General Survey Act of 1824

109TH CONGRESS
" HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session

!

REPORT
109–474

ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS
BILL, 2007

MAY 19, 2006.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of
the Union and ordered to be printed

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

R E P O R T
[To accompany H.R. 5427]

The Committee on Appropriations submits the following report in
explanation of the accompanying bill making appropriations for energy and water development for the fiscal year ending September
30, 2007, and for other purposes.
INTRODUCTION

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS

The Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill for fiscal
year 2007 totals $30,017,000,000, $545,773,000 above the President’s budget request, and $172,000,000 below the amount appropriated in fiscal year 2006.
Title I of the bill provides $4,983,803,000 for the programs of the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, a decrease of $345,367,000 below
the fiscal year 2006 enacted level (adjusted for one-time emergency
spending) and $250,803,000 over the budget request. The fiscal
year 2007 budget request for the Corps of Engineers totals
$4,733,000,000, which is composed of entirely of new budget authority.
The fiscal year 2007 budget request for the Corps’ Civil Works
program continues the performance-based ranking system instituted in fiscal year 2006 with two major modifications to the guidelines. The first allows risks to human life to be considered along
with economics for flood and storm damage reduction projects. The
second changes the prioritization process for environmental restoration projects. This performance-based system is intended to
focus limited federal resources on the efficient completion of high
economic-value projects while suspending or terminating work on
other projects found not to be of as high an economic value and on
27–628

VerDate Aug 31 2005

05:42 May 20, 2006

Jkt 027628

PO 00000

Frm 00001

Fmt 6659

Sfmt 6602

E:\HR\OC\HR474.000

HR474

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS

2
congressionally mandated projects that have been included in prior
Administration requests. The Committee supports the concept of focusing limited resources on completing high-value projects already
under construction, and the Committee recommendation is based in
large part on the Administration’s performance-based approach.
The Committee bill and report retains changes to improve the
Corps’ project management and execution, particularly in the areas
of reprogrammings, continuing contracts, and five-year budget
planning.
Title II provides $940,934,000 for the Department of Interior and
the Bureau of Reclamation, $17,198,000 over the budget request,
and $113,939,000 below the fiscal year 2006 enacted level. The
Committee recommends $900,779,000 for the Bureau of Reclamation, 17,198,000 above the budget request and $120,087,000 below
the fiscal year 2006 enacted level. The Committee recommends
$40,155,000 for the Central Utah Project including $965,000 for deposit into the Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Account, both the same as the budget request.
Title III provides $24,373,489,000 for the Department of Energy,
an increase of $326,717,000 over fiscal year 2006 and $298,772,000
over the budget request of $24,074,717,000.
The Energy Supply and Conservation account, which funds renewable energy, energy efficiency, nuclear energy, non-defense environment, safety, and health programs, and energy conservation,
is funded at $2,025,527,000, an increase of $102,166,000 over the
request and $212,900,000 above the current year enacted level. The
Committee recommends $4,131,710,000 for the Office of Science, an
increase of $30,000,000 over the budget request and $535,317,000
over the current year.
Environmental management activities (i.e., non-defense environmental cleanup, uranium enrichment decontamination and decommissioning fund, and defense environmental cleanup) are funded at
$6,441,126,000, a decrease of $595,614,000 below the fiscal year
2006 enacted level and an increase of $161,088,000 over the budget
request.
The Committee recommends a total of $574,500,000 for the
Yucca Mountain repository. This includes $186,420,000 for Nuclear
Waste Disposal, an increase of $30,000,000 over the request, and
$388,080,000 for Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal, the same as the
request. The additional funds are provided for the Department to
begin to move spent nuclear fuel away from reactor sites to interim
storage.
Funding for the National Nuclear Security Administration
(NNSA), which includes nuclear weapons activities, defense nuclear
nonproliferation, naval reactors, and the Office of the NNSA Administrator, is $9,199,811,000, an increase of $95,314,000 over fiscal year 2006. The Committee recommendation includes
$1,593,101,000 for Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation, a decrease of
$21,738,000 over the current year and $133,112,000 below the
budget request.
Title IV provides $227,774,000 for several Independent Agencies,
a decrease of $40,652,000 from fiscal year 2006 and $21,000,000
below the budget request of $248,774,000. The requested funding
is provided for the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, the
Delta Regional Authority, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission In-

VerDate Aug 31 2005

05:42 May 20, 2006

Jkt 027628

PO 00000

Frm 00002

Fmt 6659

Sfmt 6602

E:\HR\OC\HR474.000

HR474

3

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS

spector General, and the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board.
The request for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is increased by
$40,000,000, of which $36,000,000 is offset by license fees and annual charges. An additional $5,000,000 is provided for the Denali
Commission. The request for the Appalachian Regional Commission is reduced by $30,000,000, and no funds are provided for the
Office of Inspector General for the Tennessee Valley Authority.

VerDate Aug 31 2005

05:42 May 20, 2006

Jkt 027628

PO 00000

Frm 00003

Fmt 6659

Sfmt 6602

E:\HR\OC\HR474.000

HR474

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS

VerDate Aug 31 2005

05:42 May 20, 2006

Jkt 027628

PO 00000

Frm 00004

Fmt 6659

Sfmt 6602

E:\HR\OC\HR474.000

HR474

TITLE I
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE—CIVIL
DEPARTMENT
CORPS

OF

OF THE

ARMY

ENGINEERS—CIVIL

INTRODUCTION

The United States Army Corps of Engineers traces its history to
1775, when Congress established the Continental Army with a provision for a Chief Engineer to oversee the construction of fortifications for the Battle of Bunker Hill. An Act of Congress permanently established the Corps in 1802. The Corps’ Civil Works role
and mission is grounded in a series of laws enacted since 1824. A
brief legislative history of the Corps follows.
• The General Survey Act of 1824 authorized the President to
have surveys made of routes for roads and canals of national importance, in a commercial or military point of view, or necessary
for the transportation of public mail. The President assigned responsibility for the surveys to the Corps of Engineers. A second act,
also signed in 1824, appropriated $75,000 to improve navigation on
the Ohio and Mississippi rivers by removing sandbags, snags and
other obstacles, and was subsequently amended to include other
rivers such as the Missouri. This work was also given to the Corps
of Engineers. Subsequent Acts of Congress expanded the Corps’ responsibilities for navigation.
• The Rivers and Harbors Act of 1909 expanded the Corps’ Civil
Works authority by authorizing the consideration of hydroelectric
power generation in the planning, design and construction of water
resource development projects.
• The 1917 Flood Control Act established a role for the Corps in
flood damage reduction, which became a national flood protection
role for the Civil Works program in the 1936 Flood Control Act.
The Flood Control Act of 1944 gave the Corps a recreation role that
was added as part of flood control at Corps reservoirs. The 1962
River and Harbor Flood Act expanded that role by authorizing the
Corps to build recreational facilities as part of all water resource
development projects.
• The environmental role to protect, restore and manage the environment emanates from the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 that
assigned the Corps the mission to prevent obstacles in navigable
waterways. As concerns over the environment grew in the late 20th
Century, the Clean Water Act of 1972 broadened this responsibility
by giving the Corps the authority and direction to regulate dredging and activities that result in fill being placed in the ‘‘waters of
the United States,’’ including many wetlands. Additional legislation
passed in the 1986 Water Resources Development Act further exycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS

(5)

VerDate Aug 31 2005

05:42 May 20, 2006

Jkt 027628

PO 00000

Frm 00005

Fmt 6601

Sfmt 6601

E:\HR\OC\HR474.000

HR474

6
panded the Corps’ environmental role to include enhancing and restoring natural resources at new and existing projects, and the
Water Resources Development Act of 1990 made environmental
protection one of the Corps’ primary water resources development
missions.
• The Water Supply Act of 1958 gave the Civil Works Program
the authority to include water storage in new and existing reservoir projects for municipal and industrial uses.
• The Flood Control and Coastal Emergency Act (P.L. 84–99)
and the Stafford Disaster and Emergency Assistance Act gave the
Civil Works program direct authority to help the nation in times
of national disaster. P.L. 84–99 directed the Corps to provide emergency assistance during or following flood events to protect lives,
public facilities and infrastructure. The Stafford Act authorized the
Corps to support the Federal Emergency Management Agency in
carrying out the Federal Response Plan (now the National Response Plan), which requires 26 federal departments and agencies
to provide coordinated disaster relief and recovery operations.
• Title 10 of the U.S. Code, (Navigation and Navigable Waterways), as further outlined in Title 33, enables the Civil Works program to provide services to other federal entities, states, or local
governments on a reimbursable basis. This work includes flood control, the improvement of rivers and harbors, research, and support
to private engineering and construction firms competing for, or performing, work outside the United States. The Support for Others
program engages the Corps in reimbursable work that is determined to be in America’s best interests.
MAJOR MISSION AREAS

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS

Currently, the Corps accomplishes the Civil Works mission
through the following major business programs:
Navigation.—The role of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers with
respect to navigation is to provide safe, reliable, and efficient waterborne transportation systems, such as channels, harbors and
waterways, for movement of commerce, national security needs and
recreation. The Corps seeks to accomplish this mission through a
combination of capital improvements and the operation and maintenance of existing projects. Capital improvement activities include
the planning, design, and construction of new navigation projects.
In fiscal year 2004, the Corps operated and maintained 12,000
miles of commercial inland navigation channels; owned and/or operated 257 navigation lock chambers at 212 sites; and maintained
926 coastal, Great Lakes and inland harbors.
Flood damage reduction.—Section 1 of the Flood Control Act of
1936 declared flood control to be a proper Federal activity since improvements for flood control purposes are in the interest of the general welfare of the public. The Act stipulated that for Federal involvement to be justified, ‘‘the benefits to whomsoever they may accrue (must be) in excess of the estimated costs, and the lives and
social security of people (must be) otherwise adversely affected.’’ In
fiscal year 2004, the Corps managed 383 major lakes and reservoirs; and constructed or controlled 8,500 miles of federal levees.
Over the last ten years, the average annual damages prevented by
Corps projects totaled $21.1 billion.

VerDate Aug 31 2005

05:42 May 20, 2006

Jkt 027628

PO 00000

Frm 00006

Fmt 6601

Sfmt 6601

E:\HR\OC\HR474.000

HR474

7
Ecosystem restoration.—The Corps of Engineers incorporated ecosystem restoration as a project purpose within the Civil Works program in response to increasing national emphasis on environmental restoration and preservation. Historically, Corps involvement in environmental issues focused on compliance with National
Environmental Protection Act requirements related to flood protection, navigation, and other project purposes. More recent efforts
have involved pro-active restoration measures to damaged ecosystems, and the provision of local environmental infrastructure.
Hurricane and storm damage reduction.—Congress authorized
Federal participation in the cost of restoring and protecting the
shores of the United States, its territories and its possessions.
Under current policy, shore protection projects are designed to reduce damages caused by wind-generated and tide-generated waves
and currents along the nation’s ocean coasts, Gulf of Mexico, Great
Lakes, and estuary shores. Hurricane protection was added to the
erosion control mission in 1956 when Congress authorized costshared Federal participation in shore protection and restoration of
publicly owned shore areas. Federal assistance for periodic nourishment was also authorized on the same basis as new construction,
for a period to be specified for each project, when it is determined
that it is the most suitable and economical remedial measure.
Water supply.—National policy regarding water supply states
that the primary responsibility for water supply rests with states
and local entities. The Corps may participate and cooperate in developing water supplies in connection with construction, operation
and modification of Federal navigation, flood damage reduction, or
multipurpose projects. Certain conditions of non-federal participation are required.
Hydroelectric power generation.—Congress, through various statutes, has directed the Corps to consider the development of hydroelectric power in conjunction with other water resources development plans. The Corps owns and operates nearly one-quarter of the
United States’ hydropower capacity, with 75 projects in operation.
Recreation.—The Corps is one of the nation’s largest providers of
outdoor recreation opportunities, and ranks first among federal
providers of outdoor recreation. Although known primarily for the
opportunities managed at its lake projects, the Corps also participates in the planning, design and construction of recreation facilities at a wide variety of other types of water resource projects.
Such facilities might include hiking and biking trails associated
with a stream channel or levee primarily designed for flood damage
reduction. There is no general authority for Corps participation in
a single purpose recreation project.
CONTINUING AUTHORITIES PROGRAM

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS

The continuing authorities program (CAP) establishes a process
by which the Corps of Engineers can respond to a variety of water
resource problems without the need to obtain specific congressional
authorization for each project. The CAP program is comprised of individual programs for nine different types of projects, each with its
own program authority and strict limits on the federal contribution, which are as follows:

VerDate Aug 31 2005

05:42 May 20, 2006

Jkt 027628

PO 00000

Frm 00007

Fmt 6601

Sfmt 6601

E:\HR\OC\HR474.000

HR474

8

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS

Section 14 Emergency streambank and shoreline erosion.—
Authorized by section 14 of the 1946 Flood Control Act, work
under this authority allows emergency streambank and shoreline protection for public facilities, such as roads, bridges, hospitals, schools, and water/sewage treatment plants, that are in
imminent danger of failing. The cost share is 65% federal and
35% non-federal; and the federal share cannot exceed
$1,000,000 per project.
Section 103 Hurricane and storm damage reduction.—Authorized by section 103 of the 1962 River and Harbor Act, work
under this authority provides for protection or restoration of
public shorelines by the construction of revetments, groins, and
jetties, and may also include periodic sand replenishment. The
cost share is 65% federal and 35% non-federal; and the federal
share cannot exceed $3,000,000 per project.
Section 107 Small navigation improvements.—Authorized by
section 107 of the 1960 River and Harbor Act, work under this
authority is intended to provide improvements to navigation
including dredging of channels, widening of turning basins,
and construction of navigation aids. The cost share is 80% federal and 20% non-federal; and the federal share may not exceed $4,000,000 for each project.
Section 111 Storm damage attributable to federal navigation
works.—Authorized by section 111 of the 1968 River and Harbor Act, work under this authority provides for the prevention
or mitigation of erosion damages to public or privately owned
shores along the coastline of the United States when these
damages are a result of a federal navigation project. This authority cannot be used for shore damages caused by riverbank
erosion or vessel-general wave wash. It is not intended to restore shorelines to historic dimensions, but only to reduce erosion to the level that would have existed without the construction of a federal navigation project. Cost sharing may not be
required for this program. If the federal cost limitation of
$2,000,000 per project is exceeded, specific congressional authorization is required.
Section 204 Beneficial uses of dredged material.—Authorized
by section 204 of the Water Resources Development Act of
1992, work under this authority provides for the use of dredged
material from new or existing federal projects to protect, restore, or create aquatic and ecologically related habitats, including wetlands. The cost sharing (25% non-federal, 75% federal) would be applied to the incremental cost above the least
cost method of dredged material disposal consistent with engineering and environmental criteria.
Section 205 Small flood control projects.—Authorized by section 205 of the 1948 Flood Control Act, work under this authority provides for local protection from flooding by the construction or improvement of flood control work such as levees,
channels, and dams. Non-structural alternatives are also considered and may include measures such as installation of flood
warning systems, raising and/or flood proofing of structures,
and relocation of flood prone facilities. The cost share is 65%

VerDate Aug 31 2005

05:42 May 20, 2006

Jkt 027628

PO 00000

Frm 00008

Fmt 6601

Sfmt 6601

E:\HR\OC\HR474.000

HR474

9
federal and 35% non-federal; and the federal share may not exceed $7,000,000 per project.
Section 206 Aquatic ecosystem restoration.—Authorized by
section 206 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996,
work under this authority may carry out aquatic ecosystem
restoration projects that will improve the quality of the environment, are in the public interest, and are cost-effective.
There is no requirement that a Corps project be involved. The
cost share is 65% federal and 35% non-federal; and the federal
share per project cannot exceed $5,000,000 including studies,
plans and specifications, and construction.
Section 208 Snagging and clearing for flood control.—Authorized by section 208 of the 1954 Flood Control Act, work
under this authority provides for local protection from flooding
by channel clearing and excavation, with limited embankment
construction by use of materials from the clearing operation
only. The cost share is 65% federal and 35% non-federal; and
the federal share may not exceed $500,000 for each project.
Section 1135 Project modifications for improvement of the environment.—Authorized by section 1135 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986, work under this authority
provides for modifications in the structures and operations of
water resources projects constructed by the Corps of Engineers
to improve the quality of the environment. Additionally, the
Corps may undertake restoration projects at locations where a
Corps project has contributed to the degradation. The primary
goal of these projects is ecosystem restoration with an emphasis on projects benefiting fish and wildlife. The project must be
consistent with the authorized purposes of the project being
modified, environmentally acceptable, and complete within
itself. A non-federal sponsor is required to provide 25% of the
cost of the project; and the federal share of each separate
project may not exceed $5,000,000, including studies, plans and
specifications, and construction.
FY 2007 BUDGET OVERVIEW

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS

The fiscal year 2007 budget request for the Corps of Engineers
totals $4,733,000,000. The Committee recommends a total of
$4,983,803,000 for the Corps of Engineers, a decrease of
$345,367,000 from fiscal year 2006 enacted levels (adjusted for onetime emergency spending) and $250,803,000 above the request. The
budget request represents a continuation of the performance-based
system based on the ratio of remaining benefits-to-remaining costs
initially proposed in the fiscal year 2006 budget request. This performance-based system is intended to focus limited federal resources on the efficient completion of high economic-value projects
while suspending or terminating work on other projects found not
to be of as high an economic value and on Congressionally mandated projects that have been included in prior Administration requests.
The Committee has recommended a rescission of unobligated balances from construction projects in Louisiana that have been fully
funded through completion, at full federal expense, in supplemental
appropriations. In recognition of the continuing and very real needs

VerDate Aug 31 2005

05:42 May 20, 2006

Jkt 027628

PO 00000

Frm 00009

Fmt 6601

Sfmt 6601

E:\HR\OC\HR474.000

HR474

10
in the region for water resource projects, the majority of this funding is allocated to projects in the area not funded under the Administration’s budget request.
The budget request also contains $20,000,000 in the Investigations account to continue the effort, initiated with $30,000,000 in
supplemental appropriations, to create a national inventory and
database of flood and storm damage reduction projects and for assessing project structural and operational integrity and their associated risks. The Committee supports this effort; however, it is concerned with the Corps proposal for the execution of this activity.
Given the uncertainty associated with the scope and process for
this type of national inventory, the Committee believes the Corps
should reevaluate its approach. The Committee therefore directs
the Corps to execute a pilot project to determine the nature and extent of the task and further define the necessary parameters prior
to initiating the inventory across the nation. The Committee further directs the Corps to give priority consideration to the Sacramento area for the pilot project as the region has a clear and
pressing need for such an inventory and assessment.
Until such time as the Committee is satisfied the Corps has a
executable plan and direction for this activity, no additional funds
are provided. Further, the Committee notes there is no explicit authorization for this activity in the Investigations account.
The Committee has recommended funding for the major rehabilitations at Markland Locks and Dam and Locks No. 27, Mississippi
River, critical elements of the Ohio and Mississippi River systems.
The Committee does not view the rehabilitaiton of existing infrastructure as a new construction start, but rather a necessary investment to ensure adequate functioning of the Nation’s water resource infrastructure.
A summary table illustrating the fiscal year 2006 enacted appropriation, the fiscal year 2007 budget request and the Committee
recommended levels is shown below:
[Dollars in 000s]
Account

Fiscal Year 2006
Enacted

Fiscal Year 2007
Request

Committee Recommendation

Investigations ..............................................................................................
Hurricane disasters assistance ..................................................................
Construction ................................................................................................
Hurricane disasters assistance ..................................................................
Rescission ...................................................................................................
Mississippi River and tributaries ...............................................................
Hurricane disasters assistance ..................................................................
Operation and maintenance, general .........................................................
Hurricane disasters assistance ..................................................................
Regulatory program ....................................................................................
FUSRAP ........................................................................................................
Flood control and coastal emergencies ......................................................
Hurricane disasters assistance ..................................................................
General expenses ........................................................................................
Hurricane disasters assistance ..................................................................
Office of Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) ............................
Total, Corps of Engineers ...........................................................................
Appropriations .............................................................................................
Emergency Appropriations ..........................................................................

$162,360
37,300
2,348,280
101,417
........................
396,000
153,750
1,969,110
327,517
158,400
138,600
........................
2,277,965
152,460
1,600
3,960
8,228,719
5,329,170
2,899,549

$94,000
........................
1,555,000
........................
........................
278,000
........................
2,258,000
........................
173,000
130,000
81,000
........................
164,000
........................
( 1)
4,733,000
4,733,000
........................

$128,000
........................
1,929,471
........................
¥56,046
290,607
........................
2,195,471
........................
173,000
130,000
32,000
........................
156,300
........................
5,000
4,983,803
4,983,803
........................

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS

1 The budget proposes to fund this office from within the General Expenses account. For purposes of comparison, the budget request includes $6,000,000 for these activities in fiscal year 2007.

VerDate Aug 31 2005

05:42 May 20, 2006

Jkt 027628

PO 00000

Frm 00010

Fmt 6601

Sfmt 6601

E:\HR\OC\HR474.000

HR474

11
FISCAL YEAR 2007 BUDGET PRESENTATION

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS

The Corps of Engineers has proposed several changes to the
manner in which the civil works program is presented and appropriated. The most significant is the movement of four categories of
projects and programs from the Construction account into Operation and Maintenance. Additionally, the budget request aggregates Operation and Maintenance projects into geographical regions and provides only a top line appropriation for all projects contained within each of the 21 regions.
The Committee supports a more systematic approach to the funding of the Operation and Maintenance account and understands the
dynamic nature of the project needs within this account. The Committee is concerned that this method of budgeting provides little
transparency of the proposed expenditures by project for Congress
and for local and regional partners of the Corps of Engineers. We
note, however, that the accountability of the Corps under this scenario differs little from that of past years, when the Corps interpreted its reprogramming authority to be 50 percent of the entire
Operation and Maintenance account. In that case, while funding
amounts were assigned to each project within the Act, there was
no assurance that this amount of funding would be provided to the
individual projects as identified.
The Committee retains Endangered Species Act (ESA) compliance and beneficial use of dredged material in the Operation and
Maintenance account with the exception of the Section 204 program. ESA compliance and dredged material facilities are a necessary and required cost of the nation’s waterway system and are
appropriately considered an operation and maintenance cost. The
Section 204 program is retained in the Construction account with
the remaining Continuing Authorities.
The Committee recommends that the Operation and Maintenance account be appropriated based on the geographic regions
contained in the budget request with the following stipulations:
• The Corps will provide, under signature within 30 days of
enactment, to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations the planned funding allocations by project for this account, including a detailed accounting of activities previously
funded under the Columbia River and the Missouri River Fish
Mitigation projects;
• The Corps will maintain this information on its website;
• The Corps will not deviate from this allocation of funds
without a clearly articulated management plan outlining the
circumstances under which a reprogramming between individual projects is justified and the process by which these decisions will be made;
• This management plan shall be provided to the House and
Senate Committees on Appropriation for approval;
• As part of the management plan, the Corps is instructed
to develop a communication plan for how this process will be
coordinated with, and justified to, the impacted Members of
Congress, water system users, and other interested parties.
Further, the Corps is instructed to reevaluate the management
of this account. At a minimum, the Corps shall consider: the proper

VerDate Aug 31 2005

05:42 May 20, 2006

Jkt 027628

PO 00000

Frm 00011

Fmt 6601

Sfmt 6601

E:\HR\OC\HR474.000

HR474

12
level of decentralization versus centralized command and control;
internal controls to ensure funds are spent appropriately; minimum
standards of reporting for financial management purposes; and the
method by which funds are allocated and shifted among specific
projects. The Corps shall submit a report, with findings and recommendations, to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations within 60 days of enactment of this Act.
The proposed movement of projects from the Construction account into Operation and Maintenance obfuscates that the Administration’s budget request reduces the level of funding allocated to
operation and maintenance of our nation’s waterways by $52 million from the fiscal year 2006 request. The following table provides
a comparison.
Account

Fiscal Year 2006
Request

Fiscal Year 2006
Enacted 1

Fiscal Year 2007
Request

Fiscal Year 2007
Adjusted

$1,979,000
1,637,000

$1,969,000
2,348,000

$2,258,000
1,555,000

$1,927,000
1,886,000

Operations and Maintenance .........................................
Construction ...................................................................
1 Reflects

1% rescission.

Last year, the Gulf Coast hurricanes showed in stark relief examples of the inadequacy and neglect of our nation’s water resource infrastructure. Given the lessons of last year, the level of
Operations and Maintenance funding proposed by the Administration is inadequate. The Committee has reallocated funding to bring
the account to approximate parity with last year’s funding. The
Committee has also provided an additional $10,000,000 to the Ohio
River and tributaries navigation system to implement the improvements as outlined in the Great Lakes and Ohio River Division’s
Five Year Development Perspective. Though inadequate to address
all identified needs, the additional funding is provided to support
the efforts of the Division and stakeholders in the development of
this perspective. This plan is discussed below in more detail under
the heading Five-Year Development Plans.
PROGRAM MANAGEMENT

AND

EXECUTION

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS

Over the past two years, the Committee has embarked on a concerted effort to improve general budgeting and project execution by
the Corps. This effort was precipitated, in part, by a progressively
tighter fiscal environment, the enormous backlog of Civil Works
projects, and the realization that the Civil Works program has become an agglomeration of individual projects of interest to the Congress and the Administration, with little or no systematic approach
to the Nation’s water and coastal infrastructure underlying the selection of which projects received funding.
The Committee maintains the Civil Works program must be
managed as a program rather than a collection of individual
projects. The Committee supports the Corps mission and believes
the Nation’s water resource infrastructure is a critical element of
our transportation system. Nevertheless, it is essential the Corps
takes a more sophisticated, business-like approach to project execution. The Corps must restore this Committee’s confidence in its
ability to execute the appropriations provided by Congress as well
as provide technical assessments of the Nation’s water resource infrastructure needs. The Gulf Coast hurricanes of 2005 have re-

VerDate Aug 31 2005

05:42 May 20, 2006

Jkt 027628

PO 00000

Frm 00012

Fmt 6601

Sfmt 6601

E:\HR\OC\HR474.000

HR474

13

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS

sulted in enormous pressures on the Corps; its ability to execute
projects and critically assess its own performance, both past and
present, are now at the forefront of the Nation’s consciousness.
The Committee remains concerned that the Corps cannot provide
the Congress with accurate accounting of its financial commitments, both in terms of contractual obligations and promises to
repay past reprogrammings. The Committee supports the creation
of a Chief Financial Officer for the Corps of Engineers and supports additional headquarters personnel to staff such a position.
The level of decentralization versus command and control should be
reevaluated in light of the Corps’ inability to provide timely and accurate accounting of financial information. In addition, the Corps
should examine revising the reporting requirements in its financial
accounting system to ensure that critical information is collected
and reported upward.
Last year, the Committee directed the Corps to give immediate
attention to several program management issues including: fiveyear plans, conservative use of reprogramming and continuing contracts, performance based budgeting and Congressional justification materials. The Corps and the Administration have made
progress in each of these areas, but much work remains. Collectively, the Congress, the Administration and the Corps of Engineers must work together to ensure that constrained federal resources are spent effectively, commitments to local sponsors are
honored, projects are completed in an efficient manner, and taxpayers receive the greatest return on their investment.
Five-year comprehensive budget planning.—In response to growing concern that the Civil Works program lacks a clear set of priorities to guide either development of the annual budget request or
annual appropriations bills, the Committee directed the Corps over
the last two years to prepare and submit a comprehensive five-year
plan for the Civil Works program. Such a plan, in the view of the
Committee, would begin to allay the concern that the Civil Works
program has become nothing more than an assortment of individual projects lacking a coherent focus.
The Committee reiterates its strong belief in the value of developing five-year plans and longer-term strategic visions to help
guide budget requests and Congressional spending decisions. Such
plans force discipline and regional integration in making budgetary
decisions and encourage stability from year to year. By providing
the Congress and the Executive Branch a view of what lies ahead
in the Civil Works program, a comprehensive five-year plan may
alleviate some of the pressure to fund every project in each fiscal
year. The development of a plan will also require the Corps to
make the necessary tradeoffs to integrate individual projects into
a coherent Civil Works program for future years. In the absence of
a rational strategy, the long-term vitality of the Corps is placed at
risk and scarce federal resources will be squandered on projects of
limited national benefit.
The Committee is pleased with the ASA(CW)’s and OMB’s willingness to pursue a more robust five-year plan for the Corps of Engineers Civil Works Program. The version of the plan provided in
fiscal year 2006 was an improvement over the last submission and
the Committee looks forward to further refinements to the plan.

