Report text available as:

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

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

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



 
         ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2004

                                _______
                                

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

                                _______
                                

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

                              R E P O R T

                        [To accompany H.R. 2754]

    The Committee on Appropriations submits the following 
report in explanation of the accompanying bill making 
appropriations for energy and water development for the fiscal 
year ending September 30, 2004, and for other purposes.

                        INDEX TO BILL AND REPORT

_______________________________________________________________________


                                                            Page Number

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

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

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

                Summary of Estimates and Recommendations

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

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

                              Introduction

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

                      DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL

                         Department of the Army

                       Corps of Engineers--Civil

                              INTRODUCTION

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

                         GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS




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


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


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

                         CONSTRUCTION, GENERAL




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


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


    Duck River, Cullman, Alabama.--The Committee has provided 
$1,000,000 to continue assisting the Cullman-Morgan Water 
District with contract administration and construction 
management activities on its water supply infrastructure 
upgrade project.
    Nogales Wash, Arizona.--The bill includes $2,000,000 to 
continue construction of this flood warning and damage 
reduction project in Southern Arizona.
    Greers Ferry Lake, Arkansas.--The Committee has provided 
$2,000,000 for modernization of the Dam Site Park to a more 
current standard and to make facilities accessible to the 
handicapped.
    Petaluma River, California.--The bill includes $7,300,000 
for completion, including required reimbursements, of the flood 
control project within the city of Petaluma, California.
    Sacramento Area, California.--The bill includes $8,600,000 
for the Sacramento Area, California, project authorized by 
section 502 of the Water Resources Act of 1999. The amount 
provided includes: $1,000,000 for the project to replace water 
meters and water lines, and undertake canal lining for the 
Placer County Water Agency; $1,000,000 for the City of 
Roseville Water Meter Retrofit Program; $4,600,000 for 
Technical Design and Construction Assistance on the El Dorado 
Irrigation District, Deer Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant; 
$800,000 for the Redundant Water Supply Intake at Folsom 
Reservoir; and $1,200,000 for the El Dorado Irrigation District 
Sly Park Recreation Area water system.
    Santa Ana River Mainstem, California.--The Committee has 
provided $25,700,000 for continued construction of the Santa 
Ana River Mainstem project, including $10,000,000 for the 
acceleration of work on the San Timoteo Creek element.
    Everglades Restoration, Florida.--The recent enactment of 
certain laws in Florida is widely perceived to presage or to 
permit a decline in support for Everglades restoration by non-
Federal interests crucial to the success of the entire 
restoration effort. Under these circumstances, the Committee is 
naturally concerned about the wisdom of making full Federal 
funding available without additional safeguards over these 
funds. The Committee has, therefore, included language in the 
bill which will allow funds appropriated for Everglades 
restoration to be freed for other worthwhile uses if non-
Federal participants do not meet their agreed-upon 
responsibilities under the governing consent decree.
    Pinellas County, Florida.--The bill includes $2,500,000 for 
the renourishment of Long Key and Treasure Island in Pinellas 
County, Florida.
    Tybee Island, Georgia.--The Committee has provided $225,000 
to initiate a general reevaluation study of the existing shore 
protection project to identify needed modifications and to 
determine the feasibility of including the north end of Tybee 
Beach.
    Rural Idaho, Idaho.--The Committee has provided $4,450,000 
for environmental infrastructure projects as authorized in 
section 595 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999, as 
amended, in rural Idaho. Funds are to be used as follows: City 
of Burley, Idaho, $2,000,000; Coolin Sewer District, Idaho; 
$1,900,000; City of Horseshoe Bend, Idaho, $300,000; Upper St. 
Joe Distribution Line, Idaho, $250,000.
    Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal, Illinois.--The bill 
includes $800,000 for the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal 
dispersal barrier demonstration project which is intended to 
prevent the movement of invasive aquatic nuisance species 
between Lake Michigan and the Mississippi River. Of the amount 
provided, $500,000 is intended for operating of the existing 
barrier, and $300,000 is to be used to initiate the design work 
necessary to make this barrier permanent. In addition, $750,000 
is provided in a section 1135 ``continuing authorities 
project'' to continue work on a second barrier.
    Lock and Dam 19, Mississippi River, Iowa.--The Committee 
has provided $500,000 to continue the major rehabilitation of 
Mississippi River Lock and Dam 19, in Keokuk, Iowa.
    Southern and Eastern Kentucky, Kentucky.--The bill includes 
$3,000,000 for development and upgrade of wastewater facilities 
in southern and eastern Kentucky, as authorized by section 531 
of the Water Resources Development Act, as amended.
    Mississippi River--Gulf Outlet, Louisiana.--The bill 
includes $813,000 to complete the reevaluation study, including 
the investigation of ecosystem restoration issues, of the 
Mississippi River, Gulf Outlet project.
    George W. Kuhn Drain, Michigan.--The Committee has provided 
$388,000 to initiate design of Phase 2 of the George W. Kuhn 
Drain, previously known as the Twelve Towns Drain Retention 
Treatment Facility, Oakland County, Michigan.
    DeSoto County, Mississippi.--The bill contains $8,000,000 
to complete currently authorized wastewater treatment work in 
DeSoto County, in northeast Mississippi.
    Mississippi Environmental Infrastructure, Mississippi.--The 
Committee has provided $2,000,000 for the Mississippi 
Environmental Infrastructure program authorized by section 592 
of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999. The Committee 
expects the Corps of Engineers to continue to address the most 
critical water resources needs within the State of Mississippi. 
Of the funds provided, $100,000 is for a study of an 
alternative water supply for the Northeast Mississippi Regional 
Water Supply District.
    Bois Brule Levee and Drainage District, Missouri.--The bill 
includes $1,200,000 for continuation of the design deficiency 
on the Bois Brule Levee and Drainage District, Missouri, 
project. The sponsor has decided that the Section 205 project 
to increase the level of protection is not presently feasible 
and should be placed on hold.
    St. Louis, Missouri.--The Committee has provided $2,000,000 
for the Corps of Engineers to continue to work in coordination 
with the St. Louis Metropolitan Sewer District to address 
critical water contamination problems in St. Louis, Missouri.
    Table Rock Lake, Missouri.--The bill contains $2,500,000 
for the Corps of Engineers to modernize facilities at its 
Campbell Point, Cape Fair, Indian Point, and Baxter Parks, at 
Table Rock Lake, Missouri.
    Rural Montana, Montana.--The Committee has provided 
$2,000,000 for environmental infrastructure projects as 
authorized in section 595 of the Water Resources Development 
Act of 1999, as amended, in rural Montana. Funds are to be used 
as follows: City of Conrad, Montana, $1,000,000; City of 
Laurel, Montana, $1,000,000.
    Rural Nevada, Nevada.--The Committee has provided 
$2,050,000 for environmental infrastructure projects as 
authorized in section 595 of the Water Resources Development 
Act of 1999, as amended, in rural Nevada. Funds are to be used 
as follows: Boulder City, Nevada, $750,000; City of Mesquite, 
Nevada, $1,000,000; and Tonopah, Nevada, $3,00,000.
    Passaic River, New Jersey.--The bill contains $4,000,000 to 
accelerate the Passaic River Preservation of Natural Flood 
Storage Areas, in the Central Basin of the Passaic River, New 
Jersey.
    Central New Mexico, New Mexico.--The Committee has provided 
$2,000,000 for design and construction assistance to non-
Federal interests as authorized under section 593 of the Water 
Resources and Development Act of 1999. Of these funds, 
$,1,000,000 is to be used for the Black Mesa, New Mexico, Area 
Flood Management Project.
    Long Beach Island, New York.--The Committee remains fully 
supportive of the Long Beach Island, New York, project and 
understands that sufficient carryover funding is available to 
satisfy requirements in fiscal year 2004.
    New York and New Jersey Harbors, New York and New Jersey.--
The Committee is aware of the difficulty posed by the 
requirement that a second shipper be in place on the Port 
Jersey element of the project before the construction may 
begin, and has included language in the bill to change the 
requirement to allow work to proceed whenever the sponsor has 
identified and secured commitments to ship from a second user. 
In addition, the Committee directs the Corps of Engineers to 
use $2,000,000 of the funds provided for the project to plan 
for and enter into an agreement with a state or non-Federal 
sponsor to develop a dredged material processing facility that 
would accomplish the objectives of reducing the cost of dredged 
material management in the port, preparing dredged material for 
beneficial uses, and implementing innovative dredged material 
management technologies.
    Dare County, North Carolina.--The bill includes $1,000,000 
for preconstruction monitoring and real estate acquisition on 
the Bodie County element of the Dare County, North Carolina, 
beaches project.
    Holes Creek, West Carrollton, Ohio.--The Committee has 
provided $2,000,000 for floodwall completion and relocations, 
to complete the Holes Creek, Ohio, flood damage reduction 
project.
    Ohio Environmental Assistance, Ohio.--The bill contains 
$17,000,000 for the Ohio Environmental Assistance program 
authorized by section 592 of the Water Resources Development 
Act of 1999. The amount provided includes: $1,500,000 for the 
City of Chardon, Geauga County, Ohio; $1,000,000 for a 
Wastewater Treatment Plant, Toledo, Ohio; $3,000,000 for Clark 
County and Lower Mad River Valley Sewer Infrastructure, Ohio; 
$2,000,000 for Clark County & Lower Mad River Valley Storm 
Water Management Infrastructure, Ohio; $1,500,000 for the 
Dayton International Airport Sites Sewer & Drainage, Ohio; 
$200,000 for a Drain Line Replacement, Lafayette Township, 
Coshocton County, Ohio; $300,000 for the Oxbow and Sand Road 
Pond Water Pollution Control Facility, City of Fremont, Ohio; 
$1,000,000 for a Sanitary Sewer Collection and Wastewater 
Treatment System, Village of Hartford, Hartford Township, 
Licking County, Ohio; $1,000,000 for a Sanitary Sewer Line 
Extension, City of Wellston, Jackson County, Ohio; $1,000,000 
for Hospital Site Preparation, Springfield, Ohio; $268,000 for 
the State Route 285 Water Line Project, Noble County, Ohio; 
$2,500,000 for Environmental Restoration, Tech Town, Ohio; 
$375,000 for design of a project for Mason Run, Turkey Run & 
Walnut Creek, Ohio; and $1,000,000 for the Water Line Project, 
Guernsey County, Ohio.
    Elk Creek Lake, Oregon.--Funds provided in this Act and 
funds previously appropriated for the Elk Creek Lake, Oregon, 
project are available to plan and implement long-term 
management measures at the project to maintain the project in 
an uncompleted state, including design and construction of a 
permanent trap-and-haul facility to replace the existing, 
interim facility. Funds may not be used for any further work on 
the Corps of Engineers proposal to remove a section of the dam 
for fish passage.
    Conemaugh River, Nanty Glo, Pennsylvania.--The bill 
includes $1,000,000 to complete construction of the Nanty Glo, 
Pennsylvania, Environmental Restoration project.
    South Central Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania.--The Committee 
has provided $15,000,000 for environmental improvement in South 
Central Pennsylvania. When executing this program, the Corps of 
Engineers is encouraged to consider the needs of Pleasantville, 
Pennsylvania; Union Township, Pennsylvania; Juniata Terrace 
Borough, Pennsylvania; and the Industrial Park in Mifflin 
County, Pennsylvania.
    Southeastern Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania.--The Committee has 
provided $750,000 to continue work on the Cobbs Creek and Mill 
Creek watersheds in West Philadelphia, as authorized by section 
566 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996.
    Black Fox, Murfree, and Oaklands Springs Wetlands, 
Murfreesboro, Tennessee.--The bill includes $1,072,000 to 
complete all remaining authorized work at the Black Fox, 
Murfree, and Oaklands Springs Environmental Restoration project 
in Murfreesboro, Tennessee.
    Dallas Floodway Extension, Texas.--The Committee has 
provided $9,280,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue 
construction of the Dallas Floodway Extension project in Texas.
    San Antonio Channel Improvement Project, Texas.--Consistent 
with existing project authorities for the San Antonio Channel 
Improvement Project in Texas, with specific reference to 
Section 335 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000, 
which modified the project to include environmental restoration 
and recreation as project purposes, the Committee directs the 
Secretary of Army to designate all components of the project 
for flood control, environmental restoration and recreation as 
one integral and combined project. The Committee has provided 
$1,000,000 to continue construction of such project. Subject to 
the Secretary's approval of the General Reevaluation Report, 
the Secretary of Army is directed to use a portion of these 
funds and subsequent funding appropriated for the San Antonio 
Channel Improvement Project to design and subsequently 
construct these combined improvements.
    James River, Virginia.--The bill includes $1,150,000 to 
initiate preconstruction engineering and design for 
improvements to the turning basin on the James River, Virginia, 
navigation project.
    Roanoke River Upper Basin, Virginia.--The Committee directs 
the Secretary of the Army to use open and unrestricted bidding 
in prosecuting all construction of the Roanoke River Upper 
Basin, Virginia, project.
    Levisa and Tug Forks of the Big Sandy River and Upper 
Cumberland River, West Virginia, Virginia, and Kentucky.--The 
Committee has provided a total of $50,400,000 for the Levisa 
and Tug Forks of the Big Sandy River and Upper Cumberland River 
project. This amount includes $17,000,000 for the City of 
Grundy, Virginia, element of the project; $1,500,000 for the 
Bell County, Kentucky, element of the project; $3,500,000 for 
the City of Cumberland, Kentucky, element of the project; 
$6,500,000 for the Clover Fork, Harlan County, Kentucky, 
element of the project; $2,000,000 for the Levisa Fork in Floyd 
County, Kentucky, element of the project; $4,500,000 for the 
Harlan County, Kentucky, element of the project; $900,000 for 
the Johnson County, Kentucky, element of the project; 
$1,000,000 for the Knox County, Kentucky, element of the 
project; $4,300,000 for the Tug Fork in Martin County, 
Kentucky, element of the project; $200,000 for the Levisa Basin 
in Pike County, Kentucky, element of the project; $4,000,000 in 
the Tug Fork in Pike County, element of the project; and 
$5,000,000 in the Town of Martin, Floyd County, element of the 
project.
    Aquatic Plant Control Program.--Within the amount provided 
for the Aquatic Plant Control program, $200,000 is for aquatic 
plant control at high priority sites in Texas, and $100,000 is 
for the control of Hydrilla in the Potomac and Tributaries, 
Virginia, Maryland, and District of Columbia. The Committee is 
aware of the growing aquatic invasive plant infestation problem 
around the country and supports efforts of the Corps, and the 
private sector, to develop new management and control 
technologies. The Committee further believes that success in 
the management of these invasive species is dependent upon a 
strong, stable research program.
    Emergency Streambank and Erosion Control (Section 14).--The 
Committee has provided $9,000,000 for the Section 14 program. 
Within the amount provided, the recommendation includes: 
$100,000 for construction of the Addison Creek, North 
Riverside, Illinois, project; $200,000 for construction of the 
Village of Riverside (Groveland Avenue Berm), Illinois, 
project; $60,000 to complete the planning and design analysis 
for the Ohio River, Rockport, Indiana, project; $200,000 to 
initiate and complete construction of the Ohio River, South 
Harrison County, Indiana, project; $100,000 for planning and 
design of the U.S. Highway 83 Bridge project in Garden City, 
Kansas; $330,000 for construction of the Nicholas County, 
Licking River, Kentucky, project; $31,000 for completion of 
plans and specifications for the Holmes Bay, Whiting, Maine, 
project; $24,000 for completion of plans and specifications for 
the Narraguagus River, Milbridge, Maine, project; $100,000 to 
initiate construction of the Belle Isle Park, Michigan, 
project; $61,000 to complete planning and design of the Belle 
Isle South Shore, Michigan, project; $750,000 to initiate 
construction of the Marquette, Michigan, project; $150,000 to 
initiate and complete construction of the County Road 228 
Bridge, Hubble Creek, Missouri, project; $40,000 for planning 
and design of the Borough of Rumson bulkhead replacement 
project in New York; $300,000 to initiate and complete 
construction of the Newton Creek, Bainbridge, New York, 
project; $250,000 to complete the feasibility study and plans 
and specifications for the Northport, Huntington, New York, 
project; $100,000 for planning and design for the Engel Park, 
Town of Ossining, New York, project; $40,000 for plans and 
specifications for the Losee Park, Village of Tarrytown, New 
York, project; $40,000 for plans and specifications for the 
Scarborough Park, Village of Briarcliff Manor, New York, 
project; $75,000 for plans and specifications for the Ottawa 
River, Shoreland Drive project in Toledo, Ohio; $40,000 for 
plans and specifications for the Hocking River, Athens, Ohio, 
project; $40,000 for plans and specifications for the Green 
River, Waynesboro, Tennessee, project; $40,000 for plans and 
specifications for the Hurricane Creek Road, Waynesboro, 
Tennessee, project; $175,000 to complete plans and 
specifications for the Hollywood Interceptor project in 
Memphis, Tennessee; $293,000 to complete plans and 
specifications and initiate construction for the Mount Moriah 
Culvert project in Tennessee; $100,000 to complete plans and 
