Order Code RL31807
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Appropriations for FY2004:
Energy and Water Development
Updated July 21, 2003
Coordinated by Carl Behrens and Marc Humphries
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

Appropriations are one part of a complex federal budget process that includes budget
resolutions, appropriations (regular, supplemental, and continuing) bills, rescissions, and
budget reconciliation bills. The process begins with the President’s budget request and is
bounded by the rules of the House and Senate, the Congressional Budget and Impoundment
Control Act of 1974 (as amended), the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990, and current
program authorizations.
This report is a guide to one of the 13 regular appropriations bills that Congress passes each
year. It is designed to supplement the information provided by the House and Senate
Appropriations Subcommittees on Energy and Water. It summarizes the current legislative
status of the bill, its scope, major issues, funding levels, and related legislative activity. The
report lists the key CRS staff relevant to the issues covered and related CRS products.
NOTE: A Web version of this document with active links is
available to congressional staff at:
[http://www.crs.gov/products/appropriations/apppage.sht
ml].

---

Appropriations for FY2004:
Energy and Water Development
Summary
The Energy and Water Development appropriations bill includes funding for
civil works projects of the Army Corps of Engineers, the Department of the Interior’s
Bureau of Reclamation (BOR), most of the Department of Energy (DOE), and a
number of independent agencies. The Bush Administration requested $26.94 billion
for these programs for FY2004 compared with $26.14 billion appropriated for
FY2003. On July 18 the House passed a bill, H.R. 2754, containing appropriations
of $27.08 billion. On July 17 the Senate Appropriations Committee reported a bill
funding energy and water development programs at $27.3 billion.
Key issues involving Energy and Water Development appropriations programs
include:
! Funding and progress of Corps projects not considered priorities by
the Administration;
! Legislative proposals to expand the Corps’ use of the Harbor
Maintenance Trust Fund and the Inland Waterway Trust Fund;
! Funding for major water/ecosystem restoration initiatives such as
Florida Everglades and California “Bay-Delta”;
! Funding for the proposed national nuclear waste repository at Yucca
Mountain, Nevada;
! Funding for developing a new nuclear warhead, the Robust Nuclear
Earth Penetrator; and,
! DOE’s “Nuclear Power 2010" initiative, to “identify the technical,
institutional and regulatory barriers to the deployment of new
nuclear power plants by 2010.”
This report will be updated as events warrant.

---

Key Policy Staff
Area of Expertise
Name
CRS
Telephone
Division
General
Carl Behrens
RSI
7-8303
Carol Glover
RSI
7-7353
Marc Humphries
RSI
7-7264
Bureau of Reclamation
Betsy Cody
RSI
7-7229
Corps of Engineers
Nicole Carter
RSI
7-0854
Steve Hughes
RSI
7-7268
Nuclear Energy
Mark Holt
RSI
7-1704
Solar and Renewable Energy
Fred Sissine
RSI
7-7039
Science Programs
Daniel Morgan
RSI
7-5849
DOE Environmental Management
David Bearden
RSI
7-2390
Nonproliferation and Terrorism
Carl Behrens
RSI
7-8303
Nuclear Weapons Stewardship
Jonathan Medalia FDT
7-7632
Power Marketing Administrations
Rob Bamberger
RSI
7-7240
Bonneville Power Administration
Kyna Powers
RSI
7-6881
Report Preparation and Support
Carol Glover
RSI
7-7353
Division abbreviations: RSI = Resources, Science, and Industry; FDT= Foreign Affairs, Defense, and
Trade.

---

Contents
Most Recent Developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Title I: Corps of Engineers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Key Policy Issues — Corps of Engineers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Funding Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Trust Fund Proposals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Proposed “Reforms” of Corps Processes and Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Missouri River Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Everglades . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Title II: Department of the Interior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Bureau of Reclamation Budget In Brief . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Key Policy Issues – Bureau of Reclamation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
CALFED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Sumner-Peck Settlement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Title III: Department of Energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Key Policy Issues — Department of Energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Renewable Energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Nuclear Energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Science . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Nuclear Weapons Stockpile Stewardship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Nonproliferation and National Security Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Environmental Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Civilian Nuclear Waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Power Marketing Administrations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Title IV: Independent Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Key Policy Issues — Independent Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Nuclear Regulatory Commission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
For Additional Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
CRS Issue Briefs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
CRS Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
List of Tables
Table 1. Status of Energy and Water Development Appropriations, FY2004 . . . 1
Table 2. Energy and Water Development Appropriations, FY1997 to FY2004 . . 2
Table 3. Energy and Water Development Appropriations
Title I: Corps of Engineers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

---

Table 4. Energy and Water Development Appropriations
Title II: Central Utah Project Completion Account . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Table 5. Energy and Water Development Appropriations
Title II: Bureau of Reclamation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Table 6. Energy and Water Development Appropriations
Title III: Department of Energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Table 7. Funding for Weapons Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Table 8. NNSA 5-Year Budget Projection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Table 9. DOE Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Table 10. Energy and Water Development Appropriations
Title IV: Independent Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

---

Appropriations for FY2004:
Energy and Water Development
Most Recent Developments

The Bush Administration’s FY2004 budget request, released February 3, 2003,
would fund Energy and Water Development Programs at $26.94 billion. The
FY2003 Consolidated Appropriations Resolution (H.J.Res. 2, P.L. 108-7) and the
Emergency Wartime Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2003 (P.L. 108-11) funded
these programs at $26.14 billion. On July 15 the House Appropriations Committee
reported a bill (H.R. 2754) containing FY2004 appropriations of $27.08 billion, and
the House passed the bill with the same funding on July 18. The Senate
Appropriations Committee approved a $27.3 billion bill on July 17.
Status
Table 1. Status of Energy and Water Development Appropriations, FY2004
Subcommittee
Conference
Markup
House
House
Senate
Senate
Conf.
Report Approval
Public
Report
Passage
Report
Passage
Report
Law
House
Senate
House
Senate
7/8/03
7/17/03 108-212 7/18/03
108-105
Overview
The Energy and Water Development bill includes funding for civil works
projects of the Army Corps of Engineers, the Department of the Interior’s Bureau of
Reclamation (BOR), most of the Department of Energy (DOE), and a number of
independent agencies, including the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and the
Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC). The Bush Administration’s request was
$26.940 billion for these programs for FY2004, compared with $26.138 billion
appropriated for FY2003. The House Appropriations Committee recommended
$27.080 billion for FY2004 (H.R. 2754), and the bill passed the House with that
amount July 18. The Senate bill, S. 1424, reported out by the Senate Appropriations
Committee July 17, contains funding of $27.313 billion.
For the Corps of Engineers in FY2004, the Administration requested $4.19
billion, almost 10% ($445 million) less than the amount appropriated for FY2003.
The House bill includes $4.48 billion, the Senate Appropriations Committee bill

---

CRS-2
recommends $4.427 billion. The Administration’s request focuses funding on
construction projects that will be completed in FY2004 and eight projects considered
priorities by the Administration, including the Florida Everglades. The request also
contemplates legislative proposals for expanding the types of activities funded by the
Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund and the Inland Waterway Trust Fund.
The Administration asked for $891 million for FY2004 for the Department of
the Interior programs included in the Energy and Water Development bill — the
Bureau of Reclamation and the Central Utah Project. This would be a decrease of
$45 million from the FY2003 funding level. The House bill contains $921 million;
the Senate Appropriations Committee recommended $994 million.
The FY2004 request for DOE programs in the bill is $21.689 billion, about
$1.32 billion more than the previous year. The major activities in the DOE budget are
energy research and development, general science, environmental cleanup, and
nuclear weapons programs. The House bill funds these programs at $21.542 billion.
The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended $22.148 billion. (Funding of
DOE’s programs for fossil fuels, energy efficiency, and energy statistics is included
in the Interior and Related Agencies appropriations bill. The FY2004 net
appropriations request for these programs is $1.7 billion.)
The request for funding the independent agencies in Title IV of the bill is $148
million, compared with $207 million in FY2003. The House bill contains $138
million; the Senate Appropriations Committee recommended $230 million for
FY2004.
Table 2 includes budget totals for energy and water development appropriations
enacted for FY1997 to FY2003 and the Administration’s request for FY2004.
Table 2. Energy and Water Development Appropriations,
FY1997 to FY2004
(budget authority in billions of current dollarsa)
FY97
FY98
FY99
FY00
FY01
FY02
FY03
FY04
(Req.)
20.0
21.2
21.2
21.2
23.9
25.2
26.1
26.9
a These figures represent current dollars, exclude permanent budget authorities, and reflect
rescissions.
Tables 3-10 provide budget details for Title I (Corps of Engineers), Title II
(Department of the Interior), Title III (Department of Energy) and Title IV
(independent agencies) for FY2003 - FY2004.

---

CRS-3
Title I: Corps of Engineers
The President’s request for FY2004 for the civil works program of the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers is $4.19 billion, a decrease of $445 million from the
FY2003 appropriation. The request also contains legislative proposals for expanding
the use of funds from the Inland Waterway Trust Fund and the Harbor Maintenance
Trust Fund. (See “Key Policy Issues,” below.) The House bill includes $4.5 billion
for FY2004, a decrease of $156 million from the amount enacted for FY2003. The
Senate Appropriations Committee recommends $4.4 billion.

Table 3. Energy and Water Development Appropriations
Title I: Corps of Engineers
($ millions)
Program
FY2003
FY2004
House
Senate
Conf.
Request
H.R. 2754
Approp.
Cte.
Investigations and
Planning
134.1
100.0
117.8
131.7
Construction
1,744.6
1,350.0
1,642.9
1,538.0
Flood Control,
Mississippi River
342.3
280.0
301.1
329.0
Operation and
Maintenance
1,966.6a
1,939.0
1,932.5
1,949.0
Regulatory
138.1
144.0
144.0
139.0
General Expenses
154.1
171.0
164.0
160.0
FUSRAPb
144.1
140.0
140.0
140.0
Flood Control and
Coastal Emergencies
14.9
70.0
40.0
40.0
Total
4,638.8a
4,194.0
4,482.3
4,426.7
a Includes $39 million appropriated in Emergency Wartime Supplemental Appropriations
Act, 2003, P. L. 108-11.
b “Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program”
The President’s budget request would limit funding for the planning and design
of new projects; however, it would fully fund all projects whose construction could
be completed in FY2004, and provides substantial funding for eight projects
considered by the Administration to be priorities. The Administration’s budget would
provide some support for 140 other projects, but construction would proceed more
slowly than originally planned because these projects are not fully funded.1 The
1 The President’s request for FY2004 did not cut funding for beach nourishment activities
(the placement of sand on beaches either as a means of dredging-spoil disposal or as an
(continued...)