VerDate Aug 31 2005

05:42 May 20, 2006

Jkt 027628

PO 00000

Frm 00013

Fmt 6601

Sfmt 6601

E:\HR\OC\HR474.000

HR474

14

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS

The Committee is, however, disappointed in the decision made by
the ASA(CW) to instruct the Great Lakes and Ohio River Division
to remove the Ohio River and Tributaries Navigation System FiveYear Development Perspective from the Division’s website because
it is not consistent with the Administration’s policy. This plan is
the most comprehensive and informative report that has come to
the attention of the Committee. In it, the Corps attempts to assess
the current status and ‘‘acceptable’’ level of performance for
projects under its jurisdiction. The Committee rejects the view that
this plan would in any way require the Administration or the Congress to fund these projects at the level recommended in this plan,
nor does the existence of the plan insinuate that the Administration or Congress agrees with the assessment. The report is, however, an attempt from a technical perspective to assess the current
state of the Ohio River’s navigation infrastructure. As such, the
Committee applauds the efforts of the Great Lakes and Ohio River
Division and other interested parties in the development of this
‘‘perspective.’’
Misplaced emphasis on expenditures.—The Committee continues
its direction that the Corps adhere to a fiscal management practice
that fully honors congressional direction and accepts a higher level
of carryover funds in order to achieve greatly increased transparency into project costs and multiyear funding commitments.
The management changes initiated last year have resulted in
higher levels of carryover as predicted. However, the estimates of
carryover of available funding, after adjusting for Act language,
total 13 percent, of which only 5 percent is unobligated. In the
Committee’s view this is an acceptable level of carryover and significantly less than other agencies that execute major public infrastructure projects. In a time of limited discretionary spending, it is
the Committee’s belief that the Corps must execute its program in
a fiscally responsible manner. This will require more attention and
effort on the part of the Corps in developing project estimates, but
should result in a lower level of unobligated carryover in the future
as the transition to the new business model is fully executed
through the budgeting process.
As noted in last year’s report, prior to fiscal year 2006, the Corps
operated with a formal strategy to expend 99 percent of annual appropriations. While this strategy had a justifiable basis and sounds
reasonable in theory, the Corps became inordinately focused on the
99-percent expenditure goal. The strategy ignored project financial
requirements in future years and congressional project allocations
for the current year. The consequence of this policy, perhaps unintended, is the creation of significant payback requirements that are
not currently budgeted.
Reprogrammings.—In fiscal year 2006, the Committee recommended changes to the reprogramming authorities allowed the
Corps of Engineers. For the first year, these reprogramming requirements were carried in Act language rather than in the report.
This change was based, in large part, on a report by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) which found that the Corps had
come to rely on reprogramming as its primary instrument to manage funds. It no longer reprogrammed funds in cases of unforeseen
need or changed circumstances but as a substitute for an effective

VerDate Aug 31 2005

05:42 May 20, 2006

Jkt 027628

PO 00000

Frm 00014

Fmt 6601

Sfmt 6601

E:\HR\OC\HR474.000

HR474

15

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS

and fiscally responsible financial planning, management and priority-setting system for the Civil Works program. GAO findings
show that funds where moved into and subsequently, out of,
projects on the same day or within a matter of days.
The Committee recognizes that there are legitimate instances
where reprogramming is necessary and desirable, and has endeavored to work with the Administration and the Corps to ensure
those instances are addressed expeditiously. The flexibility to move
funds among projects is a necessary tool to adjust to changing
project conditions and needs; the guidelines imposed by the Committee are simply a method to exercise Congressional oversight to
ensure that the Civil Works program is being executed consistent
with Congressional intent. The Committee reminds the Administration that once a project is provided funding in this, or any other
Act, and signed by the President, all projects are of equal merit.
The Committee will not accept differential treatment of projects
based on whether they are contained in the bill or in report language nor on whether the Administration considers a project to be
‘‘budgetable.’’
One of the reasons given to allow the Corps broad reprogramming authority is that budgets are developed and submitted to the
Congress months prior to the start of the fiscal year. The Committee is well aware that project circumstances may change in that
timeframe, and has therefore offered the Corps and the Administration the opportunity to provide the Congress updated estimates
for this subset of projects prior to the House and Senate conferencing their respective bills. This conference occurs only months
prior to the start of the fiscal year and such changes can be accommodated as necessary. The Committee therefore no longer has patience for this argument. While there will likely still be changed
circumstances to individual project needs during the year, these
may be addressed through the reprogramming authorities and
processes.
The change to a new business model within the Corps has resulted in a transition period; however, the accountability and reliability of the program will improve as Members of Congress, local
sponsors, and contractors can be certain that appropriated funds
will be expended on those projects for which they were intended.
It is this Committee’s intent that past commitments to Members
and local sponsors be met. To this end, the Committee has provided
funding in the Construction and Investigations accounts to address
a subset of the projects that will require payback in fiscal year
2007.
Past practices have resulted in a cumulative financial obligation
that is significant, a undefined, and in large part, unbudgeted. In
an era of limited Federal budgets and increasing needs for our Nation’s infrastructure, this practice cannot be maintained. The Committee remains concerned that neither Congress nor the Corps
knows the full extent of the payback required. Accordingly, and for
the second year, the Corps is directed to submit a report to the
House and Senate Committees on Appropriations within 30 days of
enactment of this Act summarizing, by project, the total cumulative
amount of repayments owed to the donor projects. As a result of
this Committee’s extreme frustration in the Corps inability to pro-

VerDate Aug 31 2005

05:42 May 20, 2006

Jkt 027628

PO 00000

Frm 00015

Fmt 6601

Sfmt 6601

E:\HR\OC\HR474.000

HR474

16

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS

vide such critical information, the Act contains general provisions
which transfer $10,000,000 from the Expense account and
$1,000,000 from the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil
Works into the Operations and Maintenance account to meet
unbudgeted critical needs of the nation’s water resource infrastructure in the event the report is not received in the timeframe required.
To ensure that the expenditure of funds in fiscal year 2007 is
consistent with congressional direction, to minimize the movement
of funds, and to improve overall budget execution, the bill incorporates by reference the projects identified in the report accompanying this Act into statute. In addition, the bill again includes
a section prohibiting the obligation or expenditure through a reprogramming of funds that:
(1) creates or initiates a new program, project or activity;
(2) eliminates a program, project or activity;
(3) increases funds or personnel for any program, project or
activity for which funds have been denied or restricted by this
Act;
(4) reduces funds that are directed to be used for a specific
activity by this Act;
(5) increases funds for any existing program, project or activity by more than $2,000,000 or 25 percent, whichever is less;
or
(6) reduces funds for any program, project or activity by
more than $2,000,000 or 25 percent, whichever is less.
This provision shall not apply to the initiation of new projects or
activities under the continuing authorities programs. However, new
projects under the continuing authorities program not identified in
the conference agreement to accompany this Act must be submitted
to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations for approval. Reprogramming approvals shall also be required for
changes in a project’s scope and cost relative to what was submitted in the justification sheets. These guidelines vitiate all other
reprogramming guidance provided in previous appropriations Acts
or their accompanying reports and shall be applied to all accounts
within the Corps of Engineers.
Not later than 60 days after the date of enactment of this Act,
the Corps of Engineers shall submit a report to the Committees on
Appropriations of the Senate and the House of Representatives to
establish the baseline for application of reprogramming and transfer authorities for the current fiscal year. The report shall include:
(1) a table for each appropriation with a separate column to
display the President’s budget request, adjustments made by
Congress, adjustments due to enacted rescissions, if appropriate, and the fiscal year enacted level;
(2) a delineation in the table for each appropriation both by
object class and program, project and activity as detailed in the
budget appendix for the respective appropriations; and
(3) an identification of items of special congressional interest.
The Corps of Engineers shall not reprogram any funds received as
a non-Federal share for project costs.
Continuing contracts.—When entering into such contracts, the
Corps obligates the federal government to pay certain costs from

VerDate Aug 31 2005

05:42 May 20, 2006

Jkt 027628

PO 00000

Frm 00016

Fmt 6601

Sfmt 6602

E:\HR\OC\HR474.000

HR474

17

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS

future appropriations. Contractors may perform more work than is
budgeted in any fiscal year, but when available appropriations for
the current fiscal year are exhausted, work continues at the contractors’ risk, with an expectation that payment will be made from
subsequent appropriations. Simple interest may be added to any
delayed payment that the contracting officer determines was actually earned under the terms of the contract and would have been
made but for exhaustion of funds. The Rivers and Harbors Appropriations Act of 1890 first authorized the Corps to award continuation contracts. Later, section 10 of the Rivers and Harbor Act of
1922 provided general authority to award continuing contracts for
any public work on canals, rivers, and harbors adopted by Congress. These specific authorizations for continuing contracts save
the Corps from being in violation of the Anti-Deficiency Act.
Last year, the Congress limited the Corps’ ability to use continuing contracts. This action was the result of several years of increasing concern with the Corps’ liberal use of and inadequate
budgeting for continuing contracts. The Committee recognizes the
Corps has taken significant steps to curb the inappropriate use of
this contracting mechanism, but believes additional action is necessary to define the scope of out-year obligations on these contracts.
Last year, the Committee requested that the Government Accountability Office (GAO) review the Corps’ use of continuing contracts during fiscal years 2003 to 2005. The results of this review,
though preliminary, only confirm the Committee’s belief that the
Corps had turned to this unique contracting authority as the rule
and not the exception. Combined with the drive to expend virtually
all of its annual appropriations, abuse of the continuing contract
authority drove the massive merry-go-round of reprogramming.
For the period of fiscal years 2003 to 2005, GAO found that the
Corps had no real basis or rationale for the use of the continuing
contract clause in most of the contracts reviewed. In the sample of
continuing contracts reviewed, GAO found that over 50 percent
were less than 12 months in duration and valued at less than $5
million. These findings only validate the Committee’s concern over
excessive use of the clause. In one case, the Corps even issued a
continuing contract for janitorial services. The most disturbing
finding of the GAO review was that the Corps was unable to identify the total number of contracts awarded that included the continuing contract clause. This was due to the fact that the Corps did
not track information on continuing contracts, despite the fact that
the Corps’ financial management database had a field that identified contracts with a continuing contract clause.
The Committee remains concerned that the Corps does not have
an accurate accounting of existing continuing contracts. Therefore,
the Corps is directed to hire a national accounting firm, utilizing
General Expense funding, to audit its contracting records and provide a full accounting of all existing continuing contracts, and their
corresponding obligations by fiscal year for the planned duration of
the contract. The findings of this audit should be provided to the
Committees on Appropriations by August 1, 2007.
The Committee reminds the Corps that Congress determines how
much funding is to be available for a particular project in any given

VerDate Aug 31 2005

05:42 May 20, 2006

Jkt 027628

PO 00000

Frm 00017

Fmt 6601

Sfmt 6602

E:\HR\OC\HR474.000

HR474

18

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS

fiscal year, and the Corps must ensure that it manages its program
within the funds provided each year. The Corps abrogates its management responsibilities and improperly intrudes upon congressional prerogatives in determining annual appropriation levels
when the Corps reserves insufficient funds to cover the work performed each fiscal year through the duration of the contract or
when, through reprogramming, it makes available funds in excess
of the amounts reserved in such contracts in any fiscal year because of unbudgeted accelerated contractor earnings. The Federal
government, not the contractor, must determine how much will be
spent on each project each year.
The bill includes a provision that prohibits the use of funds provided in title I of this Act to execute any new continuing contract
(or modifications to any existing continuing contract) that commits
an amount for a project in excess of the amount appropriated for
such project in this Act. In addition, the Committee continues its
direction from last year that the Corps shall:
(1) discontinue the practice of reserving insufficient funds to
cover the work to be performed each fiscal year through the
duration of the contract;
(2) discontinue the practice of reprogramming funds to satisfy contractor earnings in excess of the amounts reserved in
the contract for the current fiscal year;
(3) discontinue the practice of issuing continuing contracts
for small-scale projects that are limited in scope, schedule, construction and funding requirements;
(4) issue continuing contracts only when it is determined
that such a contract is the preferred means, demonstrated by
an alternative analysis, and only after the approval of the
House and Senate Committees on Appropriations;
(5) budget fully the out-year costs of all existing and new
continuing contracts (or, if the budget year policy is to eliminate the authority to execute such contracts, fund fully the termination costs of such contracts in the budget year);
(6) provide to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations within 30 days of enactment of this Act a report identifying all existing continuing contracts and the amount, by
project, of the out-year funding requirements of those contracts; and
(7) provide a quarterly update to the report identified above
in item (6).
In addition, any new continuing contract shall be submitted by the
Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) for approval to the
House and Senate Committees on Appropriations, consistent with
the reprogramming guidelines contained in this Act.
Congressional justification materials.—The congressional justifications submitted by the Corps in support of the annual budget
request, while vastly improved from last year, continue to be inadequate for an appropriation request of nearly $5 billion. For the
first year, the Administration presents the budget estimate by mission area and presents information on projects funded in the current year but for which no funds are requested. The Committee
continues to believe the materials must include a clearly articulated overview and discussion of policy proposals included in the

VerDate Aug 31 2005

05:42 May 20, 2006

Jkt 027628

PO 00000

Frm 00018

Fmt 6601

Sfmt 6602

E:\HR\OC\HR474.000

HR474

19

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS

annual budget request beyond that which is included in the annual
summary of the President’s budget request. The Committees on Appropriation should not be required to consult multiple documents
to gain a semi-complete accounting of the Corps’ budget request.
The Committee reiterates this information shall include, but not be
limited to, an analysis of appropriations language provisions and
changes; comparative amounts available for obligation; comparative
amounts showing obligations by object class; summary of changes
from the enacted level; a delineation of responses to significant
items included in the reports accompanying annual appropriations
Acts; appropriations and authorizing histories; explanations of how
individual projects fit in the context of larger regional objectives,
and narrative and tabular summaries of program requests.
The Committee recognizes that continued improvements required
in the budget justifications will need to be developed over time;
however, the Committee expects major changes in the fiscal year
2008 budget submission and pledges to work with the Corps to develop implementing instructions to its program offices.
Performance-based budget.—Last year, the OMB proposed seven
performance guidelines for funding Corps construction projects in
order to generate greater benefits. The current budget request supports a major change to the guidelines proposed in 2006 to ensure
funding for flood and storm damage reduction projects that address
a significant, ongoing risk to human safety. The Committee applauds the inclusion of this consideration and appreciates the continued efforts of the Administration in refining the rationale for focusing limited federal resources on finishing the most important
projects in a timely manner.
Based on concerns that the ranking system, the ratio of remaining benefits-to-remaining costs, has several inherent biases, in fiscal year 2006 the Congress directed the Corps to contract with the
National Academy of Public Administration to study and recommend factors which should be used in determining the allocation
of limited resources for the construction of water resource projects.
In determining the projects identified in this report, the Committee
used the Administration’s ranking system as a guide but not as a
final determinative in the allocation of funds and awaits the results
of the above study to further consider project allocations.
Savings and slippage.—In fiscal year 2006, the Committee discontinued the practice of assuming an estimate for savings and
slippage within the Corps of Engineers civil works program. As
noted in last year’s report, the practice had devolved into a method
to reduce projects in order to fund more projects than an appropriation would support. This practice led to confusion, and in some
cases, allocations to projects in excess of appropriated funding
through reprogramming. As savings and slippage occurs on any
project in the Corps civil works construction and investigations programs and the investigations and construction elements of the
Flood Control, Mississippi River and Tributaries account in fiscal
year 2007, resources excess to a project’s total needs shall remain
available for two years after the date of enactment of the Act making appropriations for that particular project, after which time unobligated balances may be transferred to other ongoing projects,
consistent with the reprogramming guidelines contained in this

VerDate Aug 31 2005

05:42 May 20, 2006

Jkt 027628

PO 00000

Frm 00019

Fmt 6601

Sfmt 6602

E:\HR\OC\HR474.000

HR474

20
Act. The Corps shall submit to the House and Senate Committees
on Appropriations an annual report detailing project execution relative to stated capability and enacted appropriations.
Continuing Authorities.—The Fiscal Year 2006 Act contained direction for the Corps to provide the Committees on Appropriations
a management plan and delineation of all ongoing projects and outyear funding requirements; this plan has yet to be received though
the Act directed it be submitted by January 7, 2006. The Committee is aware that much ado has been made with regard to
Congress’s inclination toward directing funding to specific projects.
The Committee has repeatedly requested detailed information on
this program. In response, the Corps has not been able to provide
information useful in decision-making nor has it demonstrated a
thorough knowledge and accounting of the existing commitments or
out-year program requirements.
Until such time as the Corps can establish that it has a firm
grasp of the program, Congress has no reason to give the Corps
discretion. In light of the quality of information provided to date,
the Committee believes it has given more than sufficient latitude
by providing programmatic funding in excess of Congressionally directed projects.
In an effort to reduce the backlog of projects, the fiscal year 2006
Act placed a moratorium on the execution of new cost sharing
agreements. The Committee continues this direction with the following exception: where sufficient funds are congressionally directed or otherwise available to complete the current phase, the
Corps may execute the cost sharing agreement. This exception does
not obviate the need for the Corps to meet all Congressionally directed project requirements prior to executing any new agreements.
Funding provided for Continuing Authorities projects in this Act
shall not be available to initiate construction unless construction
can be completed within the funds provided. Unobligated funds carried forward from previous years may not be used to initiate any
new projects unless submitted to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations and approved by them.
INVESTIGATIONS
Appropriation, 2006 ............................................................................
Budget estimate, 2007 .......................................................................
Recommended, 2006 ...........................................................................
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2006 ....................................................................
Budget estimate, 2007 ................................................................
1 Excludes

1 $162,360,000

94,000,000
128,000,000
¥34,360,000
+34,000,000

emergency appropriations of $37,300,000.

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS

This appropriation funds studies to determine the need, the engineering and economic feasibility, and the environmental and social
suitability of solutions to water and related land resource problems;
and funds preconstruction engineering and design, data collection,
interagency coordination, and research.
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $128,000,000, a
decrease of $34,360,000 from the fiscal year 2006 enacted level, and
$34,000,000 over the budget estimate. The budget request and the
approved Committee allowance are shown on the following table:

VerDate Aug 31 2005

05:42 May 20, 2006

Jkt 027628

PO 00000

Frm 00020

Fmt 6601

Sfmt 6602

E:\HR\OC\HR474.000

HR474

VerDate Aug 31 2005

05:42 May 20, 2006

Jkt 027628

PO 00000

Frm 00021

Fmt 6601

Sfmt 6602

E:\HR\OC\HR474.000

HR474

Insert graphic folio 01 HR474.001

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS

21

VerDate Aug 31 2005

05:42 May 20, 2006

Jkt 027628

PO 00000

Frm 00022

Fmt 6601

Sfmt 6602

E:\HR\OC\HR474.000

HR474

Insert graphic folio 02 HR474.002

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS

22

VerDate Aug 31 2005

05:42 May 20, 2006

Jkt 027628

PO 00000

Frm 00023

Fmt 6601

Sfmt 6602

E:\HR\OC\HR474.000

HR474

Insert graphic folio 03 HR474.003

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS

23

VerDate Aug 31 2005

05:42 May 20, 2006

Jkt 027628

PO 00000

Frm 00024

Fmt 6601

Sfmt 6602

E:\HR\OC\HR474.000

HR474

Insert graphic folio 04 HR474.004

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS

24

VerDate Aug 31 2005

05:42 May 20, 2006

Jkt 027628

PO 00000

Frm 00025

Fmt 6601

Sfmt 6602

E:\HR\OC\HR474.000

HR474

Insert graphic folio 05 HR474.005

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS

25

26
Remaining items, planning assistance to states.—For fiscal year
2007, the Committee recommends $4,550,000 for planning assistance to states, the same level as requested. Within the funds provided, the Corps is directed to undertake the following studies with
the amounts allocated below:
Guist Creek Lake, Kentucky ...................................................................
Lake Rogers, North Carolina ...................................................................
Morgan State University, C&O Canal ....................................................
Ocean Disposal Site, New Hampshire ....................................................
Selmere, Tennessee ..................................................................................
Water Quality Study, Charlottesville, Virginia .....................................

$160,000
50,000
100,000
100,000
35,800
90,000

CONSTRUCTION (INCLUDING RESCISSION)
Appropriation, 2006 ............................................................................
Budget estimate, 2007 .......................................................................
Recommended, 2007 ...........................................................................
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2006 ....................................................................
Budget estimate, 2007 ................................................................
1 Excludes

1 $2,348,280,000

1,555,000,000
1,947,171,000
¥401,109,000
+392,171,000

emergency appropriations of $101,417,000.

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS

This appropriation funds construction, major rehabilitation, and
related activities for water resources projects whose principal purpose is to provide commercial navigation, flood and storm damage
reduction, or aquatic ecosystem restoration benefits to the nation.
Portions of this account are funded from the Harbor Maintenance
Trust and the Inland Waterways Trust funds.
For fiscal year 2007, the Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,947,171,000, a decrease of $401,109,000 from the fiscal
year 2006 enacted appropriation and $392,171,000 over the budget
estimate. This Committee’s recommendation includes a rescission
of $56,046,000 of funds appropriated in fiscal year 2006 for projects
subsequently funded through completion in supplemental appropriations. The budget request and the Committee allowance are
shown on the following table:

VerDate Aug 31 2005

05:42 May 20, 2006

Jkt 027628

PO 00000

Frm 00026

Fmt 6601

Sfmt 6602

E:\HR\OC\HR474.001

HR474

VerDate Aug 31 2005

05:42 May 20, 2006

Jkt 027628

PO 00000

Frm 00027

Fmt 6601

Sfmt 6602

E:\HR\OC\HR474.001

HR474

Insert graphic folio 06 HR474.006

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS

27

VerDate Aug 31 2005

05:42 May 20, 2006

Jkt 027628

PO 00000

Frm 00028

Fmt 6601

Sfmt 6602

E:\HR\OC\HR474.001

HR474

Insert graphic folio 07 HR474.007

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS

28

VerDate Aug 31 2005

05:42 May 20, 2006

Jkt 027628

PO 00000

Frm 00029

Fmt 6601

Sfmt 6602

E:\HR\OC\HR474.001

HR474

Insert graphic folio 08 HR474.008

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS

29

VerDate Aug 31 2005

05:42 May 20, 2006

Jkt 027628

PO 00000

Frm 00030

Fmt 6601

Sfmt 6602

E:\HR\OC\HR474.001

HR474

Insert graphic folio 09 HR474.009

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS

30

VerDate Aug 31 2005

05:42 May 20, 2006

Jkt 027628

PO 00000

Frm 00031

Fmt 6601

Sfmt 6602

E:\HR\OC\HR474.001

HR474

Insert graphic folio 010 HR474.010

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS

31

32

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS

Deferrals and suspensions.—The Committee recognizes that a
number of projects funded in fiscal year 2006 are not included in
this Act. The Committee directs the Corps to determine the costs
to defer or suspend those projects for which the Committee has not
provided appropriations in this Act and provide those estimates on
a project-by-project basis to the House Committee on Appropriations by September 1, 2006.
McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation System, Arkansas
and Oklahoma.—The Committee has provided $300,000 to complete the general reevaluation report for the developing cutoff that
threatens the recently constructed Montgomery Point Lock and
Dam. The funding is provided to assess best solution to ensure integrity of the navigation system.
American River watershed, California.—The Committee has provided $49,800,000 for American River watershed activities. Within
this amount, not less than $15,000,000 shall be available for the
permanent bridge below Folsom Dam; the remaining funds shall be
directed to Folsom Dam Modifications, Common Features and the
Folsom Dam Raise.
The Committee has also provided $3,000,000 for the Secretary to
prepare a report that supplements the American River Watershed
Project, California Supplemental Information Report dated March
1996 for the purpose of identifying and evaluating any potential for
additional flood damage reduction to the Sacramento area that
would result from construction of a multipurpose storage facility
downstream of the confluence of the North and Middle forks of the
American River.
Further, the Committee directs the Secretary to continue to expedite all actions necessary for completion of the new bridge at Folsom Dam, California, including completing the environmental review and documentation, completing the final design, negotiating
and executing the project cooperative agreement, utilizing abbreviated contracting procedures and other means of simplifying and
expediting necessary procedures for approval and construction. The
Committee directs the Secretary to consider the new bridge at Folsom Dam, California, as a non-Central Valley Project component.
Inclusion of a feasibility study to contruct a dam in Auburn, CA,
should not interfere with or delay efforts to proceed with the
projects at Folsom Dam and should be viewed simply as an effort
to explore additional flood control options in the region behold
those that can be implemented at Folsom Dam.
Santa Ana River mainstem, California.—In total, the Committee
provides $56,080,000 for Santa Ana River main stem in California,
of which $2,000,000 is available for the Seven Oaks Dam water
quality study.
The Committee recognizes that the raising of Prado Dam has endangered the existing Santa Ana River Interceptor brine line,
which is critical to the region’s water resource infrastructure. The
Committee directs the Corps of Engineers to finalize planning and
enter into a cost share agreement consistent with the existing
Santa Ana mainstem cost share agreement.
Brevard County, Canaveral Harbor, Florida.—The Committee includes $10,000,000 for the project to provide for a full cycle of sand
bypassing as mitigation for the erosion to the Brevard County

VerDate Aug 31 2005

05:42 May 20, 2006

Jkt 027628

PO 00000

Frm 00032

Fmt 6601

Sfmt 6602

E:\HR\OC\HR474.001

HR474

33
beaches south of the Federal navigation channel. The Committee
understands that bypassing the same quantity of sand as has been
accomplished in the past, for a distance of approximately 1 mile
farther, will reduce the amount of maintenance material that needs
to be removed from the Federal navigation channel and will have
other benefits as well. The Committee urges the Corps to consider
this when awarding the sand bypass contract.
Muddy River, Boston & Brookline, Massachusetts.—The Committee has provided $1,000,000 for flood control and ecosystem restoration.
Stillwater, Minnesota (St. Croix River), Minnesota.—The Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers, is directed to use previously appropriated funds to proceed with design
and construction to complete the Stillwater, Minnesota, levee and
flood control project.
New York and New Jersey Harbor, New York and New Jersey.—
Within fund provided, the Corps is directed to use up to $2,000,000
to plan for and enter into an agreement with a state or non-Federal
sponsor to develop a dredged material processing facility that
would accomplish the objectives of reducing the cost of dredged material management in the port, preparing dredged material for beneficial uses, and implementing innovative dredged material management technologies.
Rural Nevada, Nevada.—Within the funds provided for Southeastern Rural Nevada infrastructure program, the committee provides $200,000 for the Hemenway Valley project and $200,000 for
the Boulder City project.
Ohio
environmental
infrastructure.—The
bill
provides
$18,300,000 for Ohio environmental infrastructure for fiscal year
2007. These funds shall be distributed as follows:
Clark County, Vicinity of Donnelsville waterline extension ................. $1,200,000
Fairfield County, Village of Rushville wastewater plant expansion .... 1,000,000
Fayette County, Culpepper area water system ..................................... 1,500,000
Fayette County, Bloomingburg water and sewer ..................................
600,000
Franklin County Rickenbacker Airport water and sewer .....................
500,000
Greene County Beaver Creek water and sewer project ........................
250,000
Toledo Harbor power plant conversion ...................................................
800,000
Cuyahoga County high performance shoreline management system
(green bulkheads) .................................................................................. 1,300,000
Whittier Peninsula, City of Columbus storm water tanks upgrade .....
750,000
Franklin County, Timberlake water treatment infrastructure upgrade ......................................................................................................
750,000
Franklin County, Harrisburg water treatment infrastructure upgrade ......................................................................................................
750,000
City of Orrville water main replacement ............................................... 1,000,000
City of Louisville environmental infrastructure improvement program ....................................................................................................... 1,000,000
City of Dublin sanitary sewer and water system ..................................
750,000
Montgomery County Austin Road Interchange ..................................... 1,250,000
Montgomery County, City of Trotwood Landmark Stream improvements .....................................................................................................
400,000
Village of Green Springs wastewater improvements ............................
300,000
City of Clyde waterline project ................................................................
300,000
Williams County, Kunkle area sanitary sewer ......................................
300,000
City of Willoughby Hills, Euclid Creek sanitary sewer ......................... 3,600,000

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS

Elk Creek Lake, Oregon.—The Committee provides $1,440,000 for
activities at Elk Creek Lake, Oregon. None of the funds provided

VerDate Aug 31 2005

05:42 May 20, 2006

Jkt 027628

PO 00000

Frm 00033

Fmt 6601

Sfmt 6602

E:\HR\OC\HR474.001

HR474

34

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS

shall be available to further work on the Corps’ proposal to remove
a section of the dam for fish passage.
Southeast, Pennsylvania.—Within the funds provided for Southeastern Pennsylvania infrastructure program, the Committee provides $100,000 for Cobbs Creek, $565,000 for Crum Creek and
$525,000 for Alberts Run.
Levisa and Tug Forks and Cumberland River, WV, VA & KY.—
For fiscal year 2007, the Committee recommends a total of
$20,000,000. Within the amounts provided, $17,500,000 shall be for
elements of the project in the Commonwealth of Kentucky and the
remaining $2,500,000 shall be available for the Commonwealth of
Virginia elements of the project.

VerDate Aug 31 2005

05:42 May 20, 2006

Jkt 027628

PO 00000

Frm 00034

Fmt 6601

Sfmt 6602

E:\HR\OC\HR474.001

HR474

VerDate Aug 31 2005

05:42 May 20, 2006

Jkt 027628

PO 00000

Frm 00035

Fmt 6601

Sfmt 6602

E:\HR\OC\HR474.001

HR474

Insert graphic folio 011 HR474.011

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS

35

VerDate Aug 31 2005

05:42 May 20, 2006

Jkt 027628

PO 00000

Frm 00036

Fmt 6601

Sfmt 6602

E:\HR\OC\HR474.001

HR474

Insert graphic folio 012 HR474.012

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS

36

VerDate Aug 31 2005

05:42 May 20, 2006

Jkt 027628

PO 00000

Frm 00037

Fmt 6601

Sfmt 6602

E:\HR\OC\HR474.001

HR474

Insert graphic folio 013 HR474.013

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS

37

VerDate Aug 31 2005

05:42 May 20, 2006

Jkt 027628

PO 00000

Frm 00038

Fmt 6601

Sfmt 6602

E:\HR\OC\HR474.001

HR474

Insert graphic folio 014 HR474.014

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS

38

39
FLOOD CONTROL, MISSISSIPPI RIVER

AND

TRIBUTARIES

Appropriation, 2006 ............................................................................
Budget estimate, 2007 .......................................................................
Recommended, 2007 ...........................................................................
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2006 ....................................................................
Budget estimate, 2007 ................................................................
1 Excludes

1 $396,000,000

278,000,000
290,607,000
¥105,393,000
+12,607,000

emergency appropriations of $153,750.

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS

This appropriation funds planning, construction, and operation
and maintenance activities associated with projects to reduce flood
damage in the lower Mississippi River alluvial valley below Cape
Girardeau, Missouri. The budget request and the approved Committee allowance are shown on the following table:
For fiscal year 2007, the Committee recommends an appropriation of $290,607,000 a decrease of $105,393,000 from the fiscal year
2006 enacted appropriation and $12,607 000 over the budget estimate. The budget request and the Committee allowance are shown
on the following table:

VerDate Aug 31 2005

05:42 May 20, 2006

Jkt 027628

PO 00000

Frm 00039

Fmt 6601

Sfmt 6602

E:\HR\OC\HR474.001

HR474

VerDate Aug 31 2005

05:42 May 20, 2006

Jkt 027628

PO 00000

Frm 00040

Fmt 6601

Sfmt 6602

E:\HR\OC\HR474.001

HR474

Insert graphic folio 015 HR474.015

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS

40

41
Bayou Meto Basin, Arkansas.—The Committee recommends
$1,550,000 continue authorized preconstruction, engineering and
design on this project.
Mississippi River Levees, AR, IL, KY, LA, MS, MO, TN.—The
Committee provides $3,000,000 in addition to the budget request
for construction activities in the State of Missouri.
St. Francis Basin, Arkansas.—Within the funds provided, the
Corps is directed to execute the following elements: Buffalo Island
Gated Outlet Structure, Ten and Fifteen Mile Bayous, bridge relocation and lands and damages and channel enlargement.
Wappapello Lake, Missouri.—The Committee provides $2,000,000
in addition to the budget request for operation and maintenance activity.
OPERATION

AND

MAINTENANCE

Appropriation, 2006 ............................................................................
Budget estimate, 2007 .......................................................................
Recommended, 2007 ...........................................................................
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2006 ....................................................................
Budget estimate, 2007 ................................................................
1 Excludes

1 $1,969,110,000

2,258,000,000
2,195,471,000
+226,361,000
¥62,529,000

emergency appropriations of $327,517.

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS

This appropriation funds operation, maintenance, and related activities at the water resources projects that the Corps of Engineers
operates and maintains. Work to be accomplished consists of dredging, repair, and operation of structures and other facilities, as authorized in various River and Harbor, Flood Control, and Water
Resources Development Acts. Related activities include aquatic
plant control, monitoring of completed projects, removal of sunken
vessels, and the collection of domestic waterborne commerce statistics. Portions of this account are financed through the Harbor
Maintenance Trust and the Inland Waterways Trust funds.
For fiscal year 2007, the Committee recommends an appropriation of $2,195,471,000 an increase of $226,361,000 over the fiscal
year 2006 enacted level and $62,529,000 below the budget estimate.
The budget request and the approved Committee allowance are
shown on the following table:

VerDate Aug 31 2005

06:20 May 20, 2006

Jkt 027628

PO 00000

Frm 00041

Fmt 6601

Sfmt 6602

E:\HR\OC\HR474.001

HR474

VerDate Aug 31 2005

06:20 May 20, 2006

Jkt 027628

PO 00000

Frm 00042

Fmt 6601

Sfmt 6602

E:\HR\OC\HR474.001

HR474

Insert offset folio 016 here HR474.016

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS

42

43
Region 1
Bridgeport Harbor, Connecticut.—The Committee has provided
$250,000 to prepare plans and specifications for maintenance
dredging.
Connecticut River below Hartford, Connecticut.—The Committee
has provided $750,000 for operation and maintenance activities.
Mystic River, Connecticut.—The Committee has provided
$400,000 to perform sampling and testing in relation to maintenance dredging.
Aunt Lydia’s Cove, Massachusetts.—The Committee has provided
$341,000 to perform maintenance dredging of the entrance channeling.
Block Island Harbor, Rhode Island.—The Committee has provided $300,000 to perform maintenance dredging and related activities.
Point Judith Harbor, Rhode Island.—In addition to the amount
requested, $334,000 is provided for maintenance dredging and related activities.
Region 2
Mt. Morris Lake, New York.—In addition to the amount requested, $100,000 is provided for operation and maintenance activities.
Jones Inlet, New York.—In addition to the amount requested,
$4,000,000 is provided for operation and maintenance activities.
Funds requested for the following projects are provided under the
Construction account:
Assateague, MD .....................................................................................
Cape May Inlet to Lower Township, NJ ..............................................
Delaware Bay Coastline, Roosevelt Inlet to Lewis Beach, DE ..........
Fier Island Inlet to Jones Inlet, NY .....................................................
Lower Cape May Meadows, Cape May Point, NJ ...............................

$2,000,000
360,000
60,000
5,000,000
130,000

Region 3
Mobile Harbor, Alabama.—In addition to the amount requested,
$1,000,000 is provided for dredging and related activities.
Canaveral Harbor, Florida.—In addition to the amount requested, $1,000,000 is provided for required operation and maintenance activities.
Horseshoe Cove, Florida.—The Committee provides $2,500,000
for operation and maintenance activities.
Jim Woodruff Lock and Dam, Lake Seminole, Florida, Alabama
and Georgia.—In addition to the amount requested, $900,000 is
provided for activities related to the control of the growth of
hydrillia.
Miami River, Florida.—In addition to the amount requested,
$600,000 is provided for operation and maintenance activities.
The Committee provides no funds for the following projects in
North Carolina: New River Inlet and Manteo (Shallowbag) Bay.
Funds requested for the following projects are provided under the
Constructure account:

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS

Brevard County (Canaveral Harbor), FL .............................................
Folly Beach, SC ......................................................................................
Lake Worth Sand Transfer Plant, FL ..................................................
Nassau County, FL ................................................................................
St. John’s County, FL ............................................................................

VerDate Aug 31 2005

06:20 May 20, 2006

Jkt 027628

PO 00000

Frm 00043

Fmt 6601

Sfmt 6611

E:\HR\OC\HR474.001

$10,000,000
25,000
2,000,000
6,500,000
200,000

HR474

44
Region 4
Arcadia, Michigan.—The Committee has provided $120,000 for
maintenance dredging and related activities.
Clinton River, Michigan.—The Committee has provided $660,000
for maintenance dredging and related activities.
Menominee, Michigan.—In addition to the amount requested,
$350,000 is provided for recreation improvements.
Ontonagon Harbor, Michigan.—In addition to the amount requested, $50,000 is provided for maintenance dredging and related
activities.
Penwater, Michigan.—The Committee has provided $150,000 for
maintenance dredging and related activities.
Duluth Superior Harbor, Minnesota and Wisconsin.—In addition
to the amount requested, the Committee has provided $300,000 to
complete a study of steel structure corrosion.
Ashtabula Harbor, Ohio.—In addition to the amount requested,
$400,000 is provided for maintenance dredging and related activities.
Toledo Harbor, Ohio.—In addition to the amount requested,
$800,000 is provided for maintenance dredging and related activities.
Burns Harbor, Indiana.—In addition to the amount requested,
$1,917,000 is provided for maintenance dredging and related activities with priority consideration to the Bailly intake pipe.
Region 5
In addition to the amount requested for the Ohio River Navigation System projects, $10,000,000 is provided to implement the improvements as outlined in the Great Lakes and Ohio River Division’s Five-Year Perspective.
Ohio River Locks and Dams, Kentucky, Ohio and West Virginia.—Within the funds provided, the Corps of Engineers is directed to utilize $1,000,000 in cooperation with Operation Respond,
a non-profit organization, to implement a project collecting and integrating imagery of a selected segment of the Ohio Basin, gathering data from Federal and non-Federal interests, and developing
and testing software primarily for the use of emergency responders.
East Branch Clarion River Lake, Pennsylvania.—In addition to
the amount requested, $100,000 is provided for recreational improvements.
Tionesta Lake, Pennsylvania.—In addition to the amount requested, $455,000 is provided to investigate and initiate recreation
improvements.
Funds requested for the following projects are provided under the
Construction account:
Markland Locks and Dam, KY & IN (Rehab) .....................................

