Report text available as:

  • TXT
  • PDF   (PDF provides a complete and accurate display of this text.) Tip ?


107th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2d Session                                                     107-681
======================================================================
 
         ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2003

                                _______
                                

 September 24, 2002.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on 
            the State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

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

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                            ADDITIONAL VIEWS

                        [To accompany H.R. 5431]

    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, 2003, and for other purposes.

                        INDEX TO BILL AND REPORT

                                                            Page Number

                                                            Bill Report
Introduction...............................................
                                                                      5
I. Department of Defense--Civil:
        Corps of Engineers--Civil:
                Introduction...............................
                                                                      7
                General investigations.....................     2
                                                                      8
                Construction, general......................     3
                                                                     38
                Flood control, Mississippi River and 
                    tributaries, Arkansas, Illinois, 
                    Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, 
                    Missouri, and Tennessee................     6
                                                                     62
                Operation and maintenance, general.........     6
                                                                     66
                Regulatory program.........................     8
                                                                     88
                Revolving fund.............................
                                                                     88
                Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action 
                    Program................................     8
                                                                     89
                General expenses...........................     8
                                                                     90
                Administrative provisions..................     9

                General provisions.........................     9
                                                                     92
II. Department of the Interior:
        Central Utah Project completion account............    11
                                                                     93
        Bureau of Reclamation:
                Water and related resources................    11
                                                                     93
                Bureau of Reclamation loan program account.

                Central Valley Project restoration fund....    13
                                                                    107
                California Bay-Delta ecosystem restoration.
                                                                    108
                Policy and administration..................    14
                                                                    108
                Administrative provision...................    14

                General provisions.........................    14
                                                                    109
III. Department of Energy:
        Introduction.......................................
                                                                    111
        Energy supply......................................    18
                                                                    116
        Non-defense environmental management...............    18
                                                                    124
        Uranium facilities maintenance and remediation.....    19
                                                                    127
        Science............................................    19
                                                                    128
        Nuclear waste disposal.............................    19
                                                                    134
        Departmental administration........................    21
                                                                    136
        Office of Inspector General........................    22
                                                                    138
        Atomic energy defense activities:
        National Nuclear Security Administration:
                Weapons activities.........................    22
                                                                    141
                Defense nuclear nonproliferation...........    24
                                                                    149
                Naval reactors.............................    24
                                                                    155
                Office of the administrator................    25
                                                                    155
        Environmental and Other Defense Activities:
                Defense environmental restoration and waste 
                    management.............................    25
                                                                    156
                Environmental management cleanup reform....    25
                                                                    159
                Defense facilities closure projects........    26
                                                                    160
                Defense environmental management 
                    privatization..........................    26
                                                                    161
                Other defense activities...................    27
                                                                    162
                Defense nuclear waste disposal.............    27
                                                                    165
        Power marketing administrations:
                Bonneville Power Administration............    27
                                                                    166
                Southeastern Power Administration..........    28
                                                                    167
                Southwestern Power Administration..........    28
                                                                    168
                Western Area Power Administration..........    29
                                                                    168
                Falcon and Amistad operating and 
                    maintenance fund.......................    30
                                                                    169
        Federal Energy Regulatory Commission...............    30
                                                                    169
        General provisions.................................    31
                                                                    184
IV. Independent agencies:
        Appalachian Regional Commission....................    36
                                                                    187
        Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board............    37
                                                                    187
        Delta Regional Authority...........................
                                                                    188
        Denali Commission..................................
                                                                    188
        Nuclear Regulatory Commission......................    37
                                                                    188
        Office of Inspector General........................    38
                                                                    191
        Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board...............    38
                                                                    191
V. General provisions......................................    39
                                                                    193
House reporting requirements...............................
                                                                    195
Additional Views of Honorable David R. Obey................
                                                                    213

                Summary of Estimates and Recommendations

    The Committee has considered budget estimates which are 
contained in the Budget of the United States Government, 2003. 
The following table summarizes appropriations for fiscal year 
2002, the budget estimates, and amounts recommended in the bill 
for fiscal year 2003.

                                                                                    [In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                                       2003 recommendation compared with--
                                                                               2002                2003 estimate         2003 recommendation   -------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                                   2002 appropriation         2003 estimate
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Title I--Department of Defense--Civil..............................                4,657,096                4,172,954                4,765,712                  108,616                  592,758
Title II--Department of the Interior...............................                  951,520                  881,149                  947,520                  (4,000)                   66,371
Title III--Department of Energy....................................               19,966,226               20,894,976               20,675,871                  709,645                (219,105)
Title IV--Independent Agencies.....................................                  220,517                  214,378                  151,897                 (68,620)                 (62,481)
                                                                    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal.....................................................               25,795,359               26,163,457               26,541,000                  745,641                  377,543
Scorekeeping adjustments...........................................                (490,000)                (286,476)                (514,000)                 (24,000)                (227,524)
                                                                    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Grand Total of bill..........................................               25,305,359               25,876,981               26,027,000                  721,641                  150,019
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              Introduction

    The Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill for 
fiscal year 2003 totals $26,027,000,000, which is $857,041,000 
above the amount appropriated in fiscal year 2002 (excluding 
supplemental appropriations), and $150,019,000 above the 
President's budget request. The Committee has given priority to 
maintaining the existing inventory of Corps of Engineers and 
Bureau of Reclamation water resources projects; continuing 
construction of ongoing water resources projects to avoid 
increased costs from stretching out project schedules; 
protecting basic science programs at the Department of Energy; 
investing in new energy technologies; providing sufficient 
funds for the Department of Energy to continue work to ready 
Yucca Mountain to receive the nation's nuclear waste; 
maintaining the nation's nuclear weapons stockpile; and 
accelerating the cleanup of contaminated Department of Energy 
sites.
    Title I of the bill provides $4,765,712,000 for the 
programs of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, an increase of 
$279,616,000 over fiscal year 2002 and $592,758,000 over the 
budget request of $4,172,954,000. The Committee has provided a 
modest increase for the civil works program despite budgetary 
constraints. By concentrating resources on traditional missions 
such as flood control and navigation which yield the greatest 
economic benefits for the nation, the Committee seeks to ensure 
the highest possible payback on taxpayer investment. The 
Committee has also included funds for a limited number of new 
studies and construction projects.
    Title II provides $947,520,000 for the Department of 
Interior and the Bureau of Reclamation, $33,259,000 over the 
amount appropriated in fiscal year 2002 and $66,371,000 over 
the budget request of $881,149,000. The Committee has not 
provided funding for the California Bay-Delta Restoration 
program in California pending the enactment of authorizing 
legislation.
    Title III provides $20,675,871,000 for the Department of 
Energy, an increase of $806,045,000 over fiscal year 2002 and 
$219,105,000 below the budget request of $20,894,976,000. Basic 
research and science programs are supported at a level 
consistent with fiscal year 2002. In addition, $7.5 billion is 
provided for environmental cleanup programs to remediate 
contaminated defense and non-defense sites throughout the 
nation, and $524.7 million is provided for the nuclear waste 
program in support of a final geologic repository for spent 
fuel high-level nuclear waste.
    Funding for the National Nuclear Security Administration, 
which includes nuclear weapons activities, defense nuclear 
nonproliferation, naval reactors, and the office of the 
administrator is $7,908,417,000, an increase of $317,952,000 
over fiscal year 2002 and a decrease of $114,932,000 from the 
budget request. For nuclear nonproliferation, the Committee has 
provided $1,167,630,000, an increase of $138,044,000 over 
fiscal year 2002 and $54,000,000 over the budget request.
    Title IV provides $151,897,000 for several Independent 
Agencies, a decrease of $68,620,000 from fiscal year 2002 and a 
decrease of $62,481,000 below the budget request of 
$214,378,000. Funding is provided for the Appalachian Regional 
Commission, the Defense Nuclear Facilities Board, the Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission and its Inspector General, and the 
Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board.

Accrual Funding of Retirement Costs and Post-Retirement Health Benefits

    The President's Budget included a legislative proposal 
under the jurisdiction of the House Committee on Government 
Reform to charge to individual agencies, starting in fiscal 
year 2003, the fully accrued costs related to retirement 
benefits of Civil Service Retirement System employees and 
retiree health benefits for all civilian employees. The Budget 
also requested an additional dollar amount in each affected 
discretionary account to cover these accrued costs.
    Without passing judgment on the merits of this legislative 
proposal, the Committee has reduced the dollar amounts of the 
President's request shown in the ``Comparative Statement of New 
Budget Authority'' and other tables in this report to exclude 
the accrual funding proposal. The disposition by Congress of 
the legislative proposal is unclear at this time. Should the 
proposal be passed by Congress and enacted, the Committee will 
make appropriate adjustments to the President's request to 
include accrual amounts.
    The Committee further notes that administration proposals 
requiring legislative action by the authorizing committees of 
Congress are customarily submitted in the budget as separate 
schedules apart from the regular appropriations requests. 
Should such a proposal be enacted, a budget amendment formally 
modifying the President's appropriation request for 
discretionary funding is then transmitted to the Congress.
    The Committee is concerned that this practice, which has 
always worked effectively for both Congress and past 
administrations, was not followed for the accrual funding 
proposal. In this case, the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) decided to include accrual amounts in the original 
discretionary appropriations language request. These amounts 
are based on legislation that has yet to be considered and 
approved by the appropriate committees of Congress. This led to 
numerous misunderstandings both inside and outside of Congress 
of what was the ``true'' President's budget request. The 
Committee believes that, in the future, OMB should follow long-
established procedures with respect to discretionary spending 
proposals that require legislative action.
                                TITLE I

                      DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL

                         Department of the Army

                       Corps of Engineers--Civil

                              INTRODUCTION

    The Committee views with growing concern the continuing low 
levels of funding requested by the Administration for the water 
resources programs of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The 
amount requested by the Administration for fiscal year 2003 is 
about $450 million below the amount appropriated in fiscal year 
2002. At the level of funding recommended by the Administration 
for fiscal year 2002 and 2003, many ongoing construction 
projects would be negatively impacted. In addition, the budget 
does not request funds for any new studies and only a single 
new construction project. The Committee is concerned that the 
Administration has not yet come to realize the importance of 
the Corps of Engineers' missions to the economic well-being of 
the Nation.
    Here are some examples of that importance. The Corps of 
Engineers is responsible for constructing and maintaining the 
Nation's ports and waterways. In 1999, about 2.3 billion tons 
of commerce moved through and on those ports and waterways. The 
value of the foreign commerce handled at ports is about $672 
billion. The Federal taxes generated by waterborne commerce at 
ports is $150 billion per year. Those ports also generate about 
13 million jobs. In the area of flood control, Corps projects 
have prevented an annual average of over $20 billion in damages 
between 1991 and 2000. Since 1928, Corps of Engineers flood 
control projects have prevented almost $6.00 in property 
damage, to say nothing of the incalculable value of lives 
saved, for each dollar expended. The Corps of Engineers 
operates 75 hydroelectric power projects, which have an 
installed generating capacity of 20,720 megawatts. These plants 
provide 24% of the Nation's hydropower output and 3% of total 
U.S. generating capacity. Even though the Corps does not 
construct projects for the sole purpose of recreation, 
recreation at Corps projects also contributes significantly to 
the Nation's economy. About 10% of the U.S. population visits 
at least one Corps project each year and those visitors spend 
$15 billion per year. That visitation supports about 600,000 
full- and part-time jobs.
    For fiscal year 2003, the Committee has recommended 
$4,615,712,000 for the Civil Works functions of the Corps of 
Engineers, $583,056,000 over the amount requested by the 
Administration (the total amount of $4,765,712,000 recommended 
for the Corps of Engineers includes $150,000,000 for the 
Formerly Uses Sites Remedial Action Program). Even at this 
level, the Committee's recommendation funds many ongoing 
projects at well below their optimum levels. The Committee has 
included a number of new construction projects and studies in 
the belief that the water resources development needs of the 
Nation are growing and cannot be met with just the projects 
currently underway.
    Finally, the Committee reminds the Administration that it 
has made every reasonable effort to undertake a dialog to learn 
the reasons why our Nation's infrastructure needs are of such 
low priority to the Administration. The Committee stands ready 
to engage in that dialog at any time.

                         GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS 


Appropriation, 2002...................................      $154,350,000
Budget Estimate, 2003.................................       102,483,000
Recommended, 2003.....................................       143,680,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2002...............................       -10,670,000
    Budget Estimate, 2003.............................      +41,197,000

Note: The original budget request of $108,000,000 for General
  Investigations included $5,517,000 to fund proposed legislation to
  require the agency to pay the full government share of the accruing
  cost of retirement for certain Federal employees. Since no legislation
  has been enacted, the budget request for General Investigations has
  been reduced by this amount.

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


    Navajo Nation, Arizona.--The Committee has provided an 
additional $200,000 for the Corps of Engineers to undertake 
flood delineation studies on the Navajo Nation.
    White River, Navigation to Newport, Arkansas.--The 
Committee is aware of the extensive coordination involved in 
preparing the reevaluation report for the White River, 
Navigation to Newport, Arkansas, project, and has, therefore, 
provided $100,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue 
activities with the project sponsor and other interest groups 
and to continue work on the reevaluation and the Environmental 
Impact Statement.
    City of Inglewood, California.--The Committee has provided 
$200,000 for the Corps of Engineers to initiate planning and 
design for replacement of water transmission pipelines for the 
City of Inglewood, California.
    City of Norwalk, California.--The bill includes $200,000 
for the Corps of Engineers to provide design assistance for the 
City of Norwalk environmental infrastructure project authorized 
in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2001.
    Desert Hot Springs, California.--The bill includes $300,000 
for the Corps of Engineers to provide technical design 
assistance for the Desert Hot Springs, California, resource 
protection and wastewater infrastructure project.
    Eastern Municipal Water District, California.--The 
Committee has provided $200,000 for the Corps of Engineers to 
provide technical assistance to the Eastern Municipal Water 
District for a regional water-related infrastructure project.
    Folsom Dam, California.--The Committee has provided 
$100,000 for the Corps of Engineers to evaluate the feasibility 
of constructing a second municipal and industrial water supply 
outlet through Folsom Dam.
    Los Angeles County Drainage Area (Cornfields), 
California.--The Committee has provided $100,000 for a study of 
ecosystem restoration and recreation needs for the Cornfields 
area of the Los Angeles River in California.
    Newport Bay Harbor (LA-3 Site Designation), California.--
The Committee has provided $250,000 for the Corps of Engineers 
to continue the LA-3 Ocean Disposal Site Designation Study.
    San Jacinto River, California.--The Committee has included 
an additional $300,000 for the Corps of Engineers to expand the 
ongoing San Jacinto River study to include an analysis of the 
feasibility of redesigning the existing flood control basin to 
include water recharge capability.
    Solana Beach--Encinitas, California.--The bill includes 
$500,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue the feasibility 
study for the Solana Beach--Encinitas, California, project.
    Tujunga Wash Restoration, California.--The bill includes 
$100,000 for the Corps of Engineers to conduct a study of 
improvements to maintain flood control and enhance 
environmental and recreation benefits in the Tujunga Wash, a 
tributary of the Los Angeles River.
    Upper Guadalupe River, California.--The Committee has 
provided $300,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue 
preconstruction engineering and design for the Upper Guadalupe 
River, California, project.
    Whitewater River Basin, California.--The Committee has 
provided $500,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue 
preconstruction engineering and design for the Whitewater River 
Basin project.
    Treatment of Dredged Material from Long Island Sound, 
Connecticut.--The Committee has provided $250,000 for the Corps 
of Engineers to initiate a demonstration program for the use of 
innovative technologies for the treatment of dredged material 
from Long Island Sound as authorized by section 345 of the 
Water Resources Development Act of 2000.
    Hagatna River Flood Control, Guam.--The Committee has 
included $100,000 for the Corps of Engineers to initiate 
preconstruction engineering and design for the Hagatna River 
Flood Control project in Guam.
    Waikiki Beach Erosion Control, Hawaii.--The Committee has 
provided $250,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue 
preconstruction engineering and design for the Waikiki Beach 
Erosion Control project in Hawaii. The Committee directs that 
any recommendation for further action on this project shall 
consider the economic feasibility of the project based on 
National Economic Development benefits regardless of the type 
of benefit and shall consider recreational benefits equivalent 
to any other form of benefits.
    Keith Creek, Rockford, Illinois.--The Committee has 
provided $100,000 for the Corps of Engineers to conduct a 
reconnaissance study to reevaluate flood protection along Keith 
Creek in Rockford, Illinois.
    Upper Mississippi and Illinois River Navigation Study, 
Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, and Wisconsin.--The bill 
includes $3,685,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue work 
on the Upper Mississippi and Illinois River Navigation Study. 
While encouraged by the progress being made since the study was 
restructured and resumed in August of last year, the Committee 
strongly desires to have the Corps of Engineers complete this 
feasibility study as soon as possible. The Committee also 
believes that, to prevent further delay and additional cost, 
the Corps should be prepared to begin preconstruction 
engineering and design activities for work envisioned in the 
feasibility study at the earliest practicable time.
    Fort Wayne, Indiana.--The Committee has provided $150,000 
for the Corps of Engineers to provide technical and design 
assistance for the Camp Scott Wetlands Treatment Project in 
Fort Wayne, Indiana.
    Indianapolis Central Waterfront, Indiana.--The Committee 
has provided $150,000 for the Corps of Engineers to revise the 
Master Plan for the Central Indianapolis Waterfront in 
Indianapolis, Indiana.
    Fort Dodge, Iowa.--The Committee has provided $100,000 for 
the Corps of Engineers to continue the study of the impacts of 
a 2-4 foot pool raise on the Des Moines River at Fort Dodge, 
Iowa.
    Metropolitan Louisville, Southwest, Kentucky.--The 
Committee has provided $250,000 for the Corps of Engineers to 
continue the feasibility study of water resources problems and 
opportunities for the Southwest Louisville, Kentucky, Flood 
Damage Reduction Project located in Jefferson County, Kentucky.
    Williamstown Lake, Kentucky.--The bill includes $100,000 
for the Corps of Engineers to conduct a reconnaissance study of 
the need to expand the existing Williamstown Lake in Grant 
County, Kentucky.
    Gulf Intracoastal Waterway Ecosystem Restoration, 
Louisiana.--The Committee has provided $300,000 to continue the 
Gulf Intracoastal Waterway Ecosystem Restoration feasibility 
study, including funds to address the erosion along Bayou 
Sorrell in Iberville Parish. The Committee expects the study to 
provide solutions to the problems of flooding of property and 
erosion of land beyond the banks of the waterway.
    West Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana.--The bill includes 
$500,000 for the Corps of Engineers to proceed to 
preconstruction engineering and design for the waterfront and 
riverine preservation, restoration, and enhancement project in 
West Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana, pursuant to section 517 of 
the Water Resources Development Act of 1999.
    West Shore, Lake Pontchartrain, Louisiana.--The Committee 
has provided $200,000 for the West Shore, Lake Pontchartrain 
project. The Committee remains concerned about the inability of 
the Corps of Engineers and St. John Parish to resolve the levee 
alignment adjacent to Interstate 10. For the third year, the 
Committee urges immediate resolution of this issue.
    Chesapeake Bay Shoreline Erosion, Maryland, Virginia, and 
Pennsylvania.--The Committee has provided $500,000 for the 
Chesapeake Bay Shoreline Erosion project, including $150,000 to 
initiate the shoreline erosion portion of the feasibility 
study.
    Middle Potomac River Basin, Maryland, District of Columbia, 
and Virginia.--The Committee has provided $550,000 for the 
Middle Potomac River Basin study, $200,000 more than the budget 
request. The additional funds will enable the Corps of 
Engineers to initiate the feasibility phase of the study. The 
Committee is aware that the Middle Potomac River Basin study 
will include a comprehensive investigation of the Holmes Run 
watershed in Virginia.
    Lansing, Michigan.--The Committee has provided $100,000 for 
the Corps of Engineers to initiate preparation of a riverfront 
master plan for Lansing, Michigan.
    St. Clair River and Lake St. Clair, Michigan.--The 
Committee has provided $120,000 for the Corps of Engineers to 
complete the management plan for the St. Clair River and Lake 
St. Clair authorized by section 426 of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1999.
    Pearl River Watershed, Mississippi.--The Committee has 
provided $500,000 for the Pearl River Watershed study in 
Mississippi, and directs the Corps of Engineers to investigate 
all potentially feasible alternatives, including plans similar 
to the plan currently referred to as the Lefleur Lakes Flood 
Control Project.
    Hudson-Raritan Estuary, Hackensack Meadowlands, New 
Jersey.--The Committee has provided $100,000 for the Corps of 
Engineers to continue a separate feasibility study of ecosystem 
restoration opportunities in the Hackensack Meadowlands in New 
Jersey.
    Southwest Valley Flood Reduction Study, Albuquerque, New 
Mexico.--The bill includes $450,000 for the Corps of Engineers 
to continue, on an expedited basis, the feasibility phase of 
the Southwest Valley Flood Reduction Study, Albuquerque, New 
Mexico. In addition, the Committee has included language in the 
bill which directs the Corps of Engineers to include in the 
study an evaluation of flood damage reduction measures that 
would otherwise be excluded from the feasibility analysis based 
on policies regarding the frequency of flooding, the drainage 
area, and the amount of runoff.
    East River Seawall, Queens County, New York.--The Committee 
has provided $100,000 for the Corps of Engineers to initiate a 
reconnaissance study of the need to restore shoreline 
protection measures in the Queensbridge area along the East 
River.
    Susquehanna River Basin Environmental Restoration and Low 
Flow Management, New York, Pennsylvania, and Maryland.--The 
bill includes $300,000 for the Corps of Engineers to initiate a 
comprehensive study to develop solutions to the water resources 
problems of the Susquehanna River Basin, including flow 
management, environmental restoration, and water security.
    Upper Delaware River Watershed, New York.--The Committee 
has provided $300,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue 
feasibility study efforts to investigate tributary restoration 
potential on the West and East Branches of the Upper Delaware 
River and the Beaverkill River.
    Upper Susquehanna River Basin, New York.--The Committee has 
provided $750,000 for the Corps of Engineers to investigate 
solutions to water resources problems in the vicinity of the 
Village of McGraw, Cortland County, New York.
    Upper Susquehanna River Basin, New York and Pennsylvania.--
The Committee has provided $500,000 for the Corps of Engineers 
to continue work on the Upper Susquehanna River Basin study, 
including work on the Catatonk Creek Watershed Initiative.
    Catawba River Watershed, North Carolina.--The Committee has 
provided $100,000 for the Corps of Engineers to provide 
technical assistance for the development of a storm water 
management plan for Gaston County, North Carolina.
    Manteo (Shallowbag) Bay, North Carolina.--The Committee has 
provided $300,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue 
shoreline monitoring and prepare plans and specifications for 
the Manteo (Shallowbag) Bay project in North Carolina.
    Mahoning River Environmental Dredging, Ohio and 
Pennsylvania.--The Committee has provided an additional 
$100,000 for a study of the need for environmental dredging of 
the Mahoning River within the State of Pennsylvania.
    Wheeling Creek, Ohio.--The bill includes $100,000 for the 
Corps of Engineers to initiate a reconnaissance level 
investigation of the Wheeling Creek Basin in Belmont County, 
Ohio, with a focus on acid mine drainage abatement and 
ecosystem restoration.
    Woodtick Peninsula and Toledo Harbor, Ohio.--The bill 
includes $100,000 for a study of a project to use material 
dredged from Toledo Harbor to provide erosion protection and 
ecosystem restoration at Woodtick Peninsula in western Lake 
Erie.
    Grand Lake Comprehensive Study, Oklahoma.--The Committee is 
aware that the Corps of Engineers has completed the draft 
report entitled Grand Lake, Oklahoma, Preliminary Analysis of 
Flood Control Operation, dated August 2002, which determined 
that Federal action has been a significant cause of the 
backwater effects to the lands upstream and adjacent to the 
reservoir. To that end, the Committee has provided $300,000 to 
initiate feasibility studies to identify feasible measures to 
address the flooding upstream and adjacent to the reservoir. 
The study is to be implemented in accordance with the 
provisions of Section 449 of the Water Resources Development 
Act of 2000.
    Spavinaw Creek, Oklahoma.--The Committee has provided 
$100,000 for a study of water quality problems in the Spavinaw 
Creek Watershed.
    Walla Walla River Watershed, Oregon and Washington.--The 
Committee has provided an additional $100,000 for the Corps of 
Engineers to expand the Walla Walla River Watershed study and 
work with the Walla Walla Watershed Alliance to investigate 
restoration of riparian habitat and river flow improvements in 
the basin.
    Tununguant Creek, Pennsylvania.--The Committee has provided 
$100,000 for the Corps of Engineers to initiate a 
reconnaissance study of flooding problems and ecosystem 
restoration opportunities in the Tununguant Creek watershed in 
the vicinity of Bradford, Pennsylvania, and Limestone, New 
York.
    Upper Ohio River Navigation Systems Study, Pennsylvania.--
The Committee has provided $400,000 for a feasibility level 
study of improvements to Emsworth, Dashields, and Montgomery 
Locks and Dams on the Ohio River.
    Chickamauga Lock, Tennessee.--The Committee has provided 
$4,000,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue 
preconstruction engineering and design for the Chickamauga Lock 
replacement project.
    Greens Bayou, Texas.--The Committee has provided $410,000 
for the Corps of Engineers to continue work on the Greens 
Bayou, Texas, project. The additional funds will enable the 
Corps to complete the General Reevaluation Report and initiate 
plans and specifications.
    Guadalupe and San Antonio Rivers, Texas.--The Committee has 
provided $500,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue work 
on the Guadalupe and San Antonio Rivers project, including 
hydrologic studies to update flood plain mapping in Goliad, 
Karnes, and Wilson Counties.
    Harris Gully, Texas.--The Committee has provided $100,000 
for the Corps of Engineers to initiate a study of flood control 
measures for Harris Gully in Houston, Texas.
    Lower Sabine River, Texas.--The bill includes $100,000 for 
a study of ways to increase the ability of the Lower Sabine 
River to move floodwaters to the Gulf of Mexico.
    Rio Grande Basin, Texas.--The Committee is aware of the 
significant water resources issues along the Rio Grande with 
the State of Texas. Due to the complexity of the issues, and 
the number of non-Federal interests that must be coordinated 
with, the Committee has provided $300,000 for an expanded 
reconnaissance study to investigate the opportunities for flood 
damage reduction, ecosystem restoration, water supply, and 
other related purposes within the Rio Grande Basin in Texas.
    Upper Trinity River Basin, Texas.--The Committee has 
provided $1,800,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue the 
Upper Trinity River Basin study, including $300,000 for the 
Dallas Floodway portion of the study and funds to continue the 
Trinity Visions project.
    Duwamish and Green River Basin, Washington.--The Committee 
has provided $600,000 for the Corps of Engineers to advance 
completion of preconstruction engineering and design for the 
Duwamish and Green River Basin project in Washington.
    Erickson/Wood County Public Port, West Virginia.--The 
Committee has provided $300,000 for the Corps of Engineers to 
continue preconstruction engineering and design activities for 
the Erickson/Wood County Public Port project. In addition, the 
Committee directs the Corps to reprogram $300,000 previously 
appropriated for the Monongahela River, Fairmont, West 
Virginia, study to accelerate work on this project.
    Little Kanawha River, West Virginia.--The Committee has 
provided $100,000 for the Corps of Engineers to initiate the 
feasibility phase of the Little Kanawha River, West Virginia, 
study.
    Parkersburg/Vienna Riverfront Park, West Virginia.--The 
bill includes $250,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue 
preconstruction engineering and design for the Parkersburg 
Vienna Riverfront Park project in West Virginia. In addition, 
the Committee directs the Corps to reprogram $45,000 previously 
appropriated for the Monongahela River, Fairmont, West 
Virginia, study to accelerate work on this project.
    Coastal Field Data Collection.--The bill includes 
$3,500,000 for the Coastal Field Data Collection program, 
$1,000,000 more than the budget request. The additional funds 
are to be used for the Southern California Beach Process Study.
    Flood Plain Management Services.--The Committee has 
provided $9,000,000 for the Flood Plain Management Services 
program, including $2,981,000 for completion of the 
foundational geographic information system for flood plain 
management in East Baton Rouge Parish in Louisiana.
    Within the amount provided for the Flood Plain Management 
Services program, $100,000 is to be used by the Corps of 
Engineers to develop an initial analysis of ways to address 
drainage and flooding problems at the College of Mount Saint 
Vincent in Riverdale, New York.
    Within the amount provided for Flood Plain Management 
Services, $200,000 is provided to assist the City of 
Indianapolis, Indiana, in planning and designing use of the 
Fall Creek flood plain for flood compatible activities.
    Other Coordination Programs.--The amount provided for Other 
Coordination Programs includes $400,000 for the Corps of 
Engineers to provide additional programmatic support to Lake 
Tahoe Basin restoration activities, including coordination with 
the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, to implement the 
Environmental Improvement Program.
    Planning Assistance to States.--The amount recommended for 
the Planning Assistance to States program includes $500,000 for 
the development of a statewide watershed management assessment 
plan for the State of Alabama, and $500,000 for the Corps of 
Engineers to provide technical assistance to the State of New 
Jersey to implement a comprehensive watershed management plan 
in the North Jersey Water Supply Area. The amount provided for 
the Planning Assistance to States program also includes $50,000 
for the Corps of Engineers to assist Gwinnett County, Georgia, 
in the development of a mitigation instrument.
    The Committee also urges the Corps of Engineers to use 
$100,000 for the preparation of a comprehensive drainage plan 
for Cayuga Creek and its tributaries in Niagara County, New 
York, and $150,000 to continue work related to remediation of 
brownfields near the Union Ship Canal in Buffalo, New York. In 
addition, the Committee urges the Corps of Engineers to use 
$250,000 to continue the project to upgrade the Daily Flow 
Model for the Delaware River Basin in New York.
    The amount provided for the Planning Assistance to States 
program includes $425,000 to provide assistance in the State of 
Oklahoma, including work on: an update of the Oklahoma 
comprehensive plan; the Kaw Reservoir regional water supply 
study, phase II; the Lake Texoma regional sewer study, phase 
II; the Spring Creek water availability study; and the Mangum 
Lake geotechnical study, phase V.
    The Committee directs the Corps of Engineers to use funds 
provided for the Planning Assistance to States program to 
participate with the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in the 
development of a comprehensive water management study for the 
lower Susquehanna River Basin.
    The amount provided for the Planning Assistance to States 
Program includes $85,000 for the development of alternatives to 
restore the capacity of Cross Lake in Shreveport, Louisiana.
    The amount provided for the Planning Assistance to States 
program includes $100,000 for the Corps of Engineers to work 
with the officials of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to 
develop a comprehensive plan for restoration of the historic 
Delaware Canal from Easton to Bristol, Pennsylvania.
    The amount provided for the Planning Assistance to States 
program includes $250,000 for the development of a master plan 
of the storm drainage system in the City of Danbury, 
Connecticut.
    Stream Gaging (U.S. Geological Survey).--The Committee has 
provided an additional $100,000 for the Corps of Engineers to 
cooperate with the U.S. Geological Survey in maintaining stream 
gages on the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint and Alabama-
Coosa-Tallapoosa River systems.

                         CONSTRUCTION, GENERAL



Appropriation, 2002...................................    $1,715,951,000
Budget Estimate, 2003.................................     1,415,612,000
Recommended, 2003.....................................     1,831,030,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2002...............................      +115,079,000
    Budget Estimate, 2003.............................     +415,418,000

Note: The original budget request of $1,440,000,000 for Construction,
  General included $24,388,000 to fund proposed legislation to require
  the agency to pay the full government share of the accruing cost of
  retirement for certain Federal employees. Since no legislation has
  been enacted, the budget request for Construction, General has been
  reduced by this amount.