specifications for the Terminal Road, Chattanooga, Tennessee, 
project; $100,000 to complete plans and specifications for the 
Town of Dandridge, Tennessee, project; $100,000 to complete 
plans and specifications for the Bogachiel River, Clallam 
County, Washington, project; and $40,000 for planning and 
design of the Concordia University, City of Mequon, Wisconsin, 
project.
    Shoreline Protection Project (Section 103).--The Committee 
has provided $3,500,000 for the Section 103 program. Within the 
amount provided, the recommendation includes: $100,000 to 
complete the initial appraisal report for the City of Solano 
Beach, California, project; $100,000 to complete the 
feasibility study for the Whiting Shoreline, Indiana, project; 
$100,000 to complete plans and specifications and execute a 
project cooperation agreement for the Nantasket Beach, Hull, 
Massachusetts, project; $100,000 to initiate the feasibility 
study for the Lake Erie Islands project in Ottawa County, Ohio; 
and $100,000 to initiate the feasibility study for the 
Sandusky, Ohio, Lakefront Restoration project.
    Small Navigation Projects (Section 107).--The Committee has 
provided $8,000,000 for the Section 107 program. Within the 
amount provided, the recommendation includes: $200,000 to 
complete the feasibility study for the Point Mallard Park, 
Decatur, Alabama, project; $640,000 to initiate and complete 
plans and specifications for the Blytheville Harbor, Arkansas, 
project; $850,000 for construction of the Russellville 
Slackwater Harbor project in Arkansas; $2,825,000 to complete 
construction of the Port Hueneme, California, project; $100,000 
for the feasibility study for the Port Tobacco River/Goose 
Creek, Maryland, project; $50,000 to complete design and 
execute a project cooperation agreement for the Bass Harbor, 
Tremont, Maine, project; $20,000 to continue the feasibility 
study for the Bucks Harbor, Machiasport, Maine, project; 
$50,000 to continue the feasibility for the Lubec Harbor, 
Maine, project; $86,000 to complete the feasibility study for 
the Detroit River project in Michigan; $75,000 to continue the 
feasibility study for the Mackinac Island Harbor, Michigan, 
project; $100,000 to initiate the feasibility study for the 
Grand Marais Harbor, Minnesota, project; $50,000 to complete 
the feasibility study for the Knife River Harbor, Minnesota, 
project; $500,000 to initiate construction of the Duluth 
(McQuade Road) Harbor, Minnesota, project; $500,000 to initiate 
construction of the Two Harbors, Minnesota, project; $583,000 
to complete the feasibility study and initiate plans and 
specifications for the Tri-State Commerce Park, Iuka, 
Mississippi, project; $200,000 to complete plans and 
specifications for the Buffalo Inner--South Basin Navigation 
Project in New York; $225,000 to initiate and complete the 
feasibility study for the Oconto, Wisconsin, project; and 
$305,000 to initiate and complete the feasibility study for the 
Olde Stone Quarry Park, Door County, Wisconsin, project.
    Mitigation Damages Attributable to Navigation Projects 
(Section 111).--The Committee has provided $500,000 for the 
Section 111 program. Within the amount provided, the 
recommendation includes: $125,000 to complete the feasibility 
study for the Grand River, City of Grand Haven, Michigan, 
project; and $100,000 to continue the feasibility study for the 
Mattituck Inlet, Southold, New York, project.
    Beneficial Use of Dredge Material (Section 204).--The 
Committee has provided $3,000,000 for the Section 204 program. 
Within the amount provided, the recommendation includes $70,000 
to continue the feasibility study for the Atchafalaya River, 
Bayous Chene, Boeuf, and Black, Louisiana, project; and 
$100,000 for plans and specifications for the Ottawa River, 
Ohio, project.
    Small Flood Control Projects (Section 205).--The Committee 
has provided $40,000,000 for the Section 205 program. Within 
the amount provided, the recommendation includes: $50,000 to 
initiate a feasibility study for the Grubbs, Arkansas, project; 
$25,000 to complete the feasibility study for the Higginson, 
Arkansas, project; $500,000 to initiate construction of the 
Indian Bayou, Arkansas, project; $75,000 to complete the 
feasibility study and initiate plans and specifications for the 
Spring Creek, Arkansas, project; $100,000 for a feasibility 
study of flooding problems in Yucca Valley, California; 
$460,000 to complete the feasibility study and initiate plans 
and specifications for the Anaverde Creek, Palmdale, 
California, project; $100,000 for the Santa Venetia, 
California, project; $250,000 to continue the feasibility study 
for the Flint River, City of Albany, Georgia, project; 
$1,000,000 to continue construction of the Deer Creek, Village 
of Ford Heights, Illinois, project; $1,500,000 to continue 
construction of the East Peoria, Illinois, project; $100,000 to 
initiate plans and specifications for the Oak Forest and 
Midlothian (Natalie Creek), Illinois, project; $100,000 to 
complete plans and specifications and initiate construction for 
the Stoney Creek, Oak Lawn, Illinois, project; $100,000 to 
initiate the feasibility study for the Olney, Illinois, 
project; $85,000 to complete the feasibility study for the 
Pankey Branch, Harrisburg, Illinois, project; $150,000 to 
initiate the feasibility study for the Shelly Creek, Montgomery 
County, Indiana, project; $200,000 to continue work on the 
Kankakee River (Sumava Resorts), Indiana, project; $115,000 to 
complete the feasibility study for the Cowskin Creek, Wichita, 
Kansas, project; $50,000 to initiate plans and specifications 
for the Whitewater and Walnut Rivers project in Augusta, 
Kansas; $175,000 to complete plans and specifications for the 
Lockport to Larose, Louisiana, project; $125,000 to continue 
plans and specifications for the Rosethorn Basin, Jean Lafitte, 
Louisiana, project; $145,000 to complete the feasibility study 
and initiate plans and specifications for the Winchester, 
Massachusetts, project; $100,000 for a study of flooding 
problems in Benton County, Minnesota; $250,000 for a study of 
flooding problems in Delano, Minnesota; $50,000 to complete the 
feasibility study and initiate plans and specifications for the 
Ada, Minnesota, project; $100,000 for a feasibility study for 
the Borup, Minnesota, project; $325,000 to initiate the 
feasibility study for the City of Roseau, Minnesota, project; 
$100,000 for a feasibility study for the Marsh Creek, Site 6, 
floodwater retention project in Minnesota; $350,000 to complete 
the feasibility study and initiate plans and specifications for 
the Hidden Valley Storm Drainage project in Greene County, 
Missouri; $50,000 to continue the feasibility study for the 
Goose Creek, Missouri, project; $50,000 to continue the 
feasibility study for the Hubble Creek, Missouri, project; 
$75,000 to continue the feasibility study for the Lilbourn, 
Missouri, project; $200,000 to initiate construction of the 
Little River Diversion project in Dutchtown, Missouri; $50,000 
to continue the feasibility study for the Williams Creek, 
Missouri, project; $200,000 to continue the feasibility study 
for the Greens Mill Run, Greenville, North Carolina, project; 
$500,000 to continue construction of the Wahpeton, North 
Dakota, project; $250,000 to complete plans and specifications 
for the Jackson Brook, New Jersey, project; $1,150,000 to 
complete construction of the McKeel Brook, New Jersey, project; 
$200,000 to continue the feasibility study for the Poplar 
Brook, Monmouth, New Jersey, project; $200,000 for plans and 
specifications for the Hatch, New Mexico, project; $100,000 to 
continue the feasibility study for the Hobbs, New Mexico, 
project; $300,000 to complete the feasibility study for the 
Fulmer Creek, New York, project; $45,000 to continue the 
feasibility study for the Great Gully Creek, Springport, New 
York, project; $300,000 to complete the feasibility study and 
initiate plans and specifications for the Moyer Creek, Village 
of Frankfort, New York, project; $238,000 to complete the 
feasibility study for the Steele Creek, Village of Ilion, New 
York, project; $100,000 for a study of flooding problems in 
Highland Falls, New York; $100,000 for a study of flooding 
problems along Moodna Creek in New Windsor, New York; $100,000 
for a study of flooding problems in the Town of Warwick, New 
York; $100,000 for a study of flooding problems along Blind 
Brook in the City of Rye, New York; $200,000 for plans and 
specifications for the Irondequoit Creek, Monroe County, New 
York, project; $1,000,000 for the Zimber Ditch, Stark County, 
Ohio, project; $75,000 to continue the feasibility study for 
the Little Mill and Mill Creeks, Pennsylvania, project; 
$100,000 for a study of flooding problems in Surfside Beach, 
South Carolina; $115,000 to continue plans and specifications 
for the Beaver Creek, Bristol, Tennessee, and Bristol, 
Virginia, project; $165,000 to complete plans and 
specifications and initiate construction for the Baxter Bottom, 
Tennessee, project; $55,000 to complete the feasibility study 
for the Dresden, Tennessee, project; $70,000 for a study of 
flooding problems along Jones Creek in Jackson, Tennessee; 
$250,000 for a feasibility study of flooding problems at the 
KellyUSA site in Bexar County, Texas; and $30,000 to continue 
coordination activities on the Estate La Grange, Estate Mon 
Bijou, Savan Gut, and Turpentine Run projects in the United 
States Virgin Islands.
    Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration (Section 206).--The Committee 
has provided $18,050,000 for the Section 206 program. Within 
the amount provided, the recommendation includes: $235,000 to 
complete the feasibility study and initiate plans and 
specifications for the Spring Creek, Tuscumbia, Alabama, 
project; $90,000 to complete the feasibility study for the 
Brownsville Branch, Arkansas, project; $100,000 to initiate the 
Ecosystem Restoration Report for the Carpinteria Creek Park, 
California, project; $60,000 to complete plans and 
specifications for the Upper Sulphur Creek restoration project 
in California; $300,000 for an Ecosystem Restoration Report for 
the City of Lodi, California, White Slough Water Pollution 
Control Facility; $100,000 for an Ecosystem Restoration Report 
for the Thompson Creek project in Santa Clara County, 
California; $200,000 for the Ecosystem Restoration Report for 
the Santa Paula Creek, California, project; $175,000 for the 
Ecosystem Restoration Report for the Sweetwater Reservoir 
Wetlands project in California; $100,000 for a Preliminary 
Restoration Plan for the English Creek, California, project; 
$200,000 for an Ecosystem Restoration Report for the Arroyo Los 
Positas, California, project; $360,000 for an Ecosystem 
Restoration Report for the St. Helena Napa River restoration 
project in California; $400,000 for the Ecosystem Restoration 
Report for the Upper York Creek Dam removal project in 
California; $40,000 for a Preliminary Restoration Plan for the 
South Boulder Creek, Colorado, project; $250,000 for plans and 
specifications for the Mill River, Stamford, Connecticut, 
project; $2,800,000 for the Stevenson Creek project in Pinellas 
County, Florida; $253,000 to complete the feasibility study for 
the Columbus Dam removal project in Georgia; $100,000 for a 
Preliminary Restoration Plan for the Mountain Park Dam project 
in Georgia; $200,000 to initiate construction of the Squaw 
Creek Basin project in Lake County, Illinois; $700,000 to 
continue construction of the Butler Lake, Illinois, project; 
$150,000 for plans and specifications for the Hofmann Dam, 
Illinois, project; $50,000 to continue the feasibility study 
for the Illinois and Michigan Canal, Willow Springs, Illinois, 
project; $111,000 to initiate and complete plans and 
specifications for the State Line Kankakee River project in 
Illinois; $850,000 to initiate construction of the South Bend 
dam removal project in South Bend, Indiana; $300,000 to 
complete the detailed project report for the Cedar Lake, 
Indiana, project; $500,000 to initiate construction of the Wolf 
Lake, Indiana, project; $200,000 to initiate construction of 
the Grass Lake, Illinois, project; $100,000 for plans and 
specifications for the Buras Marina, Louisiana, project; 
$200,000 to initiate the feasibility study for the Paint Branch 
fish passage and stream restoration project in Prince Georges 
County, Maryland; $125,000 for plans and specifications for the 
Mill Pond, Littleton, Massachusetts, project; $232,000 for 
plans and specifications for the Milford Pond, Milford, 
Massachusetts, project; $717,000 to initiate and complete 
construction of the Nashawannuck Pond, Easthampton, 
Massachusetts, project; $50,000 for the planning and design of 
the New Boulevard, Detroit River, Michigan, project; $180,000 
for plans and specifications for the Belle Isle Piers project 
in Detroit, Michigan; $72,000 to complete the feasibility study 
and initiate plans and specifications for the Secord and 
Smallwood Lakes project in Secord Township, Michigan; $296,000 
to initiate and complete construction of the Wiswall Dam, New 
Hampshire, project; $110,000 for an Ecosystem Restoration 
Report for the Rogers Pond, Franklin Township, New Jersey, 
project; $100,000 to continue the feasibility phase of the 
Bottomless Lakes State Park project in New Mexico; $300,000 to 
complete plans and specifications and initiate construction for 
the Las Cruces Wetlands Restoration, New Mexico, project; 
$50,000 for a Preliminary Restoration Plan for the Alley Creek, 
Queens, New York, project; $100,000 to continue the feasibility 
study phase of the Mud Creek, East Patchogue, New York, 
project; $100,000 to complete design and initiate construction 
of the Chenango Lake wetlands restoration project in Chenango 
County, New York; $300,000 to continue the feasibility study 
for the Oriskany Wildlife Management Plan in New York; $245,000 
for construction of the Greenwood Lake project in the Village 
of Greenwood, New York; $10,000 for a Preliminary Restoration 
Plan for the Kowawese Area in New Windsor, New York; $200,000 
for the feasibility study for the Echo Bay project in New 
Rochelle, New York; $200,000 to continue the feasibility study 
for the Sheldrake Lake/Goodlife Pond project in New York; 
$200,000 for the feasibility phase of the Concord Streams 
restoration project in Concord, North Carolina; $75,000 to 
continue work on the Little Sugar Creek, Mecklenburg County, 
North Carolina, project; $100,000 to continue the feasibility 
phase of the West Cary Stream restoration project in North 
Carolina; $100,000 for a study of ecosystem restoration and 
other improvements along the Lake Erie waterfront in Cuyahoga 
County, Ohio; $65,000 for a Preliminary Restoration Plan for 
the Sandusky, Ohio, beach restoration project; $250,000 to 
continue the feasibility study for the Lake Carl Blackwell 
aquatic ecosystem restoration project in Oklahoma; $175,000 to 
complete the feasibility study for the Westmoreland Park, 
Oregon, project; $1,000,000 to initiate construction of the 
Springfield Millrace ecosystem restoration project in Oregon; 
$300,000 to initiate construction of the Southampton Creek, 
Pennsylvania, project; $250,000 for a feasibility study for the 
Canonsburg Lake, Pennsylvania, project; $90,000 to complete 
planning and design of the Sheraden Park Stream and Chartiers 
Creek restoration project in Pennsylvania; $100,000 for a 
Preliminary Restoration Plan for the Upper Chartiers Creek, 
Pennsylvania, project; $800,000 to complete construction of the 
Lonsdale Drive-In Wetlands project in Rhode Island; $200,000 to 
complete the feasibility study for the Town of Jonesborough, 
Washington County, Tennessee, project; $700,000 to continue 
construction of the Ely/Pucketts Creek project in Virginia; 
$100,000 for a Preliminary Restoration Plan for Lake Anna, 
Virginia; $200,000 to continue the Walla Walla River project in 
Washington; $112,000 for plans and specifications for the Lake 
Koshonong, Wisconsin, project; $50,000 each for the Pike River, 
Trinity Creek, and Wolf River projects in Wisconsin; and 
$515,000 for the Cheat River Basin acid mine drainage project 
in West Virginia.
    The Committee recognizes that innovative technologies can 
provide time and cost savings and encourages the use of the 
rapid dewatering system for the Stevenson Creek project in 
Florida.
    Project Modifications for the Improvement of the 
Environment (Section 1135).--The Committee has provided 
$16,000,000 for the Section 1135 program. Within the amount 
provided, the recommendation includes: $85,000 to continue the 
feasibility study for the Ditch 28 project in Arkansas; $85,000 
to complete the feasibility study and initiate plans and 
specifications for the Horseshoe Lake, Arkansas, project; 
$100,000 to initiate the feasibility study for the Millwood, 
Grassy Lake, Arkansas, project; $2,000,000 to initiate 
construction of the Rillito/Swan Wetlands project in Pima 
County, Arizona; $300,000 to initiate the feasibility study for 
the Sand Cove Park, Sacramento River, California, project; 
$1,000,000 to initiate construction of the Chicago Sanitary and 
Ship Canal, Illinois, second dispersal barrier; $50,000 to 
complete plans and specifications for the Indian Ridge Marsh 
project in Chicago, Illinois; $150,000 to complete the 
ecosystem restoration report and initiate plans and 
specifications for the Spunky Bottoms Ecosystem Restoration in 
Brown County, Illinois; $250,000 to complete the feasibility 
report and initiate plans and specifications for the Sand Creek 
Ecosystem Restoration project in Newton, Kansas; $500,000 to 
continue construction of the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, 
Plaquemine Lock, Louisiana, project; $50,000 to initiate plans 
and specifications for the Houma Navigation Channel, Mile 12 to 
Mile 31.4, Louisiana, project; $200,000 to complete plans and 
specifications for the Broad Meadows Marsh, Quincy, 
Massachusetts, project; $50,000 for a feasibility study of 
restoration opportunities in Cohasset, Massachusetts; $200,000 
to complete planning and design for the Nashua River, Fitchburg 
Urban Park, Massachusetts, project; $34,000 to complete the 
feasibility study and initiate plans and specifications for the 
Hennepin Marsh, Grosse Ile Township, Michigan, project; $50,000 
for plans and specifications for the Duck Creek, Stoddard 
County, Missouri, project; $100,000 for a feasibility study of 
the Old Number 7 Chute, Missouri, project; $150,000 for the 
Kansas City Riverfront Habitat Restoration project in Missouri; 
$150,000 to continue the feasibility study for the Pecos River 
Restoration project in Chavez, New Mexico; $500,000 to initiate 
construction of the Whitney Point Lake, Broome County, New 
York, project; $200,000 to complete the feasibility study and 
initiate plans and specifications for the Northport, 
Huntington, New York, project; $25,000 to complete the 
feasibility study for the Times Beach, New York, project; 
$50,000 to continue the feasibility for the Conneaut Harbor, 
Ohio, project; $250,000 to continue the feasibility study for 
the East Harbor State Park project in Marblehead, Ohio; $50,000 
to continue the feasibility study for the Sheldon's Marsh 
Nature Preserve project in Ohio; $125,000 to initiate 
construction of the Allin's Cove, Barrington, Rhode Island, 
project; $750,000 for construction of the Boyd's Marsh project 
in Portsmouth, Rhode island; $100,000 to initiate plans and 
specifications for the Lower Obion River, Tennessee, project; 
$200,000 to complete the feasibility study of fish passage 
improvements on the Walla Walla River in Washington; $80,000 to 
initiate and complete plans and specifications for the Lake 
Poygan, Wisconsin, project; and $533,000 for Sea Lamprey 
barriers at Black Mallard Creek, Michigan, Carp Lake River, 
Michigan, Kid's Creek, Michigan, Paw Paw River, Michigan, 
Schmidt Creek, Michigan, Conneaut Creek, Ohio, South Branch 
Galien River, Michigan, St. Marys River, Michigan, and Trail 
Creek, Indiana.

