Report text available as:

  • TXT
  • PDF   (PDF provides a complete and accurate display of this text.) Tip ?
104th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

 1st Session                                                    104-149
_______________________________________________________________________


 
         ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 1996

                                _______


 June 20, 1995.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

_______________________________________________________________________


 Mr. Myers of Indiana, from the Committee on Appropriations, submitted 
                             the following

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                            ADDITIONAL VIEWS

                        [To accompany H.R. 1905]
    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, 1996, and for other purposes.
                        INDEX TO BILL AND REPORT

_______________________________________________________________________


                                                            Page Number

                                                            Bill Report
I. Department of Defense--Civil:
        Corps of engineers--Civil:
                General investigations.....................     2
                                                                      6
                Construction, general......................     3
                                                                     26
                Flood control, Mississippi River and 
                    tributaries, Arkansas, Illinois, 
                    Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, 
                    Missouri, and Tennessee................     5
                                                                     36
                Operation and maintenance, general.........     5
                                                                     38
                Regulatory program.........................     6
                                                                     52
                Flood control and coastal emergencies......     6
                                                                     52
                Oil spill research.........................     7
                                                                     52
                General expenses...........................     7
                                                                     53
                Administrative provisions..................     8

                General provision..........................     8
                                                                     54
II. Department of the Interior:
        Central Utah Project completion account............     9
                                                                     55
        Bureau of Reclamation:
                General investigations.....................    10
                                                                     55
                Construction program.......................    11
                                                                     57
                Operation and maintenance..................    12
                                                                     63
                Bureau of Reclamation loan program account.    13
                                                                     65
                Central Valley Project restoration fund....    13
                                                                     67
                General administrative expenses............    14
                                                                     67
                Special funds..............................    14

                Administrative provision...................    15

III. Department of Energy:
        Introduction.......................................
                                                                     69
        Energy supply, research and development activities.    15
                                                                     72
        Uranium supply and enrichment activities...........    16
                                                                     78
        Uranium enrichment decontamination and 
            decommissioning fund...........................    17
                                                                     79
        General science and research activities............    17
                                                                     80
        Nuclear waste disposal fund........................    18
                                                                     81
        Atomic energy defense activities:                        
                                                                       
                Weapons activities.........................    18
                                                                     82
                Defense environmental restoration and waste 
                    management.............................    18
                                                                     85
                Other defense activities...................    19
                                                                     88
                Defense nuclear waste disposal.............    19
                                                                     92
        Departmental administration........................    20
                                                                     92
        Office of inspector general........................    21
                                                                     93
        Power marketing administrations:                         
                                                                       
                Alaska Power Administration................    21
                                                                     94
                Bonneville Power Administration............    21
                                                                     94
                Southeastern Power Administration..........    21
                                                                     95
                Southwestern Power Administration..........    22
                                                                     96
                Western Area Power Administration..........    22
                                                                     96
                Falcon and Amistad operating and 
                    maintenance fund.......................    23
                                                                     97
        Federal Energy Regulatory Commission...............    24
                                                                     97
IV. Independent agencies:
        Appalachian Regional Commission....................    24
                                                                    111
        Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board............    25
                                                                    111
        Delaware River Basin Commission....................
                                                                    112
        Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin...
                                                                    112
        Nuclear Regulatory Commission......................    25
                                                                    113
        Office of Inspector General........................    27
                                                                    114
        Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board...............    28
                                                                    114
        Susquehanna River Basin Commission.................
                                                                    115
        Tennessee Valley Authority.........................    28
                                                                    116
V. General Provisions......................................    29
                                                                    117
House Reporting Requirements...............................
                                                                    118
                Summary of Estimates and Recommendations

    The Committee has considered budget estimates which are 
contained in the Budget of the United States Government, 1996. 
The following table summarizes appropriations for fiscal year 
1995, the budget estimates, and amounts recommended in the bill 
for fiscal year 1996.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                             1996 recommendation compared with--
                            1995                                1996       -------------------------------------
                        appropriation     1996 estimate    recommendation          1995                         
                                                                              appropriation      1996 estimate  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Title I--Department                                                                                             
 of Defense--Civil..     3,408,919,000     3,307,450,000     3,219,610,000       -189,309,000        -87,840,000
Title II--Department                                                                                            
 of the Interior....       881,399,000       833,017,000       857,190,000        -24,209,000        +24,173,000
Title III--                                                                                                     
 Department of                                                                                                  
 Energy.............    15,701,676,000    16,633,269,000    14,761,611,000       -940,065,000     -1,871,658,000
Title IV--                                                                                                      
 Independent                                                                                                    
 Agencies...........       470,408,000       369,063,000       275,870,000       -194,538,000        -93,193,000
                     -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal......    20,462,402,000    21,142,799,000    19,114,281,000     -1,348,121,000     -2,028,518,000
Scorekeeping                                                                                                    
 adjustments........      -169,403,000      -410,343,000      -410,343,000       -240,940,000  .................
                     -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Grand total of                                                                                            
       bill.........    20,292,999,000    20,732,456,000    18,703,938,000     -1,589,061,000     -2,028,518,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              Introduction

    In the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Bill for 
fiscal year 1996, the rhetoric of deficit reduction becomes a 
reality. The Committee has confronted difficult and painful 
choices, resulting in substantial reductions in programs 
throughout the Committee's jurisdiction. Although the task has 
been monumental, the Committee has acted responsibly to 
downsize and streamline activities of the Federal government. 
Throughout its deliberations, the Committee has established 
thoughtful priorities and has endeavored to fund those 
activities that are necessary, cost-effective, and vital to the 
Nation's welfare.
    The Committee has conducted exhaustive hearings on the 
programs and projects provided for in the Energy and Water 
Development Appropriations Bill for fiscal year 1996. The 
record of these hearings is contained in eight published 
volumes containing over 12,000 pages. The Committee received 
testimony from Members of Congress; cabinet secretaries; 
federal, state and local governmental officials; and private 
citizens. These witnesses, and hundreds of others who have 
contacted the Committee, have requested funding for projects of 
all sorts. Because of dramatic funding constraints, the 
Committee has been able to accommodate only a modest number of 
these requests. The Committee recognizes that funding 
restrictions will be even more pronounced in future years and 
is reluctant to pursue projects that involve large outyear 
mortgages.
    The Committee understands that authorizing legislation for 
various projects and agencies funded by this bill is in various 
stages of consideration by jurisdictional committees of the 
House. The Committee has worked closely with these panels to 
establish the funding levels recommended in the bill. Funding 
has been provided for certain programs in anticipation and 
advance of authorization in order to avoid unnecessary 
disruptions in the provision of government services.
                                TITLE I

                      DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL

                         DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

                       Corps of Engineers--Civil

                Corps of Engineers' Civil Works Mission

    In the fiscal year 1996 budget request, the Administration 
proposed radical changes in the Civil Works mission of the U.S. 
Army Corps of Engineers. Under these proposals, beginning in 
fiscal year 1996, the Corps would only be involved in projects 
and programs of ``national scope and significance.'' While it 
may at first seem reasonable that the Federal Government only 
be involved in programs of ``national significance'', a closer 
look at these proposals makes it apparent that they were ill-
conceived and are counterproductive to the well-being of the 
Nation.
    The most far reaching of these proposals involves the Corps 
of Engineers' role in protecting our citizens from the 
devastating effects of floods. Under the Administration's 
proposal, the Corps would only participate in projects that 
meet the following three criteria: (1) more than half of the 
damaging flood water must come from outside the boundaries of 
the state where the damage is occurring; (2) the project must 
have a benefit-to-cost ratio of 2 or greater; and (3) the non-
Federal sponsor must be willing and able to pay 75 percent of 
the first cost of the project. The practical effect of applying 
those three criteria against all proposed projects would be to 
terminate the Federal Government's role in flood control 
activities. The first criterion alone would eliminate the 
Corps' role in flood control throughout much of the country, 
including three of our largest states: California, Texas, and 
Florida. The Committee strongly disagrees that the Federal 
Government should end its historic role in protecting our 
citizens from the devastating effects of floods. The Corps of 
Engineers has presented testimony before the Committee 
indicating that every dollar invested in flood control projects 
has yielded $6 in benefits. Terminating the Federal 
Government's role in flood control activities as a way to save 
money is clearly the wrong way to go.
    The Committee is equally troubled by the Administration's 
proposals to terminate the Federal Government's role in shore 
protection projects and smaller navigation projects. While 
these proposals would only directly affect the coastal states, 
including the Great Lakes states, the impacts of terminating 
the Federal Government's role in protecting our shorelines and 
maintaining small boat harbors would be felt throughout the 
Nation. The Committee also strongly rejects these proposals.
    Therefore, in making recommendations for fiscal year 1996, 
the Committee has provided funds for projects without regard to 
these proposed new policies. The Committee expects the 
Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers, 
to proceed with those projects, all of which are fully 
authorized. The Committee further directs the Secretary of the 
Army and the Chief of Engineers to continue to process all 
decision documents, including the transmission of feasibility 
reports to the Congress for authorization, without regard to 
whether or not projects comply with the Administration's 
proposed new policies.
    As stated above, the Committee believes that these 
proposals were ill-conceived and urges the Administration to 
reconsider them in light of the benefits that these programs 
have provided to the Nation.

                         general investigations
Appropriation, 1995.....................................    $181,199,000
Budget Estimate, 1996...................................     155,625,000
Recommended, 1996.......................................     129,906,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 1995.................................     -51,293,000
    Budget Estimate, 1996...............................     -25,719,000

    The budget request and the approved Committee allowance are 
shown on the following table:
      
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Gila River and Tributaries, North Scottsdale Drainage Area, 
Arizona.--The bill includes an additional $50,000 for the Corps 
of Engineers to initiate the feasibility study for this 
project.
    Rio Salado, Arizona.--The bill includes $300,000, the same 
as the budget request, for the Corps of Engineers to continue 
to study the feasibility of environmental restoration and 
associated recreation measures at the cities of Tempe and 
Phoenix, Arizona, along the Rio Salado reach of the Salt River.
    Gila River, Tortolita Drainage Area, Arizona.--The 
Committee has provided an additional $100,000 for the Corps of 
Engineers to initiate the feasibility phase of this study.
    Gila River and Tributaries, Santa Cruz River Basin, 
Arizona.--The Corps of Engineers is directed to initiate a 
cost-shared feasibility study to develop a prioritized 
watershed management plan to include flood plain land use and 
maintenance plans to minimize future flood damages, 
identification of degraded habitats that can be restored as 
mitigation for permitted activities, water quality 
improvements, ground water supply, low flow augmentation, and 
recreation. Funds in the amount of $100,000 are provided to 
initiate the study.
    Arkansas River, Tucker Creek, Arkansas.--The bill includes 
$280,000 for the Corps of Engineers to initiate feasibility 
phase studies for the Arkansas River, Tucker Creek, Arkansas, 
project.
    San Joaquin River Basin, Firebaugh and Mendota, 
California.--The bill includes $150,000 for the Corps of 
Engineers to initiate the feasibility study for the San Joaquin 
River Basin, Firebaugh and Mendota, California, project.
    San Joaquin River Basin, Tule River, California.--The 
Committee has provided $200,000 for the Corps of Engineers to 
resume feasibility phase studies of the Success Dam, 
California, enlargement project. The Committee finds the Corps' 
proposal to double the cost of the feasibility study to be 
unacceptable and expects the Corps to work with the local 
sponsor to complete the study at the least possible cost and in 
time for the project to be considered for authorization by the 
Congress in 1998.
    San Joaquin River Basin, Kawaeh River, California.--The 
Committee has provided an additional $260,000 for initiation of 
preconstruction engineering and design of a project to enlarge 
Terminus Reservoir on the Kawaeh River in California.
    San Joaquin River Basin, Pine Flat Dam Fish and Wildlife 
Habitat Restoration, California.--The Corps of Engineers is 
directed to coordinate the conduct of the feasibility study 
phase of the Pine Flat Dam Fish and Wildlife Habitat 
Investigation with efforts by the California Department of Fish 
and Game and the non-Federal sponsor to develop reservoir and 
stream temperature models as part of a proposed Kings River 
fisheries management plan.
    Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, Western Delta Islands, 
California.--The Committee has provided $300,000 for the Corps 
of Engineers to continue into the feasibility phase of the 
Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, Western Delta Islands, 
California, project.
    Ventura and Santa Barbara Counties Shoreline, California.--
The bill includes $300,000 for the Corps of Engineers to 
initiate a reconnaissance study of shoreline protection 
measures in Ventura and Santa Barbara Counties in California. 
The study should include consideration of plans for using 
material from maintenance dredging of Federal navigation 
projects in the vicinity for storm damage reduction and other 
purposes.
    Central Basin Groundwater Project, California.--The 
Committee has included $375,000 to initiate a feasibility study 
for the Central Basin Groundwater project. The study will 
identify and recommend remediation measures for implementation 
to address contamination within, and downgradient of, existing 
Federal facilities at Whittier Narrows Dam, Los Angeles County, 
California.
    City of Arcadia Water Infrastructure Restoration Study, 
California.--The Committee has provided $400,000 for the Corps 
of Engineers to conduct a study under the authority of section 
116(d) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1990 to 
identify problems and alternative solutions, including 
governmental roles and responsibilities, for providing a more 
dependable water supply for the city of Arcadia, particularly 
with respect to minimizing damages to the water system that 
might occur during an earthquake.
    Imperial County Watershed, Colorado River and Tributaries, 
California.--The Committee has provided $300,000 for the Corps 
of Engineers to initiate a reconnaissance study of potential 
solutions, including governmental roles and responsibilities, 
to the flood control, water quality, water supply and 
environmental problems associated with the Colorado River and 
its tributaries, including the lower Salton Sea, within 
Imperial County. Such study shall include, as a priority, the 
timely completion of a Sanitary Watershed Survey.
    San Antonio Creek, California.--The bill includes an 
additional $200,000 for the San Antonio Creek, California, 
project for the initiation of feasibility phase studies.
    Mojave River Floodplain Management Plan, California.--The 
amount provided for the Planning Assistance to States program 
includes $35,000 to complete the floodplain maintenance plan 
being undertaken in cooperation with the San Bernardino County 
Flood Control District.
    Upper Penitencia Creek, California.--The bill includes 
$300,000 for the initiation of feasibility phase studies for 
the Upper Penitencia Creek, California project.
    San Joaquin River Basin, Stockton Metropolitan Area, 
California.--The Committee has provided $600,000 for the Corps 
of Engineers to complete a reconnaissance study to determine 
the extent and nature of a flood control project for the 
Stockton, California, area. Funds may also be spent to 
determine the viability of Farmington Dam for conjunctive use 
and flood control purposes.
    San Juan and Aliso Creeks, California.--The Committee has 
provided $300,000 for the Corps of Engineers to complete a 
reconnaissance study of water resource problems and solutions 
in the San Juan Creek and Aliso Creek watersheds.
    Northern California Streams, Middle Creek, California.--The 
bill includes $300,000 for the Corps of Engineers to initiate a 
study of alternatives to restore the natural functions of the 
Middle Creek/Clear Lake ecosystem including the restoration of 
wetlands at the historic Robinson Lake.
    Prado Dam, California.--From within available funds, the 
Corps of Engineers is directed to use $100,000 to investigate 
the feasibility of modifying the operation of Prado Dam in 
California.
    San Joaquin River Basin, Caliente Creek Stream Group, 
California.--The Committee has provided $171,000 for the 
completion of the Caliente Creek, California, feasibility 
study, the same as the budget request. The Committee directs 
that the Corps of Engineers take all steps necessary to ensure 
that this twelve-year old study is completed in fiscal year 
1996.
    Santa Monica Water Supply Study, California.--The Committee 
has provided $350,000 for the Corps of Engineers to conduct a 
study under the authority of section 116(d) of the Water 
Resources Development Act of 1990 to identify problems and 
alternative solutions, including governmental roles and 
responsibilities, for providing a more dependable water supply 
for the city of Santa Monica, California, particularly with 
respect to minimizing damages to the water system that might 
occur during an earthquake.
    Chesapeake and Delaware Canal, Baltimore Harbor Connecting 
Channels, Delaware and Maryland.--In carrying out the 
Chesapeake and Delaware Canal, Baltimore Harbor Connecting 
Channels, study, the Corps of Engineers is directed to complete 
studies concerning improvement of the Reedy Point Flare and 
relocation of the Arnold Point Anchorage to Howell Point.
    Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, Palm Beach County, 
Florida.--The bill includes $150,000 for the Corps of Engineers 
to initiate a reconnaissance study of navigation improvements 
along the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway in Palm Beach County, 
Florida.
    Indianapolis, White River (North), Indiana.--The Committee 
has provided $200,000 for the Corps of Engineers to initiate 
preconstruction engineering and design for the Indianapolis, 
White River (North), Indiana, project.
    Indianapolis Central Waterfront, Indiana.--The Committee 
has provided $2,000,000 for the Corps of Engineers to proceed 
with detailed design for the elements of the Master Plan of the 
Central Waterfront project in Indianapolis, Indiana. The Master 
Plan was developed by the Corps of Engineers to address 
multipurpose water resource requirements in the project area. 
The Corps is directed to conduct this work in close cooperation 
with the city of Indianapolis.
    Wabash River Basin Comprehensive, Indiana.--The Committee 
has provided $75,000 to continue detailed planning of the 
Wabash River Scenic Corridor in west central Indiana.
    Ohio River Greenway, Indiana.--The bill includes $1,000,000 
for the Corps of Engineers to continue engineering and design 
of the Ohio River Greenway project in Indiana.
    Lake George, Hobart, Indiana.--The Committee has been 
advised by the Corps of Engineers that previously appropriated 
funds will be utilized in fiscal year 1996 to complete the 
General Design Memorandum and initiate plans and specifications 
for the Lake George, Hobart, Indiana, project.
    Little Calumet River Basin, Cady Marsh Ditch, Indiana.--The 
Committee has been advised by the Corps of Engineers that 
previously appropriated funds will be utilized in fiscal year 
1996 to complete the General Design Memorandum for the Cady 
Marsh Ditch, Indiana, project.
    Metropolitan Lexington, Fayette County, Kentucky.--The bill 
includes $400,000 to initiate a reconnaissance study to 
identify potential solutions to flooding problems in Lexington, 
Kentucky.
     Green River Lock and Dam No. 6, Kentucky.--The Committee 
has provided $50,000 for the Corps of Engineers to initiate a 
study to determine the feasibility of deauthorizing and 
disposing of Green River Lock and Dam No. 6.
    Lake Charles Ship Channel, By-Pass and General Anchorage 
Area, Louisiana.--The Committee has provided an additional 
$540,000 for the Lake Charles Ship Channel, By-Pass and General 
Anchorage Area, Louisiana, study to be used to investigate the 
feasibility of developing a support service facility for the 
Calcasieu Ship Channel at Hackberry, Louisiana, in the interest 
of improved navigability in the ship channel.
    West Shore-Lake Pontchartrain, Louisiana.--The Committee 
has provided $500,000 for the Corps of Engineers to initiate a 
reconnaissance study of hurricane flooding problems west of 
Bonnet Carre Spillway.
     Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan.--The bill includes $200,000 
for the Corps of Engineers to continue the preparation of a 
Limited Reevaluation Report for the construction of a 
replacement lock at Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan.
    Fabius River Drainage District, Missouri.--The bill 
includes $125,000 for the Corps of Engineers to initiate a 
reconnaissance study of flood control and related water 
resources problems at the Fabius River Drainage District in 
Missouri.
    Barnegat Inlet to Little Egg Inlet, New Jersey.--The bill 
includes $550,000 for the Corps of Engineers to initiate the 
feasibility study of storm damage reduction measures for the 
Barnegat Inlet to Little Egg Inlet, New Jersey, project.
    South River, New Jersey.--The bill includes an additional 
$275,000 to initiate the feasibility study for the South River, 
New Jersey, project.
    South Shore of Staten Island, New York.--The Committee has 
provided an additional $300,000 to initiate feasibility phase 
studies for the South Shore of Staten Island, New York, 
project.
    Mussers Dam, Middle Creek, Snyder County, Pennsylvania.--
The Committee has provided $300,000 for the Corps of Engineers 
to complete engineering and design for the Mussers Dam, Middle 
Creek, Snyder County, Pennsylvania, project.
    Black Fox, Murfree and Oakland Springs Wetlands Areas, 
Tennessee.--The Committee has provided $200,000 for the Corps 
of Engineers to initiate preconstruction engineering and design 
of the Black Fox, Murfree and Oakland Springs Wetlands Areas 
project in Tennessee.
    Colonias Along the U.S.-Mexico Border, Texas.--The 
Committee has provided $300,000 for the Corps of Engineers to 
continue to provide technical and planning and design 
assistance to colonias along the United States-Mexico border.
    Tygart River Basin, West Virginia.--The Committee has 
provided $600,000 for the Corps of Engineers to initiate 
reconnaissance level environmental mitigation investigations in 
the Fords Run, Three Forts Creek, and Sandy Creek watersheds of 
the Tygart River Basin in West Virginia.
    Tygart River Basin (Barbour County), West Virginia.--The 
bill includes $500,000 for the Corps of Engineers to initiate 
feasibility phase studies of potential projects to reduce flood 
damages in the vicinity of Belington and Philippi in Barbour 
County, West Virginia.
    West Virginia Port Development, West Virginia.--The 
Committee has provided $300,000 to continue the West Virginia 
Port Development study. Of the total, $100,000 is to be used to 
conduct feasibility studies on the Ohio River near the 
community of Millwood between and including rivers miles 230 
and 210 near the community of Murraysville. In addition, 
$200,000 has been provided for feasibility studies near the 
town of Buffalo between river miles 23 and 25 on the Kanawha 
River.
    Tolchester S-Turn, Maryland.--The Committee urges the Corps 
of Engineers to complete its ongoing studies and related design 
work pertaining to the dangerous S-Turn in the Tolchester 
Channel, and to complete its report addressing the economic, 
environmental and safety concerns of this modification.
    Research and Development.--The Committee has included 
$28,432,000 for research and development activities in fiscal 
year 1996. Included in this total is: $24,432,000 for the Corps 
of Engineers' base research and development program; $2,000,000 
to continue the earthquake engineering effort; and $2,000,000 
to continue research into zebra mussel control. The Committee 
has deleted the funds requested for the following programs: 
CPAR; Economic Impacts of Global Warming; Evaluation of 
Environmental Investments; Characterization and Restoration of 
Wetlands; and Geographic Information Systems. The Committee has 
again included $300,000 for the continuation of the 
Construction Technology Transfer Project between the Corps of 
Engineers' research institutions and Indiana State University. 
Under the project, the Corps will continue to work with the 
university's School of Technology to develop mechanisms to 
transfer the results of Corps construction-related research to 
small- and medium-sized companies throughout the Wabash Valley 
region.
    Roller-Compacted Concrete.--The Committee understands that 
several divisions and districts utilize roller-compacted 
concrete in flood control projects. This technology has proven 
to be cost-effective and has demonstrated its reliability 
during flood conditions. The Committee encourages the use of 
roller-compacted concrete whenever feasible.
    Ohio River Basin Study.--The Committee has included 
$1,000,000 for the Corps of Engineers to undertake a study to 
assess the water quality, biological and ecological aspects of 
the Ohio River Basin and develop such methodologies as may be 
necessary to make adequate improvements. The Corps is directed 
to work with the Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission 
on this study.
    Upper Mississippi River and Illinois Waterway Navigation 
Study.--The Committee has provided $6,205,000 for the Upper 
Mississippi River and Illinois Waterway study, the same as the 
budget request. The Committee has learned that there may be 
proposals made by Federal and state resource agencies for 
additional environmental studies that would raise the total 
cost of the study by $25,000,000. The purpose of this study is 
to address the need for navigation capacity expansion on the 
Upper Mississippi River and the Illinois Waterway. The 
Committee believes that the environmental component of the 
study should be limited to the impacts associated with 
expanding the capacity of the two systems. Therefore, the 
Committee directs the Corps of Engineers to not expand the 
scope of the study such that its total cost exceeds that 
presented in the fiscal year 1996 budget request.
    In addition, because of the need for a timely review of 
future navigation needs on the upper Mississippi and Illinois 
Rivers, the Committee directs the Corps of Engineers to 
complete the study and issue recommendations to Congress no 
later than December 1999.
    Program Reductions.--Due to the severe budgetary situation, 
the Committee has deleted or reduced the funds requested by the 
Administration for a number of non-project specific activities 
funded under the General Investigations account.
    Coordination Studies With Other Agencies.--For fiscal year 
1996, the Committee recommends the following amounts for 
Coordination Studies With Other Agencies: Cooperation with 
Other Agencies, $480,000; Section 22 Planning Assistance to 
States, $2,000,000; Special Investigations, $3,400,000; Gulf of 
Mexico Program, $300,000; Interagency Water Resources 
Development, $1,000,000; National Estuary Program $180,000; and 
North American Waterfowl Management Plan, $180,000. In 
addition, the Committee has deleted the funds requested for the 
National Marine Fisheries Coordination Program, and the 
National Inventory of Dams Program.