$8,000,000

Region 6
J Percy Priest, Tennessee.—In addition to the amount requested,
$100,000 is included for this activity.
Tennessee River, Tennessee.—In addition to the amount requested, $500,000 is provided to investigate and initiate recreation
improvements.
ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS

Region 7

VerDate Aug 31 2005

06:20 May 20, 2006

Jkt 027628

PO 00000

Frm 00044

Fmt 6601

Sfmt 6602

E:\HR\OC\HR474.001

HR474

45
Kaskaskia River Navigation, Illinois.—In addition to the amount
requested, $200,000 is included for this activity.
Rock Island Boat Harbor, Illinois.—The Committee has provided
$200,000 for maintenance dredging and related activities.
Funds requested for the following projects are provided under the
Construction account:
Lock
Lock
Lock
Lock

and
and
and
and

Dam
Dam
Dam
Dam

11,
19,
24,
27,

Mississippi River,
Mississippi River,
IL & MO (Rehab)
Mississippi River,

IA (Rehab) ...............................
IA (Rehab) ...............................
...................................................
IL (Rehab) ...............................

$20,300,000
5,444,000
3,900,000
3,400,000

Region 8
Osceola Harbor, Arkansas.—In addition to the amount requested,
$488,000 is provided for dredging and related activities.
Houma Navigation Channel, Louisiana.—In addition to the
amount requested, $620,000 is provided for dredging and related
activities.
Ouachita and Black River, Louisiana.—In addition to the
amount requested, $5,300,000 is provided for ongoing operation
and maintenance activities.
Region 10
Missouri River Fish and Wildlife Mitigation Activities.—The
Committee has provided $51,000,000 for activities and projects associated with this program.
Region 11
Table Rock, Missouri.—In addition to the amount requested,
$1,150,000 is provided to construct Cow Creek Boat Ramp and for
repairing roofs and other high priority backlog maintenance.
Region 12
The Committee provides no funds for the following projects in
Texas: Matagorda Ship Channel, Channel to Victoria, Channel to
Port Bolivar, GIWW Pt. O’Connor to Corpus Christi Bay.
Whitney Lake, Texas.—In addition to the amount requested,
$1,810,000 is provided for improvements to Ham Creek Park and
$1,000,000 to Kimball Bend Park.
Region 17
Fort Peck Fish Hatchery, Montana.—The Corps is directed to
complete the Fort Peck Fish Hatchery within the funds provided.
Columbia River Fish Mitigation, Oregon, Washington and
Idaho.—The Committee has provided $85,000,000 for activities and
projects associated with this program.
Coos Bay, Oregon.—In addition to the amount requested,
$500,000 is included for this activity.

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS

Region 18
Dry Creek (Warm Springs), California.—In addition to the
amount requested, $104,000 is included to update inundation maps
for the project.
Isabella Lake, California.—The Committee is concerned by the
current condition of the dam at Isabella Lake, California, given the
potential impacts to the Bakersfield metropolitan area that would
result from any failure, and urges the Corps to work expeditiously
to take any necessary corrective action.

VerDate Aug 31 2005

06:20 May 20, 2006

Jkt 027628

PO 00000

Frm 00045

Fmt 6601

Sfmt 6602

E:\HR\OC\HR474.002

HR474

46
Moss Landing Harbor, California.—The Committee has provided
$500,000 to complete Dredged Material Management Plan and additional fish sampling.
Noyo Harbor, California.—The Committee has provided $500,000
for maintenance dredging and related activities.
San Francisco Harbor, California.—In addition to the amount requested, $353,000 is provided to study placement of dredged material from Bar Channel in offshore area near Ocean Beach to prevent erosion.
San Francisco Harbor and Bay (Drift Removal), California.—In
addition to the amount requested, $1,472,000 is included for this
activity.
San Francisco Bay Long Term Management Study, California.—
The Committee has provided $2,500,000 to continue this activity.
Funds requested for the following projects are provided under the
Construction account:
Surfside-Sunset-Newport Beach, CA ....................................................

$1,200,000

Remaining Items
Remaining items, regional sediment management.—Within the
funds provided, the Committee has provided $2,000,000 for the
evaluation of sump adjacent to the Columbia River North Jetty to
provide dredged material to Benson Beach. In addition, $250,000 is
provided for a demonstration project at Norfolk, Virginia.
REGULATORY PROGRAM
Appropriation, 2006 ............................................................................
Budget estimate, 2007 .......................................................................
Recommended, 2007 ...........................................................................
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2006 ....................................................................
Budget estimate, 2007 ................................................................

$158,400,000
173,000,000
173,000,000
+14,600,000
............................

This appropriation provides funds to administer laws pertaining
to regulation of activities affecting U.S. waters, including wetlands,
in accordance with the Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act of
1899, the Clean Water Act, and the Marine Protection, Research
and Sanctuaries Act of 1972. Appropriate funds are used to review
and process permit applications, ensure compliance on permitted
sites, protect important aquatic resources, and support watershed
planning efforts in sensitive environmental areas in cooperation
with States and local communities.
For fiscal year 2007, the Committee recommends an appropriation of $173,000,000, which is the same as the budget estimate and
$14,600,000 over the fiscal year 2006 enacted level.
FORMERLY UTILIZED SITES REMEDIAL ACTION PROGRAM
Appropriation, 2006 ............................................................................
Budget estimate, 2006 .......................................................................
Recommended, 2007 ...........................................................................
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2006 ....................................................................
Budget estimate, 2007 ................................................................

$138,600,000
130,000,000
130,000,000
¥8,600,000
............................

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS

This appropriation funds the cleanup of certain low-level radioactive materials and mixed wastes, located mostly at sites contami-

VerDate Aug 31 2005

06:20 May 20, 2006

Jkt 027628

PO 00000

Frm 00046

Fmt 6601

Sfmt 6602

E:\HR\OC\HR474.002

HR474

47
nated as a result of the Nation’s early efforts to develop atomic
weapons.
The Committee recommendation for the Formerly Utilized Sites
Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP) is $130,000,000, the same as
the budget request, and $8,600,000 below the fiscal year 2006 enacted level.
Congress transferred FUSRAP from the Department of Energy
(DOE) to the Corps of Engineers in fiscal year 1998. In appropriating FUSRAP funds to the Corps of Engineers, the Committee
intended to transfer only the responsibility for administration and
execution of cleanup activities at FUSRAP sites where DOE had
not completed cleanup. The Committee did not transfer to the
Corps ownership of and accountability for real property interests,
which remain with DOE. The Committee expects DOE to continue
to provide its institutional knowledge and expertise to serve the
Nation and the affected communities to ensure the success of this
program.
FLOOD CONTROL

AND

COASTAL EMERGENCIES

Appropriation, 2006 ............................................................................
Budget estimate, 2007 .......................................................................
Recommended, 2007 ...........................................................................
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2006 ....................................................................
Budget estimate, 2007 ................................................................

............................
$81,000,000
32,000,000
+32,000,000
¥49,000,000

This appropriation provides funds needed to respond to floods,
hurricanes, and other natural disasters, and to support emergency
operations in response to flood and hurricane disasters, including
advance measures, flood fighting, emergency operations, providing
potable water on an emergency basis, and the repair of certain
flood and storm damage reduction projects are provided in emergency appropriations Acts on an as needed basis. In addition, the
Corps has the legislative authority to tap other appropriated program funds to meet emergency requirements. The budget proposes
an appropriation of $81,000,000 in fiscal year 2007 to meet the
emergency needs of a typical year without disrupting activities in
other program areas. The Committee recommends an appropriation
for this account of $32,000,000 which is the base funding to maintain the program; the remaining requirements will be addressed
with emergency funding as the need arises.
GENERAL EXPENSES
Appropriation, 2006 ............................................................................
Budget estimate, 2007 .......................................................................
Recommended, 2007 ...........................................................................
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2006 ....................................................................
Budget estimate, 2007 ................................................................

$152,460,000
1 164,000,000

142,100,000
¥10,360,000
¥21,900,000

1 The

budget proposes to fund the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Civil Works under this account. The
Committee recommendation includes funding in the amount of $5,000,000 for this office under the heading
‘‘Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works).’’

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS

This appropriation funds the executive direction and management of the Office of Chief of Engineers, the Division Offices, and
certain research and statistical functions of the Corps of Engineers.
This Committee recommends an appropriation of $142,100,000, a

VerDate Aug 31 2005

06:20 May 20, 2006

Jkt 027628

PO 00000

Frm 00047

Fmt 6601

Sfmt 6602

E:\HR\OC\HR474.002

HR474

48
decrease of $10,360,000 from the fiscal year 2006 enacted level and
$21,900,000 less than the budget request.
The recommendation includes the following reductions:
$6,000,000 due to the Committee’s recommendation to fund the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) separately; a reduction of $1,700,000 for budgeted Competitive Sourcing
activities; and a reduction of $14,200,000 due to the Corps and
ASA(CW)’s inability to budget properly for Brunswick Harbor,
Georgia.
OFFICE

OF THE

ASSISTANT SECRETARY

OF THE

ARMY (CIVIL WORKS)

Appropriation, 2006 ............................................................................
Budget estimate, 2007 .......................................................................
Recommended, 2007 ...........................................................................
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2006 ....................................................................
Budget estimate, 2007 ................................................................

$3,960,000
1 6,000,000

1,500,000
¥2,460,000
¥4,500,000

1 The budget proposes this office be funded from General Expenses and reflects $1,900,000 in support services not previously sub-allocated to OSASA(CW) by the Department of Army.

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS

The Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) oversees Civil
Works budget and policy. The budget request includes funding for
this office in the General Expenses account. For purposes of transparency, the Committee recommends a separate appropriation for
the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) and
has recommended $1,500,000 for this account. Given the ASA(CW)
was unable to meet the commitment to submit fiscal year budget
hearing questions for the record in the timeframe useful for the development of this Act, the recommended level assumes a reduction
of $1,000,000 reflecting a ban on all travel and training for the office and a reduction of $3,500,000 due to the ASA(CW)’s inability
to budget properly for Brunswick Harbor, Georgia.
Roles and responsibilities of the Office of the Assistant Secretary
of the Army (Civil Works).—Army regulations and General Order
No. 3 clearly stipulate that the Assistant Secretary of the Army
(Civil Works) (ASA(CW)) has the principal responsibility for overall
policy direction and supervision of the Department of the Army
functions relating to all aspects of the civil works program, including all reimbursable work performed on behalf of Federal and nonFederal entities. Among the responsibilities of the ASA(CW) are
managing the Department of Army civil works program for conservation and development of the national water resources, including flood damage reduction, river and harbor navigation, environmental restoration and protection, water supply, shore protection,
hydroelectric power, recreation, and related purposes. This includes
the following:
(1) developing, defending, and directing the execution of the
Army civil works policy, legislative, and financial programs
and budget.
(2) developing policy and guidance for and administering the
Department of the Army regulatory program to protect, restore, and maintain the waters of the United States in the interest of the environment, navigation, and national defense.
(3) serving as congressional liaison on civil works matters,
including serving as the Department of the Army point of contact for House and Senate authorization and Appropriations

VerDate Aug 31 2005

06:20 May 20, 2006

Jkt 027628

PO 00000

Frm 00048

Fmt 6601

Sfmt 6602

E:\HR\OC\HR474.002

HR474

49
Committees charged with oversight of the Department of the
Army civil works program.
The Committee is extremely disappointed in the manner that the
Office of the ASA(CW) has involved itself in the reprogramming of
funds between projects. The Committee reminds the Office of the
ASA(CW) that once an appropriation bill is passed by Congress,
and signed by the President, all project allocations contained therein are of equal merit. The reprogramming reforms of fiscal year
2006 were intended to limit reprogrammings, not to eliminate them
entirely. Commitments made to Members of Congress and local
sponsors will be met with or without the assistance of the Office
of the ASA(CW). The Act contains a provision prohibiting the expenditure of funds to prevent or limit reprogrammings for appropriated projects to ensure the Office of the ASA(CW) does not continue to draw distinctions between projects previously funded in
appropriation bills and those that meet the Administration’s budgeting guidelines. Last year, the Committee articulated the expectation the Office of the ASA(CW) fully exercise its roles and responsibilities as delineated in Army General Order No. 3. In doing so,
the Committee expects the ASA(CW) to work constructively with
the Corps and Congress to fulfill previous commitments.
GENERAL PROVISIONS
CORPS

OF

ENGINEERS—CIVIL

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS

The bill includes a provision that prohibits the obligation or expenditure of funds through a reprogramming of funds in this Act
except in certain circumstances. This provision is discussed more
fully under ‘‘Program Management and Execution.’’
The bill includes a provision relating to the circumstances under
which the Corps is required to issue continuing contracts.
The bill includes a provision prohibiting the use of funds in this
Act to carry out any continuing contract that commits an amount
for a project in excess of the amount appropriated for such project
in this Act.
The bill includes a provision prohibiting the use of funds in this
Act or any other Act for any fiscal year to carry out the construction of the Port Jersey element of the New York and New Jersey
Harbor or reimbursement to the local sponsor for the construction
of the Port Jersey element until commitments for construction of
container handling facilities are obtained from the non-Federal
sponsor for a second user along the Port Jersey element.
The bill includes a provision that prohibits funds for the operation or maritime-related maintenance of the hopper dredge
McFarland.
The bill contains a provision prohibiting the use of funds in this
Act or any other Act for any fiscal year to prevent or limit any reprogramming of funds for appropriated projects.
The bill contains a provision relating to the repayment of the Department of Treasury’s Judgment Fund.
The bill contains a provision prohibiting the use of funds for an
A–76 study.

VerDate Aug 31 2005

06:20 May 20, 2006

Jkt 027628

PO 00000

Frm 00049

Fmt 6601

Sfmt 6602

E:\HR\OC\HR474.002

HR474

50

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS

The bill contains a provision prohibiting the use of funds to remove a section of the dam for fish passage or to study other alternatives to the trap and haul facility at Elk Creek Dam, Oregon.
The bill includes a provision that prohibits the expenditure of
funds to revise the master control plans and master manuals of the
Corps of Engineers for the Alabama, Coosa, Tallapoosa River basin
in Alabama and Georgia or the Apalachicola, Chattahoochee, Flint
River Basin in Alabama, Georgia, and Florida.

VerDate Aug 31 2005

06:20 May 20, 2006

Jkt 027628

PO 00000

Frm 00050

Fmt 6601

Sfmt 6602

E:\HR\OC\HR474.002

HR474

TITLE II
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
CENTRAL UTAH PROJECT
CENTRAL UTAH PROJECT COMPLETION ACCOUNT
Appropriation, 2006 ............................................................................
Budget estimate, 2007 .......................................................................
Recommended, 2007 ...........................................................................
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2006 ....................................................................
Budget estimate, 2007 ................................................................

$34,007,000
40,155,000
40,155,000
+6,148,000
............................

The Central Utah Project Completion Act (Titles II-VI of Public
Law 102–575) provides for the completion of the Central Utah
Project by the Central Utah Water Conservancy District. The Act
also authorizes the appropriation of funds for fish, wildlife, and
recreation mitigation and conservation; establishes an account in
the Treasury for the deposit of these funds and of other contributions for mitigation and conservation activities; and establishes a
Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Commission to administer funds in that account. The Act further assigns responsibilities for carrying out the Act to the Secretary of the Interior and
prohibits delegation of those responsibilities to the Bureau of Reclamation.
The Committee recommendation for fiscal year 2007 to carry out
the Central Utah Project is $40,155,000, the same as the budget request, and $6,148,000 above the fiscal year 2006 enacted level.
Within the $40,155,000 provided by the Committee, the following
amounts are provided for the Central Utah Valley Water Conservation District by activity, as recommended in the budget request:
Utah Lake drainage basin delivery system ......................................
Water conservation measures ...........................................................
Uinta Basin replacement project ......................................................
Other Title II programs .....................................................................

$17,906,000
3,661,000
15,204,000
297,000

Total, Central Utah water conservation district ...................

37,068,000

The Committee recommendation includes the requested amount
of $965,000 for deposit into the Utah Reclamation Mitigation and
Conservation Account for use by the Utah Reclamation Mitigation
and Conservation Commission. These funds, as proposed in the
budget request, are to be used to implement the fish, wildlife, and
recreation mitigation and conservation projects authorized in Title
III; and in completing mitigation measures committed to in pre–
1992 Bureau of Reclamation planning documents, as follows:
ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS

(51)

VerDate Aug 31 2005

05:42 May 20, 2006

Jkt 027628

PO 00000

Frm 00051

Fmt 6601

Sfmt 6601

E:\HR\OC\HR474.003

HR474

52
Provo River/Utah Lake fish and wildlife ..........................................
Duchesne/Strawberry Rivers fish and wildlife .................................
CRSP/Statewide fish, wildlife and recreation ..................................
Section 201(a)(1) mitigation measures .............................................

$293,000
30,000
454,000
188,000

Total, Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation
Commission .....................................................................................

965,000

For program oversight and administration, the Committee has
provided $1,603,000, the same level as the budget request, and
$133,000 below the fiscal year 2006 enacted level. For fish and
wildlife conservation programs, the Committee has provided
$519,000, the same level as the budget request.
BUREAU

OF

RECLAMATION

FY 2007 BUDGET OVERVIEW
The mission of Bureau of Reclamation is to manage, develop, and
protect water and related resources in an environmentally and economically sound manner in the interest of the American public.
Since its establishment by The Reclamation Act of June 17, 1902,
the Bureau of Reclamation has developed water supply facilities
that have contributed to sustained economic growth and an enhanced quality of life in the western states. Lands and communities served by Reclamation projects have been developed to meet
agricultural, tribal, urban, and industrial needs. The Bureau continues to develop authorized facilities to store and convey new
water supplies. The Bureau is the largest supplier and manager of
water in the 17 western states. The Bureau maintains 472 dams
and 348 reservoirs with the capacity to store 245 million acre-feet
of water. These facilities deliver water to one of every five western
farmers for about 10 million acres of irrigated land, and to over 31
million people for municipal, rural, and industrial uses. The Bureau is also the Nation’s second largest producer of hydroelectric
power, generating 42 billion kilowatt hours of energy each year
from 58 power plants. In addition, its facilities provide substantial
flood control, recreation, and fish and wildlife benefits.
The fiscal year budget request for the Bureau of Reclamation totals $923,736,000, and includes $88,000,000 in rescissions. The
Committee recommendation totals $900,779,000 for the Bureau of
Reclamation, $7,000,000 over the budget request and $124,000,000
below the fiscal year 2006 enacted level.
A summary table illustrating the fiscal year 2006 enacted appropriation, the fiscal year 2007 budget request and the Committee
recommendation is shown below:
[Dollars in 000s]
Account

Fiscal Year 2006
Enacted

Fiscal Year 2007
Request

$874,679
--874,679
52,219
36,630
57,338
1,020,866

$833,424
¥88,000
745,424
41,478
38,610
58,069
883,581

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS

Water and related resources ................................................................
Rescission .............................................................................................
Subtotal, water and related resources ............................................
Central Valley project restoration fund ................................................
California Bay-Delta restoration ...........................................................
Policy and administration .....................................................................
Total, Bureau of Reclamation ..........................................................

VerDate Aug 31 2005

05:42 May 20, 2006

Jkt 027628

PO 00000

Frm 00052

Fmt 6601

Sfmt 6601

E:\HR\OC\HR474.003

Committee Recommendation

$849,122
¥88,000
761,122
41,478
40,110
58,069
900,779

HR474

53
WATER

AND

RELATED RESOURCES

(INCLUDING TRANSFER

OF

FUNDS

AND

RESCISSION)

Appropriation, 2006 ............................................................................
Budget estimate, 2007 .......................................................................
Recommended, 2007 ...........................................................................
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2006 ....................................................................
Budget estimate, 2007 ................................................................

$874,679,000
1 745,424,000
1 761,122,000

¥25,557,000
+15,698,000

1 Includes rescission of the unobligated balances for At Risk Desert Terminus Lakes in the amount of
$88,000,0000.

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS

The Water and Related Resources account supports the development, management, and restoration of water and related natural
resources in the 17 western states. The account includes funds for
operating and maintaining existing facilities to obtain the greatest
overall levels of benefits, to protect public safety, and to conduct
studies on ways to improve the use of water and related natural
resources.
The Department is directed to conform to the following reprogramming guidelines. The Bureau is permitted to transfer,
without prior Congressional approval and without regard to percentage limitation, not more than $5,000,000 in any one case to
provide adequate funds for settled contractor claims, increased contractor earnings due to accelerated rates of operations, and real estate deficiency judgments, provided that such reprogramming is
necessary to discharge legal obligations of the Bureau of Reclamation.
As to each project within the Resources Management and Development category for which $2,000,000 or more is available at the
beginning of the fiscal year, the Bureau is permitted to transfer to
such project in that fiscal year no more than fifteen percent of the
amount available at the beginning of the fiscal year for such
project, without prior Congressional approval. As to each project
within the Resources Management and Development category for
which less than $2,000,000 is available at the beginning of the fiscal year, the Bureau is permitted to transfer to such project no
more than $300,000 in that fiscal year without prior Congressional
approval.
The Bureau is further permitted to transfer funds within the Facility Operation, Maintenance and Rehabilitation category without
prior Congressional approval and without regard to percentage or
dollar limitation.
The Bureau may not transfer, without prior Congressional approval, more than $500,000 from either the Facilities Operation,
Maintenance and Rehabilitation category or the Resources Management and Development category to any project in the other category. The Bureau is prohibited from initiating any program,
project or activity through an internal reprogramming action.
For fiscal year 2007, the Committee recommends $849,122,000,
$15,698,000 above the budget request and $25,557,000 below the
fiscal year 2006 enacted level. The recommended level includes a
recission of unobligated balances for At Risk Desert Terminus
Lakes in the amount of $88,000,000. The budget request and the
approved Committee allowance for specific projects are shown, by
state, in the following table:

VerDate Aug 31 2005

05:42 May 20, 2006

Jkt 027628

PO 00000

Frm 00053

Fmt 6601

Sfmt 6602

E:\HR\OC\HR474.003

HR474

VerDate Aug 31 2005

05:42 May 20, 2006

Jkt 027628

PO 00000

Frm 00054

Fmt 6601

Sfmt 6602

E:\HR\OC\HR474.003

HR474

Insert graphic folio 017 here HR474.017

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS

54

VerDate Aug 31 2005

05:42 May 20, 2006

Jkt 027628

PO 00000

Frm 00055

Fmt 6601

Sfmt 6602

E:\HR\OC\HR474.003

HR474

Insert graphic folio 018 here HR474.018

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS

55

VerDate Aug 31 2005

05:42 May 20, 2006

Jkt 027628

PO 00000

Frm 00056

Fmt 6601

Sfmt 6602

E:\HR\OC\HR474.003

HR474

Insert graphic folio 019 here HR474.019

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS

56

VerDate Aug 31 2005

05:42 May 20, 2006

Jkt 027628

PO 00000

Frm 00057

Fmt 6601

Sfmt 6602

E:\HR\OC\HR474.003

HR474

Insert graphic folio 020 here HR474.020

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS

57

VerDate Aug 31 2005

05:42 May 20, 2006

Jkt 027628

PO 00000

Frm 00058

Fmt 6601

Sfmt 6602

E:\HR\OC\HR474.003

HR474

Insert graphic folio 021 here HR474.021

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS

58

59

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS

Yuma area projects, Arizona and California.—The Committee
has provided a total of $23,227,000 for Yuma area projects in Arizona and California, of which $495,000 is available for renovation
and refurbishment of the City of Needles, California Bureau Bay
Reclamation Project site.
Auburn-Folsom South Unit, California.—The Committee has also
provided $1,000,000 to complete an assessment of the feasibility of
relocating the Highway 49 bridge at the Auburn-South Unit of the
Central Valley Project.
Further, the Committee directs the Commissioner to expedite its
review and complete all actions necessary for the new bridge at
Folsom Dam, California, including coordination with the Corps of
Engineers and the City of Folsom, granting necessary easements or
rights-of-way and other means of simplifying and expediting necessary procedures.
The Committee also directs the Commissioner to consider the
new bridge at Folsom Dam, California, as a non-Central Valley
Project component.
Cachuma Project, California.—Within the funds provided for the
Cachuma Project, the Committee has provided $500,000 for the
Lake Cachuma Water and Sewage Project.
Central Valley project, California, American River Division.—
Within the funds provided, $1,250,000 shall be available for the El
Dorado Temperature Control Device.
Central Valley project, California, Auburn-Folsom South Unit.—
Within the funds provided, $1,000,000 shall be available to complete an assessment of the feasibility of relocating the Highway 49
bridge.
Salton Sea research project, California.—The Committee has provided $2,243,000 for the Salton Sea research project, including
$1,500,000 to continue environmental restoration efforts at the
Alamo and New Rivers, and for other authorized pilot projects. The
Bureau is encouraged to work jointly with the Salton Sea Authority
and assist the authority in running its own pilot projects.
Southern California investigations program.—Within the funds
provided for the Southern California Investigations Program,
$250,000 has been included for the Los Angeles Basin Watershed
Water Supply Augmentation Study; $500,000 is provided for the
Upper Mohave River well field and water supply project; $300,000
is provided to assist the Lake Arrowhead Community Services District to develop an integrated water resource plan.
Equus Beds Groundwater Recharge Demonstration Project, Kansas.—The Committee is aware that the pilot program for the Equus
Beds project is complete. The Committee strongly urges the Bureau
to work with the impacted communities and the state of Kansas on
design and engineering of the full-scale project.
St. Mary Diversion Facilities to the Milk River Basin, Montana.—
The Committee remains supportive of efforts to rehabilitate or replace the St. Mary Diversion Facilities to the Milk River Basin,
Montana project given the agricultural, municipal, recreational,
cultural and economic benefits the project accrues to the people its
serves in North Central Montana.
Oklahoma Investigations Program.—Within the funds available,
$750,000 is provided for the Arbuckle-Simpson Aquifer Study.

VerDate Aug 31 2005

05:42 May 20, 2006

Jkt 027628

PO 00000

Frm 00059

Fmt 6601

Sfmt 6602

E:\HR\OC\HR474.003

HR474

60
Washington investigations program.—The Committee recommendation provides $352,000 for the Washington investigations
program, of which $50,000 shall be available for technical assistance and studies for solutions to address the depletion of the Odessa Subacquifer.
VARIOUS PROGRAMS

Site security.—Last year, the Committee recognized that in accordance with Federal reclamation law, specifically the Reclamation Act of 1939, annual operation and maintenance (O&M) and replacement costs on Reclamation projects are allocated to a project’s
various authorized purposes. The ongoing costs of the additional security guards and patrols necessary to ensure the security of a
project may be considered project O&M costs. The Committee remains concerned that these costs be justified and accounted for in
a transparent manner. Further, the Committee directs the Department to work closely with power customers, water users and other
customers to ensure these requirements are adequately communicated and justified to those parties who share in the costs.
Technical Assistance to States.—Within the funds provided, the
Bureau of Reclamation is directed to contribute technical expertise
and operation, educational and recreational components to the City
of Chandler, AZ Veteran’s Oasis Water Recharge Project.
Water 2025.—The budget request includes $14,500,000 for Water
2025. This program is intended to reduce crises and conflict over
water and is to set a framework to identify problems, solutions and
plans to focus a needed dialog as the Department of the Interior
works with states, tribes, local governments and the private sector
to meet water supply challenges. While the Committee remains
supportive of the program, given its lack of authorization, the Committee has not provided funding for the Water 2025 program for
fiscal year 2007.
Wetlands Development.—Within the funds provided, $500,000
has been included for the Yuma East Wetlands Restoration.
CENTRAL VALLEY PPROJECT RESTORATION FUND
Appropriation, 2006 ............................................................................
Budget estimate, 2007 .......................................................................
Recommended, 2007 ...........................................................................
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2006 ....................................................................
Budget estimate, 2007 ................................................................

$52,219,000
41,478,000
41,478,000
¥10,741,000
............................

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS

This fund was established to carry out the provisions of the Central Valley Project Improvement Act and to provide funding for
habitat restoration, improvement and acquisition, and other fish
and wildlife restoration activities in the Central Valley area of
California. Resources are derived from donations, revenues from
voluntary water transfers and tiered water pricing, and Friant Division surcharges. The account is also financed through additional
mitigation and restoration payments collected on an annual basis
from project beneficiaries.
For fiscal year 2007, the Committee recommends $41,478,000,
the same level as the budget request and $10,741,000 below the fis-

VerDate Aug 31 2005

05:42 May 20, 2006

Jkt 027628

PO 00000

Frm 00060

Fmt 6601

Sfmt 6602

E:\HR\OC\HR474.003

HR474

61
cal year 2006 enacted level. Funds, as proposed in the budget request, are provided as follows:
Anadromous fish restoration program .................................................
Other Central Valley project impacts ..................................................
Dedicated project yield ..........................................................................
Flow fluctuation study ..........................................................................
Restoration of riparian habitat and spawning gravel .........................
Central Valley comprehensive assessment/monitoring program .......
Anadromous fish screen program .........................................................
Refugee wheeling conveyance ...............................................................
Refuge water supply, facility construction ..........................................
Ecosystem/water systems operations model ........................................
Water acquisition program ...................................................................
San Joaquin Basin action plan .............................................................
Land retirement program .....................................................................
Coleman fish hatchery ..........................................................................
Clear Creek restoration .........................................................................
San Joaquin River Basin Resource Mgmt Int .....................................

$4,200,000
1,500,000
900,000
50,000
500,000
400,000
3,000,000
8,008,000
1,800,000
7,134,000
8,086,000
1,400,000
1,500,000
200,000
800,000
2,000,000

Total, Central Valley project restoration fund .........................

41,478,000

CALIFORNIA BAY-DELTA RESTORATION
Appropriation, 2006 ............................................................................
Budget estimate, 2007 .......................................................................
Recommended, 2007 ...........................................................................
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2006 ....................................................................
Budget estimate, 2007 ................................................................

$36,630,000
38,610,000
40,110,000
+3,480,000
+1,500,000

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS

The purpose of the California Bay-Delta account is to fund the
Federal share of water supply and reliability improvements, ecosystem improvements and other activities being developed for the
Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and associated watersheds by a
State and Federal partnership (CALFED). Federal participation in
this program was initially authorized in the California Bay-Delta
Environmental and Water Security Act enacted in 1996. That Act
authorized the appropriation of $143,300,000 for ecosystem restoration activities in each of fiscal years 1998, 1999, and 2000. Absent
an explicit authorization, no funds were provided in this account
for the CALFED effort between fiscal years 2001 and 2005. However, the Committee funded CALFED programs and activities even
though a specific programmatic authorization was lacking. In 2005,
the CALFED Bay-Delta Authorization Act was enacted (P.L. 108–
361), authorizing $389,000,000 in Federal appropriations for fiscal
year 2005 through fiscal year 2010. The authorizing legislation required an annual cross-cut budget in order to reflect the budget requests of all Federal agencies engaged in CALFED implementation.
The total Federal expenditures under this Act from fiscal year 1998
through 2006 amount to almost $867,000,000.
The Committee is pleased the CALFED Bay-Delta program was
included in the fiscal year 2007 budget request and recommends
$40,110,000 an increase of $1,500,000 over budget request. The
Committee is also pleased the budget request included a water
quality section and science program section in this year’s budget.
However, the budget documentation was extremely limited in justifying the various levels of funding for each program/project under
the CALFED Bay-Delta program. Therefore, the Committee has redirected the funding for higher priority projects that will support
the implementation of the CALFED Bay-Delta program. The fund-

VerDate Aug 31 2005

05:42 May 20, 2006

Jkt 027628

PO 00000

Frm 00061

Fmt 6601

Sfmt 6602

E:\HR\OC\HR474.003

HR474

62
ed projects will produce increased sources of water for the State of
California, otherwise known as ‘‘firm yield’’ projects, improve drinking water quality, and improve water delivery flexibility.
The Committee recognizes the impending danger the Sacramento/San Joaquin Delta levees pose to the economy, environment, water users, and general welfare of the people within the
State. It is the Committee’s belief that, because Reclamation relies
on the Delta to move water from north to south, it should share
in the responsibility of maintaining and strengthening delta levees
and has provided funding under the CALFED Bay-Delta program
for this purpose.
All program funds provided under the CALFED Bay-Delta program are to be considered non-reimbursable. The Committee also
is aware that Reclamation is not providing all funds to project cooperators as outlined in last year’s bill and insists Reclamation provide the funds listed below in full for 2007. The Committee again
urges the Administration to fund all program elements at the fully
authorized levels in future budget requests and include all cooperating agency budgets related to CALFED Bay-Delta program activities under this account.
The funds provided are intended to support the following activities, as delineated below:
Science ....................................................................................................
Delta Levees ...........................................................................................
Environmental water account ...............................................................
Storage program ....................................................................................
San Joaquin River basin ................................................................
Los Vaqueros ...................................................................................
Shasta enlargement ........................................................................
Sites .................................................................................................
Conveyance .............................................................................................
San Luis Reservoir Low Point .......................................................
Temporary Barriers ........................................................................
Planning and management activities ...................................................
Water use efficiency ...............................................................................
Upper Feather River Basin Assessment .......................................
Sac Valley Int Regional Mgmt Program .......................................
Inland Empire Utilities Agency regional water recycling project
Ecosystem restoration ...........................................................................
Water Quality ........................................................................................
Contra Costa Water District alternative intake project ..............
San Joaquin River Salinity Management .....................................
Total, California Bay-Delta Restoration ...................................

