73-372
1st Session
107-112
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2002
| June 26, 2001- Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union and ordered to be printed | |
| Mr. CALLAHAN, from the Committee on Appropriations, submitted the following | |
| REPORT | |
| together with | |
| ADDITIONAL VIEWS | |
| [To accompany H.R. 2311] |
The Committee on Appropriations submits the following report in explanation of the accompanying bill making appropriations for energy and water development for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2002, and for other purposes.
| INDEX TO BILL AND REPORT | Page Number | |
| Bill | Report | |
| Introduction | 1 | 3 |
| I. Department of Defense--Civil: | ||
| Corps of Engineers--Civil: | ||
| Introduction | 2 | 5 |
| General investigations | 2 | 6 |
| Construction, general | 3 | 33 |
| Flood control, Mississippi River and tributaries, Arkansas, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, and Tennessee | 6 | 50 |
| Operation and maintenance, general | 7 | 55 |
| Regulatory program | 8 | 76 |
| Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program | 8 | 76 |
| General expenses | 9 | 77 |
| Administrative provisions | 9 | |
| General provisions | 10 | 78 |
| II. Department of the Interior: | ||
| Central Utah Project completion account | 12 | 79 |
| Bureau of Reclamation: | ||
| Water and related resources | 13 | 79 |
| Bureau of Reclamation loan program account | 14 | 90 |
| Central Valley Project restoration fund | 15 | 92 |
| California Bay-Delta ecosystem restoration | 92 | |
| Policy and administration | 15 | 93 |
| Administrative provision | 16 | |
| General provisions | 16 | 93 |
| III. Department of Energy: | ||
| Introduction | 17 | 95 |
| Energy supply | 17 | 101 |
| Non-defense environmental management | 18 | 109 |
| Uranium facilities maintenance and remediation | 18 | 111 |
| Science | 19 | 112 |
| Nuclear waste disposal | 19 | 117 |
| Departmental administration | 21 | 120 |
| Office of Inspector General | 22 | 122 |
| Atomic energy defense activities: | ||
| National Nuclear Security Administration: | ||
| Weapons activities | 22 | 123 |
| Defense nuclear nonproliferation | 23 | 127 |
| Naval reactors | 23 | 133 |
| Office of the administrator | 24 | 134 |
| Environmental and Other Defense Activities: | ||
| Defense environmental restoration and waste management | 24 | 134 |
| Defense facilities closure projects | 25 | 140 |
| Defense environmental management privatization | 25 | 142 |
| Other defense activities | 25 | 142 |
| Defense nuclear waste disposal | 26 | 147 |
| Power marketing administrations: | ||
| Bonneville Power Administration | 26 | 148 |
| Southeastern Power Administration | 26 | 149 |
| Southwestern Power Administration | 27 | 149 |
| Western Area Power Administration | 28 | 150 |
| Falcon and Amistad operating and maintenance fund | 29 | 150 |
| Federal Energy Regulatory Commission | 29 | 151 |
| General provisions | 30 | 164 |
| IV. Independent agencies: | ||
| Appalachian Regional Commission | 34 | 169 |
| Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board | 35 | 169 |
| Delta Regional Authority | 169 | |
| Denali Commission | 170 | |
| Nuclear Regulatory Commission | 35 | 170 |
| Office of Inspector General | 36 | 171 |
| Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board | 37 | 172 |
| V. General provisions | 37 | 173 |
| House reporting requirements | 175 | |
The Committee has considered budget estimates which are contained in the Budget of the United States Government, 2002. The following table summarizes appropriations for fiscal year 2001 the budget estimates, and amounts recommended in the bill for fiscal year 2002.
[Dollars in thousands]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2001 2002 estimate 2002 recommendation compared with--
2002 recommendation 2001 appropriation 2002 estimate
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Title I--Department of Defense--Civil $4,541,065 $3,900,000 $4,468,233 ($72,832) $568,233
Title II--Department of the Interior 816,637 819,727 842,890 26,253 23,163
Title III--Department of Energy 18,475,148 18,106,554 18,747,360 272,212 640,806
Title IV--Independent Agencies 171,474 181,721 136,517 (34,957) (45,204)
Title V--Rescissions (172,000) 172,000
Title VI--Emergency Supplemental 213,988 (213,988)
Subtotal 24,046,312 23,008,002 24,195,000 148,688 1,186,998
Scorekeeping adjustments (489,982) (491,000) (491,000) (1,018)
Grand Total of bill 23,556,330 22,517,002 23,704,000 147,670 1,186,998
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2002 totals $23,704,000,000, which is $147,670,000 above the amount appropriated in fiscal year 2001, and $1,186,998,000 above the President's budget request. Under constrained funding conditions, the Committee has given priority to maintaining the existing inventory of Corps of Engineers and Bureau of Reclamation water resources projects; continuing construction of ongoing water resources projects to avoid increased costs from stretching out project schedules; protecting basic science programs at the Department of Energy; investing in new energy technologies; providing sufficient funds for the Secretary of Energy to make a recommendation on the suitability of Yucca Mountain as a repository for the nation's nuclear waste; maintaining the nation's nuclear weapons stockpile; and providing for cleanup of contaminated Department of Energy sites.
There has been much interest in how this bill would address the Nation's energy shortages. The Committee wishes to emphasize that the Department of Energy's energy technology programs are not designed to provide immediate relief for the energy crisis. Instead, the energy technology programs consist primarily of research and development into technologies such as renewable energy which are intended to provide long-term solutions to the nation's energy needs. Near-term deployment of available energy technologies is best accomplished through incentives other than appropriations.
The National Energy Policy directed the appropriate Federal agencies to take actions to remove constraints on the interstate transmission grid and to allow our nation's electricity supply to meet the growing needs of the economy. The Secretary of Energy was directed to examine the benefits of establishing a national grid, identify transmission bottlenecks, and identify measures to remove transmission bottlenecks. The Committee expects to address these issues throughout the appropriations process as information becomes available on possible remedies requiring Congressional appropriations action.
Title I of the bill provides $4,468,233,000 for the programs of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, a decrease of $72,832,000 from fiscal year 2001 and $568,233,000 over the budget request of $3,900,000,000. The Committee has maintained nearly level funding for the civil works program despite budgetary constraints. By concentrating resources on traditional missions such as flood control and navigation which yield the greatest economic benefits for the nation, the Committee seeks to ensure the highest possible payback on taxpayer investment. The Committee has generally been unable to provide funds for new construction projects within the water resources programs of the Corps of Engineers.
Title II provides $842,890,000 for the Department of Interior and the Bureau of Reclamation, an increase of $26,253,000 over fiscal year 2001 and $23,163,000 over the budget request of $819,727,000. The Committee has not provided funding for the California Bay-Delta Restoration program in California pending the enactment of authorizing legislation.
Title III provides $18,747,360,000 for the Department of Energy, an increase of $272,212,000 over fiscal year 2001 and $640,806,000 over the budget request of $18,106,554,000. The Committee has provided additional funding for energy technology, environmental cleanup, and nuclear nonproliferation programs. Basic research and science programs are supported at a level consistent with fiscal year 2001. In addition, $7 billion is provided for environmental cleanup programs to remediate contaminated defense and non-defense sites throughout the nation, and $443 million is provided for the nuclear waste fund program in support of a final geologic repository for spent fuel high-level nuclear waste.
Funding for the National Nuclear Security Administration, which includes nuclear weapons activities, defense nuclear nonproliferation, naval reactors, and the office of the administrator is $6,667,274,000, an increase of $90,225,000 over fiscal year 2001 and a decrease of $109,496,000 from the budget request.
Title IV provides $136,517,000 for several Independent Agencies, a decrease of $34,957,000 from fiscal year 2001 and a decrease of $45,204,000 below the budget request of $181,720,000. Funding is provided for the Appalachian Regional Commission, the Defense Nuclear Facilities Board, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and its Inspector General, and the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board.
The Committee is very concerned about the level of funding requested by the Administration for the water resources programs of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The amount requested by the Administration is about $640 million below the amount appropriated in fiscal year 2001. At the level of funding recommended by the Administration, ongoing construction projects would have been funded at an average of only 57% of their capability, with the result being that $5.8 billion in benefits would be forgone due to delayed completion dates. In addition, $500 million in increased costs would be incurred for these projects due to stretched out completion schedules.
The Committee understands that the new Administration did not have time to fully analyze the importance of the Corps of Engineers' missions to the economic well-being of the Nation. Here are some examples of that importance. The Corps of Engineers is responsible for constructing and maintaining the Nation's ports and waterways. In 1999, about 2.3 billion tons of commerce moved through and on those ports and waterways. The value of the foreign commerce handled at ports is about $672 billion. The Federal taxes generated by waterborne commerce at ports is $150 billion per year. Those ports also generate about 13 million jobs. In the area of flood control, Corps projects have prevented an annual average of over $20 billion in damages between 1991 and 2000. Since 1928, Corps of Engineers flood control projects have prevented almost $6.00 for each dollar expended. The Corps of Engineers operates 75 hydroelectric power projects, which have an installed generating capacity of 20,720 megawatts. These plants provide 24% of the Nation's hydropower output and 3% of total U.S. generating capacity. Even though the Corps does not construct projects for the sole purpose of recreation, recreation at Corps projects also contributes significantly to the Nation's economy. About 10% of the U.S. population visits at least one Corps project each year and those visitors spend $15 billion per year. That visitation supports about 600,000 full- and part-time jobs.
For fiscal year 2002, the Committee has recommended $4,328,233,000 for the Civil Works functions of the Corps of Engineers, $568,233,000 over the amount requested by the Administration (the total amount of $4,468,233,000 recommended for the Corps of Engineers includes $140,000,000 for the Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program). Even at this level, the Committee's recommendation includes no new construction starts, and many ongoing projects are funded well below their optimum levels.
In the last year, the Corps of Engineers has received a significant amount of external criticism, most of it centered around an ongoing study, for which the Corps has never made a recommendation, of the need to expand the navigation capacity of the upper Mississippi River and Illinois Waterway. The Committee believes that that study was poorly managed by the Corps of Engineers; however, the National Academy of Sciences has found that the Corps' officers who questioned the preliminary results of the study were completely justified in doing so since those preliminary results were based on a seriously flawed model. It is unfortunate that the Army Inspector General did not have the benefit of the National Academy's work before it issued a report critical of those officers. The other major area of criticism leveled at the Corps was that it was secretly trying to grow its program. The Committee finds this criticism to be somewhat absurd. The Corps currently has a backlog on active projects of $40 billion. The Corps has plenty of work to keep it busy for years to come even if Congress enacts no new project authorizations, which is highly unlikely. The Committee believes that it is the American people, who have recognized the need for increased investment in water resources, who have been attempting to expand the Corps' programs.
Some have also criticized the Corps for not being `green' enough when, in fact, the Corps has requested over $300 million for construction of projects it categorizes as `environmental' and 36% of its ongoing studies have environmental restoration as their primary purpose. Some think the Corps has become too `green.' The Committee fully supports the environmental restoration efforts being undertaken by the Corps, but urges it to maintain a balance in its work and not lose sight of its traditional missions of navigation and flood control, which are so important to the Nation's economy.
-------------------------------------
-------------------------------------
Appropriation, 2001 $160,584,000
Budget Estimate, 2002 130,000,000
Recommended, 2002 163,260,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2001 +2,676,000
Budget Estimate, 2002 +33,260,000
-------------------------------------
The budget request and the approved Committee allowance are shown on the following table:
False Pass Harbor, Alaska.--The Committee has provided $313,000 for the Corps of Engineers to accelerate completion of plans and specifications for the False Pass Harbor, Alaska, project.
Colonias Along the U.S.-Mexico Border, Arizona.--The Committee has provided $100,000 for the Corps of Engineers to initiate detailed design and plans and specifications for a wastewater treatment facility and distribution system in the City of Marana, Pima County, Arizona.
Tucson Drainage Area, Arizona.--The bill includes $410,000 for the Corps of Engineers to complete preconstruction engineering and design for the Tucson Drainage Area, Arizona, project.
Va Shly-Ah Akimel Salt River Restoration Project, Arizona.--The Committee has provided an additional $300,000 for the Va Shly-Ah Akimel Salt River Restoration Project in Arizona to advance completion of the study by one year.
Pine Mountain Dam, Arkansas.--The Committee has provided $200,000 for the Corps of Engineers to update the design for the Pine Mountain Dam project in Arkansas.
White River Navigation, Arkansas.--The Committee has provided $169,000 for the Corps of Engineers to complete the ongoing studies for the White River Navigation to Newport, Arkansas, project.
Arroyo Seco Watershed, California- The Committee has provided $100,000 for the Corps of Engineers to evaluate non-structural flood control management, opportunities for water quality improvement, and habitat restoration in the Arroyo Seco Watershed.
City of San Bernardino, California.--The bill includes $250,000 for the Corps of Engineers to initiate a feasibility study of flooding problems and environmental restoration opportunities in the City of San Bernardino, California.
City of Santa Clarita, California.--The Committee has provided $100,000 for the Corps of engineers to undertake a reconnaissance study of flood control improvements and environmental restoration opportunities in the City of Santa Clarita, California.
Coast of California, Los Angeles, County, California.--The Committee has provided $400,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue the feasibility phase of the study of long-term shoreline changes, as well as coastal processes information needed to plan and design future shore protection projects.
Huntington Beach, Coastal Bluff Erosion, California.--The bill includes $400,000 for preconstruction engineering and design for a project to correct a serious erosion problem of the coastal bluff adjacent to the Pacific Coast Highway in Huntington Beach, California.
Murrieta Creek, California- The Committee has included language in the bill which directs the Secretary of the Army to proceed with the Murrieta Creek, California, project in accordance with the cost sharing established for the project in Public Law 106-377.
Newport Bay (LA-3 Site Designation Study), California.--The Committee has provided $300,000 for the Corps of Engineers to complete monitoring studies to secure a permanent designation of the LA-3 Ocean Disposal Site.
Regional Conservation/Conjunctive Use Project, California.--The Committee has provided $200,000 for the Corps of Engineers to complete the reconnaissance and feasibility studies for the regional water conservation and recycling project within Placer County, El Dorado County, and the service area of the San Juan Water District.
Riverside County Special Area Management Plan, California.--The Committee has provided $2,000,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue work on Special Area Management Plans for the San Jacinto and Santa Margarita watersheds.
Rock Creek-Keefer Slough Flood Control Project, California.--The Committee has included language in the bill which directs the Corps of Engineers to use the feasibility report prepared under the authority of section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948, as amended, as the basis for the Rock Creek-Keefer Slough Flood Control Project in Butte County, California, and has provided $200,000 for preconstruction engineering and design of the project.
San Diego County Special Area Management Plan, California.--The Committee has provided $1,000,000 for completion of the Otay River Watershed Special Area Management Plan and initiation of the San Luis Rey River Watershed plan.
San Diego County Shoreline, California.--The Committee has provided $750,000 to continue the study of the erosion of the City of Oceanside's beaches.
Santa Ana River and Tributaries, Big Bear Lake, California.--The bill includes $100,000 for the Corps of Engineers to undertake a reconnaissance study of environmental restoration, water quality, and related issues at Big Bear Lake, California.
Santa Barbara and Ventura County Shoreline, California.--The Committee has provided $100,000 for the Corps of Engineers to undertake a reconnaissance study of shoreline erosion problems in Santa Barbara and Ventura Counties.
Fountain Creek and Tributaries, Colorado.--The Committee has provided $175,000 to initiate the feasibility phase of the Fountain Creek and Tributaries study. The Committee recommends that the Corps of Engineers include erosion and sedimentation as a project purpose equal in priority to that of flood damage reduction and environmental restoration along Fountain Creek north of Pueblo, Colorado.
Delaware Coast from Cape Henlopen to Fenwick Island, Fenwick Island, Delaware.--The Committee has provided $200,000 for the Corps of Engineers to initiate preconstruction engineering and design for the Delaware Coast from Cape Henlopen to Fenwick Island, Fenwick Island, Delaware, project.
Egmont Key Shoreline, Florida.--The Committee has provided $500,000 for the Corps of Engineers to study alternatives for shoreline stabilization at Egmont Key. Florida.
Hillsborough River, Florida.--The bill includes $375,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue the study of water conservation, water supply, environmental restoration, and other related problems in the Hillsborough and Withlacoochee River Basins.
New Savannah Bluff Lock and Dam, Georgia.--The Committee has provided $800,000 for preconstruction engineering and design of the project to rehabilitate the New Savannah Bluff Lock and Dam in preparation for transferring the project to the City of North Augusta and Aiken County, South Carolina.
Illinois Beach State Park, Illinois.--The bill includes $250,000 for the Corps of Engineers to complete plans and specifications for the Illinois Beach State Park between Waukegan and Zion, Illinois.
Illinois River Basin Restoration, Illinois.--The Committee has provided $2,000,000 for the Corps Engineers to initiate development of a comprehensive plan for the restoration of the Illinois River Basin.
Upper Mississippi River Comprehensive Study, Illinois, Iowa, Missouri, Minnesota, and Wisconsin.--The bill includes $1,000,000 for the Corps of Engineers to prepare the Upper Mississippi River Comprehensive Plan in accordance with section 459 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999.
Indiana Harbor, Indiana.--The Committee has provided an additional $250,000 to accelerate work on the Indiana Harbor, Indiana, feasibility study.
Fort Dodge, Iowa.--The Committee has provided $100,000 for the Corps of Engineers to undertake a reconnaissance study of enhancement of the Des Moines River at Fort Dodge, Iowa.
North Fork Licking River, Kentucky.--The Committee has provided $100,000 for a reconnaissance study of flood control, water supply, and recreation at North Fork Lake in Bracken, Robertson, and Mason Counties, Kentucky.
West Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana.--The Committee has provided $500,000 for the Corps of Engineers to undertake an expedited study of waterfront and riverine preservation, restoration, and enhancements of the Mississippi River, West Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana, project, and, if justified, proceed directly to preconstruction engineering and design, as authorized by section 517(5) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999.
West Shore, Lake Pontchartrain, Louisiana.--The Committee is aware of concerns expressed by St. John the Baptist Parish regarding proposed levee alignments north of Interstate 10. The Committee included report language on this issue last year, but understands that it remains unresolved. The Committee understands that the delay in resolving this issue could result in the delay of flood protection for citizens in St. John the Baptist Parish and directs the Crops of Engineers to make immediate resolution of this issue a top priority.
Muddy River, Brookline, and Boston, Massachusetts.--The Committee has provided $600,000 for the Corps of Engineers to complete the feasibility study and initiate and complete preconstruction engineering and design for the Muddy River, Brookline, and Boston, Massachusetts, project.
Cass River, Vassar, Michigan.--The Committee has provided $100,000 for a reconnaissance study of flooding problems at Vassar, Michigan.
Belle Island Shoreline, Michigan.--The bill includes $150,000 for the Corps of Engineers to initiate feasibility phase studies for the Belle Island Shoreline project which will identify areas in need of stabilization and also identify where to employ innovative techniques for bank stabilization.
Detroit River Master Plan, Michigan.--The bill includes $100,000 for the Corps of Engineers to develop a master plan for the riverfront and historic trails along the Detroit River, Detroit, Michigan.
Rouge River Watershed, Michigan.--The Committee has provided $200,000 for a basin-wide watershed management study to address flood hazard reduction, riverine ecosystem restoration, and recreation needs in the Rouge River Watershed.
New Madrid Harbor, Missouri.--The Committee has provided $50,000 for the Corps of Engineers to determine if federal maintenance of New Madrid Harbor is economically and environmentally feasible.
St. Clair River and Lake St. Clair, Michigan- The Committee has provided $200,000 for the Corps of Engineers to complete a comprehensive water management reconnaissance study for ecosystem restoration and related purposes in the St. Clair River and Lake St. Clair watershed in Michigan pursuant to section 426 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999.
Hancock County, Mississippi.--The bill includes $100,000 for the Corps of Engineers to undertake a reconnaissance study of the seawall in Hancock County, Mississippi.
Lower Platte River Watershed, Nebraska.--The Committee has provided $200,000 for the Corps of Engineers to assess and plan for water quality improvements in the Lower Platte River watershed.
Lower Las Vegas Wash Wetlands, Nevada.--The Committee has provided an additional $350,000 to accelerate completion of the Lower Las Vegas Wash Wetlands feasibility study.
Goffle Brook, Borough of Hawthorne, New Jersey.--The Committee has provided $100,000 for the Corps of Engineers to undertake a reconnaissance study of flooding problems along Goffle Brook in the Borough of Hawthorne, New Jersey.
New Jersey Shoreline Protection, Alternative Long-Term Nourishment Study, New Jersey.--The Committee has provided $250,000 for feasibility phase studies to develop comprehensive beach inlet and borrow area management strategies to efficiently manage New Jersey sand resources.
Raritan Bay and Sandy Hook Bay, Keyport, New Jersey.--The bill includes $350,000 for the Corps of Engineers to initiate feasibility phase studies for the Raritan Bay and Sandy Hook Bay, Keyport, project.
Southwest Valley Flood Damage Reduction Study, Albuquerque, New Mexico.--The Committee has provided $475,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue, on an expedited basis, the feasibility phase for the Southwest Valley Flood Damage Reduction, Albuquerque, New Mexico, study. The Committee has included language in the bill which directs the Secretary of the Army to include in the study an evaluation of flood reduction measures that would otherwise be excluded based on policies regarding the frequency of flooding, the drainage areas, and the amount of runoff.
Bronx River, New York.--The Committee has provided $300,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue the ongoing Bronx River ecosystem restoration study.
Hudson-Raritan Estuary, New York and New Jersey- The Committee directs the Corps of Engineers to direct sufficient resources from the Hudson-Raritan Estuary project to include in its study area the habitat restoration opportunities in the entirety of the Hackensack Meadowlands ecosystem located in northern New Jersey.
Lake Montauk Harbor, New York.--The Committee has provided $200,000 for the Lake Montauk Harbor study. In conducting this study, the Corps of Engineers should determine if improvements for storm damage reduction for the eastern and western shores adjacent to Lake Montauk Inlet, in conjunction with possible improvements for navigation, are advisable at this time. Beneficial use of dredged material and sand bypassing should also be considered.
Upper Susquehanna River Basin Study, New York.--The Committee has provided $250,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue work on the Upper Susquehanna River Basin study.
Surfside and North Topsail Beach, North Carolina.--The Committee has provided $300,000 for the Corps of Engineers to initiate the feasibility phase of the Surf City and North Topsail Beach, North Carolina, study.
Mahoning River Environmental Dredging, Ohio.--The bill includes $300,000 for the Corps of Engineers to initiate feasibility phase studies for the project to remove contaminated sediments from the Mahoning River.
Western Lake Erie Basin Study, Ohio.--The Committee has provided $300,000 for the Corps of Engineers to complete the reconnaissance level studies for the Western Lake Erie Basin watershed study.
Miami and Vicinity, Oklahoma.--The bill includes $300,000 for the Corps of Engineers to initiate feasibility phase studies for the Miami and Vicinity, Oklahoma, flood control study.
Wister Lake Watershed, Oklahoma.--The Committee has provided $375,000 for the Corps of Engineers to initiate the feasibility phase of the study for watershed management at Wister Lake, Oklahoma.
Schuylkill River, Wissahickon, Pennsylvania.--The Committee has provided $100,000 for reconnaissance study of environmental restoration opportunities along the Schuylkill River at Wissahickon, Pennsylvania.
Charleston Harbor, South Carolina.--The Committee has provided $500,000 for the Corps of Engineers to undertake a reconnaissance study of the deepening of Charleston Harbor, South Carolina.
Reedy River, South Carolina.--The Committee has provided $100,000 for the Corps of Engineers to undertake a reconnaissance study of ecosystem restoration, flood damage reduction, and streambank stabilization in the Reedy River basin in South Carolina.
Chickamauga Lock, Tennessee.--The bill includes $500,000 for the Corps of Engineers to initiate preconstruction engineering and design for the Chickamauga Lock project in Tennessee.
Brazoria County, Texas.--The Committee has provided $100,000 for a reconnaissance study of flooding problems along Mustang Bayou in Brazoria County, Texas.
Sulpher River Environmental Restoration, Texas.--The Committee has provided $200,000 for the Corps of Engineers to initiate feasibility phase studies for the Sulpher River environmental restoration and flood reduction study.
Upper Trinity River Basin, Texas.--The Committee has provided additional funds for the Corps of Engineers to evaluate existing flood control improvements and identify additional measures needed to protect the urban center of Fort Worth, Texas at the confluence of the West and Clear Forks of the Trinity River.
Fourmile Run, Virginia.--The Committee has provided $100,000 for the Corps of Engineers to undertake a reconnaissance study of flood control needs and environmental restoration opportunities in Fourmile Run, Virginia.
Goshen Dam, Virginia.--The Committee has provided $500,000 for the Corps of Engineers to complete plans and specifications for the dam safety improvements at Goshen Dam, Lake Merriweather, Virginia.
Commencement Bay Environmental Dredging, Washington.--The Committee has provided $100,000 for reconnaissance study of environmental dredging needs in Commencement Bay, Washington.
Walla Walla River Watershed, Washington.--The Committee has provided $1,000,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue the feasibility study to restore instream flows in the Walla Walla River in Washington and Oregon.
Erickson/Wood County Public Port, West Virginia.--The bill includes $600,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue preconstruction engineering and design at the Erickson/Wood County public port site.
Parkersburg/Vienna, West Virginia.--The Committee has provided $300,000 for the Corps of Engineers to complete the feasibility report and initiate preconstruction engineering and design for the Parkersburg/Vienna, West Virginia, project.
Weirton Public Port, West Virginia.--The bill includes $400,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue preconstruction engineering and design at the Weirton public port site.
Coastal Field Data Collection.--The Committee has provided an additional $1,000,000 for the Southern California Beach Process Study.
Great Lakes Remedial Action Program.--The Committee has provided $1,000,000 to continue work on the Great Lakes Remedial Action Program.
Planning Assistance to States.--Within the amount provided for the Planning Assistance to States Program, $50,000 is for the preparation of a Comprehensive Drainage Basin Plan for Francis Bland Floodway Ditch (Eight Mile Creek) and tributaries in the vicinity of Paragould, Arkansas, and $100,000 is for the Corps of Engineers to provide planning assistance to develop a master plan for Elk Creek Lake in Fleming County, Kentucky.
Flood Plain Management Services.--Within the amount provided for Flood Plain Management Services, $100,000 is to update a flood plain study for Tripps Run in the City of Falls Church, Virginia. In addition, the amount provided for Flood Plain Management Services includes $1,300,000 for the development of a Foundational Floodplain Management Geographic Information System for East Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana, containing essential graphic and non-graphic detailed databases. The system will facilitate the wisest use and planning within the floodplain, as well as improving the response to emergency situations and watershed planning requirements.
Research and Development.--The Committee has provided $27,300,000 for the Corps of Engineers Research and Development program. Within the amount provided, $3,300,000 is to continue the National Shoreline Erosion Control Development and Demonstration Program authorized by section 227 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996. This program allows the Corps of Engineers to fund the demonstration of innovative techniques for promoting shoreline protection and preventing coastal erosion. Within the funds provided, the Committee has provided $1,300,000 for the Corps of Engineers to demonstrate the effectiveness of erosion control systems consisting of permeable groins installed perpendicular to the shoreline which reduce wave and current energy allowing a portion of the sediment load to fall out of suspension at Gulf State Park in Gulf Shores, Alabama. The Committee also expects the Corps to continue the research program being undertaken along the Lake Michigan shoreline which have revealed the significance of groundwater, rather than waves, as a primary cause of slumps and landslides.
In addition, the Committee encourages the Corps of Engineers to fully investigate the use of electro-osmotic-pulse technologies at facilities where chronic water seepage and floods are problematic.
Within the funds provided for the Research and Development Program, the Committee urges the Corps of Engineers to test the effectiveness of the Aqua Levee emergency flood control system, and report back to the Committee on the feasibility of deploying this emergency flood control system for use in fighting floods.
Cooperation With Institutions of Higher Learning.--The Committee recognizes the ongoing problems associated with severe weather phenomena in coastal regions and encourages the Corps of Engineers, whenever possible, to collaborate with the engineering departments of post secondary institutions in the development of environmental, geotechnical, structural, and hydraulic systems to address and prevent damage caused by severe weather.
---------------------------------------
---------------------------------------
Appropriation, 2001 $1,716,165,000
Budget Estimate, 2002 1,324,000,000
Recommended, 2002 1,671,854,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2001 -44,311,000
Budget Estimate, 2002 +347,854,000
---------------------------------------
The budget request and the approved Committee allowance are shown on the following table:
Rio Salado, Phoenix and Tempe Reaches, Arizona.--The Committee has provided $22,000,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue construction of the Rio Salado project in Arizona.
Fourche Bayou Basin, Arkansas.--The bill includes $180,000 for the Corps of Engineers to complete the Limited Reevaluation Report for the Fourche Bayou Basin, Arkansas, project.
Red River Waterway, Index, Arkansas to Denison Dam, Texas.--The Committee has provided $3,000,000 for the Corps of Engineers to construct a bendway weir bank stabilization project along the Red River in the vicinity of the Oklahoma State Highway 271 bridge. This project will demonstrate the effectiveness of bendway weirs in preventing the severe bank erosion that is occurring on the Red River between Index, Arkansas and Denison Dam, Texas.
City of Santa Clarita, California.--The Committee has provided $2,000,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue the study of perchlorate contamination and the planning for its removal within the Eastern Santa Clara River Basin in the City of Santa Clarita.
Kaweah River, California.--The Committee has provided an additional $2,000,000 for the Kaweah River, California, project. The Committee is aware that the project sponsors have appropriated all their required funds for the entire project.
Lower Walnut Creek, California.--The Committee has provided $250,000 for the Corps of Engineers to conduct a General Reevaluation Report which will detail a new project alternative that incorporates riparian restoration goals with flood control objectives.
Petaluma River, California.--The bill includes $8,000,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue construction of the Petaluma River, California, project, and reimburse the local sponsor for expenses in excess of the required cost sharing.
Sacramento River Deep Water Ship Channel, California.--The Committee has provided $300,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue the Limited Reevaluation Report for the Sacramento River Deep Water Ship Channel project.
Santa Ana River Mainstem, California.--The bill includes $10,000,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue construction of Reach 3B of the San Timoteo Creek feature of the Santa Ana River Mainstem project in California.
San Lorezo River, California.--The Committee has provided $3,490,000 to continue work on the San Lorenzo River project. When the project authorization was modified in the Water Resources Development Act of 1999, it was the intent of Congress that the Corps of Engineers treat the modification as a seamless part of the original project, and that the bank erosion control portion of the project not be treated as a separate project subject to a separate new start decision.
Surfside-Sunset and Newport Beach, California.--The bill includes $3,800,000 to continue the stage 11 nourishment at Surfside-Sunset beach.
Brevard County, Florida.--The Committee has provided $8,500,000 for renourishment of the South Reach of the Brevard County, Florida, project.
Broward County, Florida.--The bill includes $2,500,000 for the Corps of Engineers to reimburse Broward County for costs associated with the renourishment of the Broward County, Florida, project.
Central and Southern Florida, Florida.--Within the funds provided for the Central and Southern Florida project, the Committee expects the Committee to use $600,000 to undertake a review and evaluation of the performance of the regional canal system in Miami-Dade County.
Dade County, Florida.--The Committee has provided $14,857,000 for the Dade County, Florida, project. The additional funds will enable the Corps of Engineers to continue work on the Alternative Sand Test Beach project and renourish the Haulover Beach/Bal Harbour segment of the project. The funds provided will also permit the Corps of Engineers to undertake innovative beach erosion prevention and sand recycling initiatives.
Duval County, Florida.--The bill includes $3,000,000 for renourishment of the Duval County, Florida, shore protection project.
Fort Pierce Beach, Florida.--The Committee has provided $500,000 for the Corps of Engineers to complete the Bryzone study and prepare plans and specifications to permanently fix the erosion problem for the one mile of beach front adjoining the Federal project south of the inlet.
Martin County, Florida.--The bill includes $3,000,000 to complete the renourishment of the Martin County, Florida, project.
Palm Beach County, Florida.--The Committee has provided $4,500,000 for renourishment of the Delray Beach segment of the project.
Pinellas County, Florida.--The Committee has provided $2,000,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue construction of the Pinellas County, Florida, project.
Port Everglades, Florida.--The Committee has provided $4,000,000 for the Corps of Engineers to reimburse Port Everglades for the Federal share of the costs associated with widening and deepening the Southport Channel and the Turning Notch at Port Everglades, Florida.
Sarasota County, Florida- The Committee directs the Corps of Engineers to use available funds to reimburse the City of Venice, Florida, the Federal share of the construction costs of an artificial reef that is to be considered an integral part of the Sarasota County beach nourishment project, as well as the Federal share of the costs of constructing and/or relocating any stormwater outfall whose primary function is to drain storm water from public property.
East St. Louis and Vicinity Interior Flood Control, Illinois.--The bill includes $688,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue the General Reevaluation Report for the East St. Louis and Vicinity Interior Flood Control project.
Olmsted Locks and Dam, Illinois.--The Committee has provided $40,000,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue construction of the Olmsted Locks and Dam project. Within the amount provided, the Committee urges the Corps to work with the Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission to develop tools to describe and monitor the biological processes of the Ohio River for the purpose of maintaining and improving water quality.
