BES FY 2000 Budget Request

HOUSE ACTION:
The following was copied from the BES section of H.Rept. 106-253

ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2000

BASIC ENERGY SCIENCES

The Committee recommendation for basic energy sciences is $735,989,000, a reduction of $73,111,000 from the current fiscal year, and a $152,095,000 reduction from the budget request.

The Committee remains committed to robust basic energy research programs which are characterized by cutting-edge basic research, availability of world-class facilities to the scientific and research community, and direction to meet current and future energy-related challenges. For purposes of reprogramming during fiscal year 2000, funding may be reallocated by the Department among all operating accounts in basic energy sciences. The recommendation includes $7,000,000, the same amount as the budget request, for the Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR).

High-Flux Beam Reactor.--The Committee has included statutory language prohibiting the Department from re-starting the High-Flux Beam Reactor. This reactor has been shut down since December, 1996. The Department has failed to meet its own deadlines for making a decision about the future of this reactor. The Committee directs that the Department complete the environmental impact study (EIS) no later than the date provided to the Committee, November 30, 1999, and issue a record of decision no later than thirty days after issuing the final EIS. The Committee has watched deadlines pass while the Department continues funding necessary caretaking and safety improvements with requirements of more than $20,000,000 per year. The Committee further directs the Department to provide a budget and program plan reflecting the record of decision with the submittal of the fiscal year 2001 budget request.

Spallation Neutron Source.--The recommendation provides $67,900,000, including $17,900,000, the same amount as the budget request, for underlying research and development needed to confirm design for this unique machine and $50,000,000 for construction, a reduction of $146,100,000 from the amount requested. The Committee has again recommended a reduction in the funding level for this project based on several unfavorable reviews of the management of this project including reviews by the Department of Energy (DOE), the General Accounting Office (GAO), and the comprehensive independent review commissioned by the Committee (EG&G). In testimony to the Committee, the Department stated that: `The only reason for the change in the total project cost is the change in the fiscal year 1999 budget for the project from $157 million to $130 million.' Each of the reports cited problems including, for example, the need to reorganize the project office, the need for better lines of responsibility through the lab structure, and the need for project managers with project manager experience. Each of these are significant issues that must be addressed before construction commences. None of these are attributable to the Congress's recognition that this project was not ready for full funding last year. It is unfortunate that the Department chose to first blame Congress when cost estimates were increased.

Despite these problems, the Committee is encouraged that the Department is re-evaluating the costs and proposals submitted by the proposed participating laboratories. The Department has already announced that this project is now on track and that its new management team and project management structure have eliminated all of the problems and concerns of the reports cited above. The Committee has grown accustomed to the Department immediately solving all problems with the issuance of a press release; however, the Committee is holding onto its confetti.

The Committee will continue to closely follow the progress of this project and urges the Department to follow through on its stated commitment to put the goals and interests of this taxpayer-funded project above the goals and interests of the individual labs that ultimately participate in this project. Consistent with the authorization bill recently passed by the House Committee on Science, the Department is prohibited from obligating funds provided in this Act until the following are provided to the committees of jurisdiction, namely the Committee on Science of the House, the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate, and the Committees on Appropriations of the House and the Senate:

(1) Certification that senior project management positions for the project have been filled by qualified individuals;

(2) Cost baseline and project milestones for each major construction and technical system activity, consistent with the overall cost and schedule submitted with the Department's fiscal year 2000 budget, that have been reviewed and certified by an independent entity, outside the Department and having no financial interest in the project, as the most cost-effective way to complete the project;

(3) Binding legal agreements that specify the duties and obligations of each laboratory of the Department in carrying out the project;

(4) A revised project management structure that integrates the staff of the collaborating laboratories working on the project under a single project director, who shall have direct supervisory responsibility over the duties and obligations described in subparagraph (3) above,

(5) Official delegation by the Secretary of primary authority with respect to the project to the project director;

(6) Certification from the Comptroller General that the total taxes and fees in any manner or form paid by the Federal government on the SNS and the property, activities, and income of the Department relating to the SNS to the State of Tennessee or its counties, municipalities, or any other subdivision thereof, does not exceed the aggregate taxes and fees for which the Federal government would be liable if the project were located in any other State that contains a national laboratory of the Department; and

(7) Annual reports on the SNS project, included as part of the Department's annual budget submission, including a description of the achievement of milestones, a comparison of actual costs to estimated costs, and any changes in estimated project costs or schedule.