---

CRS-4
Administration’s request includes funding to complete design of 22 proposed
projects, while deferring work on all other design efforts.
The House bill maintains many of the characteristics of the President’s budget.
Due to concerns over the Corps backlog of maintenance and construction activities,
no new studies are funded and construction is focused on projects that can be
completed or are priorities. The House Appropriations Committee chose not to fund
projects that were not previously authorized.
The Senate Appropriations Committee’s recommendation surpasses the
President’s budget request by funding a limited number of study starts; however, it
does not fund any new construction starts because of the constrained budget
allocation. The committee, instead, used its resources to avoid the breaching of
project contacts.
The request provided no funds for studies and “environmental infrastructure”
projects in the following non-traditional mission areas: wastewater treatment,
irrigation water supply, and municipal and industrial water supply treatment and
distribution. By not seeking funding for these activities, the Bush Administration
was again showing its interest in focusing available federal funding on navigation,
flood control, storm damage reduction, and ecosystem restoration projects. Both the
House and Senate Appropriations Committees recommended funding for
environmental infrastructure projects.
Of the $1.9 billion for the operation and maintenance (O&M) account requested
by the President, $104 million is planned for protecting facilities from terrorist
attack. Of the $104 million requested, $91 million is for protecting the projects
normally funded from the O&M account. The remaining $13 million for this O&M
account would be spent to protect administration buildings and facilities; projects
from the Flood Control, Mississippi River, and Tributaries account; and the
Washington Aqueduct drinking water plant that serves the District of Columbia.
The House and Senate Appropriations Committees also recommended $1.9 billion.
The Administration’s $70 million request for the Flood Control and Coastal
Emergencies account was significantly higher than the FY2003 appropriation of $15
million and the FY2003 request for $20.2 million. The actual expenditure for
activities under this account in previous years has averaged $70 million, with much
of the funding being provided through supplemental appropriations. This account
finances response and recovery activities for flood and storm events, preparedness
for these events, and the Corps’ support of the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) through the Federal Response Plan. Because this is an emergency
management program, annual costs vary significantly based on actual events and/or
changing missions. According to testimony by the Acting Assistant Secretary of the
Army for Civil Works, the requested amount of $70 million ensures sufficient funds
1 (...continued)
effort to artificially widen beaches), a change from past submissions by both Democratic
and Republican Administrations. (See CRS Report IB10120 Army Corps of Engineers Civil
Works Program: Issues for Congress for more information.)

---

CRS-5
to respond to flood and storm emergencies and reduces the likelihood of having to
borrow from other accounts or needing to seek emergency supplemental
appropriations for recovery efforts. The House and Senate Appropriations
Committee recommend $40 million for these emergency activities.
Key Policy Issues — Corps of Engineers
Funding Level. Funding for the Corps’ civil works program has often been
a contentious issue between the Administration and Congress, with final
appropriations typically providing more funding than requested, regardless of which
political party controls the White House and Congress. For FY2001, for example,
Congress added $480 million (12%) to the $4.08 billion requested by the Clinton
Administration. Similarly, the FY2002 House bill funded the Corps at almost 15%
more than requested by the Bush Administration, and the final act appropriated
slightly more than that. The FY2003 appropriation followed suit; it was $466 million
(11%) above the requested amount. The FY2004 budget request proposed a 10% cut
from current spending. Some Members of Congress expressed their displeasure with
the Administration’s proposed cuts for the Corps at FY2004 budget hearings in
February and March 2003. The House bill (H.R. 2754) restored $288 million to the
program. The Senate Appropriations Committee’s bill (S. 1424) restored $233
million.
Trust Fund Proposals. The Administration included in its request legislative
proposals to fund more activities from several trust funds. The Administration
proposed that for FY2004 these changes be made through the appropriations process.
The two trust funds — the Inland Waterway Trust Fund (IWTF) and the Harbor
Maintenance Trust Fund (HMTF) — have built up substantial unused balances in
recent years, causing concern about why the funds were not being put to use and
leading to interest in expanding their use to decrease the federal monies spent on
inland waterways and harbors. Both the House and Senate Appropriations
Committees dismissed the proposals related to the HMTF and the IWTF.
Proposed “Reforms” of Corps Processes and Procedures. During
the 107th Congress, the Corps came under criticism for the way it evaluates and
undertakes projects. Although the issue received media attention, it was not directly
addressed through legislation. Numerous bills proposing changes to the project
development and authorization process were introduced (e.g., see H.R. 1310 and S.
1987); however, no action was taken. (For more information, see CRS Report
RL30928, Army Corps of Engineers: Reform Issues for the 107th Congress.) Corps
reform may be addressed during consideration of the next Water Resources
Development Act (WRDA, e.g., H.R. 2557), a separate bill (e.g., HR. 2566), or the
FY2004 Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill. (See CRS Issue Brief
IB10120, Army Corps of Engineers Civil Works Program: Issues for Congress, for
more information.)
Corps officials gave testimony at FY2004 budget hearings, and at a March 2003
hearing of the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment of the House
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, on how the agency is
“transforming” itself in response to these criticisms. In this testimony, Corps officials
defended the integrity of the agency’s review process and detailed efforts to further

---

CRS-6
strengthen it, including the use of independent peer review panels for a few complex
projects.2 The Administration’s FY2004 budget request included $3 million for a
peer review panel to examine selected projects and $2 million for ex post facto
studies of 15 to 25 completed projects to compare the estimated and actual project
costs and benefits.
Missouri River Management. Drought in the Missouri River basin has
contributed to an ongoing debate on the operations of the basin’s dams. This debate
raises some fundamental question about water resources management in the nation,
such as whether some river uses should take precedence over others and if the current
institutional arrangements for river management need to be reconsidered. (See CRS
Issue Brief IB10120, Army Corps of Engineers Civil Works Program: Issues for
Congress, for more information.)
Differing opinions on how to best manage the Missouri River during drought
conditions have increased attention on not only the annual operating plan but also the
ongoing revision of the Master Manual, which guides the operation of the Missouri
River’s mainstem dams. The manual has been in revision for 14 years. The Corps’
challenge in updating the manual is the multiple competing uses of the river. The
timing and the quantity of the water released from the dams affects uses of the river
such as barge traffic, threatened and endangered species protection, water supply, and
river recreation.
Missouri River management has been raised numerous times during the
appropriations process in recent years. An amendment offered by Senator Bond to
the omnibus appropriations bill for FY2003 failed. It would have prohibited the Fish
and Wildlife Service from both requiring a steady release flow and preventing the
Corps from relocating bird nests along the Missouri River’s banks. In the FY2002
Energy and Water appropriations bill after extended debate in both the House and the
Senate, Section 116 included Senate language that prohibited the use of funds “to
accelerate the schedule to finalize the Record of Decision for the revision of the
Missouri River Master Water Control Manual and any associated changes to the
Missouri River Annual Operating Plan.” The amended provision also directed the
Corps to consider views of other federal and non-federal agencies and individuals “to
ensure that other congressionally authorized purposes are maintained” in addition to
endangered species protection. The provision represented a temporary compromise
of an ongoing issue that had led President Clinton to veto the Energy and Water
Development appropriations bill for FY2001.
Everglades. A significant addition to the Corps’ mission in recent years is
its growing role in large environmental restoration programs, raising concerns that
funding for these programs could displace the funding for other water resources
2 Les Brownlee (Acting Assistant Secretary of the Army) and Lieutenant General Robert B.
Flowers (Chief of Engineers) provided testimony before the Subcommittee on Energy and
Water Development of the Senate Committee on Appropriations on March 5, 2003, before
the Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development of the House Committee on
Appropriations on March 26, 2003, and the Subcommittee on Water Resources and
Environment of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure on February 27,
2003.

---

CRS-7
development activities. (See CRS Report IB10120 Army Corps of Engineers Civil
Works Program: Issues for Congress for more information.) The Corps plays a
significant coordination role in the restoration of the Central and Southern Florida
ecosystem. The Corps is particularly involved in the implementation of the
Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) that was authorized in 2002 by
Title VI of WRDA. The annual Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill
provides funding for the Corps’ participation in these efforts.3 During the first half
of 2003, the quality of water entering the Everglades has received much attention
because of the passage of a state law in Florida that may affect phosphorous
mitigation deadlines and goals. (See CRS Issue Brief IB10120, Army Corps of
Engineers Civil Works Program: Issues for Congress, for more information.)
The President’s request for FY2004 included a total of $145 million for the
Corps’ construction projects in the region, compared to $151 million appropriated
for FY2003. The FY2004 request for the Kissimmee River restoration project and the
Everglades and South Florida ecosystem restoration project was $17.7 million and
$14.8 million, respectively. For the Central and Southern Florida project, the
Administration requested $112.5 million (which included $39.0 million for CERP
activities).
The House bill provided the full amount requested for all three Everglades
projects. However, the language in H.R. 2754 conditions availability of the funds for
the preservation and restoration of the Everglades on a certification by the Secretary
of the Army.4 The Secretary is to certify within 30 days of enactment that the water
entering the Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge and the Everglades National park
meets specific water quality requirements.
The Senate Appropriations Committee provided the amount requested by the
President for the Kissimmee River project and the Everglades and South Florida
Ecosystem Restoration project. In S. 1424, the Committee conditioned the
availability of funds for the Everglades and South Florida Ecosystem Restoration
project on a certification by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency that the funded activities meet certain water quality and phosphorous
standards. The Committee provided $90 million for the Central and Southern Florida
project, instead of the $112.5 requested. Ninety million was the same amount that
the Committee recommended for FY2003 and that was enacted eventually enacted.
In S.Rept. 107-220, the Committee explained that the reduction for FY2003 resulted
from questions raised about restoration implementation, specifically concerns that it
was too heavily weighted in favor of commercial development of water supplies.
3 Everglades restoration also receives funding through the Department of the Interior
Appropriations bills. (See CRS Report RL31806, Appropriations for FY2003: Interior and
Related Agencies).
4 The bill language differs somewhat from language in H.Rept. 108-212. The report states:
“ 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 the agreed-upon responsibilities under the governing consent
decree.”

---

CRS-8
Title II: Department of the Interior
For the Department of the Interior, the Energy and Water Development bill
provides funding for the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) and the Central Utah Project
Completion Account.
Table 4. Energy and Water Development Appropriations
Title II: Central Utah Project Completion Account
(in millions of dollars)
Senate
Program
FY2004
House
Approp.
FY2003
Request
H.R. 2754
Cte.
Conf.
Central Utah project
construction
23.5
27.0
27.0
36.1
Mitigation and conservation
activities
11.2
15.4
9.4
9.4

Oversight & Administration
1.3
1.7
1.7
1.7
Total, Central Utah Project
36.0
44.2
38.2
44.2
Columns may not total because of rounding.
Table 5. Energy and Water Development Appropriations
Title II: Bureau of Reclamation
(in millions of dollars)
Senate
Program
FY2004
House
Approp.
FY2003
Request
H.R. 2754
Cte.
Conf.
Water and Related Resources
832.2a
771.2
817.9
853.5
Loan Program Account
–
0.2
0.2
0.2
Policy & Admin.
54.5
56.5
56.5
56.5
Central Valley Project
Restoration Fund
48.6
39.6
39.6
39.6
California Bay-Delta
(CALFED)
–
15.0
–
–
Gross Current Authority
936.3
878.0
914.2
949.8
CV Project Collections b
(40.0)
(31.0)
(31.0)
(38.9)
Net Current Authority
894.3
847.2
883.2
910.7
a Includes $25 million appropriated in Emergency Wartime Supplemental Appropriations
Act, 2003, P. L. 108-11.
b In presenting its budget justifications, the Bureau lists this amount as an “offset.” (Figures
may not total due to rounding.)