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


    Duck River, Cullman, Alabama.--The Committee has provided 
$1,000,000 for the Corps of Engineers to execute the agreements 
necessary for Federal assistance in construction of the Duck 
River water supply project in Cullman, Alabama, as authorized 
in section 108 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2001.
    Huntsville Watershed Master Plan, Alabama.--The Committee 
is aware that a project to develop a master plan for the 
watershed of downtown Huntsville, Alabama, will be considered 
for authorization in this session of Congress. Should this 
project be authorized, the Committee will consider including 
funding at a later point in the appropriations process.
    Mobile Harbor, Alabama.--The Committee has provided 
$2,000,000 for the Corps of Engineers to initiate a Limited 
Reevaluation Report to determine the feasibility of 
constructing portions of the authorized project for Mobile 
Harbor, Alabama, including a passing lane and a turning basin, 
and initiate construction of those features pending completion 
of the reevaluation report.
    Montgomery Waterfront, Alabama.--The Committee is aware 
that a project for revitalizing the Montgomery, Alabama, 
waterfront will be considered for authorization in this session 
of Congress. Should this project be authorized, the Committee 
will consider including funding at a later point in the 
appropriations process.
    Southern Alabama Environmental Infrastructure, Alabama.--
The Committee is aware that a project for assisting in the 
improvement of environmental infrastructure in southern Alabama 
will be considered for authorization in this session of 
Congress. Should this project be authorized, the Committee will 
consider including funding at a later point in the 
appropriations process.
    Seward Harbor, Alaska.--The Committee has provided 
$3,253,000 for the Corps of Engineers to complete the 
breakwater project at Seward Harbor, Alaska.
    Rio Salado, Phoenix and Tempe Reaches, Arizona.--The 
Committee has provided $20,000,000 for the Corps of Engineers 
to continue construction of the Rio Salado project, including 
$5,000,000 for the Tempe portion of the project.
    City of Santa Clarita, California.--The Committee has 
provided $2,000,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue the 
project for perchlorate removal within the Eastern Santa Clara 
River Basin in the City of Santa Clarita, California.
    Coyote and Berryessa Creeks, California.--The Committee has 
provided $750,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue work 
on the reevaluation report for the Coyote and Berryessa Creeks 
project in California.
    Los Angeles Harbor, California.--The Committee has provided 
$15,000,000 for the Los Angeles Harbor, California, project. 
The Committee understands that the Corps of Engineers could 
utilize $20,000,000 to maintain optimum progress. The Committee 
also understands that the local sponsor, the Port of Los 
Angeles, desires to advance funds for this project in 
accordance with section 11 of the River and Harbor Act of 1925 
to achieve the most efficient construction schedule. The 
Committee, therefore, has included language in the bill which 
directs the Secretary of the Army to accept advance funds from 
the non-Federal sponsor as needed to maintain the project 
schedule.
    Murrieta Creek, California.--The bill includes $1,000,000 
for the Corps of Engineers to complete preconstruction 
engineering and design and initiate construction for the 
Murrieta Creek project in California.
    Newport Bay Harbor, California.--The Committee has provided 
$972,000 for the Corps of Engineers to complete preconstruction 
engineering and design and execute a Project Cooperation 
Agreement for the Newport Bay Harbor project.
    Sacramento Area, California.--The Committee has provided 
$4,200,000 for the Sacramento Area, California, project 
authorized by section 502 of the Water Resources Development 
Act of 1999. The amount provided includes: $1,000,000 for the 
project to replace water meters and water lines, and undertake 
canal lining for the Placer County Water Agency; $750,000 for 
development of the next phase of the Regional Water Master Plan 
managed by the Regional Water Authority; $1,000,000 for 
conjunctive use projects in cooperation with the San Juan Water 
District; $1,000,000 for the City of Roseville's water meter 
replacement program; and $450,000 for the effluent pipeline 
project in the City of Lincoln.
    South Perris, California.--The Committee has provided 
$1,000,000 for the Corps of Engineers to initiate design for 
the South Perris Water Supply Desalination project authorized 
by section 108(d)(52) of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 
2001.
    Yuba River Basin, California.--The Committee has provided 
$1,000,000 for the Corps of Engineers to complete 
preconstruction engineering and design and initiate 
construction for the Yuba River Basin project in California.
    Broward County, Florida.--The Committee has provided 
$3,700,000 for the Federal share of beach renourishment costs 
for the Broward County, Florida, project. In addition, the 
Committee has provided $300,000 for the Corps of Engineers to 
prepare a General Reevaluation Report for implementation of 
Segment I of the Broward County, Florida, Shore Protection 
Project.
    Fort Pierce Beach, Florida.--The Committee has provided 
$3,543,000 for the Corps of Engineers to renourish the northern 
1.3 miles of the Fort Pierce Beach project and construct a 
groin field.
    Jacksonville Harbor, Florida.--The Committee has provided 
an additional $500,000 for the Corps of Engineers to complete 
plans and specifications for the proposed extension of the 
channel.
    Manatee County, Florida.--The Committee has provided 
$3,700,000 for the Corps of Engineers to reimburse the non-
Federal sponsor for the Federal share of the cost of 
renourishing the Manatee County, Florida, project.
    Miami Harbor Channel, Florida.--The Committee has included 
$15,000,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue construction 
dredging in the Miami Harbor Channel and initiate 
preconstruction engineering and design for further improvements 
to the Miami Harbor channel.
    Nassau County, Florida.--The bill includes $400,000 for the 
Corps of Engineers to prepare plans and specifications for the 
Nassau County, Florida, shore protection project.
    Palm Beach County (Boca Raton Segment), Florida.--The bill 
includes $200,000 for the Corps of Engineers to reimburse the 
City of Boca Raton for the cost of preparing a design 
memorandum needed to support construction of the project.
    Palm Beach County (Delray Beach Segment), Florida.--The 
Committee has provided $1,000,000 to complete reimbursement of 
the Federal share of renourishing the Delray Beach Segment of 
the Palm Beach County project.
    Palm Beach County (Jupiter/Carlin Segment), Florida.--The 
Committee has provided $2,300,000 to complete reimbursement of 
the Federal share of renourishing the Jupiter/Carlin Segment of 
the Palm Beach County project.
    Panama City Beaches, Florida.--The Committee is aware that 
section 318 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 
authorized construction of the Panama City Beaches, Florida, 
shore protection project by the local project sponsor in 
accordance with the provisions of section 206 of the Water 
Resources Development Act of 1992. In addition, section 506(a) 
of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 authorized 
periodic nourishment of the project for a period of 50 years. 
However, before the project can proceed, it is necessary for 
the Secretary of the Army to execute a Project Cooperation 
Agreement with the project sponsor. Accordingly, the Committee 
directs the Secretary of the Army to enter into the required 
Project Cooperation Agreement for the Panama City Beaches, 
Florida, project within six months of enactment of this Act.
    St. Johns County, Florida.--The Committee has provided 
$300,000 for the Corps of Engineers to monitor the current 
beach nourishment project to determine its performance and 
environmental impacts.
    Chicago and Sanitary Ship Canal, Illinois.--The bill 
includes $500,000 for the operation and maintenance of the 
aquatic nuisance species dispersal barrier in the Chicago and 
Sanitary Ship Canal.
    Grand Calumet River Remedial Action Plan, Indiana.--The 
Committee has provided $250,000 for the Corps of Engineers to 
undertake a pilot project to remediate contaminated sediments 
in the Grand Calumet River in Indiana as authorized by section 
401 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1990.
    Missouri River Levee System, Iowa, Nebraska, Kansas, and 
Missouri.--The Committee has provided $8,000,000 for the Corps 
of Engineers to accelerate work on the L-385 Unit of the 
Missouri River Levee System project.
    Louisville Waterfront Park, Phases II and III, Kentucky.--
The Committee recommendation includes $500,000 for the Corps of 
Engineers to continue with the detailed design of recreation 
and access features of the Louisville Waterfront, Phases II and 
III, Kentucky.
    McAlpine Lock and Dam, Kentucky.--The Committee has 
provided $21,000,000 for the Corps of Engineers to accelerate 
work on the McAlpine Lock and Dam project, including the 
cofferdam/lock demolition contract and the boat mooring 
contract, and to allow for more efficient execution of the lock 
construction contract.
    Southern and Eastern Kentucky, Kentucky.--The bill includes 
$4,000,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue design and 
construction of selected environmental infrastructure projects 
in southern and eastern Kentucky.
    Inner Harbor Navigation Canal Lock, Louisiana.--The 
Committee is aware of new efforts to address the potential 
impacts on vehicular traffic as a result of the construction of 
a new lock on the Inner Harbor Navigation Canal. The Committee 
reemphasizes the report language included in House Report 107-
258 regarding this issue.
    Larose to Golden Meadow, Louisiana.--The Committee 
recognizes the importance of the Leon Theriot floodgate and 
remains very concerned over the delay in completion of the post 
authorization change report. The Committee directs the Corps of 
Engineers to expedite completion of the report.
    Mississippi River Gulf Outlet (Reevaluation Study), 
Louisiana.--The Committee recognizes the severe environmental 
problems caused by the construction of the Mississippi River 
Gulf Outlet project, including the erosion of banks in excess 
of 1,000 feet in some cases, and is very concerned that funds 
were not requested to continue this study. Therefore, the 
Committee has provided $1,000,000 for the Corps of Engineers to 
complete the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet reevaluation study.
    Red River Below Denison Dam, Louisiana.--The bill includes 
$2,000,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue the program 
to rehabilitate levees in Louisiana, which includes the 
installation of gravel surfaces on the levees.
    Southeast Louisiana, Louisiana.--The Committee has provided 
$52,000,000 for the Southeast Louisiana project. These funds 
are to be used to continue engineering, design, and 
construction of projects to provide for flood control and 
improvements to rainfall drainage systems in Jefferson, 
Orleans, and St. Tammany Parishes, Louisiana, in accordance 
with reports of the New Orleans District Engineer that are 
within the scope of the authorization and authorized for 
construction by Public Law 104-46, as amended.
    Muddy River, Brookline and Boston, Massachusetts.--The 
Committee has provided $1,000,000 for the Corps of Engineers to 
complete design and initiate construction of the Muddy River 
environmental ecosystem and flood damage reduction project in 
Brookline and Boston, Massachusetts.
    Clinton River Spillway, Michigan.--The Committee has 
provided $200,000 for the Corps of Engineers to prepare plans 
and specifications for the project to remove accumulated silt 
and repair the banks at the Clinton River Spillway.
    Genesee County Environmental Infrastructure, Michigan.--The 
Committee has provided $200,000 for the Corps of Engineers for 
construction of a rain gauge system in cooperation with the 
Office of the Genesee County Drain Commissioner as authorized 
in section 219(f)(59) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
1992.
    Desoto County, Mississippi.--The Committee has provided 
$4,000,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue construction 
of the DeSoto County, Mississippi, wastewater treatment 
facility.
    Mississippi Environmental Infrastructure, Mississippi.--The 
bill includes $2,000,000 for the Mississippi Environmental 
Infrastructure program authorized by section 592 of the Water 
Resources Development Act of 1999. The Committee expects the 
Corps of Engineers to use the funds to address the most 
critical water resources needs within the State of Mississippi.
    Bois Brule Levee and Drainage District, Missouri.--The 
Committee has provided $200,000 for the Corps of Engineers to 
continue its work to correct the design deficiency on the Bois 
Brule Levee and Drainage District, Missouri, project, and 
$700,000 under the Section 205 program to increase the level of 
protection from 50 to 100 years.
    St. Louis, Missouri.--The Committee has provided $4,000,000 
for the Corps of Engineers to continue to work in coordination 
with the St. Louis Metropolitan Sewer District to address 
critical water contamination problems in St. Louis, Missouri.
    City of Conrad, Montana.--The Committee has provided 
$150,000 for the Corps of Engineers to provide design 
assistance to the City of Conrad, Montana, for work associated 
with a new water intake and transmission lines.
    Rural Nevada, Nevada.--The Committee has provided 
$4,000,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue to provide 
assistance under the Rural Nevada project, including work in 
cooperation with the City of Mesquite and the Moapa Valley 
Water District.
    Delaware River Main Channel, New Jersey and Pennsylvania.--
The Committee is aware that the General Accounting Office has 
identified serious problems with the Corps of Engineers 
economic analysis of the Delaware River Main Channel deepening 
project and has found that it does not provide a reliable basis 
for a decision to proceed with the project. The Committee is 
further aware that the Corps of Engineers has initiated a 
comprehensive reanalysis of the project. Accordingly, the 
Committee has deleted the funds included in the budget request 
for construction of the project. The Committee has provided 
$500,000 for the Corps to complete the reanalysis of the 
project.
    Newton, New Jersey.--The Committee has provided $1,000,000 
for the Corps of Engineers to provide assistance to the Town of 
Newton, New Jersey, for a project to construct a water 
filtration plant.
    Fire Island Inlet to Montauk Point, New York.--The 
Committee has provided $5,000,000 for the Fire Island Inlet to 
Montauk Point project, including $3,170,000 for the 
reformulation study, $980,000 for the interim project for 
Shinnecock Inlet, and $820,000 for work related to the 
Westhampton Beach interim project.
    Long Beach Island, New York.--The Committee remains fully 
supportive of the Long Beach Island, New York, project and 
understands that sufficient carryover funding is available to 
satisfy requirements in fiscal year 2003.
    New York State Canal System, New York.--The bill includes 
$2,550,000 for the Corps of Engineers to participate in 
maintenance and rehabilitation of the New York State Barge 
Canal as authorized by section 553 of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1996.
    Mill Creek, Ohio.--The Committee has provided additional 
funds for the Corps of Engineers to accelerate work on the 
General Reevaluation Report for the Mill Creek, Ohio, project.
    Ohio Environmental Assistance, Ohio.--The Committee has 
provided $4,500,000 for the Ohio Environmental Assistance 
program authorized by section 594 of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1999. The amount provided includes: 
$1,500,000 for the City of Springfield wastewater treatment and 
sewer improvement project; $2,000,000 for wastewater 
improvements in the City of Toledo; and $1,000,000 for water 
lines along River Road in Madison Township.
    Yukon, Oklahoma.--The Committee is aware that the City of 
Yukon, Oklahoma, has limited financial ability to rehabilitate 
its water infrastructure. Therefore, the Committee has provided 
$4,125,000 for the Corps of Engineers to provide design and 
construction assistance to the City for rehabilitation of its 
municipal water infrastructure.
    Elk Creek Lake, Oregon.--Funds provided in this Act and 
funds previously appropriated for the Elk Creek Lake, Oregon, 
project are available to plan and implement long-term 
management measures at the project to maintain the project in 
an uncompleted state, including design and construction of a 
permanent trap-and-haul facility to replace the existing, 
interim facility. Funds may not be used for any further work on 
the Corps of Engineers proposal to remove a section of the dam 
for fish passage.
    Lower Columbia River Ecosystem Restoration, Oregon and 
Washington.--The Committee has provided $2,000,000 for the 
Lower Columbia Ecosystem Restoration project, the same as the 
budget request. These funds are intended only to help fulfill 
the estuary restoration actions required by the 2000 Federal 
Columbia River Power System Biological Opinion and for no other 
purpose.
    Kehly Run Dam No. 5, Pennsylvania.--The bill includes 
$150,000 for the Corps of Engineers to provide assistance to 
improve the safety at Kehly Run Dam No. 5 in Schuylkill County, 
Pennsylvania.
    South Central Environmental Improvement Program, 
Pennsylvania.--The Committee recommendation for the South 
Central Environmental Improvement Program includes funds to 
undertake spillway improvements at Dalton Run Dam, Cambria 
County, Pennsylvania.
    Southeastern Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania.--The Committee has 
provided $400,000 for the Corps of Engineers to initiate design 
for environmental and infrastructure improvements in the Cobbs 
and Mill Creek Watershed in West Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
    Athens, Tennessee.--The Committee is aware that a project 
to restore the aquatic ecosystem of Oostanaula Creek by 
addressing the primary cause of impairment will be considered 
for authorization in this session of Congress. Should this 
project be authorized, the Committee will consider including 
funding at a later point in the appropriations process.
    Cumberland County Water Supply, Tennessee.--The Committee 
has provided $800,000 for the design of water supply projects 
in Cumberland County, Tennessee.
    Brays Bayou, Houston, Texas.--The recommendation of the 
Committee includes $6,000,000 to reimburse the sponsor for 
completed discrete segments of the Detention Element scheduled 
for completion in fiscal year 2003. The Committee encourages 
the Secretary of the Army to expeditiously amend the existing 
Project Cooperation Agreement with the Harris County Flood 
Control District to include construction of all features of the 
Detention and Downstream Elements, and to reimburse the sponsor 
for any completed discrete segments of the project. The 
Committee encourages the Secretary to continue budgeting for 
reimbursement of completed discrete segments for the project. 
Consistent with existing authority, the Committee directs the 
Secretary of the Army to designate the Detention Element and 
the Diversion Element, or an approved alternative to the 
Diversion Element, as upstream and downstream components of a 
single combined project designated the Brays Bayou, Houston, 
Texas, Project. Subject to the Secretary's approval of the 
General Reevaluation Review Report for the downstream 
component, the Secretary of the Army is directed to use a 
portion of the funds appropriated for the Brays Bayou, Texas, 
Project to negotiate and execute an amendment to the existing 
Project Cooperation Agreement to include both upstream and 
downstream components as one project, and for reimbursement of 
the non-Federal sponsor for completed and approved discrete 
segments of work.
    Dallas Floodway Extension, Texas.--The Committee has 
provided $9,744,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue 
construction of the Dallas Floodway Extension project in Texas. 
The Committee has also included language in the bill which 
directs the Corps to proceed with the project in accordance 
with the report of the Chief of Engineers, dated December 7, 
1999.
    Red River Basin Chloride Control, Texas.--The bill includes 
$1,000,000 for the Corps of Engineers to initiate final design 
efforts for the Wichita River Basin chloride control project 
and continue environmental monitoring efforts.
    Red River Below Denison Dam, Texas, Arkansas, and 
Louisiana.--The Committee has provided $4,000,000 for the 
rehabilitation of the Bowie County Levee in Texas. The 
Committee has included language in the bill which provides that 
the project to be constructed is defined as Alternative B in 
the Corps of Engineers document entitled ``Bowie County Flood 
Protection Project, Red River, Texas, Project Design Memorandum 
No. 1'', April 1997, and that cost sharing shall be in 
accordance with the Flood Control Act of 1946.
    San Antonio Channel Improvement, Texas.--The bill includes 
$4,000,000 for the San Antonio Channel Improvement project in 
Texas. The funds provided above the budget request are to be 
used to complete flood plain mapping and hydraulic performance 
studies on the remainder of the San Antonio River and its 
tributaries.
    Waco Lake, Texas.--The Committee has provided $4,500,000 
for the Corps of Engineers to initiate a program to upgrade the 
recreational facilities at the Waco Lake, Texas, project. 
Deficiencies at the project include restroom facilities that 
are not ADA compliant, insufficient parking, dilapidated roads, 
and aging electrical systems.
    Mud Mountain Dam, Washington.--The Committee has provided 
$3,000,000 for the Mud Mountain Dam project in Washington, of 
which $1,500,000 shall be used to complete fish passage design 
work initiated in fiscal year 2002.
    Levisa and Tug Forks of the Big Sandy River and Upper 
Cumberland River, West Virginia, Virginia, and Kentucky.--The 
bill includes a total of $42,050,000 for the Levisa and Tug 
Forks of the Big Sandy River and Upper Cumberland River 
project. The amount provided includes: $5,500,000 for the 
Clover Fork, Kentucky, element of the project; $3,000,000 for 
the City of Cumberland, Kentucky, element of the project; 
$8,000,000 for the Town of Martin, Kentucky, element of the 
project; $4,200,000 for the Pike County, Kentucky, element of 
the project, including $1,500,000 for implementation of work 
along the tributaries of the Tug Fork and continuation of a 
Detailed Project Report for the Levisa Fork; $5,200,000 for the 
Martin County, Kentucky, element of the project; $1,000,000 for 
the Floyd County, Kentucky, element of the project; $1,000,000 
to initiate construction of the Harlan County, Kentucky, 
element of the project; $1,500,000 for continued studies along 
the tributaries of the Cumberland River in Bell County, 
Kentucky; $250,000 for additional studies along the Levisa Fork 
in Johnson County, Kentucky; and $12,400,000 to continue 
construction of the Grundy, Virginia, element of the project.
    The Committee directs the Secretary of the Army to amend 
the Pike County, Kentucky, Project Cooperation Agreement and 
implement the project described in the Pike County, Kentucky, 
Tug Fork Tributaries Detailed Project Report Supplement, dated 
January 2002.
    Continuing Authorities Programs.--The Committee is aware 
that the Administration has proposed that no new projects be 
initiated in fiscal year 2003 under the various Continuing 
Authorities Programs. The Committee can find no justification 
for such a proposal as these are small projects that can 
provide significant benefits at relatively low cost. 
Accordingly, the Committee directs the Corps of Engineers to 
initiate new studies and construction projects under the 
Continuing Authorities Programs, as appropriate.
    Shoreline Protection Project (Section 103).--The Committee 
has provided $5,000,000 for the Section 103 program. Within the 
amount provided, the recommendation includes: $10,000 to 
initiate and complete an initial appraisal for the West Beach, 
Santa Barbara, California, project; $300,000 to continue 
preparation of a detailed project report for the Carpinteria 
Beach, California, project; $100,000 to complete the 
feasibility report for the Whiting Shoreline, Indiana, project; 
$100,000 for planning and design for the Nantasket Beach, 
Massachusetts, project; $100,000 to complete the feasibility 
study and initiate plans and specifications for the Luna Pier, 
Michigan, project; $100,000 to initiate the feasibility study 
for the Krull Park, Newfane, New York, project; $100,000 to 
continue the feasibility study for the Crescent Beach, New 
York, project; and $100,000 to continue the feasibility study 
for the Lake Erie Islands Beach, Ohio, project.
    Small Navigation Projects (Section 107).--The Committee has 
provided $11,000,000 for the Section 107 program. Within the 
amount provided, the recommendation includes: $100,000 to 
initiate the feasibility study for the Point Mallard Park, 
Decatur, Alabama, project; $125,000 to complete the detailed 
project report for the Pillar Point Harbor, California, 
project; $2,875,000 to initiate and complete construction of 
the Port Hueneme, California, project; $300,000 for the 
Hernando Beach, Florida, project; $200,000 to complete the 
feasibility report for the Whiting Shoreline, Indiana, project; 
$100,000 to initiate and complete the feasibility report for 
the Greenup Slackwater Harbor, Kentucky, project; $500,000 to 
initiate construction of the Ocean City Inlet and Harbor, 
Maryland, project; $2,000,000 to initiate construction of the 
Rockhold Creek, Maryland, project; $125,000 to complete the 
feasibility study for the Rouge River, Michigan, project; 
$100,000 to initiate the feasibility study for the City of 
Mackinac Island Harbor Breakwall, Michigan, project; $100,000 
to continue the feasibility report for the Tri-County Port, 
Iuka, Mississippi, project; $100,000 to continue the 
feasibility report for the Lake Ontario Commercial Port, New 
York, project; $234,000 to complete plans and specifications 
for the Buffalo Inner Harbor, New York, project; $234,000 to 
continue the feasibility report for the Lake Erie at Sturgeon 
Point, New York, project; $250,000 to prepare plans and 
specifications for the Port of Rochester, Hojack Swing Bridge, 
New York, project; $100,000 to initiate a study at the Syracuse 
Inner Harbor and Onondaga Creek, New York; $100,000 to prepare 
an initial appraisal for the Swift Creek, Virginia, project; 
and $150,000 to continue the Saxon Creek, Wisconsin, project.
    Within the amount provided for the Section 107 program, the 
Committee recommends $100,000 for the Corps of Engineers to 
initiate a study at Knife Harbor, Minnesota, and $1,650,000 to 
continue construction of the Duluth Harbor, McQuade Road, 
Minnesota, project. In addition, the recommendation includes 
$400,000 for the Corps of Engineers to prepare plans and 
specifications and initiate construction of the Grand Portage 
Harbor, Minnesota, project. In carrying out the Grand Portage 
Harbor project, the Committee expects the Corps to use 
procedures similar to those used for the Silver Bay and 
Taconite Harbor projects, including using existing feasibility 
and other study documents and designs prepared by the State of 
Minnesota and the Grand Portage Band, and to construct the 
project in cooperation with the state and the band.
    Mitigation Damages Attributable to Navigation Projects 
(Section 111).--The Committee has provided $1,900,000 for the 
Section 111 program. Within the amount provided, the 
recommendation includes: $500,000 to investigate problems at 
Dauphin Island, Alabama; $295,000 to initiate and complete 
construction for the Herring Creek, Maryland, project; 
$1,000,000 to initiate construction of the Saco River and Camp 
Ellis Beach, Maine, project; and $100,000 to continue the 
feasibility study for the Mattituck Inlet, New York, project.
    Project Modifications for the Improvement of the 
Environment (Section 1135).--The Committee has provided 
$20,000,000 for the Section 1135 program. Within the amount 
provided, the recommendation includes: $130,000 to initiate and 
complete the feasibility report for the Ditch 28, Mississippi 
County, Arkansas, project; $100,000 to complete planning and 
design for the Horseshoe Lake, Arkansas, project; $1,000,000 to 
initiate construction of the Rillito/Swan Wetlands, Arizona, 
project; $200,000 for the feasibility study for the San Gabriel 
River Basin, Los Cerritos Wetlands, California, project; 
$1,000,000 for the Sepulveda Flood Control Basin (Bull Creek 
Channel) in California; $200,000 to initiate and complete the 
environmental restoration report for the sites 38 and 38A sand 
removal project on the Apalachicola, Chattahoochee, and Flint 
Rivers system in Florida; $200,000 to initiate and complete the 
environmental restoration report for the site 39 sand removal 
project on the Apalachicola, Chattahoochee, and Flint Rivers 
system in Florida; $90,000 to initiate planning and design for 
the Honey Creek Wetlands, Iowa, project; $398,000 to initiate 
plans and specifications for the Sand Creek, Kansas, ecosystem 
restoration project; $350,000 to initiate and complete plans 
and specifications for the New River Restoration project in 
Louisiana; $450,000 to initiate the feasibility study for the 
Lake Fausse Point Ecosystem Restoration project in Louisiana; 
$500,000 to complete plans and specifications and initiate 
construction of the Houghs Neck Salt Marsh, Massachusetts, 
project; $221,000 to complete the feasibility study for the 
Lower Rouge River Restoration, Michigan, project; $259,000 to 
complete the feasibility report for the Upper Rouge River 
Restoration, Michigan, project; $75,000 to complete the 
feasibility study for the Duck Creek, Stoddard County, 
Missouri, project; $500,000 to initiate construction of the 
Kansas City Riverfront Habitat Restoration project in Missouri; 
$270,000 to complete the feasibility study and initiate plans 
and specifications for the Brush Creek, Missouri, project; 
$400,000 to initiate plans and specifications for the Times 
Beach, New York, project; $30,000 to complete plans and 
specifications for the Little Sugar Creek Habitat Restoration 
project in North Carolina; $150,000 to continue the feasibility 
for the Sheldon's Marsh Nature Preserve project in Ohio; 
$350,000 to initiate and complete construction of the Allin's 
Cove, Barrington, Rhode Island, project; $460,000 to initiate 
and complete construction of the Boyd's Marsh Restoration 
project in Rhode Island; and $60,000 to initiate and complete 
plans and specifications for the Lower Obion River and 
Vicinity, Dyer County, Tennessee, project.
    Emergency Streambank and Erosion Control (Section 14).--The 
Committee has provided $10,000,000 for the Section 14 program. 
Within the amount provided, the recommendation includes: 
$500,000 to initiate construction of the project on the Alabama 
River in Montgomery, Alabama, from Molton to Coosa Streets; 
$700,000 to initiate and complete construction of the Ditto 
Landing Marina, Huntsville, Alabama, project; $500,000 to 
initiate and complete design and initiate construction of the 
Lake Wedowee, Randolph County, Alabama, project; $105,000 to 
initiate and complete design and initiate construction of the 
Farm Creek, City of Washington, Illinois, project; $400,000 to 
complete construction of the Melvina Creek, Illinois, project; 
$500,000 to complete phase 2 of the Kansas River, Eudora Bend 
Bridge, Kansas, project; $600,000 to complete planning and 
design and initiate construction of the Detroit River 
Shoreline, Michigan, project; $100,000 to complete planning and 
design and initiate construction of the Belle Isle South Shore, 
Michigan, project; $500,000 to initiate and complete 
construction of the Belle Isle Park, Michigan, project; 
$525,000 for construction of the Marquette, Michigan, project; 
$260,000 to initiate and complete construction of the Middle 
Fork, Grand River, Missouri, project; $400,000 to initiate and 
complete construction of the Newton Creek, New York, project; 
$300,000 for planning and design of the DeLaval Bulkhead, 
Hudson River, Poughkeepsie, New York, project; $700,000 to 
initiate construction of the Minersville, Ohio, project; 
$98,000 for construction of the Heathcott Road, Lauderdale 
County, Tennessee, project; $98,000 for construction of the 
Steelman Road, Lauderdale County, Tennessee, project; $100,000 
for planning and design of the Bogachiel River, Washington, 
project; and $500,000 for construction of the Kinnickinnic 
River, Wisconsin, project.
    Beneficial Use of Dredge Material (Section 204).--The 
Committee has provided $1,500,000 for the Section 204 program. 
Within the amount provided, the recommendation includes: 
$1,000,000 for construction of the Mississippi River Gulf 
Outlet, Louisiana, project; and $70,000 to initiate and 
complete plans and specifications for the Atchafalaya River and 
Bayous Chene, Boeuf, and Black project in Louisiana.
    Small Flood Control Projects (Section 205).--The Committee 
has provided $40,000,000 for the Section 205 program. Within 
the amount provided, the recommendation includes: $500,000 to 
continue the feasibility study for the Jasper, Alabama, 
project; $1,500,000 to initiate construction of the locally 
preferred plan for the Pinhook Creek, Alabama, project; 
$1,000,000 for the Indian Bayou, Arkansas, project; $60,000 to 
initiate and complete plans and specifications for the Spring 
Creek, St. Francis County, Arkansas, project; $130,000 to 
complete the feasibility study and initiate plans and 
specifications for the Higginson, Arkansas, project; $300,000 
to initiate and complete a detailed project report for the 
Desert Hot Springs, California, project; $500,000 for the City 
of Twentynine Palms, California, project; $3,000,000 to 
initiate construction of the Magpie Creek, California, project; 
$200,000 for the Magpie Creek (McClellan AFB), California, 
project; $460,000 to initiate plans and specifications for the 
Anaverde Creek, Palmdale, California, project; $200,000 to 
initiate the feasibility study for the Santa Venetia, 
California, project; $200,000 to complete the feasibility study 
for the Plant City, Florida, project; $2,000,000 to initiate 
construction of the Deer Creek, Village of Ford Heights, 
Illinois, project; $2,000,000 to continue construction of the 
East Peoria, Illinois, project; $60,000 for the a feasibility 
study for the Harrisburg, Illinois, project; $100,000 to 
initiate the feasibility study for the Red Mill Pond Dam, 
Indiana, project; $449,000 to complete plans and specifications 
and initiate construction of the Sumava Resorts, Indiana, 
project; $200,000 to continue preparation of plans and 
specifications for the Mad Creek, Muscatine, Iowa, project; 
$300,000 to complete the feasibility study for the Cowskin 
Creek Basin, Wichita, Kansas, project; $125,000 to continue the 
feasibility study for the Mayfield Creek and Tributaries, 
Kentucky, project; $40,000 to continue the feasibility study 
for the Bayou DeChien, Kentucky, project; $500,000 to initiate 
and complete plans and specifications for the Pailet Basin, 
Jefferson Parish, Louisiana, project; $1,000,000 to initiate 
construction of the Rosethorn Basin, Jean Lafitte, Louisiana, 
project; $1,000,000 to continue construction of the Fisher 
School Basin, Jean Lafitte, Louisiana, project; $500,000 to 
initiate plans and specifications for the Goose Bayou Basin, 
Jefferson, Louisiana, project; $100,000 to continue the 
feasibility study for the Armenco Canal, Iberia Parish, 
Louisiana, project; $500,000 to complete plans and 
specifications and initiate construction of the Elkton, 
Maryland, project; $700,000 to continue construction of the 
Bois Brule Drainage and Levee District project in Missouri; 
$100,000 to initiate a feasibility study of flooding problems 
in Lilbourn, New Madrid County, Missouri; $100,000 to complete 
the feasibility study for the Hubble Creek, Missouri, project; 
$100,000 to complete the feasibility study for the Williams 
Creek, Missouri, project; $100,000 to complete the feasibility 
study for the Goose Creek, Missouri, project; $200,000 to 
complete the feasibility study for the Blacksnake Creek Basin, 
Missouri, project; $100,000 to continue the feasibility study 
for the City of Richland, Mississippi, project; $100,000 for a 
feasibility study of flooding problems in North Natchez, 
Mississippi; $2,000,000 for the Wahpeton, North Dakota, 
project; $240,000 to complete the feasibility study and 
initiate plans and specifications for the Ridgewood Addition, 
Fargo, North Dakota, project; $1,000,000 to complete the 
feasibility study and initiate plans and specifications for the 
Jackson Brook, New Jersey, project; $200,000 to complete the 
feasibility report for the Poplar Brook, New Jersey, project; 
$221,000 to continue the feasibility study for the Fulmer 
Creek, New York, project; $130,000 to continue the feasibility 
study for the Moyer Creek, New York, project; $160,000 to 
continue the feasibility study for the Steele Creek, New York, 
project; $100,000 to initiate the feasibility study for the 
Delaware Canal and Brock Creek, Pennsylvania, project; $100,000 
to initiate the feasibility study for the Barceloneta, Puerto 
Rico, project; $75,000 for engineering and design of the 
Rossville, Tennessee, project; $200,000 to initiate and 
complete plans and specifications and execute a project 
cooperation agreement for the Town Creek, Lenoir City, 
Tennessee, project; $200,000 to complete plans and 
specifications for the Shoal Creek, Lawrenceburg, Tennessee, 
project; $500,000 to initiate construction of the Little 
Limestone Creek, Jonesborough, Tennessee, project; $100,000 to 
initiate a study of flooding problems along Sandy Creek in 
Jackson, Tennessee; $100,000 to initiate a study of flooding 
problems along Anderson Creek in Jackson, Tennessee; $200,000 
to prepare plans and specifications and initiate construction 
of the Baxter Bottom, Tipton County, Tennessee, project; 
$230,000 for the Stroubles Creek Watershed, Virginia, project; 
and $200,000 to continue the feasibility of the Wind Lake, 
Wisconsin, project.
    The Committee recommendation includes $150,000 for the 
Corps of Engineers to complete the feasibility study for the 
Augusta, Kansas, project. The Committee is aware of the 
devastation that occurred at Augusta during the Halloween flood 
of 1998, which resulted in millions of dollars in property 
damage to more than 600 homes and businesses. Therefore, the 
Committee encourages the Corps of Engineers to complete the 
feasibility study.
    In addition, the Corps of Engineers is directed to use 
previously appropriated funds to prepare plans and 
specifications and initiate construction of the flood control 
project along the Cass River in Spaulding Township, Michigan.
    The Committee is aware that the Cedar Hammock Wares Creek 
project in Manatee County, Florida, has been 15 years in the 
making and now has a scheduled completion date of July 2006. 
The Committee expects the Corps of Engineers to take all steps 
necessary to meet that date.
    The amount provided for the Section 205 program includes 
$100,000 for the Corps of Engineers to initiate a project for 
the Pennypack Creek Watershed in Pennsylvania. In conducting 
that project, the Committee urges the Corps to work with the 
Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to 
develop procedures that will lead to rapid and effective flood 
damage reduction measures, both structural and non-structural, 
with a goal of maximizing the reduction of flood damages 
through the application of each agency's planning and design 
guidelines. Not later than 180 days after the enactment of this 
Act, the Corps should submit a report to the Committee which 
describes the status of its cooperative efforts with FEMA, 
including recommended procedures for conducting joint studies, 
estimates of cost savings associated with conducting combined 
flood control studies for watersheds, and recommendations for 
legislation necessary for the Corps and FEMA to carry out joint 
flood control studies. The report should include the comments 
of local interests as to their evaluation of such a program.
    The Committee directs the Corps of Engineers to use 
previously appropriated funds to proceed with construction of 
the Flomar flood control project in Whittier, California.
    Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration (Section 206).--The Committee 
has provided $20,000,000 for the Section 206 program. Within 
the amount provided, the recommendation includes: $875,000 for 
the Mobile Delta Initiative; $100,000 to initiate a study of 
ecosystem restoration opportunities at Mirror Lake, Spring Hill 
College, Alabama; $500,000 to update the environmental impact 
statement for the Theodore Industrial Canal, Mobile Harbor, 
Alabama; $500,000 to continue the feasibility study for the 
Agua Caliente Wash project in Arizona; $100,000 to continue 
studies on the Carpinteria Sand Dunes Restoration project in 
California; $10,000 for the Carpinteria Creek Park, California, 
project; $400,000 to continue preparation of a detailed project 
report for the City of Santa Clarita, Arundo Donax Control 
project in California; $800,000 to complete the detailed 
project report and initiate plans and specifications for the 
Upper York Creek Dam, California, project; $200,000 to initiate 
the feasibility study for the Lower Boulder Creek, Colorado, 
project; $2,800,000 to continue work on the Stevenson Creek, 
Florida, project; $400,000 to continue the feasibility study 
for the Gwinnett County, Beaver Ruin Creek, Georgia, project; 
$400,000 to continue the feasibility study for the Gwinnett 
County, Jackson Creek, Georgia, project; $250,000 to complete 
plans and specifications and execute a project cooperation 
agreement for the Squaw Creek Watershed, Illinois, project; 
$200,000 to initiate a feasibility study for the Sequoit Creek, 
Illinois, project; $110,000 to complete plans and 
specifications for the Kankakee River aquatic ecosystem 
restoration project in Kankakee County, Illinois; $600,000 to 
complete plans and specifications and initiate construction of 
the Hoffman Dam, Illinois, project; $150,000 to complete the 
ecosystem restoration report for the Illinois and Michigan 
Canal project in Illinois; $500,000 to initiate construction of 
the Koontz Lake, Marshall and Stark Counties, Indiana, project; 
$1,200,000 to complete plans and specifications and initiate 
construction for the Wolf Lake, Indiana, project; $185,000 to 
complete feasibility phase studies for the Chariton River/Lake 
Rathbun Watershed, Iowa, project; $100,000 to prepare an 
aquatic restoration report for the Clear Lake, Iowa, project; 
$114,000 to complete the planning and design analysis for the 
Duck Creek-Fairmont Park Wetland Restoration project in Iowa; 
$189,000 to complete the feasibility study and initiate plans 
and specifications for the Iowa River and Clear Creek, Iowa, 
project; $119,000 to continue the feasibility study for the 
Buras Marina, Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana, project; $100,000 
to complete the feasibility study and initiate plans and 
specifications for the Mill Pond, Littleton, Massachusetts, 
project; $60,000 to continue the feasibility study for the 
Milford Pond, Massachusetts, restoration project; $200,000 for 
a feasibility study of restoration needs for the Fitchburg 
Urban Park in Massachusetts; $115,000 to complete plans and 
specifications for the Nashawannuck Pond, Easthampton, 
Massachusetts, project; $180,000 to complete plans and 
specifications for the Dog Island Shoals, Maryland, project; 
$250,000 to continue the feasibility study for the Easton 
Tanyard Branch, Maryland, project; $275,000 to continue plans 
and specifications for the Anacostia River and Tributaries, 
Maryland, project; $100,000 to initiate a feasibility study for 
the Quanicassee Wildlife Area, Bay County, Michigan, project; 
$40,000 for land acquisition and easements for the Little Sugar 
Creek Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration project in North Carolina; 
$200,000 to initiate a feasibility for the West Cary Stream 
Restoration project in North Carolina; $150,000 to complete the 
feasibility phase of the David City Wetlands, Butler County, 
Nebraska, project; $250,000 for an aquatic restoration report 
for McCarter Pond in Fair Haven, Monmouth County, New Jersey; 
$500,000 to continue the project to restore Grover's Mill Pond 
in West Windsor, Mercer County, New Jersey; $400,000 to 
initiate and complete construction of the Eaton Brook 
Reservoir, New York, project; $200,000 to continue the 
feasibility study for the Oriskany Wildlife Management Area, 
New York, project; $50,000 for a preliminary restoration report 
for the restoration of Mill Pond in Bay Shore, New York; 
$50,000 to develop a preliminary restoration report for the 
West Shore of Penataquit Creek, Bay Shore, New York project; 
$250,000 to initiate an ecosystem restoration report for the 
Sheldrake Lake/Goodlife Pond, New York, project; $250,000 for 
the Gardens Lake, Mamaroneck, New York, project; $50,000 for an 
initial assessment for the Edith Read Natural Park and Wildlife 
Sanctuary in Rye, New York; $50,000 for an initial assessment 
for the Rye, New York, Nursery Wetland; $50,000 for an initial 
assessment for Harbor Island Park, Mamaroneck, New York; 
$50,000 for an initial assessment for the Bronx River 
Streambank Stabilization and Channel Restoration, New York, 
project; $250,000 for the City of Cortland, New York, Dry Creek 
aquatic restoration project; $50,000 for an initial assessment 
for Crossway Field, Village of Scarsdale, New York; $200,000 to 
initiate the feasibility study for the Jamesville Reservoir, 
New York, project; $100,000 to initiate a preliminary 
restoration report for aquatic restoration of the Syracuse 
lakefront along Onondaga Lake, the New York State Canal System 
and Onondaga Creek in New York; $500,000 to complete the 
feasibility study for the Lake Carl Blackwell Aquatic Ecosystem 
Restoration project in Oklahoma; $500,000 to initiate 
construction of the Springfield Millrace, Oregon, project; 
$3,445,000 to initiate construction of the Eugene Delta Ponds, 
Oregon, project; $160,000 to initiate and complete planning and 
design of the Sheraden Park Stream and Chartiers Creek, 
Pennsylvania, project; $350,000 to complete a feasibility study 
of a multi-objective solution to water resources problems on 
Loyalsock Creek in Dushore, Pennsylvania, that addresses 
restoration of stream channels and wetlands while also 
addressing flooding problems; $1,000,000 to complete plans and 
specifications and initiate construction of the Nanticoke 
Creek, Pennsylvania, project; $960,000 to initiate construction 
of the Lonsdale Drive-In Wetlands, Rhode Island, Restoration 
project; $200,000 to continue the feasibility phase of the 
Applewhite Site, San Antonio, Texas, project; $500,000 for 
design and construction of the Powell River, Ely and Pucketts 
Creek, Virginia, project; $100,000 for a feasibility study for 
the Tangier Island, Virginia, project; $1,900,000 to initiate 
construction of the Middle and South Forks of the Nooksack 
River, Washington, project; $74,000 to initiate plans and 
specifications for the Koshkonong Creek, Wisconsin, project; 
$185,000 to initiate plans and specifications for the Token 
Creek, Wisconsin, project; $81,000 for planning and design of 
the Lake Koshkonong, Wisconsin, project; $362,000 for the Lake 
Belle View, Wisconsin, project; and $50,000 for a feasibility 
study for the Pike River, Wisconsin, project.
    The Committee is aware of the on-going ecosystem 
restoration project at Long Lake, Indiana, and is inclined to 
address the matter at a later date.
    Aquatic Plant Control Program.--Within the amount provided 
for the Aquatic Plant Control Program, $100,000 is to continue 
the aquatic plant control program on the Potomac River, 
including efforts to address nuisance aquatic plants near Mount 
Vernon, Virginia, and $400,000 is for aquatic plant control in 
Caddo Lake, the Lavaca, Navidad and Rio Grande Rivers, and 
other high priority sites in Texas.
    The Committee strongly encourages the Corps of Engineers to 
purchase a new milfoil machine for use on the Pend Oreille 
River in Washington State.
    Shoreline Erosion Control Development and Demonstration 
Program.--The Committee has provided $8,300,000 for the 
Shoreline Erosion Control Development and Demonstration 
Program, the same as the budget request. Of the funds provided, 
$500,000 is for the Corps of Engineers to prepare detailed 
design documents and plans and specifications for a shoreline 
erosion abatement project in North San Diego County, 
California, and $2,300,000 is for the continuation of work at 
the Miami Beach, Florida, demonstration site. In addition, the 
Committee urges the Corps of Engineers to use up to $1,000,000 
to demonstrate the effectiveness of a passive permeable groin 
system to reverse the erosion which is threatening the road 
which provides access to Alligator Point, Florida.

            Flood Control, Mississippi River and Tributaries


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





Appropriation, 2002...................................      $345,992,000
Budget Estimate, 2003.................................       280,671,000
Recommended, 2003.....................................       342,071,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2002...............................        -3,921,000
    Budget Estimate, 2003.............................      +61,400,000
Note: The original budget request of $288,000,000 for Flood Control,
  Mississippi River and Tributaries included $7,329,000 to fund proposed
  legislation to require the agency to pay the full government share of
  the accruing cost of retirement for certain Federal employees. Since
  no legislation has been enacted, the budget request for Flood Control,
  Mississippi River and Tributaries has been reduced by this amount.

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


                         General Investigations

    Bayou Meto Basin, Arkansas.--The Committee is aware of the 
need to complete the reevaluation of the Bayou Meto Basin, 
Arkansas, project, which was conditionally authorized by 
section 363(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996. 
The Committee has, therefore, included $1,000,000 for the Corps 
of Engineers to continue the general reevaluation report and 
preconstruction engineering and design for the project.

                              CONSTRUCTION

    Channel Improvement.--The Committee recognizes the critical 
need to maintain navigation along the Mississippi River and the 
efficiency of dikes in reducing dredging requirements. 
Therefore, the Committee has provided $38,340,000 for the 
Channel Improvement program, including $250,000 for the Basket 
Bar, Arkansas, dike; $300,000 for the Porter Lake, Arkansas, 
dike; $700,000 for the Caruthersville-Linwood, Missouri, dike; 
$200,000 for the Donaldson Point, Missouri, dike; and $200,000 
for the Island 7 & 8, Missouri, dike.
    Mississippi River Levees.--The bill includes $47,385,000 
for continued construction of the Mississippi River levees 
feature of the Mississippi River and Tributaries project, 
including $2,300,000 to construct the Nash Road, Missouri, 
relief wells; $2,325,000 for the Birds Point-New Madrid, 
Missouri, levee closure and box culvert; and $400,000 to 
provide wave wash protection along a portion of the main line 
levee near Tiptonville, Tennessee.
    St. Francis Basin, Arkansas and Missouri.--The Committee 
has provided $2,070,000 to continue construction of the St. 
Francis Basin project in Arkansas and Missouri, including 
$100,000 for constructing channel stabilization measures in 
Stoddard and Dunklin Counties in Missouri.
    Atchafalaya Basin, Louisiana.--The Committee has provided 
$20,873,000 for the Atchafalaya Basin project. These funds 
should be used to continue flood proofing efforts on the 
waterfronts of Morgan City and Berwick, Louisiana, and for 
repairs to the levee system. The Committee also supports 
construction of the Amelia and Chacahoula pumping stations as a 
portion of the Barrier Plan. The Committee urges the Corps of 
Engineers to expedite these features of the Barrier Plan and 
other plan components that will immediately address backwater 
flooding issues.
    Yazoo Basin, Demonstration Erosion Control, Mississippi.--
The Committee has provided $20,000,000 for the Yazoo Basin 
Demonstration Erosion Control Program in Mississippi. The work 
to date by the Corps of Engineers and the Natural Resources 
Conservation Service has shown positive results in reduction of 
flood damages, decreased erosion and sedimentation, and 
improvements to the environment. These positive results show 
that continued funding for the program is important, and that 
the program should be completed to realize the total benefits 
of the program. This may well be a case where the completed 
program gives results that are much greater than the sum of the 
individual items of work. The funds included in the bill are 
for the Corps of Engineers to continue design, real estate 
acquisition, monitoring of completed work, and initiation of 
continuing contracts. The Committee expects the Administration 
to request funds for this important program until it is 
completed.
    St. Johns Bayou and New Madrid Floodway, Missouri.--The 
Committee has provided $5,100,000 for the Corps of Engineers to 
continue construction of St. Johns Bayou and New Madrid 
Floodway project in Missouri.

                       OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

    Mississippi River Levees.--The Committee has provided 
$7,350,000 for maintenance of Mississippi River levees, 
including $1,350,000 for graveling of the mainline levees at 
Osceola, Arkansas; O'Donnell Bend, Arkansas; and the levee 
below Helena, Arkansas.
    St. Francis Basin, Arkansas and Missouri.--The Committee 
has provided $11,180,000 for the St. Francis Basin project in 
Arkansas and Missouri, including $500,000 for channel cleanout 
at Ditch 290 in Missouri, and $100,000 for levee setbacks at 
the Elk Chute East Levee in Missouri.
    Wappapello Lake, Missouri.--The bill includes $9,393,000 
for the Wappapello Lake, Missouri, project. The additional 
funds will permit the Corps of Engineers to continue the 
ongoing highway relocation project.

                   Operation and Maintenance, General


Appropriation, 2002...................................    $1,874,803,000
Budget Estimate, 2003.................................     1,913,760,000
Recommended, 2003.....................................     1,990,280,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2002...............................      +115,477,000
    Budget Estimate, 2003.............................      +76,520,000
Note: The FY 2002 amount does not include $139,000,000 in emergency
  appropriations enacted in Public Law 107-117 and $32,000,000 enacted
  in Public Law 107-206. The original budget request of $1,979,000,000
  for Operation and Maintenance, General included $65,240,000 to fund
  proposed legislation to require the agency to pay the full government
  share of the accruing cost of retirement for certain Federal
  employees. Since no legislation has been enacted, the budget request
  for Operation and Maintenance, General has been reduced by this
  amount.