$2,970,000
6,000,000
6,000,000
11,385,000
(3,960,000)
(1,980,000)
(3,960,000)
(1,485,000)
3,415,000
(1,485,000)
(500,000)
500,000
2,850,000
(750,000)
(1,100,000)
(1,000,000)
1,000,000
5,990,000
(2,000,000)
(3,990,000)
40,110,000

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS

Conveyance.—Due to the legal action against the intertie project
between the State Water Project California Aqueduct and the Central Valley Project Delta Mendota Canal, the Committee has eliminated the funding for this project.
Delta Levees.—The Committee provides $6,000,000, to be transferred to the Corps of Engineers, which shall be available to begin
implementation of the Delta Levee Stability Program High Priority,
Priority Group A projects as identified in the draft 180–day report
to Congress dated March 2006.
Water Use Efficiency.—The Committee has provided funds, contingent upon completion and delivery of the appropriate feasibility
report to the appropriate congressional committees by Reclamation,
to be available for construction of the Inland Empire Utilities
Agency Regional Water Recycling Project.

VerDate Aug 31 2005

05:42 May 20, 2006

Jkt 027628

PO 00000

Frm 00062

Fmt 6601

Sfmt 6602

E:\HR\OC\HR474.003

HR474

63
The Committee has also provided $1,100,000 for the Sacramento
Valley Integrated Regional Water Management Program which
shall be shared between the Northern California Water Association
member agencies and the counties of Butte, Colusa, Glenn, and
Tehama, California.
POLICY

AND

ADMINISTRATION

Appropriation, 2006 ............................................................................
Budget estimate, 2007 .......................................................................
Recommended, 2007 ...........................................................................
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2006 ....................................................................
Budget estimate, 2007 ................................................................

$57,338,000
58,069,000
58,069,000
+731,000
............................

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS

The policy and administration account provides for the executive
direction and management of all Reclamation activities, as performed by the Commissioner’s offices in Washington, D.C., and
Denver, Colorado, and in five regional offices. The Denver and regional offices charge individual projects or activities for direct beneficial services and related administrative and technical costs. These
charges are covered under other appropriations. For fiscal year
2007, the Committee recommends $58,069,000, the same as the
budget request and $731,000 above the fiscal year 2006 enacted
level.
Five-year budget planning.—Last year, the Committee directed
the Department of Interior to submit with its fiscal year 2007
budget request a detailed five-year budget plan for each of the
major budget components including Water and Related Resources,
California Bay-Delta Restoration program, Central Valley Project
Restoration Fund and Central Utah Project Completion. The Department has informed the Committee that it will be unable to provide a five-year plan this fiscal year and hopes to make the initial
submission with the fiscal year 2008 budget request. Given the
five-year plan will be a year late, the Committee looks forward
with great expectation to finally receiving the Department’s product. To reiterate last year’s instruction, the program plans shall
clearly state the assumptions and priorities behind the choices it
will make between competing agency programs, and shall include
a copy of the guidance provided to the program offices to guide
their submissions into the five-year plan. The plan shall provide
both fiscally constrained and unconstrained data.
Denver Technical Services Center.—The Bureau’s Technical Services Center (TSC) in Denver, CO provides centralized engineering
and scientific services to the area and regional offices. The Committee is aware of the National Research Council’s recommendation
that the Bureau reevaluate the competencies that exist at the TSC
in light of current challenges faced by the Bureau. Depending upon
the timeliness and thoroughness of this evaluation, the Committee
will entertain an outside evaluation of the TSC’s current staffing
and core competencies.

VerDate Aug 31 2005

05:42 May 20, 2006

Jkt 027628

PO 00000

Frm 00063

Fmt 6601

Sfmt 6602

E:\HR\OC\HR474.003

HR474

64
GENERAL PROVISIONS
DEPARTMENT

OF INTERIOR

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS

The bill includes a provision regarding the San Luis Unit and
Kesterson Reservoir in California. This language has been included
in annual Energy and Water Development Appropriations Acts for
several years.
The bill includes language prohibiting the use of funds for any
water acquisition or lease in the Middle Rio Grande or Carlsbad
Projects in New Mexico unless the acquisition is in compliance with
existing state law and administered under state priority allocation.

VerDate Aug 31 2005

05:42 May 20, 2006

Jkt 027628

PO 00000

Frm 00064

Fmt 6601

Sfmt 6602

E:\HR\OC\HR474.003

HR474

TITLE III
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Funds recommended in Title III provide for all Department of
Energy (DOE) programs, including Energy Supply and Conservation, Clean Coal Technology, Fossil Energy Research and Development, Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves, the Elk Hills
School Lands Fund, the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, the Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve, the Energy Information Administration, Non-Defense Environmental Cleanup, Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund, Science, Nuclear Waste Disposal, Departmental Administration, Office of the
Inspector General, the National Nuclear Security Administration
(Weapons Activities, Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation, Naval Reactors, and the Office of the Administrator), Defense Environmental Cleanup, Other Defense Activities, Defense Nuclear Waste
Disposal, the Power Marketing Administrations, and the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Department of Energy (DOE) has requested a total budget
of $24,074,717,000 in fiscal year 2007 to fund programs in its four
primary mission areas: science, energy, environment, and national
security. The overall DOE budget is essentially flat compared to
the fiscal year 2006 enacted level, but the four mission areas fare
quite differently under the Department’s budget proposal. Science
research would increase by 14 percent, and the budget for the National Nuclear Security Administration increases by 2.3 percent.
However, the budget for applied energy research is actually down
by 4.8 percent, and the environmental cleanup budget sees a reduction of 11.6 percent compared to fiscal year 2006.
The Committee makes a number of changes to the fiscal year
2007 budget request to reflect specific Congressional priorities and
interests. The Committee recommendation fully funds the request
for the American Competitiveness Initiative under the Office of
Science, but makes significant adjustments to funding for the
NNSA, applied energy research, and environmental cleanup. Total
funding for the Department of Energy is $24,373,489,000, an increase of $326,717,000 over fiscal year 2006 and $298,772,000 over
the budget request.
GLOBAL NUCLEAR ENERGY PARTNERSHIP (GNEP)

The Department requests $250,000,000 for a major new initiative
called the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP). This initiative would address the challenges of spent fuel disposal, nuclear
nonproliferation, and growth in nuclear energy through the application of advanced technologies to recycle spent nuclear fuel. The
ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS

(65)

VerDate Aug 31 2005

05:42 May 20, 2006

Jkt 027628

PO 00000

Frm 00065

Fmt 6601

Sfmt 6601

E:\HR\OC\HR474.004

HR474

66

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS

Committee strongly endorses the concept of recycling spent nuclear
fuel. Continuing the once-through fuel cycle not only would waste
much of the energy content of spent fuel and leave an environmental legacy of radioactive materials, some of them useable in nuclear weapons, but will require the construction of eight more
Yucca-sized repositories by the end of the century (assuming nuclear energy continues to supply twenty percent of the nation’s
electricity needs).
However, the Committee has serious reservations about GNEP
as proposed by the Administration. The overriding concern is simply that the Department of Energy has failed to provide sufficient
detailed information to enable Congress to understand fully all aspects of this initiative, including the cost, schedule, technology development plan, and waste streams from GNEP. GNEP in some
ways addresses Congressional direction with respect to Integrated
Spent Fuel Recycling given in the Statement of Managers accompanying the Conference Report on Energy and Water Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2006, but the GNEP proposal differs in several significant aspects from what the conferees directed last year,
and the GNEP proposal falls short in a number of critical areas:
Integration of Recycling Facilities.—Congress provided funding in
fiscal year 2006 for DOE to begin the competitive selection of sites
willing to host integrated spent fuel recycling facilities. Integration
is critical to address nonproliferation and security concerns, keeping sensitive materials and sensitive facilities within a secure perimeter and minimizing offsite transportation of special nuclear
materials. Unfortunately, the Department has ignored this key concept of integration. The Request for Expressions of Interest for
GNEP (solicitation DE–RP07–06ID14760) only mentions three facilities: one for the separation of usable elements from waste products in spent fuel, one for the conversion of transuranics, and an
advanced fuel cycle facility. There is no mention of the requirement
that these facilities be integrated or co-located at a single site, nor
(as is detailed below) is there any mention of the need for interim
storage as part of an integrated recycling complex.
Interim Storage.—In the Committee’s view, any such integrated
spent fuel recycling facility must be capable of accumulating sufficient volumes of spent fuel to provide efficient operation of the facility. A first test of any site’s willingness to host such a facility is
its willingness to receive into interim storage spent fuel in dry
casks that provide safe storage of spent fuel for 50 to 100 years or
longer. In this Committee’s view, if any site refuses to provide interim storage as needed to support the operation of an integrated
recycling facility, at whatever scale, then that site should be eliminated from all further consideration under GNEP. As noted above,
the Department failed to include any requirement for interim storage in its Request for Expressions of Interest for hosting GNEP facilities. Further, the Department failed to include any language regarding interim storage in its legislative proposal that was submitted to Congress on April 5, 2006.
Resolution of the spent fuel problem cannot wait for the many
years required for the GNEP to proceed through comprehensive
planning, engineering demonstration, NRC licensing of the recycling plant, any new reactor types such as fast reactors, and each

VerDate Aug 31 2005

05:42 May 20, 2006

Jkt 027628

PO 00000

Frm 00066

Fmt 6601

Sfmt 6601

E:\HR\OC\HR474.004

HR474

67

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS

new recycled fuel type, and ultimate operations. The credibility of
the Administration’s support for the future of the nuclear power industry rests on its resolution of the issues associated with taking
custody of spent fuel and opening a permanent geologic repository
for high-level nuclear waste (Yucca Mountain), as required by the
Nuclear Waste Policy Act. GNEP will not be ready to begin largescale recycling of commercial spent fuel until the end of the next
decade, and the Yucca Mountain repository will not open until
roughly the same time. Such delays are acceptable only if accompanied by interim storage beginning this decade.
Inclusion of Fast Reactors.—When Congress provided funding in
fiscal year 2006 for Integrated Spent Fuel Recycling, Congress understood integrated recycling to involve four steps: an advanced
separation technology such as UREX+ that would not yield separated plutonium, fabrication of new mixed oxide (MOX) fuel for use
in commercial light water power reactors thereby recycling any plutonium containing product of UREX+, vitrification of waste products, and interim storage of spent fuel to support the recycling
process. GNEP envisions a very different process, using fast burner
reactors to destroy more completely the plutonium and other
actinides in the spent fuel. While such an approach may be desirable from a technical perspective, the inclusion of fast reactors
adds significant cost, time, and risk to the recycling effort. The Department has failed to provide any comparison of the relative costs
and benefits of the two approaches to convince Congress, and the
public, that UREX+ coupled with fast reactors is the best approach
to recycling spent fuel.
Linkage to Yucca Mountain.—Unfortunately, it appears that the
Department has decided to put its emphasis on GNEP and put
Yucca Mountain on the back burner. That choice is unacceptable
to the Committee. The Yucca Mountain repository is essential regardless of whether GNEP is successful or the United States retains a policy of a once-through nuclear fuel cycle, and the Committee fully supports proceeding to construct and operate this repository. The latest schedule from the Department of Energy has
a license application for construction being filed in fiscal year 2008,
construction start three to four years later and disposal of commercial spent fuel sometime near the end of the next decade. This is
a seven-year delay from the schedule just two years ago. During
the delay, the Department has estimated that it will incur added
costs of $500 million per year in liabilities to the nuclear utilities
for the Department’s failure to begin accepting commercial spent
fuel. As noted above, this delay is acceptable only if accompanied
by centralized interim storage in the near term. Furthermore, the
Department has estimated that it will include an additional $500
million per year in costs to protect and manage its own wastes that
are destined to be placed in Yucca Mountain. The Committee is reluctant to embark on any new initiative that has the potential to
produce significant chemical and radioactive waste streams.
Inadequate Information on Waste Streams and Life Cycle Costs.—
The cost estimates for construction and commissioning of the Hanford Waste Treatment Plant (WTP) have gone from $4.3 billion to
over $11 billion in just three years, and are still not yet well established. This plant is designed to process the high-level radioactive

VerDate Aug 31 2005

05:42 May 20, 2006

Jkt 027628

PO 00000

Frm 00067

Fmt 6601

Sfmt 6601

E:\HR\OC\HR474.004

HR474

68
waste derived from past reprocessing activities. The Department
has failed to produce a complete accounting of the estimated volumes, composition, and disposition of the waste streams that will
be involved in GNEP. The Department has also failed to produce
even the most rudimentary estimate of the life-cycle costs of GNEP.
Before the Department can expect the Congress to fund a major
new initiative, the Department should provide Congress with a
complete and credible estimate of the life-cycle costs of the program.
Future of Nuclear Energy.—At present, 103 civilian light-water
nuclear reactors generate twenty percent of the nation’s electricity.
The generation process produces no greenhouse gases, is carefully
regulated by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and rate payers
pay into the Nuclear Waste Fund for the permanent disposal of
spent reactor fuel. However, the current fleet of reactors are generally one-third to half way through their expected operating lifetimes. To retain this component of our domestic energy supply,
even at the twenty percent level, the United States will have to
reach a consensus supporting the construction of dozens of new nuclear reactors. Delays in opening the Yucca Mountain repository
cast a shadow over the future of nuclear energy, as it is doubtful
that the NRC will be able to license new reactors without a clear
disposal path for the spent fuel those reactors will generate. Unfortunately, the timeline for commercial-scale implementation of
GNEP is too far off in the future to assist with licensing new reactors in the next decade. The Department has chosen, unwisely in
this Committee’s view, to seek legislation that would eliminate the
availability of disposal space in a permanent repository as a consideration for NRC in licensing new reactors. Aggressive development
of the initial Yucca Mountain repository, coupled with either expansion of Yucca’s capacity or development of additional repositories, would be a responsible solution to the waste confidence
question. The provision of centralized interim storage, so that the
Department could begin moving spent fuel away from commercial
reactor sites, would also be a responsible alternative. Attempting
to legislate away the waste confidence problem is not.
The concept of recycling spent nuclear fuel has real promise, with
benefits both domestically and internationally. However, the Committee recognizes that implementation of advanced recycling on
any significant scale is at least a decade or more in the future. The
Department has yet to submit a compelling and complete justification for the $250,000,000 request for GNEP in fiscal year 2007.
Therefore, the Committee supports a more modest effort on GNEP,
continued emphasis on Yucca Mountain, and renewed emphasis on
the provision of centralized interim storage. Specific guidance on
this issue is provided in the sections of the report dealing with the
Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative and with Nuclear Waste Disposal.
CONGRESSIONAL DIRECTION

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS

The Committee renews the direction provided in previous fiscal
years requiring the Secretary to submit to the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations, Subcommittees on Energy and
Water Development, a quarterly report on the status of all projects,
reports, fund transfers, and other actions directed in this House

VerDate Aug 31 2005

05:42 May 20, 2006

Jkt 027628

PO 00000

Frm 00068

Fmt 6601

Sfmt 6601

E:\HR\OC\HR474.004

HR474

69
bill and report, in the corresponding Senate bill and report, in the
Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year
2007, and in the statement of managers accompanying that Act.
Any reports, transfers, or other actions directed in prior fiscal years
that have not been completed as of the date of enactment of this
Act should also be included in this quarterly report.
The Committee is disappointed that the Department is late in
submitting several cruicial reports that were due in the spring of
2006. These reporting deadlines were established so that the reports could be used to inform the House appropriations process for
the coming fiscal year. By failing to meet its reporting deadlines,
the Department not only disregards the direction of the House of
Representatives, but it misses opportunities to participate constructively in the appropriations process. Future reporting requirements
will be linked directly to funding in the Departmental Administration account or the responsible program account, so that late reports will translate directly to reduced funding.
ASIA PACIFIC PARTNERSHIP

In January 2006, subsequent to the formulation of the budget request for the Department of Energy, the United States government
formally committed to participate in the Asia Pacific Partnership
for Clean Development and Climate to accelerate the deployment
of clean, energy-efficient technologies. The Department has identified a number of technology development and deployment activities
within the Energy Supply and Conservation account and the Fossil
Energy Research and Development account that may be relevant to
the Asia Pacific Partnership. The Department should submit a reprogramming request to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations if it intends to use any appropriated fiscal year 2006
funds specifically for Asia Pacific Partnership activities. The Department’s fiscal year 2007 budget request does not provide any detailed justification for Asia Pacific Partnership activities in fiscal
year 2007; therefore, the Committee provides no funds for this purpose in fiscal year 2007. The Department should submit to the
House and Senate Committees on Appropriations a detailed budget
justification if it proposes to use any funds in fiscal year 2007 for
activities specific to the Asia Pacific Partnership, and the Committee may consider the matter further at conference.
TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS

The Department possesses enormous resources, both in terms of
people and physical infrastructure, to conduct basic and applied research to benefit the citizens of the United States. From the perspective of most of those citizens, the taxpayers contribute an enormous amount of resources to the Department, much of it spent on
activities that yield little obvious benefit. The Committee understands the long-term nature of basic research, and fully supports
those activities. The Committee also supports the applied energy
research programs that serve to bring more efficient and environmentally-friendly energy technologies into the marketplace.
In general, the Department performs its basic science research
and applied energy research missions well. However, there is always room for improvement, and the recent report by the National

VerDate Aug 31 2005

05:42 May 20, 2006

Jkt 027628

PO 00000

Frm 00069

Fmt 6601

Sfmt 6601

E:\HR\OC\HR474.004

HR474

70
Academies, ‘‘Rising Above the Gathering Storm: Energizing and
Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future,’’ makes a
number of recommendations that are relevant to the Department
of Energy.
One recommendation is create in DOE an organization called the
Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA–E) to provide
funding support for creative ‘‘out-of-the-box’’ energy research, similar to the way that the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) functions. The Committee is aware that the House
Science Committee is considering legislation to create an ARPA–E.
However, the proposal is not yet ripe, and no funds were requested
in the fiscal year 2007 budget to fund any activities of an ARPA–
E.
Another recommendation, referenced but not necessarily endorsed in the ‘‘Rising Storm’’ report, deals with the gap between
applied research and commercial implementation of new technologies. The large industrial laboratories used to fill that niche,
but more recently, U.S. businesses have largely focused on research
that yields short-term benefits. It has been suggested that DOE
should combine the expertise resident in its national laboratories
with that available in the private sector and academia to conduct
research targeted at selected high-payoff technologies that can be
manufactured competitively in the United States. It is not clear
that filling this gap is a federal responsibility; however, it is clear
that this gap exists, and that DOE does have talent to bring to
bear on this problem.
Regardless of the structure of a new research organization such
as ARPA–E, and the technologies that might be selected as the
focus for such work, there remains the question of how to fund
such activities. As noted above, the fiscal year 2007 budget does
not request any funding specifically for such purposes. However,
the Committee notes that the Department is already sitting on a
large untapped resource that could be used to address this problem. The Laboratory Directed Research and Development (LDRD)
program consists of individual research projects selected at the discretion of the DOE laboratory directors with Department concurrence and funded via a tax on all funding, direct and reimbursable,
coming into each laboratory. In fiscal year 2005, the Department
spent $384,000,000 on LDRD. Although an accurate estimate is not
yet available for the current fiscal year, the number will almost
certainly approach $500,000,000.
The Committee understands the value of discretionary research
conducted at the DOE national laboratories. However, the Committee strongly encourages the Secretary to re-focus the LDRD to
address better the high-priority research needs of the nation so
that the American taxpayers, rather than just the laboratory contractors, benefit from this research. The Committee is hopeful that
the Under Secretary for Science, a new position in the Department
created in section 1006 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109–
58), will provide more effective coordination of the LDRD program.
BUDGET JUSTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS

The fiscal year 2008 budget justifications submitted by the Department must include the following: (1) a section identifying the

VerDate Aug 31 2005

05:42 May 20, 2006

Jkt 027628

PO 00000

Frm 00070

Fmt 6601

Sfmt 6601

E:\HR\OC\HR474.004

HR474

71
last year that authorizing legislation was provided by Congress for
each program; (2) funding within each construction project data
sheet for elimination of excess facilities at least equal to the square
footage of the new facilities being requested; and (3) funding to
eliminate excess facilities at least equal to the square footage of
new facilities being constructed as general plant projects (GPP).
The budget justifications must also include a statement that all appropriate project management requirements from DOE Order 413.3
will have been met at the time the budget justifications are submitted to Congress. The Committee understands that all such requirements may not be met, and need not be met, at the time the
budget request is formulated. The Committee does expect, however,
that these project management requirements will have been fulfilled at the time the fiscal year 2008 budget request is delivered
to Congress.
FIVE-YEAR BUDGET PLANNING

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS

Fiscal year 2007 was the first year in which the Department submitted five-year budget plans for all of its major programs, an integrated five-year budget plan for the entire Department, and business plans for each of the Department’s national laboratories. The
Committee directs the Department to submit updated versions of
these plans (i.e, five-year budget plans for major DOE programs as
listed in House Report 109–86, for the entire Department, and laboratory business plans) concurrent with submission of the fiscal
year 2008 budget request.
The Committee renews its previous direction that program plans
and the integrated Department-wide plan should state clearly the
assumptions and priorities behind the choices it will make between
competing Department programs, and should include a copy of the
guidance provided to the program offices to guide their submissions
into the five-year plan. The five-year budget plans for each major
program should also clearly identify the five-year funding profiles
for all major projects with total project costs in excess of
$100,000,000. This direction applies to all ongoing projects (e.g.,
Hanford Waste Treatment Plant, Savannah River MOX plant, etc.),
all new projects (e.g., ITER, NSLS–II, etc.), and all major cleanup
projects in excess of the threshold. This information is generally
available on the construction data sheets, but should be incorporated into the five-year plans as well.
While the Committee appreciates the effort of the Department in
submitting the first version of its five-year budget plans, the quality of these plans made them of limited value to Congress. The programs of the Office of Environmental Management offer a clear example of this problem. Environmental Management has developed
milestone schedules for each of its cleanup sites. These schedules
were developed in cooperation with local communities and regulators, and in some cases, are the result of legally-binding agreements. There are known resource requirements that are necessary
to meet these existing cleanup milestones. By summing up the
funding requirements that are necessary to keep all existing cleanup sites on schedule for the next five years, the Office of Environmental Management can derive the minimum funding level required for the Environmental Management programs over the next

VerDate Aug 31 2005

05:42 May 20, 2006

Jkt 027628

PO 00000

Frm 00071

Fmt 6601

Sfmt 6601

E:\HR\OC\HR474.004

HR474

72
five years. Where OMB or the Department imposes a funding ceiling that provides less than the minimum necessary to keep all
cleanup sites on schedule, the five-year plan then should identify
clearly which sites would remain on schedule and which ones
would see a schedule slip under the constrained funding levels and
the extent of the slippage. Absent this level of detail, the five-year
plan does not inform Congress of the trade-offs that are being made
at the proposed five-year funding levels. A similar criticism applies
to the five-year plans for the Department’s other major programs.
The five-year budget plan is not meant to be a promotional brochure on the Administration’s budget request; it is meant to be a
working tool to help both the Department and the Congress understand what will and will not be accomplished under the proposed
five-year funding levels.
PROJECT MANAGEMENT

The Committee repeats its prior guidance on the importance of
improving the project management culture within the Department
and on compliance with Project Management Order 413.3. It is important for the Department to maintain its focus on project management for all aspects of its work, but most especially to major
capital projects.
FUNDING OF SAFEGUARDS AND SECURITY ACTIVITIES

The Committee directs the Department of Energy (DOE) to continue to fund the safeguards and security activities within the DOE
programs as a direct funded activity. The Committee notes security
costs increases to fund increased requirements from changes to the
Design Basis Threat (DBT) in the aftermath of the 9–11 attacks,
requires a transparent accounting system to track funding across
the Department of Energy’s complex of sites. The Committee is unaware of any compelling rationale to transition back to indirect
funding of security activities within the DOE accounts and therefore the Committee will continue to appropriate funds for security
activities as a direct appropriation.
AUGMENTING FEDERAL STAFF

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS

The Committee expects the Department to manage closely the
number of management and operating (M&O) contractor employees
assigned to the Washington metropolitan area in fiscal year 2007,
in accordance with the guidance provided in the fiscal year 2006
conference report. The Committee maintains the following reporting requirements:
Report on M&O contractor employees.—The Department is to
provide a report to the Committee at the end of fiscal year 2006
on the use of M&O contractor employees assigned to the Washington metropolitan area. The report is to identify all M&O contractor employees who work in the Washington metropolitan area,
including the name of the employee, the name of the contractor,
the organization to which he or she is assigned, the job title and
a description of the tasks the employee is performing, the annual
cost of the employee to the Department, the Headquarters program
organization sponsoring each M&O employee, the program account

VerDate Aug 31 2005

05:42 May 20, 2006

Jkt 027628

PO 00000

Frm 00072

Fmt 6601

Sfmt 6601

E:\HR\OC\HR474.004

HR474

73
funding that employee, and the length of time the employee has
been detailed to the Department or elsewhere in the Washington
metropolitan area (e.g., the Congress, the Executive Office of the
President, and other Federal agencies). The report should also include detailed information on the cost of maintaining each M&O office in the Washington metropolitan area. This report is to include
actual data for the period October 1, 2005 through September 30,
2006, and is due to the Committee on January 31, 2007.
Report on support service contractors.—The report is to include
for each support service contract at Headquarters: the name of the
contractor; the program organization (at the lowest organization
level possible) hiring the contractor; a description and list of the
tasks performed; the number of contractor employees working on
the contract; and the annual cost of the contract. This report is to
include actual data for the period October 1, 2005 through September 30, 2006, and is due to the Committee on January 31, 2007.
REPROGRAMMING GUIDELINES

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS

The Committee requires the Department to inform the Committee promptly and fully when a change in program execution and
funding is required during the fiscal year. To assist the Department in this effort, the following guidance is provided for programs
and activities funded in the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act.
Definition.—A reprogramming includes the reallocation of funds
from one activity to another within an appropriation, or any significant departure from a program, project, or activity described in the
agency’s budget justification as presented to and approved by Congress. For construction projects, a reprogramming constitutes the
reallocation of funds from one construction project identified in the
justifications to another project or a significant change in the scope
of an approved project.
Criteria for Reprogramming.—A reprogramming should be made
only when an unforeseen situation arises, and then only if delay of
the project or the activity until the next appropriations year would
result in a detrimental impact to an agency program or priority.
Reprogrammings may also be considered if the Department can
show that significant cost savings can accrue by increasing funding
for an activity. Mere convenience or preference should not be factors for consideration.
Reprogrammings should not be employed to initiate new programs, or to change program, project, or activity allocations specifically denied, limited, or increased by Congress in the Act or report.
In cases where unforeseen events or conditions are deemed to require such changes, proposals shall be submitted in advance to the
Committee and be fully explained and justified.
Reporting and Approval Procedures.—The Committee has not
provided statutory language to define reprogramming guidelines,
but expects the Department to follow the spirit and the letter of the
guidance provided in this report. Consistent with prior years, the
Committee has not provided the Department with any internal reprogramming flexibility in fiscal year 2007, unless specifically identified in the House, Senate, or conference reports for particular programs, projects, or activities. Any reallocation of new or prior year

VerDate Aug 31 2005

05:42 May 20, 2006

Jkt 027628

PO 00000

Frm 00073

Fmt 6601

Sfmt 6601

E:\HR\OC\HR474.004

HR474

74
budget authority or prior year deobligations must be submitted to
the Committees in writing and may not be implemented prior to
approval by the Committees on Appropriations.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee’s recommendations for Department of Energy
programs in fiscal year 2007 are described in the following sections.
A detailed funding table is included at the end of this title.
ENERGY SUPPLY

AND

CONSERVATION

Appropriation, 2006 ............................................................................
Budget Estimate, 2007 .......................................................................
Recommended, 2007 ...........................................................................
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2006 ....................................................................
Budget Estimate, 2007 ...............................................................

$1,812,627,000
1,923,361,000
2,025,527,000
+212,900,000
+102,166,000

The Energy Supply and Conservation account includes the following programs Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Resources; Nuclear Energy; Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability; Environment, Safety and Health (non-defense); and Legacy
Management. The Committee recommends that the funds for Energy Supply and Conservation activities remain available for three
years.
Reprogramming authority.—In fiscal year 2006, Congress provided the Department with unprecedented reprogramming authority. The Department’s mishandling of the employee layoffs at the
National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) demonstrated
clearly that the Department does not know when to use tools such
as reprogramming authority to solve funding problems in a constructive manner. Accordingly, the Committee provides the Department with no reprogramming authority in fiscal year 2007 for any
other projects, programs, and activities funded under the Energy
Supply and Conservation account.
ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY RESOURCES

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS

The total Committee recommendation for energy efficiency and
renewable energy resources is $1,319,434,000 an increase of
$143,013,000 compared to the budget request. This increases
Weatherization Assistance funding, provides facilities and equipment for research and development to further renewable energy
technology, and deploys innovative renewable technologies.
Financial Management.—The Committee is concerned about the
financial management practices of the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) program. During fiscal year 2006, the
EERE program was unable to account for prior year commitments
and was subsequently unable to identify the amount of unobligated
and obligated uncosted balances in a $1.2 billion appropriation.
The Committee is especially concerned that senior DOE management directed personnel layoffs at the National Renewable Energy
Laboratory when they did not know the status and availability of
prior and current year funds. Such layoffs could have been avoided.
The Committee sees two behaviors that contribute to this dilemma:
1. The ‘‘no-year’’ funds appropriations availability promotes
an undisciplined approach to financial management; and,

VerDate Aug 31 2005

05:42 May 20, 2006

Jkt 027628

PO 00000

Frm 00074

Fmt 6601

Sfmt 6601

E:\HR\OC\HR474.004

HR474

75
2. A lack of accountability in tracking out-year cumulative
funding commitments made by EERE over time. The Committee has heard many complaints from grant awardees that
EERE initial solicitations include funding profiles that the Department fails to support because DOE does not request sufficient funding. Such ‘‘over promising’’ behavior was evidenced
when, in February 2006, EERE issued a solicitation for
$53,000,000 for a new program with funding to begin in fiscal
year 2007, funding that has not yet been appropriated by the
Congress.
To help remedy this situation, the Committee has imposed a
three-year funds limitation on the Energy Supply and Conservation
appropriation to promote a closer accounting of funds. The Committee directs EERE to report to the Committee no later than January 31, 2007, on the steps taken to improve the financial tracking
of multi-year awards, identify balances from prior year projects
that no longer require resources, and provide an accounting of all
out-year commitments. In addition, the Committee directs EERE to
report on the progress of implementing the recommendations of the
Inspector General audit report DOE/IG–0689 on the insufficient
management attention to EERE cooperative agreements, by January 31, 2007.
ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY PROGRAMS

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Programs include biomass and biorefinery systems R&D, geothermal technology, hydrogen technology, hydropower, solar energy, and wind energy technologies. Energy conservation activities include improving the efficiency of vehicle, building, fuel cell, and industrial technologies.
Hydrogen Technology.—The hydrogen technology program seeks
to research, develop and validate fuel cell and hydrogen production,
delivery, and storage technologies. This program aims to have hydrogen from diverse domestic resources used in a clean, safe, reliable, and affordable manner in fuel cell vehicles and stationary
power applications. The Committee supports the Savannah River
Site National Laboratory’s work on hydrogen production and storage, and recommends funding levels in fiscal year 2007 no less
than fiscal year 2006. The Committee recommendation for hydrogen technology is $195,801,000, the same as the budget request.
Biomass and Biorefinery Systems R&D.—Biomass and Biorefinery Systems R&D will conduct research, development and
technology validation on advanced technologies that will enable future biorefineries to convert cellulosic biomass to fuels, chemicals,
heat and power. The program focuses on reducing processing energy requirements and production costs in biomass processing
plants and future integrated industrial biorefineries. The Committee recommendation for integrated research and development
on biomass and biorefinery systems is $149,687,000, the same as
the budget request. The Committee provides $9,967,000 for feedstock infrastructure, and $50,530,000 for platforms research and
development, the same as the budget request. Within the funds
provided, the Committee directs the Department to fulfill its obligation by fully funding its competitively-awarded research and development grant to NatureWorks LLC.

VerDate Aug 31 2005

05:42 May 20, 2006

Jkt 027628

PO 00000

Frm 00075

Fmt 6601

Sfmt 6601

E:\HR\OC\HR474.004

HR474

76

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS

While the Committee supports the initiative to begin pilot scale
biomass demonstrations with the private sector, the Committee
also believes more bench scale research in a greater variety of feedstocks by a variety of users, such as universities, national laboratories and private interests, will yield a greater field of successes.
As such, the Committee provides $69,190,000 for integration of biorefinery technologies to support two industrial scale commercial
demonstration biorefineries and $15,000,000 to be used at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory to add to the existing biomass
experimental facilities and complete a needed integrated biorefinery test facility (ITBF). The $15,000,000 is provided for the
ITBF to perform systems experiments enabling the testing of new
biomass feedstocks, the characterization of future technologies, the
results of plant genomics research and to assess the many processes in an integrated biorefinery. The Committee provides
$5,000,000 for grants to competitively selected colleges and universities around the country focused on conversion of cellulosic biomass to energy. Universities would: (1) Research the fundamental
characteristics of cellulose in plants and how physical, biological,
and chemical treatment can make the cellulose more amenable to
conversion to sugars. (2) Research improved strains of bacteria or
other microorganisms to convert cellulose to ethanol, particularly
through breeding or engineering organisms that speedily convert
cellulose to ethanol in a single step. The Committee directs that
$2,000,000 of this grant money be targeted to rice straw and sugar
cane bagasse as feedstocks.
The Committee directs DOE to implement an aggressive program
to take advantage of the Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) across the country in order to deepen the recruiting
pool of diverse scientific and technical staff available to support the
growing renewable energy marketplace.
Solar Energy.—The Solar Energy program develops solar energy
technologies, such as photovoltaics and concentrating solar power,
that are reliable, affordable and environmentally sound. The Committee provides $148,372,000 for solar energy programs, the same
as the budget request. The Committee recommendation includes
$134,472,000 for photovoltaic energy systems, a reduction of
$5,000,000 from the budget request; $8,900,000 for concentrating
solar power; and $5,000,000 for solar heating and lighting, which
was not funded in the budget request. The Committee is especially
concerned that funding for solar water heater technology was eliminated, and directs the Department to prepare a report for the Committee by January 31, 2007, on the potential energy savings generated by solar water heaters, market impediments, and strategy
for wider deployment of this technology.
Wind Energy.—The Wind Energy program focuses on the development of wind turbines that can operate economically in areas
with low wind speeds, small wind turbines that can serve a range
of distributed power applications, and system technology in support
of offshore wind systems further from shore, particularly beyond
the viewshed of coastal communities. The Committee recommends
$43,819,000 for wind energy systems, the same as the budget request.

