Statement of Administration Policy: H.R. 3816 - Energy and Water Development Appropriations Bill, FY 1997

(House Floor)
(Sponsors: Livingston (R), Louisiana; Myers (R), Indiana)

This Statement of Administration Policy provides the Administration's views on H.R. 3816, the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Bill, FY 1997, as reported by the House Appropriations Committee. For the reasons discussed below, the Secretary of Energy would recommend that the President veto the bill if it were presented to him in its current form.

Department of Energy

The Administration strongly opposes the Committee's action that would undermine progress in the nuclear waste program, eliminate funding for international nuclear safety programs, drastically reduce funding for solar and renewable energy research, and impair the Department of Energy's (DOE's) ability to carry out its missions.

The Administration opposes language in the bill dial is intended to make die availability of a significant portion of the funds for the nuclear waste management program (authorized by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act) contingent upon congressional enactment of a subsequent authorization bill. This language would appear to be an attempt to force the President to sign an undefined and unacceptable nuclear waste bill that Congress may not be able to enact This language could result in the immediate suspension of ongoing work at the Yucca Mountain site plus a lengthy and costly delay in solving die Nation's commercial nuclear waste problem.

The Committee mark does not provide any of the $66 million requested by the Administration to assist nations of Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union in improving the safety of Soviet-designed nuclear reactors. Eliminating funds for this vital program, which is designed to avoid a repeat of the Chernobyl disaster, would be extremely unwise.

The Committee bill would reduce funding for wind energy, just as new DOE-sponsored technologies for using this clean energy source are beginning to produce tangible environmental and economic benefits, including climate change mitigation. Overall, the Committee would reduce funding for research in solar and renewable energy by $132 million from the President's request of $363 million. By threatening development of these advanced renewable technologies, which have a large export market, these short-sighted funding cuts would reduce new jobs and undermine efforts to protect human health.

The Committee mark would drastically cut funding for Departmental Administration, as well as program direction funds for several other programs. The Administration shares the Committee's support for assuring the financial integrity of the Department However, the reduction of more than $50 million to Departmental Administration would severely impair the Department's ability to perform its mission and maintain its financial management responsibilities. The proposed reduction would also threaten DOE's plan to downsize rationally. We urge the Committee to restore funding for Departmental Administration to tire requested level.

In the past three years, DOE has reduced its contractor workforce by nearly 20,000, and, in the past year alone, its Federal personnel levels by over 1,300. Large additional reductions are planned over the next four years as part of a comprehensive downsizing initiative. The abrupt reductions mandated by the Committee would require large Federal layoffs (RIFs) of well over 1,000 employees and would leave the Department unable to manage adequately its contractors who work at DOE's laboratories, nuclear weapons plants, and cleanup sites.

The Committee bill would cut program direction funds for the Office of Defense Programs and the Office of Environmental Management by over 20 percent This would leave fewer than 4, 000 Federal employees to manage about 100,000 contractor employees who maintain the safety and reliability of the nuclear weapons stockpile and clean up the environmental degradation that has occurred over 50 years of weapons production. In its targeted cuts to headquarters funding for the Office of Environmental Management, the Committee fails to recognize that the Department has already reduced these costs by 36 percent over the past two years.

The Administration opposes the effective reduction of $47 million (18 percent) for Fusion Energy Sciences. The Administration's request is explicitly responsive to the congressional directive for a restructured program contained in last year's bill, which included a one-third reduction from the Administration's FY 1996 funding request In addition, the Administration strongly opposes the unprecedented, overly-prescriptive direction of over 80 percent of the fusion program budget. This, together with the large funding cuts, would mean that the program, as directed, could not support the scientific priorities identified by key advisory committees. In addition, university-based research would essentially be eliminated.

The Administration is opposed to tire $18 million reduction (11 percent) to the President's request for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. The Committee mark would result in a funding level inadequate to implement the Commission's sweeping initiatives to bring competition to wholesale electricity markets and to the interstate natural gas pipeline industry. Since the Commission expects an additional $4 million in carryover balances from FY 1996 to be available at the start of FY 1997, restoration of $14 million would expedite the Commission's efforts to reduce consumer energy costs by billions of dollars per year.

The Administration opposes the significant reduction in funding for the DOE Office of Inspector General (OIG). The Committee mark of $24 million is 19 percent below the President's request The OIG has a successful track record of identifying waste and fraud in DOE programs, as well as in streamlining operations. In FY 1995, for example, OIG actions provided a positive dollar impact of about $3.4 million per audit employee, providing a payback that far exceeded its operating costs. A reduction this large to the OIG would very likely reduce DOE's ability to improve financial control and assure better program and contract management

The Administration further objects to the Committee's cutting $216 million needed to provide full funding for civilian basic science facilities construction; the $20 million elimination of DOFs University and Science Education Program; and the $12 million reduction in the Environment, Safety, and Health program.

Army Corps of Engineers

The Administration urges the Committee to trim the list of unrequested projects and to restore funds that the Administration has requested for priority projects, including the Columbia River Juvenile Fish Mitigation Program to restore salmon runs in the Columbia and Snake Rivers and requested construction and study starts. The Administration urges the Committee to use the over $150 million in unrequested funds that the Committee has provided for the Corps of Engineers construction, studies, and operation and maintenance programs to restore reductions made in other priority Corps and DOE programs.

The Administration urges the House to restore the Committee's $11 million reduction to the request for the Corps' regulatory program, which would be used to expedite the Corps' permit process. At the Committee's proposed level of funding, the Corps would likely be unable to implement its new process to allow applicants to appeal administratively Corps decisions regarding permits under its wetlands and navigation programs. Currently, appeals must be made through legal action.

Other programs of nationwide benefit for which the Committee has unwisely reduced funding include those in which fire Corps provides technical assistance to State and local governments, such as the Flood Plain Management Assistance program. The Administration strongly supports this program and others that foster partnerships among all levels of government.

Bureau of Reclamation

The Administration appreciates the Committee's support of the Bureau of Reclamation's water resources management mission. We object, however, to the deletion from the construction request of $4.5 million for the Efficiency Incentives program and $2.5 million for the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation program. The Efficiency Incentives program is needed to help achieve the water conservation objective of the 1992 Reclamation Reform Act. The National Fish and Wildlife Foundation request is needed to fund an innovative Federal/non-Federal partnership that effectively leverages scarce Federal dollars to preserve and restore critical fish and wildlife habitats. In addition, the Administration is concerned about the Animas-La Plata language in the House Committee Report

Other Development Agencies

The Administration opposes the Committee's decision to eliminate funding for several independent river basin commissions. In keeping with the need to shift responsibility for local flood control and other projects from the Corps of Engineers to State and local governments, these commissions are representative of the type of State and locally-oriented entities that could assume responsibility for ensuring that the water resource needs of the various regions are met in a coordinated, cost-effective manner.