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


    Black Warrior and Tombigbee Rivers and Alabama-Coosa River, 
Alabama.--The amounts provided for the Black Warrior and 
Tombigbee Rivers and Alabama-Coosa River projects include 
$250,000 and $50,000, respectively, for the Corps of Engineers 
to perform maintenance dredging of backwater areas.
    Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway, Alabama and Mississippi.--The 
Committee is concerned with the lack of competition and 
industry response to annual dredging requirements on the 
Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway. Therefore, in order to insure the 
continued reliability of the waterway for commercial 
navigation, the Committee has included language in the bill 
which directs the Corps of Engineers to investigate a full 
range of alternatives, including, but not limited to, the 
lease, lease/purchase, or purchase of a commercially 
manufactured dredge and ancillary equipment, for maintenance of 
the waterway, and to implement within two years the alternative 
which allows the reliable operation of the waterway in the most 
economic manner. It is the Committee's intent that any such 
plant acquired shall be operated by contractor personnel.
    Anchorage Harbor, Alaska.--The bill includes $4,616,000 for 
operation and maintenance of the Anchorage Harbor, Alaska, 
project, including $1,000,000 for the completion of a modeling 
study to determine sedimentation rates, volumes, and patterns.
    Cook Inlet, Alaska.--The Committee has provided $500,000 
for the Corps of Engineers to initiate a modeling study of the 
Upper Cook Inlet navigation channel in conjunction with the 
ongoing modeling for the Anchorage Harbor project.
    Kodiak Harbor, Alaska.--The Committee has provided $750,000 
for the removal of sediment and rubble deposits in the north 
and south entrance channels.
    Los Angeles County Drainage Area, California.--The bill 
includes $8,584,000 for operation and maintenance of the Los 
Angeles County Drainage project, including $3,660,000 for the 
construction of additional recreational facilities within the 
Hansen Dam Basin, and $500,000 for additional maintenance on 
the Compton Creek segment of the project. The Committee 
encourages the Corps of Engineers to contract with the Santa 
Monica Mountains Conservancy of the State of California, or its 
local designee, for the work to be undertaken at Hansen Dam, 
and to enter into a management agreement or memorandum of 
understanding with the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy or 
its local designee for the management and development of 
natural areas within the Hansen Dam Recreation Area.
    Pillar Point Harbor, California.--The Committee has 
provided $200,000 to complete repair of the east breakwater.
    San Francisco Bay Long Term Management Strategy, 
California.--The bill includes $2,000,000 for the Corps of 
Engineers to continue the San Francisco Bay Long Term 
Management Strategy, including $200,000 for the Oakland Harbor 
operation and maintenance project.
    Cherry Creek Lake, Colorado.--None of the funds provided 
for operation and maintenance of the Cherry Creek Lake project 
in Colorado may be used to undertake a study of dam safety at 
the project.
    Intracoastal Waterway from Delaware River to Chesapeake 
Bay, Delaware and Maryland.--None of the funds provided for 
operation and maintenance of the Intracoastal Waterway from 
Delaware River to Chesapeake Bay project may be used to close 
or remove the St. Georges Bridge without prior authorization of 
the Congress.
    The Committee has provided an additional $30,000 for the 
Corps of Engineers to reimburse the City of Chesapeake City, 
Maryland, for the costs of installing water supply connections 
on two streets and continue the preparation of a decision 
document regarding additional damage to the City's water supply 
system. In addition, the Committee has provided $250,000 for 
the Corps of Engineers to initiate a decision document to 
determine if the groundwater near the West View Shores 
community in Cecil County, Maryland, is being contaminated by 
leachates from the Pearce Creek disposal area.
    Apalachicola Bay, Florida.--The Committee has provided 
$2,500,000 for maintenance dredging of the East Point Channel 
segment of the Apalachicola Bay, Florida, project.
    Intracoastal Waterway, Jacksonville to Miami, Florida.--The 
Committee has provided $4,000,000 for maintenance dredging on 
the Intracoastal Waterway in the vicinity of Ponce De Leon 
Inlet, Florida.
    Palm Beach Harbor, Florida.--The Committee has provided 
additional funds for the Corps of Engineers to perform the sand 
tightening of the south jetty and undertake repairs to the 
north jetty.
    Calumet Harbor and River, Illinois.--The Committee has 
provided $4,840,000 for operation and maintenance of the 
Calumet Harbor and River project, including $900,000 for 
additional maintenance dredging and $750,000 for design, 
engineering and rehabilitation of the stone dock.
    Carlyle Lake, Illinois.--The Committee has provided 
$6,106,000 for operation and maintenance of Carlyle Lake, 
including $250,000 for rehabilitation of the Dam West 
Campground.
    Kaskaskia River, Illinois.--The Committee has provided 
additional funds for the Corps of Engineers to perform 
maintenance dredging at the mouth of the river and reestablish 
the channel to Fayetteville, Illinois.
    Burns Waterway Harbor, Indiana.--The Committee has provided 
an additional $300,000 for the Corps of Engineers to analyze 
and implement alternatives to eliminate or minimize maintenance 
costs related to scouring and shoaling from propeller wash.
    El Dorado Lake, Kansas.--The bill includes $610,000 for 
operation and maintenance of the El Dorado Lake project 
including $150,000 to replace the gate hoist cylinders.
    Fall River Lake, Kansas.--The Committee has provided 
$1,879,000 for operation and maintenance of the Fall River Lake 
project, including $355,000 to repair the stilling basin and 
$320,000 to repair the sluice gates.
    Carr Creek Lake, Kentucky.--To initiate additions and 
improvements to recreation facilities at the Carr Creek Lake, 
Kentucky, project, the Committee has provided an additional 
$500,000.
    Rough River Lake, Kentucky.--The Committee has provided an 
additional $200,000 for the Corps of Engineers to upgrade 
recreational facilities at the Axtel and North Fork Campgrounds 
at Rough River Park.
    Wolf Creek Dam, Lake Cumberland, Kentucky.--The Committee 
has provided $700,000 for the purchase and use of a skimmer 
boat to remove trash and debris from the lake.
    Atchafalaya River and Bayous Chene, Boeuf, and Black, 
Louisiana.--The Committee has provided $14,681,000 for 
operation and maintenance of the Atchafalaya River and Bayous 
Chene, Boeuf, and Black project, the same as the budget 
request. The Committee remains concerned about safe navigation 
on the project for vessels with drafts up to 20 feet. The 
Committee commends the Corps of Engineers for its efforts to 
address the ``fluff'' problem in the channel and directs the 
Corps to continue to make the safe transit of this waterway a 
priority.
    Barataria Bay Waterway, Louisiana.--The Committee has 
provided $2,000,000 for maintenance dredging of the Barataria 
Bay Waterway project. The Committee directs the Corps of 
Engineers to give priority to dredging contracts that will 
improve access to the Port of Grand Isle.
    Bayou Teche, Louisiana.--The bill includes $2,000,000 for 
the Bayou Teche, Louisiana, project. The Committee expects the 
Corps of Engineers to expedite its maintenance dredging efforts 
on the project and complete the refurbishment of the Keystone 
Lock. Further, the Committee expects the Administration to 
request funds for this project in the fiscal year 2004 budget 
request.
    J. Bennett Johnston Waterway, Louisiana.--The Committee has 
provided $9,297,000 for operation and maintenance of the J. 
Bennett Johnston Waterway project. The additional funds will 
enable the Corps of Engineers to perform needed maintenance 
dredging of the project.
    Mississippi River Gulf Outlet, Louisiana.--The Committee 
has provided an additional $300,000 for the Corps of Engineers 
to repair the north bank foreshore rock dike.
    Penobscot River, Maine.--The bill includes $100,000 for the 
Corps of Engineers to evaluate disposal options, prepare an 
environmental impact statement, and continue coordination with 
the State of Maine in preparation for maintenance dredging of 
the Penobscot Harbor, Maine, project.
    Grand Marais Harbor, Michigan.--The Committee has provided 
$175,000 for the Corps of Engineers to complete the 
reevaluation report for the Grand Marais Harbor project in 
Michigan and initiate design for a replacement for the existing 
breakwater.
    Clearwater Lake, Missouri.--The Committee has provided 
$4,860,000 for the Clearwater Lake, Missouri, project. The 
additional funds are to be used for the preparation of a new 
Water Control Plan ($675,000), the continuation of the design 
and construction of additional high water recreational 
facilities ($1,125,000), and to reduce the operation and 
maintenance backlog at the project ($1,200,000).
    Table Rock Lake, Missouri.--The Committee has provided 
$7,261,000 for operation and maintenance of the Table Rock Lake 
project for the Corps of Engineers to address the maintenance 
backlog at the project and modernize recreational facilities.
    Conchas Dam, New Mexico.--The bill includes additional 
funds for the Corps of Engineers to address the dangerous 
traffic situation on the road across Conchas Dam.
    Plattsburgh Harbor, New York.--The Committee has provided 
$1,000,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue the 
rehabilitation work on the Plattsburgh Harbor Breakwater in 
Plattsburgh, New York.
    Garrison Dam, Lake Sakakawea, North Dakota.--The Committee 
has provided an additional $100,000 for mosquito control in the 
vicinity of Williston, North Dakota.
    Clarence J. Brown Dam, Ohio.--The Committee has provided an 
additional $400,000 for enhancements to the Buck Creek Trail.
    Deer Creek Lake, Ohio.--The Committee has provided an 
additional $350,000 for the Corps of Engineers to upgrade the 
recreational facilities at Deer Creek Lake.
    Muskingum River Lakes, Ohio.--The Committee has included 
$7,183,000 for operation and maintenance of the Muskingum River 
Lakes project in Ohio, including $800,000 to conduct a system 
operations study and develop a flood warning system, and 
$250,000 to conduct a water quality study of selective 
withdrawal concepts at Tappan Lake.
    Toledo Harbor, Ohio.--The bill includes $4,425,000 for 
operation and maintenance of the Toledo Harbor, Ohio, project, 
including $200,000 for additional dredging and $700,000 for 
dewatering and additional work on the confined disposal 
facility.
    Eufaula Lake, Oklahoma.--The Committee has provided 
additional funds for the Eufaula Lake project in Oklahoma to 
address the maintenance backlog, and for work associated with 
the proposed transfer of abandoned land at Hickory Point to the 
Choctaw Nation.
    Columbia River at the Mouth, Oregon.--The Committee has 
provided $7,632,000 for the Columbia River at the Mouth 
project, of which $1,000,000 is for the Corps of Engineers to 
continue to study the proposed placement of dredged material in 
the surf area at Benson Beach, Washington, at the mouth of the 
Columbia River. Specifically, the Corps should work 
collaboratively with State and local stakeholders to determine 
the effectiveness of this solution to dredged material disposal 
problems, monitor potential impacts to the region, and 
determine whether this dredged material disposal practice is 
technically sound, environmentally acceptable, and cost 
effective.
    Tillamook Bay and Bar, Oregon.--The bill includes an 
additional $300,000 for the Corps of Engineers to prepare plans 
and specifications for repair and restoration of the jetties at 
the Tillamook Bay and Bar project.
    Conemaugh River Lake and Loyalhanna Lake, Pennsylvania.--
The Committee has provided an additional $50,000 each for the 
Conemaugh River Lake and Loyalhanna Lake projects for the Corps 
of Engineers to determine if the releases schedule for each 
project can be modified to permit greater use of the downstream 
rivers during summer months without adversely impacting other 
authorized project purposes.
    East Branch Clarion River Lake, Pennsylvania.--The 
Committee has provided an additional $100,000 for the Corps of 
Engineers to upgrade the sewer and septic system at the East 
Branch Clarion River Lake project.
    Johnstown, Pennsylvania.--The bill includes $1,500,000 for 
the Corps of Engineers to continue the major rehabilitation of 
the Johnstown, Pennsylvania, local flood protection project.
    Kinzua Dam and Allegheny Reservoir, Pennsylvania.--The bill 
includes an additional $500,000 for the Corps of Engineers to 
provide angler/visitor access that is ADA compliant and to 
modernize the visitor center.
    Raystown Lake, Pennsylvania.--The Committee has provided an 
additional $500,000 for the Corps of Engineers to improve the 
road leading to the Susquehanna Campground at Raystown Lake.
    Tioga-Hammond Lakes, Pennsylvania.--The Committee has 
provided an additional $100,000 for additional improvements to 
recreational facilities at the Tioga-Hammond Lakes project.
    Tionesta Lake, Pennsylvania.--The Committee has provided an 
additional $950,000 for the Corps of Engineers to complete the 
upgrade to the campground at the Tionesta Lake project.
    Cooper River, Charleston Harbor, South Carolina.--The 
Committee has provided additional funds for the Corps of 
Engineers to make a lump sum payment to the South Carolina 
Department of Natural Resources for operation of the fish lift.
    Belton Lake, Texas.--The bill includes $3,407,000 for the 
Belton Lake, Texas, project. The additional funds will enable 
the Corps of Engineers to address the maintenance backlog at 
the project, including repairs to roads and dilapidated 
recreational equipment.
    Denison Dam, Lake Texoma, Texas.--The Committee has 
provided $6,832,000 for the Denison Dam, Lake Texoma, project. 
The additional funds are for the Corps of Engineers to study 
the proposed reallocation of storage at the lake to water 
supply, to address critical maintenance needs at the project, 
and for work associated with the proposed transfer of land at 
the project to private interests.
    North San Gabriel Dam and Lake Georgetown, Texas.--The 
Committee has provided an additional $1,000,000 to be used for 
upgrading park facilities.
    Stillhouse Hollow Dam, Texas.--The Committee has provided 
$2,005,000 for the Stillhouse Hollow Dam, Texas, project. The 
additional funds will enable the Corps of Engineers to address 
the maintenance backlog at the project.
    Waco Lake, Texas.--The Committee has provided $3,158,000 
for the Waco Lake, Texas, project. The additional funds are to 
be used to make recreation improvements associated with raising 
the level of the lake.
    Philpott Lake, Virginia.--The Committee directs that no 
funds be used to operate the campground and other facilities 
for overnight use at the Goose Point Recreation Area at 
Philpott Lake if day use for picnicking, swimming, and use of 
the boat ramp is prohibited at the Goose Point Recreation Area.
    Grays Harbor and Chehalis River, Washington.--The bill 
includes $10,481,000 for operation and maintenance of the Grays 
Harbor and Chehalis River project in Washington, including 
$1,700,000 to complete rehabilitation of the north jetty.
    Neah Bay, Washington.--The Committee has provided 
$1,200,000 for emergency rehabilitation of the breakwater at 
the Neah Bay project in Washington.
    Bluestone Lake, West Virginia.--The Committee has provided 
$3,149,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue the drift and 
debris initiative being undertaken at Bluestone Lake, West 
Virginia.
    Fox River, Wisconsin.--The bill includes $7,372,000 for the 
Fox River project in Wisconsin, including $6,000,000 to 
complete the transfer of the locks on the river to the State of 
Wisconsin.
    Facility Protection.--The budget request included 
$64,000,000 to provide for additional security guards at Corps 
of Engineers critical infrastructure projects. The Committee 
has been advised that the Corps now estimates that security 
guard costs in fiscal year FY 2003 will be approximately 
$35,000,000. Accordingly, the Committee has provided 
$35,000,000 for this activity.
    Hydropower Maintenance.--The budget includes a proposal for 
the Power Marketing Administrations (excluding the Bonneville 
Power Administration) to provide direct funding from power sale 
revenues for the operation and maintenance of Corps' hydropower 
facilities. Currently, hydropower operation and maintenance 
costs are appropriated from the General Fund. The 
Administration has submitted the necessary legislation to 
authorize this change. In anticipation of this change, the 
budget request includes $149 million for hydropower operation 
and maintenance, about $49,000,000 more than the amount 
normally recommended. Due to budgetary constraints, the 
Committee has not provided this additional funding pending 
action by the appropriate authorizing committees to enact the 
proposal.
    Inland Waterways Navigation Charts.--The Committee has 
provided an additional $2,000,000 for the development of an 
electronic navigation charting data system on the Black 
Warrior-Tombigbee Rivers system in Alabama.

                           REGULATORY PROGRAM

Appropriation, 2002...................................      $127,000,000
Budget Estimate, 2003.................................       144,252,000
Recommended, 2003.....................................       134,000,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2002...............................        +7,000,000
    Budget Estimate, 2003.............................      -10,252,000
Note: The original budget request of $151,000,000 for the Regulatory
  Program included $6,748,000 to fund proposed legislation to require
  the agency to pay the full government share of the accruing cost of
  retirement for certain Federal employees. Since no legislation has
  been enacted, the budget request for the Regulatory Program has been
  reduced by this amount.

    This appropriation provides for salaries and related costs 
to administer laws pertaining to the regulation of navigable 
waters and wetlands of the United States in accordance with the 
Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, the Clean Water Act of 1977, 
and the Marine Protection Act of 1972.
    For fiscal year 2003, the Committee recommends an 
appropriation of $134,000,000, $10,252,000 below the budget 
request and $7,000,000 more than the amount appropriated in 
fiscal year 2002.

                             REVOLVING FUND

    Replacement of Corps of Engineers Aircraft.--In the years 
since the Corps of Engineers was originally authorized to 
acquire airplanes for the use of some Divisions, profound 
changes have occurred in transportation and communications. 
Therefore, the Corps of Engineers may neither replace the 
Mississippi Valley Division and Northwestern Division aircraft 
nor acquire additional aircraft until the practicability and 
economic benefits of such ownership has been re-evaluated and 
proved to have merit when compared with options including 
military air, lease sharing, vidoeconferencing, other 
alternatives, and a combination of all other available means.

            FORMERLY UTILIZED SITES REMEDIAL ACTION PROGRAM

Appropriation, 2002...................................      $140,000,000
Budget Estimate, 2003.................................       140,298,000
Recommended, 2002.....................................       150,000,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2002...............................       +10,000,000
    Budget Estimate, 2003.............................       +9,702,000
Note: The original budget request of $141,000,000 for the Formerly
  Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program included $702,000 to fund
  proposed legislation to require the agency to pay the full government
  share of the accruing cost of retirement for certain Federal
  employees. Since no legislation has been enacted, the budget request
  for the Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program has been
  reduced by this amount.

    The Committee recommendation for the Formerly Utilized 
Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP) is $150,000,000, an 
increase of $9,702,000 over the budget request and $10,000,000 
more than fiscal year 2002 funding. The additional funds are 
provided to accelerate cleanup at existing FUSRAP remediation 
sites, with emphasis on those sites that are nearing 
completion, and to prepare for the new sites that have recently 
been added into the program. The Corps may reprogram up to 
$1,000,000 among FUSRAP projects; reprogramming of amounts 
equal to or greater than $1,000,000 require Committee approval.
    Congress transferred FUSRAP from the Department of Energy 
(DOE) to the Army Corps of Engineers in fiscal year 1998. In 
appropriating FUSRAP funds to the Corps of Engineers, the 
Committee intended to transfer only the responsibility for 
administration and execution of cleanup activities at eligible 
FUSRAP sites where DOE had not completed cleanup. The Committee 
did not intend to transfer to the Corps ownership of and 
accountability for real property interests, which remain with 
DOE. The Committee expects DOE to continue to provide its 
institutional knowledge and expertise to serve the Nation and 
the affected communities to ensure the success of this program.
    The Committee renews its guidance to the Corps to prepare a 
bi-annual report that provides a brief summary on the status of 
remediation efforts ongoing at all FUSRAP sites. Copies of this 
report should be made available to Congress, local 
stakeholders, and appropriate local, state, and Federal 
officials.

                 FLOOD CONTROL AND COASTAL EMERGENCIES

Appropriation, 2002...................................      -$25,000,000
Budget Estimate, 2003.................................        20,227,000
Recommended, 2003.....................................        20,000,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2002...............................       +45,000,000
    Budget Estimate, 2003.............................         -227,000
Note: The original budget request of $22,000,000 for Flood Control and
  Coastal Emergencies included $1,773,000 to fund proposed legislation
  to require the agency to pay the full government share of the accruing
  cost of retirement for certain Federal employees. Since no legislation
  has been enacted, the budget request for Flood Control and Coastal
  Emergencies has been reduced by this amount.

    The Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies appropriation 
funds flood emergency preparation, flood fighting and rescue 
operations, and repair of flood control and Federal hurricane 
or shore protection works. It also provides funds for emergency 
supplies of drinking water where the source has been 
contaminated, and, in drought distressed areas, provides for 
adequate supplies of water for human and livestock consumption.
    For fiscal year 2003, the Committee has recommended 
$20,000,000, $227,000 below the budget request.
    The Committee is aware that a number of innovative systems 
have been developed for use in flood fights. One such system is 
the Rapid Deployment Flood Wall, which utilizes a series of 
interconnecting plastic cells which, when filled with sand, 
form a flood protection barrier. The Committee encourages the 
Corps of Engineers to invest in the Rapid Deployment Flood Wall 
technology to evaluate the improvement in flood fighting that 
would occur with its use and its cost effectiveness.

                            GENERAL EXPENSES

Appropriation, 2002...................................      $153,000,000
Budget Estimate, 2003.................................       155,651,000
Recommended, 2003.....................................       154,651,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2002...............................        +1,651,000
    Budget Estimate, 2003.............................       -1,000,000
Note: The original budget request of $161,000,000 for General Expenses
  included $5,349,000 to fund proposed legislation to require the agency
  to pay the full government share of the accruing cost of retirement
  for certain Federal employees. Since no legislation has been enacted,
  the budget request for General Expenses has been reduced by this
  amount.

    This appropriation finances the expenses of the Office of 
the Chief of Engineers, the Division Offices, and certain 
research and statistical functions of the Corps of Engineers.
    The Committee recommendation for General Expenses is 
$154,651,000, $1,000,000 below the budget request and 
$1,651,000 above the fiscal year 2002 amount.
    The recommendation also includes bill language prohibiting 
the use of funds to support a congressional affairs office 
within the executive office of the Chief of Engineers. This 
language has been included in Energy and Water Development 
Appropriations Act since fiscal year 2000. The Committee still 
believes that an office of congressional affairs is unnecessary 
for the effective management of the Civil Works program by the 
Corps' headquarters, and the efficient coordination of Civil 
Works issues with Members of Congress and committee staff. The 
Committee is concerned that, despite the language carried in 
this Act, the Office of Congressional Affairs has been involved 
in the exchange of Civil Works information between the 
headquarters and the Congress, at times causing delays in 
scheduling meetings and providing answers to Congressional 
inquiries. The Committee believes that the technical knowledge 
and managerial expertise needed for the Corps' headquarters to 
effectively address Civil Works authorization, appropriations, 
and policy matters reside in its Civil Works organization. 
Therefore, the Committee directs that the Office of 
Congressional Affairs not be part of the process by which 
information on Civil Works projects, programs, and activities 
is provided to the Congress.
    In 1998, the Chief of Engineers issued a Command Directive 
transferring the oversight and management of the General 
Expenses account, as well as the manpower associated with this 
function, from the Civil Works Directorate to the Resource 
Management Office. The oversight and management of the Civil 
Works program lies solely with the Directorate of Civil Works, 
and it is funded through the General Expenses account to 
perform those duties. The Committee is very concerned that the 
lack of oversight by the Director of Civil Works over the 
General Expenses account may be having a detrimental impact on 
the performance of the Civil Works mission. Therefore, the 
Chief of Engineers is directed to provide to the Committee, by 
September 15, 2002, an assessment of the adequacy and 
distribution of allocations of the General Expenses account. 
The Committee needs to be assured that General Expenses funds 
are appropriately allocated in order for the Civil Works 
Directorate to adequately perform its mission.
    Tulsa District Restructuring.--The Committee is aware that 
the Tulsa District of the Corps of Engineers has proposed a 
restructuring of its field offices. The Committee is also aware 
that the District has postponed acting on that proposal until 
it has been fully coordinated with local interests and members 
of the Oklahoma Congressional delegation. The Committee 
supports that decision.
    Reprogramming of Funds.--Over the years, Committee has 
granted the Corps of Engineers great latitude to reprogram 
funds from studies, construction projects, and maintenance 
activities which are either delayed or are being terminated to 
those where the funds can be effectively used to keep projects 
moving and accelerate completion. The Committee believes that 
the ability to reprogram funds is essential to the Corps' 
ability to effectively manage its program. Accordingly, the 
Committee was very concerned to learn that the Corps of 
Engineers has not been reprogramming funds from a number of 
projects which are obviously not moving forward. It has been 
and continues to be the intent of the Committee that when any 
project is not moving forward, the Corps of Engineers look to 
reprogram the funds appropriated for that project to one where 
the funds can be effectively utilized unless explicitly 
instructed not to do so by the Committee on Appropriations.
    Gavins Point Dam, Nebraska and South Dakota.--The Committee 
is aware that on March 6, 2002, the State of Nebraska filed a 
lawsuit seeking a judgment against the United States in the 
amount of $33,300,000. This represents the State's estimated 
cost of correcting damage to Nebraska State Highway 12, which 
has been undermined and weakened due to flooding and erosion 
brought about by the operation of the Corps of Engineers Fort 
Randall Dam and Gavins Point Dam on the Missouri River. The 
Committee is also aware that the Justice Department has 
determined that use of the Judgment Fund is not appropriate for 
this type of case. Without commenting on the merits of the case 
or the terms of a possible settlement, the Committee wishes to 
remind the Corps of Engineers that current law provides that 
appropriations shall be applied only to the objects for which 
the appropriations were made except as otherwise provided by 
law (31 U.S.C. 1301(a)), and that no appropriations have been 
made relative to this case. In addition, no funds have been 
requested for this purpose for fiscal year 2003. The committee 
believes that the appropriate course of action in this 
situation is for the Administration to submit a fiscal year 
2003 budget amendment if funds are required in fiscal year 
2003, or to include a request for funds as part of the fiscal 
year 2004 budget submission. The Committee directs that the 
Corps of Engineers not expend funds to settle this case without 
consulting the Committee on Appropriations.

                           General Provisions


                       Corps of Engineers--Civil

    Sec. 101. The Committee has included language proposed by 
the Administration which places a limit on credits and 
reimbursements allowable per project and annually for all 
projects. The Administration also proposed that this provision 
be made permanent law; however, the Committee has elected not 
to make that change.
    Sec. 102. The Committee has included language which 
provides that the Secretary of the Army may expend funds under 
normal competitive procedures for renovations of the dredge 
McFARLAND authorized by section 563 of Public Law 104-303 
provided that the dredge McFARLAND is operated in the manner 
recommended in the report of the Assistant Secretary of the 
Army (Civil Works) to Congress dated June 12, 2000, and is 
operated using the same procedures as those established to 
operate the dredge WHEELER.
    Sec. 103. The Committee has included language which 
provides that none of the funds appropriated in this or any 
other Act may be used by the Corps of Engineers to undertake 
activities related to the Chicago Harbor, Illinois, Visitors 
Center.
    Sec. 104. The Committee has included language which directs 
the Secretary of the Army to reduce by thirty-seven percent the 
full time employees in the Corps of Engineers Chicago District.
                                TITLE II

                       DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

                          Central Utah Project

                CENTRAL UTAH PROJECT COMPLETION ACCOUNT

Appropriation, 2002...................................       $36,228,000
Budget Estimate, 2003.................................        36,228,000
Recommended, 2003.....................................        36,228,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2002...............................  ................
    Budget Estimate, 2003.............................  ................
Note: The original budget request of $36,252,000 for the Central Utah
  Project Completion Account included $24,000 to fund proposed
  legislation to require the agency to pay the full government share of
  the accruing cost of retirement for certain Federal employees.
  Therefore, the budget request for the Central Utah Project Completion
  Account has been reduced by this amount.

    The Central Utah Project Completion Act (Titles II--VI of 
Public Law 102-575) provides for the completion of the Central 
Utah Project by the Central Utah Water Conservancy District. 
The Act also: authorizes the appropriation of funds for fish, 
wildlife, and recreation mitigation and conservation; 
establishes an account in the Treasury for the deposit of these 
funds and of other contributions for mitigation and 
conservation activities; and establishes a Utah Reclamation 
Mitigation and Conservation Commission to administer funds in 
that account. The Act further assigns responsibilities for 
carrying out the Act to the Secretary of the Interior and 
prohibits delegation of those responsibilities to the Bureau of 
Reclamation.
    The Committee recommendation for fiscal year 2003 to carry 
out the provisions of the Act is $36,228,000, the same as the 
budget request and the amount appropriated in fiscal year 2002.

                         Bureau of Reclamation

                      WATER AND RELATED RESOURCES

Appropriation, 2002...................................      $762,531,000
Budget Estimate, 2003.................................       726,147,000
Recommended, 2003.....................................       807,518,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2002...............................       +44,987,000
    Budget Estimate, 2003.............................      +81,371,000
Note: The FY 2002 amount does not include $30,259,000 in emergency
  appropriations enacted in Public Law 107-117, and $7,000,000 enacted
  in Public Law 107-206. The original budget request of $739,705,000 for
  Water and Related Resources included $13,558,000 to fund proposed
  legislation to require the agency to pay the full government share of
  the accruing cost of retirement for certain Federal employees.
  Therefore, the budget request for Water and Related Resources has been
  reduced by this amount.

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


    Colorado River Front Work and Levee System, Arizona and 
California.--The Committee has provided $5,450,000 for the 
Colorado River Front Work and Levee System project. Of the 
total provided, $2,000,000 is for planning and design of two 
regulating reservoirs near the All-American Canal.
    South/Central Arizona Investigations Program, Arizona.--The 
bill includes $2,097,000 for the South/Central Arizona 
Investigations Program. The amount provided includes $100,000 
for the Southern Arizona Regional Water Management study and 
$175,000 for the Upper Gila River Watershed study, as requested 
by the Administration. In addition, the Committee has provided 
$300,000 for the West Salt River Valley Water Management study. 
These funds will enable the Bureau of Reclamation to continue 
its work with state and regional officials to finalize a plan 
for a regional solution to increasing renewable water supplies 
and reducing groundwater dependence.
    The Committee is concerned about a potentially serious 
pollution threat on the Lower Colorado River below Hoover Dam 
that could adversely impact the drinking water of more than 20 
million Americans. This threat remains notwithstanding the 
extraordinary financial commitments at the local level by 
members of the Colorado River Regional Sewer Coalition. The 
Committee recognizes that there is also a Federal 
responsibility to address the related water supply and quality 
issues, and it directs the Bureau of Reclamation to act as lead 
agency in conducting a study of the remaining technical, 
structural, and intergovernmental steps that must be taken to 
protect the River. The Bureau is instructed to work 
expeditiously with appropriate Federal, state, local, and 
private parties, including the Environmental Protection Agency, 
the Council on Environmental Quality, and the Colorado River 
Regional Sewer Coalition. The Committee has provided $1,000,000 
for this purpose.
    Central Valley Project, American River Division, 
California.--The bill includes $17,101,000 for the American 
River Division of the Central Valley Project. Of the total, 
$500,000 is for work associated with the construction of a 
parallel pipeline to serve customers of the City of Roseville 
and the San Juan Water District, and $900,000 is for the Bureau 
of Reclamation to initiate construction of a temperature 
control device on the El Dorado Irrigation District water 
intake. In addition, $3,500,000 is to reimburse the City of 
Folsom, California, for costs associated with the replacement 
of the Natoma Pipeline System. The Committee is aware of the 
need to relocate the road that currently crosses over Folsom 
Dam and intends to address this issue at a later point in the 
appropriations process.
    Central Valley Project, Delta Division, California.--The 
Committee has provided $21,418,000 for the Delta Division of 
the Central Valley Project. Of the total, $5,000,000 is for the 
Bureau of Reclamation to complete design and initiate 
construction of an intertie between the Delta-Mendota Canal and 
the California Aqueduct to restore the capacity and flexibility 
lost in the Central Valley Project's Delta delivery system due 
to subsidence along the Delta-Mendota Canal.
    Central Valley Project, East Side Division, California.--
The Committee has provided an additional $1,400,000 for the 
Bureau of Reclamation to continue the work to upgrade the water 
and sewer systems at New Melones Lake and perform a visitor 
capacity study at New Melones Lake.
    Central Valley Project, Miscellaneous Project Programs, 
California.--The bill includes $15,053,000 for Miscellaneous 
Project Programs of the Central Valley Project. Of the total, 
$300,000 is for post construction hydraulic evaluations and 
biological testing and monitoring for the Banta-Carbona 
Irrigation District Fish Screen project, and $500,000 is for an 
investigation of the resource problems and needs of the 
Mokelumne River Watershed. The Committee has also provided 
$500,000 to continue Phase II of the Kaweah River Delta 
Corridor Enhancement Study.
    Central Valley Project, Sacramento River Division, 
California.--The Committee has provided $9,601,000 for the 
Sacramento River Division of the Central Valley Project. Of the 
total, $2,000,000 is for the continuing evaluation of water 
diversion and fishery protection options at the Red Bluff 
Diversion Dam, and $400,000 is to complete planning and design 
of flood control and watershed enhancement elements of the 
Colusa Basin Integrated Resources Management Plan. In addition, 
$2,000,000 has been provided for the Bureau of Reclamation to 
help support work carried out by the Glenn-Colusa Irrigation 
District (GCID) and the Tehama-Colusa Canal Authority to 
accelerate investigations associated with determining the 
feasibility of constructing Sites Reservoir, and for carrying 
out other water resources planning and management activities 
pursuant to the so-called Phase 8 settlement agreement between 
the Bureau of Reclamation and the State of California. The 
investigations related to Sites Reservoir shall include an 
evaluation of the utilization of both the GCID Main Canal and 
the Tehama-Colusa Canal as a means to convey water to the 
proposed reservoir. The Committee has provided $500,000 for the 
Bureau of Reclamation to participate with Butte County, 
California, in development of a integrated resource management 
plan.
    City of Needles, California.--The Committee is aware that 
the Bureau of Reclamation has been negotiating with the City of 
Needles, California, to finalize a lease for approximately 25 
acres of the 33 acres at the Bureau's dredge yard located in 
Needles, California. The lease would provide for development of 
the property by the City to accommodate summer and winter 
recreation, and provide Colorado River access. The Bureau would 
retain a portion of the property for dredge launching and 
operations, and would exchange the 25 acres of their existing 
yard for 10 acres of City-owned property located south of the 
yard. The Committee directs the Bureau of Reclamation to 
provide a report on the status of said lease before December 
2002. The report shall include the particulars and time 
schedule for completing the Recreation and Public Purpose lease 
with the City of Needles, recommendations for eventual fee 
simple transfer of leased property, and a Memorandum of 
Understanding developed to insure continued access of the bay 
by both agencies.
    Lake Tahoe Regional Wetlands Development, California.--The 
Committee has provided $3,000,000 for the Bureau of Reclamation 
to continue design and construction of the Lake Tahoe Regional 
Wetlands Development project.
    Long Beach Desalination Project, California.--The Committee 
has provided $1,000,000 for the Bureau of Reclamation to 
continue to participate in the development of a desalination 
pilot project in cooperation with the City of Long Beach, 
California.
    North San Diego County Water Recycling Project, 
California.--The Committee has provided $2,500,000 for the 
North San Diego County Water Recycling Project, including 
$100,000 for the Bureau of Reclamation's share of the San Elijo 
component of the project.
    San Diego Area Water Reclamation Program, California.--The 
bill includes $6,500,000 for the San Diego Area Water 
Reclamation Program, of which $500,000 is for the North River 
Groundwater Production Project feasibility study.
    San Gabriel Basin Restoration Fund, California.--The bill 
includes language which provides that $12,000,000 of the funds 
appropriated for Water and Related Resources shall be deposited 
in the San Gabriel Restoration Fund to continue the program to 
design, construct, and operate projects to contain and treat 
the spreading groundwater contamination in the San Gabriel and 
Central Groundwater Basins in California.
    Southern California Investigations Program, California.--
The Committee has provided $1,542,000 for the Southern 
California Investigations Program. Of the funds provided, 
$200,000 is for the Bureau of Reclamation to work with the 
Antelope Valley--East Kern Water Agency to undertake an 
appraisal level investigation of possible alternatives to 
storing and delivering its California State Project water 
allocation, including constructing a storage reservoir known as 
the Antelope Buttes Reservoir, and $500,000 is for the Bureau 
of Reclamation to participate with the Santa Ana Watershed 
Project Authority in the Chino Basin Conjunctive Use Program.
    Equus Beds Groundwater Recharge Demonstration Project, 
Kansas.--The Committee is aware that the pilot program for the 
Equus Beds project is complete. The Committee strongly urges 
the Bureau of Reclamation to work with the impacted communities 
and the State of Kansas on design and engineering of the full-
scale project.
    Southern Nevada Water Recycling Project, Nevada.--The 
Committee has provided $1,000,000 for the Las Vegas Wastewater 
Reclamation project in Nevada.
    Albuquerque Metropolitan Area Water Reclamation and Reuse 
Project, New Mexico.--The bill includes $400,000 for the second 
phase of the non-potable surface water reclamation project for 
the City of Albuquerque, New Mexico.
    Middle Rio Grande Project, New Mexico.--The Committee is 
concerned that the continuing Endangered Species Act 
controversy regarding the silvery minnow is diverting resources 
from essential maintenance needs of the Middle Rio Grande 
project. Accordingly, the Bureau of Reclamation is directed to 
report back to the Committee by February 1, 2003, with a 
determination if this is the case, and, if so, a list of the 
maintenance requirements that are not being met.
    Santa Fe Water Reclamation and Reuse Project, New Mexico.--
The Committee has provided $500,000 for the Bureau of 
Reclamation to continue the feasibility report and NEPA 
compliance activities for the Santa Fe Water Reclamation and 
Reuse project.
    Norman Project, Oklahoma.--The bill includes $683,000 for 
the Norman Project, including $250,000 for a study of measures 
to augment water supplies at Lake Thunderbird in cooperation 
with the Central Oklahoma Master Conservancy District.
    Oklahoma Investigations Program, Oklahoma.--The Committee 
has provided $907,000 for the Oklahoma Investigations Program, 
including $700,000 for a hydrology and water resources 
management study of the Arbuckle-Simpson Aquifer.
    El Paso Water Reclamation and Reuse Project, Texas.--The 
Committee has provided $1,000,000 for the continuation of work 
on the Central El Paso feature of the project, which will 
reclaim water from the Haskell R. Street Wastewater Treatment 
Plant.
    Lower Rio Grande Valley Water Resources Conservation and 
Improvement, Texas.--The Committee has provided $2,000,000 for 
the Bureau of Reclamation to carry out activities authorized in 
the Lower Rio Grande Valley Water Resources Conservation and 
Improvement Act of 2000, Section 4, Public Law 106-576.
    Washington Investigations Program, Washington.--The 
Committee has provided $818,000 for the Washington 
Investigations Program. Of the total provided, $300,000 is to 
provide technical assistance and undertake appraisal level 
studies for the creation of additional water storage in the 
Yakima River Basin, with specific emphasis on the proposed 
Black Rock Reservoir.
    Colorado River Storage Project, Section 5.--The Committee 
has provided an additional $100,000 for the Bureau of 
Reclamation to examine the potential for transferring the San 
Juan-Chama project in New Mexico to the project beneficiaries.
    Departmental Irrigation Drainage Program.--The Committee 
has provided $3,350,000 for the Departmental Irrigation 
Drainage Program. Of the total, $750,000 is for the Uncompahgre 
Valley Water Users Association selenium remediation 
demonstration project in Colorado.
    Drought Emergency Assistance Program.--The Committee has 
included $4,128,000 for the Drought Emergency Assistance 
Program. The amount provided includes $479,000 for drought 
emergency planning in the State of Nebraska, and $750,000 to 
rehabilitate and replace existing wells and construct new wells 
to address the current drought conditions in the City and 
County of Santa Fe, New Mexico. In addition, $1,000,000 is 
provided for a regional weather modification program in the 
states of Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas.
    Site Security.--The Committee has provided $28,440,000 for 
the Bureau of Reclamation's site security program, the same as 
the budget request. The Committee is aware that on April 4, 
2002, the Commissioner of Reclamation issued policy guidance on 
the reimbursability of counter-terrorism funding which stated 
that security costs associated with the increased security of 
Bureau of Reclamation facilities in response to the terrorist 
attacks of September 11, 2001, would be nonreimbursable. The 
Committee is very supportive of this decision, and understands 
that it applies to funds appropriated in Public Law 107-117, 
and funds appropriated in this Act.
    Title XVI Water Reclamation and Reuse Program.--The 
Committee has provided $3,500,000 for the Title XVI Water 
Reclamation and Reuse Program, of which $2,000,000 is to 
provide continued support to the WateReuse Foundation's 
research program. In addition, $125,000 is provided for the 
Bureau of Reclamation to conduct an appraisal level 
investigation and feasibility study to determine the viability 
of recycling in the Desert Hot Springs area of California.
    Water Management and Conservation Program.--The Committee 
is aware of the significant efforts being made by the 
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California and its 
member agencies to conserve water through the development and 
demonstration of innovative water conservation technologies. 
These efforts are a critical component of the State of 
California's plan to reduce its dependence on the Colorado 
River. Therefore, the Committee urges the Bureau of Reclamation 
to continue urban water conservation programs within the 
service area of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern 
California.
    Wetlands Development.--The bill includes $3,617,000 for the 
Wetlands Development Program. The additional funds will enable 
the Bureau of Reclamation to initiate work on the Yuma East 
Wetlands Restoration Project.

                CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT RESTORATION FUND

Appropriation, 2002...................................       $55,039,000
Budget Estimate, 2003.................................        48,904,000
Recommended, 2003.....................................        48,904,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2002...............................        -6,135,000
    Budget Estimate, 2003.............................                --

    The Central Valley Project Restoration Fund was authorized 
in Title 34 of Public Law 102-575, the Central Valley Project 
Improvement Act. This Fund was established to provide funding 
from project beneficiaries for habitat restoration, improvement 
and acquisition, and other fish and wildlife restoration 
activities in the Central Valley Project area of California. 
Revenues are derived from payments by project beneficiaries and 
from donations. Payments from project beneficiaries include 
several required by the Act (Friant Division surcharges, higher 
charges on water transferred to non-CVP users, and tiered water 
prices) and, to the extent required in appropriations Acts, 
additional annual mitigation and restoration payments.
    For fiscal year 2003, the Committee has provided 
$48,904,000, the same as the budget request.
    Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District Fish Screen Improvement 
Project.--The Committee directs that any portion of the 
$2,000,000 provided under this heading in fiscal year 2002 for 
the Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District Fish Screen Improvement 
Project that has not been used for that project shall be made 
available for work carried out by the Glenn-Colusa Irrigation 
District to accelerate investigations associated with 
determining the feasibility of constructing Sites Reservoir and 
for carrying out other water resources planning and management 
activities pursuant to the so-called Phase 8 settlement 
agreement between the Bureau of Reclamation and the State of 
California.
    Anadromous Fish Screen Program.--The Committee directs that 
an additional $5,382,000 be provided for the Anadromous Fish 
Screen Program to continue work on the American Basin Fish 
Screen and Habitat Improvement Project (Natomas Mutual Water 
Company) as well as the fish screen projects being undertaken 
by the Sutter Mutual Water Company and Reclamation District 
108.

