 306, 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, Section 307, requiring the Department of 
Energy to ensure broad public notice when it makes a user 
facility available to universities and other potential users or 
seeks input regarding significant characteristics or equipment 
in a user facility or a proposed 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, Section 308, allowing the manager of a 
nuclear weapons facility 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, Section 309, 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 2005 until enactment of the 
Intelligence Authorization Act for fiscal year 2005.
    Language has been included under Department of Energy, 
General Provisions, Section 310, prohibiting the use of funds 
to select a site for a Modern Pit Facility during fiscal year 
2005.
    Language has been included under Department of Energy, 
General Provisions, Section 311, prohibiting the use of funds 
in this or any other appropriations Act in fiscal year 2005 to 
finance laboratory directed research and development activities 
on behalf of other Federal agencies.
    Language has been included under the Department of Energy, 
General Provisions, Section 312, providing that none of the 
funds made available in this act may be expended to support the 
export of nuclear material, technology, or equipment to 
countries that have been identified by the Secretary of State 
as state sponsors of terrorist activities.

                     TITLE IV--INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

    Language has been included under Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission permitting the use of funds for official reception 
and representation expenses not to exceed $15,000, and allowing 
the purchase of promotional items for use in recruiting new 
employees.
    Language has been included under Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission to permit the use of revenues collected to offset 
appropriations, notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302. This language 
has been carried in prior appropriations Acts.
    Language has been included under Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission prohibiting the use of funds by the Commission to 
issue a license during fiscal year 2005 to construct or operate 
a new commercial power plant.
    Language has been included under Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission, Office of Inspector General, to permit the use of 
revenues collected to offset appropriations, notwithstanding 31 
U.S.C. 3302. This language has been carried in prior 
appropriations Acts.

                      TITLE V--GENERAL PROVISIONS

    Language has been included under General Provisions, 
Section 501, 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, 
Section 502, requiring, to the greatest extent practicable, 
that all equipment and goods purchased should be American-made, 
and prohibiting contracts with persons falsely labeling 
products as ``Made in America.''
    Language has been included under General Provisions, 
Section 503, 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 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 subsection 214(a) of 
Public Law 106-541, the Water Resources Development Act of 
2000, as follows:

          (a) In General.--In fiscal year 2001 through [2003] 
        2007, the Secretary, after public notice, may accept 
        and expend funds contributed by non-Federal public 
        entities to expedite the evaluation of permits under 
        the jurisdiction of the Department of the Army.

    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 be 
        appropriated not more than $90,000,000 in total for 
        fiscal years 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1999, 2000, 
        2001, 2002, 2003, [and 2004] 2004, and 2005.