                          Construction, General
Appropriation, 1995.....................................    $983,668,000
Budget Estimate, 1996...................................     785,125,000
Recommended, 1996.......................................     807,846,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 1995.................................    -175,822,000
    Budget Estimate, 1996...............................     +22,721,000

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






    McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation System (Montgomery 
Point Lock and Dam), Arkansas.--The bill includes $6,000,000 
for the McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation project, the 
same as the budget request. The Committee directs the Corps of 
Engineers to use $2,000,000 of the funds requested for 
additional land acquisition at the project to complete 
construction of the access road and service facilities for the 
Montgomery Point Lock and Dam authorized by the Rivers and 
Harbors Act of 1946, as amended, and as described in the 
District Engineer's Report approved November 1, 1991. These 
funds are in addition to the $3,400,000 included in the budget 
request for activities related to Montgomery Point Lock and 
Dam. The Committee notes that no authority currently exists to 
utilize funds available in the Inland Waterways Trust Fund for 
construction of the Montgomery Point Lock and Dam.
    Red River Emergency Bank Protection, Arkansas.--The bill 
includes $6,600,000 for the Corps of Engineers to initiate and 
complete construction of the Dickson Revetment.
    San Diego River and Mission Bay, California.--The bill 
includes $1,900,000 for the Corps of Engineers to construct a 
permanent rubblemound breakwater at the Quivira Basin.
    Silver Strand Shoreline, Imperial Beach, California.--The 
bill includes $200,000 for the Corps of Engineers to initiate a 
General Reevaluation Report for Federal shore protection 
improvements along the Silver Strand Shoreline in Imperial 
Beach, California.
    Sacramento River Flood Control Project, (Glenn-Colusa 
Irrigation District), California.--The Committee has provided 
$300,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue work on the 
riffle restoration project and continue participation in, and, 
when necessary, provide direct support to, the state-Federal 
effort to develop a long-term solution to the fish passage 
problem at the Hamilton City Pumping Plant.
    Los Angeles Harbor, California.--The Committee has provided 
an additional $325,000 for the Corps of Engineers to conduct 
wave monitoring throughout Los Angeles Harbor to verify 
assumptions about the prevailing wave climate.
    Klamath-Glen Levee Repairs, California.--The Committee is 
aware that the Klamath-Glen Levee in Del Norte County, 
California, was constructed by the Army Corps of Engineers in 
1972 with 100 percent Federal funding. The levee faces serious 
likelihood of failure due to design deficiencies which the 
Corps of Engineers acknowledges were its fault. Failure of the 
levee could have catastrophic human and economic consequences 
in an already distressed area. The Committee directs the Corps 
of Engineers to proceed with repairs to the Klamath-Glen Levee, 
using available funds appropriated for fiscal year 1995, under 
the same financial terms as the original construction. In view 
of the admitted responsibility of the Corps for the design 
flaws, the Committee does not believe it is appropriate for the 
Corps to require a local contribution in this instance.
    Santa Ana River Mainstem, California.--The amount provided 
for the Santa Ana River Mainstem, California, project includes 
$5,000,000 for the continuation of construction of the San 
Timoteo Creek project element.
    Fort Pierce Beach, Florida.--The Committee has provided 
$148,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue the preparation 
of a General Reevaluation Report for the Fort Pierce Beach, 
Florida, project.
    St. Johns County (St. Augustine Beach), Florida.--The bill 
includes $350,000 for the continuation of a General 
Reevaluation Report to develop a comprehensive solution to the 
beach erosion problems at St. Augustine Beach, Florida.
    Broward County, Pompano Beach/Lauderdale By-the-Sea, 
Florida.--The Committee has provided $450,000 for the Corps of 
Engineers to review design documents prepared by the county for 
the next renourishment of the Broward County, Florida, project.
    Central and Southern Florida, Florida.--The Committee has 
provided an additional $300,000 for the Central and Southern 
Florida project to be used to continue the preparation of a 
General Reevaluation Report for the Bolles and Cross Canals 
feature of the project.
    Pinellas County, Florida.--The Corps of Engineers has 
advised the Committee that $1,500,000 in available funds will 
be used to complete the interim nourishment contract, complete 
the feature design memorandum, and initiate plans and 
specifications for the Long Key feature of the project and that 
$500,000 in available funds will be used to complete the 
feature design memorandum, and initiate plans and 
specifications of the Treasure Island feature of the project. 
In addition, the Committee has provided $3,000,000 which, along 
with $750,000 in available funds, is available to continue 
Phase IV of the Sand Key element of the project.
    O'Hare Reservoir, Illinois.--The Corps of Engineers has 
advised the Committee that any additional funds which may be 
required to complete the O'Hare Reservoir, Illinois, project 
will be reprogrammed from within available funds. The Committee 
approves of this procedure and directs the Corps of Engineers 
to take all steps necessary to complete the project as soon as 
possible.
    Ohio River Flood Protection (Indiana Shoreline), Indiana.--
The Committee has provided $1,000,000 for the Corps of 
Engineers to prepare plans and specifications and initiate work 
on the rehabilitation of flood control projects along the 
Indiana shoreline of the Ohio River.
    Indiana Shoreline Erosion, Indiana.--The Committee has 
provided $1,500,000 for the Corps of Engineers to initiate 
construction of the Indiana Shoreline Erosion project 
authorized in Public Law 99-662.
    Salyersville, Kentucky.--The Committee has provided 
$500,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue construction of 
the Salyersville, Kentucky, cut-through project.
    McAlpine Lock and Dam, Kentucky and Indiana.--The Committee 
has provided $3,487,000 for the Corps of Engineers to complete 
engineering and design and initiate construction of the 
McAlpine Lock and Dam, Kentucky and Indiana, project.
    Lake Pontchartrain and Vicinity (Hurricane Protection), 
Louisiana.--The Committee has provided an additional $4,000,000 
for the Corps of Engineers to continue construction of parallel 
protection along the Orleans Avenue and London Avenue outfall 
canals.
    Baltimore Harbor and Channels, Maryland.--The Committee has 
provided $339,000 for the Corps of Engineers to complete the 
Limited Re-evaluation Report for the Brewerton Channel 
Extension.
    Red River below Denison Dam, Louisiana, Arkansas and 
Texas.--The Committee has provided $3,800,000 to continue work 
on the Red River below Denison Dam, Louisiana, Arkansas, and 
Texas, project. Within the amount provided, $500,000 has been 
provided to continue the Bowie County Levee, Texas, portion of 
the project. The Committee directs the Corps of Engineers to 
continue to prepare plans and specifications for restoration or 
replacement of the Bowie County Levee as authorized by the 
Flood Control Act of 1946 for incorporation into the Federal 
levee system to provide the same level of protection as the 
adjoining Miller County Levee in Arkansas under the terms and 
conditions of section 3 of the Flood Control Act of 1936, 
Public Law 74-738.
    Southeast Louisiana Flooding, Louisiana.--The Committee is 
aware of the devasting record flooding due to torrential 
rainfalls in southeast Louisiana that occurred May 8 through 
May 10, 1995. At least seven lives were lost and over 35,000 
homes were flooded along with thousands of businesses and 
public facilities. There was significant street and highway 
damage. Estimated property and infrastructure losses exceed 
$3,000,000,000. More flood insurance claims have been filed 
already from this disaster than any other incident nationwide 
except for a storm that hit five northeastern states in 
December 1992. Flood insurance claims alone for six major 
rainfall floods in this area between 1978 and 1989 have already 
totaled $227,000,000. This Committee and the House 
Infrastructure and Transportation Committee have received 
proposals for authorizing and funding rainfall drainage flood 
control projects for this area which have preliminary positive 
benefit-cost ratios. The Committee believes that despite 
current Corps of Engineers policies and the Administration's 
proposed radical changes in the Civil Works mission of the 
Corps, Congress may want to consider funding urban rainfall 
flood control projects that prevent the expenditure of hundreds 
of millions of dollars in future Federal disaster claims, 
grants, and public assistance. The Committee is carefully 
reviewing these proposals and has deferred action without 
prejudice at this time on this and all other flood control 
projects requiring new legislative authority pending future 
action later this year by the authorization committees on an 
omnibus water resources bill. The Corps has informed the 
Committee that ongoing studies for urban rainfall mitigation in 
southeast Louisiana are fully funded so they can proceed as 
quickly as possible. As in past years, the Committee has 
provided full funding for these studies. However, the current 
Corps project study process takes too long. Therefore, with a 
goal towards completing these studies faster than the current 
Corps process allows, the Committee directs the Corps to 
provide a report to the Committee, prior to the conference with 
the Senate on this bill, on a plan for having the private 
sector assist with or conduct this and other important Corps 
project study work.
    Ste. Genevieve, Missouri.--The Committee is aware that the 
Corps of Engineers plans to use up to $3,000,000 in previously 
appropriated funds for construction of the Ste. Genevieve, 
Missouri, project in fiscal year 1996. Because of the urgent 
need to complete this project as soon as possible, the 
Committee has provided an additional $1,000,000 for 
construction of the project in fiscal year 1996. The Committee 
expects the Corps of Engineers to take all steps necessary to 
expedite construction of this project.
    Kill Van Kull and Newark Bay Channels, New York and New 
Jersey.--The Committee has been advised by the Corps of 
Engineers that $3,100,000 in previously appropriated funds will 
be available in fiscal year 1996 to continue engineering and 
design of Phase II of the Kill Van Kull and Newark Bay 
Channels, New York and New Jersey, project.
    Onondaga Lake, New York.--In fiscal years 1994 and 1995, 
the Committee provided a total of $4,000,000 for design of the 
Onondaga Lake, New York, combined sewer overflow project 
authorized by section 307 of the Water Resources Development 
Act of 1992. At that time, the scope of the project had not yet 
been finalized and, therefore, construction costs had not yet 
been determined. Since then, the local sponsor has better 
defined the project and determined that design and construction 
of the project can be fully funded using the $4,000,000 of 
Federal funds already appropriated. In addition, the Committee 
is aware that the sponsor has agreed to finance any excess 
funding requirements over the Federal appropriation of 
$4,000,000. Accordingly, the Committee has no objection to the 
Corps of Engineers utilizing the $4,000,000 in previously 
appropriated funds for construction of the Onondaga Lake 
project.
    Acequias Irrigation System, New Mexico.--The Committee has 
provided $120,000 for the Acequias Irrigation System project in 
New Mexico, the same as the budget request. Those funds, 
combined with $1,900,000 in programmed carryover will provide a 
total of $2,020,000 for acequia rehabilitation projects in 
fiscal year 1996. The Committee remains concerned about the 
slow pace of work on this program and directs the Corps of 
Engineers to work more closely with acequia district members in 
order to accelerate the number of acequia projects undertaken. 
In addition, the Committee encourages the Corps to work with 
acequia district members to permit them to perform some of 
their own repairs.
    Glen Foerd, Pennsylvania.--The bill includes $200,000 for 
the Corps of Engineers to initiate construction of the Glen 
Foerd, Pennsylvania, project authorized in section 106 of the 
Water Resources Development Act of 1990.
    Broad Top Region, Pennsylvania.--The Committee has provided 
$4,100,000 for wetlands restoration and the completion of acid 
mine drainage mitigation projects for the Broad Top region of 
Huntingdon and Bedford Counties in Pennsylvania.
    Red River Basin Chloride Control, Texas and Oklahoma.--From 
within funds previously appropriated for the Red River Basin 
Chloride Control, Texas and Oklahoma, project, the Corps of 
Engineers is directed to use $150,000 to develop and implement 
an environmental monitoring plan for the project in fiscal year 
1996.
    Columbia River Juvenile Fish Mitigation, Washington, 
Oregon, and Idaho.--The Committee has reduced the 
Administration's request for the Columbia River Juvenile Fish 
Mitigation program by $10,000,000 to $68,800,000. The amount 
appropriated for this activity in fiscal year 1995 was 
$36,300,000. The Committee is extremely concerned about the 
seemingly uncontrolled growth of this program. In fiscal year 
1994, the Corps of Engineers reported that the total estimated 
cost of the program was $345,000,000. In this year's budget 
request, the Corps reported the total estimated cost as 
$583,600,000. The Committee is concerned that the Columbia/
Snake River salmon recovery efforts have become a black hole 
for money even though there appears to be no consensus among 
all the parties involved in this effort about what needs to be 
done to restore the salmon runs.
    The Committee has not included any funding for the 
continuation of advanced planning and design for public and 
private facilities affected by the operation of the John Day 
project at minimum pool levels. There is no regional consensus 
on this project, the cost of implementation would be 
exorbitant, and any improvement in fish mortality is expected 
to be marginal. The Corps should move ahead expeditiously in 
testing, and where applicable, installation of surface 
collection and bypass systems which do have regional consensus 
and may help salmon pass hydropower dams more successfully than 
conventional bypass systems. The final construction decision on 
the conventional bypass system at The Dalles should be held 
pending completion of surface bypass testing at that project.
    Levisa and Tug Forks of the Big Sandy River and Upper 
Cumberland River, West Virginia, Kentucky, and Virginia.--The 
Committee has provided a total of $24,000,000 for the Levisa 
and Tug Forks of the Big Sandy River and Upper Cumberland River 
project. In addition to amounts provided in the budget request, 
the bill includes $12,000,000 to continue phase III of the 
Harlan, Kentucky, element of the project, $4,100,000 for the 
Williamsburg, Kentucky, element of the project to continue 
floodproofing, complete real estate acquisition and perform 
levee/floodwall construction, and $1,600,000 for design work, 
the acquisition of real estate, and the continuation of 
floodproofing on the Middlesboro, Kentucky, element of the 
project. In addition, the Corps is directed to continue 
construction of the Pike County, Kentucky, element using funds 
previously appropriated.
    Poplar Island, Maryland.--The Committee recognizes the 
national economic importance of the Baltimore Harbor, and 
therefore urges the Corps to support, out of the funding 
provided for Wetland and Aquatic Habitat Creation (Section 204 
funds), the Poplar Island Maryland Restoration Project.
    Continuing Authorities Programs.--The Committee believes 
that the proposal of the Administration to terminate funding 
for the section 103, section 208, section 14, section 205, 
section 111, and section 107 continuing authorities programs 
beginning in fiscal year 1997 to be counterproductive to the 
well-being of the Nation. For relatively modest amounts of 
money these programs have provided significant benefits to many 
of our citizens, particularly those in smaller communities. The 
Committee notes that while proposing to terminate the 
traditional Corps of Engineers continuing authorities programs 
that help people, the Administration has proposed that the two 
newer environmentally oriented programs be funded at their full 
authorized levels. The Committee hopes that the Administration 
will reconsider this proposal and request adequate funding in 
fiscal year 1997 to continue these valuable programs.
    Small Flood Control Projects (Section 205).--Within 
available funds, the bill includes: $2,000,000 to design and 
construct modifications to upgrade the pump station and enlarge 
the detention pond at Sinkhole 7 in Muscle Shoals, Colbert 
County, Alabama; $350,000 to initiate plans and specifications 
for a project to rehabilitate the levees at Elba, Alabama, and 
Geneva, Alabama; $225,000 to complete the feasibility study, 
initiate and complete plans and specifications, and initiate 
construction of the Mission Zanja Creek, California, project; 
$370,000 for preconstruction engineering and design of the 
Magpie Creek, California, project; $200,000 for the Tehama-
Hamilton City flood control study; $1,387,000 to initiate and 
complete construction of the North Libertyville Estates, 
Illinois, project; $184,000 to complete the feasibility study 
and initiate plans and specifications for the Flatrock River, 
Rushville, Indiana, project; $50,000 to complete design 
activities and initiate construction at Feather Creek in 
Clinton, Indiana; $30,000 to complete plans and specifications 
for the Pipe Creek, Alexandria, Indiana, project; $100,000 to 
initiate and complete a reconnaissance study of flooding 
problems along the White River in Anderson, Indiana; $95,000 to 
initiate a feasibility study of flood control improvements 
along the Red River at Clay City, Kentucky; $60,000 to complete 
the feasibility study and initiate plans and specifications for 
flood control measures along Beech Fork in Bardstown, Kentucky; 
$180,000 to initiate and complete plans and specifications of 
the cut-through project at Cy Bend in Jackson, Kentucky; 
$400,000 to conduct reconnaissance studies and initiate 
feasibility studies of flood control projects on Fulmer, Moyer, 
and Steele Creeks in Herkimer County, New York; $200,000 to 
complete the feasibility study and prepare plans and 
specifications for the Cross Lake/Seneca River, New York, 
project; and $100,000 to initiate and complete a feasibility 
study for First Creek in Knoxville, Knox County, Tennessee.
    The Committee directs the Army Corps of Engineers, within 
available funds under the Section 205 program, to proceed with 
the feasibility study of the Mill Creek project in Garfield 
Heights, Ohio, as recommended by the Corps in its initial 
assessment.
    Emergency Streambank and Erosion Control (Section 14).--
Within available funds, the bill includes: $200,000 for 
planning, design, and construction of an erosion control 
project at Big Racoon Creek at Bridgeton in Parke County, 
Indiana; $102,000 to initiate and complete construction of bank 
stabilization measures along the Ohio River in the vicinity of 
the Masterson House in Carrollton, Kentucky; $500,000 to 
construct two erosion control projects in Letcher County, 
Kentucky, at Kentucky Route 15 and River Road along the North 
Fork of the Kentucky River; $200,000 to design and construct 
streambank protection measures along the bank of the Tennessee 
River, river mile 158.7, at Clifton, Tennessee; $500,000 to 
design and construct streambank protection measures along the 
Tennessee River between river miles 645.0 and 647.3; $500,000 
for design and construction of streambank protection measures 
along the Tennessee River at Tennessee Riverpark in 
Chattanooga, Hamilton County, Tennessee; $500,000 for design 
and construction of streambank protection measures along the 
Tennessee River at Ross's Landing in Chattanooga, Hamilton 
County, Tennessee; and $450,000 for a streambank erosion 
control project along the Ohio River in the city of 
Moundsville, West Virginia.
    Small Beach Erosion Control Projects (Section 103).--Within 
available funds, the bill includes $2,000,000 for the Corps of 
Engineers to conduct a study of measures to reduce storm 
damages along the area adjacent to Aqua Hedionda Lagoon in the 
city of Carlsbad, California, and, if a project is found to be 
feasible, to construct the project.
    Project Modifications for Improvement of the Environment 
(Section 1135).--Within available funds, the bill includes: 
$300,000 for the development and planning of a turbine bypass 
device at Pine Flat Dam on the Kings River in California to 
improve temperature control for fishery habitat restoration; 
$500,000 for a habitat restoration project along the San 
Lorenzo River in California; $500,000 for an environmental 
restoration project along the Sacramento River at Golden State 
Island in Colusa County, California; and $200,000 to complete 
plans and specifications for environmental restoration 
activities at Drakes Creek and Memorial Parks at Old Hickory 
Lake, Tennessee.
    Upper Mississippi River System Environmental Management 
Program.--The Committee has learned that the Corps of Engineers 
has been providing $200,000 per year to the U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service for its role in this program and that the U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service has requested the amount be increased 
by about $120,000 per year. The Committee believes that the 
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service should obtain the funds it needs 
to carry out its role in connection with this program through 
its own budget. The Committee, therefore, directs that the 
Corps of Engineers not provide funds available under this 
program to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in fiscal year 
1996.
    Upper Mississippi River Environmental Management Program, 
Batchtown, Illinois.--The Batchtown Habitat Rehabilitation and 
Enhancement Project is an important part of the Upper 
Mississippi River Environmental Management Plan. Batchtown 
provides important habitat to migratory waterfowl and fish.
    A major threat to this area is sedimentation due to 
hillside erosion. Control of hillside erosion is essential to 
the long-term success of this project. Within available funds, 
the Committee expects the Corps to fund a hillside erosion 
component in the Batchtown Habitat Rehabilitation and 
Enhancement Project.
 Flood Control, Mississippi River and Tributaries Arkansas, Illinois, 
       Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, and Tennessee
Appropriation, 1995.....................................    $328,138,000
Budget Estimate, 1996...................................     319,250,000
Recommended, 1996.......................................     307,885,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 1995.................................     -20,253,000
    Budget Estimate, 1996...............................     -11,365,000

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


                   Operation and Maintenance, General
Appropriation, 1995.....................................  $1,646,535,000
Budget Estimate, 1996...................................   1,749,875,000
Recommended, 1996.......................................   1,712,123,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 1995.................................     +65,588,000
    Budget Estimate, 1996...............................     -37,752,000