VerDate Aug 31 2005

05:42 May 20, 2006

Jkt 027628

PO 00000

Frm 00076

Fmt 6601

Sfmt 6601

E:\HR\OC\HR474.004

HR474

77

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS

Geothermal Technology.—The Geothermal Technology program
works in partnership with U.S. industry to establish geothermal
energy as an economically competitive contributor to the U.S. energy supply. The Department proposes to close out the Geothermal
Program in fiscal year 2007 and transfer results of its research and
development work related to geothermal technology to industry and
the public sector. The Committee provides no funding for the geothermal technology program, the same as the budget request.
Hydropower.—The Committee recommends no funding for hydropower research, the same as the budget request. The Department
plans to close out the hydropower program in fiscal year 2006 and
transfer results of its research and development related to testing
of fish-friendly large turbines to industry.
Vehicle Technologies.—The Vehicle Technologies program seeks
technology breakthroughs that will greatly reduce petroleum use
by automobiles and trucks of all sizes, including R&D on lightweight materials, electronic power control, high power storage and
hybrid electric drive motors. The Committee recommends
$177,538,000, an increase of $11,514,000 over the budget request.
The recommendation provides $19,980,000 for heavy truck engine
research and development, an increase of $5,490,000 over the budget request, $10,000,000 for clean cities including $8,000,000 for development of E–85 infrastructure, an increase of $5,607,000 over
the budget request and $3,479,000, an increase of $1,000,000 over
the budget request for the Advanced Collaborative Emissions
Study. The Committee is aware of the positive contributions of
steel as an Automotive Lightweight Material in the Freedom Car
project, through its USCAR and USAMP organizations. The Committee urges the Department to continue to include steel research
as part of the Freedom Car program.
Building Technologies.—In partnership with the buildings industry, this program develops, promotes, and integrates energy technologies and practices to make buildings more efficient and affordable. The Committee recommends $93,029,000, an increase of
$15,700,000 over the budget request, including funding for Energy
Star at $6,376,000, funding for Building Codes Training and Assistance at $5,000,000, and an increase of $10,100,000 for the acceleration of solid state lighting research and development.
Industrial Technologies.—The Industrial Technologies program
cost-shares research in critical technology areas identified in partnership with industry in order to realize significant energy benefits. The Committee recommends $51,563,000, an increase of
$6,000,000 over the budget request. The recommendation includes
an increase of $4,000,000 for Industries of the Future, to be allocated as follows: metal casting at $1,982,000, an increase of
$1,000,000 over the budget request; glass industry at $2,000,000,
an increase of $2,000,000 over the budget request; and, $1,000,000
for the mining industry, an increase of $1,000,000 over the budget
request. The Committee recommends $2,000,000 for the Inventions
and Innovations program, an increase of $2,000,000 over the budget request.
Distributed Energy and Electricity Reliability Program.—This account and its activities was moved to the Electricity Delivery and

VerDate Aug 31 2005

05:42 May 20, 2006

Jkt 027628

PO 00000

Frm 00077

Fmt 6601

Sfmt 6601

E:\HR\OC\HR474.004

HR474

78

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS

Energy Reliability program in the fiscal year 2006 Energy and
Water Development conference report.
Federal Energy Management Programs.—Federal Energy Management Programs (FEMP) reduce the cost and environmental impact of the Federal government by advancing energy efficiency and
water conservation, promoting the use of renewable energy, and
managing utility costs in Federal facilities and operations. The
Committee recommendation for Federal Energy Management Programs is $18,906,000, an increase of $2,000,000 over the budget request. The Federal government should lead by example in the area
of energy efficiency, by trying to squeeze every bit of productivity
from energy use. With high fuel prices, FEMP activities are likely
to yield higher returns than in the past; thus, the Committee supports additional investment for more projects.
Facilities and Infrastructure.—The Committee recommendation
for renewable energy Facilities and Infrastructure is $15,935,000,
a $10,000,000 increase over the budget request. This amount includes the budget request of $5,935,000 for operations and maintenance of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) in
Golden, Colorado; an increase of $5,000,000 to complete the initial
research support buildings at NREL; and a $5,000,000 increase for
laboratory equipment for the new Science and Technology facility
at NREL.
Weatherization
Assistance.—The
Committee
recommends
$250,000,000 for weatherization assistance program grants, an increase of $90,352,000 over the budget request. The Committee is
very concerned that the Department has severely under-funded
this program, which readily results in significant energy savings in
American homes. The Committee recommends $4,554,000 for training and technical assistance, an increase of $4,000 over the budget
request, and the same as fiscal year 2006 enacted levels.
Other.—Other activities include the International Renewable Energy Program, Tribal energy activities and the Renewable Energy
Production Incentive, state energy program grants, and state energy activities. Gateway deployment activities previously funded in
this account have been moved to several EERE programs, and no
funds are in the budget request for Gateway deployment. The Committee recommends $4,473,000 for the International Renewable Energy Program, an increase of $2,000,000 over the budget request;
$3,957,000 for Tribal energy activities, and $4,946,000 for Renewable Energy Production Incentive, the same as the budget request.
The Committee recommends no funding for state energy activities, the same as the budget request, and no funds for state energy
program grants, a reduction of $49,457,000 from the budget request. The Committee is concerned that valuable federal tax dollars within an applied research and development account are funding salaries of state employees, meetings, and travel to meetings
through the ‘‘state grant’’ process. The Inspector General report of
April 26, 2006, notes ‘‘the Department is unable to determine the
cost benefit of its yearly investment of approximately $40 million
in Program activities.’’ Accordingly, the Committee has eliminated
funding for these questionable activities, and restored funding to
higher-priority renewable energy research and development activities, and weatherization assistance.

VerDate Aug 31 2005

05:42 May 20, 2006

Jkt 027628

PO 00000

Frm 00078

Fmt 6601

Sfmt 6601

E:\HR\OC\HR474.004

HR474

79

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS

Program Support.—Program Support activities for the EERE
program include planning, analysis and evaluation, and information, communications and outreach. The Committee recommendation for Program Support is $10,930,000, the same as the budget
request.
Program Direction.—Program Direction provides for the Federal
staffing resources and associated costs for supporting the management and oversight of EERE programs. The Committee recommendation for Program Direction is $91,024,000, the same as
the budget request.
Congressionally Directed Technology Deployment projects.—The
Committee provides $54,900,000 for the following Congressionally
directed projects. The Committee reminds recipients that statutory
cost sharing requirements may apply to these projects.

VerDate Aug 31 2005

05:42 May 20, 2006

Jkt 027628

PO 00000

Frm 00079

Fmt 6601

Sfmt 6601

E:\HR\OC\HR474.004

HR474

VerDate Aug 31 2005

05:42 May 20, 2006

Jkt 027628

PO 00000

Frm 00080

Fmt 6601

Sfmt 6601

E:\HR\OC\HR474.004

HR474

Insert graphic folio 022 HR474.022

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS

80

VerDate Aug 31 2005

05:42 May 20, 2006

Jkt 027628

PO 00000

Frm 00081

Fmt 6601

Sfmt 6601

E:\HR\OC\HR474.004

HR474

Insert graphic folio 023 HR474.023

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS

81

82
ELECTRICITY DELIVERY AND ENERGY RELIABILITY

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS

The Committee recommendation for Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability is $144,028,000, an increase of $19,100,000 over
the budget request. Energy storage technologies are crucial to the
long-run integration of wind and solar energy into the marketplace
on a large scale, and the Committee provides the $2,000,000 increase for energy storage for wind and solar power. The Committee
is concerned that the Gridwise, Gridworks, and Transmission Reliability initiatives, which were started by the Department several
years ago, have now been terminated and collapsed into yet another new initiative called ‘‘Visualization and Controls’’. The Committee directs that the projects funded under the research and development programs be competitively awarded and comprehensively managed by the Department to ensure that the federal dollars provided are spent effectively. Detailed subprogram allocations
are shown on the attached table at the end of Title III.
The Department’s Emergency Order 202–05–03 directed the
Mirant Corporation to resume operations of its Potomac River Generating Station. The Committee encourages the Secretary to develop a report in full cooperation with the General Services Administration, the D.C. Public Service Commission and the region’s electric power generators and distributors, and other responsible parties that meets the Federal government’s and this region’s electric
reliability and environmental concerns. The Department should report back to the Committees on Appropriations 180 days after enactment of this Act.
Pursuant to Section 1106 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, the
Department of Energy is strongly encouraged to initiate a process
to designate a National Power Plant Operations Technology and
Educational Center that meets the criteria established in Section
1106. The Secretary shall consider non-federal commitments of
support for the Center as part of the process. The Committee further encourages the Department to designate the Center by June
30, 2007.
Congressionally Directed Technology Deployment projects.—The
Committee recommends $17,100,000 for the following Congressionally directed projects. The Committee reminds recipients that statutory cost sharing requirements may apply to these projects.

VerDate Aug 31 2005

05:42 May 20, 2006

Jkt 027628

PO 00000

Frm 00082

Fmt 6601

Sfmt 6602

E:\HR\OC\HR474.005

HR474

VerDate Aug 31 2005

05:42 May 20, 2006

Jkt 027628

PO 00000

Frm 00083

Fmt 6601

Sfmt 6602

E:\HR\OC\HR474.005

HR474

Insert graphic folio 024 HR474.024

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS

83

84
NUCLEAR ENERGY PROGRAMS

The Committee recommendation for nuclear energy programs
under the Energy Supply and Conservation appropriation is
$499,805,000, a decrease of $59,947,000 below the budget request.
This net decrease reflects the Committee’s recommendation to fund
the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) $30,000,000 below
the authorization level, continue Pu–238 consolidation, and fund
nuclear energy infrastructure, and education assistance. The Committee supports the Savannah River National Laboratory’s work on
hydrogen production and storage, and recommends funding levels
in fiscal year 2007 no less than fiscal year 2006. The Committee
has provided an additional $66,000,000 for increased programmatic
activities for the Office of Nuclear Energy, as described below.
Of the total funding of $572,751,000 provided for Nuclear Energy
programs and facilities, $72,946,000 represents costs allocated to
the 050 budget function, (i.e. defense activities) for Idaho Site-wide
and Security activities. Beginning in fiscal year 2007, the Idaho Facilities Management Program previously funded through Naval Reactors and Other Defense Activities is requested and appropriated
under the Energy Supply and Conservation appropriation.
UNIVERSITY REACTOR INFRASTRUCTURE AND EDUCATION ASSISTANCE

The Committee recommends $27,000,000 for grants and fellowships that support nuclear science and engineering education, and
to sustain existing university reactors, an increase of $24,053,000
over the budget request. The recommendation includes $2,947,000
for fuel that was requested in the Radiological Facilities Management budget under Research Reactor Infrastructure. This program
is important to maintaining a supply of well trained engineers and
scientists to design and operate the nuclear industry of the future.
It is irresponsible for the Department to zero out education assistance at a time the nuclear industry is attempting to revitalize. The
Committee does recognize that once the nuclear industry is revitalized in the United States and is a source of well-paying new jobs
for trained nuclear professionals, some of the support in this program may be phased out.
NUCLEAR ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS

Nuclear power 2010.—The Committee provides $54,031,000 for
nuclear power 2010, the same as the budget request.
Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems.—The Committee supports the Department’s collaborative efforts on the research and development of a generation IV reactor design that will be safer,
more cost effective, and more proliferation resistant than current
designs. The Committee recommends a total of $31,436,000 for generation IV nuclear energy systems, the same as the budget request.
Within available funds, $4,000,000 is provided for the development
of multiple high temperature fuel fabrication techniques in support
of the Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems. The Committee expects future planning for generation IV nuclear energy systems to
be clearly coordinated with GNEP plans.
Nuclear
Hydrogen
Initiative.—The
Committee
provides
$18,665,000 for the nuclear hydrogen initiative, the same as the

VerDate Aug 31 2005

05:42 May 20, 2006

Jkt 027628

PO 00000

Frm 00084

Fmt 6601

Sfmt 6602

E:\HR\OC\HR474.005

HR474

85

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS

budget request. The Committee expects the Department to meet
the requirements of the hydrogen future act of 1996 (P.L. 104–271)
for competition and industry cost sharing, and expects the office of
nuclear energy, science and technology to coordinate the nuclear
hydrogen initiative fully with the other hydrogen research being
conducted by the Office of Science and the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative.—The Committee recommendation
for the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative (AFCI) is $150,000,000, a
decrease of $93,000,000 below the budget request. The Committee
has yet to receive the spent nuclear fuel recycling technology plan
from the Department due March 1, 2006, as directed by the fiscal
year 2006 conference report. Without the detailed information regarding the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership Initiative, the
Committee does not support activities beyond what was directed in
the fiscal year 2006 bill and report and authorized in the Energy
Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109–58). The Committee is very concerned
regarding the acceleration of the UREX+ engineering scale demonstration, particularly according to DOE’s own documents, ‘‘The
UREX+ process has been developed and successfully demonstrated
on a laboratory-scale using up to 1 kilogram of spent nuclear fuel.
These tests clearly show the viability of the chemistry of the
UREX+1a process, however, there are a number of engineering
challenges in scaling these processes to equipment capable of processing 100s of kgs to metric tons of spent nuclear fuel per year. Additionally, the UREX+1a process produces several by-products, and
the treatment, storage and handling of these by-products requires
testing of new innovative equipment designs that have not been
done before. Continued development of select process and equipment alternatives is also warranted, to reduce technical risk.’’ The
Committee’s concern is the primary and secondary waste forms and
volumes that will result from the UREX process, or any other recycling process. Because the life-cycle approach to treating, storing
and disposing of these byproducts is not determined, and still technically unknown, it is unclear why the UREX+1a process was
quickly chosen as the recycling technology of the future, and then
recast as the keystone technology in a multi-billion dollar integrated fuel recycling endeavor. The Committee is also concerned
about the role of mixed-oxide (MOX) fuel and fast reactor in GNEP,
the balance in future requirements for light water reactors versus
fast reactors, the costs associated with GNEP, and the role of the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission in regulating or participating in
GNEP.
The statutory authorization level established in the Energy Policy Act of 2005, Section 951(d)(1)(A) for the Advanced Fuel Cycle
Initiative is $120,000,000. As such, the Committee’s recommendation of $120,000,000 should be allocated as follows: $11,000,000 for
separations technology development; $9,000,000 for advanced fuels
development;
$6,000,000
for
transmutation
engineering;
$10,000,000 for systems analysis; $20,000,000 for the advanced fuel
cycle facility; $39,000,000 for technology development in support of
the several UREX+ processes; and $25,000,000 for the advanced
burner reactor. No funds have been provided for transmutation

VerDate Aug 31 2005

05:42 May 20, 2006

Jkt 027628

PO 00000

Frm 00085

Fmt 6601

Sfmt 6602

E:\HR\OC\HR474.005

HR474

86
education. The Committee does not at this time support the development of small modular reactors for export.
No funds have been provided for conceptual design or preliminary design of the UREX+ engineering scale demonstration. At the
time of the fiscal year 2006 conference report, the Committee supported recycling with a mixed-oxide fuel strategy, because MOX
fuel is a demonstrated, commercially available technology with little technical uncertainty. At that time, a demonstration of UREX+
made sense as the separation step was the riskiest part of the technologies involved. Now, with GNEP proposing UREX+ and fast
burner reactors, the primary technical uncertainty is no longer
with the separation step, but with the design of the fast reactors
and the fabrication of fuel for those reactors. The Administration
argues that accelerated development of an Engineering Scale Demonstration of UREX+ will inform a key decision in 2008 on whether
or not to proceed with GNEP. Unfortunately, the UREX+ Engineering Scale Demonstration will demonstrate the best-known aspect of
GNEP and will do nothing to inform decision-makers on the fast
reactor components of GNEP. As such, the Committee cannot support going forward with conceptual design or preliminary design of
the UREX+ engineering scale demonstration.
Peer review.—Within the funds made available, the Department
is directed to engage with the National Academy of Science and
National Academy of Engineering for a peer review of the spent nuclear fuel recycling technology plan, encompassing all the proposed
technologies and facilities. The Committee wants to be sure that
the Federal government has systematically analyzed the entire nuclear fuel cycle before it begins building expensive demonstration
projects.
Report requirement.—Reprocessing facilities, the associated fuel
testing and fabrication facilities, and fast reactors need to be integrated as a system. Testimony before both the House Committee on
Appropriations and the House Committee on Science underscored
the need for a complete and rigorous analysis of the fuel cycle from
‘‘cradle to grave’’. No decisions on fuel types or technologies for the
advanced burner reactor should be made before such a systems
analysis has been completed and reviewed by an independent panel
of experts. The Committee therefore directs the Department to prepare a report to the House and Senate Appropriations Committees
and the House Committee on Science describing the status of this
ongoing systems analysis, including life-cycle cost projections for
the GNEP R&D program, by January 31, 2007.
RADIOLOGICAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS

The purpose of the Radiological Facilities Management program
is to maintain the critical infrastructure necessary to support users
from the defense, space, and medical communities. These outside
users fund DOE’s actual operational, production, and research activities on a reimbursable basis.
Space and defense infrastructure.—The Committee recommendation is $44,650,000, an increase of $14,000,000 over the budget request. This includes the requested amounts to operate radioisotope
power systems at the Idaho National Laboratory (INL), and main-

VerDate Aug 31 2005

05:42 May 20, 2006

Jkt 027628

PO 00000

Frm 00086

Fmt 6601

Sfmt 6602

E:\HR\OC\HR474.005

HR474

87
tain iridium capabilities at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, and
maintain and operate the Pu–238 mission at Los Alamos.
The Committee provides an increase of $9,000,000 for INL to
complete the advanced conceptual design, initiate preliminary design activities, and validate process technologies associated with
consolidation of Pu–238 operations at the Idaho National Laboratory. The Committee directs the Department to provide a mid-year
report by January 31, 2007, on the transfer strategy and associated
costs. The Committee provides an increase of $5,000,000 for the
Oak Ridge National Laboratory hot cell maintenance program.
Medical isotopes infrastructure.—The Committee recommendation is $15,634,000, the same as the budget request. The recommendation provides the requested amounts for Oak Ridge buildings 3047, 5500, and 9204–3 at Y–12, and the isotope business
management information system, and for various facility costs at
Brookhaven, Los Alamos, and Sandia National Laboratories.
Enrichment facility infrastructure.—The Committee recommendation includes the requested $491,000, the same as the
budget request, for oversight of enrichment facilities at the Government-owned, USEC-operated gaseous diffusion plant at Paducah,
Kentucky.
Research reactor infrastructure.—The Committee recommendation includes $2,947,000, the same as the budget request, for fresh
reactor fuel and disposal of spent fuel for university reactors, but
funds these activities under the University Reactor Infrastructure
and Education Assistance program.
IDAHO FACILITIES MANAGEMENT

This program funds the operations and construction activities at
the Idaho National Laboratory (INL), including the former ANLWest and the Test Reactor Area.
INL operations.—The Committee recommendation includes
$97,260,000, $8,000,000 over the budget request, for INL operations. The Committee’s increase is provided for the INL Advanced
Test Reactor (ATR) Life Extension Program to continue safety posture improvements to ensure that the ATR remains contemporary
with industry design and construction code standards and to ensure that the reactor remains a viable national resource for the
next several decades.
INL Construction.—The Committee recommends $26,030,000 for
Idaho facilities construction, $20,000,000 over the budget request.
This includes the requested amounts for the project engineering
and design work at Idaho, and $20,000,000 for four General Plant
Projects that will house radio-analytical measurement laboratories,
separations science chemistry laboratories, engineering and operations personnel, and operations and warehousing space.
IDAHO SITE-WIDE SAFEGUARDS AND SECURITY

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS

Consistent with the budget request, this activity is funded at the
requested level of $72,946,000 as a 050 Defense Activity under the
Other Defense Activities account.

VerDate Aug 31 2005

05:42 May 20, 2006

Jkt 027628

PO 00000

Frm 00087

Fmt 6601

Sfmt 6602

E:\HR\OC\HR474.005

HR474

88
PROGRAM DIRECTION

The Committee recommends a total funding level for program direction of $64,608,000, a reduction of $3,000,000 below the budget
request. The reduction is commensurate with the reduction to the
Global Nuclear Energy Partnership’s overall programmatic funding.
ENVIRONMENT, SAFETY AND HEALTH

The Committee recommendation for non-defense environment,
safety, and health activities is $29,121,000, the same as the budget
request. Within the funds provided, the Committee directs
$465,000 for the medical monitoring program at the three gaseous
diffusion plants in Paducah, Kentucky, Portsmouth, Ohio, and Oak
Ridge, Tennessee.
LEGACY MANAGEMENT

The Committee recommendation includes $33,139,000 for the Office of Legacy Management, the same as the budget request.
CLEAN COAL TECHNOLOGY
(RESCISSION)

The Committee recommends the rescission of $257,000,000 in
clean coal technology funding. These balances are no longer needed
to complete active projects in this program. For several years the
Administration has proposed, and Congress has to some extent
obliged, the deferral of these balances to the out-years, for the appearance of retaining them for FutureGen activities. The practice
of ‘‘deferring balances’’ or ‘‘transferring balances’’ is purely a budgetary optical illusion. Congress appropriates FutureGen activities
on an annual basis. There are no budgetary savings by utilizing
prior year clean coal technology balances. The Committee will continue to evaluate budget requests for FutureGen activities on an
annual basis, and appropriate directly, without the budget scoring
gimmickry of clean coal technology prior year balances.
FOSSIL ENERGY RESEARCH

AND

DEVELOPMENT

Appropriation, 2006 ............................................................................
Budget Estimate, 2007 .......................................................................
Recommended, 2007 ...........................................................................
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2006 ....................................................................
Budget Estimate, 2007 ...............................................................

$592,014,000
469,686,000
558,204,000
¥33,810,000
+88,518,000

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS

Fossil energy research and development programs are intended
to make prudent investments in long-range research and development that help protect the environment through higher efficiency
power generation, advanced technologies and improved compliance
and stewardship operations. These activities safeguard our domestic energy security. This country will continue to rely on traditional
fuels for the majority of its energy requirements for the foreseeable
future, and the activities funded through this account ensure that
energy technologies continue to improve with respect to emissions
reductions and control and energy efficiency.

VerDate Aug 31 2005

05:42 May 20, 2006

Jkt 027628

PO 00000

Frm 00088

Fmt 6601

Sfmt 6602

E:\HR\OC\HR474.005

HR474

89

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS

Fossil fuels, especially coal, are this country’s most abundant and
lowest cost fuels for electric power generation. The power generation technology research funded under this account has the goal of
developing virtually pollution-free power plants within the next 15
or 20 years and doubling the amount of electricity produced from
the same amount of fuel.
The Committee recommendation is $558,204,000, an increase of
$88,518,000 over the request, and a decrease of $33,810,000 from
FY 2006 enacted levels.
Clean coal power initiative.—This program researches, develops,
and demonstrates commercial readiness to implement advanced
clean coal-based technologies that enhance electricity reliability, increase generation capacity, and reduce emissions. The Committee
recommends $36,400,000 for the clean coal power initiative (CCPI),
an increase of $31,443,000 over the budget request. This funding
will support the third round of demonstration projects, incorporating the latest advances in clean coal technologies. The Committee believes it is important to keep momentum in this program
towards the accumulation of balances for future rounds of CCPI
awards. The Committee does not accept the Department’s argument that this next solicitation is not needed because the technologies demonstrated will be too late for incorporation in
FutureGen. The Committee views FutureGen as a major step in
the development of coal fired power plants, but not the end of new
technology in this area.
FutureGen.—FutureGen is a $1 billion project, cost-shared with
the private sector, to create the world’s first coal-fired, zero emissions, electricity, heat and hydrogen producing power plant. The
Committee recommends $54,000,000, the same as the request, for
FutureGen. This funding will support the plant design and procurement activities, and continue permitting and site characterization efforts.
Fuels and Power Systems.—The Committee recommends a total
of $296,237,000 for fuels and power systems, an increase of
$25,075,000 over the budget request. The recommendation provides
$25,000,000 for innovations for existing plants, an increase of
$8,985,000 over the request and $56,000,000 for advanced Integrated Gas Combined Cycle, $2,018,000 over the budget request.
These increases reflect a restoration of program research funds
consistent with fiscal 2006 funding levels. The Committee provides
$20,000,000 for advanced turbines, $7,199,000 over the budget request. The Committee is very concerned that the advanced turbine
request was dramatically reduced, and did not accurately reflect
commitments made to technology partners. The Committee recommends $73,971,000 for carbon sequestration, the same as the
budget request. The Committee recommends $29,000,000 for fuels,
an increase of $6,873,000 over the budget request, which restores
program research funds consistent with fiscal 2006 funding levels.
The Committee provides $63,352,000 for fuel cells, and $28,914,000
for advanced research, the same as the request.
Petroleum-Oil Technologies.—The Committee recommends
$2,700,000 for petroleum-oil programs, an increase of $2,700,000
over the budget request of zero dollars. The Energy Policy Act of
2005 (EPACT) authorizes the use of $50,000,000 of mandatory re-

VerDate Aug 31 2005

05:42 May 20, 2006

Jkt 027628

PO 00000

Frm 00089

Fmt 6601

Sfmt 6602

E:\HR\OC\HR474.005

HR474

90

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS

ceipts for oil and gas technologies, which will fund oil and gas research and development. The Committee provides $1,500,000 for
the Stripper Well Consortium, and $1,200,000 for the states Risk
Based Data Management System, both important activities that
fall outside of the EPACT legislation, but should continue.
Natural Gas Technologies.—The Committee recommends no
funding for natural gas technologies, the same as the budget request. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 authorizes $50,000,000 of
mandatory receipts for oil and gas technologies, which will fund oil
and gas research and development.
Gas Hydrates.—Methane hydrates hold tremendous potential to
provide abundant supplies of natural gas. Globally, more energy
potential is stored in methane hydrates than in all other known
fossil fuel reserves combined. It appears that the United States
may be endowed with over 25 percent of total worldwide methane
hydrate deposits. While EPACT authorization provides mandatory
receipts for expenditures for oil and gas exploration, it is unclear
where the program consortium will focus these resources. The
Committee believes that the federal government should maintain a
rigorous research and development program for methane hydrates,
in which the research is long-term, high risk, but potentially a high
pay-off. The Committee provides $12,000,000, an increase of
$12,000,000 over the budget request, and the same as fiscal year
2006 enacted levels, for gas hydrates research and development
funded then under Natural Gas Technologies.
Program Direction.—The Committee recommends $126,496,000
for program direction, a reduction of $2,700,000 from the budget request, to be taken from the Alaska natural gas transport project.
The Committee finds the budget request for new federal employees
for this office to be excessive and expects much of this work can
be accomplished within existing FTE levels. The Committee directs
the Department to continue to budget for all federal employees in
the program direction account.
Other.—The Committee recommendation includes no funding for
plant and capital equipment, and cooperative research and development, the same as the budget request. The Committee provides no
funding for import/export authorization and advanced metallurgical
processes, the same as the budget request. These accounts previously funded federal employee expenses, which are now requested
and funded in the Program Direction account beginning in fiscal
year 2007. The Committee provides $9,715,000 for fossil energy environmental restoration, and $656,000 for special recruitment programs, the same as the budget request.
Congressionally Directed Technology Deployment Projects.—The
Committee recommends $20,000,000 for the following Congressionally directed projects. The Committee reminds recipients that statutory cost sharing requirements may apply to these projects.

VerDate Aug 31 2005

05:42 May 20, 2006

Jkt 027628

PO 00000

Frm 00090

Fmt 6601

Sfmt 6602

E:\HR\OC\HR474.005

HR474

VerDate Aug 31 2005

05:42 May 20, 2006

Jkt 027628

PO 00000

Frm 00091

Fmt 6601

Sfmt 6602

E:\HR\OC\HR474.005

HR474

Insert graphic folio 025 HR474.025

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS

91

92
NAVAL PETROLEUM AND OIL SHALE RESERVES

The Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves no longer serve the
national defense purpose envisioned in the early 1900’s, and consequently the National Defense Authorization Act for FY 1996 required the sale of the Government’s interest in the Naval Petroleum Reserve 1 (NPR–1). To comply with this requirement, the Elk
Hills field in California was sold to Occidental Petroleum Corporation in 1998. Following the sale of Elk Hills and the transfer of the
oil shale reserves, DOE retains two Naval Petroleum Reserve properties: the Naval Petroleum Reserve 3 in Wyoming (Teapot Dome
field), a stripper well oil field that the Department is maintaining
until it reaches its economic production limit. The DOE continues
to be responsible for routine operations and maintenance of NPR–
3, management of the Rocky Mountain Oilfield Testing Center at
NPR–3, lease management at NPR–2, and continuing environmental and remediation work at Elk Hills.
Appropriation, 2006 ............................................................................
Budget estimate, 2007 .......................................................................
Recommended, 2007 ...........................................................................
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2006 ....................................................................
Budget estimate, 2007 ................................................................

$21,285,000
18,810,000
18,810,000
¥2,475,000
............................

The Committee recommends $18,810,000, the same as the budget
request, for the operation of the naval petroleum and oil shale reserves.
ELK HILLS SCHOOL LANDS FUND

Payment to the Elk Hills school lands fund was part of the settlement associated with the sale of the Naval Petroleum Reserve
Number 1. Under the settlement, payments to the fund are to be
made over a period of seven years. The payments to date were
based on an estimate of the amount that would be required to pay
the State of California nine percent of the net sales proceeds.
Appropriation, 2006 ............................................................................
Budget estimate, 2007 .......................................................................
Recommended, 2007 ...........................................................................
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2006 ....................................................................
Budget estimate, 2007 ................................................................

$83,160,000
............................
............................
¥$83,160,000
............................

The Committee recommends no funding, the same as the budget
request. The Committee understands that the final amount due
will be based on the resolution of equity determinations, which cannot be completed until all divestment-related expenses are accounted.
STRATEGIC PETROLEUM RESERVE

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS

The mission of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) is to store
petroleum to reduce the adverse economic impact of a major petroleum supply interruption to the U.S. and to carry out obligations
under the international energy program. The reserve inventory
reached 700 million barrels, consistent with direction, but loaned
9.8 million barrels of oil to refiners and sold 11 million barrels in
response to Hurricane Katrina.

VerDate Aug 31 2005

05:42 May 20, 2006

Jkt 027628

PO 00000

Frm 00092

Fmt 6601

Sfmt 6602

E:\HR\OC\HR474.005

HR474

93
Appropriation, 2006 ............................................................................
Budget estimate, 2007 .......................................................................
Recommended, 2007 ...........................................................................
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2006 ....................................................................
Budget estimate, 2007 ................................................................

$164,340,000
155,430,000
155,430,000
¥8,910,000
............................

The Committee recommends $155,430,000, the same as the budget request, for operation of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, a decrease of $8,910,000 from the fiscal 2006 level.
NORTHEAST HOME HEATING OIL RESERVE

The acquisition and storage of heating oil for the Northeast
began in August 2000 when the Department of Energy, through
the Strategic Petroleum Reserve account, awarded contracts for the
lease of commercial storage facilities and acquisition of heating oil.
The purpose of the reserve is to assure home heating oil supplies
for the Northeast States during times of very low inventories and
significant threats to the immediate supply of heating oil. The
Northeast Heating Oil Reserve was established as a separate entity
from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve on March 6, 2001. The
2,000,000 barrel reserve is stored in commercial facilities in New
York Harbor, New Haven, Connecticut, and the Providence, Rhode
Island area.
Appropriation, 2006 ............................................................................
Budget estimate, 2007 .......................................................................
Recommended, 2007 ...........................................................................
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2006 ....................................................................
Budget estimate, 2007 ................................................................

............................
$4,950,000
$4,950,000
+4,950,000
............................

The Committee recommends $4,950,000 the same as the budget
request, for the Northeast Home Heating Oil reserve.
ENERGY INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION

The Energy Information Administration (EIA) is a quasi-independent agency within the Department of Energy established to
provide timely, objective, and accurate energy-related information
to the Congress, executive branch, state governments, industry,
and the public. The information and analysis prepared by the EIA
is widely disseminated and the agency is recognized as an unbiased
source of energy information and projections by government organizations, industry, professional statistical organizations, and the
public.
Appropriation, 2006 ............................................................................
Budget estimate, 2007 .......................................................................
Recommended, 2007 ...........................................................................
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2006 ....................................................................
Budget estimate, 2007 ................................................................