---

CRS-9
Bureau of Reclamation Budget In Brief
For FY2004, the President requested $44.2 million for the Central Utah Project
Completion Account, an increase of $8.2 million over the FY2003 enacted amount.
The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended $44.2 million which is
equivalent to the FY2004 requested amount and $8.2 million over the FY2003
enacted level. The House bill included $38.2 million, $6.0 million less than the
requested amount and $2.2 million over the FY2003 enacted level. The FY2004
request for BOR totals $878 million in gross current budget authority.5 This amount
is an increase of $23.1 million from the amended FY2003 request (according to
BOR), or $33.1 million according to congressional sources,6 and is approximately
$33.3 million less than enacted for FY2003 in P.L. 108-7. The Bureau has received
an additional $25 million in supplemental appropriations for FY2003 for homeland
security purposes (P.L. 108-11). The House bill included $914.2 million for the
BOR, an increase of $36.2 million above the FY2004 requested amount and a
decrease of $22.1 million from the FY2003 enacted level. The Senate
Appropriations Committee recommended $949.8 million, $13.5 above the FY2003
enacted level and $71.8 million above the FY2004 requested amount.
Included in the $878 million BOR request is $863 million in current
appropriations for agency water resources management activities and $15 million for
the California Bay-Delta Restoration Account (CALFED). The House bill includes
an increase of $51.2 million above the requested amount for water resources
management activities and no funds for the CALFED account; whereas the Senate
Committee on Appropriations recommended an increase of $86.8 million over the
requested amount and no funds for CALFED. The FY2004 request as presented
includes a $30.8 million “offset” for the Central Valley Project (CVP) Restoration
Fund, yielding a “net” current authority of $847.2 million for BOR.
BOR’s single largest account, Water and Related Resources, encompasses the
agency’s traditional programs and projects, including operations and maintenance,
the Dam Safety Program, Water and Energy Management Development, and Fish and
Wildlife Management and Development, among others. BOR requested $771.2
million for this account for FY2004, $37 million less than appropriated in P.L. 108-7.
The House bill includes $817.9 million for Water and Related Resources, $46.7
million above the FY2004 request and $9.7 million above the FY2003 enacted level.
The Senate Committee on Appropriations recommended $853.5 million, $82.3
million above the FY2004 requested level and $21.3 above the FY2003 enacted
level.

5 The BOR budget also includes several permanent appropriations, which when added to the
agency’s net current authority results in a grand total of $927.7 million requested and
projected for BOR operations for FY2004.
6 The BOR budget justifications document for FY2004 shows a requested increase of $23.1
million in gross budget authority, while tables accompanying the conference report on H.J.
Res. 2 (consolidated appropriations for FY2003) yield an increase of $33.1 million.

---

CRS-10
Key Policy Issues – Bureau of Reclamation
Background. Most of the large dams and water diversion structures in the
West were built by, or with the assistance of, the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR).
Whereas the Corps built hundreds of flood control and navigation projects, BOR’s
mission was to develop water supplies, primarily for irrigation to reclaim arid lands
in the West. Today, BOR manages hundreds of dams and diversion projects,
including 348 storage reservoirs in 17 western states. These projects provide water
to approximately 10 million acres of farmland and 31 million people. BOR is the
largest supplier of water in the 17 western states and the second largest hydroelectric
power producer in the nation. BOR facilities also provide substantial flood control,
recreation, and fish and wildlife benefits. At the same time, operations of BOR
facilities are often controversial, particularly for their effect on sensitive fish and
wildlife species and conflicts among competing water users.
CALFED. Funds have not been appropriated for the California Bay-Delta
Restoration Account (Bay-Delta, or CALFED) since FY2000, when the authorization
for appropriations expired. However, funds were provided for FY2002 and FY2003
for activities that support the CALFED program. The Administration has requested
$15 million for this account for FY2004. The House Appropriations Committee and
the Senate Appropriations Committee recommended that no funds be appropriated
for CALFED, since the program has not been authorized for appropriations. (For
more information on CALFED, see CRS Report RL31975, CALFED Bay-Delta
Program: Overview of Institutional and Water Use Issues.)
The final FY2003 appropriation for BOR provided $23 million for CVP
activities that support the goals of the CALFED program within the Water and
Related Resources Account. Several specific activities were identified in the
conference agreement, including $1.75 million for investigations of storage
opportunities in the Upper San Joaquin watershed (Friant Division); $9 million for
the Environmental Water Account (under Miscellaneous Project Programs); $1.5
million to continue planning activities related to the Sites Reservoir (Sacramento
River Division); and $2.5 million for evaluation of potential impacts of raising Shasta
Dam (Shasta Division). Division D, Section 215, of the bill specifically authorizes
the Secretary, “in carrying out CALFED-related activities,” to begin feasibility
studies for Sites Reservoir, enlargement of Los Vaqueros Reservoir, and an Upper
San Joaquin Storage project.
Security. BOR requested $28.6 million for continued heightened safety and
security efforts at BOR facilities. The bulk of the request is for facility
operations/security. Funding covers such activities as administration of the security
program, periodic security reviews, and employee training and awareness. An
additional $1 million is being requested for national security cyber systems, under the
category of Critical Infrastructure Protection. (For more information on terrorism
and security issues involving the water infrastructure sector, see CRS Report
RS21026, Terrorism and Security Issues Facing the Water Infrastructure Sector.)
The BOR received an additional $25 million for homeland security expenses in P.L.
108-11.

---

CRS-11
Sumner-Peck Settlement. The federal government and the Westlands
Water District, which receives CVP water, settled a long-standing lawsuit December
10, 2002. The lawsuit concerned the effects of irrigation water buildup beneath
private land and the government’s obligation to provide irrigation drainage service.
The drainage problem has been an ongoing problem within the San Luis Unit of the
CVP, where toxins such as selenium have built up in the soil and rendered land
unsuitable for farming. The $107 million settlement (federal share) has been quite
controversial both for its initial sum and potential for additional suits from other
nearby landowners, as well as for the specific terms of the agreement and how it will
be paid. While the land will be retired from farming, Westlands will hold title to the
land and water rights, the plaintiffs reserve valuable commodity base acreage, and the
federal government receives certain easements and covenants guaranteeing the land
will not be used again for farming. A proposal to pay for the first installment of the
settlement using appropriated funds from the Energy and Water annual
appropriations bill was blocked by a provision in the FY2003 omnibus appropriations
bill (§212, Division D of P.L. 108-7), on the grounds that it would reduce funding for
other programs. The action caused the Justice Department to reverse its earlier
stance and allow the first $34 million to be paid from the federal government
Judgment Fund. However, it is not clear how future settlement payments will be
made.

---

CRS-12
Title III: Department of Energy
The Energy and Water Development bill includes funding for most of DOE’s
programs. Major DOE activities in the bill include research and development on
renewable energy and nuclear power, general science, environmental cleanup, and
nuclear weapons programs. The Administration’s FY2004 request for DOE programs
in the Energy and Water Development bill is $21.67 billion, about $780 million more
than the amount appropriated for FY2003. The House Appropriations Committee
recommended $21.54 billion. (The FY2004 appropriations request for DOE’s
programs for fossil fuels, energy efficiency, the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, and
energy statistics, included in the Interior and Related Agencies appropriations bill,
is $1.7 billion.)
Table 6. Energy and Water Development Appropriations
Title III: Department of Energy
($ millions)
Program
FY2003
FY2004
House
Senate
Conf.
Request
H.R.
Approp.
2754
Cte.
Energy Supply R&D
Solar and Renewable
419.5
444.2
330.1
358.4
Nuclear Energy
260.0
277.1 c
268.0 c
437.4 c
Environment, Safety, Health
22.6
30.0
24.0
22.4
Adjustments
(5.2)
(3.0)
(8.0)
(16.0)
Total, Energy Supply
696.9
748.3
691.5
920.4
Non-Defense Environmental
213.6
–
–
–
Management
Non-Defense Site Acceleration
–
170.9
170.9
171.9
Completionb
Non-Defense Environmental
–
292.1
320.5
302.1
Servicesb
Uranium Facilities
453.4
–
–
–
Maintenance & Remediation
Uranium Decontamination and
–
418.1
392.0
396.1
Decommissioning Fundb
(442.0)
(452.0)
(452.0)
(452.0)
General Science
High Energy Physics
722.3
738.0
748.0
738.0
Nuclear Physics
381.9
389.4
399.4
389.4
Basic Energy Sciences
1,023.3
1,008.6
1,016.6
1,008.6
Bio. & Env. R&D
506.7
499.5
562.0
534.0

---

CRS-13
Program
FY2003
FY2004
House
Senate
Conf.
Request
H.R.
Approp.
2754
Cte.
Fusion
248.3
257.3
268.1
257.3
Advanced Scientific Computing
168.5
173.5
213.5
183.5
Other
234.7
249.0
278.0
254.0
Adjustments
(13.4)
(4.4)
(5.4)
(4.4)
Total, General Science
3,272.3 a
3,310.9
3,480.2
3,360.4
National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)
Weapons
5,981.4 a
6,378.0
6,117.6
6,473.8
Nuclear Nonproliferation
1,168.8 a
1,340.2
1,280.2
1,340.2
Naval Reactors
702.2
768.4
768.4
768.4
Office of Administrator
325.1
348.0
342.0
338.0
Total, NNSA
8,177.6
8,834.6
8,508.2
8,920.4
Defense Environmental Management
Environ. Restoration
5,434.8 a
–
–
–
Defense Facilities Closure
Projects
1,130.9
–
–
–
Environ. Restoration
Privatization
158.4
–
–
–
Defense Site Accel. Completionb
–
5,814.6
5,758.3
5,770.7
Defense Environmental
Servicesb
–
995.2
990.2
987.7
Total, Defense Env. Man.
6,723.1
6,809.8
6,748.5
6,758.4
Other Defense Activities
515.7 a
636.2 c
666.5 c
492.2 c
Defense Nuclear Waste
313.0
430.0
430.0
285.0
Total, Defense Activities
15,729.3
16,635.5
16,278.2
16,456.0
Departmental Admin. (net)
85.3
179.6
101.3
162.9
Office of Inspector General
37.4
39.5
39.5
39.5
Power Marketing Administrations (PMA’s)
Southeastern
4.5
5.1
5.1
5.1
Southwestern
27.2
28.6
28.6
28.6
Western
167.8
171.0
171.0
178.0
(22.0)
(22.0)
(22.0)
(24.0)
Falcon & Armistad O&M
2.7
2.6
2.6
2.6

---

CRS-14
Program
FY2003
FY2004
House
Senate
Conf.
Request
H.R.
Approp.
2754
Cte.
Total, PMA’s
202.3
207.3
207.3
214.3
FERC
192.0
199.4
192.0
199.4
(revenues)
(192.0)
(199.4)
(192.0)
(199.4)
Civilian Nuclear Waste
144.1
161.0
335.0
140.0
Total, Title III
20,370.4
21,689.4
21,542.3
22,148.2
a Includes funding appropriated in the Emergency Wartime Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2003, P. L.
108-11.
b New program structures proposed for FY2004. See “Environmental Management” section, below.
c Budget Request and House bill transfers programs funded at $113.4 million from Energy Supply–Nuclear
Energy to Other Defense Activities. Senate Appropriations Committee bill does not transfer these programs.
Key Policy Issues — Department of Energy
Renewable Energy. The Administration’s FY2004 budget request for DOE
finds that hydrogen energy is the “most promising long-term revolution in energy use
that can help the nation liberate itself from dependence on imported oil.” Thus, the
request for DOE’s Renewable Energy Program says that its aim is to “accelerate
progress” and make hydrogen technologies “cleaner, safer, and lower in cost.” Also,
it stresses that the Administration’s proposed National Climate Change Technology
Initiative will create “competitive solicitations” in applied research that aims to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions and will “complement” existing R&D programs.
More specifically, the request for the Renewable Energy Program under DOE’s
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) seeks $444.2 million
(including $72.9 million for Electric/Storage and $4.0 million for the Production
Incentive), which is $24.7 million more than the FY2003 appropriation of $419.5
million (including $84.4 million for Electric/Storage). It includes $48.3 million more
for Hydrogen (as part of the President’s Hydrogen Fuel Initiative) and $15.0 million
more for a National Climate Change Technology Initiative. It would terminate the
Concentrating Solar Power Program and cut the Biomass and Biorefinery Program
(which the FY2003 appropriations bill, P.L. 108-7, formed by combining the former
biofuels and biopower subprograms) by $19.7 million. The request presents a new
budget structure that follows from a major reorganization of the EERE Office.
The House bill includes $330.1 million for the Renewable Energy Program and
$77.4 million for a new Electricity Transmission and Distribution (ET&D) program
that replaces the former Electric/Storage sub-program. Under the House bill’s
structure, the total for the Renewable Energy Program is $4.9 million less than the
FY2003 appropriation. This includes $19.7 million less for Biomass/Biofuels, $14.7
million less for Solar Energy, $4.3 million less for Geothermal, and $3.7 million less
for Program Direction. Partially offsetting these cuts, there is $28.2 million more for