Calumet Region, Indiana.--The bill includes $3,000,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue construction of the Calumet Region, Indiana, project.
Indiana Shoreline Erosion, Indiana.--The Committee has provided $1,000,000 to continue construction of the Indiana Shoreline Erosion, Indiana, project.
Missouri River Levee System, Iowa, Nebraska, Kansas, and Missouri.--The Committee has provided an additional $700,000 for the Unit L15 levee project.
Carr Creek Lake, Kentucky.--The bill includes $1,000,000 for the Corps of Engineers to modify the Carr Creek Lake, Kentucky, project by reallocating reservoir storage and undertaking measures at full Federal expense to mitigate the impacts of raising the seasonal pool elevation to provide additional water supply storage for the Upper Kentucky River Basin in accordance with the Louisville District Carr Creek Lake Water Supply Reallocation Study, dated January 2001.
Louisville Waterfront, Kentucky.--The Committee has provided $500,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue design of the Louisville Waterfront project.
Pond Creek, Kentucky.--The bill includes $425,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue the study to evaluate the purchase and demolition of residences in the 100-year floodplain.
Southern and Eastern Kentucky, Kentucky.--The bill includes $4,000,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue design and construction of selected environmental infrastructure projects in southern and eastern Kentucky.
Inner Harbor Navigation Canal Lock, Louisiana.--The Committee is aware of the potential impacts on vehicular traffic as a result of the construction of a new lock on the Inner Harbor Navigation Canal. The Committee directs the Corps of Engineers to work with the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development and the U.S. Coast Guard on a revised traffic study. The traffic study shall evaluate the feasibility of replacing existing bridges with a tunnel or higher elevation crossings with the goal of minimizing vehicular traffic delays resulting from the project. Further, the Committee expects the Corps to make traffic impacts a high priority when developing and implementing a community mitigation plan with local community leaders.
Larose to Golden Meadow, Louisiana.--The Committee recognizes the life-threatening situations that have occurred several times by the closing of the Golden Meadow floodgates to protect its `interior' citizens from storm surges. While the Committee supports the use and operation of this flood control system, the Committee urges the Corps of Engineers to expedite to the fullest extent possible completion of the Leon Theriot Lock to allow for the unimpeded passage of mariners seeking safe harbor north of the floodgates at Bayou Lafourche.
Anacostia River and Tributaries, Maryland.--The Committee has provided $2,000,000 for the Corps of Engineers to complete the project to restore wetland areas along the Anacostia River.
Desoto County, Mississippi.--The Committee has provided $5,000,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue construction of the Desoto County, Mississippi, project.
Bois Brule Drainage and Levee District, Missouri.--The Committee is aware of the devastating flooding and life threatening situation that occurred to residents of Perry County, Missouri, during the flood of 1993 when levee deficiencies resulted in failure of the existing Bois Brule Drainage and Levee District, Missouri, project authorized by the Flood Control Acts of 1936 and 1965. Therefore, the Committee has provided $1,200,000 for the project and directs the Secretary of the Army to initiate design and construction of deficiency correction work to restore the Bois Brule Drainage and Levee District project to its authorized level of protection using continuing contracts as appropriate, and with study and construction cost sharing consistent with the original project. Additionally, the Committee is aware that a portion of the study effort being performed under the Section 205 program is attributable to the design deficiency project, and, therefore, directs the Secretary to transfer the associated study costs to the design deficiency project.
St. Louis, Missouri.--The Committee has provided $4,000,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue to work with the St. Louis Metropolitan Sewer District to address critical flooding and water contamination problems in St. Louis, Missouri.
Raritan River Basin, Green Brook Sub-Basin, New Jersey- The Committee has included language in the bill which directs the Secretary of the Army to construct the locally preferred plan for the Middlesex Borough element of the Raritan River Basin, Green Brook Sub-Basin, New Jersey, project.
Atlantic Coast of New York City, Rockaway Inlet to Norton Point, New York.--The Committee has provided an additional $600,000 for the Corps of Engineers to prepare plans and specifications, modify the existing Project Cooperation Agreement, and advertise a contract for implementing the recommended T-groin alternative.
Long Beach Island, New York.--The Committee remains fully supportive of the Long Beach Island, New York, project and understands that sufficient carryover funding is available to satisfy program requirements in fiscal year 2002.
Brunswick County Beaches, North Carolina.--The Committee has provided $800,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue preparation of a General Reevaluation Report for the Oak Island, Caswell Beach, and Holden Beach segments of the Brunswick County Beaches project in North Carolina.
Manteo (Shallowbag) Bay, North Carolina.--The Committee has provided $300,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue shoreline monitoring, and complete the General Design Memorandum and Environmental Impact Statement supplement for the Oregon Inlet project.
West Onslow Beach and New River Inlet, North Carolina.--The Committee has provided $700,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue preparation of a General Reevaluation Report of the currently authorized project and the remaining shoreline at Topsail Beach.
Lower Girard Lake Dam, Ohio.--The Committee has provided $1,000,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue work on the project to repair and rehabilitate the Lower Girard Lake Dam in Girard, Ohio.
Mill Creek, Ohio.--The Committee has provided an additional $1,000,000 for the Mill Creek, Ohio, project. The funds are to be used to accelerate completion of the General Reevaluation Report and develop an early warning system to alert businesses and residents in the watershed of possible floods.
Ohio Environmental Infrastructure, Ohio.--The bill includes $4,000,000 for the Ohio Environmental Infrastructure program, including $1,500,000 to assist the City of Springfield, Ohio, with its wastewater treatment and sewer improvement needs.
Ottawa River, Ohio.--The Committee has provided $300,000 for the Corps of Engineers to complete the reevaluation report and initiate plans and specifications for the Ottawa River, Ohio, project.
Folly Beach, South Carolina.--The Committee has provided $200,000 for the Corps of Engineers to identify a new sand source for the Folly Beach, South Carolina, project.
Black Fox, Murfree, and Oaklands Springs Wetlands, Tennessee.--The bill includes $2,000,000 to continue construction of the authorized Black Fox, Murfree, and Oaklands Springs Wetlands project in Murfreesboro, Tennessee. The Corps of Engineers is directed to use available funds for additional features at the Outdoor Classroom Space and at the passive and active park areas identified in Figure 10 of the authorizing document for the project.
Red River Basin Chloride Control, Texas and Oklahoma.--The Committee has provided $2,100,000 for the Corps of Engineers complete a reevaluation study, continue construction, and continue environmental monitoring for the Red River Basin Chloride Control project.
Red River Below Denison Dam, Texas, Arkansas, and Louisiana.--The Committee has provided $2,500,000 for the Red River Below Denison Dam project. Of the amount provided, $500,000 is to rehabilitate the Bowie County Levee in Texas. The remaining funds are to be used for the levee upgrade program in northwest Louisiana.
San Antonio Channel Improvement, Texas.--The Committee has provided $1,200,000 for a General Reevaluation Report for the San Antonio Channel Improvement project to define the Federal interest in the environmental restoration and recreation components of the project. In addition, $200,000 is provided for expand ongoing hydraulic performance studies for the project.
Greenbrier River Basin, West Virginia.--The Committee has provided $1,200,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue work on the Marlinton element of the project.
Levisa and Tug Forks of the Big Sandy River and Upper Cumberland River, West Virginia, Virginia, and Kentucky.--The bill includes a total of $35,200,000 for the Levisa and Tug Forks of the Big Sandy River and Upper Cumberland River project. The amount provided includes: $4,500,000 for the Clover Fork, Kentucky, element of the project; $1,000,000 for the City of Cumberland, Kentucky, element of the project; $1,650,000 for the Town of Martin, Kentucky, element of the project; $2,100,000 for the Pike County, Kentucky, element of the project, including $1,100,000 for additional studies along the tributaries of the Tug Fork and continuation of a Detailed Project Report for the Levisa Fork; $3,850,000 for the Martin County, Kentucky, element of the project; $950,000 for the Floyd County, Kentucky, element of the project; $600,000 for the Harlan County, Kentucky, element of the project; and $800,000 for additional studies along the tributaries of the Cumberland River in Bell County, Kentucky.
In addition, the Committee has provided $18,600,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue work on the Grundy, Virginia, element of the project, $450,000 to complete the Buchanan County, Virginia, Detailed Project Report, and $700,000 to continue the Dickenson County, Virginia, Detailed Project Report. The Committee directs the Corps of Engineers to continue the Dickenson County Detailed Project Report as generally defined in Plan 4 of the Huntington District Engineer's Draft Supplement to the Section 202 General Plan for Flood Damage Reduction dated April 1997, including all Russell Fork tributary streams within the County and special considerations as may be appropriate to address the unique relocations and resettlement needs for the flood prone communities within the County.
West Virginia and Pennsylvania Flood Control, West Virginia and Pennsylvania.--The Committee has provided $2,300,000 for the West Virginia and Pennsylvania Flood Control project. Of the amount provided, $600,000 is to complete the Detailed Project Reports for Philippi and Belington, West Virginia, and to implement an emergency flood warning system for the Tygart River Basin in West Virginia. In addition, $1,700,000 is provided for the Meyersdale flood damage reduction project in Somerset County, Pennsylvania, and the Hooversville flood damage reduction project in Somerset County, Pennsylvania.
Shoreline Protection Projects (Section 103).--The Committee has provided the amount of $5,000,000 for the Section 103 program. Within the amount provided, the recommendation includes: $400,000 for the Carpinteria Beach Erosion Control project, California, project; $212,000 for plans and specifications for the project at Nantasket Beach, Hull, Massachusetts; $1,000,000 for the Sylvan Beach Breakwater, New York, project; $556,000 for beach restoration and shore protection on the Hudson River, Dutchess County, New York; $200,000 to initiate and complete plans and specifications for the project on Lake Erie at Athol Springs, New York; and, $100,000 to initiate the feasibility phase on the project to restore the Bay Point Peninsula off of the City of Luna Pier, Michigan, in Maumee Bay.
Small Navigation Projects (Section 107).--The Committee has provided $15,000,000 for the Section 107 program. Within the amount provided, the recommendation includes: $300,000 to determine the Federal interest in a project for navigation on the Tennessee River, Bridgeport, Alabama; $100,000 to complete the feasibility study on the Tennessee River, Barton River Port, Tuscumbia, Alabama; $1,000,000 to complete plans and specifications and to initiate construction on the Slackwater Harbor, Arkansas River, Russelville, Arkansas, project; $677,000 to complete the feasibility study of the Blytheville Slackwater Harbor, Arkansas; $250,000 to complete the feasibility phase for Pillar Point Harbor, California; $330,000 for the project at Oyster Point Marina, California; $1,500,000 to initiate construction of the Port Hueneme, California, project; $1,500,000 to initiate and complete plans and specifications and initiate construction of the San Diego Bay Harbor Deepening, California, project; $200,000 to complete the feasibility study of the Whiting Shoreline, Whiting, Indiana, project; $100,000 to initiate the feasibility study for Federal interest in navigation on the Rouge River, Michigan; $827,000 to initiate and complete construction of the Pemiscot County Harbor, Missouri, project; $1,000,000 for the construction of the Buffalo-Inner Harbor Excavation Project, Buffalo, New York; $100,000 to initiate the feasibility study for Lake Erie at Sturgeon Point, Evans, New York; $100,000 to initiate the feasibility study for the West Side Rowing Club, Buffalo, New York; $2,000,000 to continue construction of the Lakeshore State Park, City of Milwaukee Navigation Improvement, Wisconsin; and $100,000 for Saxon Harbor, Wisconsin.
The Committee's recommendation also includes the necessary funds to reimburse local interests for credits authorized by Section 323 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 related to the construction of phase 1 of the New Madrid County Harbor, Missouri, project.
Mitigation Damages Attributable to Navigation Projects (Section 111).--The Committee has provided $900,000 for the Section 111 program. Within the amount provided, the recommendation includes $350,000 to complete plans and specifications for the Saco River and Camp Ellis Beach, Saco, Maine, project; $190,000 for the Saugatuck Harbor Federal Navigation Structure project, Michigan; $260,000 for the initial assessment and feasibility study of Mattituck Inlet, Southold, New York; and $100,000 for the Puget Sound Shoreline, Washington, project.
Project Modifications for the Improvement of the Environment (Section 1135).--The Committee has provided $25,000,000 for the Section 1135 program. Within the amount provided, the recommendation includes: $5,000,000 for the design and construction of the Garrow's Bend Basin Restoration, Mobile, Alabama; $340,000 for the Rillito/Swan Wetlands, Arizona, project; $100,000 to initiate and complete the feasibility study for Ditch 28, Arkansas; $650,000 initiate and complete plans and specifications and construction on the Bull Creek Channel Ecosystem Restoration, Sepulveda Flood Control Basin Restoration, California, project; $1,745,000 for the Gunnerson Pond, Lake Elsinore, California, project; $100,000 to complete the preliminary restoration plan and initiate the feasibility study on Pillar Point Harbor, California; $1,000,000 to initiate the feasibility study of the San Gabriel River Basin, Los Cerritos Wetlands Environmental Restoration, California; $750,000 to continue construction on the Colfax Reach, South Platte River, Colorado, project; $240,000 to complete the feasibility phase and initiate plans and specifications on the Sand Creek Ecosystem Restoration, Newton, Kansas, project; $1,000,000 to complete plans and specifications and initiate construction of the Kansas City Riverfront Habitat Restoration, Missouri, project; $685,000 to complete plans and specifications and initiate construction on the Little Sugar Creek Habitat Restoration, North Carolina, project; $200,000 for the Great South Bay Hard Clam Restoration, New York, project; $290,000 to complete the feasibility study and initiate plans and specifications on the Times Beach Environmental Improvement, Buffalo, New York, project; $200,000 to initiate a feasibility study of the Smokes Creek Relocation, Lackawanna, New York; $80,000 to complete plans and specifications for the Boyd's Marsh Restoration, Rhode Island, project; $60,000 to complete plans and specifications for the Allin's Cove, Rhode Island, project; $530,000 to complete plans and specifications and initiate construction of the San Antonio River, Eagleland Habitat Restoration, San Antonio, Texas, project; and $844,000 to complete the feasibility study and plans and specifications on the Richland Wye Shoreline Enhancement, Washington.
Emergency Streambank and Erosion Control (Section 14).--The Committee has provided $9,000,000 for the Section 14 program. Within the amount provided, the recommendation includes: $100,000 to initiate and complete the planning and design analysis for the Ditto Landing Phase II, Huntsville, Alabama, project; $800,000 to initiate and complete bank stabilization on the Little Rock Slackwater Harbor, Arkansas, project; $75,000 to complete the planning and design analysis and initiate plans and specifications for the Powers Boulevard at East Fork of Sand Creek, Colorado Springs, Colorado, project; $140,000 to prepare the detailed project report and initiate plans and specifications for the Chelton Road Bridge over Sand Creek, Colorado Springs, Colorado, project; $220,000 for the Webster County, Iowa, project; $40,000 to initiate and complete the planning and design analysis for the Ackerman Creek in Morton, Illinois; $40,000 to initiate and complete the planning and design analysis for Farm Creek in Washington, Illinois; $40,000 to initiate the planning and design analysis for the Maumee River, Shoreline Erosion Protection, Fort Wayne, Indiana; $960,000 to complete the planning and design analysis and initiate construction of the Punch Island Road, Dorchester County, Maryland, project; $100,000 to continue the planning and design analysis at Belle Isle South Shore, Michigan; $188,000 to complete construction of the Lake Michigan Center, Muskegon, Michigan, project; $60,000 to initiate and complete planning and design for the Bakers Creek, Clinton, Mississippi, project; $635,000 to complete plans and specifications and initiate construction of the Poughkeepsie, New York, project; $140,000 to initiate and complete construction of the Dresden, Tennessee, project; $650,000 to complete the planning and design analysis and initiate construction of the Bogachiel River near La Push, Clallam County, Washington, project; and $40,000 to initiate the planning and design analysis on the Kenosha Harbor Retaining Wall, Shoreline Erosion Protection, City of Kenosha, Wisconsin.
Beneficial Use of Dredge Material (Section 204).--The Committee has provided $1,500,000 for the Section 204 program. Within the amount provided, the recommendation includes: $219,000 for the Mississippi Gulf River Outlet, Louisiana and $90,000 for the Restoration of the Cat Island Chain, Wisconsin.
Small Flood Control Projects (Section 205).--The Committee has provided $40,000,000 for the Section 205 program. Within the amount provided, the recommendation includes: $200,000 to initiate the feasibility study for the Brewton, Alabama, project; $200,000 for the Jasper, Alabama, project; $500,000 to complete the plans and specifications and initiate construction of the locally preferred plan for the Pinhook Creek, Huntsville, Alabama, project; $50,000 to complete the feasibility study of Bono Lake, Arkansas; $500,000 to initiate construction for the Indian Bayou in Lonoke and Jefferson Counties, Arkansas, project; $50,000 to complete the feasibility study of Spring Creek, St. Francis County, Arkansas; $113,000 to complete the detailed project report and initiate the feasibility study for Coyote Creek at Rock Springs, California; $2,000,000 to initiate construction on the Magpie Creek, Sacramento, California, project; $200,000 to continue the detailed project report of Magpie Creek on McClellan Air Force Base, California; $100,000 to continue the feasibility study of the City of Santa Clarita, Castaic Creek, Old Road Bridges, California, project; $400,000 for the feasibility study of Anaverde Creek, Palmdale, California; $375,000 for the City of Whittier, California, project; $300,000 for the City of Norwalk, California, project; $100,000 to initiate a feasibility study for flood control at Huntington Beach, California; $200,000 to initiate the detailed project report for Contra Costa Canal (Rock Slough), Oakley and Knightsen, California; $200,000 to initiate the detailed project report for Mallard Slough, Pittsburg, California; $650,000 to determine Federal interest, design, and reconstruct the Santa Venetia Pump Replacement, California, project; $100,000 to initiate the feasibility study on Cheyenne Creek, Colorado Springs; $2,000,000 for construction of the Van Bibber-Arvada Plaza Drainage, Colorado, project; $115,000 to complete the feasibility study for flood protection of the Farm River, North Branford/East Haven, Connecticut; $100,000 to initiate the feasibility study of the Ocmulgee River Levee, Macon, Georgia; $70,000 to initiate a feasibility study at Monroe County, Illinois; $1,439,000 to continue construction of the East Peoria, Illinois, project; $30,000 for the feasibility study at Grafton, Illinois; $100,000 for the Prairie du Pont, Illinois, project; $100,000 to complete the preliminary assessment and feasibility study of the Mississinewa River, Marion, Indiana; $100,000 to initiate the feasibility study on the Southwest Branch, Cedar Falls, Iowa; $1,430,000 for East Boyer River Denison, Iowa, project; $450,000 for the Mad Creek, Muscatine, Iowa, project; $200,000 to expeditiously complete the feasibility study of the Whitewater and Walnut Rivers, Augusta, Kansas in light of the devastation that occurred during the Halloween flood of 1998, which resulted in millions of dollars in property damage to more that 600 homes and business; $454,000 for Cowskin Creek, Wichita, Kansas; $100,000 to complete the preliminary project report and feasibility study at Versailles, Kentucky; $100,000 to complete the preliminary project report and feasibility study at Winchester, Kentucky; $350,000 to evaluate alternative solutions and resolve the issue of continued flooding associated with the Mayfield Creek and Tributaries, Kentucky, flood control project; $100,000 to complete the preliminary project report and feasibility study at Nicholasville, Kentucky; $100,000 to complete the preliminary project report and feasibility study of Banklick Creek, Kenton County, Kentucky; $2,972,000 for the construction of the Jean Laffitte (Fisher School Basin), Jefferson Parish, Louisiana, project; $300,000 to complete plans and specifications for the Rosethorn Basin, Jean Lafitte, Louisiana, project; $200,000 to initiate and complete plans and specifications for the Pailet Basin, Jefferson Parish, Louisiana, project; $100,000 to initiate a feasibility study of the Aberjona River, Winchester, Massachusetts; $25,000 for the Little River Diversion, Dutchtown, Missouri; $550,000 to complete construction of the Main Ditch 8, Pemiscot County, Missouri, project; $100,000 to initiate the feasibility study for the Trailwood Subdivision Area, Clinton, Mississippi; $750,000 to complete construction of the Mckeel Brook, Morris County, New Jersey, project; $100,000 to initiate the feasibility study of Jackson Brook, New Jersey; $500,000 to initiate construction of the Mill Brook, Highland Park, New Jersey, project; $200,000 to initiate plans and specifications for the Popular Brook, Monmouth County, New Jersey, project; $100,000 for the feasibility study of the Lower Palomas Creek, Sierra County, New Mexico; $50,000 for the Cazenovia Creek Ice Control Structure, West Seneca, New York, project; $100,000 for the feasibility study of Brentwood Brook, Harrison, New York; $100,000 for the feasibility study of Larchmont Reservoir, Larchmont, New York; $1,000,000 for the Red River, Wahepeton, North Dakota, project; $150,000 for the Dam Break Early Warning System, Silverton, Oregon; $100,000 to initiate the feasibility study for the City of Keizer, Labish Ditch, Oregon, project; $100,000 to initiate the feasibility study for Coloso Valley, Aquada, Puerto Rico; $188,000 to initiate plans and specifications for the Beaver Creek, Bristol, Tennessee and Virginia, project; $100,000 to complete the feasibility study and initiate plans and specifications for the Erwin, Tennessee, project; $195,000 to initiate and complete construction for the Baxter Bottom, Tipton County, Tennessee, project; $50,000 to complete the feasibility study at Covington, Tennessee; $100,000 to initiate and complete a feasibility study at Dresden, Tennessee; $75,000 to complete the feasibility study of the Dyer County Little Levee, Tennessee; $50,000 to complete the feasibility study of Oliver Creek, Shelby County, Tennessee; $100,000 to initiate the detailed project report of the Dry Canyon Storm Watershed, Utah; $210,000 to complete the feasibility study for Snoqualmie River at North Bend, Washington; and $210,000 for the feasibility study of Wind Lake, Wisconsin.
The Committee notes that the Snoqualmie Flood Control Project is behind schedule and expects the Corps of Engineers to proceed with the project as expeditiously as possible.
The Committee, in accordance with the authority provided in Section 332 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999, has also provided $700,000 for the Bois Brule Drainage and Levee, District, Missouri project under the Continuing Authorities Program and directs the Secretary to increase the authorized level of projection from 50-years to 100-years. The project costs allocated to the incremental increase in level of projection shall be cost shared consistent with Section 103(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986, notwithstanding Section 202(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996, and this increment should be constructed concurrently with the deficiency correction work to ensure a technically sound and cost effective solution is provided to the flooding problems in this area.
Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration (Section 206).--The Committee has provided $20,000,000 for the Section 206 program. Within the amount provided, the recommendation includes: $105,000 to complete the ecosystem report for the Aqua Caliente Wash, Pima County, Arizona, project; $225,000 to initiate the feasibility study for the Santa Clara Basin Watershed Management Initiative, California; $100,000 for the Arundo Donax, Santa Clara River, Santa Clarita, California, project; $450,000 for the Delta Science Center, California; $500,000 for the Huntington Beach Aquatic Restoration, California, project; $175,000 for the Mill River Corridor Revitalization, Connecticut, project; $200,000 to complete the feasibility study of the Stevenson Creek Estuary, Florida; $700,000 for the East Pass Opening (Channel), Panama City Harbor, Florida, project; $425,000 for the Hogan's Creek Restoration, Florida, project; $700,000 for the Dinner Key (Sea Plane) Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration, Florida, project; $201,000 for the Duck Creek, Davenport, Iowa, project; $45,000 for the Chouteau Island, Madison County, Illinois, project; $225,000 to initiate the feasibility study for Squaw Creek Basin, Illinois; $400,000 to prepare plans and specifications and initiate construction of the Hoffman, Armitage, and Fairbanks Dams, Illinois, modification project; $275,000 for the Kankakee River Basin aquatic ecosystem restoration, Illinois, project; $1,000,000 for the Wolf Lake, Indiana, project; $400,000 for construction of the Lake Nemaha Wetlands, Seneca, Kansas, project; $100,000 to initiate the feasibility study for the Lost River Valley Wetlands Development, Bowling Green, Kentucky; $200,000 for the Luling Oxidation Pond, St. Charles Parish, Louisiana, project; $118,000 for the St. James Parish Ecosystem Restoration, Louisiana; $200,000 for the Nashawannuck Pond, Easthampton, Massachusetts, project; $160,000 to complete the feasibility study of the Hennepin Marsh, Grosse Ile Township, Michigan, project; $50,000 to initiate the feasibility study for the Black Lagoon, Trenton, Michigan; $600,000 for the Rivers South Recreation Plan, River Des Peres, Missouri; $100,000 to initiate the feasibility study for the David City Wetlands, Butler County, Nebraska; $210,000 for the feasibility study of Lake Weamaconk, New Jersey; $50,000 for the Cazenovia, New York, project; $200,000 to prepare a preliminary restoration plan and feasibility study for Chenango Lake, Chenango County, New York; $100,000 for the Oyster Reef Creation, Port Jefferson, New York, project; $100,000 to initiate a feasibility study of the Oak Orchard Creek and Tonawanda Creek Watersheds, New York; $100,000 for the feasibility study of the Nepperhan River Outlet, Yonkers, New York; $180,000 for the Weir Creek, Bronx, New York, project; $10,000 for the initial assessment of the Sheldrake and Goodlife Pond, New Rochelle and Mamaroneck, New York; $10,000 for the initial assessment of the Mamaroneck Reservoir, Mamaroneck, New York; $10,000 for the initial assessment of the Duck Pond Restoration, Harrison, New York; $350,000 to complete plans and specifications and initiate construction on the Little Sugar Creek Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration, North Carolina, project; $125,000 to initiate a feasibility study of Middle Cuyahoga River, Kent Dam Restoration, Portage County, Ohio; $250,000 to continue the feasibility study of the Lake Carl Blackwell Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration, Oklahoma; $1,000,000 for the Springfield Millrace, Oregon, project; $400,000 for the Kettle Creek Watershed, Dents Run, Pennsylania, project; $250,000 for the environmental restoration report for the Wetland Education Center, University of Texas Marine Science Institute, Port Aransas, Texas; $250,000 to complete the ecosystem restoration report and initiate plans and specifications for the West Jordan, Utah, project; $400,000 for the Ely/Pucketts Creek, Viriginia, project; $100,000 to determine Federal interest and initiate design of the Duwamish Waterway Marsh Restoration, Washington, project; and $150,000 for the Lake Koshkonong Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration, Wisconsin, project.
Snagging and Clearing (Section 208).--The Committee has provided $1,000,000 for the Section 208 program. Within the amount provided, the recommendation includes: $324,000 for construction of the Big Slough Ditch, Craighead County, Arkansas, project; $100,000 for construction of the Ditch 2, Craighead County, Arkansas, project; $80,000 to construct the Farrenburg Ditch, Missouri, project; and $205,000 to complete the planning and design analysis and initiate and complete construction of the Lateral No. 3, Missouri, project.
Aquatic Plant Control Program.--Within the amount provided for the Aquatic Plant Control Program: $150,000 is for the eradication of aquatic weeds in Clear Lake, California; $50,000 is for the removal of aquatic weeds in the Lavaca and Navidad Rivers in Texas; $300,000 is for the removal of aquatic weeds in Caddo Lake, Texas; and $100,000 is for the removal of aquatic growth in the Potomac River in Virginia, Maryland, and the District of Columbia.
Dam Safety and Seepage/Stability Correction Program.--Within the amount provided for the Dam Safety and Seepage/Stability Correction Program, the Committee has provided $3,000,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue critical dam safety repairs to Waterbury Dam in Vermont.
-------------------------------------
-------------------------------------
Appropriation, 2001 $350,458,000
Budget Estimate, 2002 280,000,000
Recommended, 2002 347,655,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2001 -2,803,000
Budget Estimate, 2002 +67,655,000
-------------------------------------
The budget request and the approved Committee allowance are shown on the following table:
General investigations
Donaldsonville to the Gulf, Louisiana.--The Committee has provided an additional $800,000 for the Corps of Engineers to expedite the feasibility study of solutions for flooding in the area.
Horn Lake and Tributaries, Tennessee and Mississippi.--The Committee is aware of the residual flooding problems along the urban areas of Horn Lake Creek and the need for a higher level of flood protection to be provided. The Committee, therefore, has provided $300,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue the reevaluation of the project.
Bayou Meto Basin, Arkansas.--The Committee is aware of the need to complete the reevaluation of the Bayou Meto Basin project, conditionally authorized by Section 363(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996. The Committee, therefore, has included $2,573,000 for the Corps of Engineers to complete the reevaluation and preconstruction engineering and design.
Morganza to the Gulf of Mexico, Louisiana.--The Committee has provided an additional $2,500,000 to continue the expedited engineering and design of the Houma Lock and completion of the Morganza to the Gulf feasibility study this calendar year.
Construction
Channel Improvement.--The Committee recognizes the critical need of providing navigation along the Mississippi River and the efficiency in the construction of dikes as they reduce dredging requirements. Therefore, the Committee has included $43,905,000 for the project, $500,000 above the budget request, to initiate dike construction at Keyes Point, Arkansas; Kate Aubrey, Arkansas; and Ashport-Goldust, Arkansas and Tennessee.
Mississippi River Levees.--The Committee recognizes the importance of the Mississippi River Levees and has provided an additional amount of $6,543,000 above the budget request of $43,457,000. Further, the committee is aware of the conditions of the levee in the vicinity of New Madrid, Missouri. This condition is primarily the result of stone being placed along the slope of the levee by the Corps of Engineers during flood situations to protect the levee from wave wash and from dilapidated structures that exist in the vicinity of the levee section. These conditions pose a threat to safe public access and prevent satisfactory maintenance of the levee. The Committee, therefore, directs the Corps to construct improvements under the Mississippi River Levees authority, which have been identified in a report prepared by the Memphis District. The Committee has included $4,100,000 within the additional amount to construct these improvements.
St. Francis Basin, Arkansas and Missouri.--The Committee is aware of the frequent and prolonged flooding of lands and improvements along the uncompleted portion of the St. Francis Basin project. Therefore, the Committee has provided an additional $1,000,000 above the budget request of $3,230,000 to complete construction of Ditches 1 & 6, Missouri.
Mississippi Delta Region, Louisiana.--The Committee has included $1,300,000 above the budget request of $1,600,000 for the project features at the Davis Pond area. Additionally, the Committee urges the Corps of Engineers to continue to work with the oyster fishing industry to resolve any impacts resulting from the construction and operation of the project.
Demonstration Erosion Control, Mississippi.--The work to date by the Corps of Engineers and the Natural Resources Conservation Service has shown positive results in the reduction of flood damages, decreased erosion and sediments, and improvements to the environment. These positive results show that continued funding for the program is important and that it should be completed to recognize the total benefits of the program. This may well be a case where the completed program gives results that are much greater than the sum of the individual items of work. The additional funds are provided to continue design, real estate acquisition, monitoring of completed work, and initiation of continuing contracts. The Committee expects the Administration to continue to request funds for this important project.
Upper Yazoo Project, Mississippi.--The Committee has provided an additional $5,000,000 to continue construction on the Upper Yazoo Project, Mississippi.
St. Johns Bayou and New Madrid Floodway, Missouri.--The Committee has provided an additional $850,000 for a total of $1,000,000 to advance construction of elements within the State of Missouri on the St. Johns Bayou and New Madrid Floodway.
Nonconnah Creek, Flood Control Feature, Tennessee and Missouri.--The Committee has provided $1,615,000 of which $200,000 is to be used to reevaluate the extension of the flood control project upstream five miles and $115,000 is to be used to investigate recreational and environmental enhancements for the Nonconnah Creek project.
Maintenance
St. Francis Basin, Arkansas and Missouri.--The Committee recognizes the critical backlog of maintenance items on this project and has provided an additional $8,367,000 above the budget request to address this problem. The funds are to be used for levee maintenance, scour repairs, and channel cleanout at various locations of the St. Francis Basin, Arkansas and Missouri, project.
Bonnet Carre, Louisiana.--The Committee has provided an additional $960,000 for the replacement of critical operating equipment bringing the total funds provided to $2,814,000 on the Bonnet Carre, Louisiana, project.
Yazoo Basin, Mississippi.--The Committee provides the following additional amounts for the maintenance of the Yazoo Basin projects: $4,000,000 for Arkabutla Lake, $2,700,000 for Big Sunflower River, $2,500,000 for Enid Lake, $2,100,000 for Grenada Lake, $3,000,000 for Sardis Lake, and an additional $847,000 for the Yazoo Tributaries, Mississippi.
Wappapello Lake, Missouri.--The Committee provides an additional $500,000 above the budget request for a total of $8,500,000. The additional funds are to be used for road relocation as part of the Wappapello Lake Missouri, project.
---------------------------------------
---------------------------------------
Appropriation, 2001 $1,897,775,000
Budget Estimate, 2002 1,745,000,000
Recommended, 2002 1,864,464,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2001 -33,311,000
Budget Estimate, 2002 +119,464,000
---------------------------------------
The budget request and the approved Committee allowance are shown on the following table:
Alabama-Coosa River, Alabama.--The Committee has provided an additional $4,625,000 for annual operation and maintenance including lake and recreation maintenance, environmental studies, and replacement of spillway safety signs for the Alabama-Coosa River, Alabama, project.