               CALIFORNIA BAY-DELTA ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION

Appropriation, 2002...................................                --
Budget Estimate, 2003.................................       $15,000,000
Recommended, 2003.....................................                --
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2002...............................                --
    Budget Estimate, 2003.............................       -15,000,000

    The purpose of the California Bay-Delta Ecosystem 
Restoration account is to fund the Federal share of ecosystem 
restoration and other activities being developed for the San 
Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta by a State and 
Federal partnership (CALFED). Federal participation in this 
program was authorized in the California Bay-Delta 
Environmental and Water Security Act enacted in the fall of 
1996. That Act authorized the appropriation of $143,300,000 for 
ecosystem restoration activities in each of fiscal years 1998, 
1999, and 2000. Attempts to reauthorize the program have thus 
far been unsuccessful. Accordingly, no funds were provided in 
fiscal years 2001 and 2002 in support of the CALFED effort 
through this account.
    The Committee remains very supportive of the efforts that 
have been taken in the State of California to develop this 
program, which will provide a safe, clean, and reliable water 
system for millions of people while improving the environment. 
However, for fiscal year 2003, the Committee has again 
recommended no funding in the absence of authorizing 
legislation for this multi-year, multi-billion dollar effort. 
The Committee is aware that authorizing legislation has been 
introduced in the House and the Senate and will reconsider 
funding for the program as the bill moves through the 
appropriations process.

                       POLICY AND ADMINISTRATION

Appropriation, 2002...................................       $52,968,000
Budget Estimate, 2003.................................        54,870,000
Recommended, 2003.....................................        54,870,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2002...............................        +1,902,000
    Budget Estimate, 2003.............................               --
Note: The original budget request of $66,238,000 for Policy and
  Administration included $11,368,000 to fund proposed legislation to
  require the agency to pay the full government share of the accruing
  cost of retirement for certain Federal employees. Therefore, the
  budget request for Policy and Administration has been reduced by this
  amount.

    The Policy and Administration account provides for the 
executive direction and management of all Reclamation 
activities, as performed by the Commissioner's offices in 
Washington, DC, and Denver, Colorado, and in the five regional 
offices. The Denver office and regional offices charge 
individual projects or activities for direct beneficial 
services and related administrative and technical costs. These 
charges are covered under other appropriations.
    For fiscal year 2003, the Committee has recommended 
$54,870,000, the same as the budget request, and $1,902,000 
above the fiscal year 2002 amount.

                           General Provisions


                       Department of the Interior

    Sec. 201. The Committee has included language proposed by 
the Administration authorizing the Secretary of the Interior, 
acting through the Commissioner of Reclamation, to continue the 
program of providing grants to institutions of higher learning 
to support the training of Native Americans to manage their 
water resources. This language was included in the fiscal year 
2002 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act.
    Sec. 202. The Committee has included language proposed by 
the Administration regarding the San Luis Unit and the 
Kesterson Reservoir in California. This language has been 
included in Energy and Water Development Appropriations Acts 
for several years.
    Sec. 203. The Committee has included language which amends 
section 212 of the FY 2001 Energy and Water Development 
Appropriations Act related to the conveyance of the Sly Park 
Unit in California.
    Sec. 204. The Committee has included language which 
clarifies that the San Gabriel Basin Restoration Fund may be 
used to reimburse the Central Basin Municipal Water District 
for expenditures made between February 11, 1993 and December 
21, 2000 in connection with the San Gabriel Basin Restoration 
project authorized in Public Law 106-554.
                               TITLE III

                          DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommendation supports the Administration's 
budget request for the Department of Energy and adjusts funding 
for some programs to reflect specific Congressional interests. 
Total funding for the Department of Energy is $20,675,871,000, 
an increase of $806,045,000 over fiscal year 2002 and 
$146,995,000 over the budget request.

                        CONGRESSIONAL DIRECTION

    Over the past year, the Department has disregarded the 
Congressional direction provided by this Committee in House 
Reports 107-112 and 107-258 which accompanied the Energy and 
Water Development Appropriations Act, 2002. Required reports to 
Congress have not been delivered in a timely manner, if at all; 
directed fund transfers have not been accomplished; legislative 
drafting requests have gone unanswered; and projects have not 
been executed in a timely manner.
    Beginning not less than 30 days after enactment of this 
bill into law, the Secretary is required to submit to the House 
Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Energy and Water 
Development, a monthly report on the status of all projects, 
reports, fund transfers, and other actions contained in this 
House report, in the Energy and Water Development 
Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2003, and in the conference 
report accompanying that Act. As this status report must 
address Congressional directives applicable to both the 
National Nuclear Security Administration and the rest of the 
Department, the Secretary may not delegate the responsibility 
for submitting this monthly report. The Department should work 
with the Committee on the content of this report.

                   BUDGET JUSTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS

    The fiscal year 2003 budget from the Department included 
several budget structure changes that were not discussed in 
advance with the Committee as is the accepted procedure for 
proposed budget structure changes. The Committee has not 
approved these changes. The Committee wants to make very clear 
to the Department that any budget structure changes proposed 
for fiscal year 2004 must be approved in advance by the 
Committee.
    The fiscal year 2004 budget justifications submitted by the 
Department must include the following: (1) a section 
identifying the last year that authorizing legislation was 
provided by Congress for each program; (2) funding within each 
construction project data sheet for elimination of excess 
facilities at least equal to the square footage of the new 
facilities being requested; and (3) funding to eliminate excess 
facilities at least equal to the square footage of new 
facilities being constructed as general plant projects (GPP). 
The Department should work with the Committee on the specific 
information needed for each requirement.

                    SAFEGUARDS AND SECURITY FUNDING

    Heightened security concerns have necessitated a 
substantial increase in safeguards and security funding to 
ensure there is minimal risk to Department sites in the face of 
potential terrorist threats. The Department must ensure, 
however, that such funding is used for its stated purpose and 
not as an indirect source for other site services or 
activities, especially those unrelated to safeguards and 
security. As much as half of the safeguards and security 
funding at some sites appears to have been allocated to support 
indirect costs. Therefore, the Committee directs that all 
Departmental sites adhere to strict guidelines on utilizing 
these funds solely for safeguards and security, eliminating the 
use of standard formula-based overhead rates, and restricting 
indirect charges only to those that specifically and 
proportionately benefit safeguards and security programs.
    The Committee expects the Secretary to inform all 
Departmental organizations that these funds are to be used 
directly and demonstrably for safeguards and security emergency 
measures. In no case should indirect charges on these funds 
exceed 15 percent, unless granted an exception by explicit 
waiver from the Secretary. The House and Senate Committees on 
Appropriations are to be notified of any waivers granted by the 
Secretary. Also, the Committee directs the Office of the 
Inspector General to oversee and advise Congress on the 
appropriate expenditure of these funds.

                           PROJECT MANAGEMENT

    The Committee continues to strongly support the 
Department's Office of Engineering and Construction Management 
(OECM), and the effort being made to establish DOE's Project 
Management Order 413.3. The Committee expects every 
Departmental program and facility, including all elements of 
the National Nuclear Security Administration, to comply with 
these project management requirements.
    The Committee has consistently emphasized the need for the 
Department to improve project management essential to cost 
effective and time efficient construction projects. While some 
progress has been made, further steps must be taken. The 
Committee directs the Department to include funding for project 
management integration and technical support programs in each 
project data sheet included in the budget request. These funds 
should be itemized as part of the Other Project Costs line item 
and include project management excellence programs necessary to 
achieve internationally accepted professional standards and 
best practices. Such project management costs should support 
integrated project teams including: risk development, 
assessment, and execution; university and industry project 
management training, consulting, and mentoring; project-
conducted independent project reviews; subject matter experts; 
and project management technical support for federal project 
managers.
    The Committee is also concerned that a large number of new 
facilities are being requested and funded, particularly in the 
National Nuclear Security Administration, with no plans to tear 
down the buildings that are being replaced. The Committee 
directs the Department to include the costs of tearing down the 
facilities that are being replaced in the costs of all 
construction projects and identified clearly in the 
construction project data sheets.

                     FACILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE

    The Committee is well aware of the deterioration of the 
Department's facilities and of the Department's inability to 
evaluate and address the readiness and maintenance status of 
its facilities. The Committee is encouraged by the Office of 
Management, Budget and Evaluation's efforts to strengthen and 
standardize management of the Department's facilities and 
infrastructure (F&I;) program and to address management of all 
F&I; assets. The Committee fully supports current efforts to 
develop a directive establishing requirements for Department-
wide implementation of an F&I; program, also to be complied with 
on a corporate basis.
    The F&I; directive should establish a comprehensive program 
for the corporate management of all Departmental assets 
throughout their entire life-cycle and require appropriate data 
be provided to ensure that funds budgeted and spent on F&I; 
assets can be tracked and outcomes measured. The F&I; policy 
must also address the large inventory of excess facilities 
maintained throughout the complex and ensure that these 
facilities are decontaminated, decommissioned, and demolished 
as quickly and as cost-effectively as possible. The Committee 
also expects the Department to assign Federal staff at each 
site and Headquarters to provide oversight of this activity and 
ensure accountability.
    One of the primary reasons the capital assets in the 
Department have been allowed to deteriorate to an unacceptable 
degree is insufficient funding for maintenance. Preventative 
and corrective maintenance is funded indirectly through 
overhead accounts and is always the first thing eliminated when 
higher priority needs arise. The Committee is now providing 
huge amounts of funding to restore the capital assets to an 
acceptable condition and wants to ensure that these assets 
remain in good working order. To do this, the Committee directs 
the Department to provide direct funding of all maintenance as 
a key component of its F&I; policy and to initiate this direct 
funding in the fiscal year 2004 budget.

                           EXCESS FACILITIES

    A recent Inspector General report ``Disposition of the 
Department's Excess Facilities'' found the Department's program 
to dispose of excess facilities was not fully satisfactory. 
Facility disposition activities were not prioritized to balance 
mission requirements, reduce risks, and minimize life-cycle 
costs. In some cases, disposition plans were in conflict with 
requirements for new facilities, while in others, facilities 
posing little risk were decommissioned while the Department 
failed to dispose of buildings representing a substantially 
greater risk. The Committee expects the Department to quickly 
implement the Inspector General's recommendations to develop a 
corporate approach to disposition activities; collect and 
report reliable data on costs; and provide sufficient funding 
to carry out an effective disposition program.
    The Committee expects the Department to decontaminate and 
decommission (D&D;) and dispose of excess facilities that will 
provide the greatest impact on reducing long-term costs and 
risk. New and innovative disposal practices must be implemented 
to reduce costs and expedite site cleanups. Anecdotal evidence 
indicates that, for a variety of reasons, the Department is not 
always procuring services to demolish excess facilities in the 
most cost effective manner. Thus, the Committee directs that 
none of the funds for disposal of excess facilities may be used 
to D&D; or demolish excess facilities at any site unless the 
services are procured though an open-competitive process which 
allows experienced contractors throughout the country the 
opportunity to bid on each project.

                        AUGMENTING FEDERAL STAFF

    The Committee continues to believe there is too much 
reliance on support service contractors and other non-Federal 
employees throughout the Department of Energy. The Department 
reduced the number of management and operating (M&O;) contractor 
employees assigned to the Washington metropolitan area to 220 
in fiscal year 2002, and the Committee expects the Department 
not to exceed 200 in fiscal year 2003. However, at Headquarters 
the Department also continues to rely extensively on support 
service contractors for technical assistance and oversight 
despite the large number of Federal employees also on staff.
    Report on M&O; contractor employees.--The Department is to 
provide a report to the Committee at the end of fiscal year 
2002 on the use of M&O; contractor employees assigned to the 
Washington metropolitan area. The report is to identify all M&O; 
contractor employees who work in the Washington metropolitan 
area, including the name of the employee, the name of the 
contractor, the organization to which he or she is assigned, 
the job title and a description of the tasks the employee is 
performing, the annual cost of the employee to the Department, 
the Headquarters program organization sponsoring each M&O; 
employee, the program account funding that employee, and the 
length of time the employee has been detailed to the Department 
or elsewhere in the Washington metropolitan area (for example, 
the Congress, the Executive Office of the President, and other 
Federal agencies). The report should also include detailed 
information on the cost of maintaining each M&O; office in the 
Washington metropolitan area. This report is to include actual 
data for the period October 1, 2001 through September 30, 2002, 
and is due to the Committee on January 31, 2003.
    Report on support service contractors.--The report is to 
include for each support service contract at Headquarters: the 
name of the contractor; the program organization (at the lowest 
organization level possible) hiring the contractor; a 
descriptive and detailed list of the tasks performed; the 
number of contractor employees working on the contract; and the 
annual cost of the contract. This report is to include actual 
data for the period October 1, 2001 through September 30, 2002, 
and is due to the Committee on January 31, 2003.

                        REPROGRAMMING GUIDELINES

    The Committee requires the Department to promptly and fully 
inform the Committee when a change in program execution and 
funding is required during the fiscal year. To assist the 
Department in this effort, the following guidance is provided 
for programs and activities funded in the Energy and Water 
Development Appropriations Act.
    Definition.--A reprogramming includes the reallocation of 
funds from one activity to another within an appropriation, or 
any significant departure from a program, project, or activity 
described in the agency's budget justification as presented to 
and approved by Congress. For construction projects, a 
reprogramming constitutes the reallocation of funds from one 
construction project identified in the justifications to 
another or a significant change in the scope of an approved 
project.
    Criteria for Reprogramming.--A reprogramming should be made 
only when an unforeseen situation arises, and then only if 
delay of the project or the activity until the next 
appropriations year would result in a detrimental impact to an 
agency program or priority. Reprogrammings may also be 
considered if the Department can show that significant cost 
savings can accrue by increasing funding for an activity. Mere 
convenience or desire should not be factors for consideration.
    Reprogrammings should not be employed to initiate new 
programs or to change program, project, or activity allocations 
specifically denied, limited, or increased by Congress in the 
Act or report. In cases where unforeseen events or conditions 
are deemed to require such changes, proposals shall be 
submitted in advance to the Committee and be fully explained 
and justified.
    Reporting and Approval Procedures.--The Committee has not 
provided statutory language to define reprogramming guidelines, 
but expects the Department to follow the spirit and the letter 
of the guidance provided in this report. Consistent with prior 
years, the Committee has not provided the Department with any 
internal reprogramming flexibility in fiscal year 2003, unless 
specifically identified in the House, Senate, or conference 
reports. Any reallocation of new or prior year budget authority 
or prior year deobligations must be submitted to the Committees 
in writing and may not be implemented prior to approval by the 
Committees on Appropriations.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee's recommendations for Department of Energy 
programs are described in the following sections. A detailed 
funding table is included at the end of this title.

                             Energy Supply

Appropriation, 2002...................................      $666,726,000
Budget Estimate, 2003.................................       693,934,000
Recommended, 2003.....................................       633,909,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2002...............................       -32,817,000
    Budget Estimate, 2003.............................      -60,025,000
Note: The original budget request of $696,690,000 for Energy Supply
  included $2,756,000 to fund proposed legislation to require the agency
  to pay the full government share of the accruing cost of retirement
  for certain Federal employees. Since this legislation has not been
  enacted, the budget request has been reduced by this amount.

    The Energy Supply account includes the following programs: 
Renewable Energy Resources; Nuclear Energy; and Environment, 
Safety and Health (non-defense). Technical Information 
Management, which had formerly been included in the Energy 
Supply appropriation but is managed by the Office of Science, 
is transferred to the Science appropriation. As in fiscal year 
2002, the Committee recommends that the funds for Energy Supply 
activities remain available until expended.

                       RENEWABLE ENERGY RESOURCES

    The total committee recommendation for renewable energy 
resources is $396,000,000, the same as fiscal year 2002 funding 
and a decrease of $11,000,000 from the budget request.
    The Committee is disappointed with the Department's slow 
pace in executing projects directed in the Energy and Water 
Development appropriations bill for fiscal year 2002. In part, 
this delay is due to the fact that certain parts of the 
Renewable Energy Resources program are, for historical reasons, 
being executed by a wide variety of field offices and 
laboratories, some not within the chain of command of the 
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. While the 
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy has made a 
significant effort to streamline its headquarters organization, 
it has not yet done the same with the field structure that 
executes its programs. Accordingly, the Department is directed 
to concentrate its Renewable Energy Resources work at the field 
offices and laboratories that are subject to the authority, 
direction, and control of the Assistant Secretary of Energy for 
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. The Assistant Secretary 
should also review, as recommended in the Strategic Program 
Review, the cost of doing business at the three weapons 
laboratories.
    In the House report accompanying the Energy and Water 
Development appropriations bill for fiscal year 2002, the 
Committee directed the Department to develop a clear set of 
metrics that can be used by the Congress and the Administration 
to compare the effectiveness of the federal investment in 
alternate energy sources. The Department was directed to submit 
these as part of the detailed budget justification for 
Renewable Energy Resources in the fiscal year 2003 budget 
request, but has failed to do so. While the Department deserves 
credit for preparing a Strategic Program Review that attempts 
to quantify the historic performance of various renewable 
technologies, this Strategic Program Review does not provide 
the kind of metrics specifically requested by the House. The 
Committee renews its direction to the Department to provide 
Congress with a set of quantitative measures that can be used 
to evaluate the potential costs and benefits of various 
renewable technologies. Absent such metrics, the Congress has 
no objective basis for supporting the changes in research 
emphasis proposed in the fiscal year 2003 budget request.

                     RENEWABLE ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES

    Renewable Energy Technologies include biomass/biofuels 
energy systems, geothermal technology development, hydrogen 
research, hydropower, solar energy, and wind energy systems.
    Biomass/Biofuels Energy Systems.--The Committee 
recommendation for integrated research and development on 
biomass and biofuels, which includes both biopower energy 
systems and biofuels energy systems, is $86,005,000, the same 
as the budget request and a decrease of $6,995,000 from the 
fiscal year 2002 funding level. Within this amount is included 
$3,000,000 for initiatives on corn bioproduct research and 
$2,000,000 for the Consortium for Plant Biotechnology Research.
    Geothermal technology development.--The Committee provides 
$26,500,000 for geothermal technology development, the same as 
the budget request and a decrease of $2,500,000 compared to the 
fiscal year 2002 funding level. Despite a strong statement of 
support by the Committee in last year's House report for 
university research on geothermal energy, the Department 
proposes to reduce university research under the Geoscience and 
Supporting Technologies subprogram to only $1,200,000 in fiscal 
year 2003. The Committee recommendation provides $2,600,000 for 
university research in geothermal technologies in fiscal year 
2003, the same as in fiscal year 2002, with a corresponding 
reduction of $1,400,000 for geothermal research conducted at 
DOE laboratories.
    Hydrogen research.--The Department's budget request 
emphasizes the potential of hydrogen for stationary and 
vehicular fuel cell applications, and proposes a significant 
increase in research on technologies for the generation and 
storage of hydrogen, as well as the demonstration of hydrogen 
infrastructure and stationary fuel cell applications. The 
Committee recommends $35,476,000 for hydrogen research, a 
decrease of $4,405,000 from the budget request and an increase 
of $4,476,000 over fiscal year 2002 funding. The Committee 
generally concurs with the Department's assessment of 
hydrogen's potential, but funding constraints preclude funding 
the full request. Also, the Committee is concerned that the 
Department not duplicate work already done in the U.S. and 
elsewhere on hydrogen generation and storage technologies. The 
Committee encourages the Department to explore the transition 
to a methane economy as an intermediate step to the eventual 
shift to a hydrogen economy. Within available funds for 
Utilization and Distributed/Remote Power, $4,000,000 is 
provided for the continued development and validation of 
advanced proton exchange membrane fuel cells and metal membrane 
fuel purification technologies.
    Hydropower.--The Committee recommends $6,489,000 for 
hydropower research, an increase of $1,189,000 over fiscal year 
2002 and $1,000,000 less than the budget request for fiscal 
year 2003. The Department should use this reduced funding to 
complete a limited program of testing and demonstration of new 
turbine technologies and then ``graduate'' this program within 
the next two fiscal years.
    Solar Energy.--Solar energy technologies include: 
concentrating solar power; photovoltaic energy systems; and 
solar building technology research. As in fiscal year 2002, 
these subprograms are combined into a single account for solar 
energy. The total Committee recommendation for solar energy in 
fiscal year 2003 is $87,625,000, the same as the budget request 
and a decrease of $7,375,000 compared to fiscal year 2002. Of 
these funds, $5,000,000 is provided for industry-based 20-25kW 
Dish-Stirling and 20kW Dish-PV development. The control level 
for fiscal year 2003 continues at the solar energy program 
account level.
    Wind energy systems.--The Committee recommends $44,000,000 
for wind energy systems, the same as the budget request and 
$3,000,000 more than fiscal year 2002. The Committee concurs 
with Department's emphasis on technologies that will be 
effective in low wind speeds.

                  ELECTRIC ENERGY SYSTEMS AND STORAGE

    Under the electric energy systems and storage program, the 
Department conducts research and development on advanced 
technologies for the generation, transmission, storage, and 
distribution of electric power. The electric energy systems and 
storage program is funded at $70,447,000, the same as the 
fiscal year 2003 budget request and $7,447,000 more than the 
fiscal year 2002 funding level. Within the funds available for 
transmission reliability, the Committee recommendation includes 
$4,000,000 for the Department to continue field testing of 
advanced aluminum matrix composite conductors.

                  RENEWABLE SUPPORT AND IMPLEMENTATION

    The renewable support and implementation program includes 
departmental energy management, international renewable energy, 
the renewable energy production incentive (REPI), renewable 
Indian energy resources, and renewable program support. Due to 
funding constraints, the Committee recommendation for renewable 
support and implementation is $19,866,000, $4,000,000 less than 
the budget request and an increase of $5,366,000 compared to 
the fiscal year 2002 funding level. This recommendation 
provides $1,500,000 for departmental energy management, 
$4,000,000 for international renewable energy, including 
$2,000,000 for International Utility Efficiency Partnerships, 
$6,000,000 for the renewable energy production incentive 
program, $6,307,000 for renewable Indian energy resources, and 
$2,059,000 for renewable program support, of which $1,000,000 
is to support the National Alliance of Clean Energy Incubators.

                  NATIONAL RENEWABLE ENERGY LABORATORY

    The Committee recommendation for the National Renewable 
Energy Laboratory (NREL) in Golden, Colorado, is $5,000,000, 
the same as the budget request and as the fiscal year 2002 
funding level.

                           PROGRAM DIRECTION

    Due to fiscal constraints, the Committee recommendation for 
program direction is $14,592,000, a reduction of $1,595,000 
from the budget request and a decrease of $4,608,000, or 24 
percent, compared to fiscal year 2002 funding.

                        NUCLEAR ENERGY PROGRAMS

    The Committee recommendation for nuclear energy programs is 
$213,698,000, a decrease of $36,100,000 from the budget request 
and $36,758,000 from the fiscal year 2002 funding level. The 
reduction from the budget request reflects the transfer of the 
Fast Flux Test Facility to the Non-Defense Environmental 
Management account.
    The Department's fiscal year 2003 budget request for 
Nuclear Energy assumed two major changes to the existing budget 
structure: the consolidation of various programs into the new 
Radiological Facilities Management account, and the merger of 
the previous Nuclear Facilities Management program with the 
Advanced Accelerator Applications program. The Committee does 
not concur with the changes as proposed by the Department. Any 
future proposals to change the current budget structure must be 
approved, in advance, by the House and Senate Energy and Water 
Development Appropriations Subcommittees before inclusion in 
the fiscal year 2004 budget request.
    Advanced Radioisotope Power Systems.--The Committee 
recommendation is $26,450,000, the same as the budget request 
and $2,550,000 less than fiscal year 2002. The requested amount 
is contained within the Department's proposed Radiological 
Facilities Management program. To maintain visibility on the 
Advanced Radioisotope Power Systems program, the Committee 
continues to fund this as a separate program in fiscal year 
2003. As recommended by the Inspector General in audit report 
DOE/IG-0540, the Department should act promptly to develop 
memoranda of understanding with the Department of Defense and 
the National Aeronautics and Space Administration to recover 
mission-specific, safety-related costs from those agencies.
    Isotope Support and Production.--The Committee 
recommendation is $13,818,000, the same as the budget request 
and $3,359,000 less than fiscal year 2002. The requested amount 
is contained within the Department's proposed Radiological 
Facilities Management program. This amount represents a net 
appropriation, with a total program level of $20,218,000 and 
offsetting collections of $6,400,000. Included within this 
program amount is $1,721,000 for construction of the Isotope 
Production Facility at Los Alamos National Laboratory. The 
Committee supports the Department's Nuclear Energy Protocol for 
Research Isotopes (NEPRI), which should provide the basis for 
more rational planning for the production and distribution of 
research isotopes.
    The Committee has approved a phased approach to the 
extraction of medically valuable isotopes from excess uranium-
233 stored in Building 3019 at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, 
beginning with the issuance of a Request for Proposals (RFP) in 
fiscal year 2002. Under this project, the uranium-233 will be 
processed to extract thorium-229, which yields the 
radioisotopes actinium-225 and bismuth-213, the latter of which 
is undergoing clinical trials as cancer treatments. The 
Committee reiterates its direction to the Department that the 
processing of the uranium-233 and the extraction of thorium-229 
must be done in a manner that does not increase the ultimate 
decontamination and decommissioning costs for Building 3019. 
Unfortunately, the program plan submitted by the Department in 
May 2002 did not provide adequate information on the baseline 
costs for Building 3019 and the disposal costs for uranium-233 
to enable a valid comparison against the proposed thorium-229 
extraction alternative. Therefore, the Department is authorized 
at this time to proceed only with Phase I for detailed project 
planning, design, and cost estimating. The Department is 
directed to report back to the Committee when it has evaluated 
the responses to the RFP and prior to the award of the Phase I 
contract, upon completion of the external independent review 
and the should-cost analysis, and upon completion of the 
business case supporting award of the Phase II contract. 
Pending the possible implementation of this new process for 
producing actinium-225, the Department is encouraged to 
consider offers of private funding to increase the production 
of actinium-225 above current levels.
    University Reactor Fuel Assistance and Support.--The 
Committee recommendation is $17,500,000, the same as the budget 
request and as fiscal year 2002. Although funding constraints 
do not allow the Committee to provide additional funds for this 
activity, the Committee remains concerned about the recent 
decline in the number of graduates specializing in nuclear 
science and engineering. The need to add more nuclear 
generation capacity to the national grid underscores the need 
for skilled scientists and engineers who can design, build, and 
operate these new reactor designs. The Committee, therefore, 
continues to provide funding for both a reliable source of fuel 
to operate the university reactors and for the grants and 
fellowships that support nuclear science and engineering 
education.
    Research and Development.--The Committee supports continued 
research and development to make the current generation of 
nuclear power plants safer and more efficient, and to resolve 
the technical, institutional, and regulatory barriers to 
deployment of the next generation of reactors. The total 
Committee recommendation for nuclear energy research and 
development is $71,500,000, the same as the budget request and 
an increase of $20,500,000 relative to fiscal year 2002.
    Given the importance of maintaining and optimizing the 
generating capacity of existing nuclear reactors, and the 
strong industry participation in this program, the Committee 
does not concur with the Administration's proposal to terminate 
funding for the nuclear energy plant optimization (NEPO) 
program in fiscal year 2003. For NEPO, the Committee provides 
$5,000,000, $2,000,000 less than in fiscal year 2002 and 
$5,000,000 more than the budget request.
    The Committee recommendation for the nuclear energy 
research initiative (NERI) is $25,000,000, the same as the 
budget request and a decrease of $7,000,000 compared to fiscal 
year 2002. The Committee notes that the Department is carrying 
a very large unobligated balance in this account in fiscal year 
2002.
    The Committee provides $41,500,000 for nuclear energy 
technologies, $5,000,000 less than the budget request and 
$29,500,000 more than the fiscal year 2002 funding level. The 
funding reduction reflects the transfer of $5,000,000 to 
provide funding for the NEPO program.
    On May 23, 2002, U.S. President Bush and Russian Federation 
President Putin signed a declaration establishing a joint task 
force to study advanced nuclear reactor and fuel cycle 
technologies. Within the amount provided for nuclear energy 
technologies is included $5,000,000 to pursue the 
recommendations of this joint task force, to include but not 
limited to thorium-uranium and thorium-plutonium fuel cycles 
and the gas turbine-modular helium reactor. This amount is not 
fenced pending the outcome of the repository siting approval 
resolution. Any research and development efforts on advanced 
reactor designs and fuel cycles, including this $5,000,000 for 
the joint U.S.-Russian task force and including the 
reprocessing or transmutation of spent nuclear fuel, should be 
cost-shared with private industry. While a 50-50 cost share may 
not be appropriate for the early phases of research, requiring 
the financial participation of the nuclear industry is a simple 
way of ensuring that the Department is pursuing technologies 
that have some likelihood of being implemented by the private 
sector. As with NERI, any research and development on advanced 
reactors, advanced fuel cycles, reprocessing, and transmutation 
should be conducted on a competitive, peer-reviewed basis.
    Domestic Enrichment Capability.--On June 17, 2002, the 
Department signed an agreement with the United States 
Enrichment Corporation (USEC) which, in part, requires USEC to 
deploy an advanced uranium enrichment technology at either the 
Portsmouth or Paducah sites by 2010 or 2011, respectively. 
While the Committee supports making the technical expertise and 
facilities of the Department available to USEC on a 
reimbursable basis, the Committee is concerned about the 
commitments, both explicit and implicit, made by the Department 
in this agreement regarding assistance to USEC in the 
development of advanced enrichment technology. The Department 
is directed to submit to Congress by May 31, 2003, a program 
plan that clearly identifies the actions to be taken by the 
Federal government under this June 2002 agreement with respect 
to development and deployment of advanced enrichment 
technology.
    The Department is also directed to contract with the 
National Academy of Sciences to review and evaluate plans for 
the deployment of advanced enrichment technology in the United 
States, including: (1) an assessment of the need for additional 
domestic enrichment capacity; (2) USEC plans for demonstration 
and deployment of advanced enrichment technology; (3) the role 
of DOE in meeting these demonstration and deployment 
objectives; and (4) an assessment of the technical capabilities 
of the public and private sector to meet these enrichment 
technology objectives. This review should identify what role, 
if any, there is for continued research and development by the 
Department to support the private sector deployment of advanced 
enrichment technology. The Department is directed to transfer 
promptly $600,000 to the National Academy of Sciences for this 
review, which should be completed by December 31, 2003.
    Fast Flux Test Facility.--The Committee transfers the Fast 
Flux Test Facility (FFTF) and its associated funding to the 
Non-Defense Environmental Management account.
    Radiological Facilities Management.--The fiscal year 2003 
budget request proposed a new Radiological Facilities 
Management account, merging the elements from the Advanced 
Radioisotope Power Systems, Isotope Support and Production, 
ANL-West operations, and Test Reactor Area (TRA) landlord 
costs. The Committee supports only the merger of the ANL-West 
operations and TRA landlord costs under this new program. 
Advanced Radioisotope Power Systems and Isotope Support and 
Production are maintained as separate programs so that Congress 
and the Department have continued visibility on the funding 
necessary to support these primarily reimbursable functions. 
The Committee recommendation for Radiological Facilities 
Management is $42,770,000, the same as the budget request for 
ANL-West operations and TRA Landlord costs. This amount 
includes $31,615,000 for ANL-West operations and $11,155,000 
for TRA Landlord costs. The control level is at the 
Radiological Facilities Management account level.
    Spent Fuel Pyroprocessing.--The Committee recommendation is 
$18,221,000, the same as the budget request, including 
$15,450,000 for EBR-II spent fuel treatment and $2,771,000 for 
research and development on pyroprocessing of sodium-bonded 
spent fuel. The focus of these activities should be on treating 
the sodium-bonded spent fuel presently stored at the Idaho 
National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory, and 
preparing those materials for shipment to the permanent 
repository in accordance with the terms of the 1995 settlement 
agreement with the State of Idaho. The Department is directed 
to submit to Congress by March 31, 2003, a detailed program 
plan, identifying specific actions with associated costs and 
milestone schedules, to show how the Department intends to meet 
the settlement agreement deadline for removing this spent fuel 
from the site. Further, the Department should consider 
approaches that would allow it to accelerate the treatment and 
removal of this spent fuel.
    The Administration did not request, nor did the Committee 
provide, any funds for reprocessing and transmutation 
activities in fiscal year 2003. The Department has not yet 
submitted its report on these technologies, which was due to 
Congress on May 1, 2002. Absent this report evaluating the 
costs and benefits of the various reprocessing and 
transmutation technologies, the Committee has no technical or 
policy basis for appropriating any funds for this purpose in 
fiscal year 2003. Under the Research and Development program, 
the Committee does provide $5,000,000 for the Department to 
pursue the recommendations of the joint U.S.-Russia task force 
on advanced reactor and fuel cycle technologies.
    Program direction.--The Committee recommends $23,439,000, 
the same as the budget request and $439,000 more than fiscal 
year 2002.

                     ENVIRONMENT, SAFETY AND HEALTH

    The Committee recommendation is $26,211,000, a reduction of 
$3,000,000 from the budget request and $4,289,000 from fiscal 
year 2002. A review by the General Accounting Office of 
external regulation of other government laboratories and 
private sector companies found that DOE requires significantly 
more staff to execute its safety responsibilities, without any 
measurable gain in overall performance to justify the 
additional resources required by DOE.
    The conference report accompanying the Energy and Water 
Development Act for Fiscal Year 2002 directed the Department to 
prepare an implementation plan for external regulation of 
nuclear and worker safety at the Department's Science 
laboratories. Instead of submitting a serious and comprehensive 
implementation plan, which was due to Congress by May 31, 2002, 
the Department submitted on July 1, 2002, a proposal calling 
for more studies of external regulation. One of the 
Department's stated reasons for recommending further study is 
the lack of information on the cost of bringing these Science 
laboratories into compliance with the regulations of the 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and the Occupational Safety 
and Health Administration (OSHA). The experience in 
transitioning the gaseous diffusion plants at Portsmouth and 
Paducah from DOE self-regulation to external regulation by NRC 
and OSHA revealed that the majority of transition costs 
derived, not from NRC and OSHA having markedly different 
standards than DOE, but from the fact that these facilities 
were substantially out of compliance with DOE's own safety 
orders and regulations. Under the Science portion of this 
report, the Department is directed to submit to the House and 
Senate Energy and Water Development Appropriations 
Subcommittees a report providing a detailed estimate of the 
cost of bringing the ten Science laboratories (named in House 
Report 107-112) into compliance with NRC and OSHA standards for 
nuclear safety and worker safety. To support this task, the 
Department is directed to transfer $2,500,000 to the NRC and 
$1,500,000 to OSHA. In addition, the Department is directed to 
transfer $1,000,000 to OSHA to cover the costs of OSHA 
regulation of worker health and safety at the Department's non-
nuclear facilities not covered under the Atomic Energy Act.

                    TECHNICAL INFORMATION MANAGEMENT

    The Committee moves the Technical Information Management 
program from the Energy Supply account to the Science account. 
The Technical Information Management program is presently 
managed by the Office of Science, and this transfer will align 
program resources with program management.

                          FUNDING ADJUSTMENTS

    A general reduction of $2,000,000 has been applied to the 
Energy Supply account.

                  Non-Defense Environmental Management


Appropriation, 2002...................................      $236,372,000
Budget Estimate, 2003.................................       166,000,000
Recommended, 2003.....................................       213,259,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2002...............................       -23,113,000
    Budget Estimate, 2003.............................       +47,259,000

    The Non-Defense Environmental Management program includes 
funds to manage and clean up sites used for civilian, energy 
research, and non-defense related activities. These past 
activities resulted in radioactive, hazardous, and mixed waste 
contamination which requires remediation, stabilization, or 
some other type of action. The major activities are: Site 
Closure for cleanup projects to be completed by the end of 
fiscal year 2006, and for which no further DOE mission is 
anticipated; Site/Project Completion for cleanup projects that 
will be completed by 2006, but where DOE programs will 
continue; Post 2006 Completion for cleanup projects that will 
extend beyond 2006; Fast Flux Test Facility; Long-Term 
Stewardship; and Excess Facilities for final disposition of 
excess contaminated facilities. The Committee recommendation is 
$213,259,000, an increase of $47,259,000 over the budget 
request.

                              SITE CLOSURE

    The recommendation for site closure is $90,000,000, an 
increase of $90,000,000 over the budget request. The 
$90,000,000 represents the funding requested for the 
accelerated cleanup of the West Valley Demonstration Project, 
which is transferred from the Post 2006 Completion account to 
the Site Closure account.
    Bill language from the Energy and Water Development 
Appropriations Act, 2002, required the Department to either 
reach agreement with the New York State Energy Research and 
Development Authority (NYSERDA) on the final scope of Federal 
activities at the West Valley site and on the respective 
Federal and State cost shares for those activities, or reduce 
funding to the minimum necessary to keep the site in a safe and 
stable condition. Unfortunately, the Department ignored this 
statutory requirement and requested the same funding level as 
in fiscal year 2002, without having reached agreement with 
NYSERDA on the key issues in disputes. The parties have made no 
apparent progress toward resolving their differences, although 
both have issued clear written statements of their respective 
positions.
    The Department has recently developed an accelerated 
cleanup plan for the West Valley Demonstration Project that 
will allow DOE to complete its statutorily-required cleanup 
responsibilities by 2005, with only long-term surveillance and 
monitoring in subsequent years. The Committee is encouraged by 
this proposal to reduce risks and accelerate cleanup at West 
Valley. However, before proceeding to implement this 
acceleration plan in fiscal year 2003, the Department is 
directed to submit a site performance management plan at the 
same level of detail, and agreed to by the appropriate state 
regulator, as is being required at other acceleration sites in 
the Environmental Management Cleanup Reform program.
    The Committee encourages the Department and NYSERDA to 
continue to attempt to resolve their differences, but the 
Department is reminded that any proposed agreement with NYSERDA 
must be in full compliance with all relevant Federal statutes 
and is in the best interest of the Federal government.

                        SITE/PROJECT COMPLETION

    The recommendation for site/project completion is 
$42,425,000, a reduction of $8,847,000 from the budget request 
of $51,272,000. The budget request of $8,847,000 for long-term 
stewardship activities has been transferred to a new program to 
provide greater visibility for long-term stewardship 
activities.

                          POST 2006 COMPLETION

    The recommendation for post 2006 completion is $17,554,000, 
a reduction of $95,333,000 from the budget request of 
$112,887,000. Funding of $90,000,000 for the West Valley 
Demonstration Project has been transferred to the site closure 
account; $1,000,000 for packaging certification activities has 
been transferred to Defense Environmental Restoration and Waste 
Management; $5,333,000 for long-term stewardship activities has 
been transferred to a new program to provide greater visibility 
for these activities; and an additional $1,000,000 has been 
provided for the Atlas site in Moab, Utah.
    Atlas site in Moab, Utah.--The Department requested 
$966,000 for remediation activities at the Atlas uranium mill 
tailings site at Moab, Utah, on the assumption that the 
Department possesses a valid plan for the remediation of this 
site. However, the National Academy of Sciences Board on 
Radioactive Waste Management recently completed a review of the 
Department's October 2001 Draft Preliminary Plan for 
Remediation of the Moab Site and concluded that the Department 
lacks sufficient technical basis at this time to make an 
informed decision among remediation alternatives. The 
Department is directed to follow the specific recommendations 
made by the Board on Radioactive Waste Management in its June 
11, 2002, report and prepare a revised remediation plan for 
this site addressing the specific deficiencies identified in 
the Board's report. The Committee recommendation is $1,966,000, 
an increase of $1,000,000 over the budget request. These 
additional funds are to be used to prepare a scientifically-
sound remediation plan for the site.

                        FAST FLUX TEST FACILITY

    The Committee recommendation includes $44,100,000, an 
increase of $8,000,000 over the budget request of $36,100,000, 
for the permanent deactivation, decontamination, and 
decommissioning of the Fast Flux Test Facility (FFTF) at 
Richland, Washington. The budget request for the FFTF was 
included in the Office of Nuclear Energy, but the Committee has 
transferred responsibility and funding for the program to the 
Office of Environmental Management. The Committee expects the 
Department to expedite closure by choosing the most cost-
effective method for decontaminating and decommissioning of 
this reactor. This must involve an open competitive contracting 
process to attract a wide range of experienced companies to 
submit proposals.