---

CRS-15
Hydrogen and $3.6 million more for Facilities & Infrastructure. Further, the
Committee seeks $7.1 million less for ET&D.
Also, the House bill is $41.2 million, or 11%, less than the request. This
includes $20.0 million less for Hydrogen, $15.0 million less (zero funding) for the
National Climate Change Technology Initiative, and $4.3 million less for Program
Direction. Partially offsetting these cuts, there is $4.2 million more for Facilities &
Infrastructure.
The Senate Appropriations Committee recommends $358 million for
Renewable Energy Technologies and $100 million for Electricity transmission and
distribution. Included is $75 million for biomass/biofuels and $90 million for solar
energy.
Nuclear Energy. For nuclear energy research and development – including
advanced reactors, fuel cycle technology, and nuclear hydrogen production – the
Administration requested $277.1 million for FY2004, a $17.1 million increase from
the FY2003 appropriation. An additional $113.4 million was requested for defense-
related activities at the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory
(INEEL), which is being transferred to the nuclear energy program from DOE’s
environmental management program, for a total of $390.6 million.
The House cut the nuclear energy request to $268.0 million, plus $112.3 million
for INEEL provided under “other defense activities.” The Senate boosted the request
to $437.4 million, without shifting any funds to “other defense activities.”
“Nuclear energy, which is already a vital component of our balanced energy
portfolio, presents some of our most promising solutions to the world’s long-term
energy challenges,” according to DOE’s FY2004 budget justification. However,
opponents have criticized DOE’s nuclear research program as providing wasteful
subsidies to an industry that they believe should be phased out as unacceptably
hazardous and economically uncompetitive.
Within the nuclear energy budget, the Administration requested $48 million for
the nuclear energy technologies program, which focuses on development of new
reactors. That request is $3.0 million above the FY2003 appropriation. The program
includes $35.0 million for an initiative to encourage construction of new commercial
reactors by 2010 (“Nuclear Power 2010") and $9.7 million for advanced (“Generation
IV”) reactor designs that could be ready for deployment after 2010. The House voted
to cut the request to $42.7 million, while the Senate Appropriations Committee
recommended an increase to $55.7 million. The Senate panel shifted funds for gas
reactor technologies from Nuclear Power 2010 to the Generation IV program, with
the funding directed toward development of a hydrogen-producing reactor at INEEL.
According to the DOE budget justification, the Nuclear Power 2010 program
“will achieve near-term deployment of new power plants in the United States through
cost-shared demonstration of the new, untested regulatory processes and cost-shared
development of advanced reactor technologies.” The program seeks to deploy both
a water-cooled reactor (similar to most existing commercial plants) and a gas-cooled
reactor. The current phase of the initiative includes site approval, reactor design

---

CRS-16
certification, license applications, detailed design work, and development of
improved construction techniques. DOE is soliciting proposals for joint
DOE/industry teams in which DOE will pay up to half the cost of these activities.
DOE’s Generation IV program is focusing on six advanced designs that could
be deployed after 2010: two gas-cooled, one water-cooled, two liquid-metal-cooled,
and one molten-salt concept. Some of these reactors would use plutonium recovered
through reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel. The Administration’s May 2001 National
Energy Policy report contends that plutonium recovery could reduce the long-term
environmental impact of nuclear waste disposal and increase domestic energy
supplies. However, opponents contend that the separation of plutonium from spent
fuel poses unacceptable environmental risks and, because of plutonium’s potential
use in nuclear bombs, undermines U.S. policy on nuclear weapons proliferation.
The development of plutonium-fueled reactors in the Generation IV program is
closely related to the nuclear energy program’s Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative
(AFCI), for which $63.0 million is requested for FY2004 – about $5 million above
the FY2003 appropriation. According to the budget justification, AFCI will “develop
advanced proliferation-resistant fuel treatment and fabrication technologies that could
be deployed by 2015,” as well as technologies that could reduce the long-term hazard
of spent nuclear fuel. Such technologies would involve separation of plutonium,
uranium, and other long-lived radioactive materials from spent fuel for re-use in a
nuclear reactor or for transmutation in a particle accelerator. AFCI includes a
previously funded research program on accelerator transmutation called Advanced
Accelerator Applications. The program also includes longstanding DOE work on
electrometallurgical treatment of spent fuel from the Experimental Breeder Reactor
II (EBR-II) at INEEL. The House approved $58.5 million for the program, while the
Senate Appropriations Committee recommended $78.0 million.
In support of President Bush’s program to develop hydrogen-fueled vehicles,
DOE is requesting $4.0 million in FY2004 for a new “Nuclear Hydrogen Initiative.”
According to DOE’s budget justification, the program would investigate the use of
high-temperature nuclear reactors to make hydrogen from water in a thermo-chemical
process. According to DOE, “preliminary estimates indicate that hydrogen produced
using nuclear-driven thermo-chemical processes would be only slightly more
expensive than gasoline” and result in far less air pollution. Activities planned in
FY2004 include development of a “roadmap” for developing nuclear hydrogen
technologies and laboratory testing of thermo-chemical processes and related
research. Even if the technology is successful, however, DOE officials have
predicted that significant quantities of nuclear-produced hydrogen would not become
available until 2020-2030.7 The House voted to cut the request to $2.5 million, while
the Senate panel recommended $8.0 million, including support for the INEEL
hydrogen reactor.
The Nuclear Energy Research Initiative (NERI) provides grants for research on
innovative nuclear energy technologies. DOE is requesting $12.0 million for NERI
in FY2004, about half of the FY2003 appropriation. According to the budget
7 EnergyWashington.com Daily Updates, February 5, 2003.

---

CRS-17
justification, no new grants will be awarded in FY2003 and FY2004, with new
program funding to be used only for completing previously initiated projects. The
House voted to cut NERI to $10.0 million, while the Senate panel urged the full
request.
DOE proposes no new funding in FY2004 for the Nuclear Energy Plant
Optimization program (NEPO), which received $5.0 million in FY2003. The
program supports cost-shared research by the nuclear power industry on ways to
improve the productivity of existing nuclear plants. The House rejected the proposed
elimination of NEPO, voting to provide $4.0 million for the program. However, the
Senate Appropriations Committee supported the Administration position.
Science. The DOE Office of Science conducts basic research in six program
areas: basic energy sciences, high-energy physics, biological and environmental
research, nuclear physics, fusion energy sciences, and advanced scientific computing
research. Through these programs, DOE is the third-largest federal supporter of basic
research and the largest federal supporter of research in the physical sciences.
For FY2004, DOE requested $3.311 billion for Science. After adjusting for
rescissions and the transfer of two programs from the Office of Science to the new
Department of Homeland Security, the comparable FY2003 appropriation was
$3.261 billion. On this basis, the FY2004 request is a net increase of 1.5%. Within
this overall funding, three of the six program areas would receive increases, and three
would receive decreases; the largest change in either direction would be 4.2%.
The requested funding for the largest program, basic energy sciences (BES), is
$1.009 billion, a decrease of $15 million below the comparable FY2003
appropriation. The request includes $125 million for continued construction of the
Spallation Neutron Source, a large facility at Oak Ridge National Laboratory for
research in physics, materials science, and other fields. The FY2003 appropriation
for the Spallation Neutron Source was $209 million; the reduction reflects the
planned construction schedule, with completion planned for 2006, not a delay or
scaling back of the project. A growth area in basic energy sciences is nanoscience,
for which the FY2004 budget requests $193 million, of which $85 million would
fund construction of three Nanoscale Science Research Centers. The House bill
increased research funding in the BES programs by $8 million above the
administration request. The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended funding
at the requested level.
The FY2004 request for high-energy physics is $738 million, an increase of $20
million above the comparable FY2003 appropriation. The House bill funds the
program at $748 million. The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended the
requested amount.
The requested funding for biological and environmental research is $500
million, a decrease of $7 million below the comparable FY2003 appropriation.
Activities within this program relating to microbial pathogens, with FY2003 funding
of $20 million, were transferred to the Department of Homeland Security on
March 1, 2003. The House bill includes $562 million. The SenateAppropriations
Committee recommended $534 million.

---

CRS-18
The request for nuclear physics is $389 million, an increase of $8 million above
the comparable FY2003 appropriation. The House bill would appropriate $399
million. The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended the requested amount.
The request for fusion energy sciences is $257 million, a $9 million increase
above the comparable FY2003 appropriation. In early 2003, the United States
rejoined negotiations on construction of the International Thermonuclear
Experimental Reactor (ITER), a fusion facility whose other participants include
Canada, China, the European Union, Japan, and Russia. About $12 million of the
requested FY2004 budget for fusion energy sciences would be devoted to ITER. The
budget impact of ITER in future years, once construction actually begins, depends
on the outcome of the ongoing negotiations; the U.S. share is generally expected to
be in the range of $50 million to $100 million per year. The House bill includes $268
million for fusion programs. The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended
the requested amount.
The smallest Science program, advanced scientific computing research, would
receive $173 million in the FY2004 request, an increase of $5 million above the
comparable FY2003 appropriation. The portion of this program that was located at
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, with FY2003 funding of approximately
$3 million, was transferred to the Department of Homeland Security on March 1,
2003. The House bill includes $213 million. The Senate Appropriations Committee
recommended $183 million.
Nuclear Weapons Stockpile Stewardship. Congress established the
Stockpile Stewardship Program in the FY1994 National Defense Authorization Act
(P.L. 103-160) “to ensure the preservation of the core intellectual and technical
competencies of the United States in nuclear weapons.” The program is operated by
the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), a semiautonomous agency
established by Congress in the FY2000 National Defense Authorization Act (P.L.
106-65, Title XXXII) within DOE. It seeks to maintain the safety and reliability of
the U.S. nuclear stockpile.
Stockpile stewardship consists of all activities in NNSA’s Weapons Activities
account. Appropriations were $4,908.7 million for FY2001 and $5,560.2 million for
FY2002; Table 7 provides FY2003 and FY2004 data. The three main elements of
stockpile stewardship, described next, are Directed Stockpile Work, Campaigns, and
Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities. NNSA manages two major programs
outside of Weapons Activities: Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation, discussed in a
subsequent section of this report, and Naval Reactors. Table 7 presents the main
elements of the Weapons Activities program.