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




















    Program Reductions.--The budget request proposed an 
increase of $103,340,000 in the Corps of Engineers operation 
and maintenance program for fiscal year 1996. The need to bring 
Federal spending under control, however, makes it impossible 
for the Committee to provide that level of funding. In order to 
provide as much money as possible for operation and maintenance 
of projects, the Committee has made significant reductions in 
the non-project specific activities funded under the Operation 
and Maintenance, General account.
    Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint and Alabama-Coosa-
Tallapoosa Basins Comprehensive Water Study, Alabama, Florida, 
and Georgia.--The Committee is aware that the study's Executive 
Coordination Committee and the study partners have recommended 
that the study be extended for an additional year to complete 
the technical elements of the study and to develop a 
coordination mechanism for future water resources decisions. 
The Committee supports this effort and directs the Corps of 
Engineers to reprogram any additional funds required to 
complete the study.
    Newport Bay Harbor, California.--The Committee has provided 
$1,265,000 for the Corps of Engineers to repair the jetties at 
Newport Bay Harbor, California.
    Marina del Ray, California.--The Committee has provided 
$600,000 for the Corps of Engineers to undertake the 
environmental documentation required in preparation for 
maintenance dredging of Marina del Ray in California.
    Los Angeles River, California.--The Committee has provided 
$600,000 for the Corps of Engineers to address the shoaling 
problem at the mouth of the Los Angeles River, including the 
need to develop a disposal site for contaminated material.
    Pillar Point Harbor, California.--The bill includes 
$400,000 for the Corps of Engineers to undertake repairs to the 
breakwater at Pillar Point Harbor, California.
    Oceanside Harbor Experimental Sand Bypass, California.--The 
Committee has provided an additional $750,000 for the Oceanside 
Harbor sand bypass system. The funds will be used to complete 
the installation of various components as well as operate and 
test the system.
    Success Lake, California.--The bill includes $700,000 for 
the completion of seismic studies at Success Lake in 
California, the same as the budget request. In preparing this 
report, the Committee expects the Corps to perform an analysis 
of the stability of the structure with a raised spillway as 
directed in House Report 103-533.
    St. Augustine Harbor, Florida.--The Committee has provided 
an additional $800,000 for the St. Augustine Harbor, Florida, 
project for the Corps of Engineers to perform maintenance 
dredging and utilize the material to nourish the beaches at St. 
Augustine Beach.
    Jacksonville Harbor, Florida.--The bill includes an 
additional $2,250,000 for the repair of the existing training 
wall at St. Johns Bluff. This work will prevent shoaling in the 
Federal navigation channel for the Jacksonville Harbor, 
Florida, project.
    Carlyle Lake, Illinois, Flood Release Policy.--Area 
residents have raised concerns about the Corp's water release 
policy at Carlyle Lake during flooding. Within available funds, 
the Army Corps of Engineers is directed to update the economic 
and environmental analysis of its water management plan at 
Carlyle Lake.
    Kentucky River Locks and Dams 5-14, Kentucky.--The 
Committee has provided $3,000,000 for the Corps of Engineers to 
continue to make repairs to Kentucky River Locks and Dams 5-14 
in preparation to transferring the project to the Commonwealth 
of Kentucky.
    Fishtrap Lake, Kentucky.--The Committee has provided an 
additional $115,000 for the Corps of Engineers to initiate and 
complete a detailed update of the project master plan and 
accompanying environmental assessment to include plans for 
horseback riding and hiking trails, and ancillary facilities at 
Fishtrap Lake, Kentucky.
    Mississippi River, Baton Rouge to Gulf of Mexico, 
Louisiana.--The Committee is aware that the authorized 45-foot 
Mississippi River channel is subject to rapid shoaling during 
high water periods causing draft restrictions. At times this 
shoaling reduces usable depth by as much as 2 to 3 feet. To 
lessen this problem, the Committee believes that the Corps of 
Engineers should consider performing a minimum of 2 feet of 
overdepth dredging, or such other overdepth as the Corps 
determines most effective, early in the dredging season to 
ensure that project depth can be maintained.
    Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet, Louisiana.--The Committee is 
aware that the authorized 36-foot Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet 
channel is experiencing serious bank failures on its north bank 
due to land subsidence, which is significantly increasing 
dredging costs. The Committee is aware that the Corps of 
Engineers recently experienced serious dredging delays, which 
caused draft restrictions, while attempting to resolve 
environmental issues in the process of obtaining Coastal Zone 
Consistency to dredge the Mile 50-56 reach. To resolve this 
particular issue, the only available solution was to construct 
a rock dike that provided bank stabilization before dredging 
could be accomplished. The Committee is of the opinion that to 
minimize future dredging costs and preserve wetlands the north 
bank Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet should be stabilized with 
riprap or similar hardened protection, as necessary, using 
available operation and maintenance funds.
    Jennings Randolph Lake, Maryland and West Virginia.--The 
Committee has provided an additional $160,000 for the Corps of 
Engineers to continue work on a revised master plan for 
Jennings Randolph Lake to reflect changing demand for public 
use facilities.
    Pearl River, Mississippi and Louisiana.--The Committee has 
funded the budget request of $280,000 for this project. These 
funds are not for dredging and are only to be used to maintain 
the project in caretaker status and correct any safety 
problems, including lightning and boat trolley system 
improvements, at Pool's Bluff Sill or other lock locations.
    New York Harbor, New York.--The amount provided for 
operation and maintenance of the New York Harbor, New York, 
project includes $4,500,000 for activities authorized under 
section 326 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992, the 
same as the budget request.
    Manasquan Inlet, New Jersey.--The Committee has provided 
$100,000 for engineering and design in preparation for 
maintenance dredging at Manasquan Inlet, New Jersey.
    Abiquiu Dam, New Mexico.--The Committee is aware that the 
Corps of Engineers is in the process of acquiring land adjacent 
to Abiquiu Dam in New Mexico to assure proper recreational 
access to the project as authorized by Public Law 100-522. In 
carrying out that authorization, the Committee directs the 
Corps, to the extent practicable, to obtain land only from 
willing sellers.
    Conchas Lake Dam, New Mexico.--The Committee is aware that 
there are approximately 70 residential dwellings located within 
the boundaries of the Conchas Lake, New Mexico, project and 
that the owners of those dwellings desire to purchase the land 
they currently lease from the Corps of Engineers. The Committee 
directs the Corps to cooperate with those individuals and 
permit them to purchase the land at fair market value.
    Erie Harbor, Pennsylvania.--In fiscal year 1993, $1,000,000 
was provided to the Corps of Engineers for dredging of an 
access channel and berthing area for the vessel NIAGARA at Erie 
Harbor, Pennsylvania, in an area known as the East Canal. The 
Committee has been advised that additional funds may be 
required to complete the project. The Committee expects the 
Corps of Engineers to continue to work with the city to see 
this project through to completion and directs that the Corps 
reprogram additional funds that may be required to complete the 
work.
    Raystown Lake, Pennsylvania.--The Committee has provided an 
additional $2,500,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue to 
implement the updated master plan for the Raystown Lake, 
Pennsylvania, project.
    Cooper Lake and Channels, Texas.--The Committee has 
provided language in the bill authorizing the Secretary of the 
Army to transfer not to exceed 300 acres of land at the Cooper 
Lake, Texas, project from mitigation or low-density recreation 
to high-density recreation and to take whatever steps are 
necessary to accomplish that transfer.
    Pat Mayse Lake, Texas.--The Committee has provided $873,000 
for operation and maintenance of Pat Mayse Lake, Texas, the 
same as the budget request. The Committee expects the Corps of 
Engineers to maintain the current operating status of all 
recreation areas at this project.
    John W. Flannagan Dam and Reservoir, Virginia.--From within 
funds provided for operation of the John W. Flannagan Dam and 
Reservoir project, the Corps of Engineers is directed to use 
$50,000 to complete studies associated with increasing 
whitewater releases.
    Semi-Annual Hydrographic Surveys.--The Committee 
understands that in the Ports of New York and New Jersey the 
severe problem of insufficient dredged material disposal 
options has caused navigation channels to be dredged less 
frequently than in the past. As a consequence, the Committee is 
aware of the need for additional periodic hydrographic surveys 
to provide for the safe operation of the channels and to help 
harbor pilots avert the significant environmental damage that 
could occur with vessel groundings and collisions. In recent 
weeks it was announced by the City of New York that the quality 
of the harbor-estuary waters is the best it has been in sixty 
years of monitoring. That is an accomplishment worth 
protecting. Thus the Committee directs that within available 
project specific funds, the Corps of Engineers shall conduct 
semi-annual controlling depth hydrographic surveys and provide 
the results to the operating pilots so they will have best 
available information to safely move vessels in and out of 
port. The project channels reported by the pilots to be most in 
need of the semi-annual surveys are the Sandy Hook Channel, the 
Raritan Bay Channel, the Arthur Kill Channel, the Kill van Kull 
Channel, and the Newark Bay Channels, including Port Newark 
Channel and the Port Elizabeth Channel.

                           Regulatory Program
Appropriation, 1995.....................................    $101,000,000
Budget Estimate, 1996...................................     112,000,000
Recommended, 1996.......................................     101,000,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 1995.................................................
    Budget Estimate, 1996...............................     -11,000,000

    This appropriation provides for salaries and related costs 
to administer laws pertaining to 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.
    In fiscal year 1996, the Committee recommends an 
appropriation of $101,000,000 for the Corps of Engineers' 
Regulatory Program, which is $11,000,000 below the budget 
request and the same as the fiscal year 1995 level. The 
Committee directs that the reduction below the budget request 
be derived from enforcement activities.
    Santa Rosa Plain Vernal Pools, California.--The Committee 
has been advised that the Vernal Pool Preservation Plan will be 
completed by the end of June of this year and that in order to 
implement the plan, an environmental impact statement is 
required. From within available funds, the Committee has 
provided $250,000 for the preparation of the environmental 
impact statement on the Vernal Pool Final Preservation Plan.
                 Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies
Appropriation, 1995.....................................     $14,979,000
Budget Estimate, 1996...................................      20,000,000
Recommended, 1996.......................................      10,000,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 1995.................................      -4,979,000
    Budget Estimate, 1996...............................     -10,000,000

    This activity provides for flood emergency preparation, 
flood fighting and rescue operations, and repair of flood 
control and Federal hurricane or shore protection works. It 
also provides for emergency supplies of clean drinking water 
where the source has been contaminated and, in drought 
distressed areas, provision of adequate supplies of water for 
human and livestock consumption.
                           Oil Spill Research
Appropriation, 1995.....................................        $900,000
Budget Estimate, 1996...................................         850,000
Recommended, 1996.......................................         850,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 1995.................................         -50,000
    Budget Estimate, 1996...............................................

    Section 7001 of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 established 
an Interagency Coordinating Committee on Oil Pollution Research 
to develop a plan for, and coordinate the implementation of, an 
oil pollution research, development, and demonstration program.
    Title VII of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 also authorizes 
use of the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund to perform oil 
pollution research.
    As a member of the Interagency Coordinating Committee, the 
Corps of Engineers will participate in the research program 
through the development of advanced displays, maps, and data 
management utilizing satellite and/or aircraft imaging data. 
These management tools will be developed for the on-the-scene 
spill coordinator's use for optimal allocation of resources and 
timely response to the specific oil spill situation.

                            General Expenses
Appropriation, 1995.....................................    $152,500,000
Budget Estimate, 1996...................................     164,725,000
Recommended, 1996.......................................     150,000,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 1995.................................      -2,500,000
    Budget Estimate, 1996...............................     -14,725,000

    This appropriation finances the expenses of the Office, 
Chief of Engineers, the Division Offices, and certain research 
and statistical functions of the Corps of Engineers.
    The Committee has retained language contained in the Fiscal 
Year 1995 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act that 
places a ceiling on the amount of General Expenses funds 
available for general administration and related functions of 
the Office of the Chief of Engineers. The amount provided in 
the bill for general administration and related functions of 
the Chief of Engineers includes funds for civil program 
accounts. The Committee has also retained language in the bill 
which prohibits the use of other funds appropriated for Corps 
of Engineers activities for activities in the Office of the 
Chief of Engineers and the Division Offices.
    The Committee remains concerned about the money required to 
provide executive direction and management to the Corps of 
Engineers. At a time when the Committee is being asked to 
reduce the funding for some aspects of the Corps' mission and 
projects, and eliminate funding for others, we believe it is 
necessary and prudent to tighten up on executive direction and 
management within the Corps. Paramount in that concern is the 
uneven distribution of such executive supervision as is shown 
by the wide variety in the number of districts each division 
office supervises. The Committee is convinced that the Nation 
can no longer afford such a superstructure to manage this 
program and has directed the Secretary of the Army to prepare 
and submit to the Congress, a plan reducing the number of 
division offices to 6, 7, or 8, and to maintain a minimum of at 
least 4 districts in each division without closing any 
districts or changing their function. In addition, the 
Committee notes that the title division office is 
inappropriately applied to organizations who do not supervise 
geographically separated districts, and the Committee 
encourages the Corps to develop a more consistent structure in 
their proposed plan. While the Committee appreciates the 
restructuring efforts recently undertaken by the Corps, and 
believes the new structure is appropriate, the Committee 
believes the program of the Corps has shrunk sufficiently that 
simply reducing the size of division offices is not a 
reasonable solution. The Committee anticipates this action will 
provide a savings of approximately $20,000,000 per year after 
it is implemented. The Committee has provided for congressional 
review of this plan prior to its implementation by requiring 
the Secretary to withhold implementation until May 1, 1996.
    The Committee further believes that the Corps should seek 
additional opportunities to decentralize authority and empower 
the district offices to make decisions.
    For fiscal year 1996, the Committee has recommended an 
appropriation of $150,000,000 for General Expenses, $14,725,000 
below the budget request.

                           GENERAL PROVISION

                       Corps of Engineers--Civil

    Hopper Dredging.--Public Law 95-269 requires that the 
Secretary of the Army carry out dredging work by contract if 
the Secretary determines that industry has the capability to do 
the work and that it can be done at reasonable prices and in a 
timely manner. Under this authority, the Corps tested 
industry's capability in the 1980's through a program of 
competitive bidding that indicated industry could do a great 
deal of the dredging work far more efficiently than the 
government. The Committee notes that recent efforts to test 
industry's capability by advertising 7,500,000 cubic yards of 
dredging volume previously accomplished by government vessels 
which is assumed in this year's budget has been successful and 
that a further test is advisable.
    For fiscal year 1996, the Administration has proposed that 
the dredge McFARLAND undergo a major rehabilitation estimated 
to cost $8,000,000 plus expensive additional scheduled 
maintenance of the vessel. The Committee is also aware that the 
Corps of Engineers is also continuing its analysis of the 
minimum dredge fleet and that it expects to be in a position to 
make a decision on whether or not the current fleet should be 
reduced in about two years. The Committee believes that it 
would be unwise for the Corps of Engineers to spend $8,000,000 
for rehabilitation and significant additional sums for 
scheduled major repairs of the McFARLAND when the possibility 
exists that it may be recommended for decommissioning within 
the next two years. Therefore, the Corps of Engineers is 
directed not to proceed with rehabilitation and major repair of 
the dredge McFARLAND in fiscal year 1996 and, instead, to 
advertise the work done by the vessel in fiscal year 1995 as a 
further test of industry's capability in addition to the 
7,500,000 cubic yards assumed in the budget.
    The Committee expects the Corps of Engineers to expedite 
completion of its analysis of the minimum dredge fleet and 
reach a final decision as soon as possible.
                                TITLE II

                       DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

                          Central Utah Project

                Central Utah Project Completion Account
Appropriation, 1995.....................................     $40,163,000
Budget Estimate, 1996...................................      44,139,000
Recommended, 1996.......................................      44,139,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 1995.................................      +3,976,000
    Budget Estimate, 1996...............................................

    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 1996 to carry 
out the provisions of the Act is $44,139,000, the same as the 
budget request.
                         Bureau of Reclamation

                         general investigations
Appropriation, 1995.....................................     $14,190,000
Budget Estimate, 1996...................................      13,602,000
Recommended, 1996.......................................      13,114,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 1995.................................      -1,076,000
    Budget Estimate, 1996...............................        -488,000

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


    New Studies.--Due to the severe budgetary situation, the 
Committee has deleted the funds requested by the Administration 
in fiscal year 1996 for new studies.
    Salton Sea Research Project, California.--The Committee has 
provided $100,000 for the Bureau of Reclamation to continue the 
Salton Sea, California, research study.
    Del Norte County and Crescent City Wastewater Reclamation 
Study, California.--The Committee has provided $500,000 for the 
Bureau of Reclamation to initiate a study of wastewater 
reclamation alternatives for Del Norte County and Crescent City 
in California.
    Fort Bragg Reclamation Study, California.--The Committee 
has provided $750,000 for the Bureau of Reclamation to initiate 
a study of water reclamation alternatives, including the use of 
desalinization, for Fort Bragg, California.
    Rio Grande Conveyance Canal/Pipeline, Texas.--The Committee 
has provided $200,000 for the Bureau of Reclamation to 
participate in the development of a model that will guide the 
planning, implementation, and operation of a project that would 
convey water directly from Elephant Butte Dam to El Paso, 
Texas.

                          construction program
Appropriation, 1995.....................................    $432,727,000
Budget Estimate, 1996...................................     375,943,000
Recommended, 1996.......................................     417,301,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 1995.................................     -15,426,000
    Budget Estimate, 1996...............................     +41,358,000

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




    New Initiatives.--Due to the severe budgetary situation, 
the Committee has not provided funds requested by the 
Administration for the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, 
the Water Conservation Challenge Partnerships program, and the 
new format proposed for the Colorado River Basin Salinity 
Control Program. In addition, the Committee has not provided 
the funds requested for Energy/Water Product Efficiency 
Standards and Improved River Basin Management, which are new 
initiatives proposed under the Science and Technology program.
    Central Arizona Project, Arizona.--The Committee has 
provided $94,225,000 to continue construction of the Central 
Arizona Project, $1,500,000 above the budget request. From 
within that amount, the Bureau of Reclamation is directed to 
utilize $5,850,000 for work related to the Tucson Terminal 
Storage Facility, including $3,000,000 to acquire lands for the 
terminal storage site.
    Central Arizona Project, Gila River Indian Community, 
Arizona.--The Committee has provided $1,842,000 for the Bureau 
of Reclamation to reimburse the Gila River Indian Community for 
construction of irrigation works on the Sacaton Ranch as 
authorized by Public Law 103-435.
    Central Valley Project, Delta Division, California.--The 
Committee has provided an additional $80,000 for the Bureau of 
Reclamation to support work to determine fish screening 
requirements, define an approach to meet those requirements, 
and develop a design concept, project schedule and funding plan 
for Contra Costa Canal intake at Rock Slough.
    Central Valley Project, Miscellaneous Project Programs, 
California.--
          Fish Screen Criteria.--The Committee has provided 
        $500,000 for the Bureau of Reclamation to work with the 
        National Marine Fisheries Service, the United States 
        Fish and Wildlife Service and appropriate resources 
        agencies of the State of California to review and, 
        where necessary, revise criteria for sweeping and 
        approach velocities for new fish screens in the 
        Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers. Existing criteria 
        were developed for tidally influenced areas and 
        therefore appear unsuitable for at least some riverine 
        conditions. Additionally, these tests will help develop 
        suitable screening criteria for candidate species for 
        which no screening criteria currently exist. The 
        Committee is hopeful this review will lower the design 
        and construction costs of fish screens in riverine 
        environments.
          Spring Run and Coho Salmon Programs.--The Committee 
        has provided funds to be deposited with the National 
        Fish and Wildlife Foundation to be used in support of 
        activities to enhance and protect the Spring Run Salmon 
        ($500,000) and the Coho Salmon ($250,000).
          Salmon Stamp Program.--The Committee, pursuant to 
        section 3407(e) of Public Law 102-575, has provided 
        $350,000 for the Salmon Stamp Program, which is 
        directed and overseen by representatives of commercial 
        salmon fishermen, charter boat operators, and the 
        California Department of Fish and Game for programs and 
        activities that will increase the production of young 
        salmon in Central Valley Project impacted streams or 
        fishery habitat.
          Little Holland Tract.--The Committee has provided an 
        additional $3,000,000 for the Bureau of Reclamation to 
        acquire, in whole or in part, Little Holland Tract, 
        California, with any and all appurtenant water rights, 
        for wetland restoration, and waterfowl and fishery 
        habitat enhancement purposes. The value of Little 
        Holland Tract shall be determined in conformance with 
        the Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal land 
        acquisitions, except that the appraisal shall be based 
        upon the condition of the tract in its pre-1983 
        condition and the highest and best use of agricultural 
        land at current fair market values.
    Central Valley Project, Sacramento River Division, 
California.--
          Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District (Hamilton City 
        Pumping Plant).--The Committee has provided an 
        additional $3,000,000 for the Bureau of Reclamation to 
        complete design and engineering work and initiate 
        construction on a new fish screen and fish recovery 
        facilities associated with the Glenn-Colusa Irrigation 
        District's Hamilton City Pumping Plant. Costs incurred 
        for work undertaken to construct and evaluate the 
        interim fish protection improvements shall be included 
        as a part of the Federal-state cost share, pursuant to 
        section 3406(b)(20) of the Central Valley Project 
        Improvement Act, of the long-term program to mitigate 
        the fishery impacts associated with the district's 
        operations.
          Pilot Research Pumping Facility Evaluation.--The 
        Committee has provided $1,300,000 for the Bureau of 
        Reclamation to continue construction of the test pumps 
        and to evaluate the effectiveness of the pilot research 
        pumping facility.
          Fish Passage Program.--The Committee has provided 
        $1,000,000 to continue work on finding solutions for 
        passage of endangered and threatened fish species at 
        the Red Bluff Diversion Dam.
          Alternative Fish Protection Facilities.--The 
        Committee has provided an additional $650,000 for the 
        installation and evaluation of electric fish guidance 
        systems at Reclamation District 108's Wilkins Slough 
        pumping plant and an additional $215,000 for the 
        installation and evaluation of an alternative fish 
        guidance system at Reclamation District 1004. Such 
        funds are provided as a continuation of the Bureau of 
        Reclamation's unscreened diversion technology 
        demonstration program.
          Winter-Run Chinook Salmon Captive Broodstock 
        Program.--The Committee has provided $300,000 to 
        continue the Sacramento River Winter-Run Chinook Salmon 
        Captive Broodstock Program. The Committee strongly 
        supports this program's objectives.
          Colusa Basin Drainage District.--The Committee has 
        provided an additional $250,000 to continue work on the 
        Colusa Basin Drainage District's integrated resource 
        management project, which seeks to develop and 
        demonstrate a cooperative approach to meeting multiple 
        needs within the watershed, including the need to 
        increase groundwater recharge, expand surface water 
        supplies and improve flood protection.
    Central Valley Project, Shasta Division, California.--The 
Committee has provided an additional $20,000,000 for continuing 
construction of the Shasta Dam Temperature Control Device, 
including an additional $1,000,000 to be derived from the 
Central Valley Project Restoration Fund. These funds, together 
with funds requested by the Administration, provide a total of 
$31,830,000 for construction of the temperature control device 
in fiscal year 1996. The need for the Congress to add these 
funds has been brought about by the failure of the State of 
California to thus far live up to its obligations under the 
Central Valley Project Improvement Act, which requires that the 
state contribute 25% of the cost of the temperature control 
device. The Committee has added these funds only because 
continued operation of Shasta Dam without the temperature 
control device in place can cost the taxpayers as much as 
$11,000,000 a year to replace power lost when water is bypassed 
away from the turbines.
    Future funding for projects authorized in the Central 
Valley Project Improvement Act will be dependent on the State 
of California meeting its obligations under the law. The 
Committee directs the Bureau of Reclamation to prepare a report 
on the extent to which the State of California has lived up to 
its cost-sharing obligations under the Central Valley Project 
Improvement Act and provide that report to the Committee on 
Appropriations by November 15, 1995.
    Central Valley Project, Trinity River Division, 
California.--The Committee has provided $5,067,000 for the 
Trinity River Restoration Program, the same as the budget 
request. Included in that total is $500,000 to carry out the 
interagency agreement between the Bureau of Reclamation and the 
Hoopa Valley Tribe regarding the Cooperative for Comprehensive 
Fisheries Management.
    Central Valley Project, San Luis Unit, California.--On 
March 1 of this year the Commissioner of Reclamation submitted 
to the Committee a report concerning repayment of past and 
anticipated future expenditures for the Kesterson Reservoir 
Cleanup Program and the San Joaquin Valley Drainage Program. 
The report concludes that funds such as those that have already 
been appropriated for costs associated with irrigation-related 
project features are reimbursable and cannot be reallocated as 
nonreimbursable absent further direction from Congress. The 
Report also expresses Reclamation's intent to commence billing 
its contractors in the San Luis Unit for all those costs if 
Congress does not act to make certain costs nonreimbursable by 
the end of this session. The Committee is aware that the San 
Luis Unit contractors desire to pursue negotiations with the 
Bureau of Reclamation to develop a reasonable and cost-
effective drainage solution. The Committee believes it is 
premature for Reclamation to collect any costs before these 
negotiations are complete and appropriate drainage service is 
provided. Therefore, the Committee directs that the Bureau of 
Reclamation take no action to collect costs associated with the 
Kesterson Reservoir Cleanup Program or the San Joaquin Valley 
Drainage Program until drainage service negotiations are 
complete, drainage service is provided, or the authorizing 
Committee has acted on this issue.
    Orange County Regional Water Reclamation Project, 
California.--The Committee has provided $600,000 for the Bureau 
of Reclamation to complete environmental and health effects 
studies and begin preliminary design for the Orange County 
Water Reclamation Project.
    Brackish Water Reclamation Demonstration Facility, 
California.--The Committee has provided $2,000,000 in support 
of the Port Hueneme Water Agency's brackish water reclamation 
demonstration project.
    Animas-La Plata Project, Colorado.--The Committee remains 
extremely concerned about the slow pace of work on the Animas-
La Plata project, which is the major element of the Colorado 
Ute Indian Water Rights Settlement Agreement. The Southern Ute 
and Ute Mountain Ute Tribes negotiated in good faith with the 
United States to reach this agreement. The tribes and the non-
Indian participants in the projects have met all their 
commitments. The only thing lacking has been the commitment of 
the Federal Government to complete construction of the project. 
Therefore, the Committee has provided $10,000,000 for 
construction of the Animas-La Plata project in fiscal year 
1996.
    Northwest Wastewater Reuse Project, Texas.--The Committee 
has provided $1,500,000 for the Northwest Wastewater Reuse 
Project being undertaken in cooperation with the El Paso, 
Texas, Water Utilities Public Service Board. This project will 
provide up to 17,500,000 gallons per day of treated sewage 
effluent for use in place of potable water that is currently 
used to irrigate schools, parks, and golf courses.
    Columbia Basin Project, Washington.--The Committee has 
included an additional $875,000 for the Bureau of Reclamation 
to continue work on drainage facilities for the Columbia Basin 
project in Washington.
    Wetlands Development.--The Committee has provided an 
additional $3,600,000 for the Wetlands Development program to 
continue the Caddo Lake Wetlands Project.
    Columbia/Snake River Salmon Recovery.--The Committee has 
reduced the Administration's request for Columbia/Snake River 
salmon recovery activities by $5,000,000 to $10,000,000. The 
amount appropriated for this activity in fiscal year 1995 was 
$5,600,000. The Committee is extremely concerned about the rate 
of growth of this program. In the fiscal year 1995 budget 
request, the Bureau of Reclamation reported that the total cost 
of this program was $30,850,000. In this year's budget request, 
Reclamation reported the total cost as $61,226,000. The 
Committee is concerned that Columbia/Snake River salmon 
recovery efforts have become a black hole for money even though 
there appears to be no consensus among all the parties involved 
in this effort on what needs to be done to restore the salmon 
runs.
    Groundwater Recharge Demonstration Program.--The Committee 
has no objection to the plans of the Bureau of Reclamation and 
the Pima County Flood Control District to proceed with the 
Rillito Creek, Arizona, High Plains Groundwater Recharge 
Demonstration project at a site on the lower Santa Cruz River.
                       Operation and Maintenance
Appropriation, 1995.....................................    $284,300,000
Budget Estimate, 1996...................................     288,759,000
Recommended, 1996.......................................     278,759,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 1995.................................      -5,541,000
    Budget Estimate, 1996...............................     -10,000,000