Bayou Coden, Alabama.--The Committee has provided an additional $500,000 for maintenance dredging of the Bayou Coden, Alabama, project.
Bayou La Batre, Alabama.--The Committee has provided an additional $150,000 for maintenance dredging of the Bayou La Batre, Alabama, project.
Black Warrior and Tombigbee Rivers, Alabama.--The Committee has provided an additional $2,600,000 for annual operation and maintenance including the locks and dams, recreation facilities, and upland disposal areas on the Black Warrior and Tombigbee Rivers
Dauphin Island Bay, Alabama.--The Committee has provided an additional $350,000 for annual operation and maintenance on the Dauphin Island Bay, Alabama, project.
Mobile Area Digital Area Mapping and Geographic Information System, Alabama.--The Committee has provided $3,000,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue work begun in fiscal year 2001 to develop an area-wide geographic information system for Mobile and Baldwin Counties in Alabama. This effort will continue the development of a geographic information system to organize, store, analyze, and maintain geospatial data associated with Federal projects in the area.
Millers Ferry Lock and Dam, Alabama.--The Committee has provided an additional $2,300,000 for a debris disposal system and to replace a raw water piping system for the Millers Ferry Lock and Dam project.
Mobile Harbor, Alabama.--The Committee has provided an additional $5,700,000 to dredge the bay and channel sumps, maintain Arlington channel, perform sediment reevaluation, continue data reporting, and develop the Chickasaw Creek disposal plan for the Mobile Harbor, Alabama, project.
Robert F. Henry Lock and Dam, Alabama.--The Committee has provided an additional $600,000 to replace spillway safety signs on the Robert F. Henry Lock and Dam.
Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway, Alabama.--The Committee has provided an additional $1,700,000 for the Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway project. The additional funds above the budget request are to be used for deferred maintenance dredging, to repair and resite the historic snagboat, Montgomery, and to clear the channel from the downstream end of the Big Creek Bendway past the confluence with Big Creek.
Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway Wildlife Mitigation, Alabama and Mississippi- The Committee has provided $1,200,000 for the states of Mississippi and Alabama to administer 125,925 acres of wildlife mitigation lands for the Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway.
Anchorage Harbor, Alaska.--The Committee has provided an additional $1,000,000 for a model study of Anchorage Harbor, Alaska.
Kodiak Harbor, Alaska.--The Committee has provided an additional $750,000 for maintenance dredging of Kodiak Harbor, Alaska.
Helena Harbor, Phillips County, Arkansas.--The Committee has provided $340,000 for maintenance dredging of Helena Harbor, Arkansas.
Narrows Dam, Lake Greeson, Arkansas.--The Committee has provided an additional $1,000,000 for recreation and powerhouse facilities rehabilitation on the Narrows Dam, Lake Greeson, Arkansas, project.
Osceola Harbor, Arkansas.--The Committee has provided an additional $610,000 for maintenance dredging of Osceola Harbor, Arkansas.
Yellow Bend Port, Arkansas.--The Committee has provided an additional $150,000 for maintenance dredging of Yellow Bend Port, Arkansas.
Bodega Bay, California.--The Committee has provided $1,800,000 for the preparation of an upland disposal site for the dredging of the Bodega Bay, California, project.
Isabella Lake, California.--The Committee expects the Corps of Engineers to use funds appropriated in the Act to conduct the measures required by the June 14, 2000, Biological Opinion issued by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, with respect to long-term operation of Isabella Reservoir, Kern County, California. The Committee further expects the Corps of Engineers to identify the least costly actions available, including, whenever possible, the utilization of partnerships with other Federal and non-Federal agencies and organizations, so that the Corps can continue to operate and maintain Isabella Dam and Reservoir for flood control and water conservation purposes as provided in the October 23, 1964, contract among the United States of America and various public agencies.
Los Angeles County Drainage Area, California.--The Committee has provided an additional $2,000,000 to grade and maintain the basin within Hansen Dam to enhance and maintain flood capacity and to provide for future use of the basin for compatible purposes consistent with the Master Plan, including recreation and environmental restoration on the Los Angeles County Drainage Area, California, project.
Moss Landing Harbor, California.--The Committee has provided $2,500,000 for maintenance dredging of the Federal channel in Moss Landing Harbor, California.
Redwood City Harbor, California.--The Committee has provided $2,000,000 for maintenance dredging of Redwood City Harbor, California.
San Francisco Bay, Long Term Management Strategy, California.--The Committee has provided $200,000 to continue the development of a long term strategy for the disposal of dredged material for the San Francisco Bay, California, area.
San Francisco Harbor and Bay (Drift Removal), California.--The Committee has provided an additional $134,000 for debris removal activities in San Francisco Bay and Harbor, California.
San Francisco Harbor, California.--The Committee has provided an additional $199,000 for maintenance dredging of San Francisco Harbor, California.
San Joaquin River, California.--The Committee has provided an additional $2,802,000 for maintenance dredging on the San Joaquin River, California, project.
Ventura Harbor, California.--The Committee has provided an additional $1,165,000 for repairs of the South Beach Groin on the Ventura Harbor, California, project.
Cherry Creek Lake, Colorado.--None of the funds provided for operation and maintenance of the Cherry Creek Lake project in Colorado may be used to undertake a study of dam safety at the project.
Intracoastal Waterway from Delaware River to Chesapeake Bay, Delaware and Maryland.--None of the funds provided for operation and maintenance of the Intracoastal Waterway from Delaware River to Chesapeake Bay project may be used to close or remove the St. Georges Bridge without prior authorization of the Congress.
Canaveral Harbor, Florida.--The Committee has provided an additional $2,930,000 for maintenance dredging of the Canaveral Harbor, Florida, project.
Carrabella Bay Harbor, Florida.--The Committee has provided $150,000 for a sand flat removal dredge management study at the Carrabella Bay Harbor, Florida, project.
Fort Pierce Harbor, Florida.--The Committee has provided an additional $1,951,000 for maintenance dredging of the Fort Pierce Harbor, Florida, project.
Miami River, Florida.--The Committee has provided $4,000,000 for maintenance dredging of the Miami River, Florida, project.
Suwanee River, Florida.--The Committee has provided $2,000,000 for the dredging of McGriff Pass on the Suwanee River, Florida, project.
Allatona Lake, Georgia.--The Committee has provided an additional $906,000 for recreational facility maintenance at the Allatona Lake, Georgia, project.
Apalachicola, Chattahoochee and Flint Rivers, Georgia, Alabama, and Florida.--The Committee has provided an additional $6,818,000 to address the maintenance and dredging backlog on the Apalachicola, Chattahoochee, and Flint Rivers project.
Of the funds provided, $540,000 is to restore fish and wildlife habitat and hydrologic connections to Florida River, Kennedy Creek, and Iamonia Lake within the Apalachicola system, and $500,000 is to restore the historic hydrologic connection between the Apalachicola River and Virginia Cut.
Carters Dam and Lake, Georgia.--The Committee has provided an additional $1,200,000 for powerhouse repairs at the Carters Dam and Lake, Georgia, project.
Savannah Harbor, Georgia.--The Committee has provided an additional $1,089,000 for operation and maintenance dredging on the Savannah Harbor, Georgia, project.
Kaskaskia River Navigation, Illinois.--The Committee has provided an additional $491,000 for maintenance dredging on the Kaskaskia River Navigation project, Illinois.
Buckhorn Lake, Kentucky.--The Committee has provided an additional $120,000 for recreational improvements on the Buckhorn Lake, Kentucky, project.
Carr Creek Lake, Kentucky.--The Committee has provided an additional $120,000 for recreational improvements on the Carr Creek Lake, Kentucky, project.
Elvis Stahr (Hickman) Harbor, Kentucky.--The Committee has provided $460,000 for maintenance dredging of the Elvis Stahr Harbor, Kentucky, project.
Barataria Bay Waterway, Louisiana.--The Committee has provided $2,000,000 for dredging on the Barataria Bay Waterway project including Bayou Rigaurd and Barataria Pass in the vicinity of Grand Isle, Louisiana.
Bayou Teche, Louisiana.--The Committee has provided $2,000,000 to dredge the bayou and East and West Calumet Floodgates on the Bayou Teche, Louisiana, project.
Freshwater Bayou, Louisiana.--The Committee has provided an additional $2,000,000 to perform maintenance dredging on the Freshwater Bayou, Louisiana, between the Freshwater Bayou Lock and the Gulf of Mexico.
J. Bennett Johnston Waterway, Louisiana.--The Committee has provided an additional $2,000,000 to address critical backlog maintenance on the J. Bennett Johnston Waterway, Louisiana, project.
Mermentau River, Louisiana.--The Committee has provided an additional $300,000 to dredge between Grand Cheniere and the Gulf of Mexico on the Mermentau River, Louisiana.
Mississippi River Gulf Outlet, Louisiana.--The Committee has provided an additional $2,000,000 for embankment stabilization on the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet, Louisiana, project. The Committee is very concerned about erosion problems on the channel.
Waterway from Gulf Intracoastal Waterway to Bayou Dulac, Louisiana.--The Committee has provided $500,000 to maintain the waterway from the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway to Bayou Dulac, Louisiana.
Jennings Randolph Lake, Maryland.--The Committee has provided an additional $1,000,000 to upgrade recreational facilities on the Jennings Randolph Lake, Maryland, project.
Aunt Lydia's Cove, Massachusetts.--The Committee has provided $300,000 for the dredging of the Aunt Lydia's Cove, Massachusetts, project.
Andrew's River, Massachusetts.--The Committee has provided $130,000 for the dredging of the Andrew's River, Massachusetts, project.
Scituate Harbor, Massachusetts.--The Committee has provided $1,500,000 to dredge the Federal channel, anchorages, and repair the South Jetty on the Scituate Harbor, Massachusetts, project.
St. Mary's River, Little Rapids Channel, Michigan.--The Committee has provided $1,000,000 for the St. Mary's River, Little Rapids Channel.
Grand Marais, Michigan.--The Committee has provided $200,000 to conduct a major rehabilitation reevaluation of the harbor project at Grand Marais, Michigan.
Caruthersville Harbor, Missouri.--The Committee has provided $240,000 for maintenance dredging of the project at Caruthersville Harbor, Missouri.
Clearwater Lake, Missouri.--The Committee has provided an additional $1,635,000 for the relocation of recreation facilities and repairs due to ice storm damage on the Clearwater Lake, Missouri, project.
New Madrid Harbor, Missouri.--The Committee has provided $290,000 for maintenance dredging of the project at New Madrid Harbor, Missouri.
Southeast Missouri Port, Mississippi River, Missouri.--The Committee has provided $400,000 for maintenance dredging of the Southeast Missouri Port, Mississippi River, Missouri, project.
Table Rock Lake, Missouri.--The Committee has provided an additional $2,000,000 to address the maintenance backlog and upgrade recreation areas on the Table Rock Lake, Missouri, project.
Missouri National Recreation River, Nebraska.--The Committee has provided $275,000 for bank stabilization along the Missouri National Recreation River, Nebraska.
Barnegat Inlet, New Jersey.--The Committee has provided $3,200,000 for the Barnegat Inlet, New Jersey, project. The additional funds above the budget request will enable the Corps to repair the south jetty and replace the north inlet bulkhead.
Shrewsbury River, Main Channel, New Jersey.--The Committee has provided $130,000 for maintenance dredging of the Shrewsbury River, Main Channel, New Jersey, project.
Flushing Bay and Creek, New York.--The Committee has provided an additional $1,000,000 to restore the channel to the Federally authorized depth on the Flushing Bay and Creek, New York, project.
Plattsburgh Harbor, New York.--The Committee has provided $2,000,000 to repair the breakwater on the Plattsburgh Harbor, New York, project.
Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, North Carolina.--The Committee has provided an additional $2,609,000 to address the critical dredging maintenance backlog along the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, North Carolina.
Lockwoods Folly River, North Carolina.--The Committee has provided an additional $1,000,000 for maintenance dredging on the project at Lockwoods Folly River, North Carolina.
Masonboro Inlet and Connecting Channels, North Carolina.--The Committee has provided an additional $700,000 for maintenance dredging on the Masonboro Inlet and Connecting Channels, North Carolina, project.
Garrison Dam, Lake Sakakawea, North Dakota.--The Committee has provided an additional $500,000 for maintenance and upgrading of recreational facilities on the Garrison Dam, Lake Sakakawea, North Dakota, project, and an additional $100,000 for mosquito control in Williston, North Dakota.
Hugo Lake, Oklahoma.--The Committee has provided an additional $130,000 for land transfers on the Hugo Lake, Oklahoma, project.
Wister Lake, Oklahoma.--The Committee has provided an additional $70,000 for land transfers on the Wister Lake, Oklahoma, project.
Columbia River and lower Willamette River below Vancouver and Portland, Oregon.--The Committee has provided an additional $3,000,000 for the East Astoria Boat Basin breakwater project.
Tillamook Bay and Bar, Oregon.--The Committee has provided an additional $200,000 for a major maintenance report for the north and south jetties for the project at Tillamook Bay and Bar, Oregon.
Yaquina Bay and Harbor, Oregon.--The Committee has provided an additional $100,000 to dredge the Newport South Beach Marina and Harbor to its Federally authorized depth at Yaquina Bay and Harbor, Oregon.
Tionesta Lake, Pennsylvania.--The Committee has provided an additional $750,000 for upgrades of the recreation facility at the Tionesta Lake, Pennsylvania project.
Murells Inlet, South Carolina.--The Committee has provided $200,000 for maintenance dredging on the Murrells Inlet, South Carolina, project.
Houston Ship Channel, Texas.--The Committee has provided an additional $4,445,000 maintenance dredging on the Houston Ship Channel, Texas, project.
Proctor Lake, Texas.--The Committee has provided an additional $600,000 for the planning of land acquisition on the Proctor Lake, Texas, project.
Trinity River and Tributaries, Texas.--The Committee has provided an additional $1,000,000 for critical maintenance dredging on the Trinity River and Tributaries, Texas, project.
Waco Lake, Texas.--The Committee understands the importance of having a reliable water supply source to ensure the economic viability of the central Texas region. The City of Waco has partnered with the Corps of Engineers to complete a study that was approved in 1984 to reallocate storage at Waco Lake, Texas, for increasing the available water supply storage. However, significant increases in project costs since completion of the study have delayed project implementation. A portion of the cost increase is due to the need to relocate existing recreation facilities. The Committee understands that the existing facilities are reaching the limits of their useful life and would need to be rehabilitated or replaced in the near future. To minimize further delays in implementing this much needed project, the Committee has provided an additional $1,500,000 to perform cultural resource mitigation and recreation improvements. Notwithstanding the provisions of Public Law 85-500, the costs for this work shall be accomplished at Federal expense.
Whitney Lake, Texas.--The Committee has provided an additional $573,000 to initiate plans and specifications for the power house upgrade in compliance with the Major Rehabilitation Report dated March 2001, submitted to the Chief of Engineers.
Winter Harbor, Virginia.--The Committee has provided $1,000,000 for maintenance dredging on the project at Winter Harbor, Virginia.
Grays Harbor and Chehalis River, Washington.--The Committee has provided an additional $3,800,000 for the rehabilitation of the north jetty, to investigate improvements to the north jetty, and to continue the analysis of the south jetty on the Grays Harbor and Chehalis, Washington, project.
Mud Mountain Dam, Washington.--The Committee has provided an additional $500,000 for the design of fish passage facilities at the Mud Mountain Dam, White River, Washington, project.
Bluestone Lake, West Virginia.--The Committee has provided an additional $2,269,000 for continuing construction of the multi-level release tower and debris removal at the Bluestone Lake, West Virginia, project.
Fox River, Wisconsin.--The Committee has provided an additional $5,000,000 for transfer of the lock system to the State of Wisconsin.
Great Lakes Sediment Transport Models.--The Committee has provided an additional $500,000 for the development of the sediment transport model for the Maumee River, Ohio.
Dredged Material Recycling Program.--The Committee has included language in the bill which directs the Corps of Engineers to fully investigate the development of an upland disposal site recycling program on the Black Warrior and Tombigbee Rivers project and the Apalachicola, Chattahoochee and Flint Rivers project. Many of the existing upland dredged disposal on these and other projects are nearing capacity and a program to recycle dredged material would enable necessary maintenance dredging to continue while reducing the need to develop new disposal sites in environmentally sensitive areas.
Inland Waterway Navigation Charts.--The Committee has provided $4,000,000 for the Corps of Engineers to begin the process of making inland waterway navigation chart date available in electronic format. Electronic navigation chart data would enable towboats and other vessels to navigate more precisely, provide increased capability in poor visibility, and aid in the training of vessel operators.
-------------------------------------
-------------------------------------
Appropriation, 2001 $124,725,000
Budget Estimate, 2002 128,000,000
Recommended, 2002 128,000,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2001 +3,275,000
Budget Estimate, 2002
-------------------------------------
This appropriation provides for salaries and related costs to administer laws pertaining to the regulation of navigable waters and wetlands of the United States in accordance with the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, the Clean Water Act of 1977, and the Marine Protection Act of 1972.
For fiscal year 2002, the Committee recommends an appropriation of $128,000,000, the same as the budget request and $3,275,000 more than the amount appropriated in fiscal year 2001.
-------------------------------------
-------------------------------------
Appropriation, 2001 $139,692,000
Budget Estimate, 2002 140,000,000
Recommended, 2002 140,000,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2001 +308,000
Budget Estimate, 2002
-------------------------------------
The Committee recommendation for the Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP) is $140,000,000, the same as the budget request. In fiscal year 1998, Congress transferred responsibility for cleanup of contaminated sites under FUSRAP to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. In appropriating FUSRAP funds to the Corps of Engineers, the Committee intended to transfer only the responsibility for administration and execution of cleanup activities at eligible sites where remediation had not been completed. It did not intend to transfer ownership of and accountability for real property interests that remain with the Department of Energy. The Committee expects the Department to continue to provide the institutional knowledge and expertise needed to best serve the Nation and the affected communities in executing this program.
The Corps of Engineers has extensive experience in the cleanup of hazardous, toxic, and radioactive wastes through its work for the Department of Defense and other Federal agencies. The Committee intends for the Corps expertise be used in the same manner for the cleanup of contaminated sites under FUSRAP, and expects the Corps to continue programming and budgeting for FUSRAP as part of the civil works program.
The Committee is concerned that many of the stakeholders living near FUSRAP sites around the Nation are not fully aware of when these FUSRAP sites will be fully remediated. To ensure that such documentation is available to FUSRAP stakeholders, the Committee directs the Corps of Engineers to prepare a bi-annual report which provides a brief summary on the status of remediation efforts on-going at all FUSRAP sites. Copies of this report should be made available by the Corps of Engineers to stakeholders, including the appropriate local, state and Federal officials.
-------------------------------------
-------------------------------------
Appropriation, 2001 $151,666,000
Budget Estimate, 2002 153,000,000
Recommended, 2002 153,000,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2001 +1,334,000
Budget Estimate, 2002
-------------------------------------
This appropriation finances the expenses of the Office of the Chief of Engineers, the Division Offices, and certain research and statistical functions of the Corps of Engineers.
The Committee recommendation for General Expenses is $153,000,000, the same as the budget request and $1,334,000 above the fiscal year 2001 amount. The recommendation also includes bill language prohibiting the use of funds to support a congressional affairs office within the executive office of the Chief of Engineers.
Corps of Engineering Hiring Practices- The Committee understands that Army Corps of Engineers' district offices do not have authority to recruit and hire new applicants for positions within Corps of Engineers, and that this policy may impede the ability of the Corps to attract qualified candidates from Hispanic and other minority groups. The needs of the Corps of Engineers are different from those of the Army generally, as Corps district offices serve the regions of the country in which they are located, whereas other Army organizations serve the nation as a whole. The scope and complexity of the Army's centralized personnel management system for worldwide military service and combat operations may not be meeting the Corps need to hire from within the communities in which they operate in order to effectively resolve regional water management issues and to enhance relations with local communities. The centralized Army personnel management system is not designed to recruit personnel from local communities to meet Corps of Engineers regional district needs. Therefore, the Committee directs the Secretary of the Army to submit a report to the Appropriations Committees of Congress by September 1, 2001, on his plans to address this problem and how a demonstration program could be established in fiscal year 2002 to permit Corps regional offices more flexibility to recruit and hire locally, and to take advantage of untapped potential in Hispanic and other minority communities.
Sec. 101. The Committee has included language which amends the authorization for the San Gabriel Basin Restoration, California, program so that the San Gabriel Water Authority shall receive credit for prior expenditures.
Sec. 102. The Committee has included language which provides that the dredge McFARLAND may only be operated in a ready reserve status for urgent dredging, emergencies, and in support of national defense.
Sec. 103. The Committee has included language which directs the Secretary of the Army to include an alternatives analysis of a multipurpose Auburn Dam as part of the American River watershed, California, long-term study.
Sec. 104. The Committee has included language directing the Secretary of the Army to transfer property at Tuttle Creek Lake, Kansas, to the Blue Township Fire District, Blue Township, Kansas.
Sec. 105. The Committee includes language which directs the Secretary of the Army to carry out shore protection projects in accordance with the cost sharing provisions contained in existing Project Cooperation Agreements.
Sec. 106. The Committee has included language which provides that none of the funds appropriated in this Act may be used to revise the Missouri River Master Water Control Manual if such revision provides for an increase in the springtime water release program during the spring heavy rainfall and snow melt period in States that have rivers draining into the Missouri River below the Gavins Point Dam.
------------------------------------
------------------------------------
Appropriation, 2001 $39,862,000
Budget Estimate, 2002 36,228,000
Recommended, 2002 36,228,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2001 -3,634,000
Budget Estimate, 2002
------------------------------------
The Central Utah Project Completion Act (Titles II--VI of Public Law 102-575) provides for the completion of the Central Utah Project by the Central Utah Water Conservancy District. The Act also: authorizes the appropriation of funds for fish, wildlife, and recreation mitigation and conservation; establishes an account in the Treasury for the deposit of these funds and of other contributions for mitigation and conservation activities; and establishes a Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Commission to administer funds in that account. The Act further assigns responsibilities for carrying out the Act to the Secretary of the Interior and prohibits delegation of those responsibilities to the Bureau of Reclamation.
The Committee recommendation for fiscal year 2002 to carry out the provisions of the Act is $36,228,000, the same as the budget request, and $3,634,000 less than the amount appropriated in fiscal year 2001.
-------------------------------------
-------------------------------------
Appropriation, 2001 $678,953,000
Budget Estimate, 2002 647,997,000
Recommended, 2002 691,160,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2001 +12,207,000
Budget Estimate, 2002 +43,163,000
-------------------------------------
The budget request and the approved Committee allowance are shown on the following table:
Colorado River Front Work and Levee System, Arizona.--The Committee has provided an additional $1,000,000 for the Bureau of Reclamation to accelerate completion of design and National Environmental Policy Act compliance for water management reservoirs to be constructed along the All American Canal.
Tres Rios Wetlands Demonstration, Arizona.--The Committee has provided $500,000 for the Bureau of Reclamation to continue the Tres Rios research and demonstration project.
Central Valley Project, American River Division, California.--The bill includes $3,500,000 for the Bureau of Reclamation to reimburse the City of Folsom, California, for costs associated with the replacement of the Natoma Pipeline System, which is owned and operated by the Bureau of Reclamation, and is the single water supply source for the City.
Central Valley Project, East Side Division.--The Committee has provided an additional $2,400,000 for water and sewer system upgrades and a visitor capacity study at New Melones Lake.
Central Valley Project, Miscellaneous Project Programs.--Within the amounts provided for the Central Valley Project, Miscellaneous Project Program, and the Central Valley Project Restoration Fund, the Committee expects the Bureau of Reclamation to completely fulfill its obligations under the San Joaquin River Agreement, including the timely payment to non-Federal parties to the Agreement.
Central Valley Project, Sacramento River Division, California.--The Committee has provided $7,371,000 for the Resources Management activity of the Sacramento River Division of the Central Valley Project, $3,300,000 above the budget request. Of the amount provided, $2,000,000 is for the Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District (GCID) Fish Screen Improvement Project; $1,000,000 is for detailed, site-specific environmental assessment and permitting work associated with Sites Reservoir, including an evaluation of both the GCID Main Canal and the Tehama-Colusa Canal as a means to convey water to the proposed reservoir; and $300,000 is for the Colusa Basin Drainage District's Integrated Resources Management Plan for critical flood control, conjunctive use, and waterfowl habitat activities.
Groundwater Replenishment System Project, California.--The Committee has included an additional $1,200,000 for the Groundwater Replenishment System project. This project was previously known as the Orange County Regional Water Reclamation project.
Lake Tahoe Regional Wetlands Development, California.--The Committee has provided $2,000,000 for the Tahoe Airport Stream restoration project and $1,500,000 for the project to restore Third and Incline Creeks.
Los Angeles Area Water Reclamation and Reuse Project, California.--The bill includes $740,000 to continue the Los Angeles Area Water Reclamation and Reuse project.
Mission Basin Brackish Groundwater Desalting Demonstration Project, California.--The Committee has provided $400,000 for the Bureau of Reclamation to continue work on the Mission Basin Brackish Groundwater Desalting Demonstration project.
North San Diego County Area Water Recycling Project, California.--The bill includes $3,000,000 to continue work on the North San Diego County Area Water Recycling project.
Salton Sea Research Project, California.--The Committee has provided $2,000,000 for the Bureau of Reclamation to continue environmental work related to the preferred alternative for the restoration of the Salton Sea. In addition, the Committee has provided $1,500,000 for the Bureau of Reclamation to continue the program to perform research and construct river reclamation and wetlands projects to improve water quality in the Alamo River and New River, Imperial County, California.
San Jose Water Reclamation and Reuse Program, California.--The Committee has provided an additional $2,000,000 for the San Jose Water Reclamation and Reuse program.
Animas La-Plata Project, Colorado.--The bill includes $16,000,000 for the Animas La-Plata project. The additional funds above the budget request will enhance the Bureau of Reclamation's ability to complete the project within the time period established by the Colorado Ute Settlement Act Amendments of 2000.
Equus Beds Groundwater Recharge Demonstration Project, Kansas.--The pilot project for the Equus Beds is complete. As final reports are assembled, the Committee strongly encourages the Bureau of Reclamation to work with affected communities and the State of Kansas on design and engineering of the full-scale project.
Fort Peck Dry Prairie Rural Water System, Montana.--The Committee has provided $4,000,000 to continue the Fort Peck Dry Prairie Rural Water System project in Montana.
Albuquerque Metro Area Water Reclamation and Reuse Project, New Mexico.--The Committee has provided $2,000,000 for the continuation of the Albuquerque Metro Area Water Reclamation and Reuse Project.
Deschutes Ecosystem Restoration Project, Oregon.--The Committee has provided an additional $500,000 to facilitate efforts to improve streamflows and improve water quality in the Deschutes River Basin.
Deschutes Project, Oregon.--The Committee has provided an additional $600,000 to continue work on the project to install buried pipe in portions of the Tumalo Irrigation District's Bend Feed Canal to conserve water lost to seepage.
Mid-Dakota Rural Water Project, South Dakota.--The bill includes an additional $5,000,000 to accelerate construction on the Mid-Dakota Water Rural Water project in South Dakota.
Mni-Wiconi Project, South Dakota.--The Committee has provided an additional $5,000,000 to accelerate construction of the Mni-Wiconi project in South Dakota.
El Paso Water Reclamation and Reuse Project, Texas.--The Committee has provided $1,000,000 to facilitate construction of the Central Portion of the El Paso Water Reclamation and Reuse project.
Yakima River Basin Water Enhancement Project, Washington.--The Committee has provided an additional $1,000,000 for the Yakima River Basin Water Enhancement project in Washington.
Drought Emergency Assistance.--The Committee has provided $2,000,000 for the Bureau of Reclamation to establish a Weather Damage Modification Program, including a regional weather modification research program involving the states of Oklahoma, Texas, and Kansas.
Wetlands Development.--Within the amount provided for the Wetlands Development Program, the Committee has provided $500,000 for the Bureau of Reclamation to undertake a project to restore natural vegetation along the lower Colorado River in the vicinity of Yuma, Arizona.
-----------------------------------
-----------------------------------
Appropriation, 2001 $9,348,000
Budget Estimate, 2002 7,495,000
Recommended, 2002 7,495,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2001 -1,853,000
Budget Estimate, 2002
-----------------------------------
Under the Small Reclamation Projects Act (43 U.S.C. 422a-422l), loans and/or grants may be made to non-Federal organizations for construction or rehabilitation and betterment of small water resource projects. As required by the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990, this account records the subsidy costs associated with the direct loans, as well as administrative expenses of this program.
The budget request and the approved Committee allowance are shown on the following table:
------------------------------------
------------------------------------
Appropriation, 2001 $38,360,000
Budget Estimate, 2002 55,039,000
Recommended, 2002 55,039,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2001 +16,679,000
Budget Estimate, 2002
------------------------------------
The Central Valley Project Restoration Fund was authorized in Title 34 of Public Law 102-575, the Central Valley Project Improvement Act. This Fund was established to provide funding from project beneficiaries for habitat restoration, improvement and acquisition, and other fish and wildlife restoration activities in the Central Valley Project area of California. Revenues are derived from payments by project beneficiaries and from donations. Payments from project beneficiaries include several required by the Act (Friant Division surcharges, higher charges on water transferred to non-CVP users, and tiered water prices) and, to the extent required in appropriations Acts, additional annual mitigation and restoration payments.
For fiscal year 2002, the Committee has provided $55,039,000, the same as the budget request.
Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District Fish Screen Improvement Project.--In addition to the funds provided under the Central Valley Project, Sacramento River Division, the Committee has provided $2,000,000 from within funds made available through the Central Valley Project Restoration Fund for the Bureau of Reclamation to continue work on the Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District Fish Screen Improvement Project.
Anadromous Fish Screen Program.--The Committee expects the Bureau of Reclamation to use up to $12,000,000 for the Anadromous Fish Screen program to continue work on the American Basin Fish Screen and Habitat Improvement Project (Natomas Mutual Water Company) as well as the fish screen projects being undertaken by the Sutter Mutual Water Company and Reclamation District 108.
San Joaquin River Restoration Program.--The Committee intends that within the funds provided through the Central Valley Project Restoration Fund in fiscal year 2001, the $5,000,000 made available to the San Joaquin River Restoration Program remains available for that purpose until expended.
------------------------------------
------------------------------------
Appropriation, 2001
Budget Estimate, 2002 $20,000,000
Recommended, 2002
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2001
Budget Estimate, 2002 -20,000,000
------------------------------------
The California Bay-Delta Ecosystem Restoration account funds the Federal share of ecosystem restoration and other activities being developed for the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta by a State and Federal partnership (CALFED). Federal participation in this program was authorized in the California Bay-Delta Environmental and Water Security Act enacted in the fall of 1996. That Act authorized the appropriation of $143,300,000 for ecosystem restoration activities in each of fiscal years 1998, 1999, and 2000. Attempts to reauthorize the program last year were unsuccessful. Accordingly, no funds were provided in fiscal year 2001.
The Committee remains very supportive of the efforts that have been taken in the State of California to develop this program, which will provide a safe, clean, and reliable water system for millions of people while improving the environment. However, for fiscal year 2002, the Committee has again recommended no funding in the absence of authorizing legislation for this multi-year, multi-billion dollar effort. The Committee is aware that authorizing legislation has been introduced in the House and the Senate and will reconsider funding for the program as the bill moves through the appropriations process.
------------------------------------
------------------------------------
Appropriation, 2001 $50,114,000
Budget Estimate, 2002 52,968,000
Recommended, 2002 52,968,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2001 +2,854,000
Budget Estimate, 2002
------------------------------------
The general administrative expenses program provides for the executive direction and management of all Reclamation activities, as performed by the Commissioner's offices in Washington, DC, and Denver, Colorado, and in the five regional offices. The Denver office and regional offices charge individual projects or activities for direct beneficial services and related administrative and technical costs. These charges are covered under other appropriations.
For fiscal year 2002, the Committee has recommended $52,968,000, the same as the budget request, and $2,854,000 above the fiscal year 2001 amount.
Sec. 201. The Committee has included language which provides that none of the funds appropriated in this Act may be used by the Bureau of Reclamation to issue permits, either directly or by making funds available to an entity under a contract, for commercial rafting activities within the Auburn State Recreation Area, California, until the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act are met.
Sec. 202. The Committee has included language which amends the authorization for the American and Sacramento Rivers, California, project.
Funds recommended in Title III provide for Department of Energy programs relating to: Energy Supply, Non-Defense Environmental Management, Uranium Facilities Maintenance and Remediation, Science, Nuclear Waste Disposal, Departmental Administration, the Inspector General, the National Nuclear Security Administration, Defense Environmental Management, Other Defense Activities, Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal, the Power Marketing Administrations, and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
The Committee recommendation provides additional funding for several Department of Energy programs: renewable energy technologies, environmental cleanup activities, and nuclear nonproliferation programs. However, due to overall funding constraints, the Committee was forced to reduce other Departmental programs in order to add funding to these critical areas.