            Flood Control, Mississippi River and Tributaries


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





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


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


                         GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS

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

                              CONSTRUCTION

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

                              MAINTENANCE

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

                   OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, GENERAL




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

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

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


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

                           Regulatory Program





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


    This appropriation provides for salaries and related costs 
to administer laws pertaining to the regulation of navigable 
waters and wetlands of the United States in accordance with the 
Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, the Clean Water Act of 1977, 
and the Marine Protection Act of 1972.
    For fiscal year 2004, the Committee recommends an 
appropriation of $144,000,000, the same as the budget request 
and $5,904,000 more than the amount appropriated in fiscal year 
2003.
    St. Charles Parish, Louisiana.--The Committee is aware of a 
reported lack of enforcement actions taken by the U.S. Army 
Corps of Engineers for barge fleeting permit violators in the 
vicinity of St. Charles Parish, Louisiana, and directs the 
Corps to immediately ensure barge fleeting activities in the 
vicinity of St. Charles Parish are consistent with permitted 
activities. Within 90 days from the enactment of this 
legislation, the Corps shall provide a report to the committee 
on enforcement actions taken in the most recent fiscal year for 
which complete data is available.

            Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program





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


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

                 Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies





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


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

                            General Expenses





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


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

                           General Provisions


                       Corps of Engineers--Civil

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

                       DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

                          Central Utah Project

                CENTRAL UTAH PROJECT COMPLETION ACCOUNT




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


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

                         Bureau of Reclamation

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

                      Water and Related Resources




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

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

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


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

               BUREAU OF RECLAMATION LOAN PROGRAM ACCOUNT




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


    Under the Small Reclamation Projects Act (43 U.S.C. 422a-
422l), loans and/or grants may be made to non-Federal 
organizations for construction or rehabilitation and betterment 
of small water resource projects. As required by the Federal 
Credit Reform Act of 1990, this account records the subsidy 
costs associated with the direct loans, as well as 
administrative expenses of this program.
    For fiscal year 2004, the Committee has provided $200,000 
for the administration of existing loans, the same as the 
budget request.

                    California Bay-Delta Restoration





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


    The purpose of the California Bay-Delta Ecosystem 
Restoration account is to fund the Federal share of ecosystem 
restoration and other activities being developed for the San 
Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta by a State and 
Federal partnership (CALFED). Federal participation in this 
program was authorized in the California Bay-Delta 
Environmental and Water Security Act enacted in the fall of 
1996. That Act authorized the appropriation of $143,300,000 for 
ecosystem restoration activities in each of fiscal years 1998, 
1999, and 2000. Attempts to reauthorize the program have thus 
far been unsuccessful. Accordingly, no funds were provided in 
fiscal years 2001, 2002, and 2003 in support of the CALFED 
effort through this account.
    The Committee remains very supportive of the efforts that 
have been taken in the State of California to develop this 
program, which will provide a safe, clean, and reliable water 
system for millions of people while improving the environment. 
However, for fiscal year 2004, the Committee has again 
recommended no funding in the absence of authorizing 
legislation for this multi-year, multi-billion dollar effort. 
Should this program be reauthorized, the Committee reconsider 
funding as the bill moves through the appropriations process.

                CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT RESTORATION FUND




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


    The Central Valley Project Restoration Fund was authorized 
in Title 34 of Public Law 102-575, the Central Valley Project 
Improvement Act. This Fund was established to provide funding 
from project beneficiaries for habitat restoration, improvement 
and acquisition, and other fish and wildlife restoration 
activities in the Central Valley Project area of California. 
Revenues are derived from payments by project beneficiaries and 
from donations. Payments from project beneficiaries include 
several required by the Act (Friant Division surcharges, higher 
charges on water transferred to non-CVP users, and tiered water 
prices) and, to the extent required in appropriations Acts, 
additional annual mitigation and restoration payments.
    For fiscal year 2004, the Committee has provided 
$39,600,000, the same as the budget request, and $8,986,000 
below the amount appropriated in fiscal year 2003.
    Within the Anadromous Fish Restoration Program, the 
Committee urges the Bureau of Reclamation to use $500,000 to 
participate with the Orange Cove Irrigation District to 
evaluate fishery restoration opportunities in the Mill Creek 
watershed.
    The Committee has included language in the bill which 
provides that none of the funds made available from the Central 
Valley Project Restoration Fund may be used for the acquisition 
or leasing of water for in-stream purposes if the water is 
already committed to in-stream purposes by a court adopted 
decree or order.

                       POLICY AND ADMINISTRATION




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


    The Policy and Administration account provides for the 
executive direction and management of all Reclamation 
activities, as performed by the Commissioner's offices in 
Washington, DC, and Denver, Colorado, and in the five regional 
offices. The Denver office and regional offices charge 
individual projects or activities for direct beneficial 
services and related administrative and technical costs. These 
charges are covered under other appropriations.
    For fiscal year 2004, the Committee recommends $56,525,000, 
the same as the budget request, and $2,012,000 above the fiscal 
year 2003 amount.
    The Committee is concerned that the Bureau of Reclamation 
is not adhering to its guidelines, described in the ``Corrosion 
Prevention Criteria and Requirements'', with respect to the use 
of ductile iron pipe and steel pipe. With respect to both 
products, the Bureau of Reclamation should be attempting to 
establish good engineering practices which address the long-
term value and cost effectiveness of facilities constructed 
over time. The Committee recognizes that additional work is 
needed to develop a more definitive corrosion standard on which 
to decide the best product for a particular application. 
Accordingly, the Committee directs the Commissioner of 
Reclamation to conduct a study on the current corrosion 
criteria and to report to the Committee on Appropriations by 
March 1, 2004, on its recommendations for a more definitive 
standard. Until a more appropriate standard is in place, which 
reflects the basic principle of long-term cost effectiveness, 
the current criteria should continue to be used.

                          WORKING CAPITAL FUND

                              (RESCISSION)




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


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

                           General Provisions


                       Department of the Interior

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

                          DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommendation generally supports the 
Administration's budget request for the Department of Energy 
and adjusts funding for some programs to reflect specific 
Congressional interests and priorities. Total funding for the 
Department of Energy is $22,016,347,000, an increase of 
$1,181,915,000 over fiscal year 2003 and $147,020,000 below the 
budget request.

                        CONGRESSIONAL DIRECTION

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

                   BUDGET JUSTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS

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

                    SAFEGUARDS AND SECURITY FUNDING

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

                     HOMELAND SECURITY-RELATED WORK

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

                           PROJECT MANAGEMENT

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

                     FACILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE

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

                        SAFETY AT DOE FACILITIES

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

          LABORATORY DIRECTED RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT (LDRD)

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

                        AUGMENTING FEDERAL STAFF

    The Committee continues to believe there is too much 
reliance on support service contractors and other non-Federal 
employees throughout the Department of Energy, but particularly 
in the Department's Washington operations. The number of 
management and operating (M&O;) contractor employees assigned to 
the Washington metropolitan area in fiscal year 2004 shall not 
exceed 220, the same as the fiscal year 2003 ceiling.
    Report on M&O; contractor employees.--The Department is to 
provide a report to the Committee at the end of fiscal year 
2003 on the use of M&O; contractor employees assigned to the 
Washington metropolitan area. The report is to identify all M&O; 
contractor employees who work in the Washington metropolitan 
area, including the name of the employee, the name of the 
contractor, the organization to which he or she is assigned, 
the job title and a description of the tasks the employee is 
performing, the annual cost of the employee to the Department, 
the Headquarters program organization sponsoring each M&O; 
employee, the program account funding that employee, and the 
length of time the employee has been detailed to the Department 
or elsewhere in the Washington metropolitan area (e.g., the 
Congress, the Executive Office of the President, and other 
Federal agencies). The report should also include detailed 
information on the cost of maintaining each M&O; office in the 
Washington metropolitan area. This report is to include actual 
data for the period October 1, 2002 through September 30, 2003, 
and is due to the Committee on January 31, 2004.
    Report on support service contractors.--The report is to 
include for each support service contract at Headquarters: the 
name of the contractor; the program organization (at the lowest 
organization level possible) hiring the contractor; a 
descriptive list of the tasks performed; the number of 
contractor employees working on the contract; and the annual 
cost of the contract. This report is to include actual data for 
the period October 1, 2002 through September 30, 2003, and is 
due to the Committee on January 31, 2004.

          STRATEGIC INITIATIVE AND BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT FUNDS

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

                        REPROGRAMMING GUIDELINES

    The Committee requires the Department to inform the 
Committee promptly and fully when a change in program execution 
and funding is required during the fiscal year. To assist the 
Department in this effort, the following guidance is provided 
for programs and activities funded in the Energy and Water 
Development Appropriations Act.
    Definition.--A reprogramming includes the reallocation of 
funds from one activity to another within an appropriation, or 
any significant departure from a program, project, or activity 
described in the agency's budget justification as presented to 
and approved by Congress. For construction projects, a 
reprogramming constitutes the reallocation of funds from one 
construction project identified in the justifications to 
another project or a significant change in the scope of an 
approved project.
    Criteria for Reprogramming.--A reprogramming should be made 
only when an unforeseen situation arises, and then only if 
delay of the project or the activity until the next 
appropriations year would result in a detrimental impact to an 
agency program or priority. Reprogrammings may also be 
considered if the Department can show that significant cost 
savings can accrue by increasing funding for an activity. Mere 
convenience or desire should not be factors for consideration.
    Reprogrammings should not be employed to initiate new 
programs or to change program, project, or activity allocations 
specifically denied, limited, or increased by Congress in the 
Act or report. In cases where unforeseen events or conditions 
are deemed to require such changes, proposals shall be 
submitted in advance to the Committee and be fully explained 
and justified.
    Reporting and Approval Procedures.--The Committee has not 
provided statutory language to define reprogramming guidelines, 
but expects the Department to follow the spirit and the letter 
of the guidance provided in this report. Consistent with prior 
years, the Committee has not provided the Department with any 
internal reprogramming flexibility in fiscal year 2004, unless 
specifically identified in the House, Senate, or conference 
reports. Any reallocation of new or prior year budget authority 
or prior year deobligations must be submitted to the Committees 
in writing and may not be implemented prior to approval by the 
Committees on Appropriations.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

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

                             Energy Supply





Appropriation, 2003...................................      $696,858,000
Budget Estimate, 2004.................................       748,329,000
Recommended, 2004.....................................       691,534,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2003...............................        -5,324,000
    Budget Estimate, 2004.............................       -56,795,000


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

                       RENEWABLE ENERGY RESOURCES

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

                     RENEWABLE ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES

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

                 DEPARTMENTAL ENERGY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

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

             NATIONAL CLIMATE CHANGE TECHNOLOGY INITIATIVE

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

                     FACILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE

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

                           PROGRAM DIRECTION

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

               ELECTRICITY TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION

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

                        NUCLEAR ENERGY PROGRAMS

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

             UNIVERSITY REACTOR FUEL ASSISTANCE AND SUPPORT

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

                NUCLEAR ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

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

                   RADIOLOGICAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT

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

                      IDAHO FACILITIES MANAGEMENT

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

                 IDAHO SITEWIDE SAFEGUARDS AND SECURITY

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

                           PROGRAM DIRECTION

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

                     ENVIRONMENT, SAFETY AND HEALTH

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

                          FUNDING ADJUSTMENTS

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

                  NON-DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT

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

                Non-Defense Site Acceleration Completion





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


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

                   Non-Defense Environmental Services





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


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

      Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund





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


    Congress created the Uranium Facilities Maintenance and 
Remediation account in fiscal year 2001 to consolidate two 
previously separate programs. The consolidated Uranium 
Facilities Maintenance and Remediation account was managed by 
the Office of Environmental Management and included two 
subaccounts, the Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and 
Decommissioning Fund, and Other Uranium Activities. As 
explained above, beginning in fiscal year 2004 the activities 
previously funded under the Other Uranium Activities subaccount 
are transferred into the new Non-Defense Environmental Services 
account.
    The Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning 
Fund was established by the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (P.L. 
102-486) to carry out environmental remediation at the nation's 
three gaseous diffusion plants, at the East Tennessee 
Technology Park in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, at Portsmouth, Ohio, 
and at Paducah, Kentucky. Title X of the 1992 Act also 
authorized use of a portion of the Fund to reimburse private 
licensees for the Federal government's share of the cost of 
cleaning up uranium and thorium processing sites.
    The Committee recommends $392,002,000 for activities funded 
from the Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning 
Fund, a reduction of $26,122,000 from the budget request. This 
amount includes $341,002,000 for decontamination and 
decommissioning activities at the gaseous diffusion plants and 
$51,000,000 for uranium and thorium reimbursements. In fiscal 
year 2003, the Administration proposed, and Congress agreed to, 
an accelerated cleanup initiative for DOE sites. Sites would 
receive additional funding in the near term in order to 
accelerate cleanup and reduce funding requirements in the 
outyears. The Department's fiscal year 2004 budget request 
assumed that it would reach agreement with all of the involved 
State regulators on accelerated cleanup plans. Where such 
agreement has not been reached, the Committee does not provide 
the additional increment of funding that was requested for 
accelerated cleanup. The $26,122,000 reduction reflects the 
failure to reach agreement on accelerated cleanup for the 
Paducah site.

                                Science





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


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

                          HIGH ENERGY PHYSICS

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

                            NUCLEAR PHYSICS

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

                 BIOLOGICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH

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

                         BASIC ENERGY SCIENCES

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

                 ADVANCED SCIENTIFIC COMPUTING RESEARCH

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

                  SCIENCE LABORATORIES INFRASTRUCTURE

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

                         FUSION ENERGY SCIENCES

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

                        SAFEGUARDS AND SECURITY

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

                     SCIENCE WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT

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

                       SCIENCE PROGRAM DIRECTION

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

                          FUNDING ADJUSTMENTS

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

                         Nuclear Waste Disposal





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


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

                      DEPARTMENTAL ADMINISTRATION


                          GROSS APPROPRIATION




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


                         MISCELLANEOUS REVENUES




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


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

                      Office of Inspector General





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


    The Office of Inspector General performs agency-wide audit, 
inspection, and investigative functions to identify and correct 
management and administrative deficiencies that create 
conditions for existing or potential instances of fraud, waste 
and mismanagement. The audit function provides financial and 
performance audits of programs and operations. The inspections 
function provides independent inspections and analyses of the 
effectiveness, efficiency, and economy of programs and 
operations. The investigative function provides for the 
detection and investigation of improper and illegal activities 
involving programs, personnel, and operations.
    The Committee recommendation is $39,462,000, the same as 
the budget request.

                    Atomic Energy Defense Activities

    The Atomic Energy Defense Activities programs of the 
Department of Energy include the National Nuclear Security 
Administration that consists of Weapons Activities, Defense 
Nuclear Nonproliferation, Naval Reactors, and the Office of the 
Administrator; Defense Environmental Management programs which 
include Site Acceleration Completion and Defense Environmental 
Services; Other Defense Activities; and Defense Nuclear Waste 
Disposal. Descriptions of each of these accounts are provided 
below.

                NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

    The Department of Energy is responsible for enhancing U.S. 
national security through the military application of nuclear 
technology and reducing the global danger from the 
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. The National 
Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), a semi-autonomous 
agency within the Department, carries out these 
responsibilities. Established in March 2000 pursuant to Title 
32 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2000 (Public Law 106-65), NNSA is responsible for the 
management and operation of the Nation's nuclear weapons 
complex, naval reactors, and nuclear nonproliferation 
activities. Three offices within the NNSA carry out the 
Department's national security mission: the Office of Defense 
Programs, the Office of Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation, and 
the Office of Naval Reactors.
    The Committee recommendation for the NNSA is 
$8,508,184,000, a decrease of $326,391,000 from the budget 
request of $8,834,575,000, but an increase of $330,617,000 over 
fiscal year 2003.
    Nuclear weapons budget requirements.--This Committee 
continues to believe that our nation's nuclear arsenal provides 
a vital deterrent to potential aggressors. In order to maintain 
a modern nuclear stockpile, the Nation needs to have a modern, 
efficient, and flexible nuclear weapons complex with the 
necessary design, production, testing, refurbishment, and 
dismantlement capabilities. Unfortunately, the country 
possesses neither a modern stockpile nor a modern nuclear 
weapons complex. Instead, both are largely carryovers from the 
Cold War era. After careful consideration, the Committee has 
concluded that much of the current situation results from a 
flawed budget process. Under the current process, the 
Department of Defense (DoD) establishes the military 
requirements for Nation's nuclear weapons stockpile (i.e., 
numbers and types of warheads), which in turn dictates the 
requirements that DOE must meet to ensure the safety, security, 
and reliability of those weapons. The size, capability and cost 
of DOE's weapons complex is a direct result of the specific 
requirements established by DoD for warhead refurbishments, 
design modifications, testing, and dismantlement. However, when 
DoD develops their requirements their decision process is not 
constrained by the normal types of budget trade-offs that an 
agency confronts in the process of formulating a budget 
request. In effect, DoD sets the requirements and leaves it up 
to DOE to come up with the budget to support the nuclear 
weapons complex each year. If these costs were funded directly 
by DoD, the nuclear weapons activities would be considered 
against other national defense priorities, such as developing 
improved conventional weapons, procuring more of existing 
weapon systems, paying ever-increasing operational and training 
costs, and providing a better quality of life for our soldiers, 
sailors, and airmen. Similarly, if the costs of the nuclear 
weapons complex were solely determined by the DOE, they would 
be balanced against other DOE priorities, such as 
nonproliferation, science research, improving the Nation's 
energy supply, or accelerating the cleanup of contaminated 
sites. Instead, the weapons activities portion of the NNSA 
budget is effectively insulated from any such tradeoffs--DoD 
sets requirements that another agency has to fund, and DOE 
treats the weapons activities budget as untouchable because DoD 
set the requirements.
    There needs to be a serious debate about whether the 
approximately $6 billion spent annually on DOE's nuclear 
weapons complex is a sound national security investment. Until 
that debate occurs and the DOE weapons budget request is 
subject to meaningful budget trade-offs, this Committee will 
not assume that all of the proposed nuclear weapons requests 
are legitimate requirements.
    Future Years Nuclear Security Program.--The Committee 
expects the NNSA Administrator to continue to address the 
deficiencies noted by the Committee in the past so that the 
NNSA's Future Years Nuclear Security Program (FYNSP) can be 
used by both the Department and Congress as an effective multi-
year programming and budgeting resource, which includes 
realistic resource constraints that force meaningful decisions 
on potential tradeoffs between programs. The Committee notes 
particular support for the ongoing effort of the NNSA to 
implement a Planning, Programming, Budgeting and Evaluation 
(PPBE) structure and a budgeting by weapons type budget 
process. The Committee will work with the Department to 
implement a budgeting by weapons type pilot in fiscal year 2004 
and full implementation in fiscal year 2005 and urges the 
Department to maintain a management focus on this transition to 
ensure a successful implementation process.
    The Committee notes that the DOE Inspector General is 
conducting an independent review of the NNSA's PPBE process and 
structure, including its comparability to that of the 
Department of Defense. The early indications from that review 
indicate that the NNSA has made significant progress in 
implementing their planning, programming, budgeting, and 
evaluation process. However, there are several areas where 
improvements need to be made before it is fully operational. 
Specifically, the NNSA needs to address independent cost 
validation of contractor cost estimates that form the basis for 
Department's budget estimates. The Committee will withhold any 
recommendations pending the final IG report.

                           Weapons Activities





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


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

                        DIRECTED STOCKPILE WORK

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

                               CAMPAIGNS

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

               READINESS IN TECHNICAL BASE AND FACILITIES

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

             FACILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE RECAPITALIZATION

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

                      SECURE TRANSPORTATION ASSET

    The Secure Transportation Asset program provides for the 
safe, secure movement of nuclear weapons, special nuclear 
materials, and non-nuclear weapon components between military 
locations and nuclear weapons complex facilities within the 
United States. The Committee recommendation is $182,400,000, 
the same as the budget request.

                        SAFEGUARDS AND SECURITY

    This program provides for all safeguards and security 
requirements at NNSA landlord sites. The Committee 
recommendation is $585,750,000, the same as the budget request. 
Consistent with the recommendation of the House-passed National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004, the Committee 
recommends no funding in the weapons activities safeguards and 
security for the new research and development initiatives in 
cyber and physical security. The Committee notes that security 
R&D; activities are more appropriately funded within the 
Department's Office of Security. The Committee directs an 
additional $10,000,000 for Y-12 National Security Complex to 
implement available security technologies to minimize 
additional manpower increases to meet new security 
requirements. As the Committee noted last year physical 
safeguards and security measures are only part of the solution 
to address security concerns throughout the weapons complex. 
With program needs going unmet and infrastructure 
deteriorating, the Committee strongly encourages the NNSA to 
review these growing costs and seek smarter and more efficient 
ways to meet security needs.

                          FUNDING ADJUSTMENTS

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

                    Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation





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


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

       NONPROLIFERATION AND VERIFICATION RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

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

              NONPROLIFERATION AND INTERNATIONAL SECURITY

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

                 NONPROLIFERATION PROGRAMS WITH RUSSIA

    The Department of Energy funds many nonproliferation 
programs with Russia. These programs help secure Russian 
nuclear weapons materials, prevent the outflow of scientific 
expertise from Russia, eliminate excess nuclear weapons 
materials, and help downsize the Russian nuclear weapons 
complex.
    Limitation on Russian Program Funds.--The Committee remains 
concerned that the Department is not putting a high enough 
management priority on ensuring as much of the funds 
appropriated for the Russian programs as practical, be spent in 
Russia rather than at the Department's own national 
laboratories in the U.S. The Department's contracting 
mechanisms are resulting in excess funds going to pay 
laboratories for contract administration and oversight that 
would be better performed by Federal personnel. The Committee 
expects more direct contracting will be a result of the Nuclear 
Nonproliferation office achieving its Federal staffing goals in 
FY 2004. The Department's national laboratories should be used 
to provide technical oversight and programmatic guidance in 
those areas where they have special expertise.
    The Committee directs that not more than 35 percent of the 
funding for Russian programs may be spent in the United States. 
The Department's failure to review the types of administrative 
and programmatic guidance that are needed for these programs 
and to choose the proper contractual mechanism leads to 
excessive costs for administration and less funding going to 
Russia. The Department should report to the Committee by 
December 15, 2003, on the steps being taken to meet the 35 
percent limitation.

      INTERNATIONAL MATERIALS PROTECTION, CONTROL AND COOPERATION

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

                     RUSSIAN TRANSITION INITIATIVE

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

       HIGHLY ENRICHED URANIUM (HEU) TRANSPARENCY IMPLEMENTATION

    The highly enriched uranium (HEU) transparency 
implementation program develops and implements mutually 
agreeable transparency measures for the February 1993 agreement 
between the United States and the Russian Federation. This 
agreement, which has an estimated value of $12 billion, covers 
the purchase over 20 years of low enriched uranium (LEU) 
derived from 500 metric tons of HEU removed from dismantled 
Russian nuclear weapons. Under the agreement, conversion of HEU 
components into LEU is performed in Russian facilities. The 
Committee recommendation is $18,000,000, the same as the budget 
request.

              INTERNATIONAL NUCLEAR SAFETY AND COOPERATION

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

           ELIMINATION OF WEAPONS-GRADE PLUTONIUM PRODUCTION

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

                    ACCELERATED MATERIAL DISPOSITION

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

                     FISSILE MATERIALS DISPOSITION

    The fissile materials disposition program is responsible 
for the technical and management activities to assess, plan and 
direct efforts to provide for the safe, secure, environmentally 
sound long-term storage of all weapons-usable fissile materials 
and the disposition of fissile materials declared surplus to 
national defense needs.
    The Committee recommendation is $656,505,000, the same as 
the budget request. Funding of $193,805,000 is provided for 
U.S. surplus materials disposition and $47,100,000 for the 
Russian plutonium disposition program.
    The U.S. portion of the fissile materials disposition 
program is not to be counted in the 35 percent limitation on 
funds for Russian programs to be spent in the U.S.
    Construction projects.--The Committee recommendation 
includes $402,000,000 for Project 99-D-143, the Mixed Oxide 
Fuel Fabrication facility project. Funding of $13,600,000 is 
provided for Project 99-D-141, the Pit Disassembly and 
Conversion Facility project.

                          FUNDING ADJUSTMENTS

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

                             Naval Reactors





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


    The Naval Reactors program is responsible for all aspects 
of naval nuclear propulsion--from technology development 
through reactor operations to ultimate reactor plant disposal. 
The program provides for the design, development, testing, and 
evaluation of improved naval nuclear propulsion plants and 
reactor cores. These efforts are critical to ensuring the 
safety and reliability of 102 operating Naval reactor plants 
and to developing the next generation reactor. The Committee 
recommendation is $768,400,000, the same as the budget request.

                      Office of the Administrator





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


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

               Environmental and Other Defense Activities


                    Defense Environmental Management





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


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

                  Defense Site Acceleration Completion

    The Defense Site Acceleration Completion account is a new 
account largely incorporating the programs, projects, and 
activities from the previous site/project completion and post-
2006 completion subaccounts within the Defense Environmental 
Restoration and Waste Management account, the site closure 
activities within the Defense Facilities Closure Projects 
account, and the Defense Environmental Management Privatization 
account, as well as the Environmental Management Cleanup Reform 
initiative proposed by the Department in fiscal year 2003. The 
Committee recommendation for defense site acceleration 
completion in fiscal year 2004 is $5,758,278,000, a reduction 
of $56,357,000 from the budget request of $5,814,635,000.
    Reprogramming Authority.--The Committee continues to 
support the need for flexibility to meet changing funding 
requirements at sites which are undergoing accelerated cleanup 
activities. In fiscal year 2004, each site manager may transfer 
up to $5,000,000 between Defense Site Acceleration Completion 
subaccounts (i.e., accelerated completions 2006, accelerated 
completions 2012, accelerated completions 2035, and line item 
construction projects) to reduce health or safety risks or to 
gain cost savings as long as no program or project is increased 
or decreased by more than $5,000,000 once during the fiscal 
year. This reprogramming authority may not be used to initiate 
new programs or programs specifically denied, limited, or 
increased by Congress in the Act or report. The Committees on 
Appropriations in the House and Senate must be notified within 
thirty days of the use of this reprogramming authority.
    Accelerated Completions, 2006.--The Committee 
recommendation provides $1,242,751,000, a reduction of 
$2,420,000 from the budget request to reflect the lack of 
regulatory agreement on accelerated 2006 cleanup activities for 
the Sandia National Laboratories. This funding supports the 
closure by the year 2006 of the Rocky Flats, West Jefferson, 
Fernald, Miamisburg, and Ashtabula sites, and the completion of 
significant cleanup projects at various other sites such as 
Melton Valley.
    Accelerated Completions, 2012.--The Committee 
recommendation provides $2,216,587,000, a reduction of 
$11,727,000 from the budget request to reflect the lack of 
regulatory agreement on accelerated 2012 cleanup activities for 
the Los Alamos National Laboratory and the Pantex site. This 
amount includes the requested funding of $23,500,000 for 
project engineering and design of two projects at the Savannah 
River Site (SRS) and the Idaho National Engineering and 
Environmental Laboratory (INEEL) (project 04-D-414), $1,134,000 
for construction of container surveillance capability at SRS 
(project 04-D-423), $1,126,000 for construction of the INTEC 
cathodic protection system expansion project at INEEL (project 
02-D-402), and $690,000,000 for construction of the Waste 
Treatment and Immobilization Plant at Hanford (project 01-D-
416).
    Accelerated Completions, 2035.--The Committee 
recommendation provides $1,961,387,000, a reduction of 
$17,210,000 from the budget request to reflect the lack of 
regulatory agreement on accelerated 2035 cleanup activities for 
the Los Alamos National Laboratory. This amount includes the 
requested funding of $13,954,000 for construction of the 
Immobilized High Level Waste Interim Storage Facility at 
Hanford (project 03-D-403), $51,500,000 to continue design of 
the Salt Waste Processing Facility Alternative at SRS (project 
03-D-414), and $20,259,000 for construction of Glass Waste 
Storage Building #2 at SRS (project 04-D-408).
    Safeguards and Security.--The Committee recommendation 
provides $299,977,000, the same as the budget request.
    Technology Development and Deployment.--The Committee 
recommendation provides $63,920,000, the same as the budget 
request. Within available funds, the Committee provides 
$5,000,000 to continue the five-year international agreement 
with AEA Technology, and $7,000,000 to continue the five-year 
agreement with Florida International University's Hemispheric 
Center for Environmental Technology.
    Funding adjustments.--The Committee recommendation includes 
an offset of $1,344,000, the same as the budget request, for 
the security costs associated with reimbursable work, and a 
general reduction of $25,000,000 to be applied primarily to 
activities with the least impact on near-term cleanup and 
closure.

                     DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES

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

                        Other Defense Activities





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


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

                     ENERGY SECURITY AND ASSURANCE

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

                           OFFICE OF SECURITY

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

                         OFFICE OF INTELLIGENCE

    The intelligence program provides information and technical 
analyses on international arms proliferation, foreign nuclear 
programs, and other energy related matters to policy makers in 
the Department and other U.S. Government agencies. The focus of 
the Department's intelligence analysis and reporting is on 
emerging proliferant nations, nuclear technology transfers, 
foreign nuclear materials production, and proliferation 
implications of the breakup of the Former Soviet Union. The 
Committee recommendation is $39,823,000, the same as the budget 
request.

                     OFFICE OF COUNTERINTELLIGENCE

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

            INDEPENDENT OVERSIGHT AND PERFORMANCE ASSURANCE

    The Office of Independent Oversight and Performance 
Assurance is the focal point for independent evaluation of 
safeguards, security, emergency management, and cyber security. 
The Committee recommendation is $22,575,000, the same as the 
budget request.