---

CRS-19
Table 7. Funding for Weapons Activities
($ millions)
FY2003
FY2004
House Senate
Conf.
Program
Request
Appro.
Comm.
Directed Stockpile
1,198.6
1.364.8
1,343.8
1,367.8
Work
Campaigns
2,086.6
2,395.5
2,268.5
2,370.7
Readiness in Tech Base
1,794.0
1,613.5
1,511.1
1,751.1
and Facilities
Othera
903.2
1,004.3
994.3
984.3
Total
5,981.4
6,378.0
6,117.6
6,473.8
a Includes Facilities and Infrastructure Recapitalization Program, Secure Transportation
Asset, Safeguards and Security, use of prior year balances, and other adjustments.
Details may not add to totals due to rounding.
On July 18, 2003, the House passed H.R. 2754, the FY2004 Energy and Water
Development Appropriations Bill, 377-26, without amending the Weapons Activities
section. Thus, the amounts listed below that were recommended by the House
Appropriations Committee were accepted by the House.
Most stewardship activities take place at the nuclear weapons complex, which
consists of three laboratories (Los Alamos National Laboratory, NM; Lawrence
Livermore National Laboratory, CA; and Sandia National Laboratories, NM and
CA), four production sites (Kansas City Plant, MO; Pantex Plant, TX; Savannah
River Site, SC; and Y-12 Plant, TN), and the Nevada Test Site. NNSA manages and
sets policy for the complex; contractors to NNSA operate the eight sites.
Directed Stockpile Work (DSW). This program involves work directly on
nuclear weapons in the stockpile, such as monitoring the condition of weapons;
maintaining them through repairs, refurbishment, life extension, and modifications;
R&D in support of specific warheads; and dismantlement. The FY2004 DSW
request would support life extension programs for four nuclear warheads: B61
(gravity bomb), W76 (for Trident I and II submarine-launched ballistic missiles),
W80 (for cruise missiles), and W87 (for Minuteman III and MX/Peacekeeper
intercontinental ballistic missiles).
Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator (RNEP). Within DSW, NNSA plans to
conduct a study for the RNEP, for which $15.0 million was appropriated for FY2003;
another $15.0 million is requested for FY2004. Warheads of this type would burrow
into the ground before detonating in order to destroy underground targets with less
explosive yield than a surface-burst weapon would require. This warhead is
controversial. Supporters argue that it is needed to attack hard and deeply buried

---

CRS-20
targets (such as leadership bunkers or chemical weapons production facilities) in
countries of concern, thereby deterring or defeating such nations; critics reply that
RNEP would lower the threshold for use of nuclear weapons and prompt other
nations to develop nuclear weapons to deter U.S. attack. (See CRS Report RS20834,
Nuclear Earth Penetrator Weapons, and CRS Report RL31805, Authorization and
Appropriations for FY2004: Defense .) The FY2003 National Defense Authorization
Act, P.L. 107-314, fully funded the $15.0 million request but barred obligation of
FY2003 funds for the NNSA study until 30 days after the Department of Defense
submits a study on RNEP, including military requirements, employment policy,
targets, and conventional weapon alternatives. (The study was sent to Congress on
March 19, 2003.) The Consolidated Appropriations Resolution for FY2003, P.L.
108-7, provided the amount requested. RNEP is part of the Advanced Concepts
Initiative (ACI), which was established to explore future weapons concepts and
technologies. For FY2004, $6.0 million was requested (in addition to RNEP) for
additional and exploratory studies under ACI.
In its FY2004 report, the House Appropriations Committee stated that the
schedule for the first production unit of the refurbished W80 warhead had slipped to
FY2008 or FY2009, yet the baseline of FY2006 drove the FY2004 budget request.
Further, “the Committee has yet to receive an acceptable military justification for
supporting such an aggressive W80 LEP [life extension project] program. ... As a
result, the committee has reduced the weapons activity budget for the W80 LEP”.
The committee expected NNSA to maintain the level of effort on this program that
it had in FY2003, and reduced DSW by $13.0 million to slow W80 LEP activity.
The committee recommended reducing RNEP funding from $15.0 million
requested to $5.0 million, and eliminating the $6.0 million requested for ACI. “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.”
Further, the committee felt that the Administration was acting prematurely in
requesting funds for a range of new nuclear programs and preparing for expanded
missions for nuclear weapons before NNSA has demonstrated that it can maintain the
existing nuclear stockpile. Accordingly, “this Committee will not support redirecting
the management resources and attention to a series of new initiatives.”
The Senate Appropriations Committee, in its FY2004 report, recommended
increasing DSW by $3.0 million, increasing one element (Stockpile Maintenance) by
$10.0 million and reducing another (Production Support) by $7.0 million. The
committee recommended providing the full request, $21.0 million, for ACI.
Campaigns. These are “multi-year, multi-functional efforts” that “provide
specialized scientific knowledge and technical support to the directed stockpile work
on the nuclear weapons stockpile.” For FY2004, there are 16 campaigns. Examples
are: Enhanced Surveillance ($74.9 million appropriated for FY2003,$94.8 million
requested for FY2004), which seeks to assess lifetimes of weapons components and
predict defects resulting from aging; Advanced Design and Production Technologies
($72.0 million appropriated for FY2003, $79.9 million requested for FY2004), which
seeks to develop new technologies and processes to improve manufacturing in the
nuclear weapons complex; Advanced Simulation and Computing ($683.9 million

---

CRS-21
appropriated for FY2003, $750.6 million requested for FY2004), which aims to
advance the state of the art of nuclear weapon simulation, apply these advances to
current stockpile tasks, and deliver by FY2008 “a high fidelity, full-system physics
characterization of a nuclear weapon”; and Tritium Readiness ($124.8 million
appropriated for FY2003, $134.9 million requested for FY2004), which is making
preparations to use a commercial light water reactor to produce tritium, an isotope
of hydrogen that is a key ingredient in nuclear weapons.
The House Appropriations Committee recommended reducing funding for
Campaigns by $127.0 million. It expressed concern about delays in some projects
and unwarranted acceleration of others, and made some reductions consistent with
its desire to slow the W80 LEP. Decreases were spread across many projects within
Campaigns. The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended a net reduction
of $24.8 million for Campaigns. The largest increase, $43.2 million, was to
accelerate construction of the Microsystem and Engineering Science Applications
facility at Sandia National Laboratories; the largest reductions were to Inertial
Confinement Fusion, $34.0 million, and Advanced Simulation and Computing, $25.0
million. Details of House and Senate actions on two campaigns are discussed below.
Pits. Pits are the fissile cores of nuclear warheads that trigger the thermonuclear
secondary stage. DOE has had no facility to produce pits for use in stockpiled
weapons since it suspended pit production at the Rocky Flats Plant (CO) in 1989. As
a result, the United States has been unable to make all-new nuclear warheads of
existing or advanced new designs. The Pit Manufacturing and Certification
Campaign supports two pit projects: installation of a low-capacity pit production
facility, and supporting R&D, at Los Alamos National Laboratory; and planning for
a higher-capacity Modern Pit Facility. (See CRS Report RL31993, Nuclear Warhead
‘Pit’ Production: Background and Issues for Congress.)
This campaign has attracted much congressional interest. For FY2002, the
House Appropriations Committee recommended the requested amount, $128.5
million, but asserted that DOE cannot show “that it has a viable plan to manufacture
and certify pits on the schedule dictated by national security needs,” criticized the
project as “years behind schedule and hundreds of millions of dollars over the
original cost estimate,” and stated that it would judge NNSA’s success on how well
the pit project succeeds (H.Rept. 107-112). The Senate Appropriations Committee
for FY2002 recommended increasing funding substantially to “fully fund” all
relevant activities, viewing the then-current schedule, which would not certify a pit
for use in the stockpile until FY2009, as “unacceptable” (S.Rept. 107-39). In its
FY2003 request, NNSA stated its plans to “certify a W88 pit built at [Los Alamos
National Laboratory] without underground nuclear testing by FY 2009, with a goal
of achieving an earlier date of FY 2007.” Further, NNSA planned to defer detailed
design of a Modern Pit Facility until FY2004, “with FY 2003 funding used to
continue manufacturing concepts.” The FY2002 appropriation for this campaign was
$219 million.
The FY2003 request was $194.5 million. The request included $112.5 million
for manufacturing the pit for the W88 warhead, one of the two types of warheads
used on the Trident II missile, $78.0 million for W88 pit certification, $2.0 million

---

CRS-22
for pit activities not specifically supporting the W88, and $2.0 million for planning
for the Modern Pit Facility.
In its FY2003 report, the Senate Appropriations Committee recommended
$246.0 million for pit manufacturing and certification, an increase of $51.5 million
over the request. The sum includes the requested $2.0 million for pit activities and
$2.0 million for the Modern Pit Facility. The committee, however, “remains greatly
concerned about the NNSA’s refusal to request funds consistent with its own project
plan submitted less than 1 year ago.” Because this was not done, which would have
resulted in a lower request for this important project, “the Committee has been forced
to reduce other items in the budget.” For pit manufacturing and certification, the
House Appropriations Committee provided $194.5 million, the requested amount,
while the final appropriation provided $220.6 million. According to the joint
explanatory statement of the Committee of Conference, “The increase will ensure
that the NNSA maintains its commitment to produce a certifiable W88 pit by 2003
and a certified W88 pit by 2007.”
For FY2004, the Administration requested a substantial increase to items in this
campaign: $126.8 million for manufacturing the pit for the W88 warhead, $108.6
million for W88 pit certification, $19.7 million for pit activities not specifically
supporting the W88, and $22.8 million for planning for the Modern Pit Facility. In
addition, $42.4 million is requested for “subcritical experiments [at the Nevada Test
Site] which support the certification of the W88 pit.” For FY2004, this funding
element was transferred into the Pit Manufacturing and Certification Campaign from
Directed Stockpile Work; its FY2003 request was $41.5 million. Thus the total
request for FY2004 is $320.2 million, an increase of 35.7% over the FY2003 request
of $236.0 million (with both figures including subcritical experiments supporting
W88 pit certification).
The House Appropriations Committee saw the pit campaign as proceeding too
quickly. It recommended reducing the request for this campaign by $47.0 million,
still an increase of $12.2 million over the FY2003 budget. The committee praised
NNSA and Los Alamos National Laboratory for “turning around” this campaign, but
urged NNSA to reduce costs. It stated that the current plan would “aggressively
pursue a multi-billion dollar Modern Pit Facility before the first production pit has
even been successfully certified for use in the stockpile.” In reducing MPF to $10.8
million from the requested $22.8 million, it recommended that NNSA should look
hard at better ways to use the pit production facility at Los Alamos for near-term
requirements and “take a less aggressive planning approach” to MPF. It felt that it
was premature to spend $19.7 million to develop technologies for manufacturing pits
other than for the W88 when MPF was at least 15 years from operating, and so
recommended reducing this part of the request to $4.7 million. The Senate
Appropriations Committee recommended the amount requested for this campaign.
National Ignition Facility (NIF). This facility, under construction at Lawrence
Livermore National Laboratory, is to be the world’s largest laser. It is a key project
for the stockpile stewardship program. NIF is intended to help solve weapons
problems, attract top physicists to the nuclear weapons program, and advance the
quest for fusion power. A top priority of the facility is to achieve “ignition,” in which

---

CRS-23
nuclear fusion of deuterium and tritium (isotopes of hydrogen) would release more
energy than was provided by the laser to achieve fusion.
Over the years, various reports have been highly critical of NIF on such grounds
as technical problems, delays, and cost overruns.8 In 1999, the NIF Project identified
several problems with the original cost estimates and notified DOE that NIF could
not be completed for the original estimated cost. The project was rebaselined and
revalidated in 2000, adding approximately $1 billion to the cost and several years to
the schedule. Since mid-2001, criticism of NIF has fallen sharply; for example, the
Natural Resources Defense Council’s NIF resources page was last updated February
7, 2000, and the most recent General Accounting Office report on NIF was dated
June 1, 2001.9 The NIF Project Office stated in 2002 that the project was on the
schedule and budget set forth in the new baseline, and that no technical obstacles
remained. The FY2004 budget document shows the total project cost of NIF to
remain at $2,248.1 million, plus $1,200.0 million in other related costs, with physical
construction to be completed in the fourth quarter of 2008; these dates and costs are
the same as the FY2001 amended budget request. The document further states that
the NIF project “continues to meet all major milestones on or ahead of schedule,”
and that the first stockpile stewardship experiments on NIF are planned for 2004.
In its FY2003 report, the Senate Appropriations Committee expressed concern
that the project’s scope seemed to be shifting “from a focus on achieving the specific
goal of ignition to a generalized physics research program.” In response, “[t]he
Committee rejects this re-prioritization and down-scoping. Ignition is now and will
remain the primary objective” for NIF. In part because of concern that the
Administration did not request certain funds for equipment and technology essential
for ignition, the committee added $35.0 million to the FY2003 request for inertial
confinement fusion, for a total of $487.3 million (S.Rept. 107-220). The House
Appropriations Committee provided $498.8 million, and also expressed concern that
NNSA was changing the focus “from the specific goal of ignition to a generalized
physics research program.” Accordingly, it “direct[ed] NNSA to re-establish ignition
as the primary objective and justification for the NIF.” (H.Rept. 107-681.) The final
figure for FY2003 was $489.7 million for inertial confinement fusion, including
$214.0 million, the same as the request, for continued construction of NIF. The
conferees’ statement did not provide further guidance on the focus of the inertial
confinement fusion program.
For FY2004, the Administration requested $466.8 million for the Inertial
Confinement Fusion Ignition and High Yield Campaign, including $150.0 million for
NIF construction. The title of the campaign reflected congressional concerns.
Further, Everet Beckner, Deputy NNSA Administrator for Defense Programs,
8 For links to reports criticizing NIF, see Natural Resources Defense Council, “National
Ignition Facility and Science-Based Stockpile Stewardship Resource Page,” available at
[http://www.nrdc.org/nuclear/nif/nifinx.asp]. See also U.S. General Accounting Office.
National Ignition Facility: Management and Oversight Failures Caused Major Cost
Overruns and Schedule Delays, Report GAO/RCED-00-141, August 2000, 45 p.
9 U.S. General Accounting Office. Department of Energy: Follow-up Review of the
National Ignition Facility. Report GAO-01-677R, June 1, 2001, 18 p.