$85,314,000
89,769,000
89,769,000
+4,455,000
............................

The Committee recommends $89,769,000, the same as the budget
request for the Energy Information Administration.
NON-DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS

The Non-Defense Environmental Management program includes
funds to manage and clean up sites used for civilian, energy re-

VerDate Aug 31 2005

05:42 May 20, 2006

Jkt 027628

PO 00000

Frm 00093

Fmt 6601

Sfmt 6602

E:\HR\OC\HR474.005

HR474

94
search, and non-defense related activities. These past activities resulted in radioactive, hazardous, and mixed waste contamination
that requires remediation, stabilization, or some other type of action.
Milestone report.—The Committee requests a report by site that
tracks accelerated clean-up milestones, whether they are being met
or not, and includes annual budget estimates and life-cycle costs.
This report is due to the Committee by March 1 and September 1
of each year.
Reprogramming Authority.—The Committee continues to support
the need for flexibility to meet changing funding requirements at
sites. In fiscal year 2007, the Department may transfer up to
$2,000,000 between accounts, to reduce health or safety risks or to
gain cost savings as long as no program or project is increased or
decreased by more than $2,000,000 in total once during the fiscal
year. The account control points for reprogramming are the Fast
Flux Test Reactor Facility, West Valley Demonstration Project,
Gaseous Diffusion Plants, and construction line-items. This reprogramming authority may not be used to initiate new programs
or programs specifically denied, limited, or increased by Congress
in the Act or report. The Committees on Appropriations in the
House and Senate must be notified within thirty days of the use
of this reprogramming authority.
Economic development.—None of the Non-Defense Environmental
Management funds, including those provided in the Non-Defense
Environmental Cleanup and Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund, are available for economic development activities.
NON-DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP
Appropriation, 2006 ............................................................................
Budget Estimate, 2007 .......................................................................
Recommended, 2007 ...........................................................................
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2006 ....................................................................
Budget Estimate, 2007 ...............................................................

$349,687,000
310,358,000
309,946,000
¥39,741,000
¥412,000

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS

The Committee recommendation for Non-Defense Environmental
Cleanup is $312,946,000, a decrease of $412,000 from the budget
request.
The recommendation provides $73,400,000 for solid waste stabilization and disposition, and nuclear facility decontamination and
decommissioning at the West Valley Demonstration Project, and
$74,860,000 for decontamination and decommissioning of the gaseous diffusion plants, the same as the budget request. The recommendation provides $34,843,000 for the deactivation of facilities
and surveillance and maintenance of the Fast Flux Test Facility
(FFTF) and $32,556,000 for depleted uranium hexafluoride conversion at Portsmouth and Paducah, the same as the budget request.
The recommendation provides $19,865,000, for soil and water remediation measures at the former Atlas uranium mill tailings site
at Moab, Utah, a decrease of $3,000,000 below the budget request.
The decrease accomodates higher-priority compliance driven cleanups.

VerDate Aug 31 2005

05:42 May 20, 2006

Jkt 027628

PO 00000

Frm 00094

Fmt 6601

Sfmt 6602

E:\HR\OC\HR474.005

HR474

95
Small Sites.—The Committee is concerned that funds for small
sites have been maintained ‘‘flat’’ for years, which extend the cleanup activities, and contribute to the overall total cost of the program
because cleanup takes longer. Therefore, the Committee recommends increases for several small sites that are near completion
to accelerate work and close sooner. The recommendation provides
$28,860,000 for Brookhaven National Laboratory, an increase of
$588,000 over the budget request to accelerate the D&D of the Zero
Power Reactor. The Committee recommends $11,726,000 for soil
and water remediation and nuclear facility decontamination and
decommissioning at Argonne National Laboratory, an increase of
$1,000,000 over the budget request to accelerate cleanup activities.
The Committee recommends $7,000,000, the same as the budget
request, for spent nuclear fuel stabilization and disposition at
Idaho National Laboratory. The Committee provides $500,000,
which was not in the budget request, for litigation support for
closed non-defense sites such as the Uranium Mill Tailings Remedial Action sites.
Consolidated Business Center.—The Consolidated Business Center, located in Cincinnati, Ohio, provides administrative support
and contractual assistance for the Environmental Management program, including the aforementioned Small Sites. The Committee
recommendation provides $5,720,000 for the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center, and $16,000,000 for nuclear facility decontamination
and decommissioning for the Energy Technology Engineering Center, the same as the budget request. The Committee recommends
$1,025,000 for decontamination and decommissioning of the Tritium System Test Assembly Facility at Los Alamos National Laboratory, the same as the budget request. The Committee recommends $3,431,000 for soil and water remediation at the Inhalation Toxicology Laboratory, an increase of $500,000 over the budget
request, to close out the clean up activities nine months earlier.
The Committee recommends $160,000 for cleanup work at various
sites in California, the same as the budget request.
URANIUM ENRICHMENT DECONTAMINATION
FUND

AND

DECOMMISSIONING

Appropriation, 2006 ............................................................................
Budget estimate, 2007 .......................................................................
Recommended, 2007 ...........................................................................
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2006 ....................................................................
Budget Estimate, 2007 ...............................................................

$556,606,000
579,368,000
579,368,000
+22,762,000
............................

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS

The Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund was established by the Energy Policy Act of 1992
(P.L. 102–486) to carry out environmental remediation at the nation’s three gaseous diffusion plants, at the East Tennessee Technology Park in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, at Portsmouth, Ohio, and at
Paducah, Kentucky. Title X of the 1992 act also authorized use of
a portion of the fund to reimburse private licensees for the federal
government’s share of the cost of cleaning up uranium and thorium
processing sites.
The committee recommends $579,368,000 for activities funded
from the Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommis-

VerDate Aug 31 2005

05:42 May 20, 2006

Jkt 027628

PO 00000

Frm 00095

Fmt 6601

Sfmt 6602

E:\HR\OC\HR474.005

HR474

96
sioning Fund, the same as the budget request. This amount includes $559,368,000 for decontamination and decommissioning activities at the gaseous diffusion plants and $20,000,000 for Title X
uranium and thorium reimbursements.
SCIENCE
Appropriation, 2006 ............................................................................
Budget estimate, 2007 .......................................................................
Recommended, 2007 ...........................................................................
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2006 ....................................................................
Budget Estimate, 2007 ...............................................................

$3,596,393,000
4,101,710,000
4,131,710,000
+535,317,000
+30,000,000

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS

The Science account funds the Department’s work on high energy
physics, nuclear physics, biological and environmental sciences,
basic energy sciences, advanced scientific computing, maintenance
of the laboratories physical infrastructure, fusion energy sciences,
safeguards and security, workforce development for teachers and
scientists, safeguards and security at Office of Science facilities,
and science program direction.
The Committee is generally pleased with the Department’s budget request for the Office of Science in fiscal year 2007. This request
finally reverses the trend of recent years, which saw the requests
for the Office of Science held essentially flat. As a consequence,
funding for physical sciences research, funded at the federal level
primarily by the DOE Office of Science, lagged seriously behind
funding for life sciences research. Congress was forced to provide
additional funding to address obvious deficiencies in the Office of
Science request. Fortunately, the fiscal year 2007 request fully
funds operating time at existing DOE user facilities, funds the investment in major new research facilities such as the International
Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor, the International Linear
Collider, and the 12 GeV upgrade to the Continuous Electron Beam
Accelerator Facility, and maintains a healthy level of funding for
ongoing research at the DOE laboratories and at universities.. The
fiscal year 2007 budget request appears to strike the right balance
between maximizing existing capabilities and investing in new capabilities for the future.
The Committee recognizes that funding a significant increase for
the Office of Science required some difficult choices regarding other
DOE programs. However, the Committee supports the Secretary’s
judgment that robust funding for the basic research mission of the
Department represents the best long-term use of the Department’s
constrained resources, and the best long-term investment for the
economic future of the country. The Office of Science took seriously
the Congressional direction to prepare laboratory business plans
and five-year budget plans, and these plans give added credibility
and context to the fiscal year 2007 budget request.
The Committee recommendation is $4,131,710,000, an increase of
$30,000,000 compared to the budget request and $535,319,000 over
the fiscal year 2006 enacted level. Compared to the previous fiscal
year, the Committee has reduced the number and dollar value of
House-directed projects in the Biological and Environmental Research subaccount to $30,000,000, and has provided additional

VerDate Aug 31 2005

05:42 May 20, 2006

Jkt 027628

PO 00000

Frm 00096

Fmt 6601

Sfmt 6602

E:\HR\OC\HR474.005

HR474

97
funding for these projects so they do not diminish the proposed
American Competitiveness Initiative.
HIGH ENERGY PHYSICS

The Committee recommends a total of $775,099,000 for high energy physics, the same as the budget request. The Committee supports the requested increase in research and development activities, from $30,000,000 to $60,000,000, to prepare for the International Linear Collider (ILC), including detailed studies of possible U.S. sites for the ILC. The Committee also supports the construction funding request of $10,300,000 for Preliminary Engineering and Design (PED) for the new Electron Neutrino Appearance
detector (project 07–SC–07), which will maximize the science to be
obtained from the Neutrinos at the Main Injector (NuMI) project
at Fermilab.
Over the past few years, the Committee has consistently supported the DOE/NASA Joint Dark Energy Mission (JDEM), a space
probe to help answer the fundamental physics question of our time
what is the ‘‘dark energy’’ that constitutes the majority of the universe. Answering this question is among the top priorities of the
physics community and of the Office of Science, and the Committee
strongly believes that this initiative should move forward. DOE has
done its part, developing the SuperNova Acceleration Probe (SNAP)
as the DOE mission concept for JDEM. Unfortunately, NASA has
failed to budget and program for launch services for JDEM. Unfortunately, in spite of best intentions, the multi-agency aspect of this
initiative poses insurmountable problems that imperil its future.
Therefore, the Committee directs the Department to begin planning for a single-agency dark energy mission with a launch in fiscal
year 2013. The Committee directs DOE to explore other launch options, including cooperative international approaches and the procurement of private launch services, to get the SNAP platform into
space. DOE is to report back to the House and Senate Appropriations Committees, not later than March 2, 2007, on the cost and
feasibility of a single-agency mission, including the use of alternative launch options. The Committee will consider providing further guidance on this issue in the fiscal year 2008 appropriations
bill and report.
The control level is at the High Energy Physics level.
NUCLEAR PHYSICS

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS

The Committee recommendation for nuclear physics is
$454,060,000, the same as the budget request. The requested funding will support increased operations of the Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility and the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider.
The requested funding will also complete PED (project 06–SC–02)
and initiate construction (project 07–SC–02) for the Electron Beam
Ion Source at Brookhaven National Laboratory, and initiate PED
for the 12 GeV upgrade to the Continuous Beam Electron Beam Accelerator Facility at the Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility (project 07–SC–01).
Section 981 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109–58) directs
the Secretary to construct and operate a Rare Isotope Accelerator
(RIA), with construction to commence no later than September 30,

VerDate Aug 31 2005

05:42 May 20, 2006

Jkt 027628

PO 00000

Frm 00097

Fmt 6601

Sfmt 6602

E:\HR\OC\HR474.005

HR474

98
2008. Unfortunately, the Department has ignored this direction,
and the fiscal year 2007 budget includes no funding for RIA. Instead, the Department proposes $4,000,000 for ‘‘generic R&D activities aimed at development of exotic beam capabilities.’’ Despite the
high near-term priority assigned to RIA in the ‘‘Facilities for the
Future of Science: A Twenty-Year Outlook’’ report, prepared by the
Office of Science in 2004, RIA seems to have been supplanted by
a longer-term international facility for exotic beams research. The
Department, in its March 20, 2006, report to the House and Senate
Appropriations Committees as directed in the statement of managers accompanying the conference report for the Energy and
Water Development Appropriations Act, 2006 (P.L. 109–103), argues that this shift is a sound programmatic decision and in the
best interests of the nuclear physics community. The Committee directs the Department to submit a report to the House and Senate
Appropriations Committees providing the Department’s plans to
comply with Section 981 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, or the
legislative proposal to seek relief from the requirements of that section. In order to inform Congress prior to conference on the fiscal
year 2007 bill, this report should be submitted no later than August 11, 2006.
BIOLOGICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS

The Committee recommendation for biological and environmental
research is $540,263,000, an increase of $30,000,000 over the budget request. The Committee recommendation provides an additional
$30,000,000 for House-directed university and hospital earmarks.
The Committee concurs with the proposed re-scoping of the
Genomics: GTL program, from four separate facilities to two
vertically-integrated sets of facilities. The Committee reiterates its
previous guidance that any Genomics: GTL facilities must be fully
competed. The funds appropriated in fiscal year 2005 for Preliminary Engineering and Design (PED) work for the Genomics: GTL
facilities are available to fund operating expenses for the proposed
new Genomics: GTL centers.
The list of House-directed projects is listed in the table below.

VerDate Aug 31 2005

05:42 May 20, 2006

Jkt 027628

PO 00000

Frm 00098

Fmt 6601

Sfmt 6602

E:\HR\OC\HR474.005

HR474

VerDate Aug 31 2005

05:42 May 20, 2006

Jkt 027628

PO 00000

Frm 00099

Fmt 6601

Sfmt 6602

E:\HR\OC\HR474.005

HR474

Insert graphic folio 026 HR474.026

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS

99

VerDate Aug 31 2005

05:42 May 20, 2006

Jkt 027628

PO 00000

Frm 00100

Fmt 6601

Sfmt 6602

E:\HR\OC\HR474.005

HR474

Insert graphic folio 027 HR474.027

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS

100

101
BASIC ENERGY SCIENCES

The Committee recommendation for basic energy sciences is
$1,420,980,000, the same as the budget request and an increase of
$286,422,000 over the current fiscal year. For purposes of reprogramming during fiscal year 2007, the Department may allocate
funding among all operating accounts within Basic Energy
Sciences, consistent with the reprogramming guidelines outlined
earlier in this report.
Research.—The
Committee
recommendation
includes
$1,004,212,000 for materials sciences and engineering, and
$268,499,000 for chemical sciences, geosciences, and energy biosciences. The Committee recommendation funds operations of the
four completed nanoscale science research centers, instrumentation
for the recently-completed Spallation Neutron Source (SNS), and
the science research portion ($50,000,000) of the hydrogen initiative at the requested levels. The Committee has directed the National Nuclear Security Administration to make available, from existing stocks, sufficient heavy water to meet SNS needs. Also included within this account is $8,000,000 for the Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR), the same as
the budget request.
Construction.—The
Committee
recommendation
includes
$148,269,000 for Basic Energy Sciences construction projects, the
same as the requested amount. The Committee recommendation
provides the requested funding of: $161,000 for completion of PED
(03–SC–002) and $105,740,000 to initiate construction of the Linac
Coherent Light Source (05–SC–320) at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center; $18,864,000 to complete construction of the Center
for Functional Nanomaterials (05–R–321) at Brookhaven National
Laboratory; $257,000 to complete construction of the Molecular
Foundry (04–R–313) at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory;
$247,000 to complete construction of the Center for Integrated
Nanotechnologies (03–R–313) at Los Alamos and Sandia National
Laboratories; $20,000,000 for PED for the National Synchrotron
Light Source II (07–SC–06)at Brookhaven National Laboratory;
and $3,000,000 for PED for the Advanced Light Source User Support Building (07–SC–12) at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.
ADVANCED SCIENTIFIC COMPUTING RESEARCH

The Committee recommendation is $318,654,000, the same as
the budget request and an increase of $83,970,000 over the current
fiscal year. The Committee commends the Office of Science and the
Office of Advanced Scientific Computing Research for their efforts
to provide cutting-edge capabilities to meet current scientific computational needs, and at the same time to extend the boundaries
of that cutting edge into the next generation of high-performance
scientific computers and supporting software
FUSION ENERGY SCIENCES

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS

The Committee recommendation for fusion energy sciences is
$318,950,000, the same as the budget request. The Committee is
pleased that the department finally requested sufficient funding for

VerDate Aug 31 2005

05:42 May 20, 2006

Jkt 027628

PO 00000

Frm 00101

Fmt 6601

Sfmt 6602

E:\HR\OC\HR474.006

HR474

102
the U.S. participation in the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) Project without doing so at the expense of
domestic fusion research activities or at the expense of other office
of science programs.
The Committee strongly encourages the Office of Fusion Energy
Sciences to invest adequately in fast ignition research and leverage
the new facilities such as OMEGA–EP and FIREX–I in Japan to
conduct critical research to explore the feasibility of this innovative
concept. Also, the Committee is aware of the recent proposal from
the Naval Research Laboratory for a fusion test facility; the Committee encourages the department to give serious consideration to
providing office of science funding support in the future for these
alternative approaches to fusion energy.
SCIENCE LABORATORIES INFRASTRUCTURE

The Committee recommendation provides a total of $50,888,000
for Science Laboratories Infrastructure, the same as the budget request. Within the requested amount, the Committee transfers
$7,000,000 from the delayed demolition of the Bevatron at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory to the Physical Sciences Facility at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (project 07–SC–
05) in order to accommodate the pending cleanup and closure of the
300 Area at the Hanford site. Within available funds, the Committee directs the Department to continue to make PILT payments
associated with Argonne National Laboratory at $246,000.
SAFEGUARDS AND SECURITY

The Committee recommends $76,592,000, the same as the budget
request, to meet additional safeguards and security requirements
at Office of Science facilities.
SCIENCE WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT

The Committee provides $10,952,000 for workforce development
for teachers and scientists in fiscal year 2007, the same as the requested amount. The Committee concurs with the proposed expansion of the laboratory science teacher professional development program.
SCIENCE PROGRAM DIRECTION

The Committee recommendation is $170,877,000 for Science program direction, the same as the budget request. This amount includes: $95,832,000 for program direction at DOE field offices and
$75,045,000 for program direction at DOE headquarters. The control level for fiscal year 2007 is at the program account level of
Science Program Direction.
FUNDING ADJUSTMENTS

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS

The Committee recommendation includes an offset of $5,605,000
for the safeguards and security charge for reimbursable work, as
proposed in the budget request.

VerDate Aug 31 2005

05:42 May 20, 2006

Jkt 027628

PO 00000

Frm 00102

Fmt 6601

Sfmt 6602

E:\HR\OC\HR474.006

HR474

103
NUCLEAR WASTE DISPOSAL
Appropriation, 2006 ............................................................................
Budget Estimate, 2007 .......................................................................
Recommended, 2007 ...........................................................................
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2006 ....................................................................
Budget Estimate, 2007 ...............................................................

$148,500,000
156,420,000
186,420,000
+37,920,000
+30,000,000

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS

The Department of Energy requested a total of $544,500,000 for
work on the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository in fiscal year
2007, $156,420,000 for Nuclear Waste Disposal and $388,080,000
for Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal. According to the Department’s
testimony to the Committee, it will not submit a License Application during fiscal year 2007. The requested funds will be used for
preparation of the License Application, design work on the surface
and subsurface facilities, the waste packages, the national and Nevada transportation systems, and program management activities.
The Department has made a number of significant technical and
management changes to the repository. In general, the Committee
views these as positive changes that will put the repository program on a more secure foundation, will provide a clearer path to
repository licensing, and will increase public and Congressional
confidence in the safety and efficiency of the final repository. The
Committee supports the adoption of the phased approach to repository licensing and construction. Such an approach is consistent
with the ‘‘adaptive staging’’ recommended by the National Research
Council in its 2003 report, ‘‘One Step at a Time: The Staged Development of Geologic Repositories for High-Level Radioactive Waste.’’
This phased approach is also allowable under Section 114(d) of the
Nuclear Waste Policy Act.
At this time last year, the Department claimed to be on track to
open the repository in 2012, a two-year slip from the schedule of
the previous year. Unfortunately, a number of internal and external events the technical and management changes adopted by the
Department, changes to the repository radiation standard directed
by the court, internal reviews and quality control problems with
the work done by the U.S. Geological Survey, and chronic underfunding by Congress have combined to push the schedule for repository operations back even further. At best, the phased approach
will allow the Department to begin moving small quantities of
spent fuel and high-level waste to the repository in the latter half
of the next decade, with the first commercial spent fuel not moving
until the end of the decade.
The observation the Committee made last year, ‘‘the net result
is that the date for opening the Yucca Mountain repository continues to recede into the future’’, regrettably still holds true. The
slow pace of Yucca Mountain development has real consequences,
as it means that spent nuclear fuel and high level radioactive
waste will remain in interim storage at 129 private and governmental sites around the country. While such onsite interim storage
is a manageable risk, it is an unnecessary and expensive risk. DOE
estimates that every year of delay in opening the Yucca Mountain
repository beyond the year 2010 will cost the federal government
an additional $1 billion per year, with a conservative estimate of
$500 million in legal liability for failure to take title to commercial

VerDate Aug 31 2005

05:42 May 20, 2006

Jkt 027628

PO 00000

Frm 00103

Fmt 6601

Sfmt 6602

E:\HR\OC\HR474.006

HR474

104

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS

spent fuel, and another $500 million to monitor and guard defense
spent fuel and high level radioactive waste at DOE sites. As noted
in the introduction to Title III of this report, the delay in opening
the Yucca Mountain may have a very real impact on the ability of
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to license any new nuclear reactors in this country.
The slower schedule for Yucca Mountain may make sense. Certainly, the Committee supports changes that make the repository
safer, more licensable, and more cost effective. However, a slower
schedule is acceptable only if the Department addresses the dual
problems of the mounting financial liability, discussed in the previous paragraph, and waste confidence for new reactors, discussed
in the Title III introduction. In April 2006, the Department submitted a legislative proposal to Congress intended to facilitate the
licensing, construction, and operation of the proposed repository.
Two of the proposed legislative provisions would address the waste
confidence problem: the Administration proposes to repeal the statutory 70,000 metric ton capacity limit on Yucca Mountain, and also
proposes to direct the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to deem that
the timely availability of sufficient repository capacity shall no
longer be a consideration in licensing new reactors. While the Committee strongly opposes any attempt to legislative away the waste
confidence problem, the Committee supports the effort to expand
the capacity of Yucca Mountain. However, this capacity expansion,
while it may provide sufficient waste confidence to enable the NRC
to license new reactors, does nothing to resolve the problem of accumulating spent fuel, and the liability associated with that spent
fuel. As discussed in the introduction to Title III of this report, the
Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) proposal for recycling
spent fuel is a legitimate long-term strategy for spent fuel, but does
nothing to address spent fuel or reactor licensing issues for at least
another decade and a half.
The only constructive way to address these problems in the near
term is for the Department actually to begin to move spent fuel
away from commercial reactor sites and into some version of interim storage. The Committee continues to believe the Department
should move aggressively to take title to commercial spent fuel and
consolidating such fuel in a smaller number of more secure, aboveground interim storage facilities. The Department has taken the
position that it requires additional statutory authorization for interim storage, beyond its broad authorities under the Atomic Energy Act and the limited authorities provided under the Nuclear
Waste Policy Act. Although the Secretary has indicated in testimony to the Committee support for the concept of interim storage,
the Department’s legislative proposal to Congress failed to include
any language authorizing interim storage. The Committee recommendation provides $30,000,000, not derived from the Nuclear
Waste Fund, to initiate the process for selecting and licensing one
or more interim storage sites. These interim storage sites may be
located on DOE property, but the Department should also investigate the availability of other federal and private sites. If regional
consolidation is not feasible, the Department should then explore
consolidation of spent fuel within States with high volumes of
spent fuel. The Department should conduct a voluntary, competi-

VerDate Aug 31 2005

05:42 May 20, 2006

Jkt 027628

PO 00000

Frm 00104

Fmt 6601

Sfmt 6602

E:\HR\OC\HR474.006

HR474

105
tive process to select interim storage sites. The Department can either modify and re-issue the Request for Expressions of Interest for
GNEP (solicitation DE–RP07–06ID14760) to include interim storage as the initial step for integrated recycling facilities, or issue a
new Request for Proposals for interim storage alone. Of the
$30,000,000 made available for interim storage, $20,000,000 is
available to the selected candidate sites to support their efforts to
license the interim storage facilities. If the Congress has not provided the Department with clear statutory authority for interim
storage by the end of fiscal year 2007, the remaining funds shall
be re-directed to non-site-specific activities to select a second repository for nuclear waste disposal, consistent with Section 161 of the
Nuclear Waste Policy Act.
For Nuclear Waste Disposal in fiscal year 2007, the Committee
provides $186,420,000, an increase of $30,000,000 over the budget
request to fund interim storage as described above. When coupled
with the $388,080,000 provided under the Defense Nuclear Waste
Disposal account, the Committee recommendation provides a total
of $574,500,000 for nuclear waste disposal activities during fiscal
year 2007.
DEPARTMENTAL ADMINISTRATION
Gross Appropriation:
Appropriation, 2006 ........................................................................
$250,289,000
Budget estimate, 2007 ....................................................................
278,382,000
Recommended, 2007 .......................................................................
278,382,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2006 ........................................................................
+28,093,000
Budget estimate, 2007 ....................................................................
-–-–Miscellaneous Revenues:
Appropriation, 2006 ........................................................................ ¥$121,770,000
Budget estimate, 2007 .................................................................... ¥123,000,000
Recommended, 2007 ....................................................................... ¥123,000,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2006 ........................................................................
¥1,230,000
Budget estimate, 2007 ....................................................................
-–-–-

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS

The Committee recommendation for Departmental Administration is $278,382,000, the same as the budget request. Funding recommended for Departmental Administration provides for general
management and program support functions benefiting all elements of the Department of Energy, including the National Nuclear Security Administration. The account funds a wide array of
headquarters activities not directly associated with the execution of
specific programs.
The Committee renews the direction provided in the fiscal year
2006 conference report regarding the primary liaison with the
House Appropriations Committee being the Department’s chief financial officer rather than the Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs. The Committee needs information provided
in a timely, objective manner; too often, the information flow
through the Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs,
while spin-filled, has also been slow. The answers provided to questions for the record for the fiscal year 2007 appropriations have
been notably content free. The Public Affairs Office is fully capable
of presenting information in a manner that is to the Department’s
advantage, and the CFO is fully capable of providing objective,

VerDate Aug 31 2005

05:42 May 20, 2006

Jkt 027628

PO 00000

Frm 00105

Fmt 6601

Sfmt 6602

E:\HR\OC\HR474.006

HR474

106
quantitative information to the Committee. It remains unclear
what value is added by the Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs.
Revenues.—The recommendation for revenues is $123,000,000,
consistent with the estimate of revenues provided by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). The original request of $149,557,000
has been adjusted to reflect this CBO estimate of the revenues anticipated during fiscal year 2007.
Transfer from Other Defense Activities.—For fiscal year 2007, the
Department requested $93,258,000 as the defense contribution to
the Departmental Administration account. The Committee provides
the requested amount and expects the Department to continue to
request a proportional defense contribution to Departmental Administration in future fiscal years.
OFFICE

OF INSPECTOR

GENERAL

Appropriation, 2006 ............................................................................
Budget estimate, 2007 .......................................................................
Recommended, 2007 ...........................................................................
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2006 ....................................................................
Budget estimate, 2007 ................................................................

$41,580,000
45,507,000
45,507,000
+3,927,000
............................

The Office of Inspector General performs agency-wide audit, inspection, and investigative functions to identify and correct management and administrative deficiencies that create conditions for
existing or potential instances of fraud, waste and mismanagement.
The audit function provides financial and performance audits of
programs and operations. The inspections function provides independent inspections and analyses of the effectiveness, efficiency,
and economy of programs and operations. The investigative function provides for the detection and investigation of improper and illegal activities involving programs, personnel, and operations.
The Committee recommendation is $45,507,000, the same as the
budget request.
ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES

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

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS

The Department of Energy is responsible for enhancing U.S. national security through the military application of nuclear technology and reducing the global danger from the proliferation of
weapons of mass destruction. The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), a semi-autonomous agency within the Department, carries out these responsibilities. Established in March
2000 pursuant to Title 32 of the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (Public Law 106–65), the NNSA is responsible for the management and operation of the Nation’s nuclear

VerDate Aug 31 2005

05:42 May 20, 2006

Jkt 027628

PO 00000

Frm 00106

Fmt 6601

Sfmt 6602

E:\HR\OC\HR474.006

HR474

107

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS

weapons complex, naval reactors, and nuclear nonproliferation activities. Three offices within the NNSA carry out the Department’s
national security mission: the Office of Defense Programs, the Office of Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation, and the Office of Naval
Reactors. The Office of the NNSA Administrator oversees all NNSA
programs.
The Committee provides $9,199,811,000, for the NNSA, a reduction of $116,000,000 under the budget request.
Transformation of the DOE Nuclear Weapons Complex.—This
Committee tasked the previous Secretary of Energy in March 2004
with conducting an independent assessment of the Department of
Energy’s infrastructure requirements for the nuclear weapons complex over the next twenty-five years. The Secretary established a
Task Force within the Secretary of Energy’s Advisory Board
(SEAB) on reform of the nuclear weapons complex infrastructure.
This task force released its recommendations in July 2005, and
they were formally presented from the SEAB to the Secretary in
October 2005.
The SEAB Task Force found the existing DOE nuclear weapons
complex to be ‘‘neither robust, nor agile, nor responsive . . .’’, and
concluded that ‘‘status quo is neither technically credible, nor financially sustainable.’’ The task force made five major recommendations for transforming the complex into a modern enterprise:
• Design of a reliable replacement warhead (RRW);
• Establishment of a consolidated nuclear production center;
• Consolidation of special nuclear materials (SNM);
• Accelerated warhead dismantlement; and
• Creation of an office of transformation within the NNSA.
The fiscal year 2007 budget request for the NNSA, and its subsequent testimony to the Committee, reveals that the Department
has embraced the recommended reforms in only a very limited
manner. While the SEAB Task Force developed their recommendations with an integrated perspective on the future of the nuclear
weapons complex, the NNSA continues to propose modernization
plans which maximize the physical size and the cost of the weapons complex.
The 2001 Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) called for a more responsive NNSA infrastructure, able to design and produce new nuclear weapons and respond to unanticipated events in a useful time
frame. The Department of Energy has adopted this objective into
its Responsive Infrastructure initiative. However, an examination
of the details provided in the fiscal year 2007 budget justification
reveals that Responsive Infrastructure is merely a new title for the
old DOE strategy of ‘‘modernization in place,’’ a strategy specifically rejected by the SEAB Task Force. What is clear to the Committee is that the Department intends only very limited reform—
RRW with a new pit facility, modernization-in-place of everything
else, and only enough material consolidation and dismantlement to
keep Congress satisfied. In this Committee’s view, the Department
missed that mark by a wide margin.
The Department’s adoption of the Reliable Replacement Warhead
(RRW), a concept introduced in the Consolidated Appropriations
Act, 2005 (P.L. 108–447), to design replacement warheads to meet

VerDate Aug 31 2005

05:42 May 20, 2006

Jkt 027628

PO 00000

Frm 00107

Fmt 6601

Sfmt 6602

E:\HR\OC\HR474.006

HR474

108
existing military requirements, but with greater margins, improved
surety, and simplified production, maintenance, and dismantlement
requirements is laudable. If successful, the RRW will form the
foundation for a future nuclear stockpile that is smaller than the
existing Cold War stockpile, but at the same time safer, more secure, and more reliable. The Department has used fiscal year 2006
funds to initiate a laboratory design competition for the first RRW.
The Committee supports the RRW, but only if it is part of a larger
package of more comprehensive weapons complex reforms.
The Committee expects the Government Accountability Office
(GAO) to assist the Committee with the Committee’s oversight of
NNSA’s transformation process. In particular, the Committee will
expect the GAO to evaluate, among other things, the cost effectiveness of NNSA’s proposal to build and operate the CMRR facility for
less than 10 years before moving to the proposed consolidated plutonium facility, the NNSA’s implementation of the results of the
RRW design competition, especially the extent to which this effort
can be paid for by reductions in ongoing life extensions activities
and stockpile maintenance activities, and the quality and comprehensiveness of the plans and cost estimates developed by NNSA
to support its transformation decisions. The Committee fences additional funds for the RRW until it receives a comprehensive complex
transformation plan from the Department. Further guidance on the
issues of material consolidation and dismantlement is provided in
the appropriate sections of this report.
CONSOLIDATED NUCLEAR PRODUCTION CENTER

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS

The Committee provides $100,000,000 for transition planning,
site selection, and preliminary design and development for a consolidated nuclear production site for reliable replacement warheads
and stockpile support. The Committee supports the recommendation of the Nuclear Weapons Complex Infrastructure Task Force to
establish a cost-effective modern production center consolidating
production and dismantlement activities. The Committee does not
support the Department’s ‘‘modernization in place’’ strategy, which
involves upgrading multiple redundant and inefficient facilities
scattered around the country. The only production consolidation
planned by the Department is for a Consolidated Plutonium Production Center to become operational by the year 2022. In the interim, the Department plans to reconstitute and upgrade pit production capabilities at the Los Alamos National Laboratory TA–55
facility, while simultaneously planning for a Chemistry and Metallurgy Research replacement (CMRR) facility at Los Alamos to support the plutonium work at TA–55. The CMRR is being designed
to handle and store Category I and II inventories of special nuclear
material which require elaborate and expensive security requirements. CMRR has an estimated cost of nearly $1 billion. However,
because of the NNSA proposal to build a Consolidated Plutonium
Production Center by 2022 and transfer all the Category I and II
material out of CMRR to the new plutonium facility, the CMRR
will have a very limited functional lifetime. CMRR will serve its
primary production support function for only eight years before it
is made obsolete by the new plutonium facility, thereby making the
Category I and II security characteristics of the CMRR unneces-

VerDate Aug 31 2005

05:42 May 20, 2006

Jkt 027628

PO 00000

Frm 00108

Fmt 6601

Sfmt 6602

E:\HR\OC\HR474.006

HR474

109
sary. The Committee finds this type of planning by the NNSA simply irrational. It appears designed to maximize future budgets and
the number of new facilities required, rather than provide an efficient balancing of required capabilities, limited resources, and programmatic risk.
The CMR Replacement facility may have made sense at one time
as a replacement for the original CMR facility. However, consolidating activities and capabilities for future RRW production requires a reassessment of the funding decision to support a separate
CMRR facility. The Committee directs the Department to terminate the CMRR project and instead co-locate future production capacity and the radiological chemistry and materials research work.
A billion dollar investment in the CMRR at Los Alamos only makes
sense if the NNSA is prepared to site the Consolidated Nuclear
Production Center, or at a minimum the Consolidated Plutonium
Production Center, at the same location. The Committee directs the
Department to complete the responsive infrastructure planning in
time to submit revised assumptions in the fiscal year 2008 budget
request.
WEAPONS ACTIVITIES

Appropriation, 2006 ............................................................................
Budget estimate, 2007 .......................................................................
Recommended, 2007 ...........................................................................
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2006 ....................................................................
Budget estimate, 2007 ................................................................