                         LONG-TERM STEWARDSHIP

    The Committee recommendation includes $14,180,000 for a new 
Long-Term Stewardship program. This consists of $8,847,000 
transferred from the site/project completion program and 
$5,333,000 transferred from the post 2006 completion program. 
Long-term stewardship activities will continue to grow as the 
Department completes cleanup and closure of sites, and the 
Committee wants to ensure visibility of these efforts.
    Weldon Springs, Missouri.--The Committee understands there 
will be approximately $5,000,000 of prior year funds available 
to the Weldon Springs, Missouri, site for final closeout 
activities to prepare regulatory documents and complete records 
disposition during fiscal years 2003 and 2004. In addition, 
funds are available in fiscal year 2003 to begin routine long-
term stewardship activities associated with a closed site. 
Weldon Springs is one of the first sites to complete cleanup. 
The Committee understands that completion of cleanup requires 
establishing a different working relationship with the site, 
but expects the Department to ensure that long-term stewardship 
activities continue to protect the health and safety of the 
community.
    National Academy of Science Study.--The Committee directs 
the Department to ask the National Academy of Science to review 
the long-term stewardship program and to work with the 
Committee to define the parameters of the study. The long-term 
stewardship program will have responsibility for managing those 
sites that will not achieve cleanup levels to allow release for 
unrestricted use. This program could eventually have 
responsibility for over 100 sites to ensure the continued 
protection of public and environmental health. Moreover, its 
responsibilities may grow in the future because cleanup goals 
are being reassessed as part of the accelerated cleanup effort 
and a variety of stewardship arrangements (e.g., 
reindustrialization, formation of wildlife refuges) are being 
considered.
    The Committee believes that it would be helpful to have the 
National Academies' views on the technical and institutional 
requirements for an effective long-term stewardship 
organization, particularly with respect to the following 
questions:
    --What are the technical and institutional characteristics 
of an effective long-term stewardship organization?
    --Are there existing organizations within the Federal 
government, especially those with land or property management 
responsibilities, that possess these characteristics? If so, 
which ones are they, and what additional capabilities, if any, 
would these organizations require to take on this long-term 
stewardship mission?
    --If the long-term stewardship program were transferred out 
of the Department, what additional technical and institutional 
measures would be needed to ensure effective execution and 
coordination of both the clean-up and stewardship missions?

                           EXCESS FACILITIES

    The environmental management program is responsible for 
final disposition of excess contaminated facilities throughout 
the Department. Funds are currently being expended only for 
surveillance and maintenance of most excess facilities, and 
these costs will continue until decontamination and 
decommissioning (D&D;) is completed. The Committee strongly 
urges the Department to seek new, innovative, and less costly 
ways to accomplish final D&D; of these facilities.
    The Committee has provided $5,000,000 for the excess 
facilities program, an increase of $3,159,000 over the budget 
request of $1,841,000. The budget requested only surveillance 
and maintenance costs for the excess facilities transferred to 
the program in fiscal year 2002. In addition to these 
surveillance and maintenance costs, the recommendation includes 
$3,159,000 for the actual D&D; of excess facilities already 
owned by the environmental management program. These funds must 
be used to dispose of those facilities that will provide the 
greatest impact on reducing long-term costs and risk.

             Uranium Facilities Maintenance and Remediation


Appropriation, 2002...................................      $418,425,000
Budget Estimate, 2003.................................       382,154,000
Recommended, 2003.....................................       382,154,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2002...............................           -36,271
    Budget Estimate, 2003.............................  ................

    Congress created the Uranium Facilities Maintenance and 
Remediation account in fiscal year 2001 to consolidate the 
programs previously funded in two separate accounts: one set of 
activities funded by the Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and 
Decommissioning Fund and managed by the Office of Environmental 
Management, and the other set of related uranium activities 
that had been managed by the Office of Nuclear Energy, Science, 
and Technology. The consolidated Uranium Facilities Maintenance 
and Remediation account is managed by the Office of 
Environmental Management and includes two subaccounts, the 
Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund, 
and Other Uranium Activities. The Committee recommendation is 
$382,154,000, the same as the budget request and $36,271,000 
less than fiscal year 2002.
    Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning 
Fund.--This fund was established by the Energy Policy Act of 
1992 (P.L. 102-486) to carry out environmental remediation at 
the nation's three gaseous diffusion plants, at the East 
Tennessee Technology Park in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, at 
Portsmouth, Ohio, and at Paducah, Kentucky. Title X of the 1992 
Act also authorized use of a portion of the Fund to reimburse 
private licensees for the Federal government's share of the 
cost of cleaning up uranium and thorium processing sites.
    The Committee recommends $235,523,000 for activities funded 
from the Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning 
Fund, the same as the budget request and a reduction of 
$64,118,000 compared to fiscal year 2002. This amount includes 
$234,523,000 for decontamination and decommissioning activities 
and $1,000,000 for uranium and thorium reimbursements. Should 
pending legislation be enacted to raise the current ceiling on 
thorium reimbursements, the Department should meet its 
additional thorium reimbursements obligations in fiscal year 
2003 from available carryover funds.
    Other Uranium Activities.--The Committee recommendation is 
$146,631,000, the same as the budget request and an increase of 
$22,847,000 over fiscal year 2002. In addition to providing the 
requested $10,000,000 for the conversion project for depleted 
uranium hexaflouride (DUF6), the Other Uranium Activities 
subaccount includes maintenance of enrichment facilities and 
inventories, financial liabilities arising prior to the 
privatization of the United States Enrichment Corporation, and 
maintenance of the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant in cold 
standby.

                                Science


Appropriation, 2002...................................    $3,233,100,000
Budget Estimate, 2003.................................     3,279,456,000
Recommended, 2003.....................................     3,271,233,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2002...............................       +38,133,000
    Budget Estimate, 2003.............................        -8,223,000
Note: The original budget request of $3,285,088,000 for Science included
  $5,632,000 to fund proposed legislation to require the agency to pay
  the full government share of the accruing cost of retirement for
  certain Federal employees. Since this legislation has not been
  enacted, the budget request has been reduced by this amount.

    The Science account funds the Department's work on high 
energy physics, nuclear physics, biological and environmental 
sciences, basic energy sciences, advanced scientific computing, 
maintenance of the laboratories' physical infrastructure, 
fusion energy sciences, safeguards and security, science 
workforce development, and science program direction. The 
Committee is very supportive of the research conducted by the 
Department's Office of Science, but funding constraints 
preclude significant increases for fiscal year 2003. The 
Committee recommendation is $3,271,233,000, a decrease of 
$8,223,000 compared to the budget request, but $38,133,000 more 
than fiscal year 2002.
    As are many others, the Committee is concerned about the 
growing imbalance in the Federal investment in research in the 
physical sciences versus the life sciences. The recent emphasis 
on science research with direct applications to homeland 
security needs only exacerbates the under-investment in basic 
research in the physical sciences. Strength in the physical 
sciences is essential for the future well-being of the Nation 
because these sciences play a critical role in enabling U.S. 
technological innovation and global economic leadership. The 
physical sciences provide the foundation of knowledge for many 
fields of scientific endeavor, including the life sciences, and 
have many possible applications, including but not limited to 
national security and homeland defense.
    The Committee hopes that the Department submits a fiscal 
year 2004 budget request that will support a robust physical 
sciences research program in the Office of Science. In addition 
to funding the capabilities that already exist at the national 
laboratories, the next budget request should also invest in the 
future by supporting the development of the next generation of 
scientists and engineers and the next generation of research 
instruments. The Committee will support future growth in the 
Science budget if the Department is able to present a rational 
scheme for setting priorities among the various research areas 
and among the wide range of possible new projects (e.g., Next 
Linear Collider, Rare Isotope Accelerator, etc.), can improve 
its program and project management, and takes tangible and 
aggressive steps to implement external regulation at its 
Science laboratories. Continued self-regulation of these 
laboratories does not yield any measurable improvement in 
safety performance as compared to external regulation, and 
consumes resources that could be better spent on scientific 
research. The Committee firmly believes that a shift to 
external regulation would improve public trust and 
understanding of Office of Science activities, resulting in 
stronger Congressional support for its research programs.
    The Committee encourages the Office of Science to 
streamline its field structure along the lines of the model 
being implemented by the National Nuclear Security 
Administration. The Committee also strongly encourages the 
Office of Science to focus its resources on the laboratories 
and field offices that are subject to the authority, direction, 
and control of the Director of the Office of Science.

                          HIGH ENERGY PHYSICS

    The Committee recommends $724,990,000 for high energy 
physics, the same as the budget request and $8,890,000 more 
than fiscal year 2002. The previous subaccounts within the High 
Energy Physics account--research and technology and facility 
operations--are consolidated into a single account for fiscal 
year 2003, with the control level at the High Energy Physics 
level. The Committee is concerned about the difficulties being 
experienced with the luminosity upgrade of the Tevatron and 
with the Neutrinos at the Main Injector, both projects at Fermi 
National Accelerator Laboratory. The Committee expects the 
Department and the laboratory to exercise aggressive project 
management to bring these projects back on schedule, and to do 
so within the funds available for High Energy Physics. The 
Committee encourages the Department to work with the Office of 
Management and Budget to remove the existing limit on funding 
that may be spent for planning and research and development in 
support of the Next Linear Collider.

                            NUCLEAR PHYSICS

    The Committee recommendation for nuclear physics is 
$382,370,000, the same as the budget request and $21,860,000 
more than provided in fiscal year 2002. The Committee hopes the 
Department will move expeditiously through the project approval 
process for the 12 GeV upgrade for the Continuous Electron Beam 
Accelerator Facility. The Committee recommendation includes the 
requested amount of $3,500,000 for research and development and 
pre-conceptual design activities in support of the Rare Isotope 
Accelerator.

                 BIOLOGICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH

    The Committee recommendation for biological and 
environmental research is $504,215,000, the same as the budget 
request but $23,190,000 less than in fiscal year 2002. The 
Committee recommendation includes the requested level of 
funding, $5,841,000, for the Savannah River Ecology Laboratory. 
The Committee encourages the Department to explore technologies 
for the preservation and recovery of frozen mouse gametes, 
which have the potential to reduce significantly the cost of 
developing and transporting strains of live mice around the 
country.

                         BASIC ENERGY SCIENCES

    The Committee recommendation for basic energy sciences is 
$1,019,600,000, the same as the budget request and an increase 
of $15,895,000 from fiscal year 2002. For purposes of 
reprogramming during fiscal year 2003, the Department may 
allocate funding among all operating accounts within Basic 
Energy Sciences.
    Research.--The Committee recommendation includes 
$547,883,000 for materials sciences and engineering, and 
$220,146,000 for chemical sciences, geosciences, and energy 
biosciences, both the same as the budget request. Included 
within the material sciences and engineering account is 
$7,685,000 for the Experimental Program to Stimulate 
Competitive Research (EPSCoR), the same as the budget request 
and as the fiscal year 2002 funding level.
    Construction.--The Committee recommends the requested 
amount of $251,571,000, which includes $210,571,000 for 
construction of the Spallation Neutron Source (SNS), 
$11,000,000 for project engineering and design of Nanoscale 
Science Research Centers at Oak Ridge, Lawrence Berkeley, and 
Sandia National Laboratories, $24,000,000 to initiate 
construction of the Center for Nanophase Materials Sciences at 
Oak Ridge National Laboratory, and $6,000,000 for project 
engineering and design of the Linac Coherent Light Source at 
the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center.

                 ADVANCED SCIENTIFIC COMPUTING RESEARCH

    The Committee recommendation is $174,625,000, an increase 
of $5,000,000 over the budget request and $16,575,000 more than 
the funding in fiscal year 2002. The Committee is very 
concerned about the recent Japanese advances in scientific 
supercomputing, specifically with the Earth Simulator computer 
that is more capable by one or two orders of magnitude than the 
most advanced U.S. supercomputers. The Japanese advances 
suggest not only that the DOE approach to stimulating U.S. 
industry to produce high-performance computers using commodity 
components may not be working as well as hoped, but also means 
that U.S. scientists will be relegated to using second-class 
computing resources to support their research projects in the 
near future. The Office of Science, the Advanced Scientific 
Computing Research Advisory Committee, and the Advanced 
Scientific Computing Research program deserve credit for acting 
promptly to develop a U.S. response to the challenge posed by 
the Japanese Earth Simulator supercomputer. The Committee 
provides additional funds for the Department's efforts to re-
evaluate the U.S. approach to advanced scientific computing and 
to explore whether alternative approaches such as topical 
computing may be more successful.

                        ENERGY RESEARCH ANALYSES

    This program is transferred as a subprogram under Science 
Program Direction.

                  SCIENCE LABORATORIES INFRASTRUCTURE

    This program combines the previously separate Multiprogram 
Energy Laboratories--Facilities Support program and the 
Facilities and Infrastructure program, which were funded in 
fiscal year 2002 at $30,175,000 and $10,000,000, respectively. 
For the combined Science Laboratories Infrastructure program, 
the Committee recommends $47,680,000, an increase of $4,945,000 
over the budget request and $7,505,000 over fiscal year 2002. 
Within this amount is included an additional $1,500,000 to 
modernize outdated infrastructure at the Princeton Plasma 
Physics Laboratory. The Committee recommendation also provides 
$10,000,000 for excess facilities disposal.

                         FUSION ENERGY SCIENCES

    The Committee recommendation for fusion energy sciences is 
$248,495,000, the same as the fiscal year 2002 funding level 
and $8,815,000 less than the budget request. The Committee 
notes that the fiscal year 2002 funding level included 
$19,604,000 for the completion of decontamination and 
decommissioning of the Tokamak Fusion Test Reactor (TFTR), 
leaving $228,891,000 available for fusion research and facility 
operations in fiscal year 2002. By comparison, the Committee 
recommendation for fiscal year 2003 makes this $19,604,000 
available for fusion research and facility operations, 
including initiation of fabrication of the National Compact 
Stellarator Experiment (NCSX), an increase of 8.5 percent over 
the comparable amount available in fiscal year 2002.
    Within the funding available for fusion energy sciences, 
the Committee recommendation provides an additional $1,000,000 
for National Spherical Torus Experiment (NSTX) research, an 
additional $500,000 for NSTX operations, and an additional 
$1,000,000 for preliminary design for the National Compact 
Stellarator Experiment (NCSX).
    The Committee acknowledges the significant scientific and 
engineering advances accomplished both in magnetic and inertial 
fusion. The Department is directed to prepare an updated 
program plan for fusion energy sciences, with particular 
attention to improving the integration of the magnetic fusion 
energy program and the work on inertial fusion funded primarily 
under the National Nuclear Security Administration. This 
updated program plan should also identify and evaluate the 
logical next steps in the U.S. fusion energy program, including 
the possibility of re-engaging in the International 
Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER). The program plan 
should also address the specific concerns with fusion power 
that were identified in the August 2002 draft report by the 
Rand Corporation entitled ``Energy Technologies for 2050: A 
Methodology for Determining Research and Development 
Directions'' and identify research actions to resolve those 
concerns. The Department should submit this updated program 
plan to Congress not later than March 31, 2003.

                        SAFEGUARDS AND SECURITY

    The Committee recommends $48,127,000, the same as the 
budget request and $7,285,000 less than fiscal year 2002. 
Within this amount is included an additional $2,100,000 for 
essential safeguards and security upgrades at the Princeton 
Plasma Physics Laboratory.

                     SCIENCE WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT

    The national laboratories under the Office of Science 
represent a unique national asset, both in terms of state-of-
the-art research facilities and expert scientists and 
engineers. The Department is encouraged to expand on existing 
programs to make these capabilities available to teachers of 
science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Not only 
will these opportunities help to raise the level of teaching in 
the classroom in the near term, but improving science education 
is directly relevant to the quality of the future workforce 
available to the Department. The Committee recommendation is 
$5,460,000, the same as the budget request for Science 
Education and an increase of $1,000,000 over fiscal year 2002. 
This new program is intended to refocus the activities 
previously funded in the Science Education subprogram within 
Program Direction.

                       SCIENCE PROGRAM DIRECTION

    The Committee recommendation is $134,310,000 for Science 
program direction. This amount includes: $125,540,000 for 
program direction at DOE headquarters and field offices, a 
reduction of $2,847,000 from the budget request and $9,960,000 
less than fiscal year 2002; $7,770,000 for Technical 
Information Management; and $1,000,000 for Energy Research 
Analyses. The Technical Information Management program is 
transferred from the Energy Supply account to the Science 
account, so that program management will be aligned with 
program resources. It is included as a subprogram within the 
Science Program Direction program as the information management 
and program management functions are integrally related. The 
Committee recommendation for Technical Information Management 
is $7,770,000, the same as fiscal year 2002 and $155,000 less 
than the budget request. The Energy Research Analyses program 
is also transferred as a subprogram within Science Program 
Direction. The Committee recommendation provides $1,000,000, 
the same as fiscal year 2002 and $20,000 less than the budget 
request. The control level for fiscal year 2003 is at the 
program account level of Science Program Direction.
    External Regulation of DOE Science Laboratories.--The 
conference report accompanying the Energy and Water Development 
Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2002 directed the Department 
to prepare a detailed implementation plan for external 
regulation of nuclear and worker safety at the Department's 
Science laboratories. The Committee is very disappointed in the 
response of the Office of Science and of the Department as a 
whole to this direction. With the concept of external 
regulation strongly supported by this Committee and by the 
directors of these ten laboratories, the Committee expected the 
Office of Science to take an aggressive role in developing and 
promoting this implementation plan within the Department. 
Instead, the Office of Science produced a weak initial draft 
plan and then failed to champion it effectively against the 
forces of bureaucratic inertia that plague the rest of the 
Department.
    The implementation plan that was finally completed by the 
Office of Management, Budget, and Evaluation, and which was 
submitted one month after it was due to the Committee, remains 
grossly inadequate. The funding levels for Science Program 
Direction, as well as for Environment, Safety and Health (non-
defense) and Departmental Administration, reflect the level of 
Committee dissatisfaction with this product. The question of 
external regulation has been studied extensively over the past 
decade, not only by the Department itself, the Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission (NRC), and the Occupational Safety and 
Health Administration (OSHA), but also by outside experts 
including the National Academy of Public Administration and the 
General Accounting Office (GAO). A recent GAO review of safety 
regulation at other government laboratories, major private 
sector companies, and European energy laboratories found that 
these other entities are all externally regulated, requiring 
consistently fewer resources than self-regulation by DOE and 
with no loss in safety performance.
    Unfortunately, from that mass of available information, 
including external regulation pilot projects already completed 
at several DOE laboratories, the best that the Department could 
produce for a detailed implementation plan is a 17-page report 
calling for more studies. In many instances, including the 
tasking to provide the changes needed in statutory language and 
the estimate of reductions in funding and staffing at DOE 
headquarters, the Department merely repeated the questions 
posed by the Committee instead of making any attempt to answer 
those questions. The plan submitted by the Department proposes 
a number of additional studies but provides neither cost 
estimates nor completion dates for those efforts. Despite 
statements made at hearings before this Committee, it is clear 
that the leadership of the Department is more interested in 
preserving the status quo of self-regulation than in making a 
serious effort to improve the safety and efficiency of its 
laboratory operations. It is also clear that the Department 
cannot be relied upon to provide accurate and objective 
information in response to Committee requests for information 
on this issue.
    There is a legitimate question on the cost of bringing the 
ten Science laboratories into compliance with NRC and OSHA 
regulations. The Department is, therefore, directed to submit 
to the House and Senate Energy and Water Development 
Appropriations Subcommittees, not later than September 30, 
2003, a report providing a detailed estimate of the cost of 
bringing the ten Science laboratories named in House Report 
107-112 into full compliance with NRC and OSHA standards for 
nuclear safety and worker safety. Funds to execute this task 
are provided under the Environment, Safety, and Health (non-
defense) account. The NRC and OSHA are to conduct comprehensive 
compliance audits at the ten Science laboratories; from this 
information, the laboratories are to develop estimates of the 
costs necessary to correct the safety deficiencies identified 
by NRC and OSHA and bring their facilities and operations into 
compliance with NRC and OSHA standards. As part of this 
estimate, the laboratories should also isolate those costs for 
corrective measures that are needed to meet DOE's own safety 
standards, separate from those required to meet NRC and OSHA 
standards. The Department is to provide the results of these 
compliance audits and compliance cost estimates directly to the 
Committee without delay or modification by DOE staff. To 
support the fiscal year 2004 appropriations process, NRC and 
OSHA, in consultation with the laboratories, should select an 
agreed-upon subset of four Science laboratories for which the 
compliance audits and compliance cost estimates can be 
completed not later than May 31, 2003. This subset should 
include one multiprogram laboratory with a nuclear reactor, a 
multiprogram laboratory with an accelerator, and two of the 
single-purpose laboratories. Of the laboratories in this subset 
with accelerators, at least one should be in an NRC agreement 
state and at least one in a non-agreement state. Further, the 
NRC and OSHA should select laboratories for this subset that 
were not studied previously under the external regulation pilot 
projects. The Committee expects the NRC and OSHA to enter into 
a Memorandum of Agreement, or modify an existing agreement, to 
define their respective responsibilities for radiation safety. 
This agreement should be provided to the Committee not later 
than May 31, 2003.
    An additional question posed by the Committee but left 
unanswered by DOE is the cost savings that will result from 
staff and funding reductions at DOE headquarters and field 
offices once external regulation is in place. The Department is 
unable to answer this question because it does not know how 
much it presently spends on self-regulation of these ten 
Science laboratories. The Committee intends to task the General 
Accounting Office (GAO) to develop objective estimates of 
current resources expended by DOE and the potential savings 
from external regulation.
    The Committee expects the Department to provide full 
support for the afore-mentioned efforts of the NRC, OSHA, GAO, 
and the ten Science laboratories.

                          FUNDING ADJUSTMENTS

    The budget request included an offset of $4,383,000 for the 
safeguards and security charge for reimbursable work. The 
Committee has provided direct funding for this activity and 
eliminated the funding offset. A general reduction of 
$18,639,000 has been applied to the Science account.

                         Nuclear Waste Disposal


Appropriation, 2002...................................       $95,000,000
Budget Estimate, 2003.................................       275,802,000
Recommended, 2003.....................................       209,702,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2002...............................      +114,702,000
    Budget Estimate, 2003.............................       -66,100,000
Note: The original budget request of $212,045,000 for Nuclear Waste
  Disposal included $2,343,000 to fund proposed legislation to require
  the agency to pay the full government share of the accruing cost of
  retirement for certain Federal employees. Since this legislation has
  not been enacted, the budget request has been reduced by this amount.

    The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended, 
established the Federal government's responsibility for the 
permanent disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level 
radioactive waste, and established the statutory framework to 
guide the selection and development of a site for a permanent 
repository. This law also created the Nuclear Waste Fund to 
finance the disposal of commercially-generated spent nuclear 
fuel through the collection of fees from the owners and 
generators of such spent fuel. The costs for disposal of high-
level radioactive waste generated from the atomic energy 
defense activities of the Department of Energy, and the spent 
nuclear fuel generated by the Department of Defense, are funded 
by the Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal appropriation.
    The Nuclear Waste Policy Act also established an expedited 
procedure for final approval of repository siting. The 
President formally recommended the Yucca Mountain site to 
Congress on February 15, 2002, and the Governor of Nevada 
subsequently submitted a notice of disapproval to Congress on 
April 8, 2002. As provided for in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, 
this State disapproval may be overcome if a joint resolution of 
siting approval is passed by both chambers of Congress within 
90 days of continuous session after receipt of the notice of 
disapproval and is subsequently enacted into law. The House 
passed the resolution of repository siting approval on May 8, 
2002, by a vote of 306-117.
    The Committee recommends $209,702,000 from the Nuclear 
Waste Fund in fiscal year 2003. Combined with the appropriation 
of $315,000,000 from the Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal 
account, this provides a total of $524,702,000 for Nuclear 
Waste Disposal activities in fiscal year 2003, the same as the 
budget request and an increase of $149,702,000 from fiscal year 
2002. On August 2, 2002, the Administration submitted an 
amended budget request for an additional $66,100,000 for 
Nuclear Waste Disposal. Due to the late submittal of this 
amended request and the fact that the Administration did not 
identify an offset for the amount of the amendment, the 
Committee recommendation does not include this additional 
$66,100,000.
    License application.--The Department was required by 
statute to accept commercial spent nuclear fuel for disposal 
beginning on January 31, 1998, and has entered into legally 
enforceable contracts with utilities to execute that 
obligation. Until the repository is open and the Department can 
begin accepting spent fuel, the liability of the Federal 
government for its failure to meet its statutory and 
contractual obligation to accept commercial spent fuel will 
continue to grow. With the submission of the Site 
Recommendation in February 2002, the Department now plans to 
submit the license application to the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission in late 2004 and begin repository operations, at the 
earliest, in 2010. Any delay in repository opening will not 
only increase the Federal government's liability on commercial 
spent fuel, but will also impact the ability of the Department 
to remove defense-related high level radioactive waste and 
spent nuclear fuel from other sites in the DOE complex, and may 
affect the government's ability to meet legally enforceable 
cleanup milestones at those sites. Given the importance of 
timely repository opening, the Department should take all 
reasonable steps to accelerate submission of the license 
application into early fiscal year 2004.
    State and local government funds.--The Committee 
recommendation includes an amount not to exceed $6,000,000 for 
the affected units of local government and an amount not to 
exceed $2,500,000 for the State of Nevada to conduct their 
respective external oversight responsibilities. These are the 
same funding levels as provided in fiscal year 2002 and as 
requested for fiscal year 2003. The Department is reminded to 
ensure that these Federal funds are audited annually.
    Future program funding.--The Committee was disappointed 
that the Department failed to submit with its fiscal year 2003 
budget request a long-term budget plan for the repository 
program. As the program moves out of the site characterization 
phase and into license application, design, and construction 
phases, the funding requirements will increase significantly in 
coming fiscal years. Therefore, it is even more critical that 
the Department develops an integrated long-term budget plan for 
this program, and submits the legislative proposal necessary to 
secure future funding for the repository. The Committee 
reiterates its direction that the Department should submit its 
long-term budget plan for the repository program, including the 
necessary changes to existing law, as part of its next budget 
submission to the Congress.
    Waste acceptance, storage, and transportation.--As the 
program moves into the license application phase, the Committee 
continues to be concerned that the Department will not be ready 
to fulfill its waste acceptance, storage, and transportation 
responsibilities consistent with the repository schedule. The 
Department should move aggressively to initiate work with state 
and local governments to develop safe transportation routes to 
the selected repository site, beginning with the development of 
transportation routes and modes in Nevada that will avoid the 
Las Vegas metropolitan area. The Department should also 
reinitiate its activities to obtain proposals from the private 
sector for the procurement of transportation casks for reactor 
sites presently undergoing dismantlement and decommissioning.

                      Departmental Administration


                          GROSS APPROPRIATION

Appropriation, 2002...................................      $210,853,000
Budget Estimate, 2003.................................       299,220,000
Recommended, 2003.....................................       208,672,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2002...............................        -3,819,000
    Budget Estimate, 2003.............................       -90,548,000

                         MISCELLANEOUS REVENUES

Appropriation, 2002...................................     -$137,810,000
Budget Estimate, 2003.................................      -137,524,000
Recommended, 2003.....................................       -80,000,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2002...............................       +57,810,000
    Budget Estimate, 2003.............................      +57,524,000
Note: The original net budget request of $169,635,000 for Departmental
  Administration included $7,939,000 to fund proposed legislation to
  require the agency to pay the full government share of the accruing
  cost of retirement for certain Federal employees. Since this
  legislation has not been enacted, the budget request has been reduced
  by this amount.

    The Committee recommendation for Departmental 
Administration is $208,672,000, a decrease of $90,548,000 from 
the budget request of $299,220,000. Funding recommended for 
Departmental Administration provides for general management and 
program support functions benefiting all elements of the 
Department of Energy and the National Nuclear Security 
Administration. The account funds a wide array of activities 
not directly associated with program execution. Funding for 
many offices has been reduced due to funding constraints and 
the availability of prior year carryover balances.
    The Committee has been disappointed in the response of the 
Department to Committee direction included in the reports 
accompanying the fiscal year 2002 appropriations bill; to 
additional requests for information in support of the fiscal 
year 2003 appropriation; and to the submission of reports 
required by the fiscal year 2002 appropriations bill.
    Engineering and Construction Management Reviews.--The 
Committee believes that project management at the Department is 
being improved through the actions of the Office of Engineering 
and Construction Management and continues to strongly support 
this office and its leadership. The Committee expects the 
Office of Management, Budget and Evaluation to ensure 
sufficient staffing and support for improved project management 
activities, expanded facilities and infrastructure activities, 
and increased training programs for project managers. The 
Committee recommendation includes $5,000,000 for external 
independent reviews of proposed projects and programs.
    Cybersecurity, Secure Communications, and Corporate 
Management.--The budget request for Departmental Administration 
included $32,027,000 for cybersecurity and secure 
communications and $20,420,000 for the corporate management 
information program. These are corporate activities that 
contribute substantially to both the defense and non-defense 
programs of the Department. For cybersecurity and secure 
communications, the recommendation provides $15,000,000 in this 
account and $15,000,000 in the Other Defense Activities 
appropriation account. For the corporate management information 
program, the recommendation provides $10,000,000 in this 
account and $10,000,000 in the Other Defense Activities 
appropriation account.
    Working Capital Fund.--The Department uses a charge-back 
program similar to a working capital fund which charges 
benefiting programs and organizations with administrative and 
housekeeping activities traditionally funded in a central 
account. The Committee continues to expect that: no salaries or 
other expenses of Federal employees are to be charged to the 
fund; Departmental representation on the Board establishing the 
policies must be broad-based and include smaller organizations; 
pricing policies must be sound and defensible and not include 
added factors for administrative costs; advanced payments at 
any time may be no more than the amount minimally required to 
adequately cover outstanding commitments and other reasonable 
activities; and a defined process must be established to 
dispose of excess advance payments (accumulated credits). 
Additionally, it is the Committee's expectation that the fund 
manager will ensure that the fund will neither be managed in a 
manner to produce a profit nor allow the program customers to 
use the fund as a vehicle for maintaining unencumbered funds.
    The working capital fund should be audited periodically by 
the Department's Inspector General to ensure the integrity of 
the accounts, and the Committee expects to be apprised of any 
recommendations to improve the charge-back system.
    Cost of Work for Others.--The recommendation for the cost 
of work for others program is $29,916,000, a reduction of 
$40,000,000 from the budget request. The budget request 
included $40,000,000 for safeguards and security reimbursable 
activities in several program accounts. The Committee has 
provided direct funding for these program activities and will 
not require a reimbursable offset in Departmental 
Administration.
    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.
    Use of Prior Year Balances.--The recommendation includes 
the use of $10,000,000 from prior year funds to be carried over 
from fiscal year 2002 to offset the fiscal year 2003 funding 
requirements.
    Revenues.--The recommendation for revenues is $80,000,000, 
a reduction of $57,524,000 from the budget request. The budget 
request included $40,000,000 in revenues to be received from 
safeguards and security reimbursable activities. The Committee 
has provided direct funding for these activities and will not 
require revenues to offset this cost. The recommendation also 
includes a reduction of $17,524,000 based on the Congressional 
Budget Office's current estimate of the Department's revenue 
collections during fiscal year 2003.
    Transfer from Other Defense Activities.--For many years, 
full funding for all corporate and administrative activities of 
the Department has been provided in the energy portion of this 
bill despite the fact that over 70 percent of the Department's 
funding is provided in the national security programs. The 
Committee recommendation distributes these costs more equitably 
in fiscal year 2003 and provides $30,587,000 from national 
security programs, an increase of $5,000,000 over the budget 
request of $25,587,000.

                      Office of Inspector General


Appropriation, 2002...................................       $32,430,000
Budget Estimate, 2003.................................        37,671,000
Recommended, 2003.....................................        37,671,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2002...............................        +5,241,000
    Budget Estimate, 2003.............................  ................
Note: The original budget request of $38,872,000 for the Inspector
  General included $1,201,000 to fund proposed legislation to require
  the agency to pay the full government share of the accruing cost of
  retirement for certain Federal employees. Since this legislation has
  not been enacted, the budget request has been reduced by this amount.

    The Office of Inspector General performs agency-wide audit, 
inspection, and investigative functions to identify and correct 
management and administrative deficiencies that create 
conditions for existing or potential instances of fraud, waste 
and mismanagement. The audit function provides financial and 
performance audits of programs and operations. The inspections 
function provides independent inspections and analyses of the 
effectiveness, efficiency, and economy of programs and 
operations. The investigative function provides for the 
detection and investigation of improper and illegal activities 
involving programs, personnel, and operations.
    During fiscal year 2001, Office of Inspector General 
reviews resulted in $13,600,000 being returned to the 
Department of the Treasury. In addition, the Inspector 
General's audits have identified significant opportunities to 
improve Departmental operations and increase program 
efficiency.
    The Committee recommendation is $37,671,000, the same as 
the budget request.

                    Atomic Energy Defense Activities

    The Atomic Energy Defense Activities programs of the 
Department of Energy include the National Nuclear Security 
Administration which consists of Weapons Activities, Defense 
Nuclear Nonproliferation, Naval Reactors, and the Office of the 
Administrator; Defense Environmental Management programs which 
include Defense Environmental Restoration and Waste Management, 
Defense Environmental Management Cleanup Reform, Defense 
Facilities Closure Projects, and Defense Environmental 
Management Privatization; Other Defense Activities; and Defense 
Nuclear Waste Disposal. Descriptions of each of these accounts 
are provided below.

                NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

    The Department of Energy is responsible for enhancing U.S. 
national security through the military application of nuclear 
technology and reducing the global danger from the 
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. The National 
Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), a semi-autonomous 
agency within the Department, carries out these 
responsibilities. Established in March 2000 pursuant to Title 
32 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2000 (Public Law 106-65), NNSA is responsible for the 
management and operation of the Nation's nuclear weapons, naval 
reactors, and nuclear nonproliferation activities. Three 
offices within the NNSA carry out the Department's national 
security mission: the Office of Defense Programs, the Office of 
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation, and the Office of Naval 
Reactors.
    The Committee recommendation for the NNSA is 
$7,908,417,000, a decrease of $114,932,000 from the budget 
request of $8,023,349,000, but an increase of $317,952,000 over 
fiscal year 2002.
    Response to Inspector General Report.--The Inspector 
General issued a report ``Nuclear Materials Accounting Systems 
Modernization Initiative'' which concluded that the Department 
of Energy's efforts to redesign or modernize its nuclear 
materials accounting systems were not adequate. The Department 
appears to spend over $200,000,000 annually to operate over 50 
separate nuclear materials tracking systems and perform other 
activities pertaining to its nuclear materials inventory. The 
Inspector General recommended that the NNSA, the Office of 
Security, and the Chief Information Officer develop a 
coordinated approach, select a final alternative for 
modernizing nuclear accounting information systems that is 
consistent, and impose a moratorium on development efforts to 
minimize redundancy during development and selection of an 
alternative.
    The NNSA non-concurred with this recommendation by stating 
that ``While we appreciate the efforts the IG made Department-
wide, the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), as a 
separately organized agency, will evaluate the programmatic 
requirements for each site and then will make a determination 
if a common system is beneficial to the NNSA. This approach has 
caused some confusion on the part of DOE staff offices 
regarding the interrelationships between the two 
organizations.''
    While the NNSA may believe there is confusion regarding the 
interrelationships between the two organizations, the Committee 
does not. The NNSA is a semi-autonomous agency, but still part 
of the Department of Energy. It would better serve the nation's 
interests if the NNSA chose to help further overall Department-
wide objectives for efficiencies. Very few ``NNSA sites'' are 
funded 100 percent by the NNSA--the Department of Energy's 
energy efficiency and renewable energy, nuclear energy, 
science, environmental management, and fossil energy programs 
provide funding to almost all NNSA sites. Unless the NNSA 
chooses to eliminate all other Departmental sources of funding 
at its sites, it will always be necessary to consider 
corporate-wide needs.
    Future Years Nuclear Security Program.--The Committee had 
hoped that the NNSA's first Future Years Nuclear Security 
Program (FYNSP) issued in March 2002 would represent the 
effective use of multi-year programming and budgeting 
information, including realistic resource constraints, which 
forces meaningful decisions on potential tradeoffs between 
programs. However, the FYNSP has several fundamental weaknesses 
that limit its usefulness for Congressional oversight. The 
actual funding NNSA needs to carry out its mission is not 
clearly delineated in the FYNSP. There is a significant amount 
of funding ($700 million in fiscal year 2004) identified as 
``Additional DOD funding for NNSA Nuclear Posture Review 
activities'' which is apparently contained somewhere in the 
Department of Defense's (DOD) budget structure.
    The NNSA budget and the FYNSP are built around activities 
rather than programs and products. The principal deliverables 
are the work products associated with the nine warhead types in 
the nuclear weapons stockpile, yet it is impossible to 
determine the total costs associated with any warhead. The 
FYNSP includes a laundry list of performance targets--few of 
which are the same as an identifiable program--and there is no 
specific funding associated with any of the performance 
targets. Thus, it is impossible to determine how a specific 
resource allocation will impact performance.
    Much of the funding is not well justified. Many weapons-
related activities justify their need for funding in the name 
of the Nuclear Posture Review. However, the Nuclear Posture 
Review is a conceptual document that covers considerably more 
than the NNSA's activities. Moreover, what discussion the 
Nuclear Posture Review does contain about NNSA is at a very 
high level--no specific costs associated with NNSA are 
contained in the Nuclear Posture Review. Since NNSA is 
expecting to require an additional $3.75 billion from DOD's 
budget for Nuclear Posture Review activities, a more detailed 
description of how these additional funds will be used would be 
expected.
    It is difficult for the Congress to determine what NNSA 
proposes to accomplish with these funds. Performance targets 
for each activity are not presented in a consistent format. 
While some activities contain milestones that are measurable, 
many more activities, such as the Readiness in Technical Base 
and Facilities, use only general broad descriptions. These 
deficiencies indicate that the FYNSP was not created with the 
benefit of a sound, fully developed planning, programming, and 
budgeting system. When the NNSA develops an adequate planning, 
programming, and budgeting system, it should be able to produce 
a FYNSP that is: (1) shaped by high-level, prioritized program 
and budgetary guidance that is consistent with Administration's 
policies and outyear budget projections; (2) built, consistent 
with this guidance, from the ``bottom-up'' by the NNSA 
programs, and (3) reviewed by NNSA's senior leadership to 
ensure that the FYNSP is responsible, doable, and congruent 
with previously established program and budgetary guidance.
    It is not possible to develop a credible future-year 
national security program plan without the basic foundation 
provided by a robust planning, programming, and budgeting 
system (PPBS). The Committee directs the Department to conduct 
an independent assessment of the NNSA's PPBS process and 
structure, including its comparability to that of the 
Department of Defense. The review should also determine whether 
the NNSA's PPBS is capable of being used as the central 
decision-making process for current and future resource 
allocation decisions and the extent to which it has been 
incorporated into the operational systems of the NNSA 
management and operating contractors.

                           Weapons Activities


Appropriation, 2002...................................    $5,560,238,000
Budget Estimate, 2003.................................     5,867,000,000
Recommended, 2003.....................................     5,772,068,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2002...............................      +211,830,000
    Budget Estimate, 2003.............................      -94,932,000
Note: The original budget request of $5,869,379,000 for Weapons
  Activities included $2,379,000 to fund proposed legislation to require
  the agency to pay the full government share of the accruing cost of
  retirement for certain Federal employees. The budget request has been
  reduced by this amount.