                ENVIRONMENT, SAFETY AND HEALTH (DEFENSE)

    The Office of Environment, Safety and Health develops 
programs and policies to protect the workers and the public, 
conducts independent oversight of performance, and funds health 
effects studies. The Committee recommendation is $107,686,000, 
the same as the budget request. With a significant Headquarters 
staff of Federal employees, the Committee continues to believe 
that outside contractor assistance can be reduced.
    The recommendation for health effects studies is 
$48,160,000, the same as the budget request. The Department 
funds several programs for occupational medicine, public health 
studies, and epidemiologic monitoring. The Committee expects 
the Department to review all these activities to achieve 
efficiencies through consolidation.

                    WORKER AND COMMUNITY TRANSITION

    The Committee's recommendation for the worker and community 
transition program is $15,000,000, the same as the budget 
request. Funding has remained stable or increased in many 
Departmental programs, and there are no significant contractor 
reductions requiring additional funds in fiscal year 2004. The 
Committee has provided $1,400,000 from within available funds 
for the Pinellas Community Reuse Organization to complete the 
STAR Center transition. The Committee directs that none of the 
funds provided for this program be used for additional 
severance payments and benefits for Federal employees.
    The worker and community transition program was established 
to mitigate the impacts on workers and communities of 
contractor workforce reductions as a result of the end of the 
Cold War. Funds are provided for enhanced severance payments to 
employees at former defense sites, and for assisting community 
planning for defense conversion through Federal grants. 
However, the cost of this program has not been insignificant 
and now exceeds $1 billion. With program funds increasing in 
fiscal year 2003 and fiscal year 2004 at NNSA and environmental 
cleanup sites, the Committee sees no need to increase funding 
for severance benefits above the budget request for fiscal year 
2004.
    Program direction.--The Committee recommendation of 
$2,679,000 for program direction, the same as the budget 
request.

                           LEGACY MANAGEMENT

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

                FUNDING FOR DEFENSE ACTIVITIES IN IDAHO

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

           NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT

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

                     OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

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

                          FUNDING ADJUSTMENTS

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

                     Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal





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


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

                      Cerro Grande Fire Activities

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

                    Power Marketing Administrations

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

                    BONNEVILLE POWER ADMINISTRATION

    The Bonneville Power Administration is the Department of 
Energy's marketing agency for electric power in the Pacific 
Northwest. Bonneville provides electricity to a 300,000 square 
mile service area in the Columbia River drainage basin. 
Bonneville markets the power from Federal hydropower projects 
in the Northwest, as well as power from non-Federal generating 
facilities in the region, and exchanges and markets surplus 
power with Canada and California.
    The Committee continues to have concerns about Bonneville's 
financial situation, particularly in light of the $700 million 
in additional borrowing authority provided to Bonneville in the 
Energy and Water Development Act, 2003. At the same time that 
the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations were 
conferencing the fiscal year 2003 appropriations bill and 
deciding whether to provide this additional borrowing 
authority, Bonneville realized that it had a 74 percent 
probability that it would miss its loan repayment to the 
Federal Treasury in fiscal year 2003. Unfortunately, Bonneville 
neglected to inform Congress of this critical change in its 
financial circumstances until after the fiscal year 2003 
appropriations conference was completed.
    The Committee has asked the General Accounting Office (GAO) 
to conduct a thorough review of the Bonneville Power 
Administration. The GAO has provided the following preliminary 
findings and observations: (1) increasing borrowing authority 
for the transmission side of BPA will increase BPA's overall 
costs but will not resolve its current financial difficulties 
on the power generation side of BPA (i.e., low cash reserves 
and poor bond rating); (2) BPA is currently overextended as a 
result of committing to provide more power than it can generate 
from the Federal hydropower system, creating greater volatility 
in costs and revenues; (3) stakeholders see a lack of 
sufficient oversight and a lack of incentives to control costs; 
and (4) the present rate structure insulates customers from 
natural fluctuations in hydropower availability, thus 
eliminating any price signal when electricity is scarce. The 
net result is that Bonneville continues to operate at 
significant financial risk, which impacts both ratepayers in 
the region and taxpayers in the rest of the country.
    The Committee directs the Secretary to conduct an 
independent review of Bonneville's mission, management, and 
financial condition to address the GAO findings and 
conclusions. The Committee expects the Secretary to make 
specific recommendations to Congress to show how Bonneville 
might focus its mission on delivering the electricity generated 
by the Federal hydropower system and reduce the risk to the 
ratepayers in the region and to the Federal Treasury. The 
Secretary should submit this report to the House and Senate 
Committees on Appropriations not later than December 31, 2004.

      Operation and Maintenance, Southeastern Power Administration





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


    The Southeastern Power Administration markets the 
hydroelectric power produced at 23 Corps of Engineers projects 
in eleven states in the Southeast. Southeastern does not own or 
operate any transmission facilities, so it contracts to 
``wheel'' its power using the existing transmission facilities 
of area utilities.
    The Committee recommendation for the Southeastern Power 
Administration is $5,100,000, the same as the budget request. 
The total program level for Southeastern in fiscal year 2003 is 
$39,100,000, with $34,000,000 for purchase power and wheeling 
and $5,100,000 for program direction. The purchase power and 
wheeling costs will be offset by collections of $34,000,000. 
The offsetting collections total of $34,000,000 includes 
$15,000,000 made available in Public Law 106-377 for use in 
fiscal year 2004, plus an additional $19,000,000 provided in 
this Act.

      Operation and Maintenance, Southwestern Power Administration





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


    The Southwestern Power Administration markets the 
hydroelectric power produced at 24 Corps of Engineers projects 
in the six-state area of Arkansas, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, 
Oklahoma and Texas. Southwestern operates and maintains 1,380 
miles of transmission lines, with the supporting substations 
and communications sites. Southwestern gives preference in the 
sale of its power to publicly and cooperatively owned 
utilities.
    The Committee recommendation for the Southwestern Power 
Administration is $28,600,000, the same as the budget request. 
The total program level for Southwestern in fiscal year 2004 is 
$30,400,000, including $4,663,000 for operating expenses, 
$1,800,000 for purchase power and wheeling, $19,205,000 for 
program direction, and $4,732,000 for construction. The offset 
of $1,800,000 from collections for purchase power and wheeling 
yields a net appropriation of $27,378,000. The offsetting 
collections total of $1,800,000 includes $288,000 made 
available in Public Law 106-377 for use in fiscal year 2004, 
plus an additional $1,512,000 provided in this Act. The 
Committee recommendation also provides authority for 
Southwestern to accept advances from non-Federal entities to 
provide interconnections to Southwestern's transmission system.

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





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


    The Western Area Power Administration is responsible for 
marketing the electric power generated by the Bureau of 
Reclamation, the Corps of Engineers, and the International 
Boundary and Water Commission. Western also operates and 
maintains a system of transmission lines nearly 17,000 miles 
long. Western provides electricity to 15 Central and Western 
states over a service area of 1.3 million square miles.
    The Committee recommendation for the Western Area Power 
Administration is $171,000,000, the same as the budget request. 
The total program level for Western in fiscal year 2003 is 
$360,992,000, which includes $12,200,000 for construction and 
rehabilitation, $36,204,000 for system operation and 
maintenance, $186,000,000 for purchase power and wheeling, and 
$126,588,000 for program direction. Consistent with the budget 
request, no funds are provided for Utah mitigation and 
conservation. Offsetting collections for purchase power and 
wheeling total $186,000,000; with the use of $3,992,000 of 
offsetting collections from the Colorado River Dam Fund (as 
authorized in P.L. 98-381), this requires a net appropriation 
of $171,000,000. The offsetting collections for purchase power 
and wheeling includes $20,000,000 made available in Public Law 
106-377 for use in fiscal year 2004, plus an additional 
$166,000,000 provided in this Act.
    Within available funds, the Committee recommendation 
includes $4,825,000 for upgrades of the Phoenix substation.

           Falcon and Amistad Operating and Maintenance Fund





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


    Falcon Dam and Amistad Dam are two international water 
projects located on the Rio Grande River between Texas and 
Mexico. Power generated by hydroelectric facilities at these 
two dams is sold to public utilities through the Western Area 
Power Administration. The Foreign Relations Authorization Act 
for Fiscal Years 1994 and 1995 created the Falcon and Amistad 
Operating and Maintenance Fund to defray the costs of 
operation, maintenance, and emergency activities. The Fund is 
administered by the Western Area Power Administration for use 
by the Commissioner of the U.S. Section of the International 
Boundary and Water Commission.
    The Committee recommendation is $2,640,000, the same as the 
budget request.

                  Federal Energy Regulatory Commission


                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES




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


                            REVENUES APPLIED




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


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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

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


                           General Provisions


                          DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

    Contract Competition.--The Committee is very concerned that 
the Department continues to maintain a number of management and 
operating (M&O;) contracts that have never been competed, some 
since their inception over 60 years ago. The general provision 
carried in previous Energy and Water Development Appropriations 
Acts, requiring competition of these contracts but allowing the 
Secretary to waive the requirement upon notification to 
Congress, has not been effective in changing the Department's 
continued reliance on noncompetitive contract awards and 
contract extensions. Therefore, this Committee has included 
bill language barring the use of appropriated funds to continue 
to pay for M&O; contracts that have not been competitively 
awarded within the past fifty fiscal years (i.e., since fiscal 
year 1954). For M&O; contracts that have not been competitively 
awarded within that time period, the Department may continue to 
fund such contracts only if the Secretary announces his intent 
to compete these contracts when their current terms expire. The 
Secretary must publish such notification in the Federal 
Register, and must submit a written notification to the House 
and Senate Committees on Appropriations, within 60 days of 
enactment of this Act. The specific reference to section 
303(c)(1) of the Title III of the Federal Property and 
Administrative Services Act of 1949 (41 U.S.C. 253(c)(3)) in 
included to ensure that the Department does not continue to use 
the status of DOE laboratories as federally funded research and 
development centers (FFRDCs) as an excuse for not competing 
these laboratory contracts.
    It is not the Committee's intent to disrupt contracts that 
have been competitively awarded in recent years (e.g., 
Brookhaven, NREL, Sandia), nor to undo decisions the Secretary 
has already made to extend non-competitively the existing 
contracts at Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory and Pacific Northwest 
National Laboratory. However, the Committee does intend to 
change the Department's contracting practice going forward. The 
Committee is hopeful that the Secretary's Blue Ribbon 
Commission on the Use of Competitive Procedures for DOE 
Laboratories will be able to provide the Secretary with 
specific guidance on how to evaluate the performance of the 
incumbent contractors, how to structure a full and open 
competition that is fair to incumbents and competitors alike, 
and how to compete the contracts for those laboratories 
situated on university property. The Committee also expects 
that these changes will help to stimulate a larger pool of 
qualified for-profit, non-profit, and academic contractors to 
compete for these M&O; contracts.
    To the Department's credit, it has recently announced its 
intent to compete the M&O; contracts for the Idaho National 
Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL) and for the 
Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), and has made significant 
improvements in competing the contracts for the cleanup of 
Environmental Management sites. However, the Secretary has 
imposed several conditions on the competition of the LANL 
contract that this Committee believes will unduly bias any 
competition in favor of the incumbent LANL contractor. 
Specifically, the Secretary has directed that any competition 
of the LANL contract must protect all of the existing workforce 
and all of the pension benefits of the existing workforce. In 
addition, the Administrator of the National Nuclear Security 
Administration (NNSA) has recently suggested that the incumbent 
contractor for LANL may be able to charge its proposal 
preparation costs to the existing contract. Any incumbent 
contractor already enjoys enormous advantages over potential 
competitors in proposal preparation, both in terms of having a 
known record of performance and of having inside knowledge of 
lab operations that other competitors will not have. The 
Department should not offer to pay the incumbent's proposal 
costs unless the Department is prepared to offer the same 
benefit to all competitors, an obviously expensive and 
impractical solution. Therefore, the Committee includes bill 
language prohibiting the inclusion of any condition to an M&O; 
contract that has the effect of biasing the competition in 
favor of the incumbent contractor or otherwise establishing 
something less than full and open competition. The prohibition 
on such conditions does not extend to defining the scope of the 
contract, for which the incumbent enjoys a natural advantage, 
or to crediting the incumbent's past performance when 
evaluating its qualifications for a future contract.
    Limitation on Benefits for Federal Employees.--Section 302 
provides that none of the funds in this Act may be used to 
prepare or implement workforce restructuring plans or provide 
enhanced severance payments and other benefits and community 
assistance grants for Federal employees of the Department of 
Energy under section 3161 of the National Defense Authorization 
Act of Fiscal Year 1993, Public Law 102-484. The Committee has 
provided no funds to implement workforce restructuring plans 
which would provide benefits to Federal employees of the 
Department of Energy which are not available to other Federal 
employees of the United States Government. This provision was 
included in the Energy and Water Development Appropriations 
Act, 2003.
    Limitation on Funding for Section 3161 Benefits.--Section 
303 provides that none of the funds in this Act may be used to 
augment the $15,000,000 made available for obligation in this 
Act for enhanced severance payments to contractors and other 
benefits and community assistance grants authorized under the 
provisions of section 3161 of the National Defense 
Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 1993, Public Law 102-484. This 
provision was included in the Energy and Water Development 
Appropriations Act, 2003.
    Limitation on Initiation of Requests for Proposals.--
Section 304 provides that none of the funds in this Act may be 
used to initiate requests for proposals or expressions of 
interest for new programs which have not yet been presented to 
Congress in the annual budget submission, and which have not 
yet been approved and funded by Congress. This provision was 
included in the Energy and Water Development Appropriations 
Act, 2003.
    Transfer and Merger of Unexpended Balances.--Section 305 
permits the transfer and merger of unexpended balances of prior 
appropriations with appropriation accounts established in this 
bill. This provision was included in the Energy and Water 
Development Appropriations Act, 2003.
    Limitation on Bonneville Power Administration.--Section 306 
provides that none of the funds in this or any other Act may be 
used by the Administrator of the Bonneville Power 
Administration to perform energy efficiency services outside 
the legally defined Bonneville service territory unless the 
Administrator certifies in advance that such services are not 
available from private sector businesses. This provision was 
included in the Energy and Water Development Appropriations 
Act, 2003.
    User Facilities.--Section 307 establishes certain notice 
and competition requirements with respect to the involvement of 
universities in Department of Energy user facilities. This 
provision was included in the Energy and Water Development 
Appropriations Act, 2003. The detailed guidance on the 
application of this provision was provided in House Report 107-
681 and continues to apply.
    Research, Development and Demonstration Activities.--
Section 308 provides authority for up to 2 percent of national 
security funding at the Kansas City, Pantex, and Y-12 plants, 
the Savannah River Plant, and the Nevada Test Site to be used 
for research, development, and demonstration activities. This 
provision was included in the Energy and Water Development 
Appropriations Act, 2003.
    Authorization of Intelligence Activities.--Section 309 
authorizes intelligence activities of the Department of Energy 
for purposes of section 504 of the National Security Act of 
1947 during fiscal year 2004 until the enactment of the 
Intelligence Authorization Act for fiscal year 2004.
    Authorization for Continued External Regulation Analyses.--
Section 310 provides that, notwithstanding any other provision 
of law, the Secretary of Energy shall proceed with planning and 
analyses for external regulation of the Department's 
laboratories under the Office of Science.
                                TITLE IV