The President's National Energy Policy Development Group released its National Energy Policy in May of 2001. The National Energy Policy includes a number of recommendations relevant to the Department of Energy, from increasing research in certain energy technologies to finding solutions to bottlenecks in the national transmission grid. The Committee encourages the Secretary of Energy to proceed as quickly as possible to complete the necessary reviews in order to implement the recommendations of the National Energy Policy.
Unfortunately, the National Energy Policy was released too late to have an effect on the Department's fiscal year 2002 budget request. If the Secretary needs to make changes to bring fiscal year 2002 program funding into alignment with the National Energy Policy, the Committee is receptive to making the necessary adjustments through the appropriations process and through fiscal year 2002 reprogrammings.
The Secretary should place priority on those actions that can alleviate the electricity shortage that is especially acute in the West. In particular, the Secretary should expedite reviews of Path 15 in California and other transmission constraints, the projected financing needs of the Bonneville Power Administration, and projected needs of the other Federal power marketing administrations.
The Committee wishes to emphasize that most of the Department's programs are not designed to provide immediate relief to the Nation's energy crisis. Instead, the Department's energy supply programs consist primarily of research and development into technologies intended to provide long-term solutions to the Nation's energy needs. Near-term deployment of available energy technologies is best accomplished through incentives other than appropriations.
The Committee is concerned that the Department does not have an adequate plan or policy that relates the basic research being conducted by the Office of Science to the energy needs of the country. While the Committee understands that basic research can lead in many directions, there should be a focus on the underlying needs of the Department's energy portfolio. There appears to be minimal cooperation and coordination between the Office of Science and other Departmental offices on the fundamental research needed to improve energy technologies. Each year the Committee provides funding for the Office of Science to support basic research in energy programs. The Committee directs the Department to identify ways in which coordination can be improved and research conducted which is mutually beneficial and to report to the Committee by January 15, 2002, on the Department's strategy for ensuring that the basic research programs also focus on energy technology needs.
The Department has established an Office of Engineering and Construction Management (OECM) to strengthen its project management capabilities. The Committee strongly supports this effort, but continues to be concerned with the placement of this Office in the Department's organizational structure. In its recent report to Congress, the National Research Council (NRC) reaffirmed its recommendation that the Office of Engineering and Construction Management `. . . should be at the level of assistant secretary and report directly to the Deputy Secretary.' The NRC also noted that, `The most important unresolved issues are: (1) definition of the authority and scope of OECM; (2) the provision of adequate financial and staff resources to improve project management . . .'
The Committee endorses the NRC recommendation that, `. . . the authority of OECM and the PMSOs be strengthened and that the resources and personnel available to them be increased to support their responsibilities.' In that regard, the Committee strongly urges the Department to elevate OECM to a level equal to an Assistant Secretary with a direct reporting relationship to the Deputy Secretary/Secretarial Acquisition Executive authority. The Committee believes that the director of the office should continue to be a career position rather than a political appointment. Further, it fully expects that OECM's existing personnel should continue in their current positions in OECM's new location. The Department also should place the facilities and infrastructure policy development and program oversight responsibilities and budget under OECM.
Consistent with NRC's recommendation for strengthening available financial and staff resources, the Committee has provided $7,600,000 for OECM in fiscal year 2002 and expects the office to report directly to the Deputy Secretary.
The Committee is aware of the continuing decline in the condition of the Department's facilities throughout the complex and of the Department's inability to properly evaluate and address the readiness and maintenance status of its facilities. Many of its aged, deteriorated facilities and infrastructure lack the functionality to provide adequate mission support.
Focus on breakdown maintenance at the Department, in lieu of preventive maintenance programs and adequate capital investments for facility upgrades, has resulted in increasing deferred maintenance costs, further exacerbating the problem and increasing the risks for mission failures. This absence of adequate maintenance and capital investment has also resulted in facility operating costs which are inordinately high. The Committee is reluctant to continue funding costly mission-critical repairs and facility upgrades that could have been prevented or corrected at less cost. The Department must develop an improved management system and allocation of resources for its facilities and infrastructure.
The Committee is also aware that the Department has an increasing number of excess facilities that require extensive budgets for surveillance and maintenance. It is critical that the Department address its long-term operations budget requirements which must take into consideration approaches to the re-engineering of its complex, priorities for recapitalization, and removal of excess facilities.
Therefore, the Committee directs the Department to:
The Committee continues to believe there is too much reliance on support service contractors and other non-Federal employees throughout the Department of Energy. The Department reduced the number of management and operating (M&O;) contractor employees assigned to the Washington metropolitan area to 220 in fiscal year 2001. The Committee expects the Department not to exceed this number in fiscal year 2002. However, at Headquarters the Department also continues to rely extensively on support service contractors for technical assistance and oversight despite the large number of Federal employees also on staff.
Report on M&O; contractor employees- The Department is to provide a report to the Committee at the end of fiscal year 2001 on the use of M&O; contractor employees assigned to the Washington metropolitan area. The report is to identify all M&O; contractor employees who work in the Washington metropolitan area, including the name of the employee, the name of the contractor, the organization to which he or she is assigned, the job title and a description of the tasks the employee is performing, the annual cost of the employee to the Department, the Headquarters program organization sponsoring each M&O; employee, the program account funding that employee, and the length of time the employee has been detailed to the Department. The report should also include detailed information on the cost of maintaining each M&O; office in the Washington metropolitan area. This report is to include actual data for the period October 1, 2000 through September 30, 2001, and is due to the Committee on January 31, 2002.
Report on support service contractors- The report is to include for each support service contract at Headquarters: the name of the contractor; the program organization (at the lowest organization level possible) hiring the contractor; a descriptive and detailed list of the tasks performed; the number of contractor employees working on the contract; and the annual cost of the contract. This report is to include actual data for the period October 1, 2000 through September 30, 2001, and is due to the Committee on January 31, 2002.
The Committee continues to be concerned with the staffing levels in many Departmental organizations. Despite expectations expressed by Congress during establishment of the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) in fiscal year 2001 that the new organization should incorporate many organizational and management efficiencies, there appear to be few changes in the regular way of doing business. The result of the new organization has been an increase in the number of field offices and additional staff at Headquarters. The remainder of the Department has also maintained the same staffing levels despite the creation of the NNSA and its separation from most of the Department's support organizations. This failure to address organizational and management efficiencies that were expected both in the NNSA and the remainder of the Department is a disappointment. It was hoped that the Department and NNSA would use this opportunity to revamp the operation of an agency that is widely viewed as overly bureaucratic and process-oriented.
To jump-start a process that should have been implemented one year ago, the Committee directs the Department to prepare an overall staffing plan that implements organizational and management efficiencies throughout the Department and the NNSA and that could lead to a reduction in overall staffing during fiscal year 2003. Each program organization at Headquarters, each support and administrative organization at Headquarters, and each field office should be included in this review. If legislation permitting early retirements or excepted civil service hiring is required to implement this plan, the Department should request this authority when submitting the organization and staffing plan to the Committee. This plan is due by January 31, 2002.
The Department of Energy is currently self-regulating with respect to nuclear safety and worker safety at most of its facilities under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954. The Committee directs the Department to prepare an implementation plan to transition to external regulation at the Department's non-defense science laboratories. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) would assume responsibility for nuclear safety at the Department's non-defense science laboratories and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) would assume responsibility for worker safety at these same sites. The Department is directed in fiscal year 2002 to prepare a plan for implementation of external regulation, with a proposed effective date for the actual implementation of external regulation of October 1, 2002. This plan is due by March 31, 2002.
For planning purposes, external regulation will apply to the five multiprogram national laboratories under the Office of Science: Argonne National Laboratory; Brookhaven National Laboratory; Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory; Oak Ridge National Laboratory; and Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. External regulation shall also apply to the five single-purpose laboratories under the Office of Science: Ames Laboratory, Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory; Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory; Stanford Linear Accelerator Center; and Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility. The requirement to plan for the transition to external regulation is not applicable to the nuclear weapons laboratories, plants, or test facilities, nor to the Department's environmental remediation sites or other laboratories and research facilities.
The Committee has not included a statutory limitation on contractor travel in fiscal year 2002. However, each program organization within the Department is expected to ensure that contractor travel is limited to critical mission functions and that administrative travel to Washington is limited. The Committee directs the Department to maintain a tracking system that will allow for periodic reviews of contractor travel costs and destinations.
The Department is directed to provide a report to the Committee by January 15, 2002, on all independent centers funded in fiscal year 2002. The report should identify all independent centers at each laboratory or facility, the annual cost, number of employees, and the source of funding; i.e., multiple programs, laboratory directed research and development funds, and overhead accounts. The report should be at the level of detail included in the fiscal year 2001 report to Congress. All centers should be specifically identified in the fiscal year 2003 budget submission.
The fiscal year 2003 budget justifications submitted by the Department should include the following: a section identifying the last year that authorizing legislation was provided by Congress for each program; funding within each construction project data sheet for elimination of excess facilities at least equal to the square footage of the new facilities being requested; and funding to eliminate excess facilities at least equal to the square footage of new facilities being constructed as general plant projects (GPP). The Department should work with the Committee on the specific information needed for each requirement.
The Department recently sold 182 acres of land in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, for $54 per acre to a private development company. The Department claimed that the Atomic Energy Act provided the authority to sell land in the performance of a programmatic function without regard to standard Federal practices. It is not clear that the land was sold at fair market value, and the Committee is concerned that the Department did not act in the best interest of the Federal government and the taxpayers. The Department is directed to notify the Committee at least 60 days in advance of any proposed sale of land which does not follow the standard Federal practices for property sales and provide a detailed explanation for the waiver of Federal practices for the sale of the property.
The Committee requires the Department to promptly and fully inform the Committee when a change in program execution and funding is required during the fiscal year. To assist the Department in this effort, the following guidance is provided for programs and activities funded in the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act.
Definition- A reprogramming includes the reallocation of funds from one activity to another within an appropriation, or any significant departure from a program, project, or activity described in the agency's budget justification as presented to and approved by Congress. For construction projects, a reprogramming constitutes the reallocation of funds from one construction project identified in the justifications to another or a significant change in the scope of an approved project.
Criteria for Reprogramming- A reprogramming should be made only when an unforeseen situation arises, and then only if delay of the project or the activity until the next appropriations year would result in a detrimental impact to an agency program or priority. Reprogrammings may also be considered if the Department can show that significant cost savings can accrue by increasing funding for an activity. Mere convenience or desire should not be factors for consideration.
Reprogrammings should not be employed to initiate new programs or to change program, project, or activity allocations specifically denied, limited, or increased by Congress in the Act or report. In cases where unforeseen events or conditions are deemed to require such changes, proposals shall be submitted in advance to the Committee and be fully explained and justified.
Reporting and Approval Procedures- The Committee has not provided statutory language to define reprogramming guidelines, but expects the Department to follow the spirit and the letter of the guidance provided in this report. Consistent with prior years, the Committee has not provided the Department with any internal reprogramming flexibility in fiscal year 2002, unless specifically identified in the House, Senate, or conference reports. Any reallocation of new or prior year budget authority or prior year deobligations must be submitted to the Committees in writing and may not be implemented prior to approval by the Committees on Appropriations.
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.
-------------------------------------
-------------------------------------
Appropriation, 2001 $659,918,000
Budget Estimate, 2002 544,245,000
Recommended, 2002 639,317,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2001 -20,601,000
Budget Estimate, 2002 +95,072,000
-------------------------------------
The Energy Supply account includes the following programs: Renewable Energy Resources; Nuclear Energy; Environment, Safety and Health (non-defense); and Technical Information Management. As in fiscal year 2001, the Committee recommends that the funds for Energy Supply activities remain available until expended.
The National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA) in March 2000 identified a number of deficiencies in the management and organization of the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE), including the absence of clear goals and priorities, an integrated work program linked to those goals and priorities, and milestones reflecting program results. In fiscal year 2001, the Committee noted that `[a]ll of the renewable programs are requesting increases of 30 to 50 percent with no clear integration or explanation of why such increases are warranted in all programs simultaneously.' The opposite situation exists in fiscal year 2002, where the initial budget request proposed reductions of nearly 50 percent in most renewable energy programs. A budget amendment of $39.1 million restored funding in some but not all of these renewable energy programs. Again, there is no clear rationale provided to explain the selective budget cuts, and no sense that the Department is conducting an integrated program with a well-defined scheme for measuring success. There is also no apparent coordination between the budget request, which was submitted to Congress in April 2001 and amended in early May 2001, and the National Energy Policy, which was released shortly after submission of the amended budget request.
The total Committee recommendation for renewable energy resources is $376,817,000, an increase of $100,164,000 over the amended budget request and $1,032,000 over fiscal year 2001 funding.
Metrics- The objective of federal research on renewable energy resources should be to develop significant quantities of clean, reliable and affordable energy from renewable resources. The Secretary of Energy reports that, from fiscal year 1977 through fiscal year 2001, the cumulative Federal investment by the Department of Energy in renewable energy technologies totals over $6.1 billion. The Committee is concerned that we continue to expend federal research dollars on various renewable technologies without a clear relation between the money invested and the power generated. As the NAPA report noted, there is within EERE an `emphasis on process rather than on product.' The Department needs to develop a clear set of metrics that can be used by the Congress and the Administration to compare the effectiveness of the federal investment in alternate energy sources. These metrics should include the cumulative federal investment to date in each technology, the current cost per kilowatt-hour generated, a realistic assessment of likely future costs and performance with additional research and development, the current total amount of power generated in the United States by each source, a realistic assessment of the potential future power generation capacity available from each source, and an estimate of the environmental advantages and disadvantages of each technology. Past and present subsidies to each technology should be clearly identified. The metrics should also indicate the progress of each technology along the research, development and deployment spectrum so that it is clear when a particular technology is mature enough to hand off to the private sector, recognizing the need to overcome various market barriers and infrastructure gaps. The Department should submit the above-referenced metrics as part of the detailed budget justification for Renewable Energy Resources in the fiscal year 2003 budget request and in subsequent budget requests.
Strategic Review- The Committee is supportive of the Department's recently announced strategic review of its renewable energy programs. Such a review is consistent with the need for reliable and quantifiable measures of success, as outlined in the preceding paragraph, which can be used to guide future funding decisions. Upon completion of this strategic review, the Department should submit, if necessary, a reprogramming request to align fiscal year 2002 spending on the most cost-effective renewable energy technologies.
Renewable energy technologies
Renewable Energy Technologies include biomass/biofuels energy systems, geothermal technology development, hydrogen research, hydropower, solar energy, and wind energy systems.
Biomass/Biofuels Energy Systems- The Committee recommendation for biomass/biofuels energy systems is $88,960,000, which is an increase of $7,005,000 over the amended budget request and $2,000,000 over the fiscal year 2001 funding level. This amount includes $41,010,000 for power systems and $47,950,000 for the transportation program.
The funds provided for power systems include: $2,000,000 for research and development on biopower from switchgrass; $1,000,000 to support a cost-shared Agricultural Waste Methane Power Generation Facility in California; $1,000,000 to support a cost-shared agricultural mixed waste biorefinery in Alabama using the thermal-depolymerization technology; and $1,000,000 to support the Black Belt Bioenergy Demonstration Project in Alabama. The funds provided for the transportation program include $1,000,000 for microcombustion research at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory.
The control level for fiscal year 2002 is at the program account level of biomass/biofuels energy systems.
Geothermal technology development- The Committee provides $27,000,000 for geothermal technology development, an increase of $13,100,000 over the budget request and the same as the fiscal year 2001 funding level. The Committee is particularly concerned about preserving a strong knowledge base on geothermal energy in the university community. The budget request, however, proposed to reduce university research on geothermal technologies by over 80 percent. Therefore, the Committee recommendation includes sufficient funding in the geothermal technology development account to maintain university research on geothermal technologies at the fiscal year 2001 funding level of $2,600,000. The Committee recommendation also includes $2,000,000 in final funding for the Lake County Basin geothermal project in California.
Hydrogen research- The National Energy Policy of May 2001 noted the promise of hydrogen as a clean-burning, limitless fuel of the future, and recommended continued research on next-generation hydrogen technologies. Funding of $27,000,000 is provided for hydrogen research, an increase of $119,000 over the amended budget request and the same as fiscal year 2001 funding.
Hydropower- A major focus of the Department's recent research on hydropower has been on the development of more environmentally friendly turbine designs that will reduce fish mortality. While a worthwhile objective, such research is more appropriately funded by turbine manufacturers and by the federal agencies with responsibility for building and operating federal hydropower facilities, principally the Army Corps of Engineers, the Bureau of Reclamation, and the power marketing administrations. The Committee recommends $3,000,000 for hydropower research by the Department of Energy, $2,000,000 less than fiscal year 2001 and $1,989,000 less than the amended budget request.
Solar Energy- Solar energy technologies include: concentrating solar power; photovoltaic energy systems; and solar building technology research. The total Committee recommendation for solar energy is $94,657,000, an increase of $51,725,000 over the budget request and $1,132,000 over fiscal year 2001.
The Committee recommends $7,932,000 for concentrating solar power, an increase of $6,000,000 over the budget request and $5,868,000 less than fiscal year 2001. Both solar troughs and solar dish/Stirling engine technologies have the potential to be more efficient than solar tower technology. Therefore, $6,000,000 is provided to the Department for field testing of these technologies, and $1,932,000 is provided to the national laboratories for materials research, reliability testing, and support.
Photovoltaic energy systems are funded at $81,775,000, an increase of $6,000,000 over fiscal year 2001 and $42,775,000 over the budget request. The recommendation includes $8,700,000 for basic research/university programs and $18,500,000 for the thin film partnership program. The Committee supports cooperation with universities and industry to develop the science and engineering base required to move photovoltaic technology from the laboratory bench to the assembly line.
The Committee recommends $4,950,000 for solar building technology research, an increase of $1,000,000 over fiscal year 2001 and $2,950,000 over the budget request.
The control level for fiscal year 2002 is at the solar energy program account level.
Wind energy systems.--The Committee recommends $40,000,000 for wind energy systems, the same as in fiscal year 2001 and an increase of $19,500,000 over the budget request. The Committee supports the Department's current focus on developing the next generation of wind turbines that will be able to generate electricity at a competitive cost per kilowatt-hour in moderate (i.e., Class 4) winds without the need for a continuing federal subsidy. The Department is encouraged to work with private turbine manufacturers and the utility industry to develop, test, and bring such turbines to market at the earliest opportunity.
Electric energy systems and storage
The electric energy systems and storage program is funded at $60,000,000, $8,000,000 more than in fiscal year 2001 and $8,254,000 more than the amended budget request. Under this program, the Department conducts research and development on advanced technologies for the generation, transmission, storage, and distribution of electric power. The Committee encourages the Department to continue its work to support the timely deployment of distributed energy resources.
The Committee recommends $39,870,000 for high temperature superconducting research and development, $3,051,000 more than the amended budget request and $2,870,000 more than provided in fiscal year 2001. For energy storage systems, the Committee provides $7,130,000, $1,143,000 more than the budget request and $1,130,000 more than fiscal year 2001. For transmission reliability, the Committee recommends $13,000,000, an increase of $4,000,000 over the funding level in fiscal year 2001 and an increase of $4,060,000 over the budget request. Within the funds available for transmission reliability, the Department should initiate the field testing of advanced composite conductors, which have the potential to increase the capacity of existing transmission lines.
The control level for fiscal year 2002 is at the electric energy systems and storage program account level.
Renewable support and implementation
The renewable support and implementation program includes departmental energy management, international renewable energy, the renewable energy production incentive (REPI), renewable Indian energy resources, and renewable program support. The Committee recommendation for renewable support and implementation is $12,500,000, an increase of $2,950,000 over the budget request and a decrease of $9,100,000 compared to the fiscal year 2001 funding level. This recommendation provides $2,500,000 for departmental energy management, $3,000,000 for the international renewable energy program, $4,000,000 for the renewable energy production incentive program, and $3,000,000 for renewable program support. Consistent with the budget request, the Committee has provided no funding for renewable Indian energy resources, with available funds directed to other renewable energy work.
National Renewable Energy Laboratory
The Committee recommendation for the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) in Golden, Colorado, is $5,000,000, the same as the budget request and an increase of $1,000,000 over the fiscal year 2001 funding level. NREL is one of the Department's newer laboratories, and it is essential that the Department maintain this facility properly so that it does not require a larger investment later in time, as is the case with much of the infrastructure elsewhere in the DOE complex.
Program direction
The Committee notes with disapproval that the Department requested a three percent increase for program direction at the same time as it proposed a 36 percent reduction in the total funding for Renewable Energy Resources. The program direction funding, and the Federal staff supported by this funding, should be proportional to the funding available for substantive research and development work on renewable energy resources. The Committee, therefore, recommends $18,700,000 for program direction, the same as the fiscal year 2001 level and a reduction of $500,000 from the budget request.
The Committee supports the Department's initiative to improve the project management capabilities in the Golden Field Office. Centralized project management by the federal staff in Golden should offer efficiencies compared to the current fragmented approach in which renewable energy projects are managed by a variety of other field offices and laboratories. However, the Committee does not believe that this initiative requires additional funding and FTEs. Instead, the Department should look first at retraining the existing federal workforce in the Golden Field Office and then gradually shift more project management responsibilities as their capabilities improve.
The Department's programs support a wide variety of applications of nuclear energy, from powering spacecraft to treating cancer to developing reactor technologies that provide 20 percent of the Nation's electricity. The Committee recommendation for nuclear energy programs is $224,130,000, an increase of $1,008,000 over the budget request but a decrease of $35,795,000 from the fiscal year 2001 funding level.
Advanced Radioisotope Power Systems.--The Committee recommendation is $28,200,000, a reduction of $894,000 from the budget request and $4,000,000 below the enacted level for fiscal year 2001. The Committee acknowledges the importance of maintaining the infrastructure and institutional knowledge base necessary to provide radioisotope power systems for space and national security missions. However, given the funding constraints on the overall Department of Energy budget, the Department should seek additional support for radioisotope power systems from the user agencies.
Isotopes.--The amount provided for isotope support and production is $22,683,000, a reduction of $2,000,000 from the budget request and $2,032,000 compared to fiscal year 2001. Funding for the Isotope Production Facility at Los Alamos National Laboratory is $2,494,000, the same as the budget request. With the use of offsetting collections of $9,000,000 in fiscal year 2002, the net appropriation for isotopes is $16,177,000, $2,000,000 less than the budget request. The recommendation includes $900,000 for alpha emitting isotopes, the same level as provided in fiscal year 2001.
For the extraction of alpha emitting isotopes from excess uranium 233 presently stored in Building 3019 at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, the Department should submit a project plan to the Committee by December 31, 2001, and include the proposal as part of the fiscal year 2003 budget request. This proposal should clearly identify all project costs, including the costs for storage and final disposal of the excess uranium 233 and for decontamination and decommissioning of Building 3019. The Department's proposal should include a baseline estimate for these activities, so that it can be determined whether or not the extraction of alpha emitting isotopes would increase the ultimate cleanup costs for the excess uranium 233 and for Building 3019. The Department's proposal should also address the cost-effectiveness of acquiring the medically-valuable isotopes from the Russian nuclear complex.
University Reactor Fuel Assistance and Support.--The Committee recommendation is $15,895,000, an increase of $3,921,000 over the budget request and $3,895,000 over fiscal year 2001. The Committee is concerned about the recent decline in the number of graduates specializing in nuclear science and engineering. One of the major impediments to the construction of next-generation nuclear power plants in the United States may not be the technology itself, but rather the lack of skilled scientists and engineers who can design, license, build, and operate these new reactor designs. The Committee, therefore, provides additional funding for both the fuel to support the university reactors and for the various grants and fellowships that support nuclear science and engineering education.
The Committee is aware that several universities are currently deciding whether to continue operating their reactors for teaching, research, and service. Past support for these reactors has been inadequate in view of their importance in forging the nation's nuclear technology capabilities. The Committee directs DOE to work with the nuclear engineering community, the nuclear medicine community, and the Nuclear Energy Research Advisory Committee to provide, through a peer-reviewed process, enhanced long-term support for key university facilities, possibly including staff support and instrumentation. The Department should submit a report to the Committee by December 31, 2001, presenting the Department's plan to accomplish this objective.
Research and Development.--The Committee strongly supports continued research and development to make the current generation of nuclear power plants safer and more efficient, and to develop the next generation of reactors. The total Committee recommendation for nuclear energy research and development is $32,579,000, an increase of $5,500,000 over the budget request and a decrease of $14,921,000 relative to fiscal year 2001.
For the nuclear energy plant optimization (NEPO) program, the Committee provides $5,000,000, the same amount as in fiscal year 2001 and $500,000 more than the budget request. As directed in fiscal year 2001, all NEPO projects should have industry contributions that equal or exceed the Federal share.
The Committee recommendation for the nuclear energy research initiative (NERI) is $23,079,000, an increase of $5,000,000 over the budget request and a decrease of $11,921,000 compared to fiscal year 2001. In addition to partnering with industry, the Department should ensure that universities play a major role in the NERI program.
The Committee provides $4,500,000 for nuclear energy technologies, the same as the budget request and $3,000,000 less than the fiscal year 2001 funding level. In addition to its efforts on developing Generation IV reactor technologies, the Department should take steps to facilitate the near-term deployment of existing advanced reactor designs. However, the Committee is not persuaded that the Federal government needs to fund the licensing of advanced reactor designs. No funds are made available for activities related to the deployment of small modular reactors in remote locations.
Infrastructure.--The Committee provides a total of $80,529,000, $750,000 less than the budget request and $11,631,000 less than fiscal year 2001. This includes $33,357,000 for ANL-West operations, $38,439,000 to implement the permanent deactivation of the Fast Flux Test Facility (FFTF), and $8,733,000 for Test Reactor Area (TRA) landlord costs. No funds are provided for initiation of conceptual design for a remote-handled facility for transuranic waste at ANL-West. Included within the TRA landlord appropriation is $500,000 for fire and life safety improvements and $950,000 for the electrical utility upgrade.
Nuclear facilities management.--The Committee recommendation is $30,250,000, a reduction of $207,000 from the budget request and $4,600,000 from the fiscal year 2001 funding level. The recommendation includes $4,200,000 for EBR-II shutdown, $16,200,000 for the disposition of spent nuclear fuel and legacy materials, and $9,850,000 for disposition technology.
Program direction.--The Committee is concerned that the Department proposes to increase program direction funding by 8.8 percent at the same time it proposes to reduce the total program funding by 8.4 percent. Such a disproportionate increase in program direction funding is not supportable. Accordingly, the Committee recommendation for program direction funding is $20,500,000, a reduction of $1,500,000 from fiscal year 2001 and $4,562,000 from the budget request.
The Committee recommendation is $31,500,000, a reduction of $4,000,000 from the budget request and $4,498,000 from fiscal year 2001.
As directed in section 308 of the General Provisions part of this Act, the Department is to prepare for the transition to external regulation of nuclear safety and worker health and safety for the non-defense science laboratories. The effective date for the transition to external regulation of these facilities will be October 1, 2002. The Department should transfer $4,000,000 to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to cover NRC's costs to prepare for the transition to external regulation. The Department should transfer $720,000 to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), $120,000 for external regulation preparations and $600,000 for worker health and safety at those sites transferred to non-Federal entities and for the Department's non-nuclear facilities not covered under the Atomic Energy Act.
The Department should plan on reducing its current headquarters staffing levels by at least 10 percent upon the implementation of external regulation in fiscal year 2003, and should determine whether reductions in field staffing are appropriate as well. The Department should also take steps to reduce its reliance on support contractors for the environment, safety, and health function.
The Committee supports the efforts of the Department and its contractors on the Voluntary Protection Program (VPP). Modeled after a successful OSHA program, VPP encourages the Department's contractors to apply industry best practices for health and safety.
The Committee recommendation for the Technical Information Management program is $7,870,000, a reduction of $1,100,000 from the budget request and $730,000 from the enacted level for fiscal year 2001. Funding for program support is $1,400,000, and funding for program direction is $6,470,000. The Committee is concerned that the Department is duplicating technical information services that are already available from the private sector. The Department should carefully review its information services such as PubSCIENCE to be sure that such efforts remain focused on appropriate scientific journals and do not compete improperly with similar services available from the private sector.
-------------------------------------
-------------------------------------
Appropriation, 2001 $277,200,000
Budget Estimate, 2002 228,553,000
Recommended, 2002 227,872,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2001 -49,328,000
Budget Estimate, 2002 -681,000
-------------------------------------
The Non-Defense Environmental Management program includes funds to manage and clean up sites used for civilian, energy research, and non-defense related activities. These past activities resulted in radioactive, hazardous, and mixed waste contamination which requires remediation, stabilization, or some other type of action. The major activities are: Site Closure for cleanup projects to be completed by the end of fiscal year 2006, and for which no further DOE mission is anticipated; Site/Project Completion for cleanup projects that will be completed by 2006, but where DOE programs will continue; Post 2006 Completion for cleanup projects that will extend beyond 2006; and Excess Facilities for final disposition of excess contaminated facilities. The Committee recommendation is $227,872,000, a decrease of $681,000 from the budget request.
The fiscal year 2001 supplemental appropriations bill contains additional funding of $11,950,000 for this program. An additional $10,000,000 was provided for cleanup activities at the Brookhaven National Laboratory and $1,950,000 to study remediation options at the former Atlas Corporation's uranium mill tailings site near Moab, Utah.
The recommendation for site closure is $43,000,000, the same as the budget request, which will maintain the Weldon Spring Site cleanup for completion in 2002.
The recommendation for site/project completion is $64,119,000, the same as the budget request.
The recommendation for post 2006 completion is $115,753,000, a decrease of $4,300,000 from the budget request of $120,053,000. Additional funding of $3,700,000 has been provided to maintain the cleanup activities at the Energy Technology Engineering Center in California consistent with fiscal year 2001.
Atlas.--The Committee recommendation includes $2,000,000 for stabilization activities at the Atlas uranium mill tailings site in Moab, Utah. The budget requested no funding for this activity. The Committee also provided funds in the fiscal year 2001 supplemental budget request to prepare a remediation plan for the Atlas in Moab, Utah. The Department is required to prepare this remediation plan, with the assistance of the National Academy of Sciences, by the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (P.L. 106-398) before it can proceed with site remediation.
West Valley.--The Committee recommendation for the West Valley Demonstration Project in New York is $85,115,000, a reduction of $10,000,000 from the budget request of $95,115,000. This recommendation includes $38,000,000 for high-level waste vitrification and tank heel high activity waste processing and $3,000,000 for spent nuclear fuel, both funded at the same level as the budget request. The amount for site transition, decommissioning, and project completion is $44,115,000, a reduction of $10,000,000 from the budget request, but only $271,000 less than fiscal year 2001. The Department is to spend these funds performing the most critical activities necessary to maintain the West Valley site in a safe and stable condition.
The Committee is concerned about the impasse in negotiations between the Department and the State of New York over a number of critical issues, including the scope of Federal cleanup activities at the site, the duration of the Federal presence at the site, non-Federal funding for disposition of vitrified high level waste and spent nuclear fuel, and the respective Federal and non-Federal cost shares. The lack of agreement does not impede completion of vitrification at West Valley, and the Department has indicated that certain other decontamination and waste management activities can proceed absent a final agreement with the State of New York. However, some site transition, decommissioning, and project completion activities are deferred pending resolution of this impasse.
The General Accounting Office (GAO) recently completed an analysis of the situation in a report entitled `Nuclear Waste: Agreement Among Agencies Responsible for the West Valley Site is Critically Needed' (GAO-01-314). This report identified the lack of agreement between the Department of Energy and the State of New York as the most significant impediment to completing cleanup of the West Valley site. The GAO found the differences between the Department and the State so serious that agreement is unlikely without Congressional intervention.
The Department may submit a reprogramming request for additional funds for remaining site transition, decommissioning, and project completion activities only upon successful conclusion of an agreement with the State of New York. Such agreement must be consistent with the project scope and cost-sharing requirements as defined in the West Valley Demonstration Project Act of 1980, and with the terms of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended, regarding the disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste. Any proposal by the Department to exceed the constraints of existing law must be transmitted in advance to the Committee with an explanation of why such a proposal is in the Federal interest. Offers made by the Department on behalf of the Federal government may not be protected from Congressional oversight by a confidentiality agreement.
The environmental management program is responsible for final disposition of excess contaminated facilities throughout the Department. Funds are currently being expended only for surveillance and maintenance of most excess facilities, and these costs will continue until decontamination and decommissioning (D&D;) is completed. The Committee strongly urges the Department to seek new, innovative, and less costly ways to accomplish final D&D; of these facilities.
The Committee has provided $5,000,000 for the excess facility program, an increase of $3,619,000 over the budget request. The budget requested only surveillance and maintenance costs for the excess facilities transferred to the program in fiscal year 2002. In addition to these surveillance and maintenance costs, the recommendation includes $3,619,000 to initiate a program to begin the actual D&D; of excess facilities already owned by the environmental management program. These funds must be used to dispose of those facilities that will provide the greatest impact on reducing long-term costs and risk.