    In 1996, a total of 36 projects, project areas, or 
divisions of projects will be operated and maintained for 
power, municipal and industrial water supplies, irrigation, 
flood control, and other benefits with funds made available 
under this appropriation.
    Provision is also made for administration of 13 associated 
programs. These programs seek to maximize benefits from 
existing projects. Project benefits and operations will be 
enhanced through water conservation measures, examination of 
existing structures, environmental considerations, improvement 
of recreation opportunities, and water quality improvement.
    The Committee has recommended an appropriation of 
$278,759,000 for the Bureau of Reclamation's Operation and 
Maintenance program, $10,000,000 below the budget request. The 
Committee directs that this reduction is taken within the 
various Associated O&M; Programs. The Associated O&M; Programs 
have grown from about 10% of the overall Operation and 
Maintenance budget in fiscal year 1989 to a level of almost 17% 
in the fiscal year 1996 budget request.
    The Committee encourages the Bureau of Reclamation to 
continue its efforts to transfer operation and maintenance 
responsibilities of projects to the beneficiaries of those 
projects.
    Central Valley Project, California.--The Committee has 
provided $59,681,000 for operation and maintenance of the 
Central Valley Project, the same as the budget request.
    From within that total, the Bureau of Reclamation is 
directed to provide $5,454,000 for operation and maintenance 
activities of the Trinity River Division. The additional funds 
provided above the budget request will be available to repair 
damages incurred during the winter and to complete the 
Environmental Impact Statement to support the instream flow 
decision the Secretary of the Interior is required to render in 
1996.
    The Committee is pleased that the Bureau of Reclamation has 
requested $4,625,000 for replacements, additions, and 
extraordinary maintenance items. However, the Committee is 
concerned that the canal authorities, which operate the vast 
majority of the project, are not being adequately consulted in 
determining how such funds are allocated. Therefore, from 
within the $4,625,000 provided for replacements, additions, and 
extraordinary maintenance items, the Committee directs the 
Bureau to provide $750,000 to repair the damaged lining at M.P. 
47 to M.P. 16 of the Tehama-Colusa Canal, $1,000,000 to 
rehabilitate or replace radial gates at 17 check structures and 
four wasteway structures associated with the Delta-Mendota 
Canal, and $700,000 to rehabilitate the Kern River Check Outlet 
and make repairs to service roads associated with the Friant-
Kern Canal.
    The Committee notes that the backlog in replacements, 
additions, and extraordinary maintenance items continues to 
grow and now exceeds an estimated $81,000,000. The Committee is 
very concerned that the Bureau of Reclamation has failed to 
comply with the Committee's directive to submit a plan, by 
February 1995, for reducing the backlog in replacements, 
additions and extraordinary maintenance items in a timely 
manner. The Committee directs the Bureau of Reclamation to 
submit this previously requested plan as soon as possible.
    Solano Project, California.--The Committee encourages the 
Bureau of Reclamation to work with the city of Vallejo, 
California, to find a way to permit the city to use Bureau 
facilities to transport water from Lake Curry.
    Solano Project, California.--The Committee is concerned 
that resort concessionaries on Lake Berryessa in California 
have been unable to make improvements to facilities because of 
uncertainties regarding extension of their leases by the Bureau 
of Reclamation. The Committee believes that the Bureau should 
either take action to extend the existing leases for a period 
long enough to permit cost recovery or, in the alternative, 
assure that concessionaires will be compensated for long-term 
improvements if their leases are not renewed.
    The Committee is also concerned about late objections 
raised by the Department of the Interior to the settlement 
agreement for the Putah Creek Adjudication, Lake Berryessa, and 
encourages the Department to work with all parties to swiftly 
resolve these objections.

               Bureau of Reclamation Loan Program Account
Appropriation, 1995.....................................      $9,600,000
Budget Estimate, 1996...................................      16,668,000
Recommended, 1996.......................................      11,668,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 1995.................................      +2,068,000
    Budget Estimate, 1996...............................      -5,000,000

    Under the Small Reclamation Projects Act (43 U.S.C. 422a-
422l), loans and/or grants can 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.
    New Loan Program Activity.--Due to budgetary constraints, 
the Committee has deleted the $5,000,000 requested by the 
Administration for the proposed new loan program.
    The budget request and the approved Committee allowance are 
shown on the following table:


                Central Valley Project Restoration Fund
Appropriation, 1995.....................................     $45,385,000
Budget Estimate, 1996...................................      43,579,000
Recommended, 1996.......................................      43,579,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 1995.................................      -1,806,000
    Budget Estimate, 1996...............................................

    The Central Valley Project Restoration Fund was authorized 
in the Central Valley Project Improvement Act, Title 34 of 
Public Law 102-575. 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.
    San Joaquin River Basin Resource Management Initiative, 
California.--The Committee directs that the $1,000,000 
requested for the San Joaquin River Basin Resource Management 
Initiative not be expended for that purpose. This action is 
consistent with the action of the Congress during consideration 
of H.R. 1158. In the reports accompanying that bill, the Bureau 
of Reclamation was directed not to obligate any additional 
funds in fiscal year 1995 for the San Joaquin River Basin 
Management study.
    Shasta Dam Temperature Control Device, California.--The 
Committee has provided an additional $1,000,000 for 
construction of the Shasta Dam Temperature Control Device.
                    General Administrative Expenses
Appropriation, 1995.....................................     $54,034,000
Budget Estimate, 1996...................................      50,327,000
Recommended, 1996.......................................      48,630,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 1995.................................      -5,404,000
    Budget Estimate, 1996...............................      -1,697,000

    The general administrative expenses program provides for 
the executive direction and management of all reclamation 
activities, as performed by the Commissioner's offices in 
Washington, DC, and the Denver, Colorado, and 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.
    The Committee is pleased with the progress the Bureau of 
Reclamation has made in reducing administrative costs. However, 
faced with the prospects of a declining program and the severe 
budgetary situation, the Committee believes that the Bureau of 
Reclamation needs to further reduce administrative expenses.
                               TITLE III

                          DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

    Funds recommended in Title III provide for Department of 
Energy programs relating to: Energy Supply, Research and 
Development Activities; Uranium Supply and Enrichment 
Activities; the Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and 
Decommissioning Fund; General Science and Research Activities; 
the Nuclear Waste Disposal Fund; Atomic Energy Defense 
Activities; Departmental Administration; the Office of 
Inspector General; Power Marketing Administrations; and the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    Funding recommendations for Department of Energy programs 
in fiscal year 1996 are significantly below the Department's 
fiscal year 1996 budget request in many areas. Absorbing these 
reductions will require much effort on the part of the 
Department to prioritize activities and seek the most cost-
effective means for accomplishing program goals. The Department 
must focus on specific program missions and reduce the number 
of activities currently being performed which may be nice to 
do, but are not possible in a severely constrained funding 
environment.
    While the Committee acknowledges that these program 
reductions will be difficult, recent reviews such as the Galvin 
Task Force list numerous areas where improvements should be 
made. Examples of areas where the Committee expects to see 
reductions include: the number of federal employees at 
headquarters who micromanage field and laboratory activities 
instead of setting policy and allowing implementation of these 
policies at the field level; the number of individual sites and 
offices throughout the country where Department of Energy 
employees are stationed; the number of support service 
contractors paid to do work which should be performed by 
federal employees at headquarters and in field offices; the 
number of internal Departmental regulations requiring 
facilities and laboratories to far exceed the requirements 
applied to comparable commercial facilities; and the subsequent 
compliance reviews conducted by every level of federal and 
contractor management.

                        LABORATORY CONSOLIDATION

    The Committee believes the Department is maintaining a 
facility and laboratory structure larger than necessary to 
manage and execute programs, forcing overhead and 
administrative costs to remain at high levels while direct 
program costs are decreasing. Consequently, the Committee 
expects the Department to review critically its facility needs 
and be prepared to justify the existence of all current 
facilities and laboratories in the next budget cycle. 
Additionally, the Committee expects the Department to review 
the comparative costs charged by each laboratory to perform 
work for federal programs to ensure that the most cost-
effective laboratories are fully utilized and that efforts are 
made to reduce the costs of maintaining the most expensive 
laboratories.

                      SUPPORT SERVICE CONTRACTORS

    Extensive use of support service contractors by the 
Department of Energy at headquarters and the field offices is a 
circumstance which had not been fully recognized by the 
Committee. The Committee understands that services such as 
janitorial services, mail room operations, and grounds 
maintenance are activities which often are more cost-effective 
when performed by the private sector. A cost-benefit analysis 
will support contracting out these activities. However, other 
support services contracts comprise a ``shadow government'' 
which performs functions traditionally performed by federal 
employees--administrative and clerical support, preparation of 
budgets, performance of compliance reviews of contractor 
activities, and extensive preparation of analyses used by 
decision-makers. Current estimates indicate over 6,000 support 
service contractors are employed by the Department. Federal 
employees have adopted roles as contract managers rather than 
program managers, and the hazards of this arrangement are 
becoming very clear. Program managers do not appear to be fully 
cognizant of issues under their purview. There is no 
``corporate view'' of Departmental issues which have broad 
ranging ramifications for other program areas. There is a 
proliferation of computer and information systems which are not 
compatible throughout the agency. And there often appears to be 
little regard for recommending ways to reduce program costs and 
save taxpayers' money.
    Funding for support service contracts has been 
significantly reduced in the Committee's recommendations. The 
Department is directed to submit quarterly reports on the use 
of all support services contracts at headquarters and in the 
field. This report should include the name of the contractor, 
annual funding for fiscal year 1996, number of employees, and a 
brief description of the work performed. The Committee expects 
to see funding for support services contracts drop during 
fiscal year 1996 by 50% from the fiscal year 1995 levels with 
the goal of eliminating by the following year all support 
service contracts which cannot be justified on the basis of a 
cost-benefit analysis or as a short-term requirement for 
expertise in a technical specialty area.

               OPERATING AND CAPITAL FUNDING REQUIREMENTS

    Discussions initiated by the report of the Galvin Task 
Force reviewing Department of Energy laboratory operations have 
highlighted instances where the current budget structure and 
Congressional funding limitations may result in excessive 
administrative and procedural oversight. This micromanagement 
leads to increased costs and diminished productivity in the 
operation of the Department's laboratories and facilities. The 
Committee proposes to merge capital equipment, general plant 
projects, and most accelerator improvements project funding 
with the operating funding to expedite the allocation of 
resources for operations and infrastructure activities and to 
ensure the operation of the Department's laboratories and 
facilities in the most efficient and cost-effective manner.
    Construction activity that exceeds the general plant 
project threshold of $2,000,000 will continue to require 
specific authorization and appropriation by Congress. Any 
construction activity that does not exceed the $2,000,000 
threshold will be included in the operation and maintenance 
account.
    In implementing this change, the Committee directs the 
Department to continue to reflect the capital equipment, 
general plant projects, and accelerator improvement projects in 
the financial and accounting reports. The Committee does not 
seek to control these expenditures, but to be informed if there 
are major differences between the funding requested for capital 
items in the fiscal year 1996 budget request and the actual 
execution of the programs under these new guidelines. Also, 
specific details for planned capital equipment and general 
plant projects will continue to be reported in the annual 
budget justifications. Appropriate headquarters oversight will 
be necessary from a corporate facility viewpoint to ensure the 
proper allocation of resources for ongoing operations versus 
investments in assets. However, the Committee expects the 
facility managers to have sufficient flexibility to allocate 
resources in the most cost-effective and efficient manner.

  REPORTING REQUIREMENT FOR THE TOTAL PROJECT COSTS FOR CONSTRUCTION 
                               ACTIVITIES

    The cost of construction projects for the Department of 
Energy includes activities funded from operating as well as 
construction accounts. In addition to the preparation of the 
conceptual design report, project-related costs funded from 
operating expenses include items such as research and 
development, preparation of design criteria, safety analyses, 
and environmental documentation. As a result, the Department 
may conduct activities related to construction projects prior 
to the authorization of the specific project by Congress.
    To ensure that all project-related activities funded by 
operating expenses are identified and reviewed by Congress, the 
Department is directed to identify in the annual budget 
justifications: (1) funding by project for all conceptual 
design reports where the cost of preparation will exceed 
$3,000,000, and (2) funding by project for all project-related 
activities which will exceed $3,000,000 on proposed 
construction projects which have a completed conceptual design 
report but for which specific construction project 
authorization has neither been requested nor provided by 
Congress.

                   DEPARTMENTAL BUDGET JUSTIFICATIONS

    The quality of the Department's budget justifications has 
declined--the number of pages has increased while actual budget 
information has decreased. Much information must be gleaned 
through additional program briefings and questions for the 
record. This additional work could be reduced by devoting more 
attention to the information provided in the initial budget 
submission.
    Program budget justifications consistently fail to place 
activities in the context of how they help achieve major 
program goals and objectives, and how they are related to other 
Departmental program objectives and activities. Each Assistant 
Secretary and program director is responsible for preparation 
of the budget documents submitted to Congress. Attention should 
be given to making the best possible case for programs in the 
initial budget submission rather than waiting until preparation 
of testimony for Congressional budget hearings is required 
before trying to articulate a cohesive program strategy.
    The Committee staff will be working with the Department's 
budget office and individual program offices to reduce the 
volume and improve the quality of the budget justifications for 
the next fiscal year and to explore means for possible 
electronic transmission of some information.

           Energy Supply, Research and Development Activities
Appropriation, 1995.....................................  $3,314,548,000
Budget Estimate, 1996...................................   3,396,535,000
Recommended, 1996.......................................   2,596,700,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 1995.................................    -717,848,000
    Budget Estimate, 1996...............................    -799,835,000

    The appropriations recommended for Energy Supply, Research 
and Development activities provide for the Department of 
Energy's solar and renewable energy programs; environment, 
safety and health; nuclear energy programs; energy research 
programs including fusion, biological and environmental 
research, and basic energy sciences; and environmental 
restoration programs.
    The Committee recommendation for fiscal year 1996 supports 
to the extent possible the role of Federal participation in 
basic research and development programs in energy supply 
activities. Due to budget constraints, significant reductions 
in certain of the Department's programs were necessary. To 
provide more flexibility in program execution in a time of 
declining budgetary resources, the recommended funding levels 
have merged operating, capital equipment and general plant 
project funding. Funding for programs which have accelerator 
improvement projects which are less than $2,000,000 has also 
been merged to provide flexibility.
                       SOLAR AND RENEWABLE ENERGY

    The Committee recommendation for solar and renewable energy 
is $221,622,000, a decrease of $201,775,000 from the budget 
request of $423,397,000.
    Solar Energy.--Funding for fiscal year 1996 is $149,184,000 
which reflects the redirection of budget priorities for energy 
research and development programs from commercial applications 
to basic research. Accordingly, funds are not provided for the 
international solar energy program, the solar technology 
transfer program, the solar buildings technology research 
program, and solar program support.
    Geothermal.--The Committee recommendation is $25,729,000, a 
decrease of $11,243,000 from the budget request of $36,972,000. 
Funding has not been included to maintain the Energy Technology 
Engineering Center in this program.
    Included within available funds is $2,000,000, the same as 
the budget request, for the final Department of Energy 
contribution to the approximately $40,000,000 cost-shared 
project to inject treated wastewater effluent from Lake County, 
California, into the geothermal heat reservoir at the Geysers 
field in California.
    Within available funds, the Committee provides $400,000 to 
study the feasibility of piping treated effluent from Santa 
Rosa to the Geysers for injection, and supports the 
Department's budget request to proceed with the Geysers decline 
mitigation study.
    The Committee is aware of the promising conservation 
attributes of geothermal heat pump technology and the 
Department's efforts to advance this emerging technology 
through cooperative efforts with electric utilities. The 
Committee has again included $5,000,000 for the Department to 
carry out a geothermal heat pump market mobilization and 
technology demonstration program. This funding will be 
supplemented by the private sector's cost-sharing contribution 
to the program.
    Hydrogen research.--The Committee has increased funding for 
hydrogen research to $15,000,000, an increase of $7,666,000 
over the budget request of $7,334,000. Authorization for this 
program has passed the House and is awaiting action in the 
Senate.
    Hydropower.--Due to severe budget constraints, no funds are 
provided for this program.
    Electric energy systems and storage.--The Committee 
recommendation for electric energy systems and storage is 
$28,909,000. Funding constraints did not permit continuing the 
reliability research program and the energy storage systems 
program.
    The Committee recommendation includes the Administration's 
budget request of $9,924,000 for the electric and magnetic 
fields research program.
    The Committee supports the budget request for the 
Superconductivity Partnership Initiative. The Committee is 
pleased that the Department is heeding last year's directive 
regarding the Superconductivity Partnership Initiative (SPI) by 
expediting coordination among industry consortia and academic 
research and development programs. This government-industry-
university collaboration brings scientific accountability to 
SPI and should hasten significant accomplishments in material 
characterization and high-temperature superconducting wire 
development. The Committee expects this collaboration to 
continue as a core feature of SPI and directs the Department to 
provide adequate program support.
    Biofuels.--Within available funds, the Committee has 
provided $3,000,000 as the Federal contribution to an ethanol 
production plant begun by the City of Gridley, California, with 
Department of Energy assistance in fiscal year 1995. Primarily 
using rice straw, this plant will establish on a commercial 
scale the technologies and processes required for cost-
effective conversion of biomass into ethanol fuel.
    The Committee has sought to restore somewhat the cuts 
recommended in the solar and renewable energy accounts by the 
authorizing committee to allow for a more orderly transition 
from current levels of spending in these programs to their new 
levels focused more exclusively on research. In view of the 
United States' use of 70 percent of its energy in the form of 
liquid fuels for transportation, much of it imported, the 
Committee wishes to note that it supports the levels 
recommended for biomass conversion by the authorizing 
Committee. The Committee has, therefore, added additional funds 
to the biofuels energy systems account to mitigate somewhat for 
abrupt losses that will occur to the biomass electric 
activities.
    Policy and management.--The Committee recommendation for 
this account reflects the reductions in the solar and renewable 
energy programs.

