The request was larger than the FY1998 appropriation of $21.2 billion. The Senate approved S. 2138 for $21.4 billion onJune 18,1998 by a vote of 98-1. TheHouse approved its version of the bill ( H.R. 4060 ) by a vote of 405-4 on June 22, 1998 for $21.1 billion. Theconference agreement, for $21.2billion, was reported out ( H.Rept. 105-749 ) on September 25, 1998, approved by the House on September 28, 1998,and approved by the Senate one day later,September 29, 1998. The President signed the bill ( P.L. 105-245 ) October 7, 1998. 105-277 ) added money to several programs funded inthe Energy and Water Appropriations bill, including theCorps of Engineers, DOE's renewable energy program and its defense activities program, and TVA. This additionalfunding is not incorporated in the budgettables that follow, but significant changes are noted in the text under Key Policy Issues. Energy and Water Development Appropriations TitleI: Corps of Engineers (in millions ofdollars)

		Key Policy Issues

Funding for the Corps of Engineers civil programs is often a contentious issue between the Administration and the Congress, with appropriations typically endingup significantly higher than the amount requested. Title II: Department of the Interior

 Table 4. Energy and Water Development Appropriations TitleII: Central Utah Project CompletionAccount (in millions of dollars)
* Includes funds available for Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Commission activities and $5 million for the contribution authorized by ï¿½402(b)(2)of the Central Utah Project Completion Act ( P.L. Energy and Water Development Appropriations TitleIII: Department of Energy (in millions ofdollars)
*Senate bill increased solar and renewable funding by $70 million and decreased other programs by 1.6%. For civilian R&D programs, the request was $3.49 billion comparedwith $3.10 billion for FY1998, and for defenseR&D (nuclear weapons) programs, the request was $3.28 billion compared with $3.02 billion for FY1998. For nuclear energy programs -- including research and development, closing of surplus facilities,uranium programs, and international nuclear reactor safety -- the conference report provides $284 million, about$40 million below the DOE request. However, the House had cut theAdministration request by nearly $100 million, including a reduction of the nuclear energy research initiative to $5million and rejection of the nuclear plantoptimization program. Science. Theconferees did not provide any funds for DOE's portion of the Administration's Next Generation Internet initiative. Thedefense-related funding includes $228 million for the"privatization" of DOE waste management projects, such as the solidification of high-level radioactive waste atHanford, Washington -- less than half the DOErequest. The FY1999 Omnibus Appropriations Act( P.L. Energy and Water Development Appropriations TitleIV: Independent Agencies (in millions ofdollars)

		Key Policy Issues

Tennessee Valley Authority. Despite the language in the conference report, and pending further consideration of the future of TVAand its non-power programs, theAdministration requested $77 million for TVA non-power programs for FY1999. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
The Energy and Water Development appropriations bill includes funding for civil projects of the Army Corps of Engineers, the Department of the Interior'sBureau of Reclamation, much of the Department of Energy (DOE), and a number of independent agencies,including the Appalachian Regional Commission, theNuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), and the appropriated programs of the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). The Administration requested $21.7 billionfor these programs for FY1999 compared with $21.0 billion appropriated for FY1998 and $19.97 billion forFY1997. The Senate, by a vote of 98-1, approved theEnergy and Water bill ( S. 2138 ) on June 18, 1998, for a total of $21.4 billion. The House , by a vote of 405-4approved its version of the bill( H.R. 4060 ) on June 22, 1998 for $21.1 billion. The conference agreement, appropriating $21.2 billion, wasreported out September 25, 1998. Theconference report ( H.Rept. 105-749 ) was approved by the House September 28, 1998, and approved by the SenateSeptember 29, 1998. The President signed thebill October 7, 1998.
Key issues involving the Energy and Water Development appropriations programs included:
Sharp cuts in the Corps of Engineers construction request. However, the House and Senate prevailed in supporting $1.43 billion, nearlydouble the amount of the request.
Significant proposed increases in DOE's research and development programs and in the nuclearweapons program. Increases over FY1998were approved by Congress, but the amount agreed to was 3.1% below the Administration's request. The nuclearweapons budget was hiked by about $300million over the FY1998 amount.
DOE's proposed "accelerated cleanup" of former weapons sites. Environmental cleanup programs were supported at near the level of theDOE request. However, the requested amount for the privatization of DOE waste management projects was cut inhalf by Congress.
Increased funding for nuclear energy programs. Congress supported funding for nuclear energy programs at $41 million over FY1998 but$42 million less than the DOE request.
Continued funding of TVA's non-power programs. Funding for TVA was not included in the Energy and Water Development bill forFY1999.
The FY1999 Omnibus Appropriations Act ( P.L. 105-277 ) added money to several programs funded in the Energy and Water Appropriations bill, including theCorps of Engineers, DOE's renewable energy program and its defense activities program, and TVA. This additionalfunding is not incorporated in the budgettables that follow, but significant changes are noted in the text under Key Policy Issues.
Key Policy Staff
Division abbreviations: ENR = Environment and Natural Resources; STM = Science, Technology, and Medicine.