-------------------------------------
-------------------------------------
Appropriation, 2001 $392,502,000
Budget Estimate, 2002 363,425,000
Recommended, 2002 393,425,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2001 +923,000
Budget Estimate, 2002 +30,000,000
-------------------------------------
Congress created the Uranium Facilities Maintenance and Remediation account in fiscal year 2001 to consolidate the programs previously funded in two separate accounts: one set of activities funded by the Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund and managed by the Office of Environmental Management, and the other set of related uranium activities that had been managed by the Office of Nuclear Energy, Science, and Technology. The consolidated Uranium Facilities Maintenance and Remediation account is managed by the Office of Environmental Management and includes two subaccounts, the Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund, and Other Uranium Activities. The Committee recommendation is $393,425,000, an increase of $30,000,000 over the budget request and $923,000 more than fiscal year 2001.
Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund- This fund was established by the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-486) to carry out environmental remediation at the nation's three gaseous diffusion plants, at the East Tennessee Technology Park in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, at Portsmouth, Ohio, and at Paducah, Kentucky. Title X of the 1992 Act also authorized use of a portion of the Fund to reimburse private licensees for the Federal government's share of the cost of cleaning up uranium and thorium processing sites.
The Committee recommends $272,641,000 for activities funded from the Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund, an increase of $20,000,000 over the budget request and a reduction of $72,397,000 compared to fiscal year 2001. Funding for the depleted uranium hexaflouride (DUF6) conversion facilities is shifted to the Other Uranium Activities subaccount, as it was appropriated in fiscal year 2001. The Committee recommendation for the Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund includes a portion of the funds necessary to provide for winterization and cold standby at the Portsmouth plant; the balance of the funds are provided under Other Uranium Activities. The net increase over the budget request, $30,000,000 in consideration of the shift of DUF6 activities to Other Uranium Activities, is to be divided with $10,000,000 to the Paducah site and $20,000,000 to the East Tennessee Technology Park.
The Committee recommendation includes the requested amount, $1,000,000, for uranium and thorium reimbursements as authorized by Title X of the Energy Policy Act of 1992. Because of significantly increased funding for this activity in fiscal year 2001, the Department indicates that the backlog of reimbursements has been eliminated and $1,000,000 will be sufficient for anticipated claims in fiscal year 2002.
Other Uranium Activities- The Committee recommendation is $120,784,000, an increase of $10,000,000 over the budget request. This $10,000,000 reflects the transfer of DUF6 activities from the Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund subaccount to the Other Uranium Activities subaccount. In addition to funds for the DUF6 conversion project at Portsmouth and Paducah, the Other Uranium Activities subaccount includes maintenance of enrichment facilities and inventories, financial liabilities arising prior to the privatization of the United States Enrichment Corporation, and the balance of the winterization and cold standby activities for the Portsmouth plant. These are funded at the Administration's requested levels: $99,000,000 for maintenance of facilities and inventories, including the winterization/cold standby work at Portsmouth; $11,784,000 for pre-existing liabilities; and $10,000,000 for the DUF6 conversion facilities (transferred from the Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund).
---------------------------------------
---------------------------------------
Appropriation, 2001 $3,180,341,000
Budget Estimate, 2002 3,159,890,000
Recommended, 2002 3,166,395,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2001 -13,946,000
Budget Estimate, 2002 +6,505,000
---------------------------------------
The Science account funds the Department's work on high energy physics, nuclear physics, biological and environmental sciences, basic energy sciences, advanced scientific computing, energy research analyses, facilities support for the multiprogram energy laboratories, fusion energy sciences, safeguards and security, and program direction. The Committee is very supportive of most of the research conducted by the Department's Office of Science, but funding constraints preclude significant increases this fiscal year. The Committee recommendation is $3,166,395,000, an increase of $6,505,000 over the budget request and $13,946,000 less than the fiscal year 2001 funding level.
The Committee recommends $716,100,000 for high energy physics, the same as the budget request and $10,030,000 less than fiscal year 2001.
Research and technology- The Committee recommendation for research and technology in high energy physics is $247,870,000, the same as the budget request and $13,150,000 more than provided in fiscal year 2001.
Facility operations- The Committee recommends $456,830,000 for facility operations, the same as the budget request and $2,180,000 less than fiscal year 2001. This amount includes $244,739,000 for Fermilab and $125,078,000 for the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center to provide for full operation of these facilities.
Construction- The Committee recommendation for construction of the Neutrinos at the Main Injector project at Fermilab is $11,400,000, the same as the budget request.
The Committee recommendation for nuclear physics is $361,510,000, $1,000,000 more than the budget request, but $8,380,000 less than provided in fiscal year 2001. Additional funds are provided for university research in nuclear physics.
The Committee recommendation for biological and environmental research is $445,880,000, an increase of $2,910,000 over the budget request but $55,380,000 less than in fiscal year 2001.
This amount includes $19,470,000, the same as the budget request, to continue the Microbial Cell Project and to initiate the Genomes to Life program. The National Institute for Global Environmental Change (NIGEC), which is integrated throughout the Environmental Processes subaccount, is funded at the requested funding level of $8,763,000.
Joint Genome Institute- The Committee recommendation provides the requested amount for the Joint Genome Institute, $57,200,000. The Committee encourages the Joint Genome Institute to utilize its sequencing capacity to provide sequences and draft sequences of the gene-rich regions of plant and microbial organisms of economic importance to agriculture, such as corn, wheat, and plant pathogens.
Construction- The Committee recommendation includes $11,405,000, an increase of $1,405,000 over the budget request, to complete the construction of the Laboratory for Comparative Functional Genomics at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory. The total project cost for this facility is only $14,420,000. By completing construction in two rather than three fiscal years, this will enable beneficial occupancy of the new facility in May 2003 instead of May 2004. This accelerated project completion will save the costs of utilities and maintenance for the old facility, plus the site usage fee at the Y-12 site, yielding a total net savings to the Federal government of approximately $800,000.
The Committee recommendation for basic energy sciences is $1,006,705,000, $2,000,000 more than the budget request and a reduction of $6,665,000 from fiscal year 2001. For purposes of reprogramming during fiscal year 2002, the Department may allocate funding among all operating accounts within basic energy sciences.
Spallation Neutron Source- The Committee recommends the requested amount for construction of the Spallation Neutron Source (SNS), $276,300,000. This represents an increase of $16,800,000 compared to fiscal year 2001. The Committee appreciates the recent improvements made in the management of this project, but cautions the Department to maintain a close watch on the various components of the SNS being produced by other national laboratories.
Intense Pulsed Neutrino Facility- The Committee recognizes the value of such a facility in conjunction with the Spallation Neutron Source, but budget constraints preclude funding an intense pulsed neutrino facility in fiscal year 2002.
Nanoscale Science Research- The Committee supports the creation of several regional nanoscale science research centers consistent with the September 1999 recommendations of the Interagency Working Group on Nanoscience, Engineering and Technology of the National Science and Technology Council. The Committee also supports the efforts of the Department to seek the active involvement of the academic community in the development of these centers. However, the Committee reminds the Department that its efforts to involve universities must reach broadly and openly rather than selectively. Consistent with existing policies for current user facilities, discussions regarding the characteristics and equipment to be provided in these planned nanoscience user facilities should be open to all U.S. universities via published notice, workshops, and other formal mechanisms. The external users of the Department's resources must be determined through the competitive peer-review process. Any partnership arrangements between the involved national laboratories and academic institutions, or any other non-federal partners, must follow procedures to ensure full and open competition, as required by section 309 of this Act.
The Committee recommendation includes $3,000,000 to initiate project engineering and design (PED) for three nanoscale science research centers in fiscal year 2002. This is a reduction of $1,000,000 from the budget request of $4,000,000. Any additional centers should be requested as part of the fiscal year 2003 budget request. The detailed budget justification for fiscal year 2003 should also provide more accurate cost estimates for the three centers receiving PED funds in fiscal year 2002. The Committee expects the Department to maintain tight cost and schedule controls on these three facilities.
The additional $3,000,000 included over the budget request is to be made available for university research in nanoscale science and engineering.
Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR)- The Committee recommendation includes $10,000,000 within available funds for EPSCoR, an increase of $2,315,000 over the budget request and $3,185,000 over fiscal year 2001.
The Committee recommendation is $163,050,000, the same as the budget request and $6,950,000 less than the funding in fiscal year 2001. The Committee is supportive of the objectives of the Advanced Scientific Computing Research (ASCR) program, but is concerned that the effort not duplicate the work already being done on the defense side of the Department in the Advanced Scientific Computing Initiative (ASCI). The Department should submit a report not later than December 31, 2001, that specifically outlines the differences between the objectives and current and proposed work activities of ASCR and ASCI. The Department is also directed to maximize the involvement of universities in the ASCR program, so that both the Department and the academic community can share in the latest technology developments in this field.
The Committee recommendation for energy research analyses is $1,000,000, the same as the budget request and the fiscal year 2001 funding level.
The multi-program energy laboratories facilities support program provides funding to support the infrastructure at the five multi-program national laboratories under the direction of the Office of Science. This program also provides funding for landlord costs for the centralized Oak Ridge Operations Office. The Committee recommendation is $30,175,000, the same as the budget request but $3,755,000 less than in fiscal year 2001. This amount includes the requested funds of $3,183,000 for project engineering design for three new projects: Phase I of the mechanical and control systems upgrade at Argonne National Laboratory--East, laboratory systems upgrades at Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, and the research support center at Oak Ridge National Laboratory (project 02-SC-001). Also included is $18,613,000, the same as the budget request, for various infrastructure improvement projects at the five multi-program national laboratories (project MEL-001).
The Committee recommendation for fusion energy sciences is $248,495,000, $6,505,000 less than the fiscal year 2001 funding level but the same as the amended budget request. The Committee concurs with the National Energy Policy's assessment of the potential for fusion energy, but funding constraints prevent additional research funding at this time. The Committee has also provided $25,000,000 in the inertial confinement fusion program for high average power lasers which is complementary to the work performed in fusion energy sciences.
The Committee has provided $10,000,000 for a new Facilities and Infrastructure program to improve the facilities and infrastructure at the Department's science laboratories. The Administration's budget proposal included no funding for this program. These funds should be used to reduce the backlog of maintenance and infrastructure upgrades and dispose of excess facilities.
The Committee is aware of the need for funding a facilities and infrastructure program, but is concerned the Department does not have in place a facilities management structure to ensure the funds are used to address those items which will have the greatest impact on reducing long-term costs and risk. The Department is to provide a semi-annual report to the Committee on the status of the facilities and infrastructure program. The report should include the current priority list of proposed facilities and infrastructure projects including cost and schedule requirements. For each site, the report is to include: a current ten-year site plan that demonstrates the reconfiguration of its facilities and infrastructure to meet its missions and to address its long-term operational costs and return on investment; the current budget for all facilities and infrastructure funding in this program as well as all funding for maintenance and infrastructure upgrades funded through other parts of the budget; and the current status of each facilities and infrastructure project compared to the original baseline cost, schedule, and scope.
The Committee directs that at least 25 percent of the facilities and infrastructure funding be used to dispose of excess facilities that will provide the greatest impact on reducing long-term costs and risk. New and innovative decontamination and decommissioning (D&D;) practices must be implemented to reduce costs and expedite site cleanups. There are clearly savings to be realized throughout the complex as evidenced by a recent contractor innovation at the Rocky Flats site that reduced the cost of D&D; for a building from an estimated $3,500,000 using existing DOE practices and procedures to approximately $700,000 using commercial practices. Potential cost savings of this magnitude have also been identified at other sites through the use of standard commercial practices for D&D.;
Beginning in fiscal year 2001, the cost of safeguards and security activities at the multi-program and single-purpose science laboratories are now direct funded in the Science appropriation. The Committee recommends $55,412,000, the same as the budget request and $5,594,000 more than fiscal year 2001.
The Committee recommendation is $134,980,000, a reduction of $4,265,000 from fiscal year 2001 and $7,405,000 less than the amended budget request. The control level for fiscal year 2002 is at the program account level of program direction.
-------------------------------------
-------------------------------------
Appropriation, 2001 $190,654,000
Budget Estimate, 2002 134,979,000
Recommended, 2002 133,000,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2001 -57,654,000
Budget Estimate, 2002 -1,979,000
-------------------------------------
The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended, established the Federal government's responsibility for the permanent disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste, and established the statutory framework to guide the selection and development of a site for a permanent repository. This law also created the Nuclear Waste Fund to finance the disposal of commercially generated spent nuclear fuel through the collections of fees from the owners and generators of such spent fuel. The costs for disposal of high-level radioactive waste generated from the atomic energy defense activities of the Department of Energy, and the spent nuclear fuel generated by the Department of Defense, are funded by the Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal appropriation.
The Department was required by statute to accept commercial spent nuclear fuel for disposal beginning on January 31, 1998, and has entered into legally enforceable contracts with utilities to execute that obligation. It is now anticipated that the Department will submit the Site Recommendation to the President in early fiscal year 2002. Assuming the President and the Congress accept the Department's recommendation, the Department will then submit a License Application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in fiscal year 2003. This will, at best, lead to initial repository operations beginning in 2010, twelve years after the Department was supposed to begin accepting spent nuclear fuel for disposal. During that time, the liability of the Federal government for its failure to meet its statutory and contractual obligation to accept commercial spent fuel beginning in January 1998 will continue to grow. The repository is also essential to the ability of the Department to remove defense-related high level radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel from other sites in the DOE complex, and the delay in repository completion may affect the government's ability to meet legally enforceable cleanup milestones at those sites.
The Committee is disappointed with the latest slippage in the Department's schedule for submission of the Site Recommendation from fiscal year 2001 into fiscal year 2002, and the consequent delay in the License Application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission from fiscal year 2002 to fiscal year 2003. Nevertheless, it is critical for the Department to complete the site selection process in fiscal year 2002 so that it can move forward expeditiously with the design, licensing, and construction of the repository.
The Committee recommends $133,000,000 from the Nuclear Waste Fund in fiscal year 2002. Combined with the appropriation of $310,000,000 from the Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal account, this provides a total of $443,000,000 for Nuclear Waste Disposal activities in fiscal year 2002, a reduction of $1,979,000 from the budget request. When coupled with the Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal appropriation, this represents a total increase of $48,074,000 over the funding provided to the Department for nuclear waste disposal in fiscal year 2001.
State and local government funds- The Committee recommendation includes $6,000,000 for the affected units of local government and $2,500,000 for the State of Nevada to conduct their respective external oversight responsibilities. These are the same funding levels as provided in fiscal year 2001. After being reassured that prior problems with improper use of Federal funds provided to the State of Nevada had been corrected, the Committee restored funding to the State in fiscal year 2001. These funds were provided through the Department to the Nevada Division of Emergency Management, for use in executing appropriate scientific and technical oversight activities. The State is prohibited from using these external oversight funds to pay the salaries and expenses of State employees, nor can it use Federal funds to engage in lobbying against the repository. Unfortunately, the Department has not yet conducted an audit to confirm whether this new funding arrangement is working as intended and is not repeating the problems of past years. The Committee is aware of the State's request for additional external oversight funding as the critical site selection decision will be made in early fiscal year 2002. The Committee is also aware that the State legislature has approved the Governor's request for $4,000,000 in State funds for use in lobbying and litigation to block the repository. In the absence of an independent audit to verify that funding provided in fiscal year 2001 has been spent properly by the State, the Committee recommends no increase in State funding for fiscal year 2002. The Department is directed to audit the Federal funds provided to Nevada at the earliest opportunity to confirm that these funds have been used in a manner consistent with Congressional guidance.
The Administration proposed changing the recipient of the external oversight funds for the State of Nevada from the Nevada Division of Emergency Management to the Nevada Office of Science, Engineering and Technology. In the absence of any justification from the Department for this change, and without an audit or other evidence to show that the present recipient (i.e., the Division of Emergency Management) is using the fiscal year 2001 Federal funds improperly, the Committee does not make the requested change in recipient.
Future program funding- The Department has acknowledged that the current funding arrangement will not provide sufficient funds for design and construction of the repository. The one mil fee paid by the consumers of electricity generated by nuclear power yields annual collections in the $600 to $700 million range. With the improved operating efficiency of reactors in recent years and the extension of several reactor licenses, this collection is expected to exceed $700 million in fiscal year 2001. The Nuclear Waste Fund presently has a balance of over $10 billion from collections of this one mil fee in prior years.
The balance in the Waste Fund and the annual revenue generated by the one mil fee, coupled with the contribution from the Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal appropriation for defense-generated waste and spent fuel, should provide more than sufficient funds for the design, construction, and operation of the repository. In recent years, an annual appropriation of $300 to $400 million has been sufficient to cover the expenses of the program for site characterization work. Once the program moves out of the study phase and into the design and construction phases, the annual funding requirements will increase significantly, exceeding $1 billion annually for several fiscal years. This will exceed the annual collections from the one mil fee, requiring either a major increase in the defense contribution or expenditure from the balance in the Nuclear Waste Fund, which would be scored as a new outlay. The Committee expects that the Department's budget request for fiscal year 2003 will include a specific legislative proposal to resolve future funding requirements for this program.
Waste acceptance- Because of concerns about the Department's commitment to the timely removal of spent nuclear fuel, the Committee in fiscal year 2001 directed the Department to submit its plan for the fabrication and deployment of waste acceptance capabilities. In January 2001, the Department submitted a report entitled `Plan for Transportation Cask Fabrication and Deployment of Waste Acceptance Capability.' This report merely confirms that the Department's strategy is to defer any concrete actions on waste acceptance pending final site selection. The Committee remains concerned that the Department will not be ready to fulfill its waste acceptance responsibilities consistent with the repository schedule, particularly for spent fuel from reactors presently undergoing decommissioning. The Committee recommendation includes $1,800,000 within available funds to initiate the procurement of one transportation cask for each of the six reactor sites presently undergoing dismantlement and decommissioning. Such procurement does not constitute a settlement or fulfillment of the Secretary's obligation to take acceptance of spent nuclear fuel.
Transportation planning and readiness- The United States has an exemplary safety record in shipping commercial and naval spent nuclear fuel. Nevertheless, a major point of public concern about the permanent repository is the perceived risk of such shipments. As with waste acceptance, the Department has opted to defer serious transportation planning until after completion of the final site selection. With the site recommendation now scheduled for completion in early fiscal year 2002, the Department needs to take a more aggressive approach in educating the public and working with state and local governments to develop safe transportation routes to the repository. One of the first steps should be to work with the State of Nevada to specify the transportation modes and routes that will avoid the Las Vegas metropolitan area. The Department should use available funds in fiscal year 2002 to initiate the selection of transportation routes in Nevada and other States, in cooperation with the States, and to begin planning for construction of a rail line to the repository site.
Alternatives to the repository- The National Research Council's Committee on Disposition of High-Level Radioactive Waste Through Geological Isolation recently completed a report entitled `Disposition of High-Level Waste and Spent Nuclear Fuel: The Continuing Societal and Technical Challenges.' The National Research Council found that `geological disposition and surface storage are the only options that the committee found to be feasible now or in the foreseeable future . . . '. The National Research Council also makes clear that neither reprocessing nor transmutation of spent nuclear fuel, while having the potential to reduce the total volume of radioactive wastes and especially the volume of long-lived radionuclides, eliminates the need for a repository. Not only does the accelerator transmutation of waste approach still require a repository, but the National Research Council cites data provided by the Department of Energy showing that transmutation will cost significantly more and take longer than the current geologic repository program. The West Valley Demonstration Project, now estimated to cost $4.5 billion and take 40 more years to clean up, is testimony to the fact that spent fuel reprocessing is not without its own environmental impacts and waste streams. Accordingly, the Committee does not provide any funds in this bill for the Department to pursue these so-called alternatives to the repository.
-------------------------------------
-------------------------------------
Appropriation, 2001 $225,942,000
Budget Estimate, 2002 221,618,000
Recommended, 2002 209,611,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2001 -16,331,000
Budget Estimate, 2002 -12,007,000
-------------------------------------
--------------------------------------
--------------------------------------
Appropriation, 2001 -$151,000,000
Budget Estimate, 2002 -137,810,000
Recommended, 2002 -137,810,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2001 +13,190,000
Budget Estimate, 2002
--------------------------------------
The Committee recommendation for Departmental Administration is $209,611,000, a decrease of $12,007,000 from the budget request of $221,618,000. Funding recommended for Departmental Administration provides for general management and program support functions benefiting all elements of the Department of Energy and the National Nuclear Security Administration. The account funds a wide array of activities not directly associated with program execution. Funding for many offices has been reduced due to funding constraints and the availability of prior year carryover balances.
The Committee has provided bill language allowing the Department to transfer funds previously appropriated for Year 2000 (Y2K) activities to the Departmental Administration account. In conjunction with Y2K conversion efforts begun in late 1998, the Department initiated full-scale modernization of its core financial systems under the on-going Business Management Information System (BMIS). BMIS is replacing out-of-date financial and budgeting systems and requires substantially greater federal support to assure operational reliability by 2003. Balances remaining from funds made available in the Departmental Administration, Defense Environmental Restoration and Waste Management, and Defense Facilities Closure Projects accounts, estimated to total $1,480,000, are transferred to and merged with the funding in this account. These funds, which otherwise would expire on September 30, 2001, will remain available until expended for the Federal costs associated with the success of these continuing information technology enhancement activities.
Engineering and Project Management- The Committee recommendation includes a separate account for the personnel and activities of the Office of Engineering and Construction Management in line with the recommendation that the Office be provided greater authority within the Department's organizational structure. Funding for the facilities and infrastructure group has also been transferred to this office. The Committee recommendation of $7,600,000 does not include the budget proposal to fund central project management activities through a tax on other organizations.
Working Capital Fund- The Department is using a charge-back program similar to a working capital fund which charges benefiting programs and organizations with administrative and housekeeping activities traditionally funded in a central account. The Committee continues to support this, but wants to reiterate its expectations that: no salaries or other expenses of Federal employees may be charged to the fund; Departmental representation on the Board establishing the policies should be broad-based and include smaller organizations; the pricing policies used must be sound and defensible and not include added factors for administrative costs; the advanced payments at any time may be no more than the amount minimally required to adequately cover outstanding commitments and other reasonable activities; and a defined process must be established to dispose of excess advance payments (accumulated credits). Additionally, it is the Committee's expectation that the fund manager will ensure that the fund will neither be managed in a manner to produce a profit nor allow the program customers to use the fund as a vehicle for maintaining unencumbered funds.
The working capital fund should be audited periodically by the Department's Inspector General to ensure the integrity of the accounts, and the Committee expects to be apprised of any recommendations to improve the charge-back system.
Use of Prior Year Deobligations and Construction Project Reserves- Throughout the fiscal year, funds often become available as projects are completed and contracts closed out throughout all of the Department's appropriation accounts. These funds become available for reuse and are retained by the Controller as either prior year deobligations or transferred to construction project reserve accounts. During fiscal year 2002, these funds are not available for reallocation within the Department unless approved by Congress as part of a reprogramming or specifically identified in the budget request.
Cost of Work for Others- The recommendation for the cost of work for others program is $71,837,000, the same as the budget request. The Committee recognizes that funds received from reimbursable activities may be used to fund general purpose capital equipment which is used in support of those activities.
Revenues- The recommendation for revenues is $137,810,000, the same as the budget request.
Transfer from Other Defense Activities- For many years, full funding for all corporate and administrative activities of the Department has been provided in the energy portion of this bill despite the fact that over 70 percent of the Department's funding is provided in the national security programs. Consistent with the budget request, the Committee has distributed these costs more equitably in fiscal year 2002 and provided $25,000,000 from national security programs.
------------------------------------
------------------------------------
Appropriation, 2001 $31,430,000
Budget Estimate, 2002 31,430,000
Recommended, 2002 32,430,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2001 +1,000,000
Budget Estimate, 2002 +1,000,000
------------------------------------
The Office of Inspector General performs agency-wide audit, inspection, and investigative functions to identify and correct management and administrative deficiencies that create conditions for existing or potential instances of fraud, waste and mismanagement. The audit function provides financial and performance audits of programs and operations. The inspection function provides independent inspections and analyses of the effectiveness, efficiency, and economy of programs and operations. The investigative function provides for the detection and investigation of improper and illegal activities involving programs, personnel, and operations. During fiscal year 2001, the Department has received payments exceeding $10 million from Inspector General investigations which resulted in settlements in favor of the Government.
The Committee recommendation is $32,430,000, an increase of $1,000,000 over the budget request. The Committee is aware that additional duties assigned to the Office of the Inspector General by Congress have not been fully funded in prior years. This funding increase addresses that concern.
The Atomic Energy Defense Activities programs of the Department of Energy include the National Nuclear Security Administration which consists of Weapons Activities, Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation, Naval Reactors, and the Office of the Administrator; Defense Environmental Restoration and Waste Management; Defense Facilities Closure Projects; Defense Environmental Management Privatization; Other Defense Activities; and Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal. Descriptions of each of these accounts are provided below.
The Department of Energy is responsible for enhancing U.S. national security through the military application of nuclear technology and reducing the global danger from the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), a semi-autonomous agency within the Department, carries out these responsibilities. Established in March 2000 pursuant to Title 32 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (Public Law 106-65), NNSA is responsible for the management and operation of the Nation's nuclear weapons, naval reactors, and nuclear nonproliferation activities. Three offices within the NNSA carry out the Department's national security mission: the Office of Defense Programs, the Office of Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation, and the Office of Naval Reactors.
---------------------------------------
---------------------------------------
Appropriation, 2001 $5,006,153,000
Budget Estimate, 2002 5,300,025,000
Recommended, 2002 5,123,888,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2001 +117,735,000
Budget Estimate, 2002 -176,137,000
---------------------------------------
The goal of the Weapons Activities program is to maintain confidence in the safety, security, reliability and performance of the Nation's nuclear weapons stockpile. The program seeks to maintain and refurbish nuclear weapons to sustain confidence in their safety and reliability indefinitely under the nuclear testing moratorium and arms reduction treaties. The Committee's recommendation for Weapons Activities is $5,123,888,000, a decrease of $176,137,000 from the budget request of $5,300,025,000, but an increase of $117,735,000 over fiscal year 2001.
The fiscal year 2001 supplemental appropriations bill contains additional funding of $140,000,000 for weapons activities. An additional $54,000,000 was provided for directed stockpile work, $9,000,000 for campaigns, and $47,000,000 for readiness in technical base and facilities. In addition, $30,000,000 was provided to establish a new program, Facilities and Infrastructure, to reduce maintenance backlogs and dispose of excess facilities.
Strategic Review- The Administration is currently conducting a review of the Nation's nuclear weapons strategy, but the results of this review are not yet known. The Committee is aware that the outcome of this review could significantly change the weapons activities funding requirements for fiscal year 2002 and will make appropriate adjustments as needed during the appropriations process.
Reprogramming Authority- The Committee recommends limited reprogramming authority within weapons activities for the production plants to provide flexibility to achieve cost savings and programmatic efficiencies during the year. In fiscal year 2002, each plant may transfer between programs up to $5,000,000 or 10 percent of the funding, whichever is lower, if it can be shown that cost savings and efficiencies will result. This reprogramming authority is not to be used to cover cost overruns and schedule slips for any project or program. This reprogramming authority may not be used to initiate new programs or programs specifically denied, limited, or increased by Congress in the Act or report. The Committees on Appropriations in the House and Senate must be notified within 30 days of the use of this reprogramming authority.
Directed Stockpile Work includes all activities that directly support weapons in the nuclear stockpile, including maintenance, research, development, engineering, and certification activities. The Committee recommendation is $1,043,791,000, the same as the budget request, and an increase of $133,188,000 over fiscal year 2001.
Campaigns are focused efforts involving the three weapons laboratories, the Nevada Test Site, the weapons production plants, and selected external organizations to address critical capabilities needed to achieve program objectives. Campaigns have definitive milestones, specific work plans, and specific end dates. The Committee recommendation is $1,945,413,000, a decrease of $51,000,000 from the budget request of $1,996,413,000.
Inertial Confinement Fusion- The Committee recommends $492,943,000 for the inertial confinement fusion program, an increase of $25,000,000 over the budget request of $467,943,000. The recommendation includes $25,000,000 to continue development of high average power lasers and supporting science and technology. The Committee is disappointed that the Department has not yet supported this activity despite recommendations by the Fusion Energy Science Advisory Committee and the Secretary of Energy's Advisory Board and the continuing progress of the research. The Committee recommendation also includes the budget request of $10,000,000 for the Naval Research Laboratory and $33,450,000 for the University of Rochester.
The Department is also directed to initiate a study to determine the programmatic need for a Petawatt laser facility.
The Committee recommendation provides $245,000,000 for construction of the National Ignition Facility (NIF), the same as the budget request. While the Department has stated that the NIF is back on track, a recent General Accounting Office (GAO) follow-up review of NIF expressed some continuing concerns. GAO notes that, while past internal reviewers have concluded that NIF's milestones are challenging but doable, most major performance milestones will not occur until 2004, and some reviewers have recommended that more near-term milestones be added to assess laser performance. Other issues that GAO believes continue to place NIF at risk are: persistent DOE oversight problems (i.e., the same people have performed oversight since 1999 when NIF's cost and schedule grew unnoticed); the NIF project does not manage about $700 million in research and development that directly support NIF; and NIF still lacks an independent external review process. The Committee expects the Department to address these concerns in an expeditious manner.
Advanced simulation and computing- The Committee recommendation for the Advanced Simulation and Computing program is $638,032,000, a reduction of $100,000,000 from the budget request of $738,032,000. The Committee has consistently supported this program, but believes that recent events could require a modification to the proposed program strategy. While the Department's schedule for a 100 trillion operations per second (100 TeraOPS) computer has slipped beyond the original date of 2004, a private company has begun an effort to increase computing capability with the goal of achieving 100 TeraOPS by 2004. In addition, the Committee is funding the Advanced Scientific Computing Research program at a level in excess of $160,000,000 in the DOE non-defense laboratories. The Department must ensure that the current program strategy takes into full account these changes which have occurred since the program was initiated in 1996.
Pit manufacturing and certification- The Committee recommendation for pit manufacturing readiness is $128,545,000, the same as the budget request. The Department is currently unable to demonstrate that it has a viable plan to manufacture and certify pits on the schedule dictated by national security needs. The Department's management and the national laboratory's execution of this project have been quite deficient--the project is years behind schedule and hundreds of millions of dollars over the original cost estimate. The NNSA has established a separate project office to oversee pit manufacturing and certification. The Committee will base its judgment on the success of the NNSA on how well this project succeeds. At this time the proposed certification date is years away and does not meet national security requirements for a new pit. The Department is directed to submit to the Committee a comprehensive report on the status of this project on a quarterly basis beginning October 1, 2001.
Secondary readiness- The Committee has provided an additional $24,000,000 in secondary readiness for the Y-12 Plant in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. These additional funds are for direct support to the stockpile life extension program, demonstration of technologies for the Special Materials Complex facility, and modernization planning.
The Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities program supports the physical and operational infrastructure at the laboratories, the Nevada Test Site, and the production plants. The Committee recommendation is $1,481,988,000, an increase of $35,000,000 over the budget request of $1,446,988,000. Additional funding of $25,000,000 has been provided for the Pantex plant in Texas and $10,000,000 for the Y-12 Plant in Tennessee to meet facility needs.
Construction projects- Funding of $9,500,000 has been provided for Project 02-D-101, the Microsystems and Engineering Sciences Applications (MESA) Complex at Sandia National Laboratories, an increase of $7,500,000 over the budget request. Funding of $7,500,000 for infrastructure activities has been transferred to the MESA line item construction project from Project 01-D-103, Project Engineering and Design (PE&D;). The budget request of $45,5379,000 for Project 01-D-103, PE&D;, has been reduced accordingly to $37,879,000. In its fiscal year 2003 budget request for MESA, the Department is directed to revise the project data sheet to include the cost of disposing of excess facilities that are equal to or greater than the new space that will be created by this project.
Underground Nuclear Testing- The Department of Energy was slow to provide detailed justification for its supplemental appropriations funding request for fiscal year 2001 to the Committee. The information it provided to the Committee was informal and on an ad-hoc rather than a formal basis. After the Committee had made its funding recommendations for the bill, DOE submitted formal justification material to justify its request. The formal material mentions funding to increase the state of readiness of underground nuclear testing.
If the Nation were to decide to invest funds to restore underground nuclear testing to a higher level than presently, this could only be done: (1) once the Secretary of Defense concluded his strategic review; (2) once the President made a recommendation to the Congress; (3) once it was approved by the Armed Services Committees of the House and the Senate; and (4) only if it were subsequently approved by Congress. None of these activities has occurred. It is not the Committee's intent to provide funding in this Act, the supplemental appropriations Act for fiscal year 2001, or any prior Act for activities to increase the readiness for underground nuclear testing. None of the funds in such Acts may be used for that purpose.
The Committee has provided $17,000,000 for the Facilities and Infrastructure program to address the serious shortfall in maintenance throughout the nuclear weapons complex. The Administration's budget proposal included no funding for this program. These funds should be used to reduce the backlog of maintenance and infrastructure upgrades and dispose of excess facilities. Funding of $30,000,000 was also provided in the fiscal year 2001 supplemental appropriations bill.