    The goal of the Weapons Activities program is to maintain 
confidence in the safety, security, reliability and performance 
of the Nation's nuclear weapons stockpile. The program seeks to 
maintain and refurbish nuclear weapons to sustain confidence in 
their safety and reliability indefinitely under the nuclear 
testing moratorium and arms reduction treaties. The Committee's 
recommendation for Weapons Activities is $5,772,068,000, a 
decrease of $94,932,000 from the budget request of 
$5,867,000,000, but an increase of $211,830,000 over fiscal 
year 2002.
    Availability of funds.--Consistent with the provisions of 
H.R. 4546, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2003, as passed by the House of Representatives, the funds 
in this account are available until September 30, 2005.
    Strategic Weapons Modernization.--The Administration's 
Nuclear Posture Review has created great uncertainty within the 
Department of Energy and in Congress on the exact nature, 
rationale, scope, and duration of every strategic nuclear 
weapons modernization program. It does not appear that cost or 
cost-effectiveness were criteria considered during the review. 
The National Nuclear Security Administration has not been able 
to reconcile the recently announced dramatic reductions planned 
for deployed operational nuclear warheads to its strategic 
weapons modernizations plans, some of which will cost billions 
of dollars each, and which are currently structured to upgrade 
the maximum number of warheads. Without a more definitive 
understanding of the nature of the suggested nuclear reserve 
force, and the investments that would be required to implement 
it, there is great risk that the Department of Energy will 
needlessly spend funds on weapons that will never be used. 
Meanwhile, NNSA has great infrastructure and other needs that 
are unmet, as does the nation as a whole. The Committee 
believes that much more work needs to be done during the next 
year by the Nuclear Weapons Council, a joint Departments of 
Defense and Energy organization, to better rationalize and 
articulate the requirements for future strategic weapons 
modernization.
    The Committee is concerned that no one has a clear 
understanding of what the nation needs to have a robust yet 
cost-effective strategic weapons modernization program. The 
Committee directs the Secretary of Energy in conjunction with 
the Secretary of Defense to provide a report to the Armed 
Services and Appropriations Committees of Congress providing a 
specific inventory-objective for each nuclear weapon systems by 
year and in total through 2012: an indication of the likely 
number of warheads that must be modernized and why; an estimate 
of the cost in then-year dollars to perform such modernization; 
and a certification that the Departments of Defense and Energy 
future years defense funding plans accompanying the fiscal year 
2004 President's budget are completely synchronized. This 
report is due to the Congressional defense committees not later 
than January 1, 2003.
    Selected Acquisition Reports.--The conference report for 
the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, 2002, 
directed the Administrator of the NNSA to submit Selected 
Acquisition Reports (SARs) once a year to the Armed Services 
and Appropriations Committees of Congress to accompany the 
annual submission of the President's Budget. The conferees 
directed that these reports be similar in content and format to 
those submitted to Congress by the Department of Defense for 
its weapon systems pursuant to section 2432 of Title 10 of 
United States Code. The SAR reporting system developed by the 
Department of Defense has been in place for decades and is well 
defined. Conversely, the Department of Energy's weapon system 
reporting process atrophied, and no reports have been submitted 
from 1991 until this year.
    This year NNSA submitted reports on three weapon systems, 
each of whose acquisition cost is expected to exceed $1 
billion, using the title ``Nuclear Weapons Acquisition Report'' 
rather than ``Selected Acquisition Report''. However, NNSA used 
a decade-old format that is not responsive to the conference 
report direction, does not conform to reporting standards used 
by the Department of Defense, omits a significant amount of 
information required by Congress, and uses the different name.
    The General Accounting Office (GAO) in a report entitled 
``NNSA: Nuclear Weapons Reports Need to be More Detailed and 
Comprehensive'' examined the Department's acquisition reports 
submitted to Congress for fiscal year 2003 and found major 
weaknesses. First, GAO questions why NNSA chose to report costs 
beginning with Phase 6.3 (Development Engineering) rather than 
Phase 6.2 (Design Definition and Cost Study) of weapons system 
acquisition. The Committee agrees with GAO that once weapon-
specific research and development costs are approved by the 
Nuclear Weapons Council, they should be reported in annual 
SARs. Second, NNSA was specifically directed to report on all 
blocks of weapons to be refurbished in blocks, but this was 
ignored. GAO observes that DOE has ``block'' information in its 
Weapon Design and Cost Report, but it elected not to share it 
with the Congress. Third, GAO notes that NNSA's reports are 
less detailed, less comprehensive, and omit significant cost 
components when compared to the Defense SARs. Unlike the 
Department of Defense, NNSA uses varying program baselines, has 
no written guidance, has no link to the budget or the Future 
Years Nuclear Security Program plan, and does not include all 
system-related costs. GAO cites ADAPT support for modifying Y-
12 capabilities and ACORN production line expansion at the 
Kansas City plant as two examples of known costs that are being 
underreported. NNSA failed to include non-directed stockpile 
work costs such as system-specific construction, campaign work 
directly related to a refurbishment or life extension program, 
and readiness in technical base and facilities work directly 
related to a life extension program. GAO further notes that 
while NNSA did provide information on overall program 
milestones, it provided no information on contractor 
performance, and provided no cost and schedule variance 
analysis data in its fiscal year 2003 reports. Fourth, GAO 
indicates that NNSA has over-classified the documents by 
marking them as classified in their entirety rather than 
specifically portion-marking each section as is routinely done 
by the Department of Defense.
    The Committee notes that acquisition decisions affecting 
nuclear weapon refurbishment and life extension are made by the 
joint Departments of Defense and Energy Nuclear Weapons 
Council. A member of the Council is the Under Secretary of 
Defense for Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology who is 
charged with the responsibility for submitting defense Selected 
Acquisition Reports to Congress. The Council therefore, by 
virtue of its membership, has sufficient expertise to ensure 
that Congressional Selected Acquisition Reporting requirements 
can be met.
    The Committee directs NNSA to submit Selected Acquisition 
Reports to Congress in fiscal year 2004 and subsequent fiscal 
years in an identical manner to those submitted by the 
Department of Defense. NNSA shall use the title ``Selected 
Acquisition Report'', use the Department of Defense standard 
format and classification methodology, and include identical 
types of information on program cost, schedule, and contractor 
performance. The Committee has included a provision requiring 
that after March 1, 2003, none of the funds for Weapons 
Activities may be obligated or expended for activities of the 
Nuclear Weapons Council until the Council certifies to the 
Armed Services and Appropriations Committees of Congress that 
Selected Acquisition Reports submitted to Congress in the 
fiscal year 2004 budget by the Department of Energy are 
identical in format, content, and security classification to 
those submitted by the Department of Defense.
    Budgeting and Accounting for Nuclear Weapons Systems.--A 
December 2000 report by the General Accounting Office (GAO) 
entitled ``Improved Management Needed to Implement Stockpile 
Stewardship Program Effectively'' discusses weaknesses in the 
National Nuclear Security Agency's budgeting system and other 
management systems for nuclear weapons. Title 32 of the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (Public 
Law 106-65) which established the NNSA included section 3252 
which responded to criticisms voiced by GAO and others by 
mandating establishment of a planning, programming and 
budgeting system that comports with sound financial and fiscal 
management principles. Despite this requirement, deficiencies 
continue to exist. For example, a March 2002 report to Congress 
by the Panel to Assess the Reliability, Safety, and Security of 
the United States Nuclear Stockpile says that NNSA must create 
a multi-year program that describes program deliverables, 
allocates resources to those deliverables, makes budget 
categories transparent, and clearly identifies direct and 
indirect charges. An April 2002 report to the Secretary of 
Energy by the Center for Strategic and International Studies on 
Science and Security in the 21st Century recommends that the 
Department install a rigorous multi-year budget process modeled 
on the planning, programming, and budgeting system at the 
Department of Defense. It is apparent that external reviewers 
find the NNSA's current budgeting and accounting system 
inadequate. While NNSA is now implementing a planning, 
programming, and budgeting system, its approach is 
substantially different from the Department of Defense model 
and has yet to yield the quality of information envisioned in 
Title 32.
    Before a credible planning, programming, and budgeting 
system can be implemented, the Department of Energy (like all 
major corporations) must have meaningful cost and accounting 
information on which to base such systems. In response to 
questions raised during a hearing this year, the Administrator 
of the NNSA acknowledged that the Department of Energy's 
official budget and accounting systems do not track the cost of 
each nuclear weapon system. Information provided to the 
Committee also indicates that the cost estimate for 
refurbishment of the W-80 warhead for air launched cruise 
missiles grew 27 percent-over $210 million in less than one 
year-before Congress had even approved the start of the 
program. GAO found similar cost overruns with the W87 life 
extension program. Obviously, the Department's budgeting and 
accounting for nuclear weapons costs, and its ability to 
estimate costs accurately, is suspect.
    The conference report for the Energy and Water Development 
Appropriations Act, 2002, required NNSA to budget by weapon 
system. The Department's fiscal year 2003 budget did not 
adequately respond to that requirement; it contains a one page 
list of weapon system costs, but no detailed budget 
justification for programs which cost hundreds of millions or 
even billions of dollars. In addition, nearly $500,000,000 was 
not allocated to any weapon system. During his testimony before 
the Committee this year, the Secretary of Energy acknowledged 
shortcomings in the Department's systems for budgeting and 
accounting for nuclear weapons.
    The Committee has also included bill language to require 
the Department of Energy to improve its budget and accounting 
systems and to have such improvements in place by the time the 
fiscal year 2005 President's budget is submitted to the 
Congress. The Committee further recommends that $10,000,000 be 
provided only for that purpose.
    Reprogramming Authority.--The conference agreement provides 
limited reprogramming authority within the Weapons Activities 
account without submission of a reprogramming to be approved in 
advance by the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations. 
The reprogramming thresholds will be as follows: directed 
stockpile work, science campaigns, engineering campaigns, 
inertial confinement fusion, advanced simulation and computing, 
pit manufacturing and certification, readiness campaigns, and 
operating expenses for readiness in technical base and 
facilities. This should provide the needed flexibility to 
manage these programs.
    In addition, funding of not more than $5,000,000 may be 
transferred between each of these categories and each 
construction project subject to the following limitations: only 
one transfer may be made to or from any program or project; the 
transfer must be necessary to address a risk to health, safety 
or the environment or to assure the most efficient use of 
weapons activities funds at a site; and funds may not be used 
for an item for which Congress has specifically denied funds or 
for a new program or project that has not been authorized by 
Congress.
    Congressional notification within 15 days of the use of 
this reprogramming authority is required. Transfers during the 
fiscal year which would result in increases or decreases in 
excess of $5,000,000 or which would be subject to the 
limitations outlined in the previous paragraph require prior 
notification and approval from the House and Senate Committees 
on Appropriations.

                        DIRECTED STOCKPILE WORK

    Directed Stockpile Work includes all activities that 
directly support weapons in the nuclear stockpile, including 
maintenance, research, development, engineering, and 
certification activities. The Committee recommendation is 
$1,234,467,000, the same as the budget request.
    The fiscal year 2003 budget request identified specific 
funding amounts by weapons system. The Committee is to be 
notified in advance if the proposed funding levels for any 
weapons system change from the estimate provided in the fiscal 
year 2003 budget justification.
    Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator.--The Committee 
recommendation includes the budget request of $15,000,000 to 
initiate a study for a Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator. This 
three-year study will evaluate the feasibility and costs 
associated with modifying one of the two candidate existing 
nuclear weapons to improve its utility against hard and deeply 
buried targets. The study will involve simulation, sub- and 
full system impact testing, and analysis and prototyping of 
components. Congressional approval will be required before any 
actual modifications are initiated.

                               CAMPAIGNS

    Campaigns are focused efforts involving the three weapons 
laboratories, the Nevada Test Site, the weapons production 
plants, and selected external organizations to address critical 
capabilities needed to achieve program objectives. The 
Committee recommendation is $2,088,917,000, an increase of 
$21,083,000 over the budget request of $2,067,834,000.
    From within funds provided for the various campaigns, 
$4,300,000 is for the University Research Program in Robotics.
    As part of its review of the fiscal year 2003 budget 
request, the Committee asked the Department to provide project 
baseline data for each campaign to include a brief description 
of the campaign with planned completion dates, the total 
estimated cost of each campaign, the costs by fiscal year for 
each major component of the campaign, and a list of major 
milestones by year. The Department failed to provide most of 
the requested information. This lack of project definition and 
budget plans makes it very difficult to determine how the 
campaigns are actually contributing to the overall goals of the 
stockpile stewardship programs and whether they are doing it on 
a timely basis. The Committee expects the Department to provide 
detailed project baseline data for each campaign showing the 
annual and five-year costs, schedule, scope, and deliverables 
for individual project activities as part of the fiscal year 
2004 budget request.
    Science campaigns.--The Committee recommendation for 
science campaigns in $213,949,000, a reduction of $21,519,000 
from the budget request. The dynamic materials properties 
campaign was reduced by $5,594,000, and the advanced 
radiography campaign was reduced by $15,925,000 due to slower 
than anticipated costing rates.
    Engineering campaigns.--The Committee recommendation for 
engineering campaigns is $239,410,000, the same as the budget 
request.
    Inertial Confinement Fusion.--The Committee recommends 
$498,793,000 for the inertial confinement fusion program, an 
increase of $47,000,000 over the budget request of 
$451,793,000.
    The recommendation includes $25,000,000 to continue 
development of high average power lasers and supporting science 
and technology, and an additional $4,000,000 for development of 
petawatt laser capabilities.
    The Committee recommendation also includes the budget 
request of $10,000,000 for the Naval Research Laboratory, and 
$54,200,000 for the University of Rochester, an increase of 
$18,0000,000 over the budget request. This additional funding 
has been provided to the University of Rochester's Laboratory 
for Laser Energetics for the OMEGA Extended Performance 
Facility in support of the nation's stockpile stewardship 
program.
    The Committee recommendation provides $214,045,000 for 
construction of the National Ignition Facility (NIF), the same 
as the budget request. The Committee is disturbed to see that 
NNSA is changing the focus from the specific goal of ignition 
to a generalized physics research program. Ignition now appears 
to be only one of several objectives for the NIF. At this stage 
in the construction project, the Committee expects that 
confidence in achieving the ignition objective should be 
increasing, not receding. The Committee directs NNSA to re-
establish ignition as the primary objective and justification 
for the NIF.
    The Committee chose not to change the name of the Inertial 
Confinement Fusion program to High Energy Density as proposed 
by the Department.
    Advanced simulation and computing.--The Committee 
recommendation for Advanced Simulation and Computing is 
$724,862,000, the same as the budget request.
    Pit manufacturing and certification.--The Committee 
recommendation for pit manufacturing readiness is $194,484,000, 
the same as the budget request.
    Readiness campaigns.--The Committee recommendation for 
readiness campaigns is $217,419,000, a reduction of $4,398,000 
from the budget request. The non-nuclear readiness campaign was 
reduced by $4,398,000 due to slower than anticipated costing 
rates.
    Tritium readiness.--The Department continues to maintain a 
schedule to produce tritium by 2006. Anticipated changes in the 
nuclear weapons stockpile will extend the date by which tritium 
is needed. In striving to meet this deadline, the cost of the 
Tritium Extraction Facility has increased by 25 percent. The 
Committee urges the Department to work with the Department of 
Defense to determine a more realistic schedule for starting 
production of tritium which will not require additional funding 
nor lead to operating new facilities which will then be 
contaminated and shutdown for an extended period of time due to 
lack of need for the tritium.
    The Department recently acknowledged that the Tritium 
Extraction Facility at the Savannah River Site in South 
Carolina has experienced serious cost overruns and schedule 
delays. Once again lax Federal project management oversight and 
poor contractor performance have resulted in a project that 
will cost substantially more than planned and fail to meet 
deadlines for performance. The Department should submit to the 
Committee a detailed report identifying the steps being taken 
to correct the problems on this project and to ensure that 
similar problems are not occurring on other projects.

               READINESS IN TECHNICAL BASE AND FACILITIES

    The Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities program 
supports the physical and operational infrastructure at the 
laboratories, the Nevada Test Site, and the production plants. 
The Committee recommendation is $1,738,229,000, an increase of 
$50,000,000 over the budget request of $1,688,229,000.
    Additional funding of $25,000,000 has been provided for the 
Pantex plant in Texas and $20,000,000 for the Y-12 Plant in 
Tennessee to meet facility needs.
    Enhanced test readiness.--As part of the Nuclear Posture 
Review, the NNSA was directed to refine test scenarios and 
evaluate cost/benefits to determine the optimum test readiness 
time to support the stockpile stewardship mission. Pending 
completion of that study and a specific policy change, the 
recommendation provides the budget request of $15,000,000. The 
Department is directed to notify the Committee before any of 
these funds are obligated in fiscal year 2003.
    Material recycle and recovery.--The Committee 
recommendation for material recycle and recovery is 
$103,816,000, an increase of $5,000,000 over the budget 
request. Additional funding of $5,000,000 has been provided for 
activities at the Y-12 Plant in Tennessee.
    Construction projects.--Project 03-D-103, Project 
engineering and design (PE&D;), has been increased by $1,500,000 
to $17,039,000. Funding for the LIGA Technologies Facility that 
was included in the fiscal year 2002 PE&D; project has been 
transferred to fiscal year 2003 since design is currently 
scheduled to being in fiscal year 2003.

             FACILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE RECAPITALIZATION

    The Committee recommendation for Facilities and 
Infrastructure Recapitalization program (F&I;) is $242,512,000, 
the same as the budget request. The Committee is encouraged by 
the execution of this program to date and expects the NNSA to 
ensure that the results of this funding are quantifiable and 
quickly show measured improvements at each site.
    This is a corporate program to restore, rebuild, and 
revitalize the physical infrastructure of the nuclear weapons 
complex. It is to stem the downward trend in the condition of 
the complex and address the backlog of maintenance, repair, and 
upgrade projects. Base maintenance and infrastructure efforts 
at NNSA sites are primarily funded within the Readiness in 
Technical Base and Facilities program and through site overhead 
allocations. These efforts ensure that facilities necessary for 
immediate programmatic workload activities are maintained to 
support that workload. The Committee directs NNSA to ensure 
that funds for recapitalization are not diverted to fund 
ongoing maintenance and programmatic needs.
    The Committee directs that at least 25 percent of the 
facilities and infrastructure funding in fiscal year 2003 be 
used to dispose of excess facilities that will provide the 
greatest impact on reducing long-term costs and risk. New and 
innovative decontamination and decommissioning (D&D;) practices 
must be implemented to reduce costs and expedite site cleanups. 
Anecdotal evidence indicates that for a variety of reasons the 
Department is not always procuring services to demolish excess 
facilities in the most cost effective manner. Thus, the 
Committee directs that none of these funds may be used to D&D; 
or demolish excess facilities unless the services are procured 
though an open-competition allowing experienced contractors 
throughout the country to bid on each disposal project.

                      SECURE TRANSPORTATION ASSET

    The Secure Transportation Asset program provides for the 
safe, secure movement of nuclear weapons, special nuclear 
materials, and non-nuclear weapon components between military 
locations and nuclear weapons complex facilities within the 
United States. The Committee recommendation is $152,989,000, 
the same as the budget request.

                        SAFEGUARDS AND SECURITY

    This program provides for all safeguards and security 
requirements at NNSA landlord sites. The Committee 
recommendation is $509,954,000, the same as the budget request, 
and an increase of nearly 14 percent over fiscal year 2002. 
Physical safeguards and security measures are only part of the 
solution to address security concerns throughout the weapons 
complex. With program needs going unmet and infrastructure 
deteriorating, the Committee strongly encourages the NNSA to 
review these growing costs and seek smarter and more efficient 
ways to meet security needs.

                          FUNDING ADJUSTMENTS

    The recommendation for Weapons Activities includes the use 
of prior year balances of $195,000,000. The budget request 
included an offset of $28,985,000 for the safeguards and 
security charge for reimbursable work. The Committee has 
provided direct funding for this activity and eliminated the 
funding offset.

                    Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation


Appropriation, 2002...................................    $1,029,586,000
Budget Estimate, 2003.................................     1,113,630,000
Recommended, 2003.....................................     1,167,630,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2002...............................      +138,044,000
    Budget Estimate, 2003.............................       +54,000,000

    The Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation account includes 
funding for Nonproliferation and Verification Research and 
Development; Nonproliferation and International Security; 
Nonproliferation Programs with Russia including International 
Materials Protection, Control, and Cooperation, Russian 
Transition Initiative, Highly Enriched Uranium (HEU) 
Transparency Implementation, International Nuclear Safety, 
Elimination of Weapons-Grade Plutonium Production; Fissile 
Materials Disposition; and Program Direction. Descriptions of 
each of these programs are provided below.
    Availability of funds.--Consistent with the provisions of 
H.R. 4546, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2003, as passed by the House of Representatives, the funds 
in this account are available until September 30, 2005.

       NONPROLIFERATION AND VERIFICATION RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

    The nonproliferation and verification research and 
development program conducts applied research, development, 
testing, and evaluation of science and technology for 
strengthening the United States response to threats to national 
security and to world peace posed by the proliferation of 
nuclear weapons and special nuclear materials. Activities 
center on the design and production of operational sensor 
systems needed for proliferation detection, treaty 
verification, nuclear warhead dismantlement initiatives, and 
intelligence activities.
    The Committee recommendation is $283,407,000, the same as 
the budget request, and includes $121,500,000 for proliferation 
detection; $89,395,000 for nuclear explosion monitoring, of 
which $20,160,000 is for ground-based systems for treaty 
monitoring; $69,000,000 for chemical and biological national 
security; and $3,512,000 for supporting activities.
    The Committee has continuing concerns with the management 
of the research and development program. The Department needs 
to involve the end users in the project proposal process, not 
allow laboratories and Headquarters program managers to come up 
with ideas and then shop them around to end users. While funds 
for research and development are increasing, there is a gap not 
being filled between long-term laboratory research and 
development and what private industry is currently developing. 
The potential users of these technologies are looking for 
short-term improved products, not long-term research and 
development projects. The need to quickly bring incrementally-
improved technologies to the marketplace has never been more 
urgent.
    An additional concern is the lack of integrated program 
plans that ensure projects are complementary and not 
duplicative and a lack of metrics to evaluate project 
performance. Effective mechanisms are not in place to ensure 
efforts are not duplicating the work of other Federal agencies, 
and there is limited coordination of Federal research with 
private and academic research.
    Competitive Research.--The Committee directs the Department 
to provide additional opportunities for open competition in the 
nonproliferation and verification research and development 
program. A report by an outside group established by the 
Department to review the Office of Nonproliferation Research 
and Engineering included a similar recommendation. The 
Committee believes there are numerous private companies, non-
DOE laboratories, and universities that have products, 
expertise and abilities to offer in the development of tools to 
strengthen the United States' response to threats to national 
security. The Committee directs the Department to provide a 
free and open competitive process for at least $113,000,000 
which is 40 percent of the nonproliferation and verification 
research and development activities during fiscal year 2003. 
The competitive process should be open to all Federal and non-
Federal entities.
    Annual Report Requirement.--The Committee directs the 
Department to prepare an annual report of each project with the 
baseline cost, scope and schedule, deliverables, lab performing 
the research and development, and the proposed user and submit 
this with the fiscal year 2004 budget.

              NONPROLIFERATION AND INTERNATIONAL SECURITY

    The nonproliferation and international security program 
(formerly the Arms Control program) seeks to detect, prevent, 
and reverse the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction 
materials, technology, and expertise. The major functional 
areas of the program include: nonproliferation policy; 
international safeguards; export control; and treaties and 
agreements. The Committee recommendation for nonproliferation 
and international security is $92,668,000, the same as the 
budget request.
    Within the nonproliferation policy program is the Reduced 
Enrichment for Research and Test Reactor (RERTR) program to 
prevent proliferation of nuclear weapons by minimizing and 
possibly eliminating the use of highly enriched uranium (HEU) 
in civilian nuclear programs worldwide. The RERTR program 
develops the technologies needed to substitute LEU for HEU in 
research and test reactors, and this is to be completed by 
2009. The recommendation includes the budget request of 
$5,500,000.
    Also in the nonproliferation policy program is the Russian 
Foreign Research Reactor Fuel Return (RFR) initiative to 
prevent proliferation of nuclear weapons by repatriating to 
Russia civilian HEU fuel from Russian-supplied research 
reactors in various countries including those located in 
regions of proliferation concern. The recommendation includes 
the budget request of $9,500,000.

                 NONPROLIFERATION PROGRAMS WITH RUSSIA

    The Department of Energy funds many nonproliferation 
programs with Russia. These programs help secure Russian 
nuclear weapons materials, prevent the outflow of scientific 
expertise from Russia, eliminate excess nuclear weapons 
materials, and help downsize the Russian nuclear weapons 
complex.
    Limitation on Russian Program Funds.--The Department is 
still not adequately addressing the problem that too much of 
the money for Russian programs is being spent in the U.S. at 
the Department's own national laboratories rather than going to 
the facilities in Russia. The Department's contracting 
mechanisms are resulting in excess funds going to pay 
laboratories for contract administration and oversight that 
would be better performed by Federal personnel. The 
Department's national laboratories should be used to provide 
technical oversight and programmatic guidance in those areas 
where they have special expertise.
    The Committee directs that not more than 25 percent of the 
funding for Russian programs may be spent in the United States. 
The Department is not adequately reviewing the types of 
administrative and programmatic guidance that are needed for 
these programs and choosing the proper contractual mechanism. 
This leads to excessive costs for administration and less 
funding going to Russia. The Department should report to the 
Committee by December 15, 2002, on the steps being taken to 
meet the 25 percent limitation.

      INTERNATIONAL MATERIALS PROTECTION, CONTROL AND COOPERATION

    The International Materials Protection, Control and 
Cooperation program, (formerly called the International 
Materials Protection, Control and Accounting program), is 
designed to work cooperatively with Russia to secure weapons 
and weapons-usable nuclear material. The focus is to improve 
the physical security at facilities that possess or process 
significant quantities of nuclear weapons-usable that are of 
proliferation concern. Activities include installing monitoring 
equipment, inventorying nuclear material, improving the Russian 
security culture, and establishing a security infrastructure.
    The Committee recommendation is $243,077,000, an increase 
of $10,000,000 over the budget request of $233,077,000. The 
Committee also directs the Department to increase the level of 
program funding that goes to employing Russian workers and 
purchasing Russian-made equipment and reduce the amount of 
funding that is spent in the United States.

                     RUSSIAN TRANSITION INITIATIVE

    The Committee recommendation for the Russian Transition 
Initiative program is $39,334,000, the same as the budget 
request. This includes the Initiative for Proliferation 
Prevention (IPP) program and the Nuclear Cities Initiatives 
(NCI) to develop projects to employ Russian weapons scientists 
and downsize the Russian weapons complex.

       HIGHLY ENRICHED URANIUM (HEU) TRANSPARENCY IMPLEMENTATION

    The highly enriched uranium (HEU) transparency 
implementation program develops and implements mutually-
agreeable transparency measures for the February 1993 agreement 
between the United States and the Russian Federation. This 
agreement, which has an estimated value of $12 billion, covers 
the purchase over 20 years of low enriched uranium (LEU) 
derived from 500 metric tons of HEU removed from dismantled 
Russian nuclear weapons. Under the agreement, conversion of HEU 
components into LEU is performed in Russian facilities. The 
Committee recommendation is $17,229,000, the same as the budget 
request.

              INTERNATIONAL NUCLEAR SAFETY AND COOPERATION

    With the completion in fiscal year 2003 of the Soviet-
designed reactor safety program, the international nuclear 
safety and cooperation program will reorient its activities to 
address critical nuclear safety issues worldwide in countries 
of concern. The Committee recommendation is $11,576,000, a 
reduction of $3,000,000 from the budget request of $14,576,000. 
The Committee notes that other Federal and international 
entities already have nuclear safety as a primary mission.

           ELIMINATION OF WEAPONS-GRADE PLUTONIUM PRODUCTION

    The Elimination of Weapons-Grade Plutonium Production 
Program will be transferred from the Department of Defense to 
the Department of Energy in fiscal year 2003. This is a 
cooperative effort with the Federation of Russia to stop 
plutonium production at three nuclear reactors still in 
operation in Russia, two located at Seversk and one at 
Zheleznogorsk. The three reactors have approximately 15 years 
of remaining lifetime and could generate an additional 25 
metric tons of weapons-grade plutonium. They also provide heat 
and electricity required by the surrounding communities. The 
current approach is to shutdown these three reactors within six 
years by providing alternate fossil-fueled energy plants to 
supply heat and electricity to the surrounding communities. The 
total estimated cost to shutdown the three nuclear reactors and 
build two new fossil-fuel plants is $470,000,000. The Committee 
recommendation is $49,339,000, the same as the budget request. 
In addition to the budget request, $74,000,000 in unobligated 
balances is being transferred from the Department of Defense's 
Cooperative Threat Reduction program to DOE.
    The Committee is quite concerned about execution of this 
very complicated program which involves substantial 
contributions and coordination with the Russian Government. The 
Department has been so anxious to move forward on this program 
that it non-competitively assigned the Pacific Northwest 
National Laboratory (PNNL) to serve as lead U.S. contractor, at 
a time when the program still officially belonged to Defense 
Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) and not to DOE. While PNNL may 
be a logical choice for the reactor safety upgrade tasks, PNNL 
has limited expertise and experience in the design and 
construction of large-scale civil construction projects in 
Russia, especially in the closed cities. Also, the Department 
proposes to contract through PNNL with Rosatomstroy, an 
unproven subsidiary of the Ministry for Atomic Energy of the 
Russian Federation (MINATOM), for management and integration of 
the fossil fuel projects. In so doing, the Department ignores 
at its peril the lessons learned by the U.S. Government on the 
Fissile Material Storage Facility at Mayak.
    The Department is rushing forward with neither a sound 
acquisition strategy nor a management approach designed to 
ensure the success of this $470 million program. Accordingly, 
the Committee directs the Secretary of Energy and the 
Administrator of the NNSA to require the application to the 
fossil fuel projects of the Department's established directives 
on project management, to include acquisition planning, 
alternative analysis, and critical decision approvals of these 
products at the levels prescribed by the Department's 
directives, before expenditure of funds appropriated for this 
program can begin. The Department is required to provide to the 
Committee, not later than January 31, 2003, a revised project 
management plan for the two fossil fuel plants, including a 
revised baseline schedule and cost estimate developed with the 
assistance of the Office of Engineering and Construction 
Management in the Office of Management, Budget, and Evaluation.
    Further, the Department is directed to explore alternative 
means of accomplishing the design and construction of the 
fossil fuel plants in Russia. One option the Committee supports 
exploring is for the Department to use the services of the Army 
Corps of Engineers on a reimbursable basis, with the Department 
designating the Corps as the project manager for the fossil 
fuel plants. PNNL would remain as the project manager for the 
reactor safety upgrades. For purposes of the various agreements 
between the United States of America and the Russian 
Federation, and between the U.S. Department of Energy and 
MINATOM, concerning the cessation of plutonium production at 
the operating reactors in Seversk and the reactor in 
Zheleznogorsk, the Department would need to designate the Army 
Corps of Engineers as DOE's technical representative for 
matters relating to the design, analyses, procurement, 
construction, acceptance testing, startup, equipment, property, 
materials, personnel, training, and technical services required 
to implement the fossil fuel provisions of these agreements. 
The Department of Energy would maintain its official status as 
the Executive Agent for the United States for these agreements.
    Misuse of Funds.--The Committee is aware that the 
Department allowed its contractor to initiate program 
activities in advance of receiving funds for the elimination of 
weapons-grade plutonium production program. Almost $1,000,000 
of funding was diverted from other programs to begin activities 
that had neither been approved nor funded by Congress. The 
Committee directs that none of the fiscal year 2003 funding 
provided herein be used to repay any program expenditure made 
before October 1, 2002. The Committee also directs the Chief 
Financial Officer to prepare a report explaining how the 
Department's contracting and financial controls allowed this 
expenditure in advance of an appropriation. This report is due 
to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations by October 
15, 2002.

                     FISSILE MATERIALS DISPOSITION

    The fissile materials disposition program is responsible 
for the technical and management activities to assess, plan and 
direct efforts to provide for the safe, secure, environmentally 
sound long-term storage of all weapons-usable fissile materials 
and the disposition of fissile materials declared surplus to 
national defense needs.
    The Committee recommendation is $438,000,000, a reduction 
of $10,000,000 from the budget request. Funding of $350,000,000 
is provided for U.S. surplus materials disposition and 
$88,000,000 for the Russian plutonium disposition program. The 
$10,000,000 reduction is to be applied to the Russian program 
for support and oversight in the United States, which has 
increased to more than one-third of the funding for this 
program.
    The U.S. portion of the fissile materials disposition 
program is not to be counted in the 25 percent limitation on 
funds for Russian programs to be spent in the U.S.
    Construction projects.--Based on needs identified in the 
latest project review, the Committee recommendation transfers 
$2,000,000 to Project 99-D-141, the Pit Disassembly and 
Conversion Facility, from the operating expenses associated 
with this project.

                           PROGRAM DIRECTION

    The Committee recognizes that program activities managed by 
the Department's Office of Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation 
have continued to increase. The Committee has previously 
directed the Office to reduce the number of contractors at 
Headquarters by converting these positions to Federal employees 
and expects the Office to move promptly. Thus, the Committee 
directs that a minimum of 250 Federal employees be fully funded 
in the Office of Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation in fiscal 
year 2003 to allow for increased program oversight by the 
Federal employees.
    The Committee recommendation provides $57,000,000 for 
salaries and other expenses for the Federal employees in the 
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation organization. Funding for this 
activity was included in the budget request for the Office of 
the Administrator for NNSA, but no amount was specified. This 
funding provides for Federal employees and supporting 
activities at Headquarters, field offices, and international 
offices.
    None of these funds may be taxed by the NNSA for any 
purpose without prior notification and approval by the House 
and Senate Committees on Appropriations.

                          FUNDING ADJUSTMENTS

    The Committee recommendation includes the use of 
$64,000,000 of prior year balances, the same as the budget 
request.

                             Naval Reactors


Appropriation, 2002...................................      $688,045,000
Budget Estimate, 2003.................................       706,790,000
Recommended, 2003.....................................       706,790,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2002...............................       +18,745,000
    Budget Estimate, 2003.............................  ................
Note: The original budget request of $708,020,000 for Naval Reactors
  included $1,230,000 to fund proposed legislation to require the agency
  to pay the full government share of the accruing cost of retirement
  for certain Federal employees. The budget request has been reduced by
  this amount.

    The Naval Reactors program is responsible for all aspects 
of naval nuclear propulsion--from technology development 
through reactor operations to ultimate reactor plant disposal. 
The program provides for the design, development, testing, and 
evaluation of improved naval nuclear propulsion plants and 
reactor cores. These efforts are critical to ensuring the 
safety and reliability of 102 operating Naval reactor plants 
and to developing the next generation reactor.
    The Committee recommendation is $706,790,000, the same as 
the budget request.

                      Office of the Administrator


Appropriation, 2002...................................      $312,596,000
Budget Estimate, 2003.................................       335,929,000
Recommended, 2003.....................................       261,929,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2002...............................       -50,667,000
    Budget Estimate, 2003.............................      -74,000,000
Note: The original budget request of $347,705,000 for the Office of the
  Administrator included $11,776,000 to fund proposed legislation to
  require the agency to pay the full government share of the accruing
  cost of retirement for certain Federal employees. Since this
  legislation has not been enacted, the budget request has been reduced
  by this amount.

    The Office of the Administrator of the National Nuclear 
Security Administration (NNSA) provides corporate planning and 
oversight for Defense Programs, Defense Nuclear 
Nonproliferation, and Naval Reactors, including the NNSA field 
offices in New Mexico, Nevada, and California. The Committee 
recommendation is $261,929,000, a reduction of $74,000,000 from 
the budget request. Funding of $54,000,000 has been transferred 
to the Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation program to allow 
greater management flexibility for that office in hiring and 
supporting Federal employees.
    The NNSA has been in existence for more than two years, but 
the management efficiencies and economies that Congress 
expected to result from this new organization have so far 
failed to materialize. The Committee is still waiting for the 
streamlined processes and redefined roles in the management of 
the nation's nuclear weapons complex that will lead to reduced 
staffing needs. The Committee has also been disappointed in the 
response of the NNSA to Committee direction included in the 
reports accompanying the fiscal year 2002 appropriations bill; 
to additional requests for information in support of the fiscal 
year 2003 appropriation; and to the submission of reports 
required by the fiscal year 2002 appropriations bill. 
Consistent with the direction provided in the House-passed 
Fiscal Year 2003 National Defense Authorization bill, a 
reduction of $20,000,000 has been applied to this account.
    The Committee urges the Administrator of NNSA to provide at 
least $5,000,000 for the NNSA Office of Project Management and 
Engineering Support to continue its project oversight work and 
to provide training and mentoring programs to improve the 
skills of NNSA project managers.
    The Committee recommendation provides $12,000, the same as 
the budget request, for official reception and representation 
expenses for the NNSA.
    Availability of funds.--Consistent with the provisions of 
H.R. 4546, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2003, as passed by the House of Representatives, the funds 
in this account are available until September 30, 2003.

               Environmental and Other Defense Activities


         Defense Environmental Restoration and Waste Management


Appropriation, 2002...................................    $5,242,776,000
Budget Estimate, 2003.................................     4,544,133,000
Recommended, 2003.....................................     4,543,661,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2002...............................      -699,115,000
    Budget Estimate, 2003.............................         -472,000
Note: The original budget request of $4,558,360,000 for Defense
  Environmental Restoration and Waste Management included $14,227,000 to
  fund proposed legislation to require the agency to pay the full
  government share of the accruing cost of retirement for certain
  Federal employees. Since this legislation has not been enacted, the
  budget request has been reduced by this amount.

    The Environmental Management program is responsible for 
identifying and reducing risks and managing waste at sites 
where the Department carried out nuclear energy or weapons 
research and production activities which resulted in 
radioactive, hazardous, and mixed waste contamination requiring 
remediation, stabilization, or some other type of cleanup 
action. These responsibilities include facilities and areas at 
114 geographic sites. These sites are located in 30 states and 
one territory and occupy an area equal to that of Rhode Island 
and Delaware combined--or about two million acres.
    Environmental management activities are budgeted under the 
following appropriation accounts: Defense Environmental 
Restoration and Waste Management; Environmental Management 
Cleanup Reform; Defense Facilities Closure Projects; Defense 
Environmental Management Privatization; Non-Defense 
Environmental Management; and Uranium Facilities Maintenance 
and Remediation.
    The Committee's recommendation for Defense Environmental 
Restoration and Waste Management is $4,543,661,000, a reduction 
of $472,000 from the budget request. Details of the recommended 
funding levels follow.

                                GENERAL

    The Committee strongly supports the Department's reform 
initiatives and hopes to realize significant life-cycle cost 
savings and program efficiencies from new and innovative 
cleanup strategies throughout the complex. Efforts should 
continue to focus on reducing risk, accelerating cleanup, and 
eliminating activities that do not contribute to risk reduction 
and cleanup.
    Budget Justifications.--The Environmental Management 
program budget justifications need to be revised to more fully 
identify the effects of the accelerated cleanup program. With 
the current budget structure, it is difficult to tie specific 
resources to measurable outcomes; complete project baseline 
data including the total cost, scope and schedule is not 
available; overhead costs are not transparent; and numerous 
activities that have no direct relevance to cleanup are buried 
throughout the budget. The Office of Environmental Management 
is directed to work with the Committee to identify specific 
changes to be made in the fiscal year 2004 budget submittal.
    Reprogramming Authority.--The Committee continues to 
support the need for some flexibility to meet changing funding 
requirements at former defense sites which are undergoing 
remedial cleanup activities. In fiscal year 2003, each site 
manager may transfer up to $5,000,000 between Defense 
Environmental Restoration and Waste Management program 
activities such as site/project completion, post-2006 
completion, and construction projects to reduce health or 
safety risks or to gain cost savings as long as no program or 
project is increased or decreased by more than $5,000,000 once 
during the fiscal year. This reprogramming authority may not be 
used to initiate new programs or programs specifically denied, 
limited, or increased by Congress in the Act or report. The 
Committees on Appropriations in the House and Senate must be 
notified within thirty days of the use of this reprogramming 
authority.
    Economic development.--None of the environmental management 
funds are available for economic development activities.

                        SITE/PROJECT COMPLETION

    The site/project completion account funds projects that 
will be completed by fiscal year 2006 at sites or facilities 
where a DOE mission will continue beyond the year 2006. This 
account focuses management attention on completing specific 
environmental projects at sites where the Department 
anticipates continuing missions, and distinguishes these 
projects from the long-term cleanup activities such as those 
associated with high level waste streams. The Committee 
recommendation is $787,950,000, the same as the budget request.

                          POST 2006 COMPLETION

    Environmental Management projects currently projected to 
require funding beyond fiscal year 2006 are funded in the Post 
2006 completion account. This includes a significant number of 
projects at the largest DOE sites--the Hanford site in 
Washington; the Savannah River site in South Carolina; the Oak 
Ridge Reservation in Tennessee; and the Idaho National 
Engineering and Environmental Laboratory in Idaho--as well as 
the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico, the Nevada 
Test Site, and the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in Carlsbad, New 
Mexico. A variety of multi-site activities are also funded in 
this account.
    From within available funds provided to the Richland site, 
funding is available to support the Hazardous Materials 
Management and Emergency Response (HAMMER) training and 
education center during fiscal year 2003. The Committee 
understands that this facility will seek another source of 
funding and be moved from the environmental management program 
after fiscal year 2003.
    Health Effects Studies.--The Committee recommendation does 
not include any funding for worker and public health effects 
studies.

   URANIUM ENRICHMENT DECONTAMINATION AND DECOMMISSIONING (D&D;) FUND 
                              CONTRIBUTION

    The Energy Policy Act of 1992, Public Law 102-486, created 
the Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund 
to pay for the cost of cleanup of the gaseous diffusion 
facilities located in Oak Ridge, Tennessee; Paducah, Kentucky; 
and Portsmouth, Ohio. The Committee recommendation includes the 
budget request of $442,000,000 for the defense contribution to 
the Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund 
as authorized in Public Law 102-486. These funds were included 
in the budget request for multi-site activities, but the 
recommendation has provided the funding in a separate program 
to provide greater visibility for this expenditure.

                         SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

    The Office of Science and Technology conducts a national 
program that provides a full range of resources and 
capabilities--from basic research through development, and 
demonstration, and technical and deployment assistance--that 
are needed to deliver scientific and technological solutions to 
cleanup and long-term environmental stewardship problems. The 
Committee recommendation for science and technology is 
$103,000,000, an increase of $11,000,000 over the budget 
request of $92,000,000.
    While the Committee supports the effort to restructure the 
science and technology program to focus on core research and 
development functions to support intermediate and long-term 
needs for cleanup and closure, failure to fund multi-year 
agreements hurts the Department's credibility as a reliable 
partner. The Committee recommendation includes $7,000,000 to 
continue the five-year cooperative agreement with the Florida 
International University's Hemispheric Center for Environmental 
Technology and $4,000,000 to continue the five-year AEA 
Technology International Agreement.

                           EXCESS FACILITIES

    The environmental management program is responsible for 
final disposition of excess contaminated facilities throughout 
the Department. Funds are currently being expended for 
surveillance and maintenance of these excess facilities, and 
these costs will continue until decontamination and 
decommissioning (D&D;) is completed.
    The Committee has provided $10,000,000 for the excess 
facilities program, an increase of $8,700,000 over the budget 
request. The budget requested only surveillance and maintenance 
costs of $1,300,000 for the excess facilities transferred to 
the program in fiscal year 2002. In addition to these 
surveillance and maintenance costs, the recommendation includes 
$8,700,000 to begin the actual D&D; of excess facilities already 
owned by the environmental management program. These funds 
should be used to dispose of those facilities that will provide 
the greatest impact on reducing long-term costs and risk.