                          INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

                    Appalachian Regional Commission




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


    The Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC) is a regional 
economic development agency established in 1965. It is composed 
of the Governors of the thirteen Appalachian states and a 
Federal Co-Chairman who is appointed by the President. The 
Committee recommendation is $33,145,000, the same as the budget 
request.

                Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board

                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES




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


    The Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board was created by 
the Fiscal Year 1989 National Defense Authorization Act. The 
Board, composed of five members appointed by the President, 
provides advice and recommendations to the Secretary of Energy 
regarding public health and safety issues at the Department's 
defense nuclear facilities. The Board is responsible for 
reviewing and evaluating the content and implementation of the 
standards relating to the design, construction, operation, and 
decommissioning of defense nuclear facilities of the Department 
of Energy.
    The Committee recommendation is $19,559,000, the same as 
the budget request.

                        Delta Regional Authority




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


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

                           Denali Commission




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


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

                     Nuclear Regulatory Commission




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


                                REVENUES




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


                           NET APPROPRIATION




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


    The Committee recommendation for the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission (NRC) salaries and expenses is $618,800,000, the 
same as the budget request. This amount is offset by estimated 
revenues of $538,844,000, resulting in a net appropriation of 
$79,956,000. The recommendation includes the requested amount 
of $33,100,000 to be made available from the Nuclear Waste Fund 
to support the Department of Energy's effort to develop a 
permanent geologic repository for spent nuclear fuel and high-
level waste.
    Fee Recovery.--Pursuant to the agreement reached in fiscal 
year 2001, the NRC is required in fiscal year 2004 to recover 
92 percent of its budget authority, less the appropriation from 
the Nuclear Waste Fund, by assessing license and annual fees. 
Of the $618,800,000 gross appropriation, $33,100,000 is drawn 
from the Nuclear Waste Fund, 92 percent of the balance of 
$585,700,000 (i.e., $538,844,000) is funded by fees collected 
from NRC licensees, and the remaining eight percent (i.e., 
$46,856,000) is funded from the General Fund of the Treasury. 
This amount funded from the General Fund is available to fund 
those activities, such as NRC corporate homeland security 
expenses, that may not be appropriate to assess to NRC 
licensees.
    Repository Licensing.--The Committee is concerned about the 
extent of documentation that the Department of Energy may be 
required to post as part of the License Support Network (LSN). 
The Committee has provided guidance in Title III of this report 
directing DOE that Congressional communications between the 
Members and staffs of the House and Senate Committees on 
Appropriations and the Department are not to be included in 
documentation the Department posts on the LSN. The Committee 
encourages the Commission to review its regulatory requirements 
and guidance regarding the LSN to ensure they do not require 
duplication of information otherwise easily obtainable, focus 
on information that is truly relevant to substantive decisions 
that will have to be made, and establishes a timeframe in 
accord with the traditional conduct of an adjudicatory 
proceeding. The Committee expects the Commission to work with 
the Department to ensure that all significant and relevant 
documents are made available in the License Support Network to 
support sound decisionmaking on the License Application, but to 
also ensure that the care and feeding of the License Support 
Network does not expand to consume a disproportionate amount of 
DOE and NRC resources.
    Reports.--The Committee directs the Commission to continue 
to provide monthly reports on the status of its licensing and 
other regulatory activities.

                      Office of Inspector General

                          Gross Appropriation





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


                                Revenues





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


                           Net Appropriation





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


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

                  Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board





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


    The Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board was established by 
the 1987 amendments to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 to 
provide independent technical oversight of the Department of 
Energy's nuclear waste disposal program. The Committee sees the 
Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board as having a continuing 
independent oversight role, as is specified in Section 503 of 
the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended, as the 
Department begins to focus on the packaging or transportation 
of high-level radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel.
    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $3,179,000 for 
the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board, the same as the 
budget request and a decrease of $2,000 from fiscal year 2003 
funding.
                                TITLE V

                           GENERAL PROVISIONS

    The Committee recommendation includes several general 
provisions pertaining to specific programs and activities 
funded in the Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill.
    Prohibition on Lobbying.--Section 501 provides that none of 
the funds appropriated by this Act may be used in any way, 
directly or indirectly, to influence congressional action on 
any legislation or appropriation matters pending before 
Congress, other than to communicate to Members of Congress as 
described in section 1913 of Title 18, United States Code.
    Buy American.--Section 502 requires that American-made 
equipment and goods be purchased to the greatest extent 
practicable.
    Transfer of Funds.--Section 503 provides that none of the 
funds made available in this Act may be transferred to any 
department, agency, or instrumentality of the United States 
Government, except pursuant to a transfer made by, or transfer 
authority provided in, this Act or any other appropriation Act.
              HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES REPORT REQUIREMENTS

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

                        Constitutional Authority

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

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

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

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

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

                   Comparison With Budget Resolution

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

                                            [In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   302(b) allocation                       This bill
                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Budget authority       Outlays      Budget authority       Outlays
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary...........................            27,080            27,211            27,080            27,173
Mandatory...............................  ................  ................  ................  ................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

         Statement of General Performance Goals and Objectives

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

                     Five-Year Outlays Projections

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

                                                                Millions
Budget Authority..............................................    27,080
Outlays:
    2004......................................................    17,975
    2005......................................................     7,786
    2006......................................................     1,285
    2007......................................................        22
    2008 and beyond...........................................         7

               Assistance to State and Local Governments

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

                                                                Millions
Budget Authority..............................................        32
Fiscal year 2004 outlays resulting therefrom..................         3

                           Transfer of Funds

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

          * * * of which $57,330,000 shall be available for 
        transfer to the Upper Colorado River Basin Fund and 
        $33,570,000 shall be available for transfer to the 
        Lower Colorado River Basin Development Fund; of which 
        such amounts as may be necessary may be advanced to the 
        Colorado River Dam Fund; * * *
          * * * Provided, That such transfers may be increased 
        or decreased within the overall appropriations under 
        this heading: * * *
          * * * Provided further, That $10,000,000 of the funds 
        appropriated herein shall be deposited in the San 
        Gabriel Restoration Fund established by section 110 of 
        division B, Title I of Public Law 106-554, as amended * 
        * *

    Under Title III, Weapons Activities:

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

    Under Title III, Environmental Cleanup Reform:

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

    Under Title III, General Provisions:

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

               Changes in the Application of Existing Law

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

                      TITLE I--CORPS OF ENGINEERS

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

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

    Language has been included under Operation and Maintenance, 
General, providing for construction, operation, and maintenance 
of outdoor recreation facilities and permitting the use of 
funds from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund.
    Language has been included under the Regulatory Program 
regarding the regulation of navigable waters and wetlands.
    Lanaguage has been included under General Expenses 
regarding support of the Humphreys Engineer Support Center 
Activity, the Institute for Water Resources and headquarters 
support functions at the USACE Finance Center. Language is also 
included under General Expenses prohibiting the use of other 
title I funds for the Office of the Chief of Engineers and the 
division offices. Language is also included prohibiting the use 
of funds to support an office of congressional affairs within 
the executive office of the Chief of Engineers.
    Lanaguage has been included under Administrative Provision 
providing that funds are available for purchase and hire of 
motor vehicles.
    Language is included under General Provisions as follows:
    Sec. 101. The Committee has included language proposed by 
the Administration which places a limit on credits and 
reimbursements allowable per project and annually for all 
projects.
    Sec. 102. The Committee has included language prohibiting 
the expenditure of funds related to a proposed landfill in 
Tuscarawas County, Ohio.
    Sec. 103. The Committee has included language prohibiting 
the expenditure of funds related to a proposed landfill in 
Stark County, Ohio.
    Sec. 104. The Committee has included language renaming Lock 
and Dam 3 on the Allegheny River in Pennsylvania.

                    TITLE II--DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR

    Language has been included under Water and Related 
Resources providing that funds are available for fulfilling 
Federal responsibilities to Native Americans and for grants to 
and cooperative agreements with state and local governments and 
Indian tribes. Language is included under Water and Related 
Resources providing that such sums as necessary may be advanced 
to the Colorado River Dam Fund. Language is included under 
Water and Related Resources which permits fund transfers within 
the overall appropriation to the Upper Colorado River Basin 
Fund and the Lower Colorado River Basin Development Fund. 
Language is included under Water and Related Resources 
providing that funds may be used for work carried out by the 
Youth Conservation Corps. Language is included under Water and 
Related Resources providing that funds may be derived from the 
Reclamation Fund or the special fee account established by 16 
U.S.C. 4601-6a(i). Language is included under Water and Related 
Resources which provides that funds contributed by non-Federal 
entities shall be available for expenditure. Language is 
included providing that funds advanced for operation and 
maintenance of reclamation facilities are to be credited to the 
Water and Related Resources account. Language is also included 
permitting the use of funds available for the Departmental 
Irrigation Drainage Program for site remediation on a non-
reimbursable basis. Language is included under Water and 
Related Resources providing that $10,000,000 shall be deposited 
in the San Gabriel Basin Restoration Fund. Language is included 
under Water and Related Resources amending the Reclamation 
States Emergency Drought Relief Act.
    Language has been included under the Bureau of Reclamation 
Loan Program Account providing that funds may be derived from 
the Reclamation Fund.
    Language has been included under the Central Valley Project 
Restoration Fund directing the Bureau of Reclamation to assess 
and collect the full amount of additional mitigation and 
restoration payments authorized by section 3407(d) of Public 
Law 102-575. Language is included under the Central Valley 
Project Restoration Fund providing that none of the funds 
provided may be used for the acquisition or lease of water for 
in-stream purposes if the water is already committed to in-
stream purposes be a court adopted decree or order.
    Language has been included under Policy and Administration 
providing that funds may be derived from the Reclamation Fund 
and providing that no part of any other appropriation in the 
Act may be used for activities budgeted as policy and 
administration expenses.
    Language has been included under the Working Capital Fund 
rescinding unobligated balances.
    Language has been provided under General Provisions as 
follows:
    Section 201. The Committee has included language proposed 
by the Administration regarding the San Luis Unit and the 
Kesterson Reservoir in California. This language has been 
included in Energy and Water Development Appropriations Acts 
for several years.
    Section 202. The Committee has included language which 
prohibits the use of funds for any water acquisition or lease 
in the Middle Rio Grande or Carlsbad Projects in New Mexico 
unless the acquisition is in compliance with existing State law 
and administered under State priority allocation.
    Section 203. The Committee has included language which 
amends Section 206 of Public Law 101-514 regarding water supply 
contracts for the Sacramento County Water Agency and the San 
Juan Suburban Water District by removing the requirement that 
the contracts include an annual needs determination.
    Section 204. The Committee has included language which 
authorizes and directs the Secretary of the Interior to amend 
the Central Valley Project water supply contracts for the 
Sacramento County Water Agency and the San Juan Suburban Water 
District by deleting a provision requiring a determination of 
annual water needs.
    Section 205. The Committee has included language which 
provides that funds in the Lower Colorado River Basin 
Development Fund shall not be diverted to the General Fund of 
the Treasury pending the completion of an omnibus Arizona water 
rights settlement agreement.
    Section 206. The Committee has included language which 
provides that funds provided to the Bureau of Reclamation may 
be used for the payment of claims not exceeding $5,000,000.