                        NUCLEAR ENERGY PROGRAMS

    The Committee recommendation is $255,698,000, a decrease of 
$127,119,000 from the budget request of $382,817,000.
    The recommendation includes $40,000,000 for the design 
certification and standardization activities for the advanced 
light water reactor program.
    The Committee recommendation provides $20,000,000 to 
support continuation of the gas turbine-modular helium reactor 
program. This is an increase of $12,750,000 over the budget 
request of $7,250,000 which had been proposed for termination 
of this program. The termination cost account has been reduced 
to reflect this shifting of funds.
    Due to budget constraints, the Committee's recommendation 
does not include any funding to investigate new missions for 
the nuclear energy research and development program at the 
Argonne National Laboratory. Funding of $18,000,000 is included 
in the nuclear technology research and development program to 
evaluate the use of electrometallurgical technology to treat 
spent fuel, contingent upon a favorable conclusion from the 
current National Academy of Science study.
    The Committee's recommendation does not include funding for 
two new initiatives. The budget request of $78,764,000 for the 
Soviet-Designed Reactor Safety program has not been included. 
This program has previously been funded by the Agency for 
International Development (AID), and AID should continue 
funding responsibility for this program if additional 
activities are required in fiscal year 1996. Also, the 
recommendation does not include funding of $5,000,000 requested 
for the Russian Replacement Power Initiative program.
    Due to the downsizing of the nuclear energy program, the 
Committee's recommendation for program direction and policy and 
management is adjusted accordingly.
    Isotope Support.--The Committee recommendation is 
$24,658,000, a reduction of $700,000 from the budget request of 
$25,358,000.
    Within available funds, $1,000,000 is provided to continue 
conceptual investigation of a National Biomedical Tracer 
Facility (NBTF). This is in addition to $3,000,000 of funding 
provided in fiscal year 1995. These funds are to be used for 
conceptual design and site specific design work on the NBTF 
that meets the criteria cited in the Institute of Medicine 
Panel's report on Isotopes for Medicine. The Committee expects 
to be kept informed of the progress being made on this 
activity.
    In order to consolidate related isotope production 
activities, $1,400,000 for the Test Reactor Area Hot Cells has 
been transferred from nuclear energy research and development 
to the isotope support program and included within available 
funds.
    The Committee is concerned about the level of 
administrative oversight supporting the Isotopes Support 
program. Accordingly, the Committee recommendation includes 
$1,000,000 for program direction, a reduction of $700,000 from 
the budget request of $1,700,000.
    Termination Costs.--The National Academy of Sciences' 
Committee on ``Electrometallurgical Techniques for DOE Spent 
Fuel Treatment'' concluded that electrometallurgical techniques 
being developed at the Argonne National Laboratory could 
represent a sufficiently promising technology for treating a 
variety of DOE spent fuels and warrant continued research and 
development. In order to preserve the unique capabilities of 
the assets at Argonne-West, activities related to bringing EBR-
II to a safe and stable configuration may proceed, but such 
activities must leave the Argonne-West facilities, including 
EBR-II, capable of later utilization.
    General Reduction.--Due to severe budget constraints, the 
Committee has included a general reduction of $8,000,000 to be 
applied equally among all program activities.

                CIVILIAN WASTE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

    Due to severe budget constraints, the Committee has not 
provided the requested funding of $699,000 for this program in 
fiscal year 1996.

                     ENVIRONMENT, SAFETY AND HEALTH

    The Committee recommendation of $128,433,000 is $38,326,000 
less than the budget request of $166,759,000. Much criticism 
has been heard regarding excessive compliance reviews and 
audits of field facilities and laboratories. With the reduction 
in funding resources, the Committee expects the Department to 
make every effort to coordinate reviews and eliminate excessive 
oversight by headquarters and field organizations, and to 
reduce the use of support service contract employees to perform 
federal functions.

                        Energy Research Programs

                 BIOLOGICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH

    The Committee recommendation of $379,645,000 is $52,019,000 
less than the budget request of $431,664,000.
    The Committee recognizes that there exists a critical need 
to develop the appropriate and effective technology to support 
the Department's environmental remediation activities. The 
Department is encouraged to use the expertise and scientific 
achievements of the Energy Research programs and the national 
laboratories to address the environmental cleanup technology 
issues.
    Within available funding, the Committee supports the 
National Institute for Global Environmental Change.
    The Committee encourages the Department to support research 
in the development and shared use of high MR instruments for 
the study of brain function in centers where these research 
efforts can lead to improved diagnosis and treatment of the 
mentally ill.
    The Committee is pleased to note the progress that has been 
made with the Centers of Excellence for Laser Medical 
Applications. It is apparent that the competitive edge has been 
maintained, the U.S. citizens are benefiting from this cost-
effective technology. Therefore, the Committee recommends that 
funding for the work of these Centers remain at the current 
level of $1,500,000.
    Due to budget constraints, the Committee recommendation 
includes $40,000,000 for the Environmental Molecular Sciences 
Laboratory which is the same as fiscal year 1995, and 
$10,000,000 less than the budget request.

                             FUSION PROGRAM

    The Committee recommendation for the fusion program is 
$229,144,000, a decrease of $136,901,000 from the budget 
request of $366,045,000.
    Given the mandate to reduce the budget deficit, the 
Committee is not able to provide funding to support the 
direction of the fusion energy program as requested by the 
Department. It will be necessary for the Department to develop 
a revised program strategy for fusion energy at a much reduced 
funding level. Budget realities dictate that future funding 
will not be available to pursue the course envisioned by the 
Department's budget request which included funding both the 
International Thermal Experimental Reactor and the Tokamak 
Physics Experiment project.
    The fusion program is currently being reviewed by the 
President's Council on Science and Technology, but results of 
this review are not yet available. With the funding provided in 
fiscal year 1996, the Committee expects the Department to 
propose a fusion program which supports advancement of key 
research areas and exploration of alternatives at a much 
smaller scale in laboratories and universities. This plan 
should be developed in consultation with the fusion community 
and Congress, but with the understanding that future funding 
levels are unlikely to increase and could well decrease below 
the fiscal year 1996 recommendation. The Department should also 
to the extent possible make effective use of the investment in 
existing facilities.

                         BASIC ENERGY SCIENCES

    The Committee recommendation for Basic Energy Sciences is 
$792,661,000, a decrease of $18,758,000 from the budget request 
of $811,419,000.
    The Committee acknowledges the important and essential 
contributions of the Department in the Nation's basic science 
and research programs. The collaboration between the national 
labs and the university community has provided the foundation 
for scientific breakthroughs and achievements in energy-related 
research. To continue this progress, the Committee 
recommendation strongly supports the budget request to enhance 
the utilization of the Department's fundamental science and 
user facilities.
    The Committee recommendation includes $7,000,000 to 
continue the Department's Experimental Program to Stimulate 
Competitive Research (EPSCoR) program at the fiscal year 1995 
level.
    Within available funds, $1,000,000 is provided to fund 
peer-reviewed research on the potential energy applications of 
sonoluminescence. Sonoluminescence is an effect in which highly 
concentrated sound waves in liquids generate very short bursts 
of light from bubbles in the liquid. Calculations have 
suggested the possibility of its use in inertial fusion 
applications.
    The Midwest Superconductivity Consortium is continued at 
the fiscal year 1995 funding level of $3,200,000.
    The Committee has included the budget request of $8,000,000 
for research and design and conceptual design activities for a 
spallation neutron source. The preferred alternative site for 
the spallation source is the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in 
Tennessee to maximize the use of the expertise already 
developed through preparation of the advanced neutron source 
design and to take advantage of the laboratory's experience in 
operating particle accelerators and conducting neutron 
scattering research.

                     other energy research programs

    Other energy research programs such as energy research 
analyses, laboratory technology transfer, advisory and 
oversight, multiprogram energy laboratory support, and policy 
and management are funded in this section. The Committee 
recommendation for Other Energy Research programs is 
$45,256,000, a decrease of $79,979,000 from the budget request 
of $125,235,000.
    No funding has been provided for the Laboratory Technology 
Transfer program. Technology transfer activities in energy 
research should be funded only to the extent that they directly 
support ongoing energy research programs and can compete for 
direct program funding.
    The Committee recommendation for the Advisory and Oversight 
program is reduced as a result of redundant environmental, 
safety and health departmental oversight and the termination of 
the laboratory technology transfer activities.
    The Committee supports the budget request for the 
construction projects in the Multiprogram Energy Laboratories 
program. The capital equipment and general plant projects 
accounts are merged with the Energy Research program that is 
supported by the specific capital items.

                       ENERGY SUPPORT ACTIVITIES

    The Committee recommendation for Energy Support Activities 
is $12,000,000, a decrease of $92,810,000 from the budget 
request of $104,810,000.
    Due to severe budget constraints, the Committee 
recommendations does not include funding for the University and 
Science Education programs. It is recognized that certain 
educational activities, such as graduate fellowships and intern 
programs, are a direct byproduct of the line programs and are, 
therefore, included in the budget request of those programs. 
Those educational activities that are an integral part of 
program activities should be continued within existing program 
funds.
    The Committee recommendation for the Technical Information 
Management program is $12,000,000, a reduction of $5,450,000 
from the budget request of $17,450,000 due to severe budget 
constraints.
    Due to the significant reduction in funding for technology 
transfer activities throughout the Department, the Committee 
recommendation does not include funds for a separate Technology 
Partnership organization.
    The In-house Energy Management program has been in 
existence over twenty years. The Committee recognizes the 
success of the Department's efforts to incorporate energy 
efficiency provisions into the operations of its facilities. 
After twenty years, it appears that energy efficiency is an 
integral part of the operating philosophy of the Department's 
facilities; therefore, the Committee does not see the need for 
a separate funding source for these alternatives.

             ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION AND WASTE MANAGEMENT

                             (NON-DEFENSE)

    The Committee recommendation of $626,541,000 is a decrease 
of $86,449,000 from the budget request of $712,990,000.
    The Committee recommendation includes $15,998,000 to 
continue the Maywood, New Jersey project, and $6,080,000 for 
the Wayne, New Jersey project, as contained in the budget 
request for the Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action 
Program.
    From within available funds, the Committee recommendation 
is to continue the support of the University Research Program 
in robotics at $3,500,000.
    Due to the relationship between corrective activities and 
waste management, the operating expenses for corrective 
activities have been combined with waste management. In 
addition, beginning in fiscal year 1997 all new corrective 
activities construction projects should be included in the 
waste management program.

                          FUNDING ADJUSTMENTS

    The Department proposed to use $79,300,000 of prior year 
balances to offset current year funding requirements and 
$50,000,000 to be achieved by implementing savings recommended 
by the Galvin Task Force. The Committee recommendation includes 
the use of prior year balances, but not the undistributed 
general reduction. Specific program reductions have been taken 
which will reflect savings from implementing recommendations of 
the Galvin Task Force.

                         RECOMMENDATION SUMMARY

    Details of the Committee's recommendations are included in 
the table at the end of this title.
                Uranium Supply and Enrichment Activities
Gross Appropriation:
    Appropriation, 1995.................................     $63,310,000
    Budget Estimate, 1996...............................      42,292,000
    Recommended, 1996...................................      29,294,000
    Comparison:
        Appropriation, 1995.............................     -34,016,000
        Budget Estimate, 1996...........................     -12,998,000
Revenues:
    Appropriation, 1995.................................      -9,900,000
    Budget Estimate, 1996...............................     -34,903,000
    Recommended, 1996...................................     -34,903,000
    Comparison:
        Appropriation, 1995.............................     -25,003,000
        Budget Estimate, 1996...........................................

    The Uranium Supply and Enrichment Activities program funds 
the Department's efforts in overseeing the government's 
continuing interest in the operation of the gaseous diffusion 
plants managed by the United States Enrichment Corporation 
(USEC); developing means for using or disposing of depleted 
uranium; monitoring Russian uranium processing facilities to 
ensure that low enriched uranium being purchased by USEC is 
derived from Russian highly enriched uranium removed from 
dismantled nuclear weapons; transferring enrichment-related 
technologies to the private sector; and leading the 
Department's uranium revitalization efforts.
    The budget request for fiscal year 1996 includes 
$102,898,000 for operation, maintenance, and construction 
activities, and is offset by the receipt of $34,903,000 in 
revenues and the use of $25,703,000 from unobligated balances 
carried over from prior years' funding, resulting in a net 
budget request of $42,292,000. Due to severe budget 
constraints, the Committee recommends a reduction of 
$12,998,000 from the budget request. This includes a fifteen 
percent reduction for program direction expenses, with the 
remainder to be taken to the extent possible against funds 
requested for support service contracts and technology 
partnerships. Efforts to correct deficiencies and maintain the 
depleted uranium hexafluoride containers should be continued.

                        summary recommendations

    Details of the Committee's recommendations are included in 
the table at the end of this title.

      Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund
Appropriation, 1995.....................................    $301,327,000
Budget Estimate, 1996...................................     288,807,000
Recommended, 1996.......................................     278,807,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 1995.................................     -22,520,000
    Budget Estimate, 1996...............................     -10,000,000

    The Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning 
(D&D;) Fund supports D&D;, remedial actions, waste management, 
and surveillance and maintenance associated with preexisting 
conditions at sites leased and operated by the USEC, as well as 
Department of Energy facilities at these and other uranium 
enrichment sites. The sites covered by this D&D; Fund include 
the operating uranium enrichment facilities at Portsmouth, 
Ohio, and Paducah, Kentucky, and the inactive K-25 site in 
Tennessee, formerly called the Oak Ridge Gaseous Diffusion 
Plant. Environmental restoration efforts at these three sites 
are supported from the D&D; Fund established by a tax on 
domestic utilities and by Congressional appropriations.
    Due to severe budget constraints, the Committee recommends 
a reduction of $10,000,000 from the budget request of 
$288,807,000. However, the recommendation includes full funding 
of $42,000,000 to implement the reimbursement for disposal of 
mill tailings in accordance with title X, subtitle A, of the 
Energy Policy Act of 1992.
    The Administration proposed legislation to collect fees 
from foreign utilities similar to the decontamination and 
decommissioning fund assessment that is being collected from 
domestic utilities. This proposed language has not been 
included by the Committee.

                General Science and Research Activities
Appropriation, 1995.....................................    $984,031,000
Budget Estimate, 1996...................................   1,017,530,000
Recommended, 1996.......................................     991,000,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 1995.................................      +6,969,000
    Budget Estimate, 1996...............................     -26,530,000

    The General Science and Research Activities programs are 
concerned with understanding the nature of matter and energy 
and the fundamental forces and particles of nature. The 
knowledge acquired in this basic research is an essential part 
of the intellectual foundation of other scientific disciplines 
and technical permits. Deeper understanding correspondingly 
contributes to all of the scientific disciplines and to our 
Nation's technological base. The General Science and Research 
Activities programs are organized into two interrelated 
scientific programs, high energy physics and nuclear physics. 
While these programs are not directly associated with energy 
technology in the near- or mid-term, they support basic 
research whose aim is to provide new knowledge which is 
expected to have long-term scientific and technological impacts 
on energy development and utilization and on other aspects of 
our society.
    The Committee's funding recommendation for General Science 
and Research Activities reflects the continued role of the 
federal government in fundamental scientific research where 
research is not market-driven and is difficult for the private 
sector to conduct. The Committee strongly supports the budget 
request for the Scientific Facilities Utilization Initiative to 
enhance and increase the use of fundamental science and user 
facilities, but due to severe funding constraints, has found it 
necessary to reduce the overall budget request. It is the 
Committee's hope that Congressional actions such as merging 
operating and capital funding along with a lessening of 
departmental internal regulations and oversight reviews will 
compensate in part for this reduction.
    As described in the introductory section of this report, 
operating and capital funding requests have been merged to 
permit more effective operation of the research facilities and 
laboratories. The Committee recommendation reflects 
redistribution of the capital equipment, general plant 
projects, and accelerator improvements projects funding to the 
appropriate program accounts.
    Due to budget constraints, the Committee recommendation for 
high energy physics is $677,000,000, a reduction of $8,552,000 
from the budget request of $685,552,000. The recommendation for 
nuclear energy physics is $304,500,000, a reduction of 
$16,578,000 from the budget request of $321,078,000. Funding 
for program direction has been reduced to $9,500,000 from the 
request of $10,900,000.
    Departmental changes in internal regulations and a 
reduction in the level of oversight and compliance audits 
should permit laboratories and facilities to reduce the number 
of personnel and resources needed to respond to requests from 
external oversight organizations. The Committee expects a good 
faith effort on the part of facility managers in doing their 
share to reduce administrative overhead and unnecessary costs 
as funding for the program activities will continue to be 
constrained.

                        summary recommendations

    Details of the Committee's recommendations are included in 
the table at the end of this title.

                      Nuclear Waste Disposal Fund
Appropriation, 1995.....................................    $392,800,000
Budget Estimate, 1996...................................................
Recommended, 1996.......................................     226,600,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 1995.................................    -166,200,000
    Budget Estimate, 1996...............................    +226,600,000

    The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1992 and the Nuclear Waste 
Policy Act Amendments of 1987 authorize a waste management 
system for the disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level 
radioactive waste from commercial and atomic energy defense 
activities. These laws establish the Nuclear Waste Disposal 
Fund to finance disposal activities through the collection of 
fees from the owners and generators of nuclear waste. The 
Committee recommends $226,600,000 to be derived from the Fund 
in fiscal year 1996. Combined with the appropriation to the 
Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal account, a total of $425,000,000 
will be available for program activities in fiscal year 1996.
    The Committee notes with disappointment and frustration 
that the President's request is wholly inadequate to support 
the waste disposal program developed by the Office of Civilian 
Radioactive Waste Management. The Committee further notes that 
the Administration's assumption that Congress would immediately 
enact legislation providing for a mandatory Nuclear Waste Fund 
appropriation, financed by receipts from the sale of the 
federal government's uranium enrichment enterprise, was 
fundamentally unrealistic.
    The Committee is convinced that if the Administration were 
serious about solving our Nation's spent fuel problem, and if 
it were committed to the civilian waste disposal program of the 
Department of Energy, then it would have requested sufficient 
discretionary budgetary authority to pursue that program. This 
should not have been difficult, given the budget's inattention 
to the imperative of deficit reduction.
    The Department, however, has apparently determined that the 
problem of nuclear waste disposal is of insufficient 
consequence to successfully compete for funding with other 
discretionary programs within the Department's jurisdiction. 
The Committee, on the other hand, recognizes the urgency of the 
problem and has discharged its responsibility to prioritize 
among competing programs. Unlike the Department, the Committee 
has been willing to make the difficult choices necessary to 
preserve the civilian radioactive waste program.
    The Committee, constrained to spend less to achieve a 
balanced budget, acknowledges that the funding provided for the 
waste program is insufficient to aggressively pursue site 
characterization activities at Yucca Mountain. Moreover, the 
Committee recognizes that it will be unable to provide 
resources to match the project's ambitious funding profile for 
the coming years. Consequently, the Department is directed to 
downgrade, suspend or terminate its activities at Yucca 
Mountain. The Department is further directed to concentrate 
available resources on the development and implementation of a 
national interim storage program. The Department should 
anticipate enactment of expanded authority to accept waste for 
interim storage and should refocus the civilian radioactive 
waste program accordingly. Funds provided herein are available 
to pursue those activities currently authorized by law (or 
authorized by Congress during the present session) that are 
consistent with a national interim storage program.
    Consistent with the program redirection compelled by this 
appropriation, and pending the enactment of new authorizing 
legislation respecting the civilian radioactive waste program, 
no funds are included for the State of Nevada or units of local 
government affected by activities associated with the 
characterization of a permanent repository site. Subject to 
authorization, however, funds made available by this 
appropriation may be used by the Department to provide grants 
to units of state and local government affected by site 
characterization or interim storage activities. The use of such 
funds would be restricted to purposes authorized by law and 
subject to the conditions enumerated in prior Energy and Water 
Development Appropriations Acts.

                    Atomic Energy Defense Activities

    The Atomic Energy Defense Activities programs of the 
Department of Energy are divided into four separate 
appropriation accounts: Weapons Activities; Defense 
Environmental Restoration and Waste Management; Other Defense 
Programs; and Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal. Descriptions of 
each of these accounts are provided below.
                           Weapons Activities
Appropriation, 1995.....................................  $3,229,069,000
Budget Estimate, 1996...................................   3,540,175,000
Recommended, 1996.......................................   3,273,014,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 1995.................................     +43,945,000
    Budget Estimate, 1996...............................    -267,161,000

    This program supports the Nation's national security 
mission of nuclear deterrence by preserving nuclear weapons 
technology and competence in the laboratories and maintaining 
the reliability and safety of the weapons in the enduring 
nuclear stockpile. The United States continues to retain 
strategic nuclear forces sufficient to deter future hostile 
countries from seeking a nuclear advantage. In the past, 
confidence in the nuclear weapons stockpile was assured through 
a combination of underground nuclear testing and laboratory 
testing. Since October 1992, the U.S. has maintained a 
moratorium on underground nuclear testing and has explored 
other means to assure confidence in the safety, reliability and 
performance of nuclear weapons.
    The Department's nuclear weapons program has two 
complementary elements--stockpile stewardship and stockpile 
management. Without the option of underground tests and with no 
new design or production requirements planned in the 
foreseeable future, confidence in safety and performance must 
be based on confidence in the engineering skills and scientific 
judgments exercised at the national laboratories and production 
facilities.
    The Committee's recommendation for Weapons Activities is 
$3,273,014,000 which is an increase of $43,945,000 over the 
fiscal year 1995 appropriation, and a decrease of $267,161,000 
from the budget request of $3,540,175,000. Details of the 
recommended funding levels follow.

                         stockpile stewardship

    The Committee recommendation for stockpile stewardship 
reflects the merger of operating, capital equipment and general 
plant project funding to provide increased program flexibility 
as described in the introductory section of Title III of this 
report.
    Core Stockpile Stewardship.--The Committee recommendation 
provides an additional $10,000,000 for operation of the Los 
Alamos Neutron Scattering Facility, for total funding of 
$35,000,000. Funding has not been included for Project 96-D-
105, the contained firing facility addition at the Lawrence 
Livermore National Laboratory.
    Inertial Confinement Fusion.--The Committee is pleased to 
recognize the achievements of the Naval Research Laboratory 
which has recently completed the Nike laser, and the University 
of Rochester which has completed the OMEGA laser. The Committee 
has consistently supported these facilities and expects both to 
contribute to the research and technology development efforts 
in the inertial confinement fusion program.
    Funding for construction of the National Ignition Facility 
has been deferred without prejudice by the Committee. The 
Committee supports a strong stockpile stewardship program in 
the absence of underground nuclear testing, but is concerned 
that it will be difficult to assure funds are available in the 
future to support this project as well as other critical needs 
in the weapons program.
    While not agreeing to the start of capital construction, 
the Committee has provided $33,600,000, an increase of 
$10,000,000 over the budget request, to continue preliminary 
design activities associated with the National Ignition 
Facility. This will permit the Department to move beyond the 
conceptual stage of the facility design and begin some 
construction design of the conventional facilities and the 
laser and target special equipment.
    Technology Transfer and Education.--The Committee 
recommendation provides $25,000,000, a reduction of 
$224,405,000 from the budget request of $249,405,000 for 
technology transfer and education programs. Technology transfer 
and education activities should be funded only to the extent 
that they directly support weapons program activities and can 
compete for direct program funding.
    Marshall Islands.--Funding of $6,800,000 is provided for 
the Marshall Islands, the same as the budget request.