                         MULTI-SITE ACTIVITIES

    Multi-site activities provide management and direction for 
various crosscutting initiatives, establish national and 
departmental policies, and conduct analysis and integrate 
actions across the complex. The Committee recommendation is 
$47,352,000 for multi-site activities, a reduction of 
$432,519,000 from the budget request of $479,871,000. The 
following funding adjustments are included: $442,000,000 
requested for the Uranium Enrichment D&D; Fund Contribution has 
been transferred to a separate program; $1,000,000 requested 
for packaging certification in the non-defense account has been 
transferred here; and $8,481,000 has been provided for the 
Hazardous Waste Worker Training Program.

                        SAFEGUARDS AND SECURITY

    The safeguards and security program ensures appropriate 
levels of protection against unauthorized access, theft, 
diversion, or destruction of Departmental assets and hostile 
acts that may impact national security or the health and safety 
of DOE and contractor employees. The Committee recommendation 
for the safeguards and security program is $228,260,000, the 
same as the budget request.

                           PROGRAM DIRECTION

    The Committee recommends $344,000,000 for program 
direction, the same as the budget request.
    Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP).--
The Committee expects the Department to fulfill its 
responsibilities at FUSRAP sites, exclusive of the remedial 
actions to be performed by the Corps.

                          FUNDING ADJUSTMENTS

    The recommendation for Defense Environmental Restoration 
and Waste Management includes the use of prior year balances of 
$34,000,000. The budget request included an offset of 
$4,347,000 for the safeguards and security charge for 
reimbursable work. The Committee has provided direct funding 
for this activity and eliminated the funding offset.

                Environmental Management Cleanup Reform


Appropriation, 2002...................................  ................
Budget Estimate, 2003.................................    $1,100,000,000
Recommended, 2003.....................................     1,100,000,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2002...............................    +1,100,000,000
    Budget Estimate, 2003.............................  ................

    The Environmental Management Cleanup Reform appropriation 
is designed to enable the Department, the States, and the 
American taxpayer to begin realizing the benefits immediately 
of alternative cleanup approaches that will produce more real 
risk reduction, accelerate cleanup, and achieve much needed 
cost and schedule improvements. This new account is critical to 
beginning implementation of the recent top-to-bottom review of 
the Department's environmental management programs.
    These funds will be made available only when the Department 
enters into revised agreements that have the potential for 
significant life-cycle cost savings over the current baseline 
cleanup approach. When the Department reaches agreement with 
regulatory officials, establishes a new funding profile, and 
estimates the cost savings for the alternate cleanup strategy, 
these funds will be transferred to the existing cleanup 
accounts to fund the new projects or supplement funding for 
ongoing projects.
    The Administration's original budget request indicated that 
an additional $300,000,000 would be requested in a budget 
amendment if the approved agreements exceeded the available 
funding of $800,000,000. From the accelerated cleanup 
agreements reached to date which total more than $750,000,000, 
it is apparent that the initial request of $800,000,000 will be 
exceeded during fiscal year 2003. Thus, the Committee has 
provided a total of $1,100,000,000. [Note: The Administration 
submitted a budget amendment for the additional $300,000,000 on 
August 2, 2002.]
    The Committee directs that none of the funds be released 
until the execution of a site performance management plan and 
upon its submission to the congressional defense committees. 
The site performance management plan is defined as a plan, 
agreed to by the applicable Federal and State agencies with 
regulatory jurisdiction with respect to the site, that provides 
for the performance of activities that will accelerate the 
reduction of environmental risk and accelerate cleanup at the 
site. Upon transfer and merger of the funds, all funds in the 
merged account are available only to carry out the site 
performance management plan at the site.

                  Defense Facilities Closure Projects


Appropriation, 2002...................................    $1,092,878,000
Budget Estimate, 2003.................................     1,091,314,000
Recommended, 2003.....................................     1,091,314,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2002...............................        -1,564,000
    Budget Estimate, 2003.............................  ................

    The Defense Facilities Closure Projects account includes 
funding for sites which have established a goal of completing 
cleanup by the end of fiscal year 2006. After completion of 
cleanup, no further Departmental mission is envisioned, except 
for limited long-term surveillance and maintenance. Sites in 
this account include the Rocky Flats Closure Project in 
Colorado, and several sites in Ohio--Ashtabula, Columbus, 
Fernald, and Miamisburg. Fiscal year 2003 funding for each 
closure site is discussed below.
    Rocky Flats Closure Project.--The Committee has provided 
fiscal year 2003 funding of $664,000,000, the same as the 
budget request, for the Rocky Flats site in Colorado. The 
Committee is aware that, to meet the 2006 deadline for closure, 
stable funding will be required over several years, and 
critical path work activities must be successfully completed, 
not only at Rocky Flats, but at other sites throughout the 
Department's complex. The Department must ensure that complex-
wide policy and funding issues are addressed as they relate to 
the closure of the Rocky Flats site. It is only through 
successful site closures that funds will be made available to 
support expensive future cleanup projects at Hanford and Idaho.
    Ohio Sites.--The Committee is encouraged that the 
Department is seeking to ensure that the 2006 closure date for 
each of these sites is met. The Committee expects the 
Department to aggressively review the baseline closure plans 
for each Ohio cleanup site and take all steps necessary to meet 
the 2006 closure date. If, during fiscal year 2003, it appears 
that any of these projects will not meet the 2006 closure date, 
the Department is to notify the Committee immediately, reduce 
site funding to the minimum necessary to maintain safe 
surveillance and maintenance conditions, and submit a 
reprogramming to remove the site from the Defense Facilities 
Closure Project account.
    The Committee recommendation is $427,314,000, the same as 
the budget request, for the following Ohio sites: Ashtabula--
$16,000,000; Columbus Environmental Management Project--
$16,100,000; Miamisburg--$96,028,000; and Fernald--
$299,186,000.
    A recent Inspector General report ``Cost Sharing at the 
Ashtabula Environmental Management Project'' raised concerns 
that the Department was accepting full financial responsibility 
for remediating the site when a portion of the work performed 
by the contractor was for commercial customers. In addition, 
the Inspector General questioned the fees paid for work that is 
taking place on contractor-owned sites. The Committee expects 
the Department to address this issue, assure an equitable 
allocation of site cleanup costs, and report to the Committee 
on the resolution of this issue by December 15, 2002.
    Safeguards and Security.--The safeguards and security 
program ensures appropriate levels of protection against 
unauthorized access, theft, diversion, or destruction of 
Departmental assets and hostile acts that may impact national 
security or the health and safety of DOE and contractor 
employees. The Committee recommendation for the safeguards and 
security program at closure sites is $37,161,000, the same as 
the budget request.

             Defense Environmental Management Privatization


Appropriation, 2002...................................      $153,537,000
Budget Estimate, 2003.................................       158,399,000
Recommended, 2003.....................................       158,399,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2002...............................        +4,862,000
    Budget Estimate, 2003.............................  ................

    The Committee recommendation for the Defense Environmental 
Management Privatization program is $158,399,000, the same as 
the budget request. The recommendation includes $105,000,000 
for the Advanced Mixed Waste Treatment Project and $53,399,000 
for the Spent Nuclear Fuel Dry Storage Facility, both located 
in Idaho.

                        Other Defense Activities


Appropriation, 2002...................................      $547,544,000
Budget Estimate, 2003.................................       468,664,000
Recommended, 2003.....................................       485,076,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2002...............................       -62,468,000
    Budget Estimate, 2003.............................      +16,412,000
Note: The original budget request of $472,156,000 for Other Defense
  Activities included $3,492,000 to fund proposed legislation to require
  the agency to pay the full government share of the accruing cost of
  retirement for certain Federal employees. Since this legislation has
  not been enacted, the budget request has been reduced by this amount.

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

                     ENERGY SECURITY AND ASSURANCE

    The Energy Security and Assurance program supports the 
national security by working to protect the Nation against 
severe energy supply disruptions. Though protecting our energy 
vulnerabilities will largely be accomplished through the 
private sector, there is a strong national coordinating and 
analytical role to be filled by the Federal government. This 
effort in fiscal year 2003 will provide resources to enhance 
energy assurance critical assessment and response capabilities, 
conduct infrastructure vulnerability assessments, analyze 
energy systems and infrastructure security, respond to energy 
emergencies, and support the National Infrastructure Simulation 
and Analysis Center (NISAC).
    The Committee recommendation for energy security and 
assurance is $27,686,000, the same as the budget request, for 
energy security and assurance activities to coordinate with the 
States and industry and to lead the Federal government's effort 
to ensure a secure flow of energy. Funding of $19,311,000, the 
same as the budget request, has been provided for the National 
Infrastructure Simulation and Analysis Center which is proposed 
for transfer to the new Office of Homeland Security. The 
Committee expects the focus of NISAC to remain on critical 
energy infrastructure vulnerabilities during fiscal year 2003.
    The Committee strongly supports the development of critical 
energy infrastructure vulnerability assessments and expects the 
Department to provide a detailed project plan by November 30, 
2002, that includes the cost, schedule, scope and milestones 
for this effort. The plan should address how each State will be 
involved in the program, and describe the training program to 
be used for state emergency planning.

                           OFFICE OF SECURITY

    The Office of Security provides a domestic safeguards and 
security program for protection of nuclear weapons, nuclear 
materials, nuclear facilities, and classified and unclassified 
information against sabotage, espionage, terrorist activities, 
or any loss or unauthorized disclosure that could endanger the 
national security or disrupt operations. The Committee 
recommendation for security and emergency operations is 
$210,515,000, an increase of $25,000,000 over the budget 
request of $185,515,000.
    The Committee recommendation includes $10,000,000 to fund a 
portion of the Department's corporate management information 
program which is the same amount as fiscal year 2002, and 
$15,000,000 to fund a portion of the Department's cybersecurity 
and secure communications activities. In fiscal year 2002 the 
conference agreement allocated these costs between the defense 
and non-defense accounts of the Department, but the fiscal year 
2003 budget request included all costs in the Departmental 
Administration account. The Committee recommendation once again 
apportions these costs between programs.
    In fiscal year 2003, the Department of Energy will spend 
over $1 billion on safeguards and security activities at 
Headquarters and field locations. The $210,515,000 provided to 
the Office of Security is for Headquarters activities only. 
Funding for safeguards and security activities at Departmental 
facilities and laboratories in the field is included within 
each program budget.

                         OFFICE OF INTELLIGENCE

    The intelligence program provides information and technical 
analyses on international arms proliferation, foreign nuclear 
programs, and other energy related matters to policy makers in 
the Department and other U.S. Government agencies. The focus of 
the Department's intelligence analysis and reporting is on 
emerging proliferant nations, nuclear technology transfers, 
foreign nuclear materials production, and proliferation 
implications of the breakup of the Former Soviet Union. The 
Committee recommendation is $41,246,000, the same as the budget 
request.

                     OFFICE OF COUNTERINTELLIGENCE

    The Office of Counterintelligence seeks to develop and 
implement an effective counterintelligence program throughout 
the Department of Energy. The goal of the program is to 
identify, neutralize, and deter foreign government or 
industrial intelligence threats directed at the Department's 
facilities, personnel, information, and technologies. The 
Committee recommendation is $45,955,000, the same as the budget 
request.

            INDEPENDENT OVERSIGHT AND PERFORMANCE ASSURANCE

    The Office of Independent Oversight and Performance 
Assurance is the focal point for independent evaluation of 
safeguards, security, emergency management, environment, safety 
and health, and cyber security. The Committee recommendation is 
$22,430,000, the same as the budget request.

                ENVIRONMENT, SAFETY AND HEALTH (DEFENSE)

    The Office of Environment, Safety and Health develops 
programs and policies to protect the workers and the public, 
and funds health effects studies. The Committee recommendation 
is $94,041,000, a reduction of $5,000,000 from the budget 
request of $99,041,000, due to funding constraints. With a 
significant Headquarters staff of Federal employees, the 
Committee continues to believe that outside contractor 
assistance can be reduced.
    The recommendation for health effects studies is 
$48,160,000, the same as the budget request. The recommended 
level of funding is the same as the prior fiscal year after 
eliminating the special purpose projects of $8,750,000 that 
were included in the fiscal year 2002 appropriation. The 
Department funds several programs for occupational medicine, 
public health studies, and epidemiologic monitoring. The 
Committee expects the Department to review all these activities 
to achieve efficiencies through consolidation.

                    WORKER AND COMMUNITY TRANSITION

    The Committee's recommendation for the worker and community 
transition program is $19,683,000, a reduction of $6,000,000 
from the budget request of $25,683,000, due to funding 
constraints. Funding has remained stable or increased in many 
Departmental programs, and there are no significant contractor 
reductions requiring additional funds in fiscal year 2003.
    The Committee has provided $2,000,000 for infrastructure 
improvements at the former Pinellas weapons plant.
    The Committee directs that none of the funds provided for 
this program be used for additional severance payments and 
benefits for Federal employees.
    The worker and community transition program was established 
to mitigate the impacts on workers and communities of 
contractor workforce reductions as a result of the end of the 
Cold War. Funds are provided for enhanced severance payments to 
employees at former defense sites, and for assisting community 
planning for defense conversion through Federal grants. 
However, the cost of this program has not been insignificant 
and now exceeds $1 billion. With program funds increasing in 
fiscal year 2003 at NNSA and environmental cleanup sites, the 
Committee sees no need to increase funding for severance 
benefits above the fiscal year 2002 level.
    Program direction.--The Committee recommendation of 
$2,000,000 for program direction, a reduction of $718,000 from 
the budget request, is the same as fiscal year 2002.

           NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT

    The Committee recommendation includes $30,587,000, an 
increase of $5,000,000 over the budget request of $25,587,000, 
to provide administrative support for national security 
programs. This will fund Departmental activities performed by 
offices such as the Secretary, Deputy Secretary and Under 
Secretary, the General Counsel, Chief Financial Officer, Human 
Resources, Congressional Affairs, and Public Affairs which 
organizations support the organizations funded in the atomic 
energy defense activities accounts.

                     OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

    The Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) is responsible for 
all of the Department's adjudicatory processes, other than 
those administered by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. 
The Committee recommendation is $2,933,000, the same as the 
budget request.

                          FUNDING ADJUSTMENTS

    The Committee recommendation for funding adjustments 
includes the use of $10,000,000 in prior year balances, an 
increase of $3,300,000 over the budget request of $6,700,000. 
The budget request also included an offset of $712,000 for the 
safeguards and security charge for reimbursable work. The 
Committee has provided direct funding for this activity and 
eliminated the need for this funding offset.

                     Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal


Appropriation, 2002...................................      $280,000,000
Budget Estimate, 2003.................................       315,000,000
Recommended, 2003.....................................       315,000,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2002...............................       +35,000,000
    Budget Estimate, 2003.............................  ................

    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 2001, the balance owed by the 
Federal government to the Nuclear Waste Fund was $1,350,039,000 
(including principal and interest). The Defense Nuclear Waste 
Disposal appropriation was established to ensure payment of the 
Federal government's contribution to the nuclear waste 
repository program. Through fiscal year 2002, a total of 
$1,693,129,000 has been appropriated to support nuclear waste 
repository activities attributable to atomic energy defense 
activities.
    The Committee recommendation is $315,000,000, the same as 
the budget request. Combined with the budget request of 
$209,702,000 from the Nuclear Waste Fund, this will provide a 
total of $524,702,000 for nuclear waste fund activities at the 
Yucca Mountain site in Nevada in fiscal year 2003.

                    Power Marketing Administrations

    Management of the Federal power marketing functions was 
transferred from the Department of Interior to the Department 
of Energy by the Department of Energy Organization Act (P.L. 
95-91). These functions include the power marketing activities 
authorized under section 5 of the Flood Control Act of 1944 and 
all other functions of the Bonneville Power Administration, the 
Southeastern Power Administration, the Southwestern Power 
Administration, and the power marketing functions of the Bureau 
of Reclamation that have been transferred to the Western Area 
Power Administration.
    All power marketing administrations except the Bonneville 
Power Administration are funded annually with appropriated 
funds. Revenues collected from power sales and transmission 
services are deposited in the Treasury to offset expenditures. 
The Committee recommendation for fiscal year 2003 does not 
support the Administration proposal to continue the phase-out 
of federal financing of the customers' purchase power and 
wheeling expenses for the Southeastern Power Administration, 
the Southwestern Power Administration, and the Western Area 
Power Administration. Also, the Committee recommendation does 
not at this time incorporate the Administration proposal for 
the Power Marketing Administrations to fund directly from 
revenues the costs of operation and maintenance of federal 
hydropower facilities at Corps of Engineers dams, as this 
proposal is presently under consideration by the authorizing 
committees.
    Operations of the Bonneville Power Administration are self-
financed under the authority of the Federal Columbia River 
Transmission System Act (P.L. 93-454). Under this Act, the 
Bonneville Power Administration is authorized to use its 
revenues to finance the costs of its operations, maintenance, 
and capital construction, and to sell bonds to the Treasury if 
necessary to finance any additional capital program 
requirements.
    Purchase power and wheeling.--The Committee is eliminating 
the phase out by the end of fiscal year 2004 of the use of 
receipts by the Southeastern Power Administration, the 
Southwestern Power Administration, and the Western Area Power 
Administration for purchase power and wheeling. This approach 
was originally proposed in the Administration's fiscal year 
2001 budget request and endorsed in the Energy and Water 
Development Appropriations Act, Fiscal Year 2002 (P.L. 106-
377). In recognition of the Western energy crisis during the 
previous year, Congress did not adhere to the P.L. 106-377 
limitations on purchase power and wheeling in fiscal year 2002. 
The budget request for fiscal year 2003 proposed resuming the 
phase-out of purchase power and wheeling along the schedule 
contained in P.L. 106-377. However, the Committee finds that 
there is no compelling reason to continue the phase out of 
purchase power and wheeling, particularly since this activity 
is budget neutral. The Committee recommendation for fiscal year 
2003 maintains purchase power and wheeling activities at the 
fiscal year 2002 level. The Committee will continue to 
establish ceilings on the use of receipts for purchase power 
and wheeling, and also establish the amount of offsetting 
collections.

                    Bonneville Power Administration

    The Bonneville Power Administration is the Department of 
Energy's marketing agency for electric power in the Pacific 
Northwest. Bonneville provides electricity to a 300,000 square 
mile service area in the Columbia River drainage basin. 
Bonneville markets the power from Federal hydropower projects 
in the Northwest, as well as power from non-Federal generating 
facilities in the region. Bonneville also exchanges and markets 
surplus power with Canada and California.
    Borrowing Authority.--Bonneville Power Administration 
presently has available $3,750,000,000 in permanent borrowing 
authority, authorized by the Transmission System Act (P.L. 93-
454). For fiscal year 2003, the Committee recommendation 
includes an estimate of use of $630,800,000 of authorized 
borrowing authority, the same as the budget request and 
$256,300,000 more than fiscal year 2002. This borrowing 
authority is available for capital investments in power systems 
(including fish and wildlife measures), transmission systems, 
and capital equipment. Bonneville forecasts that it will fully 
utilize its remaining borrowing authority during fiscal year 
2004.
    The Administration has submitted a legislative proposal to 
increase the current Bonneville borrowing authority by 
$700,000,000, for new total borrowing authority of 
$4,450,000,000. The Committee recommendation does not include 
this additional borrowing authority at this time because the 
matter is presently committed to the House-Senate conference on 
energy legislation.
    Northwest Power Planning Council.--The Northwest Power Act 
of 1980 established the Northwest Power Planning Council to be 
an independent regional body to provide oversight on Columbia 
River Basin energy, fish, and wildlife issues. It is the 
Committee's view, however, that the Council has not exercised 
as much independence as Congress intended on major capital 
funding decisions by Bonneville, including the ill-fated 
Tenaska power plant project, energy conservation, and recent 
efforts by Bonneville to increase its permanent borrowing 
authority for transmission system upgrades. The Committee 
reminds the Council that Bonneville's historic record on 
resource acquisition decisions is fraught with mistakes, and 
that a full measure of critical thinking by an independent body 
is a prudent safeguard to help ensure the Northwest an 
adequate, efficient, economical and reliable power supply. 
Because the Council's operational funding comes from 
Bonneville's electricity revenues, and the Bonneville 
Administrator has oversight authority over the Council's 
statutory funding limitation, the Committee is concerned that a 
potential conflict of interest exists, which has diminished the 
Council's independence. To help ensure that such a conflict is 
avoided, the Committee directs Bonneville and the Council to 
submit to the Committee by November 1, 2002, the most recent 
information pertaining to the formulation of the Council's 
budget as it pertains to the Council's capability to carry out 
its responsibilities with the independence and objectivity that 
Congress intended.

      Operation and Maintenance, Southeastern Power Administration


Appropriation, 2002...................................        $4,891,000
Budget Estimate, 2003.................................         4,534,000
Recommended, 2003.....................................         4,534,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2002...............................          -357,000
    Budget Estimate, 2003.............................  ................
Note: The original budget request of $4,784,000 for the Southeastern
  Power Marketing Administration included $250,000 to fund proposed
  legislation to require the agency to pay the full government share of
  the accruing cost of retirement for certain Federal employees. Since
  this legislation has not been enacted, the budget request has been
  reduced by this amount.

    The Southeastern Power Administration markets the 
hydroelectric power produced at 23 Corps of Engineers projects 
in eleven states in the Southeast. Southeastern does not own or 
operate any transmission facilities, so it contracts to 
``wheel'' its power using the existing transmission facilities 
of area utilities.
    The Committee recommendation for the Southeastern Power 
Administration is $4,534,000, the same as the budget request 
and a $357,000 decrease compared to fiscal year 2002. The total 
program level for Southeastern in fiscal year 2003 is 
$39,141,000, with $34,463,000 for purchase power and wheeling 
and $4,606,000 for program direction. The purchase power and 
wheeling costs will be offset by collections of $34,463,000. 
With the use of $72,000 of prior year balances, this results in 
a net appropriation of $4,534,000. The offsetting collections 
total of $34,463,000 includes $20,000,000 made available in 
Public Law 106-377 for use in fiscal year 2003, plus an 
additional $14,463,000 provided in this Act.

      Operation and Maintenance, Southwestern Power Administration


Appropriation, 2002...................................       $28,038,000
Budget Estimate, 2003.................................        27,378,000
Recommended, 2003.....................................        27,378,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2002...............................          -660,000
    Budget Estimate, 2003.............................  ................
Note: The original budget request of $28,444,000 for the Southwestern
  Power Marketing Administration included $1,066,000 to fund proposed
  legislation to require the agency to pay the full government share of
  the accruing cost of retirement for certain Federal employees. Since
  this legislation has not been enacted, the budget request has been
  reduced by this amount.

    The Southwestern Power Administration markets the 
hydroelectric power produced at 24 Corps of Engineers projects 
in the six-state area of Arkansas, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, 
Oklahoma and Texas. Southwestern operates and maintains 1,380 
miles of transmission lines, with the supporting substations 
and communications sites. Southwestern gives preference in the 
sale of its power to publicly and cooperatively owned 
utilities.
    The Committee recommendation for the Southwestern Power 
Administration is $27,378,000, the same as the budget request 
and $660,000 less than the fiscal year 2002 funding level. The 
total program level for Southwestern in fiscal year 2003 is 
$29,578,000, including $3,814,000 for operating expenses, 
$1,800,000 for purchase power and wheeling, $17,933,000 for 
program direction, and $6,031,000 for construction. The offset 
of $1,800,000 from collections for purchase power and wheeling, 
plus $400,000 from use of prior year balances, yields a net 
appropriation of $27,378,000. The offsetting collections total 
of $1,800,000 includes $288,000 made available in Public Law 
106-377 for use in fiscal year 2003, plus an additional 
$1,512,000 provided in this Act. The Committee recommendation 
also increases the authority for Southwestern to accept an 
additional $8,043,000 of non-Federal reimbursable funding to 
fulfill Southwestern's obligation under the Southwest Power 
Pool Open Access Transmission Tariff to upgrade designated 
Southwestern transmission facilities.

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


Appropriation, 2002...................................      $171,938,000
Budget Estimate, 2003.................................       162,758,000
Recommended, 2003.....................................       162,758,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2002...............................        -9,180,000
    Budget Estimate, 2003.............................  ................
Note: The original budget request of $168,788,000 for the Western Area
  Power Administration included $6,030,000 to fund proposed legislation
  to require the agency to pay the full government share of the accruing
  cost of retirement for certain Federal employees. Since this
  legislation has not been enacted, the budget request has been reduced
  by this amount.

    The Western Area Power Administration is responsible for 
marketing the electric power generated by the Bureau of 
Reclamation, the Corps of Engineers, and the International 
Boundary and Water Commission. Western also operates and 
maintains a system of transmission lines nearly 17,000 miles 
long. Western provides electricity to 15 Central and Western 
states over a service area of 1.3 million square miles.
    The Committee recommendation for the Western Area Power 
Administration is $162,758,000, the same as the budget request 
and $9,180,000 less than the fiscal year 2002 funding level. 
The total program level for Western in fiscal year 2003 is 
$350,082,000, which includes $17,784,000 for construction and 
rehabilitation, $37,796,000 for system operation and 
maintenance, $186,124,000 for purchase power and wheeling, and 
$108,378,000 for program direction. Consistent with the budget 
request, no funds are provided for Utah mitigation and 
conservation. Offsetting collections for purchase power and 
wheeling total $186,124,000; with the use of $1,200,000, this 
requires a net appropriation of $162,758,000. The offsetting 
collections total of $186,124,000 includes $30,000,000 made 
available in Public Law 106-377 for use in fiscal year 2003, 
plus an additional $156,124,000 provided in this Act.
    Within available funds, the Committee recommendation 
includes $4,000,000 for upgrades to substations and 
transmission lines for the South of Phoenix portion of the 
Parker-Davis project.

           Falcon and Amistad Operating and Maintenance Fund


Appropriation, 2002...................................        $2,663,000
Budget Estimate, 2003.................................         2,734,000
Recommended, 2003.....................................         2,734,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2002...............................           +71,000
    Budget Estimate, 2003.............................  ................

    Falcon Dam and Amistad Dam are two international water 
projects located on the Rio Grande River between Texas and 
Mexico. Power generated by hydroelectric facilities at these 
two dams is sold to public utilities through the Western Area 
Power Administration. The Foreign Relations Authorization Act 
for Fiscal Years 1994 and 1995 created the Falcon and Amistad 
Operating and Maintenance Fund to defray the costs of 
operation, maintenance, and emergency activities. The Fund is 
administered by the Western Area Power Administration for use 
by the Commissioner of the U.S. Section of the International 
Boundary and Water Commission.
    The Committee recommendation is $2,734,000, the same as the 
budget request and $71,000 more than the fiscal year 2002 
funding level.

                  Federal Energy Regulatory Commission


                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation, 2002...................................      $184,155,000
Budget Estimate, 2003.................................       192,000,000
Recommended, 2003.....................................       192,000,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2002...............................        +7,845,000
    Budget Estimate, 2003.............................  ................

                            REVENUES APPLIED

Appropriation, 2002...................................     -$184,155,000
Budget Estimate, 2003.................................      -192,000,000
Recommended, 2003.....................................      -192,000,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2002...............................        -7,845,000
    Budget Estimate, 2003.............................  ................
Note: The original budget request of $199,928,000 for the Federal Energy
  Regulatory Commission included $7,928,000 to fund proposed legislation
  to require the agency to pay the full government share of the accruing
  cost of retirement for certain Federal employees. Since this
  legislation has not been enacted, the budget request and the
  corresponding revenues have been reduced by this amount.

    The Committee recommendation is $192,000,000, the same as 
the budget request and an increase of $7,845,000 over the 
fiscal year 2002 funding level. Revenues for FERC are 
established at a rate equal to the budget authority, resulting 
in a net appropriation of $0.
    The General Accounting Office (GAO) has underway an 
analysis of the land rents charged by FERC for non-federal 
hydropower projects located on federal lands. Preliminary 
results from GAO indicate that the fee schedule presently used 
by FERC significantly underestimates, possibly by as much as 
two orders of magnitude, the fair market value of these project 
lands used for non-federal hydropower. The Committee directs 
FERC to submit a proposal to Congress that will revise the 
existing fee schedule to a new methodology that will capture 
more of the real market value of these federal lands. This 
proposal should be submitted as part of the Fiscal Year 2004 
budget request.
    The Committee is very concerned about the possible impact 
on regional electricity prices of FERC's proposed rule for 
Standard Market Design (SMD). Not less than 90 days prior to 
finalizing the SMD rule, the Secretary of Energy shall submit 
to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations an 
independent analysis of the impact of the SMD rule that FERC 
proposes to finalize. This independent analysis must compare 
wholesale and retail electricity prices in the major regions of 
the country both under existing conditions and under the 
proposed new rule. This analysis must also address the proposed 
SMD rule's:
          (a) costs and benefits, including its impacts on 
        energy infrastructure development and investor 
        confidence;
          (b) impacts on state utility regulation;
          (c) financial impact on retail customers;
          (d) impact on the reasonableness of electricity 
        prices; and
          (e) impact on the safe, reliable, and secure 
        operation of the Nation's generation and transmission 
        facilities.
    The Committee intends to address this issue in more detail 
at conference.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

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


                           General Provisions


                          DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

    Contract Competition.--Section 301 provides that none of 
the funds in this Act may be used to award a management and 
operating contract, or a contract for environmental remediation 
or waste management in excess of $100 million in annual funding 
at a current or former management and operating contract site 
or facility, or award a significant extension or expansion to 
an existing management and operating contract, or other 
contract covered by this section, unless such contract is 
awarded using competitive procedures, or the Secretary of 
Energy grants, on a case-by-case basis, a waiver to allow for 
such a deviation. At least 60 days before granting such a 
waiver, the Secretary of Energy must submit to the House and 
Senate Committees on Appropriations a report notifying the 
Committees of the waiver and setting forth, in specificity, the 
reasons for the waiver. Section 301 does not preclude 
extensions of a contract awarded using competitive procedures, 
but does establish a presumption of competition unless the 
Secretary invokes the waiver option.
    The Committee's concerns regarding the Department's 
contracting procedures result from the Department's history of 
having management and operating contracts which have never been 
bid competitively, in some cases for over four decades. 
Ensuring competition for these situations in particular, and 
establishing competition as the norm for the Department's 
contracting, is imperative. The waiver for non-competitive 
awards or extensions should be invoked only in truly 
exceptional circumstances, not as a matter of routine. A non-
competitive award or extension may be in the taxpayers' 
interest, but the burden of proof is on the Department to make 
that case in the waiver request.
    Limitation on Benefits for Federal Employees.--Section 302 
provides that none of the funds in this Act may be used to 
prepare or implement workforce restructuring plans or provide 
enhanced severance payments and other benefits and community 
assistance grants for Federal employees of the Department of 
Energy under section 3161 of the National Defense Authorization 
Act of Fiscal Year 1993, Public Law 102-484. The Committee has 
provided no funds to implement workforce restructuring plans 
which would provide benefits to Federal employees of the 
Department of Energy which are not available to other Federal 
employees of the United States Government. This provision was 
included in the Energy and Water Development Appropriations 
Act, 2002.
    Limitation on Funding for Section 3161 Benefits.--Section 
303 provides that none of the funds in this Act may be used to 
augment the $19,683,000 made available for obligation in this 
Act for enhanced severance payments to contractors and other 
benefits and community assistance grants authorized under the 
provisions of section 3161 of the National Defense 
Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 1993, Public Law 102-484. This 
provision was included in the Energy and Water Development 
Appropriations Act, 2002.
    Limitation on Initiation of Requests for Proposals.--
Section 304 provides that none of the funds in this Act may be 
used to initiate requests for proposals or expressions of 
interest for new programs which have not yet been presented to 
Congress in the annual budget submission, and which have not 
yet been approved and funded by Congress. This provision was 
included in the Energy and Water Development Appropriations 
Act, 2002.
    Transfer and Merger of Unexpended Balances.--Section 305 
permits the transfer and merger of unexpended balances of prior 
appropriations with appropriation accounts established in this 
bill. This provision was included in the Energy and Water 
Development Appropriations Act, 2002.
    Limitation on Bonneville Power Administration.--Section 306 
provides that none of the funds in this or any other Act may be 
used by the Administrator of the Bonneville Power 
Administration to perform energy efficiency services outside 
the legally defined Bonneville service territory unless the 
Administrator certifies in advance that such services are not 
available from private sector businesses. This provision was 
included in the Energy and Water Development Appropriations 
Act, 2002.
    User Facilities.--Section 307 establishes certain notice 
and competition requirements with respect to the involvement of 
universities in Department of Energy user facilities. User 
facilities were created by Congress in the Energy Policy Act of 
1992 (P.L. 102-486) in order to make the Department's unique 
energy research capabilities available broadly to universities, 
industry, private laboratories, other Federal laboratories, and 
others. The Department has adopted the user facility concept 
and extended it to other DOE programs, including those of the 
National Nuclear Security Administration. The Department's 
laboratories and research instruments represent a valuable 
asset to the Nation, as well as a major investment of public 
funding. As such, the Department must make certain that all 
universities, as well as other potential users, have an equal 
opportunity to take advantage of the Department's unique 
research facilities.
    When the Department makes a user facility available to 
universities and other potential users, it must provide notice 
of such availability in a manner that notifies the potential 
user community as broadly as possible. The Department should 
publish its notices in the Commerce Business Daily as well as 
the appropriate scientific and technical journals, and should 
make use of workshops and other mechanisms to provide broad 
public notice. Similarly, when the Department seeks the input 
of universities and other potential users regarding significant 
changes to an existing user facility, or seeks input regarding 
the features needed in a proposed new user facility, the 
Department must provide broad notice of the opportunity to 
provide such input.
    In certain instances other than maintenance and operating 
contracts, the Department may choose to enter into a 
partnership arrangement with a university or other potential 
users to assist in the establishment and operation of a user 
facility. In such instances, this section requires the 
Department to conduct a full and open competition to select 
such a partner or partners. The opportunity to partner with one 
of the Department's national laboratories in the operation of a 
user facility is a valuable albeit limited opportunity. As 
such, the Department must take steps to ensure that potential 
partners have an equal chance to compete for that opportunity.
    For purposes of this section, the term ``user facility'' 
includes, but is not limited to: a user facility as described 
in section 2203(a)(2) of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (42 
U.S.C. 13503(a)(2)); a National Nuclear Security Administration 
Defense Programs Technology Deployment Center/User Facility; 
and any other Department facility designated by the Department 
as a user facility. The Department may not redesignate a 
facility as something other than a user facility in order to 
avoid the notice and competition requirements of this section. 
Whenever the Department opens its research facilities to 
outside users, it must do so on a fair and equal basis.
    Research, Development and Demonstration Activities.--
Section 308 provides authority for up to 2 percent of national 
security plant funding to be used for research, development, 
and demonstration activities. This provision was included in 
the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, 2002.
    Research, Development and Demonstration Activities.--
Section 309 provides authority for up to 2 percent of Nevada 
Test Site national security funding to be used for research, 
development, and demonstration activities. This provision was 
included in the Energy and Water Development Appropriations 
Act, 2002.
    Repeal of Section 310 of Public Law 106-60.--Section 310 
repeals section 310 of Public Law 106-60, the Energy and Water 
Development Appropriations Act, 2000, which required submission 
of funding plans from Department of Energy laboratories.
    Authorization of Intelligence Activities.--Section 311 
authorizes intelligence activities of the Department of Energy 
for purposes of section 504 of the National Security Act of 
1947 during fiscal year 2003 until the enactment of the 
Intelligence Authorization Act for fiscal year 2003.
                                TITLE IV

                          INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

                    Appalachian Regional Commission

Appropriation, 2002...................................       $71,290,000
Budget Estimate, 2003.................................        66,290,000
Recommended, 2003.....................................        71,290,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2002...............................  ................
    Budget Estimate, 2003.............................       +5,000,000
Note: The original budget request of $66,400,287 for the Appalachian
  Regional Commission included $110,287 to fund proposed legislation to
  require the agency to pay the full government share of the accruing
  cost of retirement for certain Federal employees. Since this
  legislation has not been enacted, the budget request has been reduced
  by this amount.

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

                Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board

                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation, 2002...................................       $18,500,000
Budget Estimate, 2003.................................        19,000,000
Recommended, 2003.....................................        19,000,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2002...............................          +500,000
    Budget Estimate, 2003.............................  ................
Note: The original budget request of $19,494,000 for the Defense Nuclear
  Facilities Safety Board included $494,000 to fund proposed legislation
  to require the agency to pay the full government share of the accruing
  cost of retirement for certain Federal employees. Since this
  legislation has not been enacted, the budget request has been reduced
  by this amount.

    The Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board was created by 
the Fiscal Year 1989 National Defense Authorization Act. The 
Board, composed of five members appointed by the President, 
provides advice and recommendations to the Secretary of Energy 
regarding public health and safety issues at the Department's 
defense nuclear facilities. The Board is responsible for 
reviewing and evaluating the content and implementation of the 
standards relating to the design, construction, operation, and 
decommissioning of defense nuclear facilities of the Department 
of Energy.
    The Committee recommendation is $19,000,000, the same as 
the budget request.

                        Delta Regional Authority

Appropriation, 2002...................................       $10,000,000
Budget Estimate, 2003.................................        10,000,000
Recommended, 2003.....................................  ................
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2002...............................       -10,000,000
    Budget Estimate, 2003.............................      -10,000,000
Note: The original budget request of $10,017,170 for the Delta Regional
  Authority included $17,170 to fund proposed legislation to require the
  agency to pay the full government share of the accruing cost of
  retirement for certain Federal employees. Since this legislation has
  not been enacted, the budget request has been reduced by this amount.

    The Committee recommends no funding for the Delta Regional 
Authority in fiscal year 2003. The Delta Regional Authority was 
established by Congress in fiscal year 2001, but it has not yet 
been fully organized. Prior year funds of approximately 
$24,000,000 will be carried over from fiscal year 2002 and 
prior years and will be available for expenditure in fiscal 
year 2003.
    In addition, the conference report accompanying the fiscal 
year 2002 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act 
directed the Authority to submit quarterly financial reports 
providing detailed accounting data on the expenditure of funds 
during fiscal year 2002 and thereafter. The Authority has not 
complied with this requirement. The conference report also 
directed the Authority to submit a detailed budget 
justification if funds were requested in fiscal year 2003. The 
Authority did not comply with this requirement.

                           Denali Commission


Appropriation, 2002...................................       $38,000,000
Budget Estimate, 2003.................................        29,939,000
Recommended, 2003.....................................  ................
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2002...............................       -38,000,000
    Budget Estimate, 2003.............................      -29,939,000
Note: The original budget request of $29,959,604 for the Denali
  Commission included $20,604 to fund proposed legislation to require
  the agency to pay the full government share of the accruing cost of
  retirement for certain Federal employees. Since this legislation has
  not been enacted, the budget request has been reduced by this amount.

    The Committee has recommended no funding for the Denali 
Commission in fiscal year 2003 due to funding constraints.
    The conference report accompanying the fiscal year 2002 
Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act directed the 
Commission to submit quarterly financial reports providing 
detailed accounting data on the expenditure of funds during 
fiscal year 2002 and thereafter. The Commission has not 
complied with this requirement. The conference report also 
directed the Commission to submit a detailed budget 
justification if funds were requested in fiscal year 2003. The 
Commission did not comply with this requirement.

                     Nuclear Regulatory Commission


Appropriation, 2002...................................      $552,900,000
Budget Estimate, 2003.................................       578,184,000
Recommended, 2003.....................................       578,184,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2002...............................       +25,284,000
    Budget Estimate, 2003.............................  ................

                                REVENUES

Appropriation, 2002...................................     $-473,520,000
Budget Estimate, 2003.................................      -492,545,000
Recommended, 2003.....................................      -520,087,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2002...............................       -46,567,000
    Budget Estimate, 2003.............................       -27,542,000

                           NET APPROPRIATION

Appropriation, 2002...................................       $79,627,000
Budget Estimate, 2003.................................        85,639,000
Recommended, 2003.....................................        58,097,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2002...............................       -21,283,000
    Budget Estimate, 2003.............................      -27,542,000
Note: The original budget request of $598,405,000 for the Nuclear
  Regulatory Commission--Salaries and Expenses included $20,221,000 to
  fund proposed legislation to require the Commission to pay the full
  government share of the accruing cost of retirement for certain
  Federal employees. Since this legislation has not been enacted, the
  budget request and the corresponding request for offsetting revenues
  have been reduced accordingly.