---

CRS-24
testified to the House Armed Services Committee on March 6, 2003, that NIF’s
“mission is to obtain fusion ignition.”10
The House Appropriations Committee recommended $511.8 million for this
campaign for FY2004, an increase of $45.0 million; included in the total was the
$150.0 million for construction, as requested. In marked contrast to concerns
expressed in past years, the FY2004 House report states, “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 Senate Appropriations
Committee recommended $432.8 million, a reduction of $34.0 million from the
request; the total included $150.0 million for construction. The committee expressed
concern over “dramatic growth in other NIF-related activities funded elsewhere in
the inertial confinement fusion campaign and specifically rejects that portion of the
budget request.”
Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities (RTBF). This program
provides infrastructure and operations at the nuclear weapons complex sites. The
request includes seven subprograms. By far the largest is Operations of Facilities
($1,001.0 million appropriated for FY2003, $972.8 million requested for FY2004).
Others include Program Readiness, which supports activities occurring at multiple
sites or in multiple programs ($213.6 million appropriated for FY2003, $131.1
million requested for FY2004), and Material Recycle and Recovery, which recovers
plutonium, enriched uranium, and tritium from weapons production and disassembly
($100.8 million appropriated for FY2003, $76.2 million requested for FY2004).
Construction is a separate category within RTBF; $310.9 million was appropriated
for FY2003, and $273.4 million is requested for FY2004.
For FY2004, the House Appropriations Committee recommended a reduction
of $102.4 million from the request. Details include: $997.8 million for Operations
of Facilities, with an increase of $20.0 million for Pantex Plant (TX) and $5.0 million
for Y-12 Plant (TN); $106.2 million for Program Readiness, reflecting the
elimination of funds for Enhanced Test Readiness (discussed below); $76.2 million,
as requested, for Material Recycle and Recovery; and $178.9 million for
construction, with almost all the reduction resulting from eliminating funds requested
for three projects ($20.0 million, exterior communications infrastructure
modernization, Sandia National Laboratories; $50.0 million, national security
sciences building, and $20.5 million, chemistry and metallurgy facility replacement
project, both at Los Alamos National Laboratory).
The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended adding $118.1 million to
RTBF. Of the increase, $117.0 million went to Operations of Facilities, including
$25.0 million for the National Center for Combating Terrorism, $10.0 million for
Pantex Plant, $10.0 million for Y-12 Plant, $20.0 million for Kansas City Plant
(MO), $15.0 million for Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, $20.0 million for
Los Alamos National Laboratory, and $8.0 million for Sandia National Laboratories.
10 Testimony of Everet Beckner, Deputy Administrator for Defense Programs, NNSA, on
the FY2004 budget request for the Office of Defense Programs, before the Subcommittee
on Strategic Forces of the House Armed Services Committee, March 6, 2003.

---

CRS-25
The RTBF element Nuclear Weapons Incident Response provides for a
technical response to a nuclear or radiological emergency within DOE, in the United
States, or abroad; $88.4 million was appropriated for FY2003 and $89.7 million was
requested for FY2004. In addition, the RTBF element Operations of Facilities
included $32.5 million appropriated for FY2003 for the National Center for
Combating Terrorism. The FY2004 request contains no funds for the center “due to
the uncertainty about the ultimate sponsor, scope, and size of the mission for this
facility.” For FY2004, the House and Senate Appropriations Committees provided
the amount requested for Nuclear Weapons Incident Response. As noted, the latter
committee added $25.0 million for the National Center for Combating Terrorism as
part of its RTBF increase.
Nuclear Testing and Enhanced Test Readiness. A key issue is whether
the United States can and should continue to maintain its weapons through the
Stockpile Stewardship Program without nuclear testing. While that program has
sought to do so, statements in early 2002 implied a reduced commitment to that
approach. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld reportedly said that nations with
nuclear weapons have “a responsibility to see that they are safe and reliable. To the
extent that can be done without testing, clearly that is the preference. And that is why
the President has concluded that, thus far, that is the case.”11 J.D. Crouch, Assistant
Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy, stated that there is “no change
in the Administration’s policy at this point on nuclear testing. We continue to oppose
CTBT [Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty] ratification. We also continue to adhere to
a testing moratorium.”12
The FY2004 budget request contains $303.5 million for Weapons Activities at
the Nevada Site Office, vs. $292.5 million for FY2003.13 Much of this is for
operation of the site, safeguards and security, and operation and maintenance of
experimental facilities at NTS.
Of particular interest regarding testing is Test Readiness, a component of the
Program Readiness element of RTBF. Since FY1996, U.S. policy has been that
NNSA (or DOE prior to NNSA’s establishment) should be ready to conduct a nuclear
test within 24 to 36 months from the time the order is given. Recent studies
identified work needed to reduce this time to 18 months. These studies were funded
by “Enhanced Test Readiness.” The FY2004 budget document states, “The DoD and
the NNSA agreed to transition to an 18-month test readiness posture while continuing
to review the optimum posture. The actions necessary for moving toward an 18-
month posture are expected to begin upon completion of the final FY 2003
appropriation.” The Senate Armed Services Committee’s bill for FY2004 national
defense authorizations, S. 1050, section 3132, requires an 18-month posture unless
11 Walter Pincus, “Nuclear Arms Plan: Saving, Not Scrapping,” Washington Post, January
9, 2002: 4.
12 U.S. Department of Defense. News Transcript. Special Briefing on the Nuclear Posture
Review, presented by J.D. Crouch, Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security
Policy, January 9, 2002.
13 U.S. Department of Energy. FY 2004 Congressional Budget Request: Laboratory Tables
(Preliminary), p. 74.

---

CRS-26
the Secretary of Energy determines that a different posture is preferable. NNSA,
however, prepared a study in April 2003 that concluded that an 18-month posture
was preferable.14 Meanwhile, through FY2003, funds in the “Nevada Site
Readiness” account maintained the 24- to 36-month posture with ongoing work at the
Nevada Test Site. Because no policy decision had been reached on reducing the time
needed to test, the Enhanced Test Readiness and Nevada Site Readiness accounts had
to be kept separated. With the move to an 18-month test readiness posture, the
enhanced posture will become the current posture, making this separation
unnecessary. Accordingly, the two accounts are expected to be merged into “Test
Readiness” beginning in FY2004, depending on congressional language, though the
FY2004 NNSA budget request level does not reflect that merger.
The FY2003 appropriation for enhanced test readiness was $15.0 million.
Conferees on the Consolidated Appropriations Resolution for FY2003 directed DOE
to notify the Appropriations Committees before obligating any of these funds in
FY2003. (H.Rept. 108-10.) Notification is pending. The FY2004 request for Test
Readiness is $24.9 million, and for Nevada Site Readiness is $39.6 million.
In its FY2004 report, the House Appropriations Committee sharply criticized
the plan for enhanced test readiness and recommended eliminating FY2004 funds for
it. The committee expressed its concern over an “open-ended commitment” to
enhanced test readiness “without any budget analysis or program plan to evaluate the
efficiency or effectiveness of this funding increase,” argued that the proposal “does
not address the fundamental difficulties in maintaining test readiness during a testing
moratorium,” and noted that it took 18-24 months to conduct a fully-instrumented
test during the era of routine testing so that a proposal to maintain indefinitely an 18-
month posture during the testing moratorium “reflects a disturbing ‘cost is no object’
perspective.” Finally, even though NNSA and DOD decided to move to an 18-month
test readiness posture, “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 Senate Appropriations Committee made no reference to
nuclear test readiness, and provided the amount requested for Program Readiness, the
component of RTBF containing test readiness funds.
Budget Process Issues. NNSA issued its first Future Years Nuclear
Security Program (FYNSP) in March 2002. The House Appropriations Committee,
however, criticized that effort. The committee, in its FY2003 report on Energy and
Water Development Appropriations (H.Rept. 107-681), stated,
the FYNSP has several fundamental weaknesses that limit its usefulness
for Congressional oversight. ... The NNSA budget and the FYNSP are
built around activities rather than programs and products. ... The FYNSP
includes a laundry list of performance targets – few of which are the same
as an identifiable program – and there is no specific funding associated
with any of the performance targets. Thus, it is impossible to determine
14 U.S. Department of Energy. National Nuclear Security Administration. Report to
Congress: Nuclear Test Readiness. April 2003, 15 p.

---

CRS-27
how a specific resource allocation will impact performance. ... It is difficult
for the Congress to determine what NNSA proposes to accomplish with
these funds. ... [Accordingly, the] Committee directs the Department to
conduct an independent assessment of the NNSA’s PPBS [planning,
programming, and budgeting system] process and structure, including its
comparability to that of the Department of Defense.
Conferees agreed with the House language and “direct[ed] the NNSA to contract
for an independent assessment of the NNSA’s planning, programming, and budgeting
system, including its comparability to that of the Department of Defense.”
In its FY2003 budget request document, NNSA stated, “We are implementing
a new PPBE [program planning, budgeting and evaluation] process that offers the
potential for significant improvements in our resource management and decision
making while still meeting all of the DOE’s and Congress’ requirements for
information ... [beginning] with the FY 2004 budget cycle” and noted that DOE “is
considering a parallel PPBES process.” Accordingly, the FY2004 request document
provided a five-year projection for NNSA’s budget (Table 8):
Table 8. NNSA 5-Year Budget Projection
($ millions)
FY04
FY05
FY06
FY07
FY08
FY09
Office of Admin.
348
337
344
353
355
362
Weapons
6,378
6,661
6,961
7,277
7,518
7,651
Activities
Nonproliferation
1,340
1,356
1,371
1,389
1,322
1,346
Naval Reactors
768
808
795
811
819
834
Total
8,835
9,162
9,471
9,830
10,014
10,193
In its FY2004 report, the House Appropriations Committee commended
NNSA’s efforts to implement a PPBE structure and a process to budget by weapon
type. More generally, the committee found the process for budgeting and for setting
priorities in nuclear weapons to be flawed, with DOD setting requirements for
weapons without having to pay for them, and with DOE treating the Weapons
Activities budget as untouchable because the requirements were set by DOD.
Accordingly, “this Committee will not assume that all of the proposed nuclear
weapons requests are legitimate requirements.” The Senate Appropriations
Committee directed DOE to retain the Institute for Defense Analyses to assess the
process and structure of NNSA’s planning, programming, and budgeting system.
Nonproliferation and National Security Programs. DOE’s
nonproliferation and national security programs provide technical capabilities to
support U.S. efforts to prevent, detect, and counter the spread of nuclear weapons
worldwide. These nonproliferation and national security programs are included in
the National Nuclear Security Administration.