The Committee is aware of the need for funding a facilities and infrastructure program, but is concerned the Department does not have in place a facilities management structure to ensure the funds are used to address those items which will have the greatest impact on reducing long-term costs and risk. The Department is to provide a semi-annual report to the Committee on the status of the facilities and infrastructure program. The report should include the current priority list of proposed facilities and infrastructure projects including cost and schedule requirements. For each site, the report is to include: a current ten-year site plan that demonstrates the reconfiguration of its facilities and infrastructure to meet its missions and to address its long-term operational costs and return on investment; the current budget for all facilities and infrastructure funding in this program as well as all funding for maintenance and infrastructure upgrades funded through other parts of the budget; and the current status of each facilities and infrastructure project compared to the original baseline cost, schedule, and scope.
The Committee directs that at least 25 percent of the facilities and infrastructure funding be used to dispose of excess facilities that will provide the greatest impact on reducing long-term costs and risk. New and innovative decontamination and decommissioning (D&D;) practices must be implemented to reduce costs and expedite site cleanups. There are clearly savings to be realized throughout the complex as evidenced by a recent contractor innovation at the Rocky Flats site that reduced the cost of D&D; for a building from an estimated $3,500,000 using existing DOE practices and procedures to approximately $700,000 using commercial practices. Potential cost savings of this magnitude have also been identified at other sites through the use of standard commercial practices for D&D.;
The Secure Transportation Asset program provides for the safe, secure movement of nuclear weapons, special nuclear materials, and non-nuclear weapon components between military locations and nuclear weapons complex facilities within the United States. The Committee recommendation is $121,800,000, the same as the budget request.
This program provides for all safeguards and security requirements at NNSA landlord sites. The Committee recommendation is $448,881,000, the same as the budget request, but an increase of nearly 14 percent over fiscal year 2001. Physical safeguards and security measures are only part of the solution to address security concerns throughout the weapons complex. With program needs going unmet and infrastructure deteriorating, the Committee strongly encourages the NNSA to review these growing costs and seek smarter and more efficient ways to meet security needs.
The Committee recommendation of $250,000,000 for program direction is a reduction of $21,137,000 from the budget request of $271,137,000, and $566,000 below fiscal year 2001. Congress assumed that creation of the NNSA would lead to efficiencies and streamlined management. However, the result has been an increase in staff at Headquarters and in the field. The conference report to accompany the Fiscal Year 2001 National Defense Authorization Act (P.L. 106-398) decreased program direction funding for fiscal year 2001 because the conferees believed the Office of Defense Programs to be overstaffed. The conferees urged the Department to eliminate duplicative efforts and streamline management control and directed the Department to reorganize and realign headquarters and field offices roles and responsibilities. The Committee expects the NNSA to address this issue during fiscal year 2002 and seek additional efficiencies throughout the Headquarters and field organizations during fiscal year 2003.
The recommendation includes an adjustment of $184,985,000. This consists of a $28,985,000 security charge for reimbursable work as included in the budget request and a general reduction of $156,000,000.
-------------------------------------
-------------------------------------
Appropriation, 2001 $872,273,000
Budget Estimate, 2002 773,700,000
Recommended, 2002 845,341,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2001 -26,932,000
Budget Estimate, 2002 +71,641,000
-------------------------------------
The Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation account includes funding for Nonproliferation and Verification Research and Development, Arms Control, International Materials Protection, Control, and Accounting, Russian Transition Assistance, HEU Transparency Implementation, International Nuclear Safety, Fissile Materials Disposition, and Program Direction. Descriptions of each of these programs are provided below.
The Department requested $7,000 for official reception and representation expenses in this account. The Committee recommendation transfers this funding and combines it with the request of $5,000 for official reception and representation expenses in the Office of the Administrator for a total of $12,000.
The nonproliferation and verification research and development program conducts applied research, development, testing, and evaluation of science and technology for strengthening the United States response to threats to national security and to world peace posed by the proliferation of nuclear weapons and special nuclear materials. Activities center on the design and production of operational sensor systems needed for proliferation detection, treaty verification, nuclear warhead dismantlement initiatives, and intelligence activities.
The Committee recommendation is $216,102,000, an increase of $10,000,000 over the budget request of $206,102,000. The recommendation provides an additional $10,000,000 for ground-based systems for treaty monitoring which was reduced from $22,510,000 in fiscal year 2001 to $12,510,900 in the budget request.
Competitive Research.--Concerns have been raised repeatedly that there should be more opportunity for open competition in certain areas of the nonproliferation and verification research and development program. A report by an outside group established by the Department to review the Office of Nonproliferation Research and Engineering included a similar recommendation. The Committee expects the Department to act in good faith on the recommendations provided by the external review group and directs the Department to continue a free and open competitive process for 25 percent of its research and development activities during fiscal year 2002 for ground-based systems treaty monitoring. The competitive process should be open to all Federal and non-Federal entities.
The Committee recommendation has restructured the Arms Control program to provide more visibility for program activities. The arms control and nonproliferation program seeks to detect, prevent, and reverse the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction materials, technology, and expertise. The major functional areas of the program include: policy analysis; reduced enrichment research and test reactor (RERTR); international safeguards; export control operations; treaty agreements; New Independent States (NIS) nonproliferation; and international security.
The Committee recommendation for Arms Control is $75,741,000, a reduction of $25,759,000 from the budget request of $101,500,000. Funding of $4,000,000 included in the Arms Control program for Second Line of Defense activities has been transferred to the International Materials Protection, Control and Accounting program. Funding of $28,759,000 included in the budget request in the NIS nonproliferation program for the Initiatives for Proliferation Prevention (IPP) and the Nuclear Cities Initiative (NCI) programs has been transferred to a new program, `Russian Transition Assistance.' Within Arms Control, total funding of $15,945,000, an increase of $7,000,000 over the budget request, has been provided to maintain the schedule for completing the spent fuel activities in Kazakhstan.
The Department of Energy funds many nonproliferation programs with Russia. These programs help secure Russian nuclear weapons materials, prevent the outflow of scientific expertise from Russia, eliminate excess nuclear weapons materials, and help downsize the Russian nuclear weapons complex.
In January of this year, `A Report Card on the Department of Energy's Nonproliferation Programs with Russia' was released by the Russian Task Force co-chaired by Howard Baker and Lloyd Cutler. The Committee has reviewed this report and supports the major recommendation which states that, `The President, in consultation with Congress and in cooperation with the Russian Federation, should quickly formulate a strategic plan to secure and/or neutralize in the next eight or ten years all nuclear weapons-usable material located in Russia and prevent the outflow from Russia of scientific expertise that could be used for nuclear or other weapons of mass destruction.' The Task Force further notes that, `While emphasizing that enhanced efforts are needed from the U.S., the Task Force underscores that enhanced efforts are also required from Russia. Ultimately, Russia will be responsible for securing its remaining nuclear arsenal.' Within available funding, the Committee has sought to support the recommendations of this Task Force.
Highly Enriched Uranium (HEU) Agreement.--Several external reviews have urged that excess quantities of Russian Highly Enriched Uranium (HEU) be reduced as quickly as possible. Excess Russian HEU is currently being managed under the auspices of the HEU Purchase Agreement established in 1994. This agreement authorized the U.S. to purchase 500 metric tons of Russian HEU that was to be converted to low enriched uranium for commercial uses over 20 years at a cost of $12 billion. While more than 110 metric tons of HEU have been down-blended, implementation of the HEU Purchase Agreement has been slower and more difficult than anticipated. The Committee strongly urges the Department to work with the United States Enrichment Corporation (USEC) to explore ways to accelerate the current purchase agreement.
With the continued downsizing of the Russian nuclear weapons stockpile, more HEU is becoming available. The Administration is urged to expand the amount of HEU purchases included in the original agreement, which covers less than half of Russia's total HEU stockpile. The Committee is aware of the concerns that additional purchases could adversely impact the world market for uranium. The Administration should explore options such as securing a second U.S. executive agent for the purchase; down-blending the material but leaving it in Russia until it can be sold onto international markets without adverse impacts; and working with the international community to purchase additional blended-down Russian HEU. The Committee understands that much of the Russian funding for its nuclear weapons complex conversion programs comes from the HEU purchase agreement, so any increase in purchases should also ensure that the additional revenue is used for these conversion initiatives.
Limitation on Russian Program Funds.--The Department is still not adequately addressing the concern that too much of the money for Russian programs is being spent in the U.S. at the Department's own national laboratories rather than going to the facilities in Russia. The Department's contracting mechanisms are resulting in excess funds going to pay laboratories for contract administration and oversight that would be better performed by Federal personnel. The Department's national laboratories should be used to provide technical oversight and programmatic guidance in those areas where they have special expertise.
The Committee directs that not more than 25 percent of the funding for Russian programs may be spent in the United States. The Department is not adequately reviewing the types of administrative and programmatic guidance that are needed for these programs and choosing the proper contractual mechanism. This leads to excessive costs for administration and less funding going to Russia. The Department should report to the Committee by December 15, 2001, on the steps being taken to meet the 25 percent limitation.
The International Materials Protection, Control and Accounting (MPC&A;) activities are designed to work cooperatively with Russia to secure weapons and weapons-usable nuclear material. The focus is to improve the physical security at facilities that possess or process significant quantities of nuclear weapons-usable that are of proliferation concern. Activities include installing monitoring equipment, inventorying nuclear material, improving the Russian security culture, and establishing a security infrastructure.
The Committee recommendation is $190,000,000, an increase of $51,200,000 over the budget request of $138,800,000, and $16,144,000 over fiscal year 2001. Funding of $4,000,000 is provided for the Second Line of Defense program which was transferred from the Arms Control program. The Committee has provided a significant increase in funding for fiscal year 2002. This increase should be targeted toward projects to consolidate materials and reduce the number of buildings and facilities holding nuclear materials. The Committee also directs the Department to increase the level of program funding that goes to employing Russian workers and purchasing Russian-made equipment and reduce the amount of funding that is spent in the United States.
The Committee has transferred the Initiatives for Proliferation Prevention (IPP) and the Nuclear Cities Initiative (NCI) programs from Arms Control and established a new program, `Russian Transition Assistance.' The Committee recommendation is $40,000,000 for projects to employ Russian weapons scientists and downsize the Russian weapons complex. The Committee recommendation provides $30,000,000 for IPP and $10,000,000 for NCI.
A recent General Accounting Office (GAO) report suggested several areas of improvement for the NCI program and recommended combining the NCI and IPP programs since they share a common goal--employing Russian weapons scientists in nonmilitary work--and, in many cases, are implementing similar types of projects. At this time, the Committee has maintained the two separate programs, but expects the Department to provide a single program manager responsible for both. The program manager should also ensure close coordination with other Federal agencies that direct money to scientists working in closed cities, such as the State Department's International Science and Technology Center.
Management of the IPP program has improved considerably in recent years, while the NCI program appears to be suffering the same problems that IPP has overcome. The NCI program could be strengthened significantly by using the same standards, applications, and approval procedures already in place in the IPP program. While the Committee believes that non-proliferation projects should continue to take place within the closed cities, such projects should be guided by an emphasis on private sector involvement using the commercialization principles inherent in the IPP program.
To ensure that the appropriate amount of funding goes to facilities in Russia and the NIS, the Committee directs that not more than 25 percent of the funds be spent at the Department of Energy laboratories and that these funds be used by the laboratories only for technical validation of projects. The Committee also recommends that the Department direct the United States Industry Coalition (USIC) to assume responsibility for all business-related activities including structuring contracts and intellectual property rights arrangements.
A near-term measure of success for this program will be the number of technologies that are commercialized, the number of jobs created in Russia, and the amount that the Russian weapons complex is downsized. The ultimate measure of success will be elimination of U.S. aid to support these commercialization ventures. The Committee expects the program to increase the amount of cost sharing required from U.S. industry participants, and directs the Department to establish a revolving fund to support the program, and ultimately, eliminate Federal government funding of projects.
The Department is directed to report to the Committee by January 15, 2002, on the level of coordination with other Federal agencies and the implementation of the GAO recommendations to: evaluate all ongoing NCI projects; establish quantifiable goals and milestones for jobs creation and downsizing the weapons complex; and strengthen efforts to reduce national laboratories' costs to implement the program. The report should also address whether the two programs should be consolidated into a single effort and whether cost savings and other programmatic and administrative efficiencies would be possible through consolidation.
The highly enriched uranium (HEU) transparency implementation program is responsible for ensuring that the nonproliferation aspects of the February 1993 agreement between the United States and the Russian Federation are met. This agreement covers the purchase over 20 years of low enriched uranium (LEU) derived from at least 500 metric tons of HEU removed from dismantled Russian nuclear weapons. Under the agreement, conversion of HEU components into LEU is performed in Russian facilities. The purpose of the program is to put into place those measures agreed to by both sides that permit the U.S. to have confidence that the Russian side is abiding by the agreement.
The Committee recommendation is $13,950,000, the same as the budget request.
The international nuclear safety program is designed to reduce the threats posed by the operation of unsafe and aging Soviet-designed nuclear power plants in Russia and the Newly Independent States. The Committee recommendation for this program is $10,000,000, a reduction of $3,800,000 from the budget request of $13,800,000, due to funding constraints. The Committee expects U.S. participation in this program to be completed by 2005.
From within available funds, $1,500,000 is to be used to transfer and implement the proven U.S.-developed Mechanical Stress Improvement Process technology requested by the Russian Federation. The Department is to provide a status report on the progress of this project by March 31, 2002.
The Committee directs the Department to provide an annual report showing the status of each of the Soviet-designed reactors, the work to be accomplished, the total estimated cost for each reactor, the cost of completing the upgrades to each of the reactors, the schedule by fiscal year for accomplishing this work, and the cost of each task by fiscal year. In addition, the report should provide summary tables of total annual resources expended and planned at: each reactor and each project/activity receiving funding outside explicit reactors for fiscal years 1993-2005, which total to the annual amount provided and projected to complete the program. The report should include a strategic plan outlining the most urgent and pressing safety priorities that remain and need to be addressed in order to close out the program by 2005.
The fissile materials disposition program is responsible for the technical and management activities to assess, plan and direct efforts to provide for the safe, secure, environmentally sound long-term storage of all weapons-usable fissile materials and the disposition of fissile materials declared surplus to national defense needs. The Committee recommendation is $290,089,000, the same as the budget request, and an increase of $40,640,000 over fiscal year 2001. Funding of $130,089,000, the same as the budget request, is provided for U.S. surplus materials disposition and $57,000,000, the same as the budget request, for the Russian plutonium disposition program. The U.S. portion of the fissile materials disposition program is not to be counted in the 25 percent limitation on funds for Russian programs to be spent in the U.S.
The Department's budget request for fissile materials disposition is insufficient to proceed with the simultaneous design and construction of three key plutonium disposition facilities. To accommodate the shortfall, DOE proposes to move ahead with the development of a mixed oxide (MOX) Fuel Fabrication Facility while delaying work on the other two U.S. facilities until closer to the time when they are needed. At the same time, DOE is examining various technical alternatives to make greater use of existing facilities at Savannah River to reduce the costs of plutonium disposition.
The Department's approach is understandable in light of the fact that irradiating MOX fuel in nuclear reactors is key to working with Russia to dispose of stocks of surplus Russian plutonium. However, the Committee wants to remind DOE that it is essential to provide an unambiguous and timely pathway out of Savannah River for plutonium brought there from other sites for disposition. Should unanticipated problems make proceeding with the irradiation of MOX fuel infeasible, the Department should proceed promptly with immobilization to dispose of surplus U.S. plutonium. Only in this manner does the Committee believe that DOE can honor commitments to South Carolina, avoid billions of dollars in long-term storage costs, and assure that Savannah River does not become the de facto dumping ground for stockpiles of surplus U.S. weapons plutonium.
The Committee recommendation of $51,459,000 for program direction is the same as the budget request.
-------------------------------------
-------------------------------------
Appropriation, 2001 $688,645,000
Budget Estimate, 2002 688,045,000
Recommended, 2002 688,045,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2001 -600,000
Budget Estimate, 2002
-------------------------------------
The Naval Reactors program is responsible for all aspects of naval nuclear propulsion--from technology development through reactor operations to ultimate reactor plant disposal. The program provides for the design, development, testing, and evaluation of improved naval nuclear propulsion plants and reactor cores. These efforts are critical to the continued success of over 97 reactors in operating nuclear-powered submarines and surface ships and to development of the next generation reactor.
The Committee recommendation is $688,045,000, the same as the budget request.
-----------------------------------
-----------------------------------
Appropriation, 2001 $9,978,000
Budget Estimate, 2002 15,000,000
Recommended, 2002 10,000,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2001 +22,000
Budget Estimate, 2002 -5,000,000
-----------------------------------
The Office of the Administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) provides corporate planning and oversight for Defense Programs, Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation, and Naval Reactors, including the NNSA field offices in New Mexico, Nevada, and California. The Committee recommendation is $10,000,000, a reduction of $5,000,000 from the budget request, and $22,000 more than fiscal year 2001.
The Committee recommendation provides $12,000 for official reception and representation expenses for the NNSA. This combines the request of $7,000 included in the Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation account with the $5,000 requested in this account.
---------------------------------------
---------------------------------------
Appropriation, 2001 $4,963,533,000
Budget Estimate, 2002 4,548,708,000
Recommended, 2002 5,174,539,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2001 +211,006,000
Budget Estimate, 2002 +625,831,000
---------------------------------------
The Environmental Management program is responsible for identifying and reducing risks and managing waste at sites where the Department carried out nuclear energy or weapons research and production activities which resulted in radioactive, hazardous, and mixed waste contamination requiring remediation, stabilization, or some other type of cleanup action. Environmental management activities are budgeted under the following appropriation accounts: Defense Environmental Restoration and Waste Management; Defense Facilities Closure Projects; Defense Environmental Management Privatization; Non-Defense Environmental Management; and Uranium Facilities Maintenance and Remediation.
The fiscal year 2002 budget request for environmental management activities was not adequate to maintain cleanup progress at each of the Department's sites. While the Committee strongly supports the Secretary's internal review of these programs, certain on-going cleanup projects must be funded.
The Committee's recommendation for Defense Environmental Restoration and Waste Management is $5,174,778,000, an increase of $625,831,000 over the budget request of $4,548,708,000. Additional funding of $100,000,000 was provided in the fiscal year 2001 supplemental appropriations bill to support a variety of cleanup activities in this account. Details of the recommended funding levels follow.
The Secretary has ordered a top-to-bottom review of the environmental management programs. The Committee supports this effort and hopes to realize significant cost savings and program efficiencies from new and innovative cleanup strategies throughout the complex.
Low level waste disposal costs- The Department expects to generate 10.6 million cubic meters of low level radioactive waste (LLW) and mixed low level waste (MLLW) needing disposal; of this amount, only 1.2 million cubic meters is projected for disposal at commercial facilities. The Committee is concerned that the Department is relying too heavily on the use of Federal on-site and off-site disposal cells, effectively inhibiting the development of a viable and competitive commercial disposal industry. Commercial off-site disposal facilities may offer the Department the lowest overall life-cycle cost for disposal of this waste, particularly if the Department can foster some competition for its disposal business. The General Accounting Office (GAO), in its report entitled `Nuclear Cleanup: DOE Should Reevaluate Waste Disposal Options Before Building New Facilities,' (GAO-01-441, May 2001), investigated three sites which had decided to build on-site disposal facilities. The GAO found that the Department had not used the latest estimates of waste volumes and transportation costs when deciding between on-site and off-site disposal. The Committee is further concerned that the Department has implemented a rate structure for the disposal of low-level waste and mixed low-level waste disposal at the Nevada Test Site (NTS) which understates the true life-cycle cost of disposal at NTS, thus making a fair comparison with commercial disposal alternatives impossible.
The Committee expects the Department, where cost-effective, to use existing Federal contracts for the disposal of low-level and mixed low-level waste at commercial off-site disposal sites. The Department is directed to prepare an objective analysis of the life-cycle costs of LLW and MLLW disposal for the various Federal and commercial disposal options. This cost analysis should include the specific costs (on a unit volume of waste basis) for: preparation of the waste; packaging of the waste for transport; transportation of the waste to the disposal site; actual disposal of the waste at the disposal site; long-term closure and stewardship costs at the disposal site; and the means and timing (as measured in cost of money) for payments for disposal. The Department is directed to submit a report to the Committee by February 1, 2002, with the detailed cost data as specified above.
Project Changes- The Department is directed to provide a report by January 30, 2002, showing the initial funding allocation by site for each individual project. After that date, the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations must be notified of any change that increases or decreases funding for any project by more than 25 percent. The Department should work with the Committee to establish the level of detail required in the initial report.
Reprogramming Authority- The Committee continues to support the need for some flexibility to meet changing funding requirements at former defense sites which are undergoing remedial cleanup activities. In fiscal year 2002, each site manager may transfer up to $5,000,000 between Defense Environmental Restoration and Waste Management program activities such as site/project completion, post-2006 completion, and construction projects to reduce health or safety risks or to gain cost savings as long as no program or project is increased or decreased by more than $5,000,000 once during the fiscal year. This reprogramming authority may not be used to initiate new programs or programs specifically denied, limited, or increased by Congress in the Act or report. The Committees on Appropriations in the House and Senate must be notified within thirty days of the use of this reprogramming authority.
Economic development- None of the environmental management funds are available for economic development activities.
The site/project completion account provides funding for projects that will be completed by fiscal year 2006 at sites or facilities where a DOE mission will continue beyond the year 2006. This account focuses management attention on completing specific environmental projects at sites where the Department anticipates continuing missions, and distinguishes these projects from the long-term cleanup activities such as those associated with high level waste streams.
The Committee recommendation for site/project completion activities is $1,041,996,000, an increase of $130,010,000 over the budget request of $911,986,000. Additional funding of $95,000,000 is provided for the Idaho site to support activities necessary to meet deadlines for shipping waste out of the State; $20,000,000 for the Savannah River Site for plutonium packaging and stabilization activities and restoration of infrastructure funding; and $34,300,000 for the Hanford site to support the River Corridor Initiative. Funding for Project 01-D-414, Project Engineering and Design, has been reduced by $3,500,000, and Project 92-D-140, F&H; Canyon Exhaust Upgrades, has been reduced by $15,790,000 due to deferral and elimination of some activities.
The Committee is extremely concerned that projects previously scheduled for completion by 2006 are slipping beyond that date. The Department should be very careful not to underestimate the strong interest of the Committee that site/project cleanups remain on schedule. The Department must demonstrate that it is capable of completing projects on schedule and within cost. It appears that the Department is much too quick to slip the schedule rather than pursue creative solutions to maintain the schedule within cost. Problems that arise during the course of project execution must be dealt with quickly to ensure project completion. During fiscal year 2002, the Department is to notify the Committee in writing of any project that slips beyond 2006 and provide a detailed explanation of the cause of the delay as well as proposed solutions for getting the project back on schedule for 2006 completion.
Environmental Management projects currently projected to require funding beyond fiscal year 2006 are funded in the Post 2006 completion account. This includes a significant number of projects at the largest DOE sites--the Hanford site in Washington; the Savannah River site in South Carolina; the Oak Ridge Reservation in Tennessee; and the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory in Idaho--as well as the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico, the Nevada Test Site, and the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in Carlsbad, New Mexico. A variety of multi-site activities are also funded in this account.
The Committee recommendation for Post 2006 Completion is $3,393,472,000, an increase of $473,271,000 over the budget request of $2,920,201,000. Additional funding is provided to support current cleanup schedules and fiscal year 2001 levels of funding at the following sites: $109,290,000 for Savannah River; $105,200,000 for Hanford; $16,700,000 for Idaho; and $12,600,000 for the Waste Isolation Pilot Project in New Mexico.
From within available funds for the Savannah River Site, funding of $8,000,000 has been provided for the Savannah River Ecology Laboratory, an increase of $2,000,000 over the budget request of $6,000,000.
Funding of $8,481,000 has been provided for the Hazardous Waste Worker Training Program, an increase of $7,481,000 over the budget request, and the same as fiscal year 2001.
Consistent with the recommendations contained in the GAO report on low-level waste disposal, the Department should perform an updated cost comparison of on-site versus off-site disposal costs before committing to construction of a new CERCLA waste disposal cell at the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory.
For the Office of River Protection, an additional $56,000,000 is provided for tank farm operations. Additional funding of $165,000,000 has been provided for Project 01-D-416, the Hanford Waste Treatment Plant, for a total of $665,000,000 in fiscal year 2002. This funding is necessary to maintain the current schedule for operations.
Uranium Enrichment D&D; Fund Contribution- The Committee recommendation includes the budget request of $420,000,000 for the defense contribution to the Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund as authorized in Public Law 102-486, the Energy Policy Act of 1992.
Health Effects Studies- The Committee recommendation does not include any funding for worker and public health effects studies.
The Office of Science and Technology conducts a national program that provides a full range of resources and capabilities--from basic research through development, and demonstration, and technical and deployment assistance--that are needed to deliver scientific and technological solutions to cleanup and long-term environmental stewardship problems. The Committee recommendation for science and technology is $226,850,000, an increase of $30,850,000 over the budget request of $196,000,000.
One-year funding agreements- It is a continuing source of frustration to the Committee that the Department signs agreements with universities and other entities committing to five years of funding at a specified level and then fails to request funding in the budget to support these agreements. This leads to much frustration among the entities which believe that the agreement was a legitimate contract and the Committee which receives numerous requests to add funds to meet these commitments. The Committee has no role in making these agreements and should not be put in the position each year to correct the failures of the Department. Thus, the Department is directed to sign no funding agreement with any entity that commits more than one year of funding for science and technology activities.
Technology deployment- The Committee urges the Department to make every effort to seek alternative cost-effective cleanup technologies from outside the Department in cleaning up its legacy waste. The Committee is aware that the international agreement with AEA Technology has been very successful in bringing cheaper and more efficient technologies to bear on the Department's cleanup problems and urges the Department to renew this agreement. The budget request included $2,000,000 for this agreement in fiscal year 2002, but the Committee has provided $4,000,000, the same as fiscal year 2001.
Environmental management science program- The Committee is disappointed that the Department was again unable to provide funding for new grants in fiscal year 2002. This is a collaborative program between the Department's Office of Environmental Management and the Office of Science that identifies long-term, basic science research needs and targets the research and development toward critical cleanup problems. This program has been given high marks by the National Research Council and the Department's Environmental Management Advisory Board. The Committee believes it is critical to provide continuity of funding for this research program and has provided $5,000,000 for the next round of new and innovative research grants in fiscal year 2002.
Idaho validation and verification program- The Committee has provided $20,000,000 for basic research activities at the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory. The Department had requested no funds to continue this program.
University Research Program in Robotics- The Committee has provided $4,350,000 for the university research program in robotics, an increase of $1,850,000 over the budget request of $2,500,000 and the same as fiscal year 2001.
Florida International University- Funding of $5,000,000 has been provided for the Department's cooperative agreement with the Florida International University to support environmental cleanup technologies. This is an increase of $2,500,000 over the budget request and the same as fiscal year 2001.
The environmental management program is responsible for final disposition of excess contaminated facilities throughout the Department. Funds are currently being expended for surveillance and maintenance of these excess facilities, and these costs will continue until decontamination and decommissioning (D&D;) is completed.
The Committee has provided $10,000,000 for the excess facilities program, an increase of $8,700,000 over the budget request. The budget requested only surveillance and maintenance costs of $1,300,000 for the excess facilities transferred to the program in fiscal year 2002. In addition to these surveillance and maintenance costs, the recommendation includes $8,700,000 to initiate a program to begin the actual D&D; of excess facilities already owned by the environmental management program. These funds should be used to dispose of those facilities that will provide the greatest impact on reducing long-term costs and risk.
The Committee directs the Department to implement new D&D; practices to reduce costs and expedite site cleanups. There are clearly savings to be realized throughout the complex as evidenced by a recent contractor innovation at the Rocky Flats site that reduced the cost of D&D; for a building from an estimate of $3,500,000 using existing DOE practices and procedures to approximately $700,000 using commercial practices. Potential cost savings of this magnitude have also been identified at other sites through the use of standard commercial practices. The Department is to keep the Committee informed of the D&D; projects that are to be performed and the cost of each project.
The safeguards and security program ensures appropriate levels of protection against unauthorized access, theft, diversion, or destruction of Departmental assets and hostile acts that may impact national security or the health and safety of DOE and contractor employees. The Committee recommendation for the safeguards and security program is $205,621,000, the same as the budget request.
The Committee recommends $355,761,000 for program direction, the same as the budget request. However, within this amount, the Committee has reduced salaries and benefits by $3,000,000 and provided funding only for the current on-board staff. No additional funding is provided for staff increases proposed at any site; increased site staffing needs must be met from within current staffing levels. In reviewing site staffing levels, there appear to be many discrepancies in the size of the Federal staff, the amount of contractor funding at the site, and the complexity of the cleanup. The Department is urged to see if there are greater efficiencies that can be made particularly at sites slated for closure.
Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP).--The Committee expects the Department to fulfill its responsibilities at FUSRAP sites, exclusive of the remedial actions to be performed by the Corps.
The recommendation for Defense Environmental Restoration and Waste Management includes the following funding adjustments; prior year balances of $36,770,000 and a security charge for reimbursable work of $5,391,000 as requested in the budget, and a general reduction of $17,000,000.
---------------------------------------
---------------------------------------
Appropriation, 2001 $1,080,331,000
Budget Estimate, 2002 1,050,538,000
Recommended, 2002 1,092,878,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2001 +12,547,000
Budget Estimate, 2002 +42,340,000
---------------------------------------
The Defense Facilities Closure Projects account includes funding for sites which have established a goal of completing cleanup by the end of fiscal year 2006. After completion of cleanup, no further Departmental mission is envisioned, except for limited long-term surveillance and maintenance, and the sites may be available for some alternative use. Sites in this account include the Rocky Flats Closure Project in Colorado, and several sites in Ohio--Ashtabula, Columbus, Fernald, and Miamisburg.
This account is intended to highlight those sites where cleanup can be accelerated and substantial savings achieved by reducing long-term program costs and ongoing support costs. The Committee strongly supports this program, and the recommendation for fiscal year 2002 funding is $1,092,878,000, an increase of $42,340,000 over the budget request. Additional funding of $21,000,000 was provided in the fiscal year 2001 supplemental appropriations bill to support the Ohio closure sites. Fiscal year 2002 funding for each closure site is discussed below.
The Department has prepared a baseline schedule showing closure of the Rocky Flats Site in Colorado by 2006. The Committee is aware that, to meet the 2006 deadline, stable funding will be required over several years, and critical path work activities must be successfully completed, not only at Rocky Flats, but at other sites throughout the Department's complex. The Department must ensure that complex-wide policy and funding issues are addressed as they relate to the closure of the Rocky Flats Site. The development of the Rocky Flats Integrated Closure Project Baseline is an important step in meeting this commitment. It is only through successful site closures that funds will be made available to support expensive future cleanup projects like the vitrification plants needed at Hanford and Idaho.
The Committee has provided fiscal year 2002 funding of $620,504,000, a reduction of $8,073,000 from the budget request. Funding for some safeguards and security activities was incorrectly included in the Rocky Flats project and has been transferred to the safeguards and security account.
The Committee is aware that each of the Ohio cleanup sites is in danger of slipping beyond the 2006 closure date. While it is not surprising that cleanups are encountering some unexpected conditions, it is very discouraging that the Federal program managers and contractors appear to be unable to maintain the schedules--rather than meeting challenges with innovations, the solution always seems to be increase the cost and slip the schedule. The Committee has consistently provided the funding requested by the Department to maintain these projects on a 2006 closure schedule and has provided additional funding in fiscal year 2002 to maintain constant funding levels.
The Committee expects the Department to aggressively review the baseline closure plans for each Ohio cleanup site and take all steps necessary to meet the 2006 closure date. If during fiscal year 2002, it appears that any of these projects will not meet the 2006 closure date, the Department is to notify the Committee immediately, reduce site funding to the minimum necessary to maintain safe surveillance and maintenance conditions, and submit a reprogramming to remove the site from the Defense Facilities Closure Project account.
The Committee recommendation is $418,399,000 for the four Ohio sites, an increase of $52,061,000 over the budget request, in an attempt to maintain funding at the fiscal year 2001 levels. Funding for the Ashtabula site is $16,000,000, an increase of $6,279,000 over the budget request of $9,721,000. Funding for the Columbus Environmental Management Project is $16,100,000, an increase of $6,000,000 over the budget request of $10,100,000.
Fernald.--The Fernald site in Ohio is now operating under a recent contract modification that assumes closure of the site by 2010. Cleanup at the site has been slowed by the failure of several projects; however, there are contract incentives for closing the site by 2006. Additional funding of $20,000,000 has been provided in the fiscal year 2001 supplemental appropriations bill to support this accelerated closure schedule. The Committee expects the Department and the contractor to demonstrate during fiscal year 2002 that the site schedule can actually be accelerated to 2006. Significant cost savings can be achieved with early closure, and the Committee strongly supports this approach. The Committee recommendation for the Fernald site is $295,299,000, an increase of $10,000,000 over the budget request.