                    TITLE III--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

    Language has been included under Energy Supply providing 
for the purchase of not to exceed 12 passenger motor vehicles 
of replacement only, including 2 buses.
    Language has been included under Science providing for the 
purchase of not to exceed 15 passenger motor vehicles for 
replacement only, including not to exceed one ambulance.
    Language has been included under Nuclear Waste Disposal 
providing that none of the funds provided in this or any other 
appropriations Act may be used for the planning, design, or 
development of the rail corridors that pass near the Las Vegas 
Metropolitan Area, specifically the Valley Modified Corridor 
and the Jean Corridor, and providing that $65,000,000 of the 
$70,000,000 made available in this Act for Nevada rail 
transportation shall be available only if the Secretary 
designates rail as the preferred mode of transportation within 
Nevada and selects a Nevada rail corridor within 60 days of 
enactment of this Act and commences the necessary environmental 
and engineering analysis to develop and issue a record of 
Decision for a specific rail alignment within the selected rail 
corridor by June 30, 2005.
    Language has been included under the Nuclear Waste Disposal 
providing that funds appropriated to the State of Nevada shall 
be made solely to the Nevada Division of Emergency Management 
for oversight activities.
    Language has been included under Departmental 
Administration notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, and consistent 
with the authorization in Public Law 95-238, to permit the 
Department of Energy to use revenues to offset appropriations. 
The appropriations language for this account reflects the total 
estimated program funding to be reduced as revenues are 
received. This language has been carried in prior 
appropriations Acts.
    Language has been included under Departmental 
Administration providing that notwithstanding the provisions of 
the Anti-Deficiency Act, such additional amounts as necessary 
to cover increases in the estimated amount of cost of work for 
others, as long as such increases are offset by revenue 
increases of the same or greater amounts.
    Language has been included under Departmental 
Administration providing not to exceed $35,000 for official 
reception and representation expenses.
    Language has been included under Naval Reactors providing 
for the purchase of not to exceed one bus.
    Language has been included under the Office of the 
Administrator providing not to exceed $12,000 for official 
reception and representation expenses.
    Language has been included under Naval Reactors providing 
for the purchase of not to exceed one ambulance for replacement 
only.
    Language has been included rescinding $75,000,000 
previously appropriated for Cerro Grande Fire activities.
    Language has been included under the Bonneville Power 
Administration account providing not to exceed $1,500 for 
official reception and representation expenses, and precluding 
any new direct loan obligations in fiscal year 2004.
    Language has been included under Southwestern Power 
Administration providing that, notwithstanding the provisions 
of 31 U.S.C. 3302, amounts collected to recover purchase power 
and wheeling expenses shall be credited to the account as 
offsetting collections and remain available until expended for 
the sole purpose of making purchase power and wheeling 
expenditures.
    Language has been included under Southwestern Power 
Administration to permit Southwestern to utilize 
reimbursements, notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, and to provide 
not to exceed $1,500 for official reception and representation 
expenses. This language has been carried in previous 
appropriations Acts.
    Language has been included under Southwestern Power 
Administration providing that, notwithstanding the provisions 
of 31 U.S.C. 3302, amounts collected to recover purchase power 
and wheeling expenses shall be credited to the account as 
offsetting collections and remain available until expended for 
the sole purpose of making purchase power and wheeling 
expenditures.
    Language has been included under Southwestern Power 
Administration providing that notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, 
beginning in fiscal year 2004 and thereafter such funds as are 
received by the Southwestern Power Administration from any 
state, municipality, corporation, association, firm, district, 
or individual as advance payment for work that is associated 
with Southwestern's transmission facilities, consistent with 
that authorized in section 5 of the Flood Control Act, shall be 
credited to this account and be available until expended.
    Language has been included under the Construction, 
Rehabilitation, Operation and Maintenance, Western Area Power 
Administration account providing not to exceed $1,500 for 
official reception and representation expenses.
    Language has been included under Construction, 
Rehabilitation, Operation and Maintenance, Western Area Power 
Administration providing that, not withstanding the provisions 
of 31 U.S.C. 3302, amounts collected to recover purchase power 
and wheeling expenses shall be credited to the account as 
offsetting collections and remain available until expended for 
the sole purpose of making purchase power and wheeling 
expenditures.
    Language has been included under the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission to permit the hire of passenger motor 
vehicles, to provide official reception and representation 
expenses, and to permit the use of revenues collected to reduce 
the appropriation as revenues are received. This language has 
been included in previous appropriate acts.
    Language has been included under Department of Energy, 
General Provisions, providing that no funds may be used to pay 
for management and operating contracts that have not been 
competitively awarded within the past fifty fiscal years unless 
the Secretary, within 60 days of enactment, announces his 
intent to compete those contracts when the current contract 
term expires.
    Language has been included under Department of Energy, 
General Provisions, prohibiting the use of funds to prepare 
workforce restructuring plans or to provide enhanced severance 
payments and other benefits for Department of Energy employees 
under section 3161 of Public Law 102-484.
    Language has been included under Department of Energy, 
General Provisions, prohibiting the use of funds to augment the 
funding provided for section 3161 of Public Law 102-484 unless 
a reprogramming is submitted to the Committee.
    Language has been included under Department of Energy, 
General Provisions, prohibiting the use of funds to prepare or 
initiate requests for proposals for programs which have not yet 
been funded by Congress.
    Language has been included under Department of Energy, 
General Provisions, providing that unexpended balances of prior 
appropriations may be transferred and merged with new 
appropriation accounts establish in this Act.
    Language has been included under Department of Energy, 
General Provisions, prohibiting the Administrator of the 
Bonneville Power Administration to enter into any agreement to 
perform energy efficiency services outside the legally defined 
Bonneville service territory.
    Language has been included under Department of Energy, 
General Provisions, requiring the Department of Energy to 
ensure broad public notice when it makes a national user 
facility available to universities and other potential users or 
seeks input regarding significant characteristics or equipment 
in a national user facility or a proposed national user 
facility, and requiring competition when the Department 
partners with a university or other entity for the 
establishment or operation of a user facility.
    Language has been included under Department of Energy, 
General Provisions, providing the manager of a nuclear weapons 
production plant or the Nevada Test Site to engage in research, 
development, and demonstration activities using no more than 2 
percent of the amounts available from national security 
programs.
    Language has been included under Department of Energy, 
General Provisions, providing that, notwithstanding the 
provisions of any other law, the Secretary may proceed with 
planning and analyses for external regulation of the 
Department's Science laboratories.
    Language has been included under Department of Energy, 
General Provisions, providing that funds for intelligence 
activities are deemed to be specifically authorized for 
purposes of section 504 of the National Security Act of 1947 
during fiscal year 2003.

                     TITLE IV--INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

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

                      TITLE V--GENERAL PROVISIONS

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

         Compliance With Clause 3 of Rule XIII (Ramseyer Rule)

    In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by 
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law 
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in the black brackets, new 
matter is printed in italic, existing law in which no change is 
proposed is shown in roman):
    The accompanying bill would amend section 301 of Public Law 
102-250, the Reclamation States Emergency Drought Relief Act of 
1991, as follows:
    Except as otherwise provided in section 2243 of this title 
(related to temperature control devices at Shasta Dam, 
California), there is authorized to appropriate not more than 
$90,000,000 in total for fiscal years 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 
1996, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, [and 2003] 2003, and 2004.
    The accompanying bill would amend subsection 206(b) of 
Public Law 101-514 as follows:

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

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

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


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

                  Appropriations Not Authorized by Law

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

                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                 Appropriations
               Agency/program                   Last year of    Authorization   in last year of   Appropriations
                                               authorization        level        authorization     in this bill
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Corps of Engineers:
    Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action             (\1\)            (\1\)            (\1\)          140,000
     Program................................
Department of Energy:
    Energy Supply:
        Biomass/Biofuels....................             1993            (\2\)            (\4\)           69,750
        Geothermal Energy...................             1993           23,000            (\4\)           25,500
        Hydrogen............................             2001           40,000           27,000           67,982
        Hydropower..........................             1982           11,700            (\4\)            5,489
        Solar Energy........................             1993            (\2\)            (\4\)           79,693
        Wind Energy Systems.................             1993            (\2\)            (\4\)           41,600
        Intergovernmental activities                     1995            (\7\)            (\4\)           16,500
         Renewable Energy Production
         Incentive..........................
        Renewable Energy Production
         Incentive..........................
        International Renewable Energy                   1996            (\3\)            (\4\)  ...............
         Program............................
        Electricity Transmission and                     1994            (\3\)            (\4\)           77,377
         Distribution.......................
        Departmental Energy Management......             1984            (\3\)            (\4\)            2,300
        Renewable Program Support...........             1984            (\3\)            (\4\)            2,059
        National Renewable Energy Laboratory             1984            (\3\)            (\4\)            9,100
        Program Direction...................             1984            (\3\)            (\4\)           12,230
    Nuclear Energy:
        Space and defense infrastructure....             1992            (\2\)            (\4\)           36,230
        Isotopes............................             1974            (\2\)            (\4\)           26,425
        University Reactor Fuel Assistance               1974            (\2\)            (\4\)           19,500
         and Support........................
        Research and Development............             1994            (\7\)            (\4\)          117,746
        Radiological Facilities Management..             1974            (\2\)            (\4\)           62,655
        Program Direction...................             1992            (\2\)            (\4\)           23,970
    Environment, Safety and Health..........             1974            (\2\)            (\4\)           24,000
Non-Defense Site Acceleration Completion....             1984            (\5\)            (\5\)          170,875
West Valley Demonstration Project...........             1981            5,000            5,000           99,558
Non-Defense Environmental Services            ...............  ...............  ...............          292,121
 (including Other Uranium Activities).......
Science.....................................             1984          500,000          635,417        3,480,180
    High Energy Physics.....................             1984            (\3\)          477,947          747,978
    Nuclear Physics.........................             1984            (\3\)          155,220          399,430
    Biological and Environmental Research...             1994            (\3\)          388,298          562,035
    Basic Energy Sciences...................             1994            (\3\)          743,590        1,016,575
    Advanced Scientific Computing Research..             1996          169,000          111,068          213,490
    Science Laboratories Infrastructure.....             1994            (\3\)           39,327           71,535
    Fusion Energy Sciences..................             1994          380,000          322,277          268,110
    Science Program Direction...............             1984            (\2\)            (\4\)          147,053
        Energy Research Analysis............             1994            (\3\)            3,507            1,020
        Technical Information Management....             1981            (\2\)            (\4\)            7,774
Nuclear Waste Disposal......................            (\8\)            (\2\)          190,654          335,000
Departmental Administration.................             1984          246,963          185,682          101,329
Office of the Inspector General.............             1984            (\2\)           14,670           39,462
Atomic Energy Defense Activities:
    National Nuclear Security
     Administration:
        Weapons Activities..................             2002        5,343,567        5,901,641        6,117,609
        Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation....             2002          776,886        1,104,130        1,280,195
        Naval Reactors......................             2002          688,445          706,790          768,400
        Office of the NNSA Administrator....             2002          312,596          325,929          341,980
Defense Environmental Restoration and Waste              2002        6,022,415        4,510,133  ...............
 Management.................................
Defense Environmental Cleanup Reform........            (\6\)            (\6\)            (\6\)  ...............
Defense Facilities Closure Projects.........             2002        1,080,538        1,109,314
Defense Environmental Management                         2002          153,537          158,399  ...............
 Privatization..............................
Defense site acceleration completion........  ...............  ...............  ...............        5,758,278
Defense environmental services..............  ...............  ...............  ...............          990,179
Other Defense Activities....................             2002          499,663          462,664          694,863
Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal..............             2002          280,000          315,000          430,000
Power Marketing Administrations:
    Southern Power Administration...........             1984           24,240           39,463           39,100
    Southwestern Power Administration.......             1984           40,254           29,288           30,400
    Western Area Power Administration.......             1984          259,700          237,037          360,992
    Falcon and Amistad Operating and                     1995            (\2\)            2,663            2,640
     Maintenance Fund.......................
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission........             1984          275,000          175,200          192,000
Independent Agencies:
    Defense Nuclear Facilities Study Board..             2002           18,500           18,459           19,559
    Nuclear Regulatory Commission...........             1985          460,000          448,200          618,800
    Nuclear Regulatory Commission--Office of             1985            (\9\)            (\9\)            7,300
     Inspector General......................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(\1\) Program was initiated in 1972 and has never received a separate authorization.
(\2\) No amount specified.
(\3\) Authorized level provided for multiple programs with no separate program allowances.
(\4\) Funding for these activities was spread throughout multiple programs with no individual amount specified.
(\5\) Funding for these activities was spread throughout many programs with no amount specified. The last year
  of authorization was 1984. In 1989, cleanup activities were merged into the non-defense environmental
  management appropriation account. There has not been a separate authorization of this account.
(\6\) New program in FY 2003.
(\7\) Such sums as necessary.
(\8\) Overall program authorized in 1982 and 1987, but without any authorization of appropriations.
(\9\) The first separate appropriation for the Office of the Inspector General in the Nuclear Regulatory
  Commission was in FY 1990. Prior to that, the NRC-IG was included within the overall authorization and
  appropriations for the NRC.

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

                              Rescissions

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

                  RESCISSIONS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL

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

                          Full Committe Votes

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