                          stockpile management

    The Committee recommendation for stockpile management 
reflects the merger of operating, capital equipment, and 
general plant project funding.
    The Committee is concerned with the Department's lack of 
initiative in appointing a permanent replacement to head the 
Nevada Operations Office in Las Vegas, Nevada, and urges the 
Department to appoint a qualified replacement as soon as 
possible.
    Funding of $50,000,000 as requested in the budget is 
provided to initiate a project to provide a new tritium source. 
The Committee expects the Department to conduct a fair and 
impartial assessment of all possible alternatives for providing 
tritium including various types of reactors and the accelerator 
concept. The Committee is concerned that not all possible 
options have been given reasonable consideration. Establishing 
an assured supply of tritium for national security needs is the 
critical objective of this program. The Committee expects the 
Department to assure that consideration of additional missions 
for the new tritium source will not in any way jeopardize the 
schedule for providing tritium in the necessary timeframe.
    The Committee has included the total cost of $12,200,000 
for Project-D-126, tritium loading line modifications at the 
Savannah River Site in South Carolina. This project, which was 
identified after the budget was submitted to Congress, will 
provide the capability to load a new tritium reservoir for 
existing weapons systems. No funding has been provided for 
Project-D-125, Washington measurement operations facility at 
Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland.

                           program direction

    Program direction funding has been reduced to $118,000,000 
to reflect the transfer of $20,085,000 for emergency management 
activities to the Other Defense Activities appropriation 
account.

                          funding adjustments

    The Department's budget request includes a reduction of 
$25,000,000 to reflect savings from streamlining contractor 
operations. The Committee directs that these savings be 
achieved through the following actions: reducing the number of 
federal employees at headquarters and the field offices in 
areas such as environment, safety and health, and safeguards 
and security, where there is already a separate headquarters 
organization providing overall Departmental guidance to 
contractors; reducing the number of support service contracts; 
reducing the number of employees at field, site and area 
offices funded in the weapons activity account; and reducing 
laboratory employment which has grown exponentially to 
accommodate the requirements of internal Departmental orders 
and regulations and subsequent increased oversight and 
compliance reviews.
    The Committee recommends the use of $86,344,000 in 
unobligated balances as identified in the budget request.
                        recommendation summaries

    Details of the Committee's recommendations are included in 
the table at the end of this title.

         Defense Environmental Restoration and Waste Management
Appropriation, 1995.....................................  $4,892,691,000
Budget Estimate, 1996...................................   6,008,002,000
Recommended, 1996.......................................   5,265,478,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 1995.................................    +372,787,000
    Budget Estimate, 1996...............................    -742,524,000

    The Department's 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. The 
number of sites and facilities continues to grow as the 
Department shifts its focus from production efforts to 
environmental management activities. Environmental management 
is budgeted under three appropriation accounts: Defense 
Environmental Restoration and Waste Management; Energy Supply, 
Research and Development; and the Uranium Enrichment 
Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund.
    The Defense Environmental Restoration and Waste Management 
account includes waste management functions, environmental 
restoration activities, technology development efforts, nuclear 
materials and facilities stabilization functions, and a variety 
of crosscutting and program support initiatives. The 
recommended funding for Defense Environmental Restoration and 
Waste Management is $5,265,478,000, a reduction of $742,524,000 
from the budget request of $6,008,002,000, and $372,787,000 
over fiscal year 1995. The Committee has sought to the extent 
possible to protect funding necessary to meet the cleanup 
milestones established in compliance agreements with other 
federal agencies, states and local agencies by directing cuts 
against support service contracts, excessive headquarters and 
field oversight, large uncosted balances, and by reducing the 
number of new construction project starts proposed for fiscal 
year 1996. Funding reductions are consistent with the 
recommendations of the House National Security Committee.
    Fiscal year 1996 is the first year of what can be expected 
to be severely constrained annual funding. To provide 
additional flexibility in managing program reductions, the 
Committee has merged funding for operating, capital equipment, 
and general plant projects, and has consolidated several new 
construction projects.
    As noted in the introduction to Title III of this report, 
the Committee is directing a reduction in the number of support 
service contracts at the Department. Extensive use of support 
service contracts by the environmental management program can 
no longer be justified. Current estimates indicate there are 
1,200 support service contractor employees, far exceeding the 
800 federal employees in the program at headquarters. In 
essence, there are over 2,000 employees in environmental 
management at headquarters alone. Estimates of support service 
contract employees in the field also reflect increased reliance 
on contractual services for activities which have traditionally 
been performed by federal employees.
    The Galvin Task Force had many recommendations for reducing 
costs and increasing program effectiveness. Reducing the number 
of support service contracts, eliminating duplicative and 
overlapping organizational arrangements, and reducing employees 
performing functions such as safeguards and security, and 
environment, safety and health, which have separate 
headquarters organizations to provide guidance to contractors, 
should go a long way toward increasing productivity in the 
environmental management program.
    An additional concern of the Committee is the excessive 
funding being allocated for site advisory groups and other 
state and local advisory groups to perform oversight 
activities. A recent reprogramming request to provide over 
$4,000,000 for advisory and planning groups at Hanford in 
fiscal year 1995 was rejected by the Committee which expects 
these costs to be held to a minimum.
                       environmental restoration

     No funding reductions have been identified for this 
program, but the Committee expects the program in fiscal year 
1996 to reduce by at least fifty percent the funds spent in 
fiscal year 1995 for support service contracts at headquarters 
and in the field, reduce the number of federal employees 
performing oversight reviews at multiple levels, and implement 
recommendations of the Galvin Task Force to reduce costs and 
work more effectively. These savings are to be used to 
accelerate cleanup activities.
    The Committee is aware that options for accelerating the 
cleanup schedule of the Fernald site in Ohio are under review 
by the Department. If adopted, most remedial activities could 
be accomplished in seven years rather than the current proposal 
of nearly 20 years, and total costs could be reduced by more 
than $2 billion. Achieving this schedule and reducing costs 
assumes the use of standard, commercial nuclear practices, and 
the waiver of certain Departmental orders and other 
requirements. The Committee supports this proposal to reduce 
costs and accelerate cleanup activities and expects the 
Department to make every effort to increase funding for this 
project.

                            waste management

     The waste management program seeks to protect the public 
and workers by seeking to minimize, treat, store and dispose of 
radioactive and hazardous waste. The Committee recommendation 
of $2,351,596,000 is a reduction of $150,000,000 from the 
budget request of $2,501,596,000. This reduction should be 
taken to the extent possible against support service contracts 
and duplicative headquarters oversight functions.
     In addition to merging operating, capital, and general 
plant project funding to provide additional program 
flexibility, the Committee recommendation consolidates five 
separate construction project requests into two consolidated 
projects, Project 96-D-407, mixed waste low-level waste 
treatment projects at the Rocky Flats site, and Project 96-D-
408, waste management upgrades at various locations.
     Startup of the Defense Waste Processing Facility (DWPF), 
which will vitrify the high-level waste at the Savannah River 
Site in South Carolina, is scheduled for December 1995. The 
Committee is concerned that the Department and the site 
contractor are using the possibility of any funding reduction 
to slip this schedule. Successful startup and operation of this 
facility on schedule is absolutely critical to the credibility 
of the Department's waste management program. The Committee 
expects the Department to maintain the current schedule for 
startup and operation of the DWPF, if necessary, by reducing 
lower priority activities at the site.

                         technology development

     The Committee recommendation for technology development is 
$380,510,000, a reduction of $10,000,000 from the budget 
request of $390,510,000. The funding reduction is to be applied 
to support service contracts in this program.

                       transportation management

     Transportation management is reduced by $6,000,000 from 
the budget request of $16,158,000. This program should be 
critically reviewed by the Department to ensure that only the 
highest priority activities are funded.
             nuclear materials and facilities stabilization

     The Committee recommendation is $1,502,802,000, a 
reduction of $93,226,000 from the budget request of 
$1,596,028,000. Funding reductions are primarily directed 
toward program support and program integration activities at 
headquarters and the field offices. Program support and program 
integration funding includes support service contracts to 
provide technical support and contract expertise to assist the 
federal staff with its line management and oversight functions. 
Additionally, none of these funds should be used for economic 
development activities.
     The remaining reductions are proposed in the area of new 
construction projects in fiscal year 1996. The Committee is 
concerned with the proposal to initiate several new 
construction projects at Departmental sites and facilities 
which will be undergoing considerable scrutiny and review of 
activities over the next year. Several projects begun last year 
are being reevaluated in view of current Departmental contract 
reform initiatives and privatization efforts. Rather than start 
new projects and risk wasting money on preliminary efforts only 
to be stopped later, the Committee has deferred funding for 
these new projects without prejudice.
     Surveillance and maintenance costs for surplus activities 
are expensive and labor intensive. The Department should review 
the possibility of reducing costs without compromising safety 
by defining the minimum safety requirements that need to be met 
at surplus facilities, and by developing a requirement-based 
estimate of surveillance and maintenance costs.

                  compliance and program coordination

     The Committee recommendation of $31,251,000 is a reduction 
of $50,000,000 from the budget request of $81,251,000. As 
outlined by the Galvin Task Force, the Department is mired in 
layers of management and oversight which hinder efficient 
program operations. Many functions proposed in this program 
area should be performed by the line program managers in the 
environmental management organization or by separate 
headquarters organizations such as environment, safety and 
health. In a time of severely constrained resources, use of 
existing resources for direct cleanup activities must have 
first priority.

                analysis, education and risk management

     The Committee recommendation for analysis, education, and 
risk management is $77,022,000, a reduction of $80,000,000 from 
the budget request of $157,022,000. Funding in this account 
provides for federal salaries, support service contracts, 
education and training, risk management assessments, and public 
accountability and outreach activities. The Department proposes 
to increase public accountability efforts from less than 
$4,000,000 in fiscal year 1995 to more than $32,000,000. The 
Committee does not agree to this increase. The remaining 
savings are to be gained by reducing support service contracts 
and better utilization of federal employees.

                          funding adjustments

     The Committee recommendation includes the use of 
$630,240,000 of prior year balances, an increase of 
$353,298,000 to the budget request of $276,942,000, and the use 
of $37,000,000 from the Savannah River pension fund.

                        recommendation summaries

     Details of the Committee's recommendations are included in 
the table at the end of this title.

                        Other Defense Activities
Appropriation, 1995.....................................  $1,849,657,000
Budget Estimate, 1996...................................   1,432,159,000
Recommended, 1996.......................................   1,323,841,000
Comparison:
     Appropriation, 1995................................    -525,816,000
     Budget Estimate, 1996..............................    -108,318,000

    This account includes the following programs: Verification 
and Control Technology, Nuclear Safeguards and Security, 
Security Investigations, Security Evaluations, the Office of 
Nuclear Safety, Worker and Community Transition Assistance, 
Fissile Materials Control and Disposition, Emergency Management 
and Naval Reactors. In prior years this account funded the 
Materials Support program conducted at the Savannah River Site 
in South Carolina. This program has been transferred to the 
Defense Environmental Restoration and Waste Management 
appropriation in fiscal year 1996. Descriptions of each of the 
remaining accounts are provided below.
                  VERIFICATION AND CONTROL TECHNOLOGY

    The Verification and Control Technology program includes 
activities related to Nonproliferation and Verification 
Research and Development, Arms Control, and Intelligence. The 
Department is engaged in an active nuclear nonproliferation 
program through research and development activities performed 
at the national laboratories, by providing technical and 
analytical support to treaty development and implementation, 
and by providing intelligence support to these efforts. The 
budget request for Verification and Control Technology was 
$430,842,000, an increase of $82,287,000 over the fiscal year 
1995 appropriation of $348,555,000. The Committee 
recommendation of $353,200,000 does not support the tremendous 
growth requested in this program activity.
    Research and Development.--The objective of the Research 
and Development program is to conduct applied research, 
development tests, and evaluations of systems and technologies 
in support of nonproliferation and treaty verification 
requirements. Due to budget constraints, the Committee 
recommendation for this program is $163,500,000, a reduction of 
$62,642,000 from the budget request of $226,142,000.
    Arms Control.--The Arms Control program supports the 
development and implementation of U.S. and international 
policies aimed at preventing the spread of nuclear weapons and 
other weapons of mass destruction. It also promotes effective 
international safeguards and physical protection of nuclear 
materials and control of the export of nuclear related 
equipment, technologies, and materials. The Committee 
recommendation of $147,364,000 for Arms Control activities is 
$15,000,000 less than the budget request of $162,364,000. 
Funding has not been included for either the Industrial 
Partnering Program or additional treatment of North Korean 
spent fuel.
    Intelligence.--The Office of Intelligence 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 recommends 
the budget request of $42,336,000.

                    NUCLEAR SAFEGUARDS AND SECURITY

    This program includes activities to assure adequate 
protection of nuclear weapons, nuclear materials, facilities, 
and classified information against theft, sabotage, espionage, 
and terrorist activities. As Departmental sites and facilities 
are decommissioned, safeguards and security costs would be 
expected to decrease Department-wide, but this does not seem to 
be the case. The Committee urges the Department to review these 
costs and make necessary adjustments since it does not seem 
reasonable that projected fiscal year 1996 security costs would 
increase over the previous year.
    The Committee's recommendation for this activity is 
$83,395,000, a reduction of $6,121,000 from the budget request 
of $89,516,000. Current program activities should be reviewed 
and prioritized within available funding.

                        SECURITY INVESTIGATIONS

    This program includes those activities necessary for 
granting appropriate security clearances to agency and 
Government contractor personnel who must in the performance of 
their work have access to restricted data, national security 
information, or special nuclear material, or who occupy a 
designated critical sensitive position.
    This program continues to maintain huge uncosted balances 
each year. As a result, the Committee recommendation is 
$20,000,000, a reduction of $13,247,000 from the budget request 
of $33,247,000.

                          SECURITY EVALUATIONS

    The Security Evaluations program provides oversight of the 
effectiveness of the Department of Energy's safeguards and 
security policies and programs by conducting inspections and 
assessments of these policies and programs, and reviewing their 
implementation in the field. The program also includes funds 
for the Radioactive Materials Packaging Certification program 
which certifies that radioactive material packages are in 
compliance with Federal safety regulations. The Committee 
recommendation is $14,707,000, the same as the budget request.

                        OFFICE OF NUCLEAR SAFETY

    The Office of Nuclear Safety provides safety oversight of 
DOE nuclear operations to ensure that the Department and its 
contractors provide the workers and the public the highest 
level of protection reasonably achievable from radiological 
hazards.
    Many groups have noted the extensive duplication of 
oversight of the Department's nuclear facilities. The Committee 
is concerned about the multiple oversight efforts and notes 
that the Department has committed to reduce this duplication of 
reviews. The compliance and oversight review process is 
currently being modified by the Office of Environment, Safety 
and Health, and this should result in reduced costs and 
personnel resources devoted to this effort.
    The Committee has recommended $15,050,000, a reduction from 
the budget request of $24,679,000. While this may appear to be 
a significant reduction, the recommendation includes the full 
budget request of $11,044,000 for program direction costs to 
support the current staffing levels. The recommendation does 
significantly reduce funding for support services contracts to 
perform compliance reviews which should be conducted by federal 
employees.

               WORKER AND COMMUNITY TRANSITION ASSISTANCE

    In accordance with Section 3161 of the National Defense 
Authorization Act of 1993 and as a result of a change in the 
work force at defense nuclear facilities, defense employees of 
the Department may be provided various options to minimize 
impacts of these work force structure changes. These options 
include retraining, early retirement incentives, preference in 
hiring, outplacement assistance, and relocation assistance. In 
addition, this program funds contractor employment reduction 
requirements for severance and separation payments.
    The Committee continues to support the Department's efforts 
to transition the Pinellas Plant in Florida from a nuclear 
weapons production facility to a commercial production 
facility. Ownership of the Pinellas Plant has been transferred 
to the Pinellas County Board of County Commissioners which is 
in the process of finding commercial tenants to use the 
technologies and capabilities of the plant and personnel. The 
Committee urges the Department to assist the Technology 
Deployment Center which is successfully identifying the 
technologies and capabilities available at the Pinellas Plant 
which have the greatest chances for success in the commercial 
market.
    Due to budget constraints, the Committee recommendation is 
$75,000,000, a reduction of $25,000,000 from the budget request 
of $100,000,000. The Committee will be reviewing the costs of 
employee buyout proposals to ensure that they do not exceed 
acceptable standards. The Committee is concerned at the 
excessive costs of some previous buyout packages agreed to by 
the Department.

               FISSILE MATERIALS CONTROL AND DISPOSITION

    The Fissile Materials Control and 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 $70,000,000, the same as the budget 
request.

                          EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

    In an effort to streamline the Department of Energy's 
emergency-related organizations and eliminate redundancy, the 
Committee has proposed to consolidate funding for Emergency 
Management which has previously been included in the Weapons 
Activities program direction account and funding for the 
Department's separate Emergency Preparedness account which has 
been funded in the Department of the Interior and Other Related 
Agencies Appropriations Act in previous years. The fiscal year 
1996 budget request for Emergency Management is $20,056,000, 
and $8,219,000 for Emergency Preparedness. The Committee has 
combined these two programs and provided a total of $23,321,000 
for fiscal year 1996. This reduction in funding from the budget 
request will require consolidation of staff functions and 
should lead to efficiencies in centralizing the Department's 
emergency planning and oversight.
                             NAVAL REACTORS

    The Naval Reactors program provides for the design, 
development, testing, and evaluation of improved naval nuclear 
propulsion plants and reactor cores having long fuel life, high 
reliability, improved performances, and simplified operating 
and maintenance requirements. The nuclear propulsion plants and 
cores cover a wide range of configurations and power ratings 
suitable for installation in naval combatants varying in size 
from small submarines to large surface ships. The Committee 
recommendation is $682,168,000, the same as the budget request.

                          FUNDING ADJUSTMENTS

    The Committee recommendation includes the use of 
$13,000,000 in prior year balances as proposed in the budget 
request.

                        RECOMMENDATION SUMMARIES

    Details of the Committee's recommendations are included in 
the table at the end of this title.

                     Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal
Appropriation, 1995.....................................    $129,430,000
Budget Estimate, 1996...................................     198,400,000
Recommended, 1996.......................................     198,400,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 1995.................................     +68,970,000
    Budget Estimate, 1996...............................................

    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 1994, the balance owed by the 
federal government to the Nuclear Waste Fund was $664,000,000 
(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 Fund. 
Through fiscal year 1995, a total of $361,930,000 has been paid 
into the Nuclear Waste Fund for atomic energy defense 
activities.
    The Committee recommends the fiscal year 1996 budget 
request of $198,400,000.
                      Departmental Administration
Appropriation, 1995.....................................    $407,312,000
Budget Estimate, 1996...................................     439,444,000
Recommended, 1996.......................................     362,250,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 1995.................................     -45,062,000
    Budget Estimate, 1996...............................     -77,194,000
                         Miscellaneous Revenues
Appropriation, 1995.....................................   -$161,490,000
Budget Estimate, 1996...................................    -122,306,000
Recommended, 1996.......................................    -122,306,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 1995.................................     +39,184,000
    Budget Estimate, 1996...............................................

    The funding recommended for Departmental Administration 
provides for general management and program support functions 
benefiting all elements of the Department of Energy. The 
account funds a wide array of activities not directly 
associated with program execution such as: salaries, travel and 
other costs associated with the management and support of the 
Department; development and analysis of energy policy 
proposals, legislation, and evaluation of programs; 
coordination of policies and programs for communicating with 
the news media and the general public; support for training and 
education programs; development of international energy policy 
and international cooperation in energy matters; performance of 
work for non-federal entities; and revenues from the sale of 
products and services and their related costs.
    Due to severe budget constraints and the proposed 
downsizing of the Department of Energy, the Committee 
recommendation for administrative activities is $362,250,000, a 
decrease of $77,194,000 from the budget request of 
$439,444,000. Program activities in most areas of the 
Department are being reduced which should result in decreasing 
needs for administrative and support activities.
    The recommendation for the cost of work for others program 
is $22,826,000, the same as the budget request. This reflects 
the latest estimate of work to be performed for non-federal 
entities in fiscal year 1996. 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 revenue estimate for fiscal year 1996 is $122,306,000, 
the same as the budget request, but a reduction of $39,184,000 
from the revenues estimated for fiscal year 1995.

                        SUMMARY RECOMMENDATIONS

    Details of the Committee's recommendations are included in 
the table at the end of this title.

                      Office of Inspector General
Appropriation, 1995.....................................     $26,465,000
Budget Estimate, 1996...................................      30,998,000
Recommended, 1996.......................................      26,000,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 1995.................................        -465,000
    Budget Estimate, 1996...............................      -4,998,000

    The Office of Inspector General provides agencywide audit, 
inspection, and investigative functions to identify and correct 
management and administrative deficiencies which create 
conditions for existing or potential instances of fraud, waste 
and mismanagement. The audit function provides financial and 
performance audits of programs and operations. The 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.
    Due to severe budget constraints and the proposed 
downsizing of the Department of Energy, the Committee 
recommendation is $26,000,000, a reduction of $4,998,000 from 
the budget request of $30,998,000.

                    Power Marketing Administrations

    Public Law 95-91 transferred to the Department of Energy 
the power marketing functions under section 5 of the Flood 
Control Act of 1944 and all other functions of the Department 
of the Interior with respect to the Alaska Power 
Administration, Bonneville Power Administration, Southeastern 
Power Administration, Southwestern Power Administration, and 
the power marketing functions of the Bureau of Reclamation, now 
included in the Western Area Power Administration.
    All power marketing administrations except Bonneville are 
funded annually with appropriations, and related receipts are 
deposited in the Treasury. Bonneville operations are self-
financed under authority of Public Law 93-454, the Federal 
Columbia River Transmission System Act of 1974, which 
authorizes Bonneville to use its revenues to finance operating 
costs, maintenance and capital construction, and sell bonds to 
the Treasury if necessary to finance any remaining capital 
program requirements.

         Operation and Maintenance, Alaska Power Administration
Appropriation, 1995.....................................      $6,494,000
Budget Estimate, 1996...................................       4,260,000
Recommended, 1996.......................................       4,260,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 1995.................................      -2,234,000
    Budget Estimate, 1996...............................................

    The Alaska Power Administration is responsible for 
operation, maintenance, and marketing of power for Alaska's two 
Federal hydroelectric projects. The operating projects are the 
30 MW Eklutna Project near Anchorage and the 78 MW Snettisham 
Project near Juneau. Project facilities include dams, 
reservoirs, powerplants, transmission systems, and necessary 
maintenance facilities.
    The Administration's fiscal year 1996 budget assumes that 
the assets of the Alaska Power Administration will be sold; 
however, the budget assumes that no asset transfers will occur 
before the end of fiscal year 1996. The Committee 
recommendation is $4,260,000, the same as the budget request.