Mound.--The Committee is very concerned with the delays in the cleanup of the Mound site in Miamisburg, Ohio. Cleanup of the site is continuing to slip and now appears to extend significantly beyond fiscal year 2006. The Committee expects the Department to develop a baseline closure plan that supports the 2006 closure date. There are clearly many steps that can be taken at this site to accelerate cleanup activities and reduce managerial, bureaucratic, and worker inefficiencies while still protecting the health and safety of the workers and the community. The Committee strongly encourages the Department to explore alternative approaches to the cleanup that are truly innovative and will restore the schedule and reduce overall costs. The Committee also believes the Department should consider other health and safety regulatory oversight processes that could reduce costs and accelerate cleanup of the site. The Committee understands that increased resources over current levels may be needed to meet the 2006 closure date, but will not consider additional funding until the Department demonstrates that substantial changes have been made to current operations to ensure successful cleanup by 2006. The Committee recommends $91,000,000, an increase of $20,061,000 over the budget request of $70,939,000, and consistent with fiscal year 2001 funding levels. Additional funding of $1,000,000 has been provided in the fiscal year 2001 supplemental appropriations bill to support the closure activities.
The safeguards and security program ensures appropriate levels of protection against unauthorized access, theft, diversion, or destruction of Departmental assets and hostile acts that may impact national security or the health and safety of DOE and contractor employees. The Committee recommendation for the safeguards and security program is $53,975,000, an increase of $8,073,000 over the budget request. This funding for safeguards and security activities, incorrectly included in the Rocky Flats project, has been transferred to this account.
------------------------------------
------------------------------------
Appropriation, 2001 $65,000,000
Budget Estimate, 2002 141,537,000
Recommended, 2002 143,208,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2001 +78,208,000
Budget Estimate, 2002 +1,671,000
------------------------------------
The Committee recommendation for the Defense Environmental Management Privatization program is $143,208,000, an increase of $1,671,000 over the budget request. The recommendation includes $52,000,000 for the Advanced Mixed Waste Treatment Project at Idaho, an increase of $12,000,000 over the budget request of $40,000,000. Additional funding of $27,472,000 has been provided in the fiscal year 2001 supplemental appropriations bill to support this project.
Funding for two new projects has been provided in fiscal year 2002: $3,000,000 for the Paducah Disposal Facility, a reduction of $10,329,000 from the budget request, and $2,000,000 for the Portsmouth Disposal Facility, the same as the budget request. In light of the recent General Accounting Office report on low-level waste disposal practices at the Department, the Committee directs the Department to perform a detailed cost and risk assessment to compare on-site versus off-site disposal to determine whether off-site disposal at a commercial facility would be more cost-effective in view of long-term stewardship costs and risks before proceeding with either of these projects.
Consistent with the budget request, $49,332,000 has been provided for Spent Nuclear Fuel Dry Storage at Idaho, $26,050,000 for the Environmental Management/Waste Treatment Facility at Oak Ridge, and $10,826,000 for the Transuranic Waste Treatment Facility at Oak Ridge.
-------------------------------------
-------------------------------------
Appropriation, 2001 $582,466,000
Budget Estimate, 2002 527,614,000
Recommended, 2002 487,464,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2001 -95,002,000
Budget Estimate, 2002 -40,150,000
-------------------------------------
This account provides funding for Security and Emergency Operations; Intelligence; Counterintelligence; Independent Oversight and Performance Assurance; Environment, Safety and Health (Defense); Worker and Community Transition; National Security Programs Administrative Support; and the Office of Hearings and Appeals. Descriptions of each of these programs are provided below.
Security and emergency operations provides a domestic safeguards and security program for protection of nuclear weapons, nuclear materials, nuclear facilities, and classified and unclassified information, including cyber systems, against sabotage, espionage, terrorist activities, or any loss or unauthorized disclosure that could endanger the national security or disrupt operations. The Committee recommendation for security and emergency operations is $249,927,000, a reduction of $19,323,000 from the budget request of $269,250,000.
The Department's safeguards and security programs seem to careen from one incident to another--alleged loss of nuclear weapons secrets, misplaced computer hard drives with classified information, and alleged discriminatory actions toward visitors. The Department of Energy spends over $1 billion annually on safeguards and security activities, but none of these security incidents were caused by lack of funding. The Committee urges the new Administration to review the underlying basis for each of the Department's security practices to determine if current procedures result in excessive costs without commensurate protection for employees, facilities, and national security programs.
Public access to DOE facilities- The Committee is concerned about the practice used by the Department of Energy to require identification of citizenship as a security screening tool. The Committee notes that the Department of Defense, whose security needs are no less important than those of the Department of Energy, does not use this procedure at the Pentagon. The Department of Energy's practice to require identification of citizenship for entry into its facilities, even for unclassified visits in non-secure areas, fosters the perception of racial profiling no matter how well intended. In a recent alarming incident, admittance to DOE headquarters was refused to a Chinese-American Member of Congress, who was participating in a DOE celebration of Asian Pacific American Heritage Month. The Congressman was asked three times if he was an American, and two guards refused to accept his congressional identification for admittance or that of an Asian American aide who accompanied him. The Committee directs that the Secretary of Energy review security procedures for access to DOE facilities to determine whether the use of identification of citizenship is a proper, effective, and sensitive method and is consistent with procedures at other Federal facilities where classified information is kept. The Secretary shall report his findings to the Appropriations Committees of Congress by September 1, 2001.
Nuclear Safeguards and Security- The nuclear safeguards and security program provides policy, programmatic direction, and training for the protection of the Department's nuclear weapons, nuclear materials, classified information, and facilities. The Committee recommendation is $108,000,000, a reduction of $13,188,000 from the budget request of $121,188,000. Funding for outside contractor assistance has been reduced. The Committee has also included $2,000,000 to continue the procurement of security locks that meet the Federal specifications for containers that hold sensitive classified material.
Security Investigations- The security investigations program funds background investigations for Department of Energy and contractor personnel who, in the performance of their official duties, require access to restricted data, national security information, or special nuclear material. The Committee recommendation is $44,927,000, the same as the budget request.
Corporate Management Information Program- The Committee recommendation is $20,000,000, the same as the budget request.
Program Direction- The Committee recommendation is $77,000,000 for program direction, a decrease of $6,135,000 from the budget request of $83,135,000. With a Headquarters staff of 329 Federal employees, the Committee believes that funding for technical assistance and expertise from outside contractors should be reduced.
The intelligence program provides information and technical analyses on international arms proliferation, foreign nuclear programs, and other energy related matters to policy makers in the Department and other U.S. Government agencies. The focus of the Department's intelligence analysis and reporting is on emerging proliferant nations, nuclear technology transfers, foreign nuclear materials production, and proliferation implications of the breakup of the Former Soviet Union. The Committee recommendation is $36,059,000, a reduction of $4,785,000 from the budget request, and the same as fiscal year 2001.
The Office of Counterintelligence seeks to develop and implement an effective counterintelligence program throughout the Department of Energy. The goal of the program is to identify, neutralize, and deter foreign government or industrial intelligence threats directed at the Department's facilities, personnel, information, and technologies. The Committee recommendation is $45,200,000, a reduction of $1,189,000 from the budget request, and the same as fiscal year 2001.
The Office of Independent Oversight and Performance Assurance is the focal point for independent evaluation of safeguards, security, emergency management, and cyber security. The Committee recommendation is $14,904,000, the same as the budget request, and $33,000 below fiscal year 2001.
The Office of Environment, Safety and Health develops programs and policies to protect the workers and the public, conducts independent oversight of performance, and funds health effects studies. The Committee recommendation is $105,293,000, a decrease of $9,307,000 from the budget request of $114,600,000.
Oversight- Funding for additional contractor support for oversight activities has been reduced by $3,369,000 to $6,000,000. With a Headquarters staff of almost 300 Federal employees, the Committee believes that outside technical assistance can be significantly reduced.
Health Effects Studies- The recommendation for health effects studies is $50,000,000, a decrease of $3,438,000 from the budget request of $53,438,000. The Department funds several programs for occupational medicine, public health studies, and epidemiologic monitoring. The Committee expects the Department to review all these activities to achieve efficiencies through consolidation.
Marshall Islands- For over 40 years, the DOE has provided a Congressionally-mandated program of medical monitoring to the residents of Rongelap and Utrik atolls in the Marshall Islands who were exposed to high levels of radioactive fallout from a U.S. nuclear test, Castle Bravo, that occurred on March 1, 1954. The program managed by the Pacific Heath Research Institute of Honolulu through a cooperative agreement currently provides care for the remaining 123 of the original 253 individuals who enrolled in the program in 1954.
The U.S. government is currently renegotiating its diplomatic, defense and economic relationship with the Government of the Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI). In those negotiations, the Committee believes it is time for the U.S. government to provide a single, combined package of assistance to support the medical and public health infrastructure needs of the Marshall Islands. This support should be managed by the U.S. Public Health Service, the Federal agency that has the greatest experience in providing public health care in the U.S. and abroad.
DOE's radiological monitoring, dose assessment and mitigation strategy research will conclude by 2006 and will complete over 30 years of scientific effort to thoroughly characterize the extent and nature of radiological contamination from U.S. atmospheric testing in the northern atolls of Bikini, Enewetak, Rongelap and Utrik. With completion of this task, the responsibility for the use of these assessments and mitigation strategies now falls to the RMI government in making decisions regarding resettlement and land use in the northern atolls. The Committee directs the Department to transition the environmental monitoring program to a program of direct support to the RMI. This will allow the RMI to conduct its own assessments and reach its own conclusions about which mitigation strategies to use in making resettlement and land use decisions.
The Committee recommendation for the Marshall Islands is $6,300,000, the same as the budget request.
Radiation Effects Research Foundation (RERF)- Through the RERF program, the United States has supported studies for more than 50 years on the health effects of radiation on the survivors of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic bombings. The Committee recommendation is $13,500,000, the same as the budget request.
Energy Employees Compensation Initiative- Title 36 of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2001 (P.L. 106-398) established the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program to provide benefits to DOE contractor workers made ill as a result of exposures from nuclear weapons production. The Department is responsible for establishing procedures to assist workers in filing compensation claims. The Committee recommendation is $15,000,000, the same as the budget request.
Program Direction- The Committee recommendation for program direction is $20,793,000, a reduction of $2,500,000 from the budget request. This amount of funding will support employees currently on board through fiscal year 2002.
The Committee's recommendation for the worker and community transition program is $21,900,000, a reduction of $2,546,000 from the budget request of $24,446,000, due to funding constraints. Funding has been restored to many programs which the Department had proposed to reduce so there should be no significant contractor reductions requiring additional funds in fiscal year 2002. The Committee has provided $900,000 for infrastructure improvements at the former Pinellas weapons plant. The Committee expects the Department to adequately fund and fulfill the commitment that was made to the Miamisburg Mound Community Improvement Corporation, and to grant priority to those communities which received no funds in fiscal year 2001. The Committee directs that none of the funds provided for this program be used for additional severance payments and benefits for Federal employees.
The worker and community transition program was established to mitigate the impacts on workers and communities of contractor workforce reductions as a result of the end of the Cold War. Funds are provided for enhanced severance payments to employees at former defense sites, and for assisting community planning for defense conversion through Federal grants. However, the cost of this program has not been insignificant. Through fiscal year 2000, enhanced severance payments and benefits to workers and grants to communities have totaled more than $1 billion.
Program direction- The Office of Worker and Community Transition currently has 19 employees at Headquarters. The budget proposed to reduce the staff to 18 employees, but provided $207,000 for additional support service contractor assistance to offset the reduction. The Committee recommendation of $2,900,000 for program direction, a reduction of $300,000 from the budget request, allows the staff reduction, but does not provide the additional support service.
The Committee recommendation includes $25,000,000 to provide administrative support for national security programs. This will fund Departmental activities performed by offices such as the Secretary, Deputy Secretary, the General Counsel, Chief Financial Officer, Human Resources, Congressional Affairs, and Public Affairs, which support the activities of the National Nuclear Security Administration.
The Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) is responsible for all of the Department's adjudicatory processes, other than those administered by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. The Committee recommendation is $2,893,000, the same as the budget request.
The Committee recommendation for funding adjustments is $13,712,000, an increase of $3,000,000 over the budget request. Adjustments include the use of $13,000,000 in prior year balances which is an increase of $3,000,000 over the budget request, and a reduction of $712,000 for a security charge for reimbursable work as proposed in the budget.
-------------------------------------
-------------------------------------
Appropriation, 2001 $199,725,000
Budget Estimate, 2002 310,000,000
Recommended, 2002 310,000,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2001 +110,275,000
Budget Estimate, 2002
-------------------------------------
Since passage of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended, the Nuclear Waste Fund has incurred costs for activities related to disposal of high-level waste generated from the atomic energy defense activities of the Department of Energy. At the end of fiscal year 2000, the balance owed by the Federal government to the Nuclear Waste Fund was $1,385,000,000 (including principal and interest). The Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal appropriation was established to ensure payment of the Federal government's contribution to the nuclear waste repository program. Through fiscal year 2000, a total of $1,216,400,000 has been appropriated to support the nuclear waste repository activities attributable to atomic energy defense activities.
The Committee recommendation is $310,000,000, the same as the budget request. Eliminating the outstanding balance owed by the Federal government will require a significant increase in the amount paid each year and could require as much as $500,000,000 annually in future years. Since shipment of defense high level waste to the repository is contingent upon full payment of the balance owed at the time the repository is opened, the Committee believes it is prudent to address this funding shortfall sooner rather than later.
Management of the Federal power marketing functions was transferred from the Department of the Interior to the Department of Energy by the Department of Energy Organization Act (P.L. 95-91). These functions include the power marketing activities authorized under section 5 of the Flood Control Act of 1944 and all other functions of the Bonneville Power Administration, the Southeastern Power Administration, the Southwestern Power Administration, and the power marketing functions of the Bureau of Reclamation that have been transferred to the Western Area Power Administration.
All power marketing administrations except the Bonneville Power Administration are funded annually with appropriated funds. Revenues collected from power sales and transmission services are deposited in the Treasury to offset expenditures. The Committee recommendation for fiscal year 2002 includes the Administration proposal to fund purchase power and wheeling from power revenues for the Southeastern Power Administration, the Southwestern Power Administration, and the Western Area Power Administration.
Operations of the Bonneville Power Administration are self-financed under the authority of the Federal Columbia River Transmission System Act (P.L. 93-454). Under this Act, the Bonneville Power Administration is authorized to use its revenues to finance the costs of its operations, maintenance, and capital construction, and to sell bonds to the Treasury if necessary to finance any additional capital program requirements.
The Bonneville Power Administration is the Department of Energy's marketing agency for electric power in the Pacific Northwest. Bonneville provides electricity to a 300,000 square mile service area in the Columbia River drainage basin. Bonneville markets the power from Federal hydropower projects in the Northwest, as well as power from non-Federal generating facilities in the region. Bonneville also exchanges and markets surplus power with Canada and California.
Borrowing Authority- Bonneville Power Administration has available $3,750,000,000 in permanent borrowing authority, authorized by the Transmission System Act (P.L. 93-454). For fiscal year 2002, the Committee recommendation includes an estimate of use of $374,500,000 of authorized borrowing authority, the same as the budget request and $50,000,000 more than fiscal year 2001. This borrowing authority is available for capital investments in power systems (including fish and wildlife measures), transmission systems, and capital equipment. With this borrowing authority, Bonneville forecasts that it will have a total of $834,000,000 in borrowing available in fiscal year 2002.
The Committee is aware that Bonneville has recently proposed a $2 billion increase in its borrowing authority to address infrastructure needs arising from an anticipated increase in generation from a variety of sources in the Bonneville service area. The Committee does not at this time have enough information to support such an increase. Consistent with the recommendation contained in the National Energy Policy, the Secretary of Energy has already been tasked to examine the national grid, identify transmission bottlenecks, and identify measures to remove such bottlenecks. The National Energy Policy also recommends a review of Bonneville's capital and financing requirements to determine if additional Federal financing or an increase in borrowing authority is warranted. Bonneville's proposal for increased borrowing authority must be considered within the context of all of the Administration's proposed actions for the power marketing administrations and in view of the combined impact on the various regions of the country.
-----------------------------------
-----------------------------------
Appropriation, 2001 $3,891,000
Budget Estimate, 2002 4,891,000
Recommended, 2002 4,891,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2001 +1,000,000
Budget Estimate, 2002
-----------------------------------
The Southeastern Power Administration markets the hydroelectric power produced at 23 Corps of Engineers projects in eleven states in the Southeast. Southeastern does not own or operate any transmission facilities, so it contracts to `wheel' its power using the existing transmission facilities of area utilities.
The Committee recommendation for the Southeastern Power Administration is $4,891,000, the same as the budget request and a $1,000,000 increase over fiscal year 2001. The total program level for Southeastern in fiscal year 2002 is $39,354,000, with $34,463,000 for purchase power and wheeling and $4,891,000 for program direction. The purchase power and wheeling costs will be offset by collections of $34,463,000, leaving a net appropriation of $4,891,000. The offsetting collections total of $34,463,000 includes $26,463,000 made available in Public Law 106-377 for use in fiscal year 2002, plus an additional $8,000,000 provided in this Act.
------------------------------------
------------------------------------
Appropriation, 2001 $28,038,000
Budget Estimate, 2002 28,038,000
Recommended, 2002 28,038,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2001
Budget Estimate, 2002
------------------------------------
The Southwestern Power Administration markets the hydroelectric power produced at 24 Corps of Engineers projects in the six-state area of Arkansas, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Oklahoma and Texas. Southwestern operates and maintains 1,380 miles of transmission lines, with the supporting substations and communications sites. Southwestern gives preference in the sale of its power to publicly and cooperatively owned utilities.
The Committee recommendation for the Southwestern Power Administration is $28,038,000, the same as the budget request and the fiscal year 2001 funding level. The total program level for Southwestern in fiscal year 2002 is $29,838,000, including $3,339,000 for operating expenses, $1,800,000 for purchase power and wheeling, $18,668,000 for program direction, and $6,031,000 for construction. The offset of $1,800,000 from collections for purchase power and wheeling yields a net appropriation of $28,038,000. The offsetting collections total of $1,800,000 includes $288,000 made available in Public Law 106-377 for use in fiscal year 2002, plus an additional $1,512,000 provided in this Act.
-------------------------------------
-------------------------------------
Appropriation, 2001 $165,465,000
Budget Estimate, 2002 169,465,000
Recommended, 2002 172,165,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2001 +6,700,000
Budget Estimate, 2002 +2,700,000
-------------------------------------
The Western Area Power Administration is responsible for marketing the electric power generated by the Bureau of Reclamation, the Corps of Engineers, and the International Boundary and Water Commission. Western also operates and maintains a system of transmission lines nearly 17,000 miles long. Western provides electricity to 15 Central and Western states over a service area of 1.3 million square miles.
The Committee recommendation for the Western Area Power Administration is $172,165,000, an increase of $2,700,000 over the budget request and $6,700,000 more than the fiscal year 2001 funding level. The total program level for Western in fiscal year 2002 is $358,289,000, which includes $18,764,000 for construction and rehabilitation, $37,796,000 for system operation and maintenance, $186,124,000 for purchase power and wheeling, $114,378,000 for program direction, and $1,227,000 for Utah mitigation and conservation. Offsetting collections for purchase power and wheeling total $186,124,000, leaving a net appropriation of $172,165,000. The offsetting collections total of $186,124,000 includes $33,500,000 made available in Public Law 106-377 for use in fiscal year 2002, plus an additional $152,624,000 provided in this Act.
The amount for construction and rehabilitation includes $2,700,000 to fund high priority portions of the South of Phoenix portion of the Parker-Davis Project transmission system. The Federal share of the upfront costs is to be recovered through the transmission rates of the Parker-Davis Project. Western should pursue additional funds from those utilities requiring additional transmission capacity, and the Committee expects that any funding received will be used to offset future appropriations requirements.
-----------------------------------
-----------------------------------
Appropriation, 2001 $2,663,000
Budget Estimate, 2002 2,663,000
Recommended, 2002 2,663,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2001
Budget Estimate, 2002
-----------------------------------
Falcon Dam and Amistad Dam are two international water projects located on the Rio Grande River between Texas and Mexico. Power generated by hydroelectric facilities at these two dams is sold to public utilities through the Western Area Power Administration. The Foreign Relations Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 1994 and 1995 created the Falcon and Amistad Operating and Maintenance Fund to defray the costs of operation, maintenance, and emergency activities. The Fund is administered by the Western Area Power Administration for use by the Commissioner of the U.S. Section of the International Boundary and Water Commission.
The Committee recommendation is $2,663,000, the same as the budget request and as the fiscal year 2001 funding level.
-------------------------------------
-------------------------------------
Appropriation, 2001 $175,200,000
Budget Estimate, 2002 181,155,000
Recommended, 2002 181,155,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2001 +5,955,000
Budget Estimate, 2002
-------------------------------------
--------------------------------------
--------------------------------------
Appropriation, 2001 -$175,200,000
Budget Estimate, 2002 -181,155,000
Recommended, 2002 -181,155,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2001 -5,955,000
Budget Estimate, 2002
--------------------------------------
The Committee recommendation is $181,155,000, the same as the budget request and an increase of $5,955,000 over the fiscal year 2001 funding level. Revenues for FERC are established at a rate equal to the budget authority, resulting in a net appropriation of $0.
The Committee understands that the Commission is establishing precedent in implementing the stranded cost provisions of Order 888 in the context of `retail turned wholesale' customers. The Committee urges the Commission to stand by its commitment to full cost recovery and directs that the Commission, in this context, use a methodology that contains a recovery period sufficient to ensure the recovery of all generating asset investments included in states approved rates used to serve the departing customers.
The Committee has included language in the bill which prohibits the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission from using the funds provided in this or any other Act to complete the remaining reviews and issue further authorizations to proceed with the Gulfstream Natural Gas Project.
The Committee's detailed funding recommendations for programs in Title III are contained in the following table.
Contract Competition- Section 301 provides that none of the funds in this Act may be used to award a management and operating contract, or award a significant extension or expansion to an existing management and operating contract, unless such contract is awarded using competitive procedures, or the Secretary of Energy grants, on a case-by-case basis, a waiver to allow for such a deviation. At least 60 days before such action, the Secretary of Energy must submit to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations a report notifying the Committees of the waiver and setting forth, in detail, the reasons for the waiver. Section 301 does not preclude extensions of a contract awarded using competitive procedures.
The Committee's concerns regarding the Department's contracting procedures result from the Department's history of having management and operating contracts which have never been bid competitively, in some cases for over four decades. Ensuring competition for these situations in particular, and establishing competition as the norm for the Department's contracting, is imperative. However, the Committee is aware that there may be circumstances where the existing contract has been competed in the past few years; the existing contractor has been doing a good job; the mission at a specific site has been scheduled to end in a limited amount of time; or the time required for a full competitive procurement would result in significant delays to an ongoing project. In those instances where it is clearly in the taxpayers' interest, the Committee would not object to a contract extension.
Limitation on Benefits for Federal Employees- Section 302 provides that none of the funds in this Act may be used to prepare or implement workforce restructuring plans or provide enhanced severance payments and other benefits and community assistance grants for Federal employees of the Department of Energy under section 3161 of the National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 1993, Public Law 102-484. The Committee has provided no funds to implement workforce restructuring plans which would provide benefits to Federal employees of the Department of Energy which are not available to other Federal employees of the United States Government.
Limitation on Funding for Section 3161 Benefits- Section 303 provides that none of the funds in this Act may be used to augment the $21,900,000 made available for obligation in this Act for severance payments and other benefits and community assistance grants authorized under the provisions of section 3161 of the National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 1993, Public Law 102-484.
Limitation on Initiation of Requests for Proposals- Section 304 provides that none of the funds in this Act may be used to initiate requests for proposals or expressions of interest for new programs which have not yet been presented to Congress in the annual budget submission, and which have not yet been approved and funded by Congress.
Transfer and Merger of Unexpended Balances- Section 305 permits the transfer and merger of unexpended balances of prior appropriations with appropriation accounts established in this bill.
Limitation on Bonneville Power Administration- Section 306 provides that none of the funds provided in this or any other Act may be used by the Administrator of the Bonneville Power Administration to perform energy efficiency services outside the legally defined Bonneville service territory.
Limitation on Funds Used for LDRD- Section 307 provides that none of the funds appropriated by Congress in any appropriation act other than Energy and Water Development appropriations acts may be used for Department of Energy laboratory directed research and development (LDRD).
The Department of Energy's laboratory directed research and development program allows laboratory directors to divert up to six percent of funds they receive to other projects at the laboratories at the sole discretion of the laboratory directors. The Department, however, has implemented the program in a manner which extends this policy to the funds received from other Federal agencies. The Committee is concerned that the Department of Energy through this policy has inadvertently allowed its laboratory directors to divert funds from the purpose for which they were appropriated in other Appropriations Acts, unwittingly violating the statutory language of those acts. The Committee is particularly concerned about funds that Congress has provided or added in defense appropriations acts for national missile defense and classified programs, which were provided for specific high-priority national security purposes to meet specific objectives. Diversion of these funds to unrelated laboratory directed research does not contribute to the purpose for which Congress appropriated the funds, but rather detracts from it. The Committee, therefore, recommends section 307 which limits the Department of Energy's laboratory directed research and development program to the funds provided by the Congress for the Department of Energy in this bill and ensures the integrity of funds provided to other Federal agencies in other appropriations bills.
External Regulation of Science Laboratories- The Department of Energy (DOE) is currently self-regulating with respect to nuclear safety and worker safety at most of its facilities under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954. Section 308 directs the DOE to prepare an implementation plan to transition to external regulation of DOE's non-defense science laboratories. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) would assume responsibility for nuclear safety at DOE's non-defense science laboratories, and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) would assume responsibility for worker safety at these same sites. The Department is directed in fiscal year 2002 only to prepare a plan for implementation of external regulation, with a proposed effective date for the actual implementation of external regulation being October 1, 2002.
For purposes of the implementation plan required by this section, external regulation will apply to the five multiprogram national laboratories under the Office of Science: Argonne National Laboratory; Brookhaven National Laboratory; Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory; Oak Ridge National Laboratory; and Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. External regulation shall also apply to the five single-purpose laboratories under the Office of Science: Ames Laboratory, Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory; Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory; Stanford Linear Accelerator Center; and Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility. The requirement to plan for the transition to external regulation is not applicable to the nuclear weapons laboratories, plants, or test facilities, or to the Department's environmental remediation sites or other laboratories and research facilities.
The Department's external regulation implementation plan is to be prepared in consultation with the agencies that will assume regulatory responsibility from the Department, the NRC and OSHA. The Department should transfer $4,000,000 to the NRC and $120,000 to OSHA, from within the funds appropriated in fiscal year 2002 for Environment, Safety, and Health to cover their respective costs to prepare for the transition to external regulation, to coordinate with each other and with DOE, to conduct site visits as necessary and to assist DOE in the preparation of the external regulation implementation plan. Note that the transfer to OSHA for external regulation planning is in addition to the $600,000 transferred to OSHA for worker health and safety at those sites transferred to non-Federal entities and for the Department's non-nuclear facilities not covered under the Atomic Energy Act.
The Department should complete the external regulation implementation plan by March 31, 2001, and should submit the completed plan to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations, the House Energy and Commerce Committee, the House Science Committee, the House Education and Workforce Committee, the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, and the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. The implementation plan should address the specific details on how external regulation will be implemented at the named Science laboratories, including the estimated staffing and funding requirements for NRC and OSHA as they assume their additional regulatory responsibilities, and the corresponding reduction in staffing and funding for DOE as it loses this regulatory responsibility. The implementation plan should identify any specific facilities or class of facilities for which external regulation cannot be reasonably implemented on October 1, 2002, and make recommendations on how to address nuclear and worker safety at those facilities. The implementation plan should address the modifications needed to existing management and operating contracts to reflect the change in federal regulatory oversight. The Committee expects that the NRC will, upon the effective date for external regulation, assume regulatory responsibility for regulating nuclear safety at accelerators in the named DOE Science laboratories. The responsibility for regulating accelerators located on Federal facilities is not to be delegated to the NRC Agreement States. The implementation plan should identify any statutory changes needed and propose the necessary legislative language. The Committee expects the NRC and the OSHA to enter into a memorandum of understanding prior to the effective transition date of October 1, 2002, to define the respective responsibilities of the two agencies at the named DOE laboratories.
User Facilities- The Committee is very supportive of the Department's efforts to involve universities in the Department's research efforts. User facilities were created by Congress in the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-486) in order to make the Department's unique energy research capabilities available broadly to universities, industry, private laboratories, other Federal laboratories, and others. The Department has adopted the user facility concept and extended it successfully to other DOE programs, including the National Nuclear Security Administration. The Department's laboratories and research instruments represent a valuable asset to the Nation, as well as a major investment of public funding. As such, the Department must make certain that universities, as well as other potential users, have an equal opportunity to take advantage of the Department's unique research facilities.
This Committee believes the Department already has in place procedures to ensure that the Department's research funds are distributed through a competitive, peer-reviewed process. The Committee also believes that similar competitive, peer-reviewed procedures are in place with respect to research conducted at DOE facilities using non-DOE funds. This section addresses several related parts of the process. When the Department makes a user facility available to universities and other potential users, it must provide notice of such availability in a manner that notifies the potential user community to the greatest extent practicable. The Department should publish its notices in the Commerce Business Daily as well as the appropriate scientific and technical journals, and should make use of workshops and other mechanisms to provide broad public notice. Similarly, when the Department seeks the input of universities and other potential users regarding significant changes to an existing user facility, or seeks their input regarding the features needed in a proposed new user facility, the Department must provide broad notice. The Committee is concerned that some of the initial outreach for the proposed nanoscale science research centers was conducted with select universities; other interested universities may not have been aware of the opportunity to provide input to DOE on these planned user facilities.
In certain instances other than management and operating contracts, the Department may choose to enter into a partnership arrangement with a university or other potential users to assist in the establishment or operation of a user facility. In such instances, this section requires the Department to conduct a full and open competition to select such a partner or partners. The opportunity to partner with one of the Department's national laboratories in the operation of a user facility is a valuable albeit limited opportunity. As such, the Department must take steps to ensure that potential partners have an equal chance to compete for that opportunity.
For purposes of this section, the term `user facility' includes, but is not limited to: a user facility as described in section 2203(a)(2) of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (42 U.S.C. 13503(a)(2)); a National Nuclear Security Administration Defense Programs Technology Deployment Center/User Facility; and any other Department facility designated by the Department as a user facility. Note that the Department may not redesignate a facility as something other than a user facility in order to avoid the notice and competition requirements of this section. Whenever the Department opens its research facilities to outside users, it must do so on a fair and equal basis.
Language not included by the Committee- The Administration requested language authorizing intelligence activities of the Department of Energy and amending the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000. The Committee recommendation does not include this proposed legislation.
------------------------------------
------------------------------------
Appropriation, 2001 $66,254,000
Budget Estimate, 2002 66,290,000
Recommended, 2002 71,290,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2001 +5,036,000
Budget Estimate, 2002 +5,000,000
------------------------------------
The Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC) is a regional economic development agency established in 1965. It is composed of the Governors of the thirteen Appalachian states and a Federal Co-Chairman who is appointed by the President. The Committee recommendation is $71,290,000, an increase of $5,000,000 over the budget request. Funding of $5,000,000 has been provided for a child development research center at the University of Alabama.
------------------------------------
------------------------------------
Appropriation, 2001 $18,459,000
Budget Estimate, 2002 18,500,000
Recommended, 2002 18,500,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2001 +41,000
Budget Estimate, 2002
------------------------------------
The Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board was created by the Fiscal Year 1989 National Defense Authorization Act. The Board, composed of five members appointed by the President, provides advice and recommendations to the Secretary of Energy regarding public health and safety issues at the Department's defense nuclear facilities. The Board is responsible for reviewing and evaluating the content and implementation of the standards relating to the design, construction, operation, and decommissioning of defense nuclear facilities of the Department of Energy.
The Committee recommendation is $18,500,000, the same as the budget request.
------------------------------------
------------------------------------
Appropriation, 2001 $19,956,000
Budget Estimate, 2002 19,992,000
Recommended, 2002
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2001 -19,956,000
Budget Estimate, 2002 -19,992,000
------------------------------------
The Committee recommends no funding for the Delta Regional Authority in fiscal year 2002. The Delta Regional Authority was established by Congress in fiscal year 2001, but it has not yet been organized. Prior year funds of at least $17,000,000 will be carried over from fiscal year 2001 and will be available for expenditure in fiscal year 2002.
------------------------------------
------------------------------------
Appropriation, 2001 $29,934,000
Budget Estimate, 2002 29,939,000
Recommended, 2002
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2001 -29,934,000
Budget Estimate, 2002 -29,939,000
------------------------------------
The Committee has recommended no funding for the Denali Commission in fiscal year 2002 due to funding constraints.