---

CRS-28
Funding for these programs in FY2003 was provided in the Consolidated
Appropriations Resolution (H.J. Res. 2, P.L. 108-7), which appropriated the amount
requested by the Administration, $1.1136 billion. An additional $148 million was
appropriated in the Emergency Wartime Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2003, P.
L. 108-11 For FY2004, the Administration requested $1.3402 billion. The House bill
contains $1.2802 billion. The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended the
requested amount.
In particular, the Nonproliferation and Verification R&D program, which
received a total of $283 million for FY2003 (less $79 million for programs
transferred to the Department of Homeland Security, for a total of $204 million),
would be funded at $204 million in the Administration FY2004 request.
Nonproliferation and International Security programs, formerly called “Arms
Control,” would receive $102 million in the request, compared with $93 million in
FY2003. These programs include international safeguards, export controls, and
treaties and agreements. The House bill would fund the R&D program at the
requested level, and would boost the Nonproliferation and International Security
program to $105.7 million. The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended
$234.9 million for R&D and $121.7 million for Nonproliferation and International
Security.
Table 9. DOE Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation Programs
($ millions)
FY2004
Senate
Program
FY2004
House
FY2003
Approp.
Conf.
Request
H.R.
Cte.
2754
Nonproliferation and Verification R&D
222.5 a
203.9
203.9
234.9
Nonproliferation and International Security
114.1 a
101.7
105.7
121.7
International Materials Protection, Control
331.6 a
226.0
255.0
226.0
and Accounting (MPC&A)
Russian Transition Initiative
39.0
40.0
40.0
50.0
International Nuclear Safety
14.5
14.1
6.1
–
Elimination of Weapons-Grade Plutonium
49.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
Production
HEU Transparency Implementation
17.1
18.0
18.0
18.0
Accelerated Materials Disposition
–
30.0
5.0
30.0
Fissile Materials Disposition
445.1
656.5
656.5
656.5
Adjustments
-64.0
–
-60.0
-46.9
Total, Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation
1,168.9 a 1,340.2
1,280.2
1,340.2
a Includes $148 million total appropriated in Emergency Wartime Supplemental Appropriations Act,
2003, P. L. 108-11: $20 million in R&D, $22 million in Nonproliferation and International Security,
and $106 million in MPC&A.
International Materials Protection, Control and Accounting (MPC&A), which
is concerned with reducing the threat posed by unsecured Russian weapons and
weapons-usable material, would receive $226 million under the President’s request,
compared to $233 million (less $4 million transferred to DHS) appropriated for
FY2003. The House bill would increase MPC&A to $255 million, including an
additional $28 million for the “Megaports initiative,” which is intended to install

---

CRS-29
radiation detection equipment at the top 20 major overseas seaports to interdict
nuclear material before it arrives in the United States. The Emergency Wartime
Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2003, P. L. 108-11, included $84 million for this
new program for FY2003.
The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended the requested amount, $226
million, for MPC&A.
Two programs in the former Soviet Union, Initiatives for Proliferation
Prevention (IPP) and the Nuclear Cities Initiatives (NCI), which comprise the
“Russian Transition Initiative,” would receive $40 million under the President’s
request, compared to the FY2003 appropriation of $39.3 million. Requested funding
for the Fissile Materials Disposition program for FY2004 is $656.5 million,
compared with $448 million in FY2003. The increased funding is for disposal of
U.S. surplus weapons plutonium by converting it into fuel for commercial power
reactors, including construction of a facility to convert the plutonium to reactor fuel
at Savannah River, SC. The House bill would fund these programs at the requested
level. The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended $50 million for the
Russian Transition Initiative and the requested amount, $656.5 million, for Fissile
Materials Disposition.
(For details on these programs, see CRS Issue Brief IB10091, Nuclear
Nonproliferation Issues.)
Environmental Management. The amount of time and money needed to
clean up environmental contamination resulting from the production of nuclear
weapons during the Cold War has been a longstanding issue. Since the beginning of
the U.S. atomic energy program, DOE and its predecessors have been responsible for
administering the production of nuclear weapons and managing radioactive and other
hazardous waste. In later years, DOE expanded its efforts to include the
environmental restoration of radioactive sites and those with other hazardous
contamination in buildings, soil, and water to ensure their safety for future uses. In
1989, the George H. W. Bush Administration established an Environmental
Management Program within DOE to consolidate the agency’s efforts in cleaning up
contamination from defense nuclear waste, as well as waste from civilian nuclear
energy research. DOE is responsible for complying with numerous federal
environmental laws and regulations in administering the program, and is subject to
fines and penalties for violations of these requirements. Consequently, DOE has
signed numerous legally binding compliance agreements with the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) and the states to perform cleanup activities and dispose of
waste according to specific deadlines.
DOE reports that there are 114 geographic sites in 31 states and one U.S.
territory where the production of nuclear weapons, and civilian nuclear energy
research and development activities, resulted in radioactive and other hazardous
contamination. Together, these sites occupy approximately 2 million acres, which
is equivalent to the land area of Rhode Island and Delaware combined. DOE reports
that all response actions were complete at 75 sites as of the end of FY2002 at a cost
of over $60 billion, and that cleanup is expected to be complete at two additional
sites by the end of FY2003. However, the sites that have been cleaned up are
relatively small and are among the least hazardous, and the sites where cleanup

---

CRS-30
remains underway contain some of the most severely contaminated areas. DOE
estimates that, if program reforms are not initiated, cleanup at the remaining sites
may take 70 years to complete, and that total cleanup costs may range from $220
billion to as high as $300 billion.
Five accounts within the annual appropriations bill for Energy and Water
Development have traditionally funded DOE’s Environmental Management Program.
The Defense Environmental Restoration and Waste Management Account funds
cleanup and waste management activities at nuclear weapons sites where all response
actions are projected to continue beyond calendar year 2006. The Defense Facilities
Closure Projects Account supports cleanup and waste management activities at
nuclear weapons sites where all response actions are scheduled to be complete by the
end of calender year 2006. The Defense Environmental Management Privatization
Account funds cleanup and waste management projects at nuclear weapons sites that
are performed under “privatization” contracts. This contracting approach relies on
the private sector to construct and operate facilities or conduct cleanup actions on a
fixed-price, fee-for-service basis. The Non-Defense Environmental Management
Account funds cleanup and waste management activities at civilian nuclear energy
research and development sites. Lastly, the Uranium Facilities Maintenance and
Remediation Account funds the cleanup of uranium and thorium processing sites.
For FY2004, DOE has requested a total of $7.24 billion for its Environmental
Management Program, $290 million more than the FY2003 enacted level of $6.95
billion. While an increase has been proposed, the budget request would alter the
existing appropriations account structure in order to focus funding on efforts to
accelerate cleanup schedules and lower costs. These efforts are part of DOE’s
cleanup reform strategy, which is based on assessing the risk of exposure to
determine which cleanup remedies are selected. Risk is currently one of many
factors that DOE uses to select cleanup remedies. Altering the current process to use
risk as the primary factor could result in decisions to contain waste on site as a means
of preventing exposure, rather than removing it. While containment can often be
accomplished more quickly and at less cost, the possibility of future exposure
remains if the method of containment fails over time.
The proposed accounts are structured according to the purposes of “Site
Acceleration Completion” and “Environmental Services,” and there would be
separate “Defense” and “Non-defense” accounts for each category. The Site
Acceleration Completion accounts represent nearly $6.0 billion of the total request,
and would fund efforts to complete cleanup and close contaminated facilities at a
faster pace than previously scheduled. The Environmental Services accounts would
fund activities that indirectly support the mission of accelerated cleanup and closure,
such as policy development and coordination, and the integration of mission
activities across the complex of sites. DOE estimates that its cleanup acceleration
strategy could save between $50 billion and $100 billion in total cleanup costs over
the long term, and that the time frame for total site cleanup could be moved from
2070 to 2035.
While there has been widespread concern about the amount of time and money
needed to clean up nuclear waste sites, questions have been raised as to how DOE
would use a risk-based approach to accomplish its goals of faster and less costly

---

CRS-31
cleanups without weakening environmental protection. Some have drawn attention
to the possibility that basing the selection of cleanup remedies on risk alone might
result in more contamination being left on site, rather than it being removed.
Because of the substantial amount of time required for radioactive decay to occur,
arguments have been raised that contamination left in place may migrate in
unexpected ways over the long-term, and result in pathways of exposure that could
not have been predicted when the remedy was originally selected. Others counter
that completely removing radioactive contamination from all sites to permit
unrestricted future land use, and eliminate all future pathways of exposure, would not
be economically feasible, and in some cases would be beyond the capabilities of
current cleanup technologies.
DOE first proposed a risk-based cleanup reform strategy as part of its FY2003
budget request. In the 107th Congress, numerous questions were presented during the
FY2003 appropriations debate as to whether the use of risk-based approaches would
provide adequate environmental protection. Prior to final action on FY2003
appropriations, DOE signed letters of intent with EPA and the states to accelerate
cleanup at most of its sites. Some Members criticized DOE’s attempt to implement
its cleanup reform strategy prior to the appropriation of funds as premature. While
Congress did appropriate funding to honor these agreements, it provided the funds
under the existing account structure rather than under a separate cleanup reform
account that DOE had proposed. Some Members expressed concern about how the
funds would have been distributed among the sites if DOE had been given an
unallocated lump sum under a new account.
In the 108th Congress, the House would support the Administration’s FY2004
request to change the existing account structure for the Environmental Management
Program, in order to focus funding on the use of risk-based approaches to accelerate
cleanup schedules. However, the House would provide less funding than requested
for the program overall, primarily due to concern about DOE’s lack of progress at
many sites in renegotiating cleanup agreements to the satisfaction of EPA and the
states, which would be necessary to allow the selection of cleanup remedies to be
altered. Specifically, the House bill would appropriate a total of $7.18 billion for the
Environmental Management Program for FY2004, nearly $60 million less than the
Administration’s request of $7.24 billion, but about $230 million more than the
enacted FY2003 amount of $6.95 billion. Report language indicates that additional
funding could be provided in a future fiscal year if DOE can reach consensus with
EPA and the states at sites where cleanup agreements have yet to be revised.
Additional concern is raised in the House bill that a sharp increase in the cost
estimate for an accelerated cleanup project at the Hanford site may be an indicator
that cost estimates of cleanup acceleration projects at other sites also could be
understated. In light of this concern, the House bill would require DOE to review the
cost estimates for all of the line-item construction projects in the FY2004 budget
request. Another noted issue is the possible need for amendments to existing law to
allow certain cleanup acceleration projects to proceed. To examine this need, the
House bill would direct DOE to prepare a report to Congress on potential statutory
restrictions that may delay or prohibit cleanup acceleration projects that are currently
planned, and to submit a legislative proposal requesting these changes as part of the
Administration’s FY2005 budget submission to Congress.