                  Bonneville Power Administration Fund

    The Bonneville Power Administration is the Federal electric 
power marketing agency in the Pacific Northwest, a 300,000 
square-mile service area that encompasses Oregon, Washington, 
Idaho, Western Montana, and small portions of adjacent Western 
States in the Columbia River drainage basin. Bonneville markets 
hydroelectric power from 30 Corps of Engineers and Bureau of 
Reclamation projects, as well as thermal energy from non-
Federal generating facilities in the region. Bonneville also 
markets and exchanges surplus electric power interregionally 
over the Pacific Northwest-Pacific Southwest Intertie with 
California, and in Canada over interconnections with utilities 
in British Columbia.
    Bonneville constructs, operates and maintains the Nation's 
largest high-voltage transmission system, consisting of 14,800 
circuit-miles of transmission line and 390 substations with an 
installed capacity of 22,279 MW.
    Public Law 93-454, the Federal Columbia River Transmission 
System Act of 1974, placed Bonneville on a self-financed basis. 
With the passage in 1980 of Public Law 96-501, the Pacific 
Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act, 
Bonneville's responsibilities were expanded to include meeting 
the net firm load growth of the region, investing in cost-
effective, regionwide energy conservation, and acquiring 
generating resources to meet these requirements.
    Borrowing authority.--A total of $3,750,000,000 has been 
made available to Bonneville as permanent borrowing authority. 
Each year the Committee reviews the budgeted amounts Bonneville 
plans to use of this total and reports a recommendation on 
these borrowing requirements. For fiscal year 1996, the 
Committee recommends an additional increment of $378,000,000 in 
new borrowing authority, the same as the budget request, for 
transmission system construction, system replacement, energy 
resources, fish and wildlife, and capital equipment programs.
    The Committee continues to support the concept of financing 
a portion of capital investments from revenues and alternatives 
such as the use of third-party financing to extend the 
availability of the current total borrowing authority. The 
Committee commends Bonneville's efforts to date to review 
current spending programs. With the severe budget constraints 
expected to continue in the future, appropriating additional 
funds to replenish Bonneville's borrowing authority will be 
very difficult.
    Budget revisions and notification.--The Committee expects 
Bonneville to adhere to the borrowing authority estimates 
recommended by the Congress and promptly inform the Committee 
of any exceptional circumstances which would necessitate the 
need for Bonneville to obligate borrowing authority in excess 
of such amounts.
    Repayment.--During fiscal year 1996, Bonneville plans to 
pay the Treasury $762,400,000, of which $200,800,000 is to 
repay principal on the Federal investment in these facilities.
    Limitation on direct loans.--Language was requested 
permitting Bonneville to make direct loan obligations not to 
exceed $29,000,000. The Committee has not included this 
provision and recommends that no new direct loans be made in 
fiscal year 1996.

      Operation and Maintenance, Southeastern Power Administration
Appropriation, 1995.....................................     $22,431,000
Budget Estimate, 1996...................................      19,843,000
Recommended, 1996.......................................      19,843,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 1995.................................      -2,588,000
    Budget Estimate, 1996...............................................

    The Southeastern Power Administration markets hydroelectric 
power produced at Corps of Engineers projects in 10 
southeastern states. There are 23 projects now in operation 
with an installed capacity of 3,092 megawatts. Southeastern 
does not own or operate any transmission facilities and carries 
out its marketing program by utilizing the existing 
transmission systems of the power utilities in the area. This 
is accomplished through ``wheeling'' arrangements between 
Southeastern and each of the area utilities with transmission 
lines connected to the projects. The utility agrees to deliver 
specified amounts of federal power to customers of the 
Government, and Southeastern agrees to compensate the utility 
for the wheeling service performed.
    The Committee recommendation of $19,843,000 is the same as 
the budget request. In addition to this appropriated amount, 
$10,059,000 of prior year unobligated funds are available for 
use in fiscal year 1996.
      Operation and Maintenance, Southwestern Power Administration
Appropriation, 1995.....................................     $21,316,000
Budget Estimate, 1996...................................      29,778,000
Recommended, 1996.......................................      29,778,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 1995.................................      +8,462,000
    Budget Estimate, 1996...............................................

    The Southwestern Power Administration is the marketing 
agent for the power generated at Corps of Engineers' 
hydroelectric plants in the six-state area of Kansas, Oklahoma, 
Texas, Missouri, Arkansas, and Louisiana with a total installed 
capacity of 2,158 megawatts. It operates and maintains some 
1,380 miles of transmission lines, 24 generating projects, and 
24 substations, and sells its power at wholesale primarily to 
publicly and cooperatively owned electric distribution 
utilities.
     The Committee recommendation for fiscal year 1996 is 
$29,778,000, the same as the budget request.

 Construction, Rehabilitation, Operation and Maintenance Western Area 
                          Power Administration
Appropriation, 1995.....................................    $222,285,000
Budget Estimate, 1996...................................     306,352,000
Recommended, 1996.......................................     257,652,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 1995.................................     +35,367,000
    Budget Estimate, 1996...............................     -48,700,000

    The Western Area Power Administration is responsible for 
marketing electric power generated by the Bureau of 
Reclamation, the Corps of Engineers, and the International 
Boundary and Water Commission which operate hydropower 
generating plants in 15 central and western states encompassing 
a 1.3 million square-mile geographic area. Western is also 
responsible for the operation and maintenance of 16,727 miles 
of high-voltage transmission lines with 257 substations. 
Western distributes power generated by 55 plants with a maximum 
operating capacity of 10,576 megawatts.
    Western, through its power marketing program, must secure 
revenues sufficient to meet the annual costs of operation and 
maintenance of the generating and transmission facilities, 
purchased power, wheeling and other expenses, in order to repay 
all of the power investment with interest, and to repay that 
portion of the Government's irrigation and other nonpower 
investments which are beyond the water users' repayment 
capability. Under the Colorado River Basin Power Marketing 
Fund, which encompasses the Colorado River Basin, Fort Peck, 
and Colorado River Storage Facilities, all operation and 
maintenance and power marketing expenses are financed from 
revenues.
    Colorado River Dam fund.--The Committee recommends bill 
language as requested by the Administration to implement the 
provisions of the Hoover Power Plant Act of 1984.

                             recommendation

    The Committee recommendation for Western for fiscal year 
1996 is $257,652,000, a decrease of $48,700,000 from the budget 
request of $306,352,000. This reduction is possible due to 
decreased purchase power requirements and construction costs.
    The amount to be derived from the Department of the 
Interior Reclamation Fund is $245,151,000, a reduction of 
$48,700,000 from the request of $293,851,000.

           Falcon and Amistad Operating and Maintenance Fund

    Creation of the Falcon and Amistad Operating and 
Maintenance Fund was directed by the Foreign Relations 
Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1994 and 1995. This legislation 
also directed that the Fund be administered by the 
administrator of the Western Area Power Administration for use 
by the Commissioner of the United States Section of the 
International Boundary and Water Commission to defray 
operation, maintenance, and emergency costs for the 
hydroelectric facilities at the Falcon and Amistad Dams in 
Texas. Funds for these costs were previously included in the 
appropriations of the Department of State.
    The Committee recommendation is $1,000,000, the same as the 
budget request.

                        recommendation summaries

    Details of the Committee's recommendations are included in 
the table at the end of this title.
                  Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

                         salaries and expenses
Appropriation, 1995.....................................    $166,173,000
Budget Estimate, 1996...................................     136,567,000
Recommended, 1996.......................................     132,290,000
Comparison:
     Appropriation, 1995................................     -33,883,000
     Budget Estimate, 1996..............................      -4,277,000
                salaries and expenses--revenues applied
Appropriation, 1995.....................................   -$166,173,000
Budget Estimate, 1996...................................    -136,567,000
Recommended, 1996.......................................    -132,290,000
Comparison:
     Appropriation, 1995................................     +33,883,000
     Budget Estimate, 1996..............................      +4,277,000

     The Committee provides $132,290,000 for the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission. Revenues are established at a rate equal 
to the amount provided for program activities, resulting in a 
net appropriation of zero.
     The Committee notes that the workload of the Commission 
with respect to the regulation of oil and natural gas is 
declining dramatically as those industries become more 
competitive. The Administration's request for the natural gas 
and oil pipelines program, though reduced from fiscal year 
1995, fails to match this decline in responsibility. The 
Committee recommendation provides for a ten percent reduction 
from fiscal year 1995 levels in staffing of the natural gas and 
oil pipelines program.
























                                TITLE IV

                          INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

                    Appalachian Regional Commission
Appropriation, 1995.....................................    $282,000,000
Budget Estimate, 1996...................................     183,000,000
Recommended, 1996.......................................     142,000,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 1995.................................    -140,000,000
    Budget Estimate, 1996...............................     -41,000,000

    The Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC) is a regional 
economic development agency established in 1965. It is composed 
of the Governors of the 13 Appalachian States and a Federal Co-
Chairman who is appointed by the President.
    The Committee recommends $142,000,000 for fiscal year 1996. 
Reductions to the budget request are to be applied as follows: 
-$20,000,000 from the request for ``Business Development'' 
activities; -$12,000,000 from the request for ``Human 
Development'' activities; and -$9,000,000 from the Highway 
Development Program.
                Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board

                         Salaries and Expenses
Appropriation, 1995.....................................     $17,933,000
Budget Estimate, 1996...................................      18,500,000
Recommended, 1996.......................................      17,000,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 1995.................................        -933,000
    Budget Estimate, 1996...............................      -1,500,000

    The Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board was created by 
the Fiscal Year 1989 National Defense Authorization Act. The 
Board, composed of five members appointed by the President, 
provides advice and recommendations to the Secretary of Energy 
regarding public health and safety issues at the Department's 
defense nuclear facilities. The Board is responsible for 
reviewing and evaluating the content and implementation of the 
standards relating to the design, construction, operation and 
decommissioning of defense nuclear facilities of the Department 
of Energy.
    Due to severe budget constraints, the Committee 
recommendation is $17,000,000, a reduction of $1,500,000 from 
the budget request of $18,500,000.
                    Delaware River Basin Commission

                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES
Appropriation, 1995.....................................        $343,000
Budget Estimate, 1996...................................         353,000
Recommended, 1996.......................................................
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 1995.................................        -343,000
     Budget Estimate, 1996..............................        -353,000

    In light of severe budgetary constraints and in the 
advancement of congressional efforts to streamline government, 
the Committee recommends termination of Federal participation 
in the Delaware River Basin Commission. The Committee expresses 
its confidence in the ability of the compact States to continue 
their cooperative efforts to develop water and related 
resources of the region drained by the Delaware River and its 
tributaries without Federal assistance.
    The Committee recognizes the vital role of this Commission, 
and supports the continuation of its work. The Committee will 
assist the Delaware River Basin Commission in the transition as 
the compact States assume full responsibility for the funding 
of its function.

            CONTRIBUTION TO DELAWARE RIVER BASIN COMMISSION
Appropriation, 1995.....................................        $478,000
Budget Estimate, 1996...................................         551,000
Recommended, 1996.......................................................
Comparison:
    Apropriation, 1995..................................        -478,000
    Budget Estimate, 1996...............................        -551,000

    In light of severe budgetary constraints and in the 
advancement of congressional efforts to streamline government, 
the Committee recommends termination of Federal participation 
in the Delaware River Basin Commission. The Committee expresses 
its confidence in the ability of the compact States to continue 
their cooperative efforts to develop water and related 
resources of the region drained by the Delaware River and its 
tributaries without Federal assistance.
    The Committee recognizes the vital role of this Commission, 
and supports the continuation of its work. The Committee will 
assist the Delaware River Basin Commission in the transition as 
the compact States assume full responsibility for the funding 
of its function.
            Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin

      CONTRIBUTION TO INTERSTATE COMMISSION ON POTOMAC RIVER BASIN
Appropriation, 1995.....................................        $511,000
Budget Estimate, 1996...................................         524,000
Recommended, 1996.......................................................
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 1995.................................        -511,000
    Budget Estimate, 1996...............................        -524,000

    In light of severe budgetary constraints and in the 
advancement of congressional efforts to streamline government, 
the Committee recommends termination of Federal participation 
in the Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin. The 
Committee expresses its confidence in the ability of the 
Potomac River Basin States to continue their cooperative 
efforts without further Federal assistance.
    The Committee recognizes the vital role of this Commission, 
and supports the continuation of its work. The Committee will 
assist the Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin in 
the transition as the compact States assume full responsibility 
for the funding of its function.

                     Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Gross Appropriation:
    Appropriation, 1995.................................    $520,501,000
    Budget Estimate, 1996...............................     520,300,000
    Recommended, 1996...................................     468,300,000
    Comparison:
        Appropriation, 1995.............................     -52,201,000
        Budget Estimate, 1996...........................     -52,000,000
Revenues:
    Appropriation, 1995.................................    -498,501,000
    Budget Estimate, 1996...............................    -498,300,000
    Recommended, 1996...................................    -457,300,000
    Comparison:
        Appropriation, 1995.............................     +41,201,000
        Budget Estimate, 1996...........................     +41,000,000
Net Appropriation:
    Appropriation, 1995.................................      22,000,000
    Budget Estimate, 1996...............................      22,000,000
    Recommended, 1996...................................      11,000,000
    Comparison:
        Appropriation, 1995.............................     -11,000,000
        Budget Estimate, 1996...........................     -11,000,000

    The Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1990, as amended, 
requires that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission recover 100 
percent of its budget authority, less the appropriation from 
the Nuclear Waste Fund, by assessing license and annual fees. 
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $468,300,000 for 
fiscal year 1996, a reduction from both the Administration's 
budget request and the fiscal year 1995 level.
    The fiscal year 1996 budget request proposes that 
$22,000,000 of the agency's total appropriation be derived from 
the Nuclear Waste Fund. These funds are requested for agency 
activities related to implementation of the Nuclear Waste 
Policy Act and in support of the Department of Energy's efforts 
to characterize Yucca Mountain as a potential site for a 
permanent nuclear waste repository. Consistent with the 
Committee's direction to the Department of Energy to suspend, 
downgrade or terminate site characterization activities at 
Yucca Mountain, the NRC appropriation from the Nuclear Waste 
Fund is reduced by $11,000,000. The Commission is directed to 
target funds appropriated from the Nuclear Waste Fund to 
activities consistent with the expeditious development and 
execution of a national interim storage program.
    In recommending a reduction for fiscal year 1996, the 
Committee notes that licensee safety performance indicators 
demonstrate a pronounced trend toward improved industry 
performance. The Committee also notes that agency staffing 
appears to be unreasonably high, especially given: the 
maturation of the industry; the lack of nuclear power plants 
under construction; and a decreased need for research and 
rulemaking services. Also, the Committee observes that the 
Commission must reduce its unacceptably high levels of 
unobligated balances and undelivered orders.
    The Committee understands that the Commission plans to 
reduce its staffing in future years. In light of severe 
budgetary constraints and consistent with congressional efforts 
to downsize and streamline government, the Commission is 
directed to accelerate those plans.

                      Office of Inspector General

                          gross appropriation
Appropriation, 1995.....................................      $5,080,000
Budget Estimate, 1996...................................       5,500,000
Recommended, 1996.......................................       5,000,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 1995.................................         -80,000
    Budget Estimate, 1996...............................        -500,000
                                Revenues
Appropriation, 1995.....................................      -5,080,000
Budget Estimate, 1996...................................      -5,500,000
Recommended, 1996.......................................      -5,000,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 1995.................................         +80,000
    Budget Estimate, 1996...............................        +500,000

    This appropriation provides for the Office of Inspector 
General of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Pursuant to law, 
budget authority appropriated to the Inspector General must be 
recovered through the assessment of license and annual fees.
    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $5,000,000 for 
fiscal year 1996. This recommendation, a reduction from both 
the Administration request and the fiscal year 1995 level, is 
consistent with reductions to the Commission and congressional 
efforts to downsize and streamline the Federal government.

                  Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board
Appropriation, 1995.....................................      $2,664,000
Budget Estimate, 1996...................................       2,970,000
Recommended, 1996.......................................       2,531,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 1995.................................        -133,000
    Budget Estimate, 1996...............................        -439,000

    The Committee recommendation provides continued funding for 
the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board. The Nuclear Waste 
Policy Amendments Act of 1987 directed the Board to evaluate 
the technical and scientific validity of the activities of the 
Department of Energy's nuclear waste disposal program. The 
Board must report its findings not less than two times a year 
to the Congress and the Secretary of Energy.
    The Committee recommendation of $2,531,000 represents a 
five-percent reduction in funding from the current fiscal year 
and a fifteen-percent reduction from the Administration's 
budget request. In making this recommendation, the Committee 
observes that the budget request assumes that the Board will 
operate with a full complement of eleven Board members as 
authorized by law. The Board, however, has never in its history 
had eleven members. In fact, current Board membership is six, 
and the terms of these members will expire in April 1996. The 
Committee hopes the Administration will act expeditiously to 
fill Board vacancies but anticipates that savings will be 
realized through reductions in compensation, benefits, and 
travel related to a continued shortage of Board members. The 
Committee also observes that the budget request funds an 
apparently excessive ratio of clerical staff to professional 
staff. The Committee also notes that the Board continues to 
carry over unreasonably large unobligated balances from prior 
fiscal years.
    The Committee has included a general provision to permit 
Board members whose terms have expired to continue serving on 
the Board until their successors have taken office. This 
authority, which exists for other Federal boards and 
commissions, will enable the Board to operate with a quorum if, 
as expected, the President fails to appoint an adequate number 
of Board candidates prior to the expiration of six members' 
terms in 1996.
                   Susquehanna River Basin Commission

                         salaries and expenses
Appropriation, 1995.....................................        $318,000
Budget Estimate, 1996...................................         332,000
Recommended, 1996.......................................................
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 1995.................................        -318,000
    Budget Estimate, 1996...............................        -332,000

    In light of severe budgetary constraints and in the 
advancement of congressional efforts to streamline government, 
the Committee recommends termination of Federal participation 
in the Susquehanna River Basin Commission. The Committee 
expresses its confidence in the ability of the compact States 
to continue their cooperative efforts to develop water and 
related resources of the region drained by the Susquehanna 
River and its tributaries without Federal assistance.
    The Committee recognizes the vital role of this Commission, 
and supports the continuation of its work. The Committee will 
assist the Susquehanna River Basin Commission in the transition 
as the compact States assume full responsibility for the 
funding of its function.

           contribution to susquehanna river basin commission
Appropriation, 1995.....................................        $288,000
Budget Estimate, 1996...................................         360,000
Recommended, 1996.......................................................
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 1995.................................        -288,000
    Budget Estimate, 1996...............................        -360,000

    In light of severe budgetary constraints and in the 
advancement of congressional efforts to streamline government, 
the Committee recommends termination of Federal participation 
in the Susquehanna River Basin Commission. The Committee 
expresses its confidence in the ability of the compact States 
to continue their cooperative efforts to develop water and 
related resources of the region drained by the Susquehanna 
River and its tributaries without Federal assistance.
    The Committee recognizes the vital role of this Commission, 
and supports the continuation of its work. The Committee will 
assist the Susquehanna River Basin Commission in the transition 
as the compact States assume full responsibility for the 
funding of its function.

                       Tennessee Valley Authority
Appropriation, 1995.....................................    $142,873,000
Budget Estimate, 1996...................................     140,473,000
Recommended, 1996.......................................     103,339,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 1995.................................     -39,534,000
    Budget Estimate, 1996...............................     -37,134,000

    The Committee recommends $103,339,000 for the appropriated 
programs of the Tennessee Valley Authority. Reductions from the 
budget request are to be applied as follows: -$32,282,000 from 
the Environmental Research Center; -$3,000,000 from Land 
Between the Lakes; and -$1,852,000 from Economic Development. 
The Committee directs that the funds appropriated to Land 
Between the Lakes be strictly targeted to necessary operation 
and maintenance activities.
    The Committee is aware of serious silt and debris problems 
at the Sinking Creek embayment on Fort Patrick Henry Reservoir 
in Sullivan County, Tennessee. The Committee urges TVA to take 
expeditious action to correct these conditions, using available 
funds.
                                TITLE V

                           GENERAL PROVISIONS

    The Committee has included a provision repealing Sec. 505 
of Public Law 102-377, the Fiscal Year 1993 Energy and Water 
Development Appropriations Act. This provision prohibited the 
use of funds to conduct studies relating to changes in pricing 
of hydroelectric power by the six Federal public power 
authorities.
    The Committee has also repealed Sec. 208 of Public Law 99-
349, the Urgent Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1986, which 
prohibited the use of funds by the executive branch to solicit 
proposals, prepare studies, or draft proposals to transfer out 
of Federal ownership the Federal power marketing 
administrations located within the contiguous 48 States.
    Section 501 repeals all existing statutory limitations on 
using appropriated funds to study options for transferring the 
power marketing administrations to non-Federal ownership or to 
study possible changes in the current ratemaking practices of 
the power marketing administrations.
    The Committee has included a provision repealing Sec. 510 
of Public Law 101-514, the Fiscal Year 1991 Energy and Water 
Development Appropriations Act. This provision prohibited the 
use of funds by the executive branch to change the employment 
levels determined by the administrators of the Federal power 
marketing administrations to be necessary to carry out their 
responsibilities.
    The Committee has included a provision permitting a member 
of the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board whose term has 
expired to continue to serve as a member of the Board until 
that member's successor has taken office.
    The Committee has included as a general provision language 
emphasizing the importance of Federal agency personnel adhering 
to provisions of law relating to risk assessment, the 
protection of private property rights, and unfunded mandates. 
This provision does not establish any new law in these areas. 
It is intended as a statement of Congressional expectations 
regarding program administration once applicable Federal law is 
enacted.
              HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES REPORT REQUIREMENTS

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

                     Inflationary Impact Statement

    Clause 2(l)(4) of rule XI of the House of Representatives 
requires that each committee report on a bill or resolution 
shall contain a statement as to whether enactment of such bill 
or resolution may have an inflationary impact on prices and 
costs in the operation of the national economy.
    Titles I and II of the bill contain $4.1 billion for 
planning, construction and maintenance of water resource 
development projects. Water is an important input for many 
industries as well as for private residences. The Committee 
believes that public works projects will provide for stable 
supplies of water at lower costs than would be incurred under 
alternative institutional arrangements. Similarly, many 
projects will provide for increased supplies of hydro-electric 
power at costs below every other electric power production 
alternative.
    Public works projects also provide for improved and lower 
cost water transportation which can reduce the prices of goods 
by lowering the input costs of industrial production and 
encouraging large-scale cost industrial production. Lower 
transportation costs also allow more producers to enter more 
markets, thereby giving consumers the benefits of increased 
competition and lower prices.
    Titles III and IV of the bill contain approximately $3.9 
billion in new budget authority for various energy programs. 
Every citizen of the United States is well aware of the 
economic and inflationary impact of the rapid increase in the 
price of imported oil. The conflict in the Persian gulf 
underscored this Nation's vulnerability to price increases in 
oil due to instability in the Middle East region. These price 
increases prompt major increases in the price of all domestic 
petroleum fuels and significantly increase aggregate inflation. 
These programs and activities will contribute directly to 
increasing the supply and availability of more abundant, less 
costly domestic sources of energy.
    Environmental restoration and waste management activities 
to prevent near-term adverse health and environmental impacts 
are funded at approximately $6.2 billion in this bill. This 
program will reduce health and safety risks, and the technology 
development should ultimately reduce the costs of cleanup of 
sites and facilities. In addition, the bill contains 
approximately $4.8 billion for atomic energy defense research 
and support activities. These activities help develop defense 
technology which meets the national security requirements of 
the United States and or allies at significantly lower costs.
    The Committee concludes that this will result in less 
inflationary impact.
                   Comparison With Budget Resolution

    Section 308(a)(1)(A) of the Congressional Budget and 
Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-344), as 
amended, requires that the report accompanying a bill providing 
new budget authority contain a statement detailing how the 
authority compares with the reports submitted under section 602 
of the Act for the most recently agreed to concurrent 
resolution on the budget for the fiscal year. This information 
follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          602(b) Allocation             This Bill       
                     ---------------------------------------------------
                         Budget                    Budget               
                       authority     Outlays     authority     Outlays  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary.......      $18,850      $19,738      $18,704      $19,466
Mandatory...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The bill provides no new spending authority as described in 
section 401(c)(2) of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment 
Control Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-344), as amended.