-------------------------------------
-------------------------------------
Appropriation, 2001 $481,825,000
Budget Estimate, 2002 506,900,000
Recommended, 2002 516,900,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2001 +35,075,000
Budget Estimate, 2002 +10,000,000
-------------------------------------
--------------------------------------
--------------------------------------
Appropriation, 2001 -$447,958,000
Budget Estimate, 2002 -463,248,000
Recommended, 2002 -473,520,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2001 -25,562,000
Budget Estimate, 2002 -10,272,000
--------------------------------------
------------------------------------
------------------------------------
Appropriation, 2001 $33,867,000
Budget Estimate, 2002 43,652,000
Recommended, 2002 43,380,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2001 +9,513,000
Budget Estimate, 2002 -272,000
------------------------------------
Nuclear energy received a strong endorsement in the National Energy Policy of May 2001, and serious industry interest has emerged in building a new generation of nuclear power plants in the United States to meet the nation's electricity demands. Industry has recently indicated intent to submit at least one early site permit application to the Nuclear Energy Commission (NRC) in fiscal year 2002, and several firms have already initiated preliminary discussions with the NRC regarding new reactor designs. The NRC needs to ensure that its regulatory infrastructure can be responsive to these potential new applications, some of which may involve new technologies not previously licensed by the NRC. Because these industry initiatives emerged only recently, the NRC's budget request does not include sufficient resources for these new activities. The NRC estimates that it may need an additional $15,000,000 to $18,000,000 in budget authority to be ready for these new activities. The Committee provides $10,000,000 in additional budget authority to the NRC so that it can adequately prepare for and respond to these new reactor initiatives without jeopardizing the safety of operating facilities and without impeding ongoing initiatives on license renewals, power uprates, and moving toward a more risk-informed regulatory environment. The remaining $5,000,000 to $8,000,000 should be realized through implementing internal efficiencies in the NRC.
The Committee recommendation for the NRC is $516,900,000, an increase in budget authority of $10,000,000 over the budget request and $35,075,000 over fiscal year 2001. This amount is offset by estimated revenues of $473,530,000, resulting in a net appropriation of $43,380,000. The recommendation includes $23,650,000 to be made available from the Nuclear Waste Fund to support the Department of Energy's effort to develop a permanent geologic repository for spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste.
Fee Recovery.--Pursuant to the agreement reached in fiscal year 2001, the NRC is required to recover 96 percent of its budget authority, less the appropriation from the Nuclear Waste Fund, by assessing license and annual fees.
Monthly report.--The Committee directs the Commission to continue to provide monthly reports on the status of its licensing and other regulatory activities.
Repository licensing regulations.--As the Department of Energy nears a determination on the suitability of Yucca Mountain as the site for the Nation's permanent geologic repository, the Committee believes that it is important that every effort be made to support the Department's schedule for the final Site Recommendation. The Environmental Protection Agency recently issued its final radiation standards for the Yucca Mountain repository. The next step will be for the NRC to conform its repository licensing regulations (10 C.F.R. part 963) to the newly-issued radiation standard. The NRC is to issue these regulations later this summer, and the Committee expects the NRC to adhere to this schedule. Timely issuance of these NRC regulations will allow the Department of Energy to promulgate its own siting guidelines shortly thereafter.
-----------------------------------
-----------------------------------
Appropriation, 2001 $5,500,000
Budget Estimate, 2002 6,180,000
Recommended, 2002 6,180,000
Comparisons:
Appropriation, 2001 +680,000
Budget Estimate, 2002
-----------------------------------
------------------------------------
------------------------------------
Appropriation, 2001 -$5,390,000
Budget Estimate, 2002 -5,933,000
Recommended, 2002 -5,933,000
Comparisons:
Appropriation, 2001 -543,000
Budget Estimate, 2002
------------------------------------
---------------------------------
---------------------------------
Appropriation, 2001 $110,000
Budget Estimate, 2002 247,000
Recommended, 2002 247,000
Comparisons:
Appropriation, 2001 +137,000
Budget Estimate, 2002
---------------------------------
By law, 96 percent of the budget authority appropriated to the Inspector General of the NRC must be recovered through the assessment of license and annual fees. The Committee recommends an appropriation of $6,180,000, the same as the budget request and an increase of $680,000 over fiscal year 2001. The revenue estimate is $5,933,000, resulting in a net appropriation for the NRC Inspector General of $247,000.
-----------------------------------
-----------------------------------
Appropriation, 2001 $2,894,000
Budget Estimate, 2002 3,100,000
Recommended, 2002 3,100,000
Comparisons:
Appropriation, 2001 +206,000
Budget Estimate, 2002
-----------------------------------
The Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board was established by the 1987 amendments to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 to provide independent technical oversight of the Department of Energy's nuclear waste disposal program. The role of the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board becomes especially critical as the Department approaches issuance of the final site recommendation for the repository site.
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $3,100,000 for the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board, the same as the budget request and an increase of $206,000 from fiscal year 2001 funding.
The Committee recommendation includes several general provisions pertaining to specific programs and activities funded in the Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill.
Prohibition on Lobbying.--Section 501 provides that none of the funds appropriated by this Act may be used in any way, directly or indirectly, to influence congressional action on any legislation or appropriation matters pending before Congress, other than to communicate to Members of Congress as described in section 1913 of Title 18, United States Code.
Buy American.--Section 502 requires that American-made equipment and goods be purchased to the greatest extent practicable.
Drainage of the San Luis Unit.--Section 503 provides language clarifying the funding requirements for the San Luis Unit.
The following items are included in accordance with various requirements of the Rules of the House of Representatives.
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.
Clause 3(c)2 of Rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives requires an explanation of compliance with section 308(a)(1)(A) of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-344), as amended, which requires that the report accompanying a bill providing new budget authority contain a statement detailing how that authority compares with the reports submitted under section 302 of the Act for the most recently agreed to concurrent resolution on the budget for the fiscal year from the Committee's section 302(a) allocation. This information follows:
[In millions of dollars]
-----------------------------------------------------------------
302(b) allocation This bill
Budget authority Outlays Budget authority Outlays
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary 23,704 23,959 23,704 23,927
Mandatory
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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.
In compliance with section 308(a)(1)(B) of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-344), as amended, the following table contains five-year projections associated with the budget authority in the accompanying bill:
| Millions | |
| Budget Authority | 23,704 |
| Outlays: | |
| 2002 | 15,420 |
| 2003 | 7,163 |
| 2004 | 1,073 |
| 2005 | 25 |
| 2006 and beyond | 16 |
In accordance with section 308(a)(1)(C) of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-344), as amended, the financial assistance to State and local governments is as follows:
| Millions | |
| Budget authority | 74 |
| Fiscal year 2002 outlays resulting therefrom | 12 |
Pursuant to clause 3(f)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the following is submitted describing the transfer of funds provided in the accompanying bill.
Under Title II, Bureau of Reclamation, Water and Related Resources:
* * * of which $10,649,000 shall be available for transfer to the Upper Colorado River Basin Fund and $32,442,000 shall be available for transfer to the Lower Colorado River Basin Development Fund; of which such amounts as may be necessary may be advanced to the Colorado River Dam Fund; * * *
* * * Provided, That such transfers may be increased or decreased within the overall appropriations under this heading: * * *
Under Title III, Departmental Administration:
* * * That of the funds provided to the Department of Energy under title III of Public Law 105-277 for activities related to achieving Year 2000 conversion of Federal information technology systems and related expenses, remaining balances, estimated to be $1,480,000, may be transferred to this account, and shall remain available until expended, for continuation of information technology enhancement activities.
Under Title III, General Provisions:
SEC. 305. The unexpended balances of prior appropriations provided for activities in this Act may be transferred to appropriation accounts for such activities established pursuant to this title. Balances so transferred may be merged with funds in the applicable established accounts and thereafter may be accounted for as one fund for the same time period as originally enacted.
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.
Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, General Investigations, providing for detailed studies and plans and specifications of projects prior to construction. Language is also included under General Investigations which directs the Secretary of the Army to use funds to continue preconstruction engineering and design of the Murrieta Creek, California, project; directs the Secretary of the Army to use a certain report as the basis for the Rock Creek-Keefer Slough, California, project; and provides that the Southwest Valley Flood Reduction Study in New Mexico shall include an evaluation of flood damage reduction measures that would otherwise be excluded from the feasibility analysis based on certain restrictive policies.
Language has been included under Construction, General, permitting the use of funds from the Inland Waterways Trust Fund and the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund and which provides that $15,000,000 of the funds appropriated shall be deposited in the San Gabriel Restoration Fund. Language is also provided under Construction, General, which directs the Secretary of the Army to modify the Carr Creek Lake, Kentucky, project at full Federal expense, which directs the Secretary of the Army to undertake design deficiency repairs to the Bois Brule Levee and Drainage District, Missouri, project, and which directs the Secretary of the Army to increase the level of protection for the Bois Brule Levee and Drainage District, Missouri, project. Language is also included which directs the Secretary of the Army to construct the locally preferred plan for the Middlesex Borough element of the Raritan River Basin, Green Brook Sub-Basin, New Jersey, project.
Language has been included under Operation and Maintenance, General, stating the following:
* * * including such sums as may be necessary for the maintenance of harbor channels provided by a State, municipality or other public agency, outside of harbor lines, and serving essential needs of general commerce and navigation; * * *
Language has been included under Operation and Maintenance, General, providing for construction, operation, and maintenance of outdoor recreation facilities and permitting the use of funds from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund. Language is also included under Operation and Maintenance, General, which directs the Secretary of the Army to perform cultural resource mitigation and recreation improvements at Waco Lake, Texas; which directs the Secretary of the Army to grade the basin Hansen Dam in California; and which directs the Secretary of the Army to investigate the development of an upland disposal recycling program.
Language has been included under the Regulatory Program regarding the regulation of navigable waters and wetlands.
Language has been included under General Expenses regarding support of the Humphreys Engineer Support Center Activity, the Institute for Water Resources and headquarters support functions at the USACE Finance Center. Language is also included under General Expenses prohibiting the use of other title I funds for the Office of the Chief of Engineers and the division offices. Language is also included prohibiting the use of funds to support an office of congressional affairs within the executive office of the Chief of Engineers.
Language has been included under Administrative Provision providing that funds are available for purchase and hire of motor vehicles.
Language is included under General Provisions as follows:
Sec. 101. The Committee has included language which amends the authorization for the San Gabriel Basin Restoration, California, program so that the San Gabriel Water Authority shall receive credit for prior expenditures.
Sec. 102. The Committee has included language which provides that the dredge McFARLAND may only be operated in a ready reserve status for urgent dredging, emergencies, and in support of national defense.
Sec. 103. The Committee has included language which directs the Secretary of the Army to include an alternatives analysis of a multipurpose Auburn Dam as part of the American River watershed, California, long-term study.
Sec. 104. The Committee has included language directing the Secretary of the Army to transfer property at Tuttle Creek Lake, Kansas, to the Blue Township Fire District, Blue Township, Kansas.
Sec. 105. The Committee has included language which directs the Secretary of the Army to carry out shore protection projects in accordance with the cost sharing provisions contained in existing Project Cooperation Agreements.
Sec. 106. The Committee has included language which provides that none of the funds appropriated in this Act may be used to revise the Missouri River Master Water Control Manual if such revision provides for an increase in the springtime water release program during the spring heavy rainfall and snow melt period in States that have rivers draining into the Missouri River below the Gavins Point Dam.
Language has been included under Water and Related Resources providing that funds are available for fulfilling Federal responsibilities to Native Americans and for grants to and cooperative agreements with state and local governments and Indian tribes. Language is included under Water and Related Resources providing that such sums as necessary may be advanced to the Colorado River Dam Fund. Language is included under Water and Related Resources which permits fund transfers within the overall appropriation to the Upper Colorado River Basin Fund and the Lower Colorado River Basin Development Fund. Language is provided under Water and Related Resources providing that funds may be used for activities under Public Law 106-163. Language is included under Water and Related Resources providing that funds may be used for work carried out by the Youth Conservation Corps. Language is included under Water and Related Resources providing that funds may be derived from the Reclamation Fund or the special fee account established by 16 U.S.C. 460l-6a(i). Language is included under Water and Related Resources which provides that funds contributed by non-Federal entities shall be available for expenditure. Language is included providing that funds advanced for operation and maintenance of reclamation facilities are to be credited to the Water and Related Resources account. Language is also included permitting the use of funds available for the Departmental Irrigation Drainage Program for site remediation on a non-reimbursable basis. Language is included under Water and Related Resources amending the Reclamation States Emergency Drought Relief Act.
Language has been included under the Bureau of Reclamation Loan Program providing that funds may be derived from the Reclamation Fund.
Language has been included under the Central Valley Project Restoration Fund directing the Bureau of Reclamation to assess and collect the full amount of additional mitigation and restoration payments authorized by section 3407(d) of Public Law 102-575.
Language has been included under Policy and Administration providing that funds may be derived from the Reclamation Fund and providing that no part of any other appropriation in the Act may be used for activities budgeted as policy and administration expenses.
Language has been provided under General Provisions in section 201 which provides that none of the funds appropriated in this Act may be used by the Bureau of Reclamation to issue permits, either directly or by making funds available to an entity under a contract, for commercial rafting activities within the Auburn State Recreation Area, California, until the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act are met. The Committee has included language in section 202 which amends the authorization for the American and Sacramento Rivers, California, project.
Language has been included under Nuclear Waste Disposal providing that funds appropriated to the State of Nevada shall be made solely to the Nevada Division of Emergency Management for oversight activities.
Language has been included under Departmental Administration, notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, and consistent with the authorization in Public Law 95-238, to permit the Department of Energy to use revenues to offset appropriations. The appropriations language for this account reflects the total estimated program funding to be reduced as revenues are received. This language has been carried in prior appropriations Acts.
Language has been included under Departmental Administration providing that notwithstanding the provisions of the Anti-Deficiency Act, such additional amounts as necessary to cover increases in the estimated amount of cost of work for others, as long as such increases are offset by revenue increases of the same or greater amounts.
Language has been included under Departmental Administration providing not to exceed $35,000 for official reception and representation expenses.
Language has been included under the Office of the Administrator providing not to exceed $12,000 for official reception and representation expenses.
Language has been included under the Bonneville Power Administration account providing not to exceed $1,500 for official reception and representation expenses, and precluding any new direct loan obligations.
Language has been included under Southeastern Power Administration providing that, not withstanding the provisions of 31 U.S.C. 3302, amounts collected to recover purchase power and wheeling expenses shall be credited to the account as offsetting collections and remain available until expended for the sole purpose of making purchase power and wheeling expenditures.
Language has been included under Southwestern Power Administration to permit Southwestern to utilize reimbursements, notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, and to provide not to exceed $1,500 for official reception and representation expenses. This language has been carried in previous appropriations Acts.
Language has been included under Southwestern Power Administration providing that, not withstanding the provisions of 31 U.S.C. 3302, amounts collected to recover purchase power and wheeling expenses shall be credited to the account as offsetting collections and remain available until expended for the sole purpose of making purchase power and wheeling expenditures.
Language has been included under the Construction, Rehabilitation, Operation and Maintenance, Western Area Power Administration account providing $1,227,000 for deposit into the Utah Reclamation mitigation and Conservation Account pursuant to Title IV of the Reclamation Projects Act of 1992, and not to exceed $1,500 for official reception and representation expenses.
Language has been included under Construction, Rehabilitation, Operation and Maintenance, Western Area Power Administration providing that, not withstanding the provisions of 31 U.S.C. 3302, amounts collected to recover purchase power and wheeling expenses shall be credited to the account as offsetting collections and remain available until expended for the sole purpose of making purchase power and wheeling expenditures.
Language has been included under the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to permit the hire of passenger motor vehicles, to provide official reception and representation expenses, and to permit the use of revenues collected to reduce the appropriation as revenues are received. This language has been included in previous appropriation acts.
Language has been included under the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to prohibit the Commission from using funds appropriated in this or any other Act to complete the reamining reviews and issue further authorizations to proceed with the Gulfstream Natural Gas Project.
Language has been included under Department of Energy, General Provisions, providing that management and operating contracts must be awarded using competitive procedures unless Congress is notified 60 days in advance.
Language has been included under Department of Energy, General Provisions, prohibiting the use of funds to prepare workforce restructuring plans or to provide enhanced severance payments and other benefits for Department of Energy employees under section 3161 of Public Law 102-484.
Language has been included under Department of Energy, General Provisions, prohibiting the use of funds to augment the funding provided for section 3161 of Public Law 102-484.
Language has been included under Department of Energy, General Provisions, prohibiting the use of funds to prepare or initiate requests for proposals for programs which have not yet been funded by Congress.
Language has been included under Department of Energy, General Provisions, providing that unexpended balances of prior appropriations may be transferred and merged with new appropriation accounts established in this Act.
Language has been included under Department of Energy, General Provisions, prohibiting the Administrator of the Bonneville Power Administration to enter into any agreement to perform energy efficiency services outside the legally defined Bonneville service territory.
Language has been included under Department of Energy, General Provisions, prohibiting the use of laboratory directed research and development from programs and/or funds that were appropriated by Congress in other than Energy and Water Development Appropriations acts.
Language has been included that directs the Secretary of Energy to submit a plan to Congress containing an implementation plan for transferring from the Department of Energy the regulatory authority over nuclear safety and worker safety at the Department's science laboratories.
Language has been included requiring the Department of Energy to ensure public notice when it makes a national user facility available to universities and other potential users or seeks input regarding significant characteristics or equipment in a national user facility or a proposed national user facility, and requiring competition when the Department partners with a university or other entity for the establishment or operation of a user facility.
Language has been included under the Nuclear Regulatory Commission allowing the purchase of promotional items for use in recruiting new employees. Language is also included to permit the NRC to utilize revenues collected to offset appropriations, notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302. This language has been carried in previous appropriations Acts.
Language has been included under the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Inspector General, to utilize revenues collected to offset appropriations, notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302. This language has been carried in previous appropriations Acts.
Language has been included under General Provisions prohibiting the use of funds in this Act to influence congressional action on any legislation or appropriation matters pending before Congress.
Language has been included under General Provisions requiring, to the greatest extent practicable, that all equipment and products purchased should be American-made, and prohibiting contracts with persons falsely labeling products as `Made in America.'
Language has been included under General Provisions prohibiting the use of funds to determine the point of discharge for the interceptor drain for the San Luis Unit until development by the Secretary of Interior and the State of California of a plan to minimize the impact of drainage waters, and directing the Secretary of Interior to classify the costs of the Kesterson Reservoir Cleanup program and San Joaquin Valley Drainage Program as reimbursable or nonreimbursable.
In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is printed in italic, existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in roman):
The accompanying bill would amend section 110(3)(B)(ii) of Division B, title I of Public Law 106-554 as follows:
(ii) Non-Federal Responsibility- The San Gabriel Basin Water Quality Authority shall be responsible for providing the non-Federal amount required by clause (i). The State of California, local government agencies, and private entities may provide all or any portion of such amount: Provided, That the Secretary shall credit the San Gabriel Water Quality Authority with the value of all prior expenditures by the non-Federal interests that are compatible with the purposes of this Act.
The accompanying bill would amend section 301 of Public Law 102-250, Reclamation States Emergency Drought Relief Act of 1991, as follows:
Except as otherwise provided in section 2243 of this title (relating to temperature control devices at Shasta Dam, California), there is authorized to be appropriated not more than $90,000,000 in total for fiscal years 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1999, 2000, [Struck out->][ and 2001 ][<-Struck out] 2001 and 2002.
The accompanying bill would amend section 101(a)(6)(C) of the Water Resources Development Act as follows:
[Struck out->][ (C) Makeup of Water Shortages Caused By Flood Control Operation- The Secretary of the Interior shall enter into, or modify, such agreements with the Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency regarding the operation of Folsom Dam and reservoir as may be necessary in order that, notwithstanding any prior agreement or provision of law, 100 percent of the water needed to make up for any water shortage caused by variable flood control operation during any year at Folsom Dam and resulting in a significant impact on recreation at Folsom Reservoir shall be replaced, to the extent the water is available for purchase, by the Secretary of the Interior. ][<-Struck out]
(C) Makeup of Water Shortages Caused By Flood Control Operation- The Secretary of the Interior shall enter into, or modify, such agreements with the Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency regarding the operation of Folsom Dam and Reservoir, as may be necessary, in order that, notwithstanding any prior agreement or provision of law, 100 percent of the water needed to make up for any water shortage caused by variable flood control operation during any year at Folsom Dam and resulting in a significant impact to the environment or to recreation shall be replaced, to the extent that water is available, as determined by the Secretary of the Interior, with 100 percent of the cost of such available water borne by the Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency.
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]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agency/program Last year of authorization Authorization level Appropriations in last year of authorization Appropriations in this bill
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Corps of Engineers:
Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program ( 1 ) ( 1 ) ( 1 ) 140,000
Department of Energy:
Energy Supply:
Biomass/Biofuels 1993 ( 2 ) ( 4 ) 88,960
Geothermal Energy 1993 23,000 ( 4 ) 27,000
Hydrogen 2001 40,000 27,000 27,000
Hydropower 1982 11,700 ( 4 ) 3,000
Solar Energy 1993 ( 2 ) ( 4 ) 94,657
Wind Energy Systems 1993 ( 2 ) ( 4 ) 40,000
Electric energy systems & electric storage systems 1994 ( 3 ) ( 4 ) 60,000
Renewable Energy Production Incentive 1995 ( 7 ) ( 4 ) 4,000
International Renewable Energy Program 1996 ( 3 ) ( 4 ) 3,000
Departmental Energy Management 1984 ( 3 ) ( 4 ) 2,500
Renewable Program Support 1984 ( 3 ) ( 4 ) 3,000
National Renewable Energy Laboratory 1984 ( 3 ) ( 4 ) 5,000
Program Direction 1984 ( 3 ) ( 4 ) 18,700
Nuclear Energy:
Advanced Radioisotope Power System 1992 ( 2 ) ( 4 ) 28,200
Isotopes 1974 ( 2 ) ( 4 ) 16,177
University Reactor Fuel Assistance and Support 1974 ( 2 ) ( 4 ) 15,895
Research and Development 1994 ( 7 ) ( 4 ) 32,579
Infrastructure 1974 ( 2 ) ( 4 ) 80,259
Nuclear Facilities Management 1974 ( 2 ) ( 4 ) 30,250
Program Direction 1992 ( 2 ) ( 4 ) 20,500
Environment, Safety and Health 1974 ( 2 ) ( 4 ) 31,500
Technical Information Management 1981 ( 2 ) ( 4 ) 7,870
Non-Defense Environmental Management 1984 ( 5 ) ( 5 ) 227,872
West Valley Demonstration Project 1981 5,000 5,000 85,115
Uranium Facilities Maintenance and Remediation:
Other Uranium Activities 1974 ( 2 ) ( 4 ) 120,784
Science 1984 500,000 635,417 3,166,395
High Energy Physics 1984 ( 3 ) 477,947 716,100
Nuclear Physics 1984 ( 3 ) 155,220 361,510
Biological and Environmental Research 1994 ( 3 ) 388,298 445,880
Basic Energy Sciences 1994 ( 3 ) 743,590 1,006,705
Advanced Scientific Computing Research 1996 169,000 111,068 163,050
Energy Research Analysis 1994 ( 3 ) 3,507 1,000
Multiprogram Energy Laboratories 1994 ( 3 ) 39,327 30,175
Fusion Energy Sciences 1994 380,000 322,277 248,495
Facilities and Infrastructure ( 6 ) ( 6 ) ( 6 ) 10,000
Program Direction 1984 ( 2 ) ( 4 ) 134,980
Nuclear Waste Disposal ( 8 ) ( 2 ) 190,654 133,000
Departmental Administration 1984 246,963 185,682 209,611
Office of the Inspector General 1984 ( 2 ) 14,670 32,430
Atomic Energy Defense Activities:
National Nuclear Security Administration:
Weapons Activities 2001 4,840,289 5,006,153 5,123,888
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation 2001 877,467 872,273 845,341
Naval Reactors 2001 694,600 688,645 688,045
Office of the NNSA Administrator 2001 10,000 9,978 10,000
Defense Environmental Restoration and Waste Management 2001 5,973,692 4,963,533 5,174,539
Defense Facilities Closure Projects 2001 ( 9 ) 1,080,331 1,092,878
Defense Environmental Management Privatization 2001 ( 10 ) 65,000 143,208
Other Defense Activities 2001 523,822 582,466 487,464
Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal 2001 112,000 199,725 310,000
Power Marketing Administrations:
Southeastern Power Administration 1984 24,240 39,463 39,354
Southwestern Power Administration 1984 40,254 29,288 29,838
Western Area Power Administration 1984 259,700 237,037 358,289
Falcon and Amistad Operating and Maintenance Fund 1995 ( 2 ) 2,663 2,663
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 1984 275,000 175,200 181,155
Independent Agencies:
Appalachian Regional Commission 2001 70,000 66,254 71,290
Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board 2001 18,500 18,459 18,500
Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1985 460,000 448,200 516,900
Nuclear Regulatory Commission--Office of Inspector General 1985 ( 11 ) ( 11 ) 6,180
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
The Majority fully cooperated with the Minority to develop this bill. It fairly represents the views of both. It is a bipartisan bill that Democrats can and will support.
It is not a perfect bill since it overemphasizes funding for nuclear weapons and does not contain sufficient funding to address the nation's energy crisis. But given the constraints that are imposed on the Committee by the Majority's budget resolution, which preclude the Committee from fully addressing the nation's energy and water needs in this bill, it is nonetheless a reasonable and prudent response to the Administration's budget proposals. The Administration proposed unwarranted reductions to water programs, non-proliferation of nuclear materials in Russia, renewable energy technologies, and environmental cleanup of nuclear weapons production sites. This bill rejects that approach, and instead restores funding to these important programs near the funding levels appropriated by Congress last year.
We commend the Majority for working with Democrats to fashion another bipartisan appropriations bill this year. We appreciate the many courtesies the Majority showed us as the bill was being developed, and the professionalism of the Majority staff.
The major weakness of this bill is that it contains no significant increase in funding to address the nation's energy crisis or the President's recent National Energy Policy. It does not take a number of simple and straightforward steps that could be critical in boosting the near term availability of electrical power, protecting consumers from the extreme price gouging occurring in some segments of the industry and insulating the American economy from further damage from rising energy prices. It also does not invest a sufficient amount in developing renewable energy alternatives to fossil fuels.
That is deeply disturbing since the recent House-passed Supplemental Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2001 and this bill are the best and--perhaps only--legislative vehicles that can put resources in place quickly to mitigate the national energy crisis. The Majority has missed the key opportunity to respond to the national energy crisis by failing to properly address these issues in the appropriations bills.
The problems facing Americans today are in some respects quite different from those the country faced last fall when Appropriations were enacted for the current fiscal year. With gasoline prices up as much as 50 cents a gallon over the last year, a typical two car family can expect to pay about $600 a year more to the oil companies and see a similar increase in heating and electrical costs. This is about a thousand or so dollars per household that won't be available for replacing the family car, buying new clothes or saving for college education. As a result many businesses are suffering and the whole economy has gotten softer.
While higher energy prices have affected households in every part of the United States, the impact on the West Coast has been much more severe. Many Americans in other parts of the United States are still not aware of how serious the situation is in the West and how much it may impact the overall national economy. Because more than one in eight Americans live in the three West Coast states and because so much of our export oriented and high tech industries are concentrated in those states, serious economic disruptions on the coast are certain to have a big impact on the economies of virtually all of the 47 other states.
Fluctuations in the cost of energy have played a major role in the performance of the American economy since the early 1970s. Rising fuel prices have contributed to at least three recessions over the last three decades and falling fuel prices have caused dislocations and bankruptcies in our own energy producing states and wreaked serious havoc with the entire international financial system.
The current situation differs from those of the past in that it is caused not only by an imbalance between the demand and supply of fossil fuels but also by serious emerging structural problems in the industries that generate and transmit electricity. While California and the West Coast provide the most obvious examples of these problems they are not strictly West Coast problems.
The deregulation and restructuring of the electrical utility industry that began more than a decade ago has left investors with considerable uncertainty as to how far deregulation will eventually go and how competitive the market for electricity will be. As a result there has been
little growth in capacity for either generating or transmitting electrical power even though the economy has grown at a remarkable pace for most of that same period. As demand for electricity began to approach the capacity to generate it some producers came to realize that by withholding output they could force significantly higher prices in the newly deregulated environment. As a result, consumers are faced with a market that is neither competitive nor regulated.
Western States
There are three fundamental reasons that this problem is more severe in California and on the West Coast. First, California's attempt at deregulation was particularly inept. Wholesale prices were unleashed while retail prices remained regulated. That worked only as long as the price of the oil and natural gas used for generating electricity continued to fall. Once oil and gas prices began to rise, retail suppliers were caught in an untenable squeeze and consumers were given no incentive to conserve.
Second, the national power grid has never had significant capacity to transmit electricity from east of the Rockies to California and the West Coast. As a result, there is much less competition in the wholesale electricity market in the West than in other parts of the country.
Third, the West has relied more heavily on hydroelectric power than most other parts of the country. Hydroelectric power is dependent on rainfall and the Pacific Northwest where most of the dams are located has been suffering from a severe drought.
The combination of these factors has produced not only dramatic increases in the price of electricity but also in blackouts that jeopardize production and profitability in a wide array of industries. Producers are typically charging between 10 and 30 times the historical rate for electricity and in some instances they have been able to charge as much as 129 times the historical rate. Typical homeowners in many parts of the state have seen their monthly electricity bills go from $100 to more than $800. In some communities more than half of all small businesses are either in bankruptcy or in the process of applying for bankruptcy protection. A significant number of larger employers have actually shut down operations. In total, electricity costs in California have gone from $7 billion a year to around $70 billion. Even in a state with a trillion dollar a year economy, that is a huge diversion of GDP from other sectors of the economy to the utility companies.
That means that states like Wisconsin that produce capital goods have seen their California markets evaporate and now have surplus inventories. States like Michigan, Ohio and Missouri are seeing layoffs in the automobile industry. Sales are off in the publishing, recording and household products industries largely because of the bite the electricity market in California is taking out of that state's ability to grow and consume products from other parts of the United States.
What can be done?
The United States faces both short-term and long-term problems with respect to energy. Under existing technologies our growing economy requires more and more energy, makes us more and more dependent on oil from the Persian Gulf, and therefore inevitably more vulnerable to political disruptions in that part of the world. At the same time it increases air and water pollution and jeopardizes the global climate. Finding ways to reduce our consumption of energy will help control prices, improve the quality of our air and water and reduce the vulnerability of our economy to events in Southwest Asia. Finding alternative forms of energy will also help achieve all three of those objectives. Those activities require the kind of long term and high-risk investments that the private sector is not likely to undertake and they should be funded in our regular appropriation bills as the high priority investments which any sensible assessment of our economic and security needs indicate they deserve.
The Democrats on the Committee have recently proposed initiatives dealing with separate portions of the energy crisis. These include temporary cost-of-service price limits in Western states; $350 million for national electric power grid improvement loans; and $125 million for national hydroelectric power improvement loans. None of them were considered for inclusion in this bill.
Alternative renewable energy sources
The Department of Energy leads the national research effort to develop clean, competitive, and reliable renewable energy and power delivery technologies for the 21st century.
The combination of environmental concerns, current and potential constraints of large system power transmission and distribution systems, and technological advances are all causing distributed and hybrid systems and technologies such as combined heat and power system, fuel cells,
photovoltaics, wind turbines, geothermal, and biomass systems to gradually augment and eventually replace conventional large-scale power generating technologies. This is the best way to reduce pollutant and greenhouse gas emissions from power generation within the United States in the long term.
Although regulated utilities traditionally invested in power generation R&D;, increased competitive pressures from the ongoing restructuring of the U.S. electric power industry has forced utilities and other companies to reduce or eliminate their R&D; budgets. This makes federal R&D; essential. This bill fails to make investments that are needed to address the national energy crisis in the near term by getting R&D; out of the lab and into use:
The bill also fails to start increased investments in R&D; that are needed to address the national energy crisis in the far term to meet goals set by the Department of Energy to:
These are the things the Majority should have properly funded in this bill for fiscal year 2002 if they believe the President when he says there is an energy crisis.
This bill contains legislation on Auburn Dam that should not be adopted because it is not good public policy.
Section 103 of the bill directs the Army Corps of Engineers to include a multi-purpose detention dam in Auburn, California as part of the Final Supplemental Plan Formulation Report for the American River Watershed which is currently estimated to be published in August, 2001. Ongoing studies underway by the Corps of Engineers are limited only to flood control aspects of the American River. The Chief of the Army Corps of Engineers testified to the Committee earlier this year that `Our belief is that carrying through the study as it is presently designed is probably the best way to go at this time.'
This provision would delay the report and prevent Sacramento, California from securing additional flood protection for up to 14 additional years. Sacramento has been identified by the Corps of Engineers as the city with the least amount of flood protection for a city of its size in the nation. Over half a million people and more than $40 billion in property and infrastructure would be impacted by a flood in Sacremento, which is the capitol to the world's sixth largest economy.
Current estimates of the cost of a multipurpose Auburn dam are roughly $2.5 billion. Construction of the dam was halted in the mid-1970s after a regional earthquake revealed multiple fault lines near the construction site. Auburn dam no longer enjoys support from local, state, or federal agencies. Its construction would do major environmental damage to a pristine part of California.
The bill contains other legislative provisions, relating to the use of water within the region and to recreational rafting, that are aimed at putting roadblocks in place to pressure certain groups to support the Auburn dam project. These provisions are also improper, and should be removed from the bill.
It is a shame that this appropriations bill contains nothing of substance to address the immediate needs of American citizens who face a national energy crisis according to the President. The citizens in Western States will endure more hardship as the summer unfolds. Democrats offer national initiatives for real near-term solutions that could be implemented quickly on a bipartisan basis. It is unfortunate that Republicans reject such proposals, and instead have produced this appropriations bill that fails to respond to the national energy crisis in any meaningful way.
DAVID R. OBEY.