    The Committee recommendation for the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission (NRC) is $578,184,000, the same as the budget 
request and an increase of $25,284,000 over fiscal year 2002 
(including the $36,000,000 of emergency supplemental 
appropriations provided in Public Law 107-117). This amount is 
offset by estimated revenues of $520,087,000 resulting in a net 
appropriation of $58,097,000. The recommendation includes the 
requested amount of $24,900,000 to be made available from the 
Nuclear Waste Fund to support the Department of Energy's effort 
to develop a permanent geologic repository for spent nuclear 
fuel and high-level waste.
    Fee Recovery.--Pursuant to the agreement reached in fiscal 
year 2001, the NRC is required in fiscal year 2003 to recover 
94 percent of its budget authority, less the appropriation from 
the Nuclear Waste Fund, by assessing license and annual fees.
    Homeland Security Expenses.--The budget request includes 
$29,300,000 for additional security efforts related to the 
threat facing NRC-licensed facilities. The fiscal year 2003 
budget request proposes that these expenses be funded from the 
General Fund and exempt from license fee revenues. In the 
Department of Defense and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations 
for Recovery from and Response to Terrorist Attacks on the 
United States Act, 2002, the Congress provided $36,000,000 to 
the NRC for ``emergency expenses to respond to the September 
11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States, and for other 
expenses to increase the security of the Nation's nuclear power 
plants.'' The funds provided in the fiscal year 2002 
supplemental were exempt from license fee revenues. Because of 
the urgency surrounding the events of September 11, the 
Committee views this supplemental appropriation and the 
accompanying exemption from license fee revenues as a one-time 
exception to the general rule that NRC should recover the 
majority of its costs from revenues derived from license and 
annual fees. Therefore, the Committee recommendation for fiscal 
year 2003 includes the requested $29,300,000 for homeland 
security expenses, but makes that amount subject to the 
requirement that 94 percent of that budget authority be 
recovered through license and annual fee revenues. The FY2003 
recommendation does provide a total of $33,197,000 from the 
general fund, exclusive of the Nuclear Waste Fund contribution; 
this amount is available to the Commission to fund its highest 
priority tasks, including the requested homeland security 
expenses.
    Enhanced Control of Radioactive Materials.--There have been 
numerous reports that terrorists organizations may be 
attempting to acquire radioactive materials to use in 
radiological dispersion devices (i.e., ``dirty bombs''). The 
Committee is concerned about this potential threat and believes 
the Commission and its licensees should take all prudent and 
reasonable actions to protect radioactive materials licensed by 
the NRC for medical, industrial, and academic uses. The 
Committee understands the NRC is already taking some actions to 
enhance the security of these materials, and the Committee has 
provided funds in fiscal years 2002 and 2003 for NRC to do so. 
However, the Committee requests that the NRC provide a report 
to Congress within six months of enactment detailing the 
existing controls on these materials, identifying actions 
already underway to strengthen controls on these materials, and 
outlining additional steps that could be taken to protect the 
materials that are the most likely candidates for a 
radiological dispersion device.
    Repository Licensing.--Now that the Commission's repository 
regulations have been completed, it is important that they be 
implemented effectively to ensure the protection of public 
health and safety while at the same time providing to timely 
and efficient licensing of the repository. The Committee 
expects that, in its review of any license application for 
construction of a repository and in keeping with NRC's 
established regulatory framework, the Commission will apply the 
principles of ``adaptive staging'' being developed by the 
National Academy of Sciences. In particular, the timely 
development and consideration of new information at appropriate 
regulatory decision points, and a commitment to auditability, 
transparency, and integrity in the decision-making process, 
will ensure the creation of a well-founded public record upon 
which the Commission's licensing decisions can be based. In 
addressing the technical uncertainties that still remain, the 
Commission should utilize the expertise of the Nuclear Waste 
Technical Review Board, as appropriate, and consider 
opportunities to gain additional knowledge through research 
conducted throughout the later steps of the licensing process.
    Davis-Beese Nuclear Power Plant.--Earlier this year, 
corrosion of the reactor vessel head caused the shutdown of the 
Davis-Besse reactor in Ohio. The Committee is concerned that 
this corrosion problem was not detected earlier, either by the 
licensee or by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) 
inspectors. The NRC is presently considering a petition 
requesting an independent review of the problem at Davis-Beese. 
The Committee strongly encourages the NRC to give full 
consideration to this request. Given the severity of the 
corrosion at Davis-Beese, the burden of proof is quite high on 
the NRC and its licensee to demonstrate not only that the 
immediate technical problem has been corrected, but also that 
the institutional deficiencies that allowed this problem to 
develop undetected have also been corrected before the NRC 
approves the restart of the Davis-Besse reactor.
    Reports.--The Committee directs the Commission to continue 
to provide monthly reports on the status of its licensing and 
other regulatory activities, including the status of the Davis-
Besse Nuclear Power Plant, as well as restart plans, a six-
month review, one-year review, and eighteen-month review of 
that plant.''

                      Office of Inspector General


                          GROSS APPROPRIATION

Appropriation, 2002...................................        $6,180,000
Budget Estimate, 2003.................................         6,800,000
Recommended, 2003.....................................         6,800,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2002...............................          +620,000
    Budget Estimate, 2003.............................  ................

                                REVENUES

Appropriation, 2002...................................       $-5,933,000
Budget Estimate, 2003.................................        -6,392,000
Recommended, 2003.....................................        -6,392,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2002...............................          -459,000
    Budget Estimate, 2003.............................  ................

                           NET APPROPRIATION

Appropriation, 2002...................................          $247,000
Budget Estimate, 2003.................................           408,000
Recommended, 2003.....................................           408,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2002...............................          +161,000
    Budget Estimate, 2003.............................  ................
Note: The original budget request of $7,152,000 for the Nuclear
  Regulatory Commission--Office of Inspector General included $352,000
  to fund proposed legislation to require the Commission to pay the full
  government share of the accruing cost of retirement for certain
  Federal employees. Since this legislation has not been enacted, the
  budget request and the corresponding request for offsetting revenues
  have been reduced accordingly.

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $6,800,000, 
the same as the budget request and an increase of $620,000 over 
fiscal year 2002. The Commission is required by law to recover 
94 percent of this budget authority in fiscal year 2003 through 
the assessment of license and annual fees. Therefore, the 
revenue estimate is $6,392,000, resulting in a net 
appropriation for the NRC Inspector General of $408,000.

                  Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board


Appropriation, 2002...................................        $3,100,000
Budget Estimate, 2003.................................         3,102,000
Recommended, 2003.....................................         3,102,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2002...............................            +2,000
    Budget Estimate, 2003.............................  ................
Note: The original budget request of $3,200,000 for the Nuclear Waste
  Technical Review Board included $98,000 to fund proposed legislation
  to require the Commission to pay the full government share of the
  accruing cost of retirement for certain Federal employees. Since this
  legislation has not been enacted, the budget request has been reduced
  accordingly.

    The Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board was established by 
the 1987 amendments to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 to 
provide independent technical oversight of the Department of 
Energy's nuclear waste disposal program. The role of the 
Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board becomes especially 
critical as the Department approaches issuance of the final 
site recommendation for the repository site.
    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $3,102,000 for 
the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board, the same as the 
budget request and an increase of $2,000 from fiscal year 2002 
funding.
                                TITLE V

                           GENERAL PROVISIONS

    The Committee recommendation includes several general 
provisions pertaining to specific programs and activities 
funded in the Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill.
    Prohibition on Lobbying.--Section 501 provides that none of 
the funds appropriated by this Act may be used in any way, 
directly or indirectly, to influence congressional action on 
any legislation or appropriation matters pending before 
Congress, other than to communicate to Members of Congress as 
described in section 1913 of Title 18, United States Code.
    Buy American.--Section 502 requires that American-made 
equipment and goods be purchased to the greatest extent 
practicable.
    Transfer of Funds.--Section 503 provides that none of the 
funds made available in this Act may be transferred to any 
department, agency, or instrumentality of the United States 
Government, except pursuant to a transfer made by, or transfer 
authority provided in, this Act or any other appropriation Act.
    The purpose of this language is to ensure that any planned 
transfers from appropriated accounts to any new cabinet agency 
for homeland security are made in appropriations acts and not 
by transfer in an authorization bill. The Committee supports 
the creation of a new agency for homeland defense, but wants to 
ensure that all appropriated funds are used for the purposes 
for which they were provided.
              HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES REPORT REQUIREMENTS

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

                        Constitutional Authority

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

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

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

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

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

                   Comparison With Budget Resolution

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

                                            [In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      302(b) allocation                     This bill
                                             -------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Budget                            Budget
                                                 authority         Outlays         authority         Outlays
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary...............................           26,027           25,642           26,027           25,641
Mandatory...................................  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

         Statement of General Performance Goals and Objectives

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

                      Five-Year Outlay Projections

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

                                                                Millions
Budget Authority........................................          26,027
Outlays:
    2003................................................          16,765
    2004................................................           7,718
    2005................................................           1,379
    2006................................................             100
    2007 and beyond.....................................               7

               Assistance to State and Local Governments

    In accordance with section 308(a)(1)(C) of the 
Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 
(Public Law 93-344), as amended, the financial assistance to 
State and local governments is as follows:

                                                                Millions
    Budget authority....................................              63
    Fiscal year 2003 outlays resulting therefrom........               6

                           Transfer of Funds

    Pursuant to clause 3(f)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the following is submitted describing 
the transfer of funds provided in the accompanying bill.
    Under Title II, Bureau of Reclamation, Water and Related 
Resources:

          * * * of which $36,400,000 shall be available for 
        transfer to the Upper Colorado River Basin Fund and 
        $34,327,000 shall be available for transfer to the 
        Lower Colorado River Basin Development Fund; of which 
        such amounts as may be necessary may be advanced to the 
        Colorado River Dam Fund; * * * 
          * * * Provided, That such transfers may be increased 
        or decreased within the overall appropriations under 
        this heading: * * * 
          * * * Provided further, That $12,000,000 of the funds 
        appropriated herein shall be deposited in the San 
        Gabriel Restoration Fund established by section 110 of 
        division B, title I of Public Law 106-554, as amended * 
        * * 

    Under Title III, Weapons Activities:

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

    Under Title III, Environmental Management Cleanup Reform:

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

    Under Title III, General Provisions:

          Sec. 305. The unexpended balances of prior 
        appropriations provided for activities in this Act may 
        be transferred to appropriation accounts for such 
        activities established pursuant to this title. Balances 
        so transferred may be merged with funds in the 
        applicable established accounts and thereafter may be 
        accounted for as one fund for the same time period as 
        originally enacted.

               Changes in the Application of Existing Law

    Pursuant to clause 3(f)(1)(A) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, the following statements are 
submitted describing the effect of provisions in the 
accompanying bill which directly or indirectly change the 
application of existing law.

                      TITLE I--CORPS OF ENGINEERS

    Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, 
General Investigations, providing for detailed studies and 
plans and specifications of projects prior to construction. 
Language is also included under General Investigations which 
provides that the Southwest Valley Flood Reduction Study in New 
Mexico shall include an evaluation of flood damage reduction 
measures that would otherwise be excluded from the feasibility 
analysis based on certain restrictive policies. Language is 
included under General Investigations which directs the 
Secretary of the Army to use $800,000 to develop a plan to 
establish a Central Gulf Coast water resources management 
agency.
    Language has been included under Construction, General, 
permitting the use of funds from the Inland Waterways Trust 
Fund and the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund. Language is also 
provided under Construction, General, which directs the 
Secretary of the Army to undertake design deficiency repairs to 
the Bois Brule Levee and Drainage District, Missouri, project; 
which directs the Secretary of the Army to use funds to 
continue construction of the Dallas Floodway Extension project 
in Dallas, Texas; which directs the Secretary of the Army to 
undertake the Bowie County Levee project in Texas; and which 
provides that cost sharing for the Bowie County Levee project 
shall be in accordance with the provisions of the Flood Control 
Act of 1946. Language has been included under Construction, 
General, directing the Secretary of the Army to accept advance 
funds for the Los Angeles Harbor, California, project pursuant 
to Section 11 of the River and Harbor Act of 1925.
    Language has been included under Operation and Maintenance, 
General, stating the following:

        * * * including such sums as may be necessary for the 
        maintenance of harbor channels provided by a State, 
        municipality or other public agency, outside of harbor 
        lines, and serving essential needs of general commerce 
        and navigation; * * *

    Language has been included under Operation and Maintenance, 
General, providing for construction, operation, and maintenance 
of outdoor recreation facilities and permitting the use of 
funds from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund. Language is also 
included under Operation and Maintenance, General, which 
directs the Secretary of the Army to undertake recreation 
improvements at Waco Lake, Texas, associated with raising the 
pool level. Language has been included under Operations and 
Maintenance, General which directs the Secretary of the Army to 
investigate and implement alternative methods of maintaining 
the Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway project, and which directs the 
Secretary of the Army to use funds to expand and improve 
recreational facilities at the Hansen Dam Recreation Area in 
California.
    Language has been included under the Regulatory Program 
regarding the regulation of navigable waters and wetlands.
    Language has been included under General Expenses regarding 
support of the Humphreys Engineer Support Center Activity, the 
Institute for Water Resources and headquarters support 
functions at the USACE Finance Center. Language is also 
included under General Expenses prohibiting the use of other 
title I funds for the Office of the Chief of Engineers and the 
division offices. Language is also included prohibiting the use 
of funds to support an office of congressional affairs within 
the executive office of the Chief of Engineers.
    Language has been included under Administrative Provisions 
providing that funds are available for purchase and hire of 
motor vehicles.
    Language is included under General Provisions as follows:
    Sec. 101. The Committee has included language proposed by 
the Administration which places a limit on credits and 
reimbursements allowable per project and annually for all 
projects. The Administration also proposed that this provision 
be made permanent law; however, the Committee has elected not 
to make that change.
    Sec. 102. The Committee has included language which 
provides that the Secretary of the Army may expend funds under 
normal competitive procedures for renovations of the dredge 
McFARLAND authorized by section 563 of Public Law 104-303 
provided that the dredge McFARLAND is operated in the manner 
recommended in the report of the Assistant Secretary of the 
Army (Civil Works) to Congress dated June 12, 2000, and is 
operated using the same procedures as those established to 
operate the dredge WHEELER.
    Sec. 103. The Committee has included language which 
provides that none of the funds appropriated in this or any 
other Act may be used by the Corps of Engineers to undertake 
activities related to the Chicago Harbor, Illinois, Visitors 
Center.
    Sec. 104. The Committee has included language which directs 
the Secretary of the Army to reduce by thirty-seven percent the 
full time employees in the Corps of Engineers Chicago District.

                    TITLE II--DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR

    Language has been included under Water and Related 
Resources providing that funds are available for fulfilling 
Federal responsibilities to Native Americans and for grants to 
and cooperative agreements with state and local governments and 
Indian tribes. Language is included under Water and Related 
Resources providing that such sums as necessary may be advanced 
to the Colorado River Dam Fund. Language is included under 
Water and Related Resources which permits fund transfers within 
the overall appropriation to the Upper Colorado River Basin 
Fund and the Lower Colorado River Basin Development Fund. 
Language is provided under Water and Related Resources 
providing that funds may be used for activities under Public 
Law 106-163. Language is included under Water and Related 
Resources providing that funds may be used for work carried out 
by the Youth Conservation Corps. Language is included under 
Water and Related Resources providing that funds may be derived 
from the Reclamation Fund or the special fee account 
established by 16 U.S.C. 4601-6a(i). Language is included under 
Water and Related Resources which provides that funds 
contributed by non-Federal entities shall be available for 
expenditure. Language is included providing that funds advanced 
for operation and maintenance of reclamation facilities are to 
be credited to the Water and Related Resources account. 
Language is included under Water and Related Resources 
providing that $12,000,000 shall be deposited in the San 
Gabriel Basin Restoration Fund. Language is also included 
permitting the use of funds available for the Departmental 
Irrigation Drainage Program for site remediation on a non-
reimbursable basis. Language is included under Water and 
Related Resources amending the Reclamation States Emergency 
Drought Relief Act.
    Language has been included under the Central Valley Project 
Restoration Fund directing the Bureau of Reclamation to assess 
and collect the full amount of additional mitigation and 
restoration payments authorized by section 3407(d) of Public 
Law 102-575.
    Language has been included under Policy and Administration 
providing that funds may be derived from the Reclamation Fund 
and providing that no part of any other appropriation in the 
Act may be used for activities budgeted as policy and 
administration expenses.
    Language has been provided under General Provisions as 
follows:
    Sec. 201. The Committee has included language proposed by 
the Administration authorizing the Secretary of the Interior, 
acting through the Commissioner of Reclamation, to continue its 
program of providing grants to institutions of higher learning 
to support the training of Native Americans to manage their 
water resources. This language was included in the fiscal year 
2002 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act.
    Sec. 202. The Committee has included language proposed by 
the Administration regarding the San Luis Unit and the 
Kesterson Reservoir in California. This language was included 
in the fiscal year 2002 Energy and Water Development 
Appropriations Act.
    Sec. 203. The Committee has included language which amends 
section 212 of the FY 2001 Energy and Water Development 
Appropriations Act related to the conveyance of the Sly Park 
Unit in California.
    Sec. 204. The bill includes language which clarifies that 
the San Gabriel Basin Restoration Fund may be used to reimburse 
the Central Basin Municipal Water District for certain 
expenditures made in connection with the San Gabriel Basin 
Restoration project in California.

                    TITLE III--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

    Language has been included under Nuclear Waste Disposal 
providing that funds appropriated to the State of Nevada shall 
be made solely to the Nevada Division of Emergency Management 
for oversight activities.
    Language has been included under Departmental 
Administration, notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, and consistent 
with the authorization in Public Law 95-238, to permit the 
Department of Energy to use revenues to offset appropriations. 
The appropriations language for this account reflects the total 
estimated program funding to be reduced as revenues are 
received. This language has been carried in prior 
appropriations Acts.
    Language has been included under Departmental 
Administration providing that notwithstanding the provisions of 
the Anti-Deficiency Act, such additional amounts as necessary 
to cover increases in the estimated amount of cost of work for 
others, as long as such increases are offset by revenue 
increases of the same or greater amounts.
    Language has been included under Departmental 
Administration providing not to exceed $35,000 for official 
reception and representation expenses.
    Language has been included under Weapons Activities 
providing: that none of the funds may be obligated for the 
Nuclear Weapons Council after March 1, 2003, until the council 
certifies that Selected Acquisition Reports submitted to 
Congress are identical in format, content, and security 
classification to those submitted by the Department of Defense; 
that none of the funds may be obligated or expended after 
February 1, 2004, until the Department of Energy has a 
financial system that fully tracks costs by nuclear weapons 
system and the President's budget provides detailed 
justification for each weapon system; and that not less than 
$10,000,000 shall be transferred to the Chief Financial Officer 
to upgrade the financial systems to track costs by weapon 
system.
    Language has been included under the Office of the 
Administrator providing not to exceed $12,000 for official 
reception and representation expenses.
    Language has been included under the Bonneville Power 
Administration account providing not to exceed $1,500 for 
official reception and representation expenses, and precluding 
any new direct loan obligations.
    Language has been included under Southeastern Power 
Administration providing that, not withstanding the provisions 
of 31 U.S.C. 3302, amounts collected to recover purchase power 
and wheeling expenses shall be credited to the account as 
offsetting collections and remain available until expended for 
the sole purpose of making purchase power and wheeling 
expenditures.
    Language has been included under Southwestern Power 
Administration to permit Southwestern to utilize 
reimbursements, notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, and to provide 
not to exceed $1,500 for official reception and representation 
expenses. This language has been carried in previous 
appropriations Acts.
    Language has been included under Southwestern Power 
Administration providing that, not withstanding the provisions 
of 31 U.S.C. 3302, amounts collected to recover purchase power 
and wheeling expenses shall be credited to the account as 
offsetting collections and remain available until expended for 
the sole purpose of making purchase power and wheeling 
expenditures.
    Language has been included under the Construction, 
Rehabilitation, Operation and Maintenance, Western Area Power 
Administration account providing not to exceed $1,500 for 
official reception and representation expenses.
    Language has been included under Construction, 
Rehabilitation, Operation and Maintenance, Western Area Power 
Administration providing that, not withstanding the provisions 
of 31 U.S.C. 3302, amounts collected to recover purchase power 
and wheeling expenses shall be credited to the account as 
offsetting collections and remain available until expended for 
the sole purpose of making purchase power and wheeling 
expenditures.
    Language has been included under the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission to permit the hire of passenger motor 
vehicles, to provide official reception and representation 
expenses, and to permit the use of revenues collected to reduce 
the appropriation as revenues are received. This language has 
been included in previous appropriation acts. Language has been 
included under the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) 
providing that no funds appropriated in the Act may be used by 
FERC to grant any public utility the authority to use market-
based rates until FERC has issued a final order in all market-
based rate cases that have been pending before the Commission 
for more than 18 months.
    Language has been included under Department of Energy, 
General Provisions, providing that management and operating 
contracts and contracts for environmental restoration or waste 
management in excess of $100 million must be awarded using 
competitive procedures unless Congress is notified 60 days in 
advance.
    Language has been included under Department of Energy, 
General Provisions, prohibiting the use of funds to prepare 
workforce restructuring plans or to provide enhanced severance 
payments and other benefits for Department of Energy employees 
under section 3161 of Public Law 102-484.
    Language has been included under Department of Energy, 
General Provisions, prohibiting the use of funds to augment the 
funding provided for section 3161 of Public Law 102-484 unless 
a reprogramming is submitted to the Committee.
    Language has been included under Department of Energy, 
General Provisions, prohibiting the use of funds to prepare or 
initiate requests for proposals for programs which have not yet 
been funded by Congress.
    Language has been included under Department of Energy, 
General Provisions, providing that unexpended balances of prior 
appropriations may be transferred and merged with new 
appropriation accounts established in this Act.
    Language has been included under Department of Energy, 
General Provisions, prohibiting the Administrator of the 
Bonneville Power Administration to enter into any agreement to 
perform energy efficiency services outside the legally defined 
Bonneville service territory.
    Language has been included under Department of Energy, 
General Provisions, requiring the Department of Energy to 
ensure broad public notice when it makes a national user 
facility available to universities and other potential users or 
seeks input regarding significant characteristics or equipment 
in a national user facility or a proposed national user 
facility, and requiring competition when the Department 
partners with a university or other entity for the 
establishment or operation of a user facility.
    Language has been included under Department of Energy, 
General Provisions, allowing the manager of a nuclear weapons 
production plant to engage in research, development, and 
demonstration activities using no more than 2 percent of the 
amounts available from national security programs.
    Language has been included under Department of Energy, 
General Provisions, allowing the manager of the Nevada 
Operations Office to engage in research, development, and 
demonstration activities using no more than 2 percent of the 
amounts available from national security programs.
    Language proposed by the Administration has been included 
under Department of Energy, General Provisions, repealing 
section 310 of the Energy and Water Development Appropriations 
Act, 2000.
    Language proposed by the Administration has been included 
under Department of Energy, General Provisions, providing that 
funds for intelligence activities are deemed to be specifically 
authorized for purposes of section 504 of the National Security 
Act of 1947 during fiscal year 2003.

                     TITLE IV--INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

    Language has been included under the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission allowing the purchase of promotional items for use 
in recruiting new employees. Language is also included to 
permit the NRC to utilize revenues collected to offset 
appropriations, notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302. This language 
has been carried in previous appropriations Acts.
    Language has been included under the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission, Office of Inspector General, to utilize revenues 
collected to offset appropriations, notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 
3302. This language has been carried in previous appropriations 
Acts.

                      TITLE V--GENERAL PROVISIONS

    Language has been included under General Provisions 
prohibiting the use of funds in this Act to influence 
congressional action on any legislation or appropriation 
matters pending before Congress.
    Language has been included under General Provisions 
requiring, to the greatest extent practicable, that all 
equipment and products purchased should be American-made, and 
prohibiting contracts with persons falsely labeling products as 
``Made in America.''
    Language has been included under General Provisions 
prohibiting the transfer of funds in this Act except pursuant 
to a transfer made by, or transfer authority provided in, this 
Act or any other Appropriation Act.

         Compliance With Clause 3 of Rule XIII (Ramseyer Rule)

    In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by 
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law 
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new 
matter is printed in italic, existing law in which no change is 
proposed is shown in roman):
    The accompanying bill would amend section 301 of Public Law 
102-250, the Reclamation States Emergency Drought Relief Act of 
1991, as follows:
    Except as otherwise provided in section 2243 of this title 
(related to temperature control devices at Shasta Dam, 
California), there is authorized to appropriated not more than 
$90,000,000 in total for fiscal years 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 
1996, 1999, 2000, 2001, [and 2002] 2002 and 2003.
    The accompanying bill would amend Section 212 of the Energy 
and Water Development Appropriations Act, 2001 (114 Stat. 
1441B-13) as follows:
    Sec. 212. (a) Definitions.--For the purpose of this 
section, the term--
          (1) ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of the 
        Interior;
          (2) ``Sly Park Unit'' means the Sly Park Dam and 
        Reservoir, Camp Creek Diversion Dam and Tunnel, and 
        conduits and canals as authorized under the American 
        River Act of October 14, 1949 (63 Stat. 853), including 
        those used to convey, treat, and store water delivered 
        from Sly Park, as well as all real and personal 
        property rights and interests associated with such 
        conduits and canals, all water rights of whatever 
        nature or kind associated therewith, and all recreation 
        facilities and improvements thereto; and
          (3) ``District'' means the El Dorado Irrigation 
        District.
    (b) In General.--The Secretary shall, [as soon as 
practicable after date of the enactment of this Act] by no 
later than June 30, 2003 and in accordance with all applicable 
law, transfer all right, title, and interest in and to the Sly 
Park Unit to the District including all real and personal 
property rights, water rights, and facilities held by or 
appropriated to the United States.
    (c) Sale Price.--[The Secretary] (1) Subject to paragraph 
(2), the Secretary is authorized to receive from the District 
$2,000,000 to relieve payment obligations and extinguish the 
debt under contract number 14-06-200-949IR3 and 
subsequentinterim renewal contracts associated therewith, and 
$9,500,000 to relieve payment obligations and extinguish all 
debts associated with contracts numbered 14-06-200-7734, as 
amended by contracts numbered 14-06-200-4282A and 14-06-200-
8536A. Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, the District 
shall continue to make payments required by section 3407(c) of 
Public Law 102-575 through year 2029.
    (2) The amount the Secretary is authorized to receive under 
paragraph (1) shall be reduced by an amount equal to any 
payments received by the United States from the District under 
the contracts referred to in paragraph (1) in the period 
beginning on the date of enactment of this Act and ending on 
the date of conveyance of the Sly Park Unit under this section.
    (d) Credit Revenue to Project Repayment.--Upon payment 
authorized under subsection (b), the amount paid shall be 
credited toward repayment of capital costs of the Central 
Valley Project in an amount equal to the associated 
undiscounted obligation.
    (e) Future Benefits.--Upon payment, the Sly Park Unit shall 
no longer be a Federal reclamation project or a unit of the 
Central Valley Project, and the District shall not be entitled 
to receive any further reclamation benefits.
    (f) Liability.--Except as otherwise provided by law, 
effective on the date of conveyance of the Sly Park Unit under 
this Act, the United States shall not be liable for damages of 
any kind arising out of any act, omission, or occurrence based 
on its prior ownership or operation of the conveyed property.
    (g) Costs.--All costs, including interest charges, 
associated with the Project that have been included as a 
reimbursable cost of the Central Valley Project are declared to 
be nonreimbursable and nonreturnable.
    The accompanying bill amend section 110(a)(3)(A) of 
Division B of the Miscellaneous Appropriations Act (as enacted 
into law by section 1(a)(4) of Public Law 106-554) as follows:
    Sec. 110. San Gabriel Basin, California. (a) San Gabriel 
Basin Restoration.--
          (1) Establishment of fund.--There shall be 
        established within the Treasury of the United States an 
        interest bearing account to be known as the San Gabriel 
        Basin Restoration Fund (in this section referred to as 
        the ``Restoration Fund'').
          (2) Administration of fund.--The Restoration Fund 
        shall be administered by the Secretary of the Interior, 
        in cooperation with the San Gabriel Basin Water Quality 
        Authority or its successor agency.
          (3) Purpose of fund.--
                  (A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), 
                the amounts in the Restoration Fund, including 
                interest accrued, shall be utilized by the 
                Secretary--
                          (i) to provide grants to the San 
                        Gabriel Basin Water Quality Authority 
                        and the Central Basin Municipal Water 
                        District to reimburse such agencies for 
                        the Federal share of the costs 
                        associated with designing and 
                        constructing water quality projects to 
                        be administered by such agencies, 
                        including all expenditures made by the 
                        Central Basin Municipal Water District 
                        between February 11, 1993, and December 
                        21, 2000; and
                          (ii) to provide grants to reimburse 
                        the San Gabriel Basin Water Quality 
                        Authority and the Central Basin 
                        Municipal Water District for the 
                        Federal share of the costs required to 
                        operate any project constructed under 
                        this section for a period not to exceed 
                        10 years, following the initial date of 
                        operation of the project.
                  (B) Cost-sharing limitation.--
                          (i) In general.--The Secretary may 
                        not obligate any funds appropriated to 
                        the Restoration Fund in a fiscal year 
                        until the Secretary has deposited in 
                        the Fund an amount provided by non-
                        Federal interests sufficient to ensure 
                        that at least 35 percent of any funds 
                        obligated by the Secretary are from 
                        funds provided to the Secretary by the 
                        non-Federal interests.
                          (ii) Non-federal responsibility.--The 
                        San Gabriel Basin Water Quality 
                        Authority shall be responsible for 
                        providing the non-Federal amount 
                        required by clause (i).The State of 
                        California, local government agencies, 
                        and private entities may provide all or 
                        any portion of such amount.
                          (iii) Credits toward non-federal 
                        share.--For purposes of clause (ii), 
                        the Secretary shall credit the San 
                        Gabriel Basin Water Quality Authority 
                        with the value of all prior 
                        expenditures by non-Federal interests 
                        made after February 11, 1993, that are 
                        compatible with the purposes of this 
                        section, including--
                                  (I) all expenditures made by 
                                non-Federal interests to design 
                                and construct water quality 
                                projects, including 
                                expenditures associated with 
                                environmental analyses and 
                                public involvement activities 
                                that were required to implement 
                                the water quality projects in 
                                compliance with applicable 
                                Federal and State laws; and
                                  (II) all expenditures made by 
                                non-Federal interests to 
                                acquire lands, easements, 
                                rights-of-way, relocations, 
                                disposal areas, and water 
                                rights that were required to 
                                implement a water quality 
                                project.
    (b) Compliance With Applicable Law.--In carrying out the 
activities described in this section, the Secretary shall 
comply with any applicable Federal and State laws.
    (c) Relationship to Other Activities.--Nothing in this 
section shall be construed to affect other Federal or State 
authorities that are being used or may be used to facilitate 
the cleanup and protection of the San Gabriel and Central 
groundwater basins. In carrying out the activities described in 
this section, the Secretary shall integrate such activities 
with ongoing Federal and State projects and activities. None of 
the funds made available for such activities pursuant to this 
section shall be counted against any Federal authorization 
ceiling established for any previously authorized Federal 
project or activities.
    (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--
          (1) In general.--There is authorized to be 
        appropriated to the Restoration Fund established under 
        subsection (a) $85,000,000. Such funds shall remain 
        available until expended.
          (2) Set-aside.--Of the amounts appropriated under 
        paragraph (1), no more than $10,000,000 shall be 
        available to carry out the Central Basin Water Quality 
        Project.
    (e) Adjustment.--Of the $25,000,000 made available for San 
Gabriel Basin Groundwater Restoration, California, under the 
heading ``Construction, General'' in title I of the Energy and 
Water Development Appropriations Act, 2001--
          (1) $2,000,000 shall be available only for studies 
        and other investigative activities and planning and 
        design of projects determined by the Secretary to offer 
        a long-term solution to the problem of groundwater 
        contamination caused by perchlorates at sites located 
        in the city of Santa Clarita, California; and
          (2) $23,000,000 shall be deposited in the Restoration 
        Fund, of which $4,000,000 shall be used for remediation 
        in the Central Basin, California.

                  Appropriations Not Authorized by Law

    Pursuant to clause 3(f)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the following table lists the 
appropriations in the accompanying bill which are not 
authorized by law:

                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                  Appropriations
                                                     Last year of  Authorization   in last year   Appropriations
                  Agency/program                    authorization      level            of         in this bill
                                                                                   authorization
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Corps of Engineers:
    Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action                 (\1\)          (\1\)          (\1\)         150,000
     Program......................................
Department of Energy:
    Energy Supply:
        Biomass/Biofuels..........................           1993          (\2\)          (\4\)          86,005
        Geothermal Energy.........................           1993         23,000          (\4\)          26,500
        Hydrogen..................................           2001         40,000         27,000          35,476
        Hydropower................................           1982         11,700          (\4\)           6,489
        Solar Energy..............................           1993          (\2\)          (\4\)          87,625
        Wind Energy Systems.......................           1993          (\2\)          (\4\)          44,000
        Electric energy systems & electric storage           1994          (\3\)          (\4\)          70,447
         systems..................................
        Renewable Energy Production Incentive.....           1995          (\7\)          (\4\)           6,000
        International Renewable Energy Program....           1996          (\3\)          (\4\)           4,000
        Departmental Energy Management............           1984          (\3\)          (\4\)           1,500
        Renewable Program Support.................           1984          (\3\)          (\4\)           2,059
        National Renewable Energy Laboratory......           1984          (\3\)          (\4\)           5,000
        Program Direction.........................           1984          (\3\)          (\4\)          14,592
    Nuclear Energy:
        Advanced Radioisotope Power System........           1992          (\2\)          (\4\)          26,450
        Isotopes..................................           1974          (\2\)          (\4\)          13,818
        University Reactor Fuel Assistance and               1974          (\2\)          (\4\)          17,500
         Support..................................
        Research and Development..................           1994          (\7\)          (\4\)          71,500
        Radiological Facilities Management........           1974          (\2\)          (\4\)          42,770
        Program Direction.........................           1992          (\2\)          (\4\)          23,439
    Environment, Safety and Health................           1974          (\2\)          (\4\)          26,211
Non-Defense Environmental Management..............           1984          (\5\)          (\5\)         213,259
    West Valley Demonstration Project.............           1981          5,000          5,000          90,000
Uranium Facilities Maintenance and Remediation:
    Other Uranium Activities......................           1974          (\2\)          (\4\)         146,631
Science...........................................           1984        500,000        635,417       3,271,233
    High Energy Physics...........................           1984          (\3\)        477,947         724,990
    Nuclear Physics...............................           1984          (\3\)        155,220         382,370
    Biological and Environmental Research.........           1994          (\3\)        388,298         504,215
    Basic Energy Sciences.........................           1994          (\3\)        743,590       1,019,600
    Advanced Scientific Computing Research........           1996        169,000        111,068         174,625
    Science Laboratories Infrastructure...........           1994          (\3\)         39,327          47,680
    Fusion Energy Sciences........................           1994        380,000        322,277         248,495
    Science Program Direction.....................           1984          (\2\)          (\4\)         134,310
        Energy Research Analysis..................           1994          (\3\)          3,507           1,000
        Technical Information Management..........           1981          (\2\)          (\4\)           7,770
Nuclear Waste Disposal............................          (\8\)          (\2\)        190,654         209,702
Departmental Administration.......................           1984        246,963        185,682         128,672
Office of the Inspector General...................           1984          (\2\)         14,670          37,671
Atomic Energy Defense Activities:
National Nuclear Security Administration:
    Weapons Activities............................           2002      5,343,567      5,560,238       5,772,068
    Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation..............           2002        776,886      1,029,586       1,167,630
    Naval Reactors................................           2002        688,445        688,045         706,790
    Office of the NNSA Administrator..............           2002        312,596        312,596         261,929
Defense Environmental Restoration and Waste                  2002      6,022,415      5,242,776       4,543,661
 Management.......................................
Environmental Management Cleanup Reform...........          (\6\)          (\6\)          (\6\)       1,100,000
Defense Facilities Closure Projects...............           2002      1,080,538      1,092,878       1,091,314
Defense Environmental Management Privatization....           2002        153,537        153,537         158,399
Other Defense Activities..........................           2002        499,663        547,544         485,076
Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal....................           2002        280,000        280,000         315,000
Power Marketing Administrations:
    Southeastern Power Administration.............           1984         24,240         39,463          39,141
    Southwestern Power Administration.............           1984         40,254         29,288          29,578
    Western Area Power Administration.............           1984        259,700        237,037         350,082
    Falcon and Amistad Operating and Maintenance             1995          (\2\)          2,663           2,734
     Fund.........................................
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission..............           1984        275,000        175,200         192,000
Independent Agencies:
    Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board.......           2002         18,500         18,459          19,000
    Nuclear Regulatory Commission.................           1985        460,000        448,200         578,184
    Nuclear Regulatory Commission--Office of                 1985          (\9\)          (\9\)          6,800
     Inspector General............................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Program was initiated in 1972 and has never received a separate authorization.
\2\ No amount specified.
\3\ Authorized level provided for multiple programs with no separate program allowances.
\4\ Funding for these activities was spread throughout multiple programs with no individual amount specified.
\5\ Funding for these activities was spread throughout many programs with no amount specified. The last year of
  authorization was 1984. In 1989, cleanup activities were merged into the non-defense environmental management
  appropriation account. There has not been a separate authorization for this account.
\6\ New program in FY 2003.
\7\ Such sums as necessary.
\8\ Overall program authorized in 1982 and 1987, but without any authorization of appropriations.
\9\ The first separate appropriation for the Office of the Inspector General in the Nuclear Regulatory
  Commission was in FY 1990. Prior to that, the NRC-IG was included within the overall authorization and
  appropriation for the NRC.

    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.

                          Full Committee Votes

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

            ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF THE HONORABLE DAVID R. OBEY

    As the fiscal year ends and we begin to look at the 
priorities we have addressed, those that we have failed to 
address and those that we are most likely to do anything about 
for the foreseeable future, we can only conclude that we are in 
a remarkable situation. Last year there was barely a week that 
went by that we were not passing yet another tax break. For the 
most part those tax breaks were tightly focused on a very small 
group of people who had already enjoyed a spectacular decade 
even after they paid their taxes. We were told time and time 
again that we could afford all of these tax cuts and still 
expect huge back to back surpluses in the years to come.
    Now we have deficits and we are told that we can't respond 
to emergencies even when the lives of thousands, perhaps 
millions, of Americans may well be on the line.
    This bill is a perfect example, In the Supplemental 
Appropriations Act that we passed in July we included $235 
million for securing nuclear weapons and nuclear materials in 
facilities operated by the U.S. Department of Energy that the 
President had not requested. We did it in response to an urgent 
request from Secretary Abraham and we did it on a broad bi-
partisan basis. We did it because of the widespread concern 
among security experts about the prospect of terrorists getting 
the materials needed to construct a dirty bomb.
    Secretary Abraham said this in a March 2002 letter to OMB:

          * * * we are storing vast amounts of materials that 
        remain highly volatile and subject to unthinkable 
        consequences if placed in the wrong hands. These 
        materials permeate the Departmental complex including 
        sites under the programmatic jurisdiction of the 
        National Nuclear Security Administration, the Office of 
        Environmental Management, and the Office of Science * * 
        * Although the initial supplemental and funds 
        appropriated by Congress helped respond to the most 
        urgent near-term security needs, the Department is now 
        unable to meet the next round of critical security 
        mission requirements * * * Failure to support these 
        urgent security requirements is a risk that would be 
        unwise.

    The Secretary identified $380 million of immediate and 
critical security requirements in his letter, to ensure 
adequate security of: nuclear weapons, materials, and 
facilities; environmental management (former nuclear weapons) 
sites; and the Department's world-class science laboratories.
    These included enhanced security for the transportation of 
nuclear weapons. Many are not aware that our most powerful 
nuclear warheads are frequently being transported over our 
nation's Interstate Highways. The man in charge, the Secretary 
of Energy, says that the security arrangements with respect to 
those shipments are not adequate. Mitch Daniels, with the great 
concentration of expertise that he has assembled at OMB, says 
that the security is fine. The committee staff, on a bipartisan 
basis looked at this problem and concluded, without any 
question, that the Secretary was right. We put $18 million in 
the Supplemental Act--the full amount the Secretary said was 
needed.
    The Secretary also felt it was necessary to greatly enhance 
the physical security at nuclear weapons facilities. This is 
where we store thousands of actual nuclear weapons, thousands 
of weapons components, and large amounts of plutonium and other 
materials needed for the construction of a nuclear weapon. 
Again Mitch Daniels applied his vast expertise in these matters 
and concluded there was no problem. We reviewed the information 
and added $90 million over the budget for enhanced security.
    The Secretary also felt that we had a big problem with 
respect to the Department's former weapons facilities and 
science laboratories, where we have yet to clear up low level 
radioactive materials that could be useful in the construction 
of dirty bombs. There are two choices. One is build more 
secure, permanent security at these facilities. The other is to 
clean them up and send all of this material to a centralized 
and secure facility that has already been designated and is 
available for such shipments. The Secretary recommended the 
latter and we gave him $94 million to go forward--again, over 
Mitch Daniel's objection. The Department also needs these funds 
to fully implement and sustain the heightened security posture 
of these sites that the Secretary mandated in response to the 
terrorist attacks.
    The Appropriations Committees are not the only ones who are 
dismayed by the remarkable insensitivity of this White House to 
the need to keep these materials out of the hands of 
terrorists. The Chief Financial Officer of the Department of 
Energy who was appointed by President Bush last May wrote in 
exasperation to several senior-level operatives at OMB to 
state:

          We are disconcerted that OMB refused our security 
        supplemental request. I would have much preferred to 
        have heard this from you personally, and been given an 
        opportunity to discuss, not to mention, appeal your 
        decision.

    The $235 million that we put in the Supplemental to deal 
with these problems was part of the $5.1 billion that the 
President is now refusing to spend. It ought to be put right 
back in this bill, along with the $108 million needed to 
protect our dams and other public facilities operated by the 
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
    Denying the agencies funded in this bill the money required 
to insure that terrorists do not gain control of the most 
deadly weapons in the history of the world is mindless. This 
money is not provided within the regular allocation and the 
House majority leadership has made it clear that they will not 
allow the committee to provide these funds as an emergency. I 
think the leadership owes the full House the opportunity to 
make those choices. I will oppose any rule that does not allow 
the House to vote on this question and I challenge the Speaker 
to explain why he would prevent Members from the opportunity of 
voting on a matter of such grave importance to their 
constituents.

                                                         Dave Obey.