$6,369,603,000
6,407,889,000
6,412,001,000
+42,398,000
+4,112,000

The goal of the Weapons Activities program is to ensure the safety, security, reliability and performance of the Nation’s nuclear
weapons stockpile. The program seeks to maintain and refurbish
nuclear weapons to sustain confidence in their safety and reliability under the nuclear testing moratorium and arms reduction
treaties.
The
Committee’s
recommendation
provides
$6,412,001,000, for Weapons Activities, an increase of $4,112,000
over the budget request.
PEER REVIEW OF RRW DESIGN

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS

JASON’s Review of the Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW).—
Congress initiated the Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW) program in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005 (Public Law
108–447), to focus DOE and DOD on implementing a program for
improving the long-term safety, reliability, and security of the nuclear weapons stockpile. The RRW warhead initiative seeks to develop a replacement warhead that improves manufacturing practices, lowers unit costs and increases performance margins while
staying within the design parameters validated by past nuclear
tests. The Committee understands that a competition is currently
ongoing between the two nuclear weapon design laboratories to develop a design for the RRW that meets the objectives outlined by
Congress and defined in testimony by the Department of Energy
and the Department of Defense. The Committee also understands
that a Reliable Replacement Warhead Project Officers Group (POG)
will be recommending a design down select for an RRW warhead
to the Nuclear Weapons Council (NWC) sometime in early fiscal

VerDate Aug 31 2005

05:42 May 20, 2006

Jkt 027628

PO 00000

Frm 00109

Fmt 6601

Sfmt 6602

E:\HR\OC\HR474.006

HR474

110
year 2007. The Committee directs the NNSA to engage the JASON
Defense Advisory Group as soon as practicable in 2006 as an independent outside peer reviewer to evaluate the competing RRW designs. The JASONs should evaluate the RRW design recommended
by the POG against the requirements defined by congressional legislative actions to date and the elements defined in the Department
of Defense’s military characteristics for a reliable replacement warhead requirements document. The JASON review should also include an analysis on the feasibility of the fundamental premise of
the RRW initiative that a new nuclear warhead can be designed
and produced and certified for use and deployed as an operationally-deployed nuclear weapon without undergoing an underground
nuclear explosion test.
The JASON’s RRW report is due March 31, 2007 to the congressional defense committees.
Reprogramming Authority.—The Committee provides limited reprogramming authority within the Weapons Activities account
without submission of a reprogramming to be approved in advance
by the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations. The reprogramming control levels will be as follows: subprograms within
Directed Stockpile Work; Life Extension Programs, Stockpile Systems, Reliable Replacement Warhead, Warhead Dismantlement,
and Stockpile Services. Additional reprogramming control levels
will be as follows: Science Campaigns, Engineering Campaigns, Advanced Simulation and Computing, Pit Manufacturing and Certification, Consolidated Production Center, Readiness Campaigns, and
Operations of Facilities site allocations for readiness in technical
base and facilities. This should provide the needed flexibility to
manage these programs.
In addition, funding of not more than $5,000,000 may be transferred between each of these categories and each construction
project with the exception of the RTBF site allocations, subject to
the following limitations: only one transfer may be made to or from
any program or project; the transfer must be necessary to address
a risk to health, safety or the environment; and funds may not be
used for an item for which Congress has specifically denied funds
or for a new program or project that has not been authorized by
Congress.
The Department must notify Congress within 15 days of the use
of this reprogramming authority. Transfers during the fiscal year
which would result in increases or decreases in excess of
$5,000,000 or which would exceed the limitations outlined in the
previous paragraph require prior notification of and approval by
the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations.
DIRECTED STOCKPILE WORK

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS

The Committee’s recommendation provides $1,312,180,000 for Directed Stockpile Activities, a reduction of $98,088,000 from the
budget request. Directed Stockpile Work (DSW) includes all activities that directly support weapons in the nuclear stockpile, including maintenance, research, development, engineering, certification
and dismantlement and disposal activities. The DSW account provides all the direct funding for the Department’s life extension activities, which are designed to extend the service life of the existing

VerDate Aug 31 2005

05:42 May 20, 2006

Jkt 027628

PO 00000

Frm 00110

Fmt 6601

Sfmt 6602

E:\HR\OC\HR474.006

HR474

111
nuclear weapons stockpile, by providing new subsystems and components for each warhead thereby extending the operational service
life.
Taken together, the Committee expects a rebaselined life extension program plan by weapon type, a Reliable Replacement Warhead program plan, and the Warhead Dismantlement plan will
lead to reliable nuclear deterrence with a post-2030 stockpile significantly smaller that the 2012 Nuclear Stockpile levels committed
to in the Moscow Treaty and specified in the revised Nuclear Stockpile Plan. The current W80 Life Extension Program will be terminated in an orderly fashion and the resources will be redeployed to
support the NNSA weapons complex transformation activities. The
Committee directs the NNSA to rebalance the remaining LEP
workload and the additional funds for RRW and the Responsive Infrastructure line between the weapon design laboratories to ensure
no adverse impact on the Livermore National Laboratory due to
the reduction in funding for the W80 LEP.
Life Extension Programs.—The Committee provides $232,662,000
for the DSW life extension programs, a reduction of $80,000,000
from the budget request. The Committee directs the reduction to be
taken against the W80 LEP activity. The Committee directs the
NNSA to close out and catalogue the W80 LEP program.
Stockpile Systems.—The Committee provides $325,545,000 for
the DSW stockpile systems activities, same as the budget request.
Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW).—The Committee recommendation provides $52,707,000 for the reliable replacement
warhead (RRW) initiative, an increase of $25,000,000 from the
budget request, of which $25,000,000 is available for obligation
only after the official delivery of the NNSA infrastructure transformation plan to Congress. The Committee expects the initial design approved by the Department will be selected based on a combination of considerations including the ability to certify the warhead without underground nuclear testing, cost of production, and
ease of maintenance and dismantlement.
Warhead Dismantlement.—The Committee recommendation provides $105,000,000 for the warhead dismantlement program, an increase of $30,000,000 over the budget request.
The Committee expects the NNSA to implement a robust warhead dismantlement program as part of a concerted effort to relieve
the weapons complex of excess Cold War era warheads and continue the development of a responsive infrastructure.
Stockpile services.—The Committee recommendation provides
$596,266,000 for the DSW stockpile services activities, a decrease
of $73,088,000 under the request. The Committee provides additional funds to accelerate responsive infrastructure activities. The
Committee’s reductions in Stockpile Services are targeted as percentage decreases to W80 LEP support activities.
CAMPAIGNS

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS

Campaigns are focused efforts involving the three weapons laboratories, the Nevada test site, the weapons production plants, and
selected external organizations to address critical capabilities needed to achieve program objectives.

VerDate Aug 31 2005

05:42 May 20, 2006

Jkt 027628

PO 00000

Frm 00111

Fmt 6601

Sfmt 6602

E:\HR\OC\HR474.006

HR474

112

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS

The Committee recommendation provides $2,033,590,000, an increase of $96,200,000 over the budget request.
From within funds provided for the various campaigns, the Committee directs that $4,500,000 be provided to continue the university research program in robotics (URPR) for the development of
advanced robotic technologies for strategic national applications.
Science campaigns.—The Committee provides $263,762,000 for
the science campaigns, the same as the budget request. The Committee supports the 24-month test readiness posture at the Nevada
Test Site.
Engineering campaigns.—The Committee provides $160,919,000
for the engineering campaigns, the same as the budget request.
Construction projects.—The Committee recommends $6,920,000,
the same as the budget request, for Project 01–D–108, Microsystems and engineering science applications (MESA), SNL, New
Mexico.
Inertial Confinement Fusion (ICF) Ignition and High Yield.—The
Committee recommends $528,191,000 for the inertial confinement
fusion and yield program, an increase of $77,000,000 over the
budget request.
The Committee provides $58,021,000, for Facility Operations and
Target Production, of which $15,000,000 is available for enhanced
target production and characterization capabilities. The Committee
provides $55,959,000, of which $10,000,000 is available for NIF
diagnostics, cryogenics and experimental support to achieve the
2010 ignition goal. The Committee recommendation includes
$25,000,000 to continue development of high average power lasers
and supporting science and technology within the Inertial Fusion
Technology program line. The Committee recommendation includes
$15,000,000 for the Naval Research Laboratory and $54,150,000 for
the University of Rochester’s Laboratory for Laser Energetics
(LLE), an increase of $10,000,000 over the budget request. The
LLE is the principal research and experimentation laser facility for
NNSA Science-based Stockpile stewardship activities. The Committee’s increase is for OMEGA operations to provide additional shots
to support the ICF campaign goal of an ignition demonstration in
2010. The Committee provides $2,000,000 for the Ohio State University Laboratory for Advanced Laser-Target Interactions.
The Committee provides $111,419,000 for construction of the National Ignition Facility (NIF), the same as the budget request.
Advanced simulation and computing (ASCI).—The Committee
recommendation for Advanced Simulation and Computing is
$635,155,000, an increase of $17,200,000 over the budget request.
The Committee’s recommendation includes: $6,200,000 for the sensitive compartmented information facility (SCIF) at Nextedge,
(OH), with the balance of funds not needed for SCIF construction
to be used for advanced computing research in cooperation with
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory: $5,000,000 for the Notre
Dame/Purdue Computer Gride Project, (IN); and $6,000,000 is provided to continue the demonstration at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory of advanced electronics packaging and thermal
engineering for thermally-efficient electronics related to high-performance data servers using spray cooling.

VerDate Aug 31 2005

05:42 May 20, 2006

Jkt 027628

PO 00000

Frm 00112

Fmt 6601

Sfmt 6602

E:\HR\OC\HR474.006

HR474

113
Pit manufacturing and Pit certification.—The Committee recommendation for PIT manufacturing and certification campaign is
$237,598,000, the same as the budget request. The Committee commends the Los Alamos National Laboratory for its work restoring
the Pit production capability to the nuclear weapons production
complex.
Readiness campaigns.—The Committee recommendation for
Readiness Campaigns is $207,965,000, an increase of $2,000,000
over the budget request. The additional $2,000,000 is provided for
Robotics Repetitive Systems Technology, (OH).
Consolidated Production Center.—The Committee provides
$100,000,000 for transition planning and preliminary design of a
Consolidated Production Center for reliable replacement warheads
and stockpile production support.
READINESS IN TECHNICAL BASE AND FACILITIES

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS

The Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities (RTBF) program
supports the physical and operational infrastructure at the laboratories, the Nevada Test Site, and the production plants. The Committee recommendation is $1,658,772,000, a reduction of
$27,000,000 below the budget request.
Operations of facilities.—The Committee recommendation for Operations of Facilities is $1,276,786,000, an increase of $73,000,000
over the budget request. The Committee recommendation includes
an additional $10,000,000 for the Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory in California, an additional $20,000,000 is provided for
the Pantex plant in Texas, and an additional $43,000,000 is for the
Y–12 Plant in Tennessee to address chronic under-funding in the
maintenance of production plant facilities. From within available
funds, $1,000,000 for the Advanced Engineering Environment, at
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory—Sandia Laboratory (CA)
and $1,000,000 for the Multi-Disciplined Integrated Collaboration
(MDICE) at the Kansas City Plant (KS). The Committee directs the
NNSA transfer 20 tons of Heavy Water (D2O) for use as coolant for
the target at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory’s Spallation Neutron Source (SNS). The Committee provides the Operations of Facilities account funding in site specific allocations specified in the
detail table at the end of Title III.
Program Readiness.—The Committee recommendation for Program Readiness is $75,167,000, the same as budget request.
Material Recycle and Recovery.—The Committee recommendation
for material recycle and recovery is $69,982,000, the same as the
budget request.
Containers.—The Committee recommendation for containers is
$20,130,000, the same as the budget request.
Storage.—The Committee recommendation for storage is
$35,285,000.
Construction projects.—
Project 07–D–140, Project engineering and design (PED)—various locations. The Committee recommends $4,977,000, the same as
the budget request.
Project 07–D–220, Radioactive Liquid Waste Treatment Facility
Upgrade—Los Alamos National Laboratory. The Committee recommends $14,828,000, the same as the budget request.

VerDate Aug 31 2005

05:42 May 20, 2006

Jkt 027628

PO 00000

Frm 00113

Fmt 6601

Sfmt 6602

E:\HR\OC\HR474.006

HR474

114
Project 04–D–125, Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Facility
Replacement (CMRR), LANL. The Committee recommendation provides $12,422,000 for the CMRR project, a decrease of $100,000,000
from the budget request. Construction at the CMRR facility should
be terminated and the Department should revise its long-term plan
for developing the responsive infrastructure required to maintain
the nation’s existing nuclear stockpile and support replacement
production for the reliable replacement warheads (RRW). Production capabilities proposed in the CMRR should be located at the future production site that supports the RRW and long term stockpile
requirements.
Project 01–D–124, Highly Enriched Uranium Materials Facility,
Y–12 National Security Complex, Oak Ridge, TN. The Committee
recommends $21,267,000, the same as the budget request. The
Committee is disappointed that the Department of Energy’s only
nuclear material consolidation effort has run into management
problems resulting in cost overruns that may result in schedule
delays for completing the HEU Materials Facility. Consistent with
the Committee’s priority to address special nuclear material consolidation requirements across the DOE complex, the Committee
directs the Department to report to the Committee by August 31,
2006, with a recovery plan that includes cost estimates with
sources of funding to offset cost increases and mitigation measures
to maintain the construction schedule and operational start of the
HEU Materials Facility.
FACILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE RECAPITALIZATION

The Committee recommendation for Facilities and Infrastructure
Recapitalization Program (FIRP) is $146,218,000, a reduction of
$145,000,000 from the budget request. The Committee directs the
NNSA to reassess its out-year planning for FIRP projects to ensure
coordination between FIRP funds and the reduced facility requirements consistent with the consolidation of the complex under the
long-term Responsive Infrastructure planning.
The Committee directs that not less than $25,000,000 of the facilities and infrastructure funding in fiscal year 2007 be used to
dispose of excess facilities. The Committee encourages continuation
of this program to reduce the overall facilities footprint of the complex. The Committee continues to expect that services for D&D and
demolition of excess facilities services be procured through opencompetition where such actions provide the best return on investment for the federal government.
The Committee recommendation provides $45,935,000 for FIRP
construction projects, the same as the budget request.
Facility Infrastructure and Recapitalization Construction
Projects.—
07–D–253 TA heating systems modernization (HSM), Sandia National Laboratory, NM. The Committee provides $14,500,000, the
same as the budget request.
SECURE TRANSPORTATION ASSET

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS

The Secure Transportation Asset program provides for the safe,
secure movement of nuclear weapons, special nuclear materials,
and non-nuclear weapon components between military locations

VerDate Aug 31 2005

05:42 May 20, 2006

Jkt 027628

PO 00000

Frm 00114

Fmt 6601

Sfmt 6602

E:\HR\OC\HR474.006

HR474

115
and nuclear weapons complex facilities within the United States.
The Committee recommendation is $209,264,000, the same as the
budget request.
NUCLEAR WEAPONS INCIDENT RESPONSE

The Committee recommendation for nuclear weapons incident response is $135,354,000, the same as the budget request.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS AND OPERATIONS

The Environmental Projects and Operations program operates
and maintains the environmental cleanup systems and performs
long-term environmental monitoring activities at the National Nuclear Security Administration sites.
The Committee provides $17,211,000 for Environmental Projects
and Operations activities, the same as the budget request.
SAFEGUARDS AND SECURITY

This program provides for all safeguards and security requirements for the NNSA. The Committee recommendation is
$832,412,000, an increase of $78,000,000 over the budget request.
Of the total provided $89,711,000 is for Cyber Security activities,
the same as the budget request. The Committee increase includes
$25,000,000 for the Y–12 National Security Complex to accelerate
security infrastructure upgrades and consolidate the facility footprint and an additional $12,000,000 for the Pantex Plant. The
Committee provides $40,000,000 for a material consolidation and
upgrade construction project at the Idaho National Laboratory, ID.
The Committee provides an additional $1,000,000 for CIMTRAK
cyber security software (IN).
Construction Projects.—
The Committee directs the start of a construction project at the
Idaho National Laboratory retrofitting Building 651 and completing Building 691 to handle special nuclear material consolidation and storage. The Committee provides $40,000,000 for the Material Security and Consolidation Project at Building 651 and 691,
Idaho National Laboratory. The Committee understands that
Building 651 requires minimal upgrades to provide secure storage
space for special nuclear material inventories. Building 691 requires more extensive planning for estimating total cost and schedule to complete upgrades for using the unfinished structure for
SNM storage and other future radiological handling activities. The
Committee directs the $5,000,000 provided to the Office of Security
and Performance Assurance for planning the material consolidation
construction activity in the fiscal year 2006 Conference report be
reprogrammed to the NNSA Office of Safeguards and Security for
its intended purpose.
FUNDING ADJUSTMENTS

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS

The budget request included an offset of $33,000,000 for the safeguards and security charge for reimbursable work.

VerDate Aug 31 2005

05:42 May 20, 2006

Jkt 027628

PO 00000

Frm 00115

Fmt 6601

Sfmt 6602

E:\HR\OC\HR474.006

HR474

116
DEFENSE NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION
Appropriation, 2006 ............................................................................
Budget estimate, 2007 .......................................................................
Recommended, 2007 ...........................................................................
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2006 ....................................................................
Budget Estimate, 2007 ...............................................................

$1,614,839,000
1,726,213,000
1,593,101,000
¥21,738,000
¥133,112,000

The Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation account includes funding
for Nonproliferation and Verification Research and Development;
Nonproliferation and International Security (Global Initiatives for
Proliferation Prevention and Highly Enriched Uranium Transparency Implementation programs are funded within the Nonproliferation and International Security activities); Nonproliferation Programs with Russia including International Materials Protection, Control, and Cooperation, Elimination of Weapons-Grade
Plutonium Production; Fissile Materials Disposition; and Global
Threat Reduction Initiative.
The Committee’s recommendation for Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation is $1,593,101,000, a decrease of $133,112,000 from the
budget request of $1,726,213,000.
NONPROLIFERATION AND VERIFICATION RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS

The nonproliferation and verification research and development
program conducts applied research, development, testing, and evaluation of science and technology for strengthening the United
States’ response to threats to national security and to world peace
posed by the proliferation of nuclear weapons and special nuclear
materials. Activities center on the design and production of operational sensor systems needed for proliferation detection, treaty
verification, nuclear warhead dismantlement initiatives, and intelligence activities.
The Committee provides $308,080,000 for Nonproliferation and
Verification research and development, an increase of $39,193,000
over the budget request. The Committee recommendation includes
$169,397,000 for proliferation detection, an increase of $21,193,000
over the budget request for high priority satellite technology research requirements; $114,601,000 for nuclear explosion monitoring, an increase of $8,000,000 for ground-based systems for treaty monitoring activities; and $6,162,000 for supporting activities.
From within available funds, the Committee’s recommendation includes $1,600,000 for the Nuclear Security Science and Policy Institute at Texas A&M (TX), and $1,000,000 for the National Center
for Biodefense at George Mason University (VA), $1,000,000 for
Offshore Detection Integrated System (OH), and $500,000 for the
Global Personal Locator Beacon (VA) project.
The Committee provides $17,920,000 for Project 06–D–180, National Security Laboratory at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL), an increase of $10,000,000 over the budget request. The additional $10,000,000 is provided as construction funds
to maintain the aggressive schedule in fiscal year 2007 for the relocation of laboratory personnel and facilities displaced by the
planned shutdown and cleanup of the 300 Area at the Hanford reservation in Washington.

VerDate Aug 31 2005

05:42 May 20, 2006

Jkt 027628

PO 00000

Frm 00116

Fmt 6601

Sfmt 6602

E:\HR\OC\HR474.006

HR474

117
The Committee’s increase of $8,000,000 for ground-based systems
treaty monitoring activities should be allocated through a competitive process open to all Federal and non-Federal entities on an
equal basis.
Annual Reporting Requirement.—The Committee directs the Department to prepare an annual report on each project with the
baseline cost, scope and schedule, deliverables, and the public or
private entity performing the research and development, and the
proposed user and submit this with the fiscal year 2008 budget request.
NONPROLIFERATION AND INTERNATIONAL SECURITY

The Nonproliferation and International Security program seeks
to detect, prevent, and reverse the proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction materials, technology, and expertise. The major functional areas of the program include: nonproliferation policy; international safeguards; export control; treaties and agreements; Global Initiatives for Proliferation Prevention; HEU Transparency Implementation; and international emergency management and cooperation. The Committee recommendation provides $127,411,000
for Nonproliferation and International Security, the same as the
budget request.
NONPROLIFERATION PROGRAMS WITH RUSSIA

The Department of Energy funds many nonproliferation programs with Russia. These programs help secure Russian nuclear
weapons and weapons material, prevent the outflow of scientific expertise from Russia, eliminate excess nuclear weapons materials,
and help downsize the Russian nuclear weapons complex.
INTERNATIONAL NUCLEAR MATERIALS PROTECTION AND COOPERATION

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS

The International Nuclear Materials Protection and Cooperation
(MPC&A) program is designed to work cooperatively with Russia
to secure weapons and weapons-usable nuclear material. The focus
is to improve the physical security at facilities that possess or process significant quantities of nuclear weapons-usable materials that
are of proliferation concern. Activities include installing monitoring
equipment, inventorying nuclear material, improving the Russian
security culture, and establishing a security infrastructure.
The Committee provides $583,182,000 for MPC&A activities, an
increase of $170,000,000 over the budget request. The Committee’s
increase to the MPC&A program recognizes the expanded opportunities for high priority work at Rosatom and the 12th Main Directorate sites in Russia. The Committee supports the Department’s
efforts to continue to negotiate greater access to the Russian serial
production enterprise and accelerate aggressively opportunities to
secure material as site access is granted. The Committee recommendation includes $121,505,000 for the Rosatom Weapons
Complex, an increase of $65,000,000 over the budget request. The
Committee provides $228,973,000 for the Second Line of Defense
program, an increase of $105,000,000 over the budget request. The
Committee recommendation provides an additional $40,000,000 for
the core Second Line of Defense program to accelerate installation

VerDate Aug 31 2005

05:42 May 20, 2006

Jkt 027628

PO 00000

Frm 00117

Fmt 6601

Sfmt 6602

E:\HR\OC\HR474.006

HR474

118
activities in the Baltic and Caucasus regions and other critical border activities. The Committee provides $105,118,000 for the
MegaPorts initiative, a $65,000,000 increase over the budget request, to accelerate this work at additional high-risk foreign ports.
ELIMINATION OF WEAPONS-GRADE PLUTONIUM PRODUCTION

The Committee provides $206,654,000, for elimination of weapons-grade plutonium production, the same as the budget request.
FISSILE MATERIALS DISPOSITION

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS

The fissile materials disposition program is responsible for the
technical and management activities to assess, plan and direct efforts to provide for the safe, secure, environmentally sound longterm storage of all weapons-usable fissile materials and the disposition of fissile materials declared surplus to national defense
needs. This program was created to execute the September 2000
agreement between the United States and Russia on plutonium
management and disposition. Under that agreement, the United
States and Russia each committed to dispose of 34 metric tons of
surplus weapons-grade plutonium. The NNSA manages the effort
to dispose of the U.S. share of surplus plutonium and provides
technical assistance to Russia to support their efforts. Congressional direction from the House and Senate Armed Services Committees requires the U.S. and Russian programs to proceed in parallel.
The strategy to date has been that both the U.S. and Russia
would dispose of this surplus plutonium by converting it to mixed
oxide (MOX) fuel to be used as fuel in light water reactors in each
country. The U.S. portion of this plan would require a Pit Disassembly and Conversion Facility, a MOX Fuel Fabrication Facility, and a Waste Facility, all to be built at the Savannah River Site
in South Carolina. To date, Congress has appropriated $1.37 billion
for the domestic MOX program facilities without any nonproliferation benefit accrued to the U.S. taxpayer. The Committee acknowledges that most of the real work had been delayed due to an impasse with the Russian government over liability protection for
U.S. contractors working in Russia. However, that situation has
not changed. For several years in a row, the Department has assured this Committee that the liability problem was on the verge
of being resolved so that work could proceed. While the Committee
does not believe the Department was intentionally misleading the
Committee, clearly these assurances were in error. An agreement
with the Russian government resolving the liability issue has yet
to be finalized. The Committee reiterates the obvious—that as has
been the case over the past three years, the Department is precluded from beginning construction activities in fiscal year 2006
without a U.S.-Russian bilateral liability agreement ratified by the
Russian Federation. These series of unfulfilled promises has led to
the accumulation of substantial unobligated balances in the Fissile
Materials Disposition account, including over $500 million in the
MOX construction project alone.
Unfortunately, in 2006 it has become obvious the Russian government is not going to participate in the MOX-light water reactor
disposition path for surplus Russian plutonium unless the U.S. and

VerDate Aug 31 2005

05:42 May 20, 2006

Jkt 027628

PO 00000

Frm 00118

Fmt 6601

Sfmt 6602

E:\HR\OC\HR474.006

HR474

119

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS

international community bear the full cost of such disposition. Instead, the Russian government now prefers a new approach, with
limited disposition in an existing BN–600 fast breeder reactor and
the bulk of disposition to be accomplished in the yet-to-be-built
BN–800 fast reactor. The U.S. continues to have proliferation concerns about the use of fast reactors for plutonium disposition.
Compounding the Committee’s lack of confidence in this program’s future is the DOE Inspector General (DOE/Inspector General Report 0713) and Government Accountability Office findings
that the U.S. MOX project has experienced significant cost overruns and management deficiencies. In February 2002, the Department reported to Congress that the construction of the MOX facility would start in fiscal year 2004, begin operations in fiscal year
2007, and cost nearly $1 billion to design and construct.
As of July 2005, NNSA’s unvalidated estimate for design and
construction of the MOX facility was $3.5 billion, an increase of
$2.5 billion. Now with the Russian government abandoning the
MOX-light water reactor strategy for surplus Russian plutonium, it
is clear to the Committee that there is no longer any justification
for proceeding unilaterally with the U.S. MOX program for disposing of U.S. surplus plutonium. Converting plutonium to MOX
fuel has always been the most expensive disposition option for plutonium, but it was a cost that Congress was willing to accept in
order to help the Russian MOX program stay on track for disposing
of Russian weapons origin plutonium. Further, the U.S. MOX program at one time had potential for domestic civilian applications,
as the UREX+ separation technology, coupled with MOX, was
being considered as a means for recycling domestic spent nuclear
fuel. With the advent of the Administration’s Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP), the Department has abandoned MOX for
domestic spent fuel and instead shifted to a strategy of UREX+
coupled with fast reactors.
Given these changes in the United States and Russia, the Committee sees no further reason to proceed with the U.S. MOX program. The Committee provides $282,651,000 for fissile material
disposition activities, a reduction of $320,610,000 from the budget
request. The Committee provides no funds for the pit disassembly
and conversion facility project and for the MOX fuel fabrication facility project and directs the Department to suspend all ongoing
and planned construction activities associated with those projects.
The Committee directs the Department to use the balance of prior
year funds to close out ongoing design work and government obligations under existing contracts. The Department should also conduct an orderly suspension of technology development and supporting work relating to the U.S. MOX project, pending submission
to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations a report
re-defining the comprehensive plutonium disposition for the United
States, in light of Russia actions and domestic choices on GNEP.
This report should provide a life cycle cost analysis of all reasonable domestic plutonium disposition alternatives, including the no
action alternative. The reduced MOX funding is redirected to higher priority international nonproliferation activities and to other environmental cleanup and plutonium immobilization needs at Savannah River Site.

VerDate Aug 31 2005

05:42 May 20, 2006

Jkt 027628

PO 00000

Frm 00119

Fmt 6601

Sfmt 6602

E:\HR\OC\HR474.006

HR474

120
Plutonium Immobilization, Savannah River Site, SC.—The Committee provides $111,000,000 to continue conceptual design and
commence preliminary design for a plutonium disposition facility
utilizing immobilization technology, to enable the Department to
address the material disposition requirements for the plutonium
stored at the Savannah River Site.
GLOBAL THREAT REDUCTION INITIATIVE

The Global Threat Reduction Initiative (GTRI) mission is to identify, secure, remove and facilitate the disposition of high-risk, vulnerable nuclear and radiological materials and equipment around
the world. The Committee provides $119,818,000 for GTRI activities, an increase of $13,000,000 over the budget request. The Committee provides an additional $5,000,000 for Russian Research Reactor Fuel Return, $3,000,000 for U.S. Radiological Threat Reduction to address domestic radiological sealed source recovery, and
$5,000,000 in Emerging Threats and Gap Materials for recovery of
U.S. origin orphaned material overseas. The Committee recommendation includes $3,934,000 for the Kazakhstan Spent Fuel
Disposition initiative, the same as the budget request. None of the
funds provided for this activity in fiscal year 2007, or previous fiscal years, may be obligated for transportation equipment or activities without written notification to the House and Senate Appropriations Committees.
NAVAL REACTORS
Appropriation, 2006 ............................................................................
Budget estimate, 2007 .......................................................................
Recommended, 2007 ...........................................................................
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2006 ....................................................................
Budget estimate, 2007 ................................................................

$781,605,000
795,133,000
795,133,000
+13,528,000
– – –

The Naval Reactors program is responsible for all aspects of
naval nuclear propulsion from technology development through reactor operations to ultimate reactor plant disposal. The program
provides for the design, development, testing, and evaluation of improved naval nuclear propulsion plants and reactor cores. These efforts are critical to ensuring the safety and reliability of 102 operating Naval reactor plants and to developing the next generation
reactor. The Committee recommendation provides $795,133,000,
the same as the request, for Naval Reactors activities.
OFFICE

OF THE

ADMINISTRATOR

Appropriation, 2006 ............................................................................
Budget estimate, 2007 .......................................................................
Recommended, 2007 ...........................................................................
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2006 ....................................................................
Budget estimate, 2007 ................................................................