---

CRS-32
The House bill also expresses concern about long-term stewardship needs once
cleanup is finished at each site, and would direct DOE to consider these needs when
implementing accelerated cleanup plans “to ensure that long-term stewardship is not
used as a substitute for complete and effective site cleanup.” As discussed earlier,
some have expressed concern that DOE’s cleanup acceleration strategy may result
in more waste being left on site than would be allowed under original cleanup
agreements. If more waste were permitted to remain, rather than being removed, the
stewardship costs at such sites would likely rise as a result of the need for additional
measures to ensure that the waste continues to be safely contained in future years to
prevent exposure. In response to this issue, the House bill indicates that the
Performance Management Plan for each cleanup site should identify the resources
that would be necessary for fulfilling DOE’s responsibilities to manage the legacy of
contained waste that is left behind after cleanup response actions are complete.
The Senate also would support the requested change in account structure for the
Environmental Management Program, but would provide about $3 million less
overall than the House for the program. Like the House, the Senate bill expresses
support for DOE’s efforts to reduce risk, accelerate cleanup, and lower costs.
However, it also raises questions, similar to the House, regarding the possible
understatement of costs for certain cleanup acceleration projects. The Senate bill
expresses concern about the “highly optimistic” assumptions upon which estimates
of cost savings and accelerated cleanup goals are based, such as changes in statutory
and regulatory requirements that would be needed to alter certain requirements under
existing cleanup agreements with EPA and state regulators.
In response to this concern, the Senate bill would provide an additional $5
million for DOE’s Office of Management, Budget, and Evaluation to increase its
oversight of cleanup acceleration and reform efforts. DOE would be directed to
submit a proposal by March 15, 2004, for establishing a formal process by which the
Office of Management, Budget, and Evaluation would certify that “new acceleration
and reform agreements based on the site management performance plans are
comprehensive in their cost estimates and contain adequate contingency.” The
Senate bill indicates that the purpose of this certification would be to “improve
oversight and confidence in the cost savings promised in the acceleration and reform
agreements.”
Civilian Nuclear Waste. The Bush Administration requested $591 million
for the DOE civilian nuclear waste disposal program for FY2004, a 30% boost over
FY2003. The increased budget is intended primarily to pay for preparing a
construction permit application for a national nuclear waste repository at Yucca
Mountain, Nevada. The additional funds are also needed for detailed repository
design work, repository performance studies, and transportation planning, according
to DOE. The Department contends that it cannot meet its 2010 target date for
shipping nuclear waste to Yucca Mountain without receiving its entire FY2004
budget request for the program.
The House Appropriations Committee, contending that the nuclear waste
program has suffered “chronic funding shortfalls,” voted to provide an additional
$174 million for the program in FY2004, for a total of $765 million, to which the
House concurred. The Appropriations Committee report stressed that the additional

---

CRS-33
funding should ensure that DOE could submit a license application for the repository
to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) by December 31, 2004. The
Committee also directed DOE to prepare any plans and legislation necessary to allow
shipments of spent nuclear fuel to Yucca Mountain to begin in 2007 – three years
before the repository is scheduled to open. However, House Energy and Water
Subcommittee Chairman Hobson promised in a floor colloquy to remove the report
language about early shipments to Yucca Mountain.
The Senate Appropriations Committee voted to cut the Administration’s request
to $425 million, setting up a potentially difficult confrontation with the House over
the controversial program.
Between FY2005 and FY2010, nuclear waste funding will have to further
increase to an average of $1.3 billion per year to keep the repository on schedule,
according to the DOE budget justification. The Administration is proposing that
discretionary spending caps be adjusted to accommodate the program’s higher future
funding, although specific legislation has not been submitted.
The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (NWPA, P.L. 97-425) as amended,
names Yucca Mountain as the sole candidate site for a national geologic repository.
Following the recommendation of Energy Secretary Abraham, President Bush on
February 15, 2002, recommended to Congress that DOE submit an application to
NRC to construct the Yucca Mountain repository. Nevada Governor Guinn then
exercised his right under NWPA to submit a “notice of disapproval” (or “state veto”)
to Congress. Under NWPA, the state disapproval would have blocked the Yucca
Mountain site if a congressional approval resolution had not been signed into law
within 90 days of continuous session. The approval resolution was signed July 23,
2000 (H.J.Res. 87, P.L. 107-200), allowing the Yucca Mountain project to proceed
to the licensing phase.
Funding for the nuclear waste program comes from two sources. Under the
FY2004 budget request, $161.0 million would be provided from the Nuclear Waste
Fund, which consists of fees paid by nuclear utilities, and $430.0 million from the
defense nuclear waste disposal account, which pays for disposing of high-level waste
from the nuclear weapons program in the planned civilian repository. The House
Appropriations Committee would boost the Nuclear Waste Fund portion of the
request to $335 million.
The 2010 target for opening a permanent repository is 12 years later than the
Nuclear Waste Policy Act deadline of January 31, 1998, for DOE to begin taking
waste from nuclear plant sites. Nuclear utilities and state utility regulators, upset
over DOE’s failure to meet the 1998 disposal deadline, have won two federal court
decisions upholding the Department’s obligation to meet the deadline and to
compensate utilities for any resulting damages. Utilities have also won several cases
in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, although specific damages have not yet been
determined. (For details see CRS Issue Brief IB92059, Civilian Nuclear Waste
Disposal.)

---

CRS-34
The State of Nevada has filed a variety of lawsuits to block the Yucca Mountain
project, including a contention that the federal government lacks authority under the
Constitution to force Nevada to accept the nation’s nuclear waste.
Power Marketing Administrations. DOE’s four Power Marketing
Administrations (PMAs) developed during the 1930s out of the construction of dams
and multi-purpose water projects that are operated by the Bureau of Reclamation and
the Army Corps of Engineers. The original intention behind many of these projects
was conservation and management of water resources, including irrigation, flood
control, recreation and other objectives. However, many of these facilities generated
electricity for project needs. The PMAs were established to market the excess
power; they are the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA), Southeastern Power
Administration (SEPA), Southwestern Power Administration (SWPA), and Western
Area Power Administration (WAPA).
The power is sold at wholesale to electric utilities and federal agencies “at the
lowest possible rates ... consistent with sound business practice,” and priority on
PMA power is extended to “preference customers,” which include municipal utilities,
co-ops and other “public” bodies. The PMAs do not own the generating facilities,
but they generally do own transmission facilities, except for Southeastern. The
PMAs are responsible for covering their expenses and repaying debt and the federal
investment in the generating facilities.
The 104th Congress debated sale of the PMAs and did, in 1995, authorize
divestiture of one PMA (the Alaska Power Administration Act, P.L. 104-58). There
has been no press to dispose of the remaining PMAs, and none seems likely given the
broader uncertainties governing electric utility restructuring.
Congress enacted a funding level of $203.5 million in the FY2003 Consolidated
Appropriations Resolution (P.L. 108-7), including an additional $6.1 million for
WAPA above the Administration’s FY2003 request. The request for FY2004 is
$207.3 million – $5.1 million for SEPA, $28.6 million for SWPA, $171 million for
WAPA, and $2.6 million for operation of hydroelectric facilities at the Falcon &
Amistad Dams located on the Rio Grande River between Texas and Mexico. The
increase in the FY2004 request over the enacted FY2003 spending level may be
attributed to an increase of nearly $10 million for Program Direction at WAPA.
Workload requirements attributed to certain orders from the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (FERC), and additional hires are cited as the justification for
an increase of nearly 10% in higher salaries and benefits for WAPA in FY2004. The
House bill funds PMA’s at the requested level, and the Senate Appropriations
Committee recommended the same funding .
BPA receives no annual appropriation, but funds some of its activities from
permanent borrowing authority, which was increased in FY2003 from $3.75 billion
to $4.45 billion (a $700 million increase). BPA is not requesting additional
borrowing authority in FY2004. BPA intends to borrow $528 million in FY2004,
down from $630.8 million in FY2003, to be used for generation and transmission
services, conservation, energy efficiency, fish and wildlife, and capital equipment
programs.

---

CRS-35
Title IV: Independent Agencies
Independent agencies that receive funding from the Energy and Water
Development bill include the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), the
Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC), and the Denali Commission.
Table 10. Energy and Water Development Appropriations
Title IV: Independent Agencies
(in millions of dollars)
Program
FY2003
FY2004
House
Senate
Conf.
Request
H.R.
Approp.
2754
Cte.
Appalachian Regional Commission
70.8
33.1
33.1
71.1
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
585.0
626.1
626.1
626.1
(Revenues)
(526.5)
(545.6)
(545.6)
(545.6)
Net NRC
58.5
80.5
80.5
80.5
Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety
Board
18.9
19.6
19.6
19.6
Nuclear Waste Technical Review
Board
3.2
3.1
3.1
3.1
Denali Commission
47.7
9.5
–
48.5
Delta Regional Authority
7.9
2.0
2.0
7.0
Total
206.7
147.9
138.4
229.9
Key Policy Issues — Independent Agencies
Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC) is requesting a total budget of $626.1 million for FY2003, including $7.3
million for the NRC inspector general’s office. The funding request would provide
a 8.3% increase over FY2003. Major activities conducted by NRC include safety
regulation and licensing of commercial nuclear reactors, licensing of nuclear waste
facilities, and oversight of nuclear materials users. The House approved the full
NRC request, and so did the Senate Appropriations Committee.
In the wake of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks against the United
States, NRC has focused additional attention on the security of nuclear power plants
and other users of radioactive material. NRC’s FY2004 budget request includes
$53.1 million for activities related to homeland security, a 50% increase over
FY2003. During FY2003, NRC plans to finish revising the nuclear plant security
“design-basis threat” – the potential attacks that nuclear plants must be capable of

---

CRS-36
withstanding. In FY2004, NRC intends to begin conducting “full security
performance reviews, including force-on-force exercises, at each nuclear power plant
on a 3-year cycle instead of the 8-year cycle that the agency used before September
11, 2001.” (For more information on protecting licensed nuclear facilities, see CRS
Report RS21131, Nuclear Power Plants: Vulnerability to Terrorist Attack.)
NRC proposes to spend $33.5 million on licensing activities for possible new
commercial reactors, which are being encouraged by DOE’s Nuclear Power 2010
program. The FY2003 appropriation provided about $25 million for new reactor
licensing, up from $10 million in FY2002. According to the NRC budget
justification, the funding will be used for early site permits (sites approved for future
reactors), reactor pre-licensing and licensing reviews, and updating the nuclear
licensing infrastructure.
For the decade before FY2001, NRC’s budget was offset 100% by fees on
nuclear power plants and payments by other licensed activities, such as the DOE
nuclear waste program. The nuclear power industry had long contended that the fee
structure required nuclear reactor owners to pay for a number of NRC programs, such
as foreign nuclear safety efforts, from which they did not directly benefit. To account
for that concern, the FY2001 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act
(P.L. 106-377) included an NRC proposal to phase down the agency’s fee recovery
to 90% during the subsequent 5 years – two percentage points per year. As a result,
92% of the FY2004 NRC request – minus $33.1 million transferred from the Nuclear
Waste Fund to pay for waste repository licensing – would be offset by fees on
licensees.

---

CRS-37
For Additional Reading
CRS Issue Briefs
CRS Issue Brief IB88090. Nuclear Energy Policy.
CRS Issue Brief IB92059. Civilian Nuclear Waste Disposal.
CRS Issue Brief IB10041. Renewable Energy: Tax Credit, Budget, and Electricity
Production Issues
CRS Issue Brief IB10072. Endangered Species: Difficult Choices.
CRS Issue Brief IB10091. Nuclear Nonproliferation Issues.
CRS Reports
CRS Report RS20702. South Florida Ecosystem Restoration and the
Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan.
CRS Report RL30928. Army Corps of Engineers: Reform Issues for the 107th
Congress.
CRS Report RS20569. Water Resource Issues in the 107th Congress.
CRS Report RS20866. The Civil Works Program of the Army Corps of Engineers:
A Primer.
CRS Report RL31116. Water Infrastructure Funding: Review and Analysis of
Current Issues.
CRS Report RL31215. Bonneville Power Administration’s Authority to Borrow
from the U.S. Treasury.
CRS Report RL30478. Federally Supported Water Supply and Wastewater
Treatment Programs.
CRS Report RS21026. Terrorism and Security Issues Facing the Water
Infrastructure Sector.
CRS Report RS21131. Nuclear Powerplants: Vulnerability to Terrorist Attack.
CRS Report RL31098. Klamath River Basin Issues: An Overview of Water Use
Conflicts.

---