                  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\)         $190,000
     Program................................
Department of Energy:
    Energy Supply:
        Renewable Energy Resources:
            Biomass and biorefinery systems              1993            (\2\)            (\4\)           72,596
             R&D............................
            Geothermal Technology...........             1993          $23,000            (\4\)           25,800
            Hydrogen Technology.............             2001           40,000          $27,000           64,285
            Hydropower......................             1982           11,700            (\4\)            5,000
            Solar Energy....................             1993            (\2\)            (\4\)           82,733
            Wind Energy.....................             1993            (\2\)            (\4\)           41,600
            Intergovernmental Activities....             1995            (\3\)            (\4\)           17,000
            Departmental Energy Management               1984            (\3\)            (\4\)            1,967
             Program........................
            National Renewable Energy                    1984            (\3\)            (\4\)           11,480
             Laboratory.....................
            Program Direction...............             1984            (\3\)            (\4\)           20,711
            Electricity Transmission and                (\6\)            (\6\)            (\6\)           75,354
             Distribution...................
        Nuclear Energy:
            University Reactor Fuel                      1974            (\2\)            (\4\)           24,000
             Assistance and Support.........
            Research and Development........             1994            (\7\)            (\4\)          122,546
            Infrastructure..................  \12\ 1974, 1992            (\2\)            (\4\)          250,263
            Spent Nuclear Fuel Management...             1984            (\2\)            (\4\)            6,723
            Program Direction...............             1992            (\2\)            (\4\)           60,285
        Environment, Safety and Health......             1974            (\2\)            (\4\)           28,000
        Office of Legacy Management.........           (\10\)            (\2\)            (\4\)           31,130
Non-Defense Site Acceleration Completion....             1984            (\5\)            (\5\)          151,850
Non-Defense Environmental Services..........             1974            (\2\)            (\4\)          291,296
Science.....................................             1984          500,000          635,417        3,271,233
    High Energy Physics.....................             1984            (\3\)          477,947          753,380
    Nuclear Physics.........................             1984            (\3\)          155,220          415,040
    Biological and Environmental Research...             1994            (\3\)          388,298          571,590
    Basic Energy Sciences...................             1994            (\3\)          743,590        1,076,530
    Advanced Scientific Computing Research..             1996          169,000          111,068          234,340
    Science Laboratories Infrastructure.....             1994            (\3\)           39,327           42,336
    Fusion Energy Sciences..................             1994          380,000          322,277          276,110
    Program Direction.......................             1984            (\2\)            (\4\)          155,268
Departmental Administration.................             1984          246,963          185,682          121,876
Office of Inspector General.................             1984            (\2\)           14,670           37,671
Atomic Energy Defense Activities:
    National Nuclear Security
     Administration:
        Weapons Activities..................             2004        6,434,772        6,272,511        6,514,424
        Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation....             2004        1,332,195        1,327,612        1,348,647
        Naval Reactors......................             2004          768,400          766,400          807,900
        Office of the Administrator.........             2004          341,980          339,980          356,200
Defense Site Acceleration Completion........             2004        5,814,635        5,651,062        5,930,837
Defense Environmental Services..............             2004          995,179          991,144          957,976
Other Defense Activities....................             2004          489,059          674,491          697,059
Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal..............             2004          392,500          390,000          131,000
Power Marketing Administrations:
    Southeastern Power Administration.......             1984           24,240           39,463           39,200
    Southwestern Power Administration.......             1984           40,254           29,288           31,152
    Western Area Power Administration.......             1984          259,700          237,037          362,768
    Falcon and Amistad Operating and                     1995            (\2\)            2,663            2,827
     Maintenance Fund.......................
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission........             1984          275,000          175,200          210,000
Independent Agencies:
    Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board.             2004           19,500           19,444           20,268
    Nuclear Regulatory Commission...........             1985          460,000          448,200          662,777
    Nuclear Regulatory Commission: Office of             1985            (\9\)            (\9\)           7,518
     Inspector General......................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Program was initiated in 1972 and has never received a separate authorization.
\2\ No amount specified.
\3\ Authorized level provided for multiple programs with no separate program allowances.
\4\ Funding for these activities was spread throughout multiple programs with no individual amount specified.
\5\ Funding for these activities was spread throughout many programs with no amount specified. The last year of
  authorization was 1984. In 1989, cleanup activities were merged into the non-defense environmental management
  appropriation account. There has not been a separate authorization for this account.
\6\ New program in fiscal year 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 Inspector General in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
  was in fiscal year 1990. Prior to that, the NRC-IG was included within the overall authorization and
  appropriation for the NRC.
\10\ New program in fiscal year 2004.
\11\ New program in fiscal year 2005.
\12\ Part of each year.

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

                              Rescissions

    Pursuant to clause 3(f)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the Committee reports that it 
recommends no rescissions in the bill.

                          Full Committee Votes

    Pursuant to the provisions of clause 3(b) of rule XIII of 
the Rules of the House of Representatives, the results of each 
rollcall vote on an amendment or on the motion to report, 
together with the names of those voting for and those voting 
against, are printed below:
    There were no rollcall votes.

    
    