                         Five-Year Projections

    In compliance with section 308(a)(1)(C) of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-344), as 
amended, the following information was provided to the 
Committee by the Congressional Budget Office:

                                                                Millions
Budget authority........................................         $18,704
Outlays:
    1996................................................          11,146
    1997................................................           5,843
    1998................................................           1,626
    1999................................................              58
    2000 and beyond.....................................              32
          Financial Assistance to State and Local Governments

    In accordance with section 308(a)(1)(D) of Public Law 93-
344, the new budget authority and outlays provided by the 
accompanying bill for financial assistance to State and local 
governments are as follows:

                                                                Millions
Budget authority........................................            $149
Fiscal year 1996 outlays resulting therefrom............              16
                           Transfer of Funds

    Pursuant to clause 1(b), rule X, the following is submitted 
describing the transfer of funds provided in the accompanying 
bill:

    Under Title II, Bureau of Reclamation, Construction 
Program:

          * * * of which $27,049,000 shall be available for 
        transfer to the Upper Colorado River Basin Fund 
        authorized by section 5 of the Act of April 11, 1956 
        (43 U.S.C. 602d), and $94,225,000 shall be available 
        for transfer to the Lower Colorado River Basin 
        Development Fund authorized by section 403 of the Act 
        of September 30, 1968 (43 U.S.C. 1543), and such 
        amounts as may be necessary shall be considered as 
        though advanced to the Colorado River Dam Fund for the 
        Boulder Canyon Project as authorized by the Act of 
        December 21, 1928, as amended: Provided, That of the 
        total appropriated, the amount for program activities 
        which can be financed by the reclamation fund shall be 
        derived from the fund: Provided further, That transfer 
        to the Upper Colorado River Basin Fund and Lower 
        Colorado River Basin Development Fund may be increased 
        or decreased by transfers within the overall 
        appropriation under this heading * * *

    Under Title II, Bureau of Reclamation, Special Funds:

          * * * Such sums shall be transferred, upon request of 
        the Secretary, to be merged with and expended under the 
        heads herein specified * * *

    Under Title III, Department of Energy, Western Area Power 
Administration:

          * * * of which $245,151,000 shall be derived from the 
        Department of the Interior Reclamation Fund: Provided, 
        That of the amount herein appropriated, $5,283,000 is 
        for deposit into the Utah Reclamation Mitigation and 
        Conservation Account pursuant to Title IV of the 
        Reclamation Projects Authorization and Adjustment Act 
        of 1992: Provided further, That the Secretary of the 
        Treasury is authorized to transfer from the Colorado 
        River Dam Fund to the Western Area Power Administration 
        $4,556,000 to carry out the power marketing and 
        transmission activities of the Boulder Canyon project 
        as provided in section 104(a)(4) of the Hoover Power 
        Plant Act of 1984, to remain available until expended.

    Under Title IV, Nuclear Regulatory Commission:

          * * * Provided, That from this appropriation, 
        transfer of sums may be made to other agencies of the 
        Government for the performance of the work for which 
        this appropriation is made, and in such cases the sums 
        so transferred may be merged with the appropriation to 
        which transferred: * * *

    Under Title IV, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of 
Inspector General:

          * * * and in addition, an amount not to exceed 5 
        percent of this sum may be transferred from Salaries 
        and Expenses, Nuclear Regulatory Commission: Provided, 
        That notice of such transfers shall be given to the 
        Committees on Appropriations of the House and Senate: 
        Provided further, That from this appropriation, 
        transfers of sums may be made to other agencies of the 
        Government for the performance of the work for which 
        this appropriation is made, and in such cases the sums 
        so transferred may be merged with the appropriation to 
        which transferred: * * *

    Under Title IV, Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board:

          * * * as authorized by Public Law 100-203, section 
        5051, $2,531,000, to be transferred from the Nuclear 
        Waste Fund and to remain available until expended.

                 Changes in Application of Existing Law

    Pursuant to clause 3, rule XXI of the House of 
Representatives, the following statements are submitted 
describing the effect of provisions in the accompanying bill 
which may directly or indirectly change or be perceived to 
change the application of existing law.
    Title I--Language is included under Corps of Engineers, 
General Investigations, providing for detailed studies and 
plans and specifications of projects prior to construction.
    Language is included under Corps of Engineers, 
Construction, General, permitting the use of funds from the 
Inland Waterways Trust Fund.
    For Operation and Maintenance, General, Corps of Engineers, 
the following language is included:

          * * * 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; * * *

    Also under Operation and Maintenance, Corps of Engineers, 
language is included providing for construction, operation, and 
maintenance of outdoor recreation facilities.
    The bill includes language under Operation and Maintenance, 
Corps of Engineers, permitting the use of funds from the Harbor 
Maintenance Trust Fund.
    Language is also included under Operation and Maintenance, 
Corps of Engineers, limiting the funds available for national 
emergency preparedness programs.
    Under Operation and Maintenance, General, the bill includes 
language authorizing the Secretary of the Army to transfer not 
to exceed 300 acres of land at the Cooper Lake, Texas, project 
from mitigation or low-density recreation to high-density 
recreation and to take whatever steps are necessary to 
accomplish that transfer.
    Language is included in the bill under the Regulatory 
Program of the Corps of Engineers regarding the regulation of 
navigable waters and wetlands of the United States.
    Under General Expenses, language is included relating to 
the Coastal Engineering Research Board, the Humphreys Engineer 
Center Support Activity, the Engineering Strategic Studies 
Center, and the Water Resources Support Center.
    Also under General Expenses, Corps of Engineers, language 
is included limiting the funds available for the Office of the 
Chief of Engineers and prohibiting the use of other Title I 
funds for the Office of the Chief of Engineers and the Division 
Offices.
    Under General Expenses, the bill includes language 
directing the Secretary of the Army to develop and submit to 
the Congress a plan that reduces the number of Corps of 
Engineers division offices and that further directs the 
Secretary of the Army to implement the plan prior to October 1, 
1997.
    Under Administrative Provisions, Corps of Engineers, 
language is included providing that funds are available for 
purchase and hire of motor vehicles.
    Under General Provisions, Corps of Engineers--Civil, the 
bill includes language that directs the Secretary of the Army 
to advertise for competitive bid at least 7,500,000 of the 
hopper dredge volume accomplished with Government-owned dredges 
in fiscal year 1992 and that permits the Secretary to utilize 
the Corps of Engineers' dredge fleet under certain conditions. 
The language also provides that none of the funds appropriated 
in the Act or otherwise available to the Corps of Engineers, 
including funds in the Revolving Fund, may be used for 
improvements or major repair of the dredge McFARLAND or for any 
use of the McFARLAND other than to perform emergency work.
    Title II--Language is included under Bureau of Reclamation, 
General Investigations and Construction Program providing that 
funds may be derived from the Reclamation Fund.
    Language is included under Bureau of Reclamation, General 
Investigations and Construction Program providing that funds 
contributed by non-Federal entities shall be available for 
expenditure.
    Language is included under Bureau of Reclamation, 
Construction Program providing that such sums as necessary 
shall be considered as though advanced to the Colorado River 
Dam Fund for the Boulder Canyon Project.
    Language is included under Bureau of Reclamation, 
Construction Program which permits funds transfers within the 
overall appropriation to the Upper Colorado River Basin Fund 
and the Lower Colorado River Basin Development Funds.
    Language is also included under Bureau of Reclamation, 
Construction Program, providing that the costs of safety of 
dams work at Coolidge Dam, Arizona, are in addition to the 
amount authorized for safety of dams work in 43 U.S.C. 506.
    Language is included under Bureau of Reclamation, Operation 
and Maintenance making funds available until expended.
    For Operation and Maintenance, language is included 
providing that funds may be derived from the reclamation fund 
and the special fee account established pursuant to the Act of 
December 22, 1967.
    Clarifying language is included under Bureau of 
Reclamation, Operation and Maintenance relating to the costs of 
the examination of existing structures program.
    For the Bureau of Reclamation, Operation and Maintenance, 
funds collected and used pursuant to 43 U.S.C. 395 from water 
users are made available until expended.
    For the Loan Program, language is included regarding the 
source of appropriated funds.
    Language is included under General Administrative Expenses 
referring to the five Bureau of Reclamation regions.
    Language is included under General Administrative Expenses 
making a portion of the funds appropriated available until 
expended. Language is also included relating to the source of 
funds for General Administrative Expenses and prohibiting the 
use of other appropriations for general administrative 
functions.
    Language is included under Special Funds identifying the 
special funds authorized by law from which funds are made 
available to the Bureau of Reclamation as authorized and making 
it explicit that such unexpended balances of such funds are to 
be returned to sources from which derived.
    Under Administrative Provisions, Bureau of Reclamation, 
language is included providing for purchase of motor vehicles.
    Under the Department of the Interior, Central Utah Project 
Completion Account, language is included in the bill providing 
that funds are available for carrying out the responsibility of 
the Secretary of the Interior under the Central Utah Project 
Completion Act.
    Title III--Language is included under Uranium Supply and 
Enrichment Activities to permit the use of revenues received by 
the Department for residual uranium enrichment activities to 
reduce the appropriation as revenues are received. This 
language was included in last year's appropriations Act.
    Language is included for the Departmental Administration 
account, notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, and consistent with 
the authorization in Public Law 95-238, to permit DOE to 
utilize revenues to offset appropriations. The appropriation 
language for this account reflects the total estimated program 
funding to be reduced as revenues are received. This language 
has been carried in previous appropriations Acts.
    Language is included under Departmental Administration to 
permit the Department of Energy to cover increases in the cost 
of work for others provided that increases are offset by 
increased revenues and waives 31 U.S.C. 1511 and 3302. This 
language has been carried in previous appropriations Acts.
    Language is included precluding any new direct loan 
obligations for the Bonneville Power Administration.
    Language is included under the Southwestern Power 
Administration, notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, to permit 
Southwestern to utilize reimbursements from the Department of 
Defense, various Oklahoma companies, and other non-Federal 
entities. This language has been carried in previous 
appropriations Acts.
    Language is included under Construction, Rehabilitation, 
Operation, and Maintenance, Western Area Power Administration 
providing $5,283,000 for deposit into the Utah Reclamation 
Mitigation and Conservation Account pursuant to Title IV of the 
Reclamation Projects Authorization and Adjustment Act of 1992.
    Language is included under the Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission to permit the hire of passenger motor vehicles, for 
official entertainment expenses, and to permit the use of 
revenues collected to reduce the appropriation as revenues are 
received.
    Title IV--Language is provided under the Appalachian 
Regional Development program waiving section 405 of the 
Appalachian Regional Development Act.
    Language is included under the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission allowing transfer of appropriations to other 
agencies for certain necessary activities and waives 31 U.S.C. 
3302. This language has been carried in previous appropriations 
Acts. Language is also included, notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 
3302, to permit NRC to utilize revenues collected to offset 
appropriations.
    Language is included which appropriates funds to the 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission from the Nuclear Waste Fund.
    Language is included under the Office of Inspector General 
to permit transfer of funds to other agencies for performance 
of work, and to utilize revenues collected to offset 
appropriations.
    Language is included under the Nuclear Waste Technical 
Review Board which transfers funds to the Board from the 
Nuclear Waste Fund.
    Title V--Language is included repealing section 505 of 
Public Law 102-377, the Fiscal Year 1993 Energy and Water 
Development Appropriations Act, which prohibited the use of 
funds to conduct studies relating to changes in pricing 
hydroelectric power by the six Federal public power 
authorities, and Sec. 208 of Public Law 99-349, the Urgent 
Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1986, which prohibited the use 
of funds by the executive branch to solicit proposals, prepare 
studies, or draft proposals to transfer out of Federal 
ownership the Federal power marketing administrations located 
within the contiguous 48 States.
    Language is included repealing section 510 of Public Law 
101-514, the Fiscal Year 1991 Energy and Water Development 
Appropriations Act, which prohibited the use of funds by the 
executive branch to change the employment levels determined by 
the administrators of the Federal power marketing 
administrations to be necessary to carry out their 
responsibilities.
    Language is included that provides that without fiscal year 
limitation and notwithstanding section 502(b)(5) of the Nuclear 
Waste Policy Act, as amended, or any other provision of law, a 
member of the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board whose term 
has expired may continue to serve as a member of the Board 
until such member's successor has taken office.

                  appropriations not authorized by law

    Pursuant to clause 3 of rule XXI of the House of 
Representatives, the following table lists the appropriations 
in the accompanying bill which are not authorized by law:

    Bureau of Reclamation--Central Valley Project, Trinity 
River Restoration Program, California
    Department of Energy:
          Energy Supply, Research and Development Activities
          Uranium Supply and Enrichment Activities
          General Science and Research Activities
          Nuclear Waste Disposal Fund
          Weapons Activities
          Defense Environmental Restoration and Waste 
        Management
          Other Defense Activities
          Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal
          Departmental Administration
          Office of Inspector General
          Power Marketing Administrations
    Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
    Appalachian Regional Commission
    Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board
    Nuclear Regulatory Commission
    Office of Inspector General
    The Committee notes that the annual authorizing legislation 
for many of these programs is in various stages of the 
legislative process. It is anticipated these authorizations 
will be enacted into law later this year.

          COMPLIANCE WITH HOUSE RULE XIII, CLAUSE 3 (RAMSEYER)

    In compliance with clause 3 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):
    The Accompanying bill would repeal section 505 of Public 
Law 102-377, the fiscal year 1993 Energy and Water Development 
Appropriations Act.
    [Sec. 505. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, 
subsequent Energy and Water Development Appropriations Acts or 
any other provision of law hereafter, none of the funds made 
available under this Act, subsequent Energy and Water 
Development Appropriations Acts or any other law hereafter 
shall be used for the purposes of conducting any studies 
relating or leading to the possibility of changing from the 
currently required ``at cost'' to a ``market rate'' or any 
other noncost-based method for the pricing of hydroelectric 
power by the six Federal public power authorities, or other 
agencies or authorities of the Federal Government, except as 
may be specially authorized by Act of Congress hereafter 
enacted.]
    The accompanying bill would repeal section 208 of Public 
Law 99-349, the Urgent Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1986.
    [Sec. 208. No funds appropriated or made available under 
this or any other Act shall be used by the executive branch for 
soliciting proposals, preparing or reviewing studies or 
drafting proposals designed to transfer out of Federal 
ownership, management or control in whole or in part the 
facilities and functions of the Federal power marketing 
administrations located within the contiguous 48 States, and 
the Tennessee Valley Authority, until such activities have been 
specifically authorized and in accordance with terms and 
conditions established by an Act of Congress hereafter enacted: 
Provided, That this provision shall not apply to the authority 
granted under section 2(e) of the Bonneville Project Act of 
1937; or to the authority of the Tennessee Valley Authority 
pursuant to any law under which it may transfer facilities or 
functions in the normal course of business in carrying out the 
purposes of the Tennessee Valley Authority Act of 1933, as 
amended; or to the authority of the Administrator of the 
General Services Administration pursuant to the Federal 
Property and Administrative Service Act of 1949, as amended, 
and the Surplus Property Act of 1944 to sell or otherwise 
dispose of surplus property.]
    The accompanying bill would repeal section 510 of Public 
Law 101-514, the Fiscal Year 1991 Energy and Water Development 
Appropriations Act.
    [Sec. 510. Without fiscal year limitation and 
notwithstanding any other provision of law, no funds 
appropriated or made available under this or any other Act now 
or hereafter shall be used by the executive branch to change 
the employment levels determined by the Administrators of the 
Federal Power Marketing Administrations to be necessary to 
carry out their responsibilities under the Department of 
Energy, Organization Act and related laws, or to change the 
employment levels of other Department of Energy programs to 
compensate for employment levels of the Federal Power Marketing 
Administrations.]
      
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
                 ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF HON. DAVID R. OBEY

               corporate welfare for the nuclear industry

    When the full Appropriations Committee considered the FY 
1996 Energy, and Water Appropriations Bill on June 20, 1995, I 
offered two amendments cutting spending. These amendments were 
defeated. It is my intention to offer these two amendments and 
an additional amendment when the bill is considered on the 
House floor.
Gas turbine modular helium reactor
    The bill includes $20 million for the Gas Turbine Modular 
Helium Reactor (GT-MHR). I intended to offer an amendment to 
cut this funding. This program funding is a prime example of 
the continuation of corporate welfare for the nuclear industry 
for a program with questionable technology. No funds have been 
requested by the President for this program for three years in 
a row.
    The only commercial version of a GT-MHR reactor ever built 
was Colorado's Fort St. Vrain reactor, which had the worst 
operating record of any nuclear facility. Completed in 1974, it 
was shut down in 1990 after having operated for years at 14% 
capacity.
    Despite the claims of the proponents of the GT-MHR program 
about a new design, the technology is still not proven. Even if 
it were proven, I again point out that providing these funds 
amounts to corporate welfare to a mature industry in the 
private sector. The amount of $900 million has been spent for 
this program, and what has been accomplished? The companies 
have determined that a new design is required and if only 
Congress will just keep coming up with a subsidy, then $5.3 
billion later a prototype gas cooled reactor just might be 
built. Clearly this funding should be cut from the bill.
Nuclear technology research and development program
    The bill contains $18,000,000 for the Nuclear Technology 
research and development program. I intend to offer an 
amendment to cut this funding. Last year Congress voted 
decisively to kill the Advanced Liquid Metal Reactor Program. 
The program was ultimately judged too costly (at $3.3 billion) 
and the technology too questionable to continue the program.
    The Department of Energy sought and received approval from 
the Committee to reprogram $21 million to terminate this 
program. After receiving approval the Department reneged on its 
commitment, terminated only a few people through buyouts, and 
sought an additional $37 million in FY 1996 to continue the 
funding of these positions while they searched for a new 
mission for the Argonne Lab.
    The Department claims this program is necessary because 
nuclear reprocessing technology may be a potential treatment 
for spent fuel. Internal documents from the Department show 
that there is no consensus within the Department on this 
technology, and in fact the Department's waste managers have 
developed plans for spent fuel which do not involve 
reprocessing.
    The Department of Energy is singled out for elimination in 
the House passed Budget Resolution. This is one minor program 
within the Department of Energy for which there is no current 
purpose. The $18 million provided in this bill does exactly 
what many in the majority party have been promising they would 
not do, that is continue funding for a federal program for 
which there is no current purpose. If the Congress can't 
eliminate one small program whose usefulness has ended, how can 
anyone take seriously the claims that the Department of Energy 
will be eliminated?
Advanced light water reactor
    The bill contains $40,000,000 for the Advanced Light Water 
Reactor program. I will offer an amendment to cut this funding. 
Here we go again with another example of corporate welfare for 
the nuclear industry. The bill contains $40 million to help 
large corporations obtain design certification from the Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission.
    This amounts to the government funding a portion of the 
licensing costs of large corporations to comply with its own 
regulations. The Committee heard volumes of testimony this year 
from organizations saying, ``let the marketplace determinate 
what is commercially viable. The government shouldn't be in the 
business of picking winners and losers'', they said repeatedly. 
These remarks apparently fell on deaf ears, or alternatively 
the Committee has determined that these concepts do not apply 
to the nuclear industry.

                                                     David R. Obey.
                 ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF HON. NANCY PELOSI

    The Committee has indicated that it intends to eliminate 
funding of the San Joaquin River Basin Resource Management 
Initiative, authorized in section 3601(c)(1) of the 1992 
Central Valley Project Improvement Act (CVPIA; P.L. 102-575). 
Specifically, the Committee Report ``directs that the 
$1,000,000 requested for the San Joaquin River Basin Resource 
Management Initiative not be expended for that purpose.''
    As I noted in my views on HR 1158, this program was 
included in the CVPIA to address fish, wildlife and habitat 
concerns on the San Joaquin River. They study was authorized so 
that steps could be determined to restore fish to the San 
Joaquin River, where irrigation water deliveries have destroyed 
several stocks of commercially valuable anadromous fish.
    Elimination of this study will deny the public important 
information about the destruction of fishery resources in the 
San Joaquin River. The study is opposed by a small group of CVP 
beneficiaries who receive subsidized water supplies at the 
expense of California's commercial and sport fish resources. 
The study has been authorized Congress and is being conducted 
properly by the Bureau of Reclamation. It should be allowed to 
proceed without interference by special interests.
    Committee report language also ``directs that the Bureau of 
Reclamation take no action to collect costs associated with the 
Kesterson Reservoir Cleanup Program or the San Joaquin Valley 
Drainage Program until drainage service negotiations are 
complete, drainage service is provided, or the authorizing 
Committee has acted on this issue.'' This Committee has already 
approved years of delays in the initiation of repayment at the 
request of project beneficiaries while a detailed repayment 
study was underway by the Department. Now, that study is 
completed and recommendations have been made with respect to 
the proper apportionment of repayment. Yet no effort has been 
made to modify existing repayment law to confirm to the study's 
recommendations.
    This language, if it is heeded by the Bureau of 
Reclamation, would indefinitely delay the repayment of these 
costs, providing a further subsidy to the CVP water users who 
have contaminated the Central Valley and the Sacramento-Bay and 
Delta for years with their toxic irrigation drainage. The 
Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation quite properly 
advised Congress earlier this year that he had no choice under 
current law but to insist that the more than $70 million spent 
on these programs be repaid. These costs are reimbursable under 
the law, and this Committee should not attempt to intrude on 
the Bureau of Reclamation's responsibility to initiate 
repayment. While I endorse the proposal to allow the 
authorizing Committee to consider various alternatives for 
repayment of Kesterson cleanup and drainage study costs, I do 
not believe that further repayment delays are appropriate.
                                                      Nancy Pelosi.