$338,450,000
386,576,000
399,576,000
+61,126,000
+13,000,000

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS

The Office of the Administrator of the National Nuclear Security
Administration (NNSA) provides corporate planning and oversight
for Defense Programs, Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation, and
Naval Reactors, including the NNSA field offices in New Mexico,
Nevada, and California. The Committee recommendation is

VerDate Aug 31 2005

05:42 May 20, 2006

Jkt 027628

PO 00000

Frm 00120

Fmt 6601

Sfmt 6602

E:\HR\OC\HR474.006

HR474

121
$399,576,000, an increase of $13,000,000 above the budget request,
of which $399,576,000 is available for obligation only after the Administrator has officially retained the JASON Defense Advisory
Group as an independent peer review evaluation committee to assess the competing reliable replacement warhead designs against
the design criteria in the RRW competition between Los Alamos
and Livermore National Laboratories. The increase is provided as
the NNSA contribution to the Department’s support for the Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs). The Committee expects the Administrator to continue to maintain separate program
direction budget and reporting accounting codes for the Office of
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation to maintain cost accountability
between the separate programs within the NNSA.
The Committee recommendation provides $12,000, the same as
the budget request, for official reception and representation expenses for the NNSA.
Support to Minority Colleges and Universities.—The Committee
appreciates the serious effort of the NNSA to follow last year’s Congressional direction to implement an aggressive program to take
advantage of the HBCU educational institutions across the country
in order to deepen the recruiting pool of diverse scientific and technical staff available to the NNSA and its national laboratories in
support of the nation’s national security programs. The Committee
is again providing $13,000,000 of additional funding to expand the
support to the HBCUs scientific and technical programs in FY
2006. The Committee recommendation includes $2,000,000 each for
Wilberforce University and Central State University in Wilberforce,
Ohio; and $2,500,000 for Claflin College in Orangeburg, SC;
$3,000,000 for Allen University in Columbia, SC; and $1,000,000
each for Voorhees College in Denmark, SC and South Carolina
State University in Orangeburg, SC; $500,000 for Denmark Technical College (SC); $300,000 for the ACE program at Maricopa
Community Colleges (AZ); and $700,000 for Morehouse College
(GA). The Committee directs the Department to provide funds to
HBCU institutions to allow for infrastructure improvements and
technical programs. The Committee expects the Department to ensure the Dr. Samuel P. Massie Chairs of Excellence are fully supported within the HBCU program. The Committee expects the Department to provide financial support in rough parity to both
HBCUs and the Hispanic Serving Institutions (HSI).
ENVIRONMENTAL AND OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES
DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS

The Defense Environmental Management program is responsible
for identifying and reducing risks and managing waste at sites
where the Department carried out defense-related nuclear research
and production activities that resulted in radioactive, hazardous,
and mixed waste contamination requiring remediation, stabilization, or some other type of cleanup action.
Hanford Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant (WTP).—
This project has been plagued with a long history of cost overruns
and mismanagement. ‘‘The relative lack of outrage over a baseline
change of that magnitude speaks volumes about what the Congress

VerDate Aug 31 2005

05:42 May 20, 2006

Jkt 027628

PO 00000

Frm 00121

Fmt 6601

Sfmt 6602

E:\HR\OC\HR474.006

HR474

122

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS

and public have come to expect from the Department’s clean-up
program. The tank waste treatment project has a long and sordid
history that indicates both the magnitude of the task before the
Department, as well as the Department’s historic combination of
overly optimistic cost estimates couples with consistent project mismanagement. The Committee notes its concerns in the demonstrated pattern of Departmental officials announcing reform of
some aspect of the clean-up program, only to depart and be replaced by a new set of officials coming before the Committee to describe the dramatic cost overruns on the project baselines promised
by their predecessors, and claiming no responsibility for the assumptions underlying those previous commitments.’’ These observations which capture accurately the frustration of Congress with
the WTP, were made by our Senate counterparts nearly three years
ago, when the WTP increased in cost by a mere $1.4 billion to
$5.78 billion.
Last fall, the House and Senate conferees raised concerns about
the total cost of WTP increasing to $9.3 billion and start-up being
delayed to 2015. The situation is now even worse. Only five months
later—on April 6, 2006—the Government Accountability Office
(GAO) testified before the Committee that the cost of the Hanford
waste treatment plant is now nearly $11 billion, and the completion schedule has been extended to at least 2017.
The inability of the contractor and the Department to estimate
with any credibility the cost and schedule of the project is troubling
in and of itself, but it also symptomatic of more serious underlying
management issues. As root causes for the uncontrolled cost
growth, the GAO identified contractor performance problems, DOE
management shortcomings and difficulties addressing various technical challenges encountered during design and construction. According to GAO, ‘‘by just about any measure, the Hanford waste
treatment project is in disarray’’. . . ‘‘what is happening on this
project is uncharacteristic of a well-planned and well-managed construction project.’’. . . ‘‘A great concern to us is the fact that many
nuclear safety and other technical problems have occurred on the
project.’’
Years of revolving door DOE officials, continual promises to improve management controls and oversight, and sky-rocketing costs
have led the Committee to the point where it no longer has confidence in the Department’s estimates in the WTP nor in the Department’s ability to manage its way back on this project. Given
the potential for serious safety accidents as the result of the lack
of management and safety discipline demonstrated on this one-ofa-kind nuclear construction project, the Committee has no other
choice than to direct serious management reforms.
As such, the Committee directs the following changes to the
project, as recommended by the Government Accountability Office:
1. Discontinue using a fast-track, design-build approach for WTP,
and complete at least 90 percent of the facility design or components of the facility before restarting construction. DOE needs to
follow nuclear industry construction guidelines and take a more
conservative approach to design and construction activities that
avoids carrying out these activities concurrently.

VerDate Aug 31 2005

05:42 May 20, 2006

Jkt 027628

PO 00000

Frm 00122

Fmt 6601

Sfmt 6602

E:\HR\OC\HR474.006

HR474

123

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS

2. Develop revised contract incentives for WTP that better balance
cost and schedule incentives and incentives to ensure that the facilities operate safely and effectively, as well as improve the Department’s management and oversight of contractor activities. The
Committee understands that the Department is already renegotiating its WTP contract with Bechtel National, Incorporated. It is
not acceptable to renegotiate this contract with an expanded scope
of work, a delayed schedule, and higher performance fees for the
project. The Department must modify this contract to reflect an accurate scope, a firm cost and schedule, appropriate performance
fees or performance incentive fees, and appropriate penalties for
non-performance.
In addition, the Committee directs the Department to enter into
a Memorandum of Understanding with the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC), to be signed no later than 60 days after enactment of this Act, to provide nuclear safety oversight of the design
and construction of the Hanford Waste Treatment Plant. Under
this approach, NRC would conduct a initial safety review of all
WTP design and construction work completed to date, leading to
the publication of a safety evaluation report. The NRC would then
have a role to monitor DOE’s implementation of the findings, and
ongoing monitoring of DOE’s nuclear safety compliance at WTP.
NRC would review safety-related design documents and integrated
safety measures, develop requests for additional information, write
a safety evaluation report, and monitor the DOE contractor’s
progress in addressing safety concerns raised by the NRC. Technical interactions with DOE and contractor would be conducted, as
necessary and appropriate, in public meetings. NRC would also
conduct one or more public presentations near the site to discuss
its safety review with stakeholders. The Committee directs the
NRC to report its findings directly to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations.
Bill language has been included making the fiscal year 2007 appropriation for the WTP available only for one fiscal year. The
Committee may reconsider this limitation in the future pending assurances from the Department that it will implement the management and contracting changes directed above and will execute the
funding transfer and Memorandum of Understanding providing for
Nuclear Regulatory Commission oversight of nuclear safety on the
WTP.
Milestone report.—The Committee requests a report, by site, that
tracks accelerated clean-up milestones, whether they are being met
or not, and includes annual budget estimates and life-cycle costs,
due to Committee by March 1 and September 1 of each year.
Economic development.—None of the Defense Environmental
Management funds are available for economic development activities unless specifically authorized by law.
Reprogramming Authority.—The Committee continues to support
the need for flexibility to meet changing funding requirements at
sites. In fiscal year 2007, the Department may transfer up to
$5,000,000 within accounts, and between accounts, as noted in the
table below, to reduce health or safety risks or to gain cost savings
as long as no program or project is increased or decreased by more
than $5,000,000 in total during the fiscal year. This reprogram-

VerDate Aug 31 2005

05:42 May 20, 2006

Jkt 027628

PO 00000

Frm 00123

Fmt 6601

Sfmt 6602

E:\HR\OC\HR474.006

HR474

124
ming authority may not be used to initiate new programs or programs specifically denied, limited, or increased by Congress in the
Act or report. The Committees on Appropriations in the House and
Senate must be notified within thirty days of the use of this reprogramming authority.
Account Control Points:
Closure Sites
Savannah River site, 2012 accelerations
Savannah River site, 2035 accelerations
Savannah River Tank Farm
Waste Isolation Pilot Plant
Idaho National Laboratory
Oak Ridge Reservation
Hanford site 2012 accelerated completions
Hanford site 2035 accelerated completions
Office of River Protection (ORP) Waste Treatment & Immobilization (WTP) Pretreatment facility
ORP WTP High-level waste facility
ORP WTP Low activity waste facility
ORP WTP Analytical laboratory
ORP WTP Balance of facilities
Program Direction
Program Support
UE D&D Fund contribution
Technology Development
Details of the recommended funding levels follow below for the
Defense Environmental Cleanup account.
DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP
Appropriation, 2006 ............................................................................
Budget estimate, 2007 .......................................................................
Recommended, 2007 ...........................................................................
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2006 ....................................................................
Budget estimate, 2007 ................................................................

$6,130,448,000
5,390,312,000
5,551,812,000
¥578,636,000
+161,500,000

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS

The Committee’s recommendation for Defense Environmental
Cleanup totals $5,551,812,000, an increase of $161,500,000 over the
budget request of $5,390,312,000. Within the amounts provided,
the Department is directed to fund hazardous waste worker training at $10,000,000.
Closure Sites.—The Committee recommendation provides
$321,937,000, an increase of $1,000,000 over the budget request.
The recommendation provides $25,896,000 for Closure Sites Administration, the same as the budget request. The recommendation
provides $258,877,000 for Fernald, Ohio and $34,869,000 for
Miamisburg, Ohio, the same as the budget request. The Committee
provides $1,295,000 for Ashtabula, Ohio, an increase of $1,000,000
to close out the project. The Committee provides $1,000,000 for remaining close-out activities at Rocky Flats, the same as the budget
request.
Savannah River Site.—The Committee recommendation provides
$1,195,394,000 for cleanup at the Savannah River Site an increase
of $111,000,000 over the budget request. The Committee provides
an increase of $111,000,000 over the request for radioactive liquid

VerDate Aug 31 2005

05:42 May 20, 2006

Jkt 027628

PO 00000

Frm 00124

Fmt 6601

Sfmt 6602

E:\HR\OC\HR474.006

HR474

125

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS

tank waste stabilization and disposition, to cover shortfalls in the
tank waste program. Within available funds, the Committee directs
$2,000,000 for AEA Technology to address alternative cost effective
technologies for cleaning up legacy waste.
Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP).—The Committee recommendation provides $213,278,000 for the Waste Isolation Pilot
Project, the same as the budget request
Idaho National Laboratory.—The Committee recommendation
provides $544,604,000, an increase of $32,000,000 for design work
on calcine processing in preparation for final disposition.
Oak Ridge Reservation.—The Committee recommendation provides $199,362,000, an increase of $39,500,000 over the budget request. The recommendation includes an increase of $25,000,000 for
the disposition of material in building 3019. The recommendation
includes an increase of $14,360,000 for the acceleration of cleanup
activities at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory Central Campus.
The Committee’s recommendation also includes a reallocation of
the budget request, to better reflect current program needs. The effect of this redistribution is reflected in the detail table at the end
of Title III.
Hanford Site.—The Committee recommendation provides
$832,716,000 for the Hanford Site, an increase of $28,000,000 over
the budget request, and $59,870,000 over fiscal year 2006 enacted
levels. The Committee recommendation provides $7,500,000 for the
Volpentest Hazardous Materials Management and Emergency Response (HAMMER) training and education center, and $500,000 for
preservation of the B Reactor as a historic landmark. The recommendation provides $81,651,000 for nuclear material stabilization and disposition at the Plutonium Finishing Plant, and
$221,022,000 for nuclear facility decontamination and decommissioning river corridor closure project, the same as the budget request. The recommendation provides $78,937,000 for spent nuclear
fuel stabilization and disposition, a decrease of $2,132,000 below
the budget request, which reflects the movement of spent nuclear
fuel storage costs to canister storage funding activities.
The recommendation includes $191,121,000 for solid waste stabilization and disposition in the 200 Area, an increase of
$2,132,000 over the budget request, which reflects the movement
of spent nuclear fuel storage costs to canister storage funding. The
recommendation includes $75,973,000 for soil and water remediation, and $94,270,000 for nuclear facility decontamination and decommissioning for the remainder of Hanford, the same as the budget request. The Committee recommendation provides $3,534,000 to
operate the waste disposal facility, and $18,332,000 for Richland
community and regulatory support, the same as the budget request. The recommendation provides $20,000,000, an increase of
$20,000,000 over the budget request for Columbia River cleanup
technologies. In fiscal year 2006, the conference report provided
$10,000,000 in the Technology Development account for ‘‘analyzing
contaminant migration to the Columbia River, and for introduction
of new technology approaches to solving contamination migration
issues.’’ The Committee is pleased with the progress that has been
made, and recommends increasing the level of effort to identify migration of contaminants and strategies to stop it.

VerDate Aug 31 2005

05:42 May 20, 2006

Jkt 027628

PO 00000

Frm 00125

Fmt 6601

Sfmt 6602

E:\HR\OC\HR474.006

HR474

126

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS

Office of River Protection.—The Committee recommendation provides $894,127,000 for the Office of River Protection, a decrease of
$70,000,000 below the request, and an increase of $47,211,000 over
FY 2006 enacted levels.
Federal budget procedures require that DOE and other agencies
develop work plans and schedules that support a budget request
and demonstrate how the funds will be spent. The Department has
done a poor job justifying the budget request of $690,000,00 for the
waste treatment and immobilization plant. As of April 2006, the
project was substantially behind schedule and over budget. During
fiscal year 2005 and 2006, DOE slowed construction on the
pretreatment and high-level waste facilities to address the technical and management problems. This slowdown is expected to continue through at least half of fiscal year 2007, and possibly through
2008, resulting in uncommitted carryover from fiscal year 2006
that will likely be available to offset a portion of the fiscal 2007
funding request. Based on this slowdown of work pending technical
and managerial resolution, the GAO estimates that WTP costs in
fiscal year 2007 would be approximately $510 million.
The Hanford/ORP combined request for $1,768,000,000 is a nine
percent increase over fiscal year 2006 levels, mostly due to the
‘‘placeholder’’ $690,000,000 request for WTP. It is difficult to reward the WTP project with the full request, when it has been poorly managed, and construction dollars will not be spent for some
time on the pretreatment facility, and the vitrification facility, and
budget justifications and workplans are poor or nonexistent. Additionally, the remainder of the nuclear waste cleanup sites budget
requests are reduced from fiscal year 2006 levels, and the entire
clean-up program’s request is declining by 3 percent.
As such, the Committee recommendation includes $600,000,000
for the waste treatment and immobilization plant, a decrease of
$90,000,000 below the request of $690,000,000, and an increase of
$79,206,000 over FY 2006 enacted levels. This level reflects a compromise between the Department’s request, and the GAO budget
scrub. The Committee recommends allocating additional funds
amongst the subprojects that are not subject to the seismic recalculations, and less for pretreatment and vitrification, which are
still subject to technical uncertainties. The recommendation includes $218,500,000 for the pretreatment facility; $171,700,000 for
the high level waste vitrification facility; $112,200,000 for the low
activity waste facility; $45,200,000 for the analytical laboratory;
and $52,400,000 for the balance of facilities.
The recommendation includes $293,656,000 for radioactive liquid
tank waste stabilization and disposition, an increase of $20,000,000
over the request of $273,656,000, to determine a go/no go strategy
for the bulk vitrification demonstration in order to maintain a
strategy for low level tank waste. The recommendation provides
$471,000, the same as the budget request, for community and regulatory support.
The Committee directs the Government Accountability Office to
review and report on the budget and life-cycle costs estimates for
bulk vitrification, and the technical challenges and/or the technical
performance issues that have emerged so far on the demonstration
of this technology.

VerDate Aug 31 2005

05:42 May 20, 2006

Jkt 027628

PO 00000

Frm 00126

Fmt 6601

Sfmt 6602

E:\HR\OC\HR474.006

HR474

127
Program Direction.—The Committee recommendation provides
$301,216,000 an increase of $10,000,000 over the budget request
for program direction. The Committee directs the Department to
transfer $10,000,000 to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)
and to conclude a Memorandum of Understanding with the NRC
for WTP oversight activities, no later than 60 days following enactment of this bill.
Program Support.—The Committee recommendation provides
$37,881,000 for program support, the same as the budget request.
Federal Contribution to Uranium Enrichment Decontamination
and Decommissioning Fund.—The Energy Policy Act of 1992, Public Law 102–486, created the Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund to pay for the cost of cleanup of
the gaseous diffusion facilities located in Oak Ridge, Tennessee; Paducah, Kentucky; and Portsmouth, Ohio. The Committee recommendation includes the budget request of $452,000,000 for the
Federal contribution to the Uranium Enrichment Decontamination
and Decommissioning Fund as authorized in Public Law 102–486.
Technology Development and Deployment.—The Committee recommendation provides $31,389,000, an increase of $10,000,000 over
the budget request. The EM technology development program funding has declined over the years, while at the same time, many technological challenges continue to face the program. For example, the
National Research Council’s 2005 report on ‘‘Improving the Characterization and Treatment of Radioactive Wastes’’, recommends that
‘‘an improved capability for environmental monitoring would
strengthen EM’s plans to leave waste and contaminated media at
DOE sites’’, and, ‘‘Monitoring systems at EM closure sites have
been estimated to be some 25 years behind the state-of-art.’’ The
Committee directs the increase to address the technology shortfalls identified by this report. The Committee supports an increased, expanded technology development program, and directs
the Department to prepare an EM technology roadmap, that identifies technology gaps that exist in the current program, and a strategy with funding proposals to address them. The report is due to
the Committee by January 31, 2007.
NNSA
sites.—The
Committee
recommendation
provides
$232,068,000, the same as the budget request.
Safeguards and Security.—The Committee recommendation provides $295,840,000, the same as the budget request.
OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES
Appropriation, 2006 ............................................................................
Budget estimate, 2007 .......................................................................
Recommended, 2007 ...........................................................................
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2006 ....................................................................
Budget estimate, 2007 ................................................................

$635,577,000
717,788,000
720,788,000
+85,211,000
+3,000,000

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS

This account provides funding for the Office of Security and Performance Assurance; Intelligence; Counterintelligence; Environment, Safety and Health (Defense); Legacy Management; Funding
for Defense Activities in Idaho; Defense Related Administrative
Support; and the Office of Hearings and Appeals. Descriptions of
each of these programs are provided below.

VerDate Aug 31 2005

05:42 May 20, 2006

Jkt 027628

PO 00000

Frm 00127

Fmt 6601

Sfmt 6602

E:\HR\OC\HR474.006

HR474

128
OFFICE OF SECURITY AND PERFORMANCE ASSURANCE

The Office of Security and Performance Assurance (SSA) provides domestic safeguards and security for nuclear weapons, nuclear materials, nuclear facilities, and classified and unclassified
information against sabotage, espionage, terrorist activities, or any
loss or unauthorized disclosure that could endanger the national
security or disrupt operations. The Committee recommendation for
security and emergency operations is $301,497,000 an increase of
$3,000,000 over the budget request. The increase is for high priority security priorities.
In fiscal year 2007, the Department of Energy will spend $1.5
billion on safeguards and security activities at Headquarters and
field locations. Funding for safeguards and security activities at
Departmental facilities and laboratories for programmatic activities
in the field is included within each program budget.
OFFICE OF INTELLIGENCE

The intelligence program provides information and technical
analyses on international arms proliferation, foreign nuclear programs, and other energy related matters to policy makers in the
Department and other U.S. Government agencies. The focus of the
Department’s intelligence analysis and reporting is on emerging
proliferant nations, nuclear technology transfers, foreign nuclear
materials production, and proliferation implications of the breakup
of the Former Soviet Union.
OFFICE OF COUNTERINTELLIGENCE

The Office of Counterintelligence seeks to develop and implement
an effective counterintelligence program throughout the Department of Energy. The goal of the program is to identify, neutralize,
and deter foreign government or industrial intelligence threats directed at the Department’s facilities, personnel, information, and
technologies.
ENVIRONMENT, SAFETY AND HEALTH (DEFENSE)

The Office of Environment, Safety and Health develops programs
and policies to protect the workers and the public, conducts independent oversight of performance, and funds health effects studies.
The Committee recommendation is $80,814,000, the same as the
budget request.
LEGACY MANAGEMENT

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS

The Committee provides a total of $200,990,000 for the Office of
Legacy Management to manage the long-term stewardship responsibilities at the Department of Energy clean up sites. The Committee provides $167,851,000 in Other Defense Activities and the
balance of $33,139,000 is provided in the non-defense Energy Supply account.

VerDate Aug 31 2005

05:42 May 20, 2006

Jkt 027628

PO 00000

Frm 00128

Fmt 6601

Sfmt 6602

E:\HR\OC\HR474.006

HR474

129
FUNDING FOR DEFENSE ACTIVITIES IN IDAHO

The Committee recommendation includes $75,949,000 to fund
the defense-related (050 budget function) activities at the Idaho
National Laboratory (INL).
DEFENSE RELATED ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT

The Committee recommendation includes $93,258,000, the same
as the budget request, to provide administrative support for programs funded in the atomic energy defense activities accounts. This
will fund Departmental activities performed by offices such as the
Secretary, Deputy Secretary and Under Secretary, the General
Counsel, Chief Financial Officer, Human Resources, Congressional
Affairs, and Public Affairs, which support the organizations and activities funded in the atomic energy defense activities accounts.
OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

The Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) is responsible for all
of the Department’s adjudicatory processes, other than those administered by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. The
Committee recommendation is $4,422,000, the same as the budget
request.
FUNDING ADJUSTMENTS

The Committee recommendation for funding adjustments includes an offset of $3,003,000 for the safeguards and security
charge for reimbursable work, the same as the budget request.
DEFENSE NUCLEAR WASTE DISPOSAL
Appropriation, 2006 ............................................................................
Budget estimate, 2007 .......................................................................
Recommended, 2007 ...........................................................................
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2006 ....................................................................
Budget Estimate, 2007 ...............................................................

$346,500,000
388,080,000
388,080,000
+41,580,000
–––

DEFENSE NUCLEAR WASTE DISPOSAL

The Committee recommendation is $388,080,000, the same as
the budget request. Combined with the funding recommended for
the Nuclear Waste Disposal, this will provide a total of
$574,500,000 for nuclear waste disposal activities in fiscal year
2007.
POWER MARKETING ADMINISTRATIONS

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS

Management of the Federal power marketing functions was
transferred from the Department of Interior to the Department of
Energy by the Department of Energy Organization Act (P.L. 95–
91). These functions include the power marketing activities authorized under section 5 of the Flood Control Act of 1944 and all other
functions of the Bonneville Power Administration, the Southeastern Power Administration, the Southwestern Power Administration, and the power marketing functions of the Bureau of Reclamation that have been transferred to the Western Area Power
Administration.

VerDate Aug 31 2005

05:42 May 20, 2006

Jkt 027628

PO 00000

Frm 00129

Fmt 6601

Sfmt 6602

E:\HR\OC\HR474.006

HR474

130
The Committee rejects the administration proposal to recover expenses related to operations and maintenance activities and program direction expenditures using offsetting collections and the
proposal to increase the power marketing administration rates to
reflect market based rates.
All power marketing administrations except the Bonneville
Power Administration are funded annually with appropriated
funds. Revenues collected from power sales and transmission services are deposited in the treasury to offset expenditures. The Committee recommendation for fiscal year 2005 does not support the
Administration proposal to continue the phase-out of Federal financing of the customers’ purchase power and wheeling expenses
for the Southeastern Power Administration, the Southwestern
Power Administration, and the Western Area Power Administration. Also, the Committee recommendation does not at this time incorporate the administration proposal for the power marketing administrations to fund directly from revenues the costs of operation
and maintenance of federal hydropower facilities at Corps of Engineers dams.
Operations of the Bonneville Power Administration are self-financed under the authority of the Federal Columbia River Transmission System Act (P.L. 93–454). Under this Act, the Bonneville
Power Administration is authorized to use its revenues to finance
the costs of its operations, maintenance, and capital construction,
and to sell bonds to the Treasury if necessary to finance any additional capital program requirements.
BONNEVILLE POWER ADMINISTRATION

The Bonneville Power Administration is the Department of Energy’s marketing agency for electric power in the Pacific Northwest.
Bonneville provides electricity to a 300,000 square mile service
area in the Columbia River drainage basin. Bonneville markets the
power from Federal hydropower projects in the Northwest, as well
as power from non-Federal generating facilities in the region, and
exchanges and markets surplus power with Canada and California.
The Committee recommendation provides no new borrowing authority during fiscal year 2007.
OPERATION

AND

MAINTENANCE, SOUTHEASTERN POWER
ADMINISTRATION

Appropriation, 2006 ............................................................................
Budget estimate, 2007 .......................................................................
Recommended, 2007 ...........................................................................
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2006 ....................................................................
Budget estimate, 2007 ................................................................

$5,544,000
5,723,000
5,723,000
+179,000
–––

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS

The Southeastern Power Administration markets the hydroelectric power produced at 23 Corps of Engineers Projects in eleven
states in the southeast. Southeastern does not own or operate any
transmission facilities, so it contracts to ‘‘wheel’’ its power using
the existing transmission facilities of area utilities.
The Committee recommendation for the Southeastern Power Administration is $5,723,000, the same as the budget request. The
total program level for Southeastern in fiscal year 2007 is

VerDate Aug 31 2005

05:42 May 20, 2006

Jkt 027628

PO 00000

Frm 00130

Fmt 6601

Sfmt 6602

E:\HR\OC\HR474.006

HR474

131
$53,726,000, with $48,003,000 for purchase power and wheeling
and $5,723,000 for program direction. The purchase power and
wheeling costs will be offset by collections of $48,003,000 provided
in this Act.
OPERATION

AND

MAINTENANCE, SOUTHWESTERN POWER
ADMINISTRATION

Appropriation, 2006 ............................................................................
Budget estimate, 2007 .......................................................................
Recommended, 2007 ...........................................................................
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2006 ....................................................................
Budget estimate, 2007 ................................................................

$29,864,000
31,539,000
31,539,000
+1,675,000
............................

The Southwestern Power Administration markets the hydroelectric power produced at 24 Corps of Engineers projects in the
six-state area of Arkansas, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Oklahoma
and Texas. Southwestern operates and maintains 1,380 miles of
transmission lines, with the supporting substations and communications sites. Southwestern gives preference in the sale of its
power to publicly and cooperatively owned utilities.
The Committee recommendation for the Southwestern Power Administration is $31,539,000, the same as the budget request. The
total program level for Southwestern in fiscal year 2007 is
$45,139,000, including $7,145,000 for operating expenses,
$13,600,000 for purchase power and wheeling, $20,782,000 for program direction, and $3,612,000 for construction. The offsetting collections total of $13,600,000 from collections for purchase power
and wheeling yields a net appropriation of $31,539,000.
CONSTRUCTION, REHABILITATION, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE,
WESTERN AREA POWER ADMINISTRATION
Appropriation, 2006 ............................................................................
Budget estimate, 2007 .......................................................................
Recommended, 2007 ...........................................................................
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2006 ....................................................................
Budget estimate, 2007 ................................................................

$231,652,000
212,213,000
212,213,000
¥19,439,000
............................

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS

The Western Area Power Administration is responsible for marketing the electric power generated by the Bureau of Reclamation,
the Corps of Engineers, and the International Boundary and Water
Commission. Western also operates and maintains a system of
transmission lines nearly 17,000 miles long. Western provides electricity to 15 Central and Western states over a service area of 1.3
million square miles.
The Committee recommendation for the Western Area Power Administration is $212,213,000, the same as the budget request. The
total program level for Western in fiscal year 2007 is $688,511,000,
which includes $60,205,000 for construction and rehabilitation,
$45,734,000 for system operation and maintenance, $427,931,000
for purchase power and wheeling, and $147,748,000 for program direction. The Committee recommendation includes $6,893,000 for
the Utah Mitigation and Conservation Fund.
Offsetting collections total $472,593,000; with the use of
$3,705,000 of offsetting collections from the Colorado River Dam

VerDate Aug 31 2005

05:42 May 20, 2006

Jkt 027628

PO 00000

Frm 00131

Fmt 6601

Sfmt 6602

E:\HR\OC\HR474.006

HR474

132
Fund (as authorized in P.L. 98–381), this requires a net appropriation of $212,213,000.
Within available funds, the Committee recommendation includes
$6,000,000 to upgrade the Topock-Davis-Mead line including the
interconnection and extension to Needles, CA, to provide additional
transmission capacity by using aluminum matrix composite conductor technology. Within available funds, the Committee recommendation includes $500,000 for Dynamic Engineering Studies
on the TOT–3 and Wyoming West Transmission projects.
FALCON

AND

AMISTAD OPERATING

AND

MAINTENANCE FUND

Appropriation, 2006 ............................................................................
Budget estimate, 2007 .......................................................................
Recommended, 2007 ...........................................................................
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2006 ....................................................................
Budget estimate, 2007 ................................................................

$2,665,000
2,500,000
2,500,000
¥165,000
............................

Falcon Dam and Amistad Dam are two international water
projects located on the Rio Grande River between Texas and Mexico. Power generated by hydroelectric facilities at these two dams
is sold to public utilities through the Western Area Power Administration. The Foreign Relations Authorization Act for Fiscal Years
1994 and 1995 created the Falcon and Amistad Operating and
Maintenance Fund to defray the costs of operation, maintenance,
and emergency activities. The Fund is administered by the Western
Area Power Administration for use by the Commissioner of the
U.S. Section of the International Boundary and Water Commission.
The Committee recommendation is $2,500,000, the same as the
budget request.
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation, 2006 ............................................................................
Budget estimate, 2007 .......................................................................
Recommended, 2007 ...........................................................................
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2006 ....................................................................
Budget estimate, 2007 ................................................................

$218,196,000
230,800,000
230,800,000
+12,604,000
............................

REVENUES APPLIED

Appropriation, 2006 ............................................................................
Budget estimate, 2007 .......................................................................
Recommended, 2007 ...........................................................................
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2006 ....................................................................
Budget estimate, 2007 ................................................................

¥$218,196,000
¥230,800,000
¥230,800,000
¥12,604,000
............................

The Committee recommendation for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) is $230,800,000, the same as the budget
request. Revenues for FERC are established at a rate equal to the
budget authority, resulting in a net appropriation of $0.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS

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

VerDate Aug 31 2005

05:42 May 20, 2006

Jkt 027628

PO 00000

Frm 00132

Fmt 6601

Sfmt 6602

E:\HR\OC\HR474.006

HR474

VerDate Aug 31 2005

05:42 May 20, 2006

Jkt 027628

PO 00000

Frm 00133

Fmt 6601

Sfmt 6602

E:\HR\OC\HR474.006

HR474

Insert graphic folio 028 HR474.028

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS

133

VerDate Aug 31 2005

05:42 May 20, 2006

Jkt 027628

PO 00000

Frm 00134

Fmt 6601

Sfmt 6602

E:\HR\OC\HR474.006

HR474

Insert graphic folio 029 HR474.029

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS

134

VerDate Aug 31 2005

05:42 May 20, 2006

Jkt 027628

PO 00000

Frm 00135

Fmt 6601

Sfmt 6602

E:\HR\OC\HR474.006

HR474

Insert graphic folio 030 HR474.030

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS

135

VerDate Aug 31 2005

05:42 May 20, 2006

Jkt 027628

PO 00000

Frm 00136

Fmt 6601

Sfmt 6602

E:\HR\OC\HR474.006

HR474

Insert graphic folio 031 HR474.031

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS

136

VerDate Aug 31 2005

05:42 May 20, 2006

Jkt 027628

PO 00000

Frm 00137

Fmt 6601

Sfmt 6602

E:\HR\OC\HR474.006

HR474

Insert graphic folio 032 HR474.032

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS

137

VerDate Aug 31 2005

05:42 May 20, 2006

Jkt 027628

PO 00000

Frm 00138

Fmt 6601

Sfmt 6602

E:\HR\OC\HR474.006

HR474

Insert graphic folio 033 HR474.033

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS

138

VerDate Aug 31 2005

05:42 May 20, 2006

Jkt 027628

PO 00000

Frm 00139

Fmt 6601

Sfmt 6602

E:\HR\OC\HR474.006

HR474

Insert graphic folio 034 HR474.034

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS

139

VerDate Aug 31 2005

05:42 May 20, 2006

Jkt 027628

PO 00000

Frm 00140

Fmt 6601

Sfmt 6602

E:\HR\OC\HR474.006

HR474

Insert graphic folio 035 HR474.035

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS

140

VerDate Aug 31 2005

05:42 May 20, 2006

Jkt 027628

PO 00000

Frm 00141

Fmt 6601

Sfmt 6602

E:\HR\OC\HR474.006

HR474

Insert graphic folio 036 HR474.036

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS

141

VerDate Aug 31 2005

05:42 May 20, 2006

Jkt 027628

PO 00000

Frm 00142

Fmt 6601

Sfmt 6602

E:\HR\OC\HR474.006

HR474

Insert graphic folio 037 HR474.037

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS

142

VerDate Aug 31 2005

05:42 May 20, 2006

Jkt 027628

PO 00000

Frm 00143

Fmt 6601

Sfmt 6602

E:\HR\OC\HR474.006

HR474

Insert graphic folio 038 HR474.038

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS

143

VerDate Aug 31 2005

05:42 May 20, 2006

Jkt 027628

PO 00000

Frm 00144

Fmt 6601

Sfmt 6602

E:\HR\OC\HR474.006

HR474

Insert graphic folio 039 HR474.039

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS

144

VerDate Aug 31 2005

05:42 May 20, 2006

Jkt 027628

PO 00000

Frm 00145

Fmt 6601

Sfmt 6602

E:\HR\OC\HR474.006

HR474

Insert graphic folio 040 HR474.040

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS

145

VerDate Aug 31 2005

05:42 May 20, 2006

Jkt 027628

PO 00000

Frm 00146

Fmt 6601

Sfmt 6602

E:\HR\OC\HR474.006

HR474

Insert graphic folio 041 HR474.041

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS

146

VerDate Aug 31 2005

05:42 May 20, 2006

Jkt 027628

PO 00000

Frm 00147

Fmt 6601

Sfmt 6602

E:\HR\OC\HR474.006

HR474

Insert graphic folio 042 HR474.042

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS

147

VerDate Aug 31 2005

05:42 May 20, 2006

Jkt 027628

PO 00000

Frm 00148

Fmt 6601

Sfmt 6602

E:\HR\OC\HR474.006

HR474

Insert graphic folio 043 HR474.043

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS

148

VerDate Aug 31 2005

05:42 May 20, 2006

Jkt 027628

PO 00000

Frm 00149

Fmt 6601

Sfmt 6602

E:\HR\OC\HR474.006

HR474

Insert graphic folio 044 HR474.044

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS

149

VerDate Aug 31 2005

05:42 May 20, 2006

Jkt 027628

PO 00000

Frm 00150

Fmt 6601

Sfmt 6602

E:\HR\OC\HR474.006

HR474

Insert graphic folio 045 HR474.045

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS

150

151
GENERAL PROVISIONS
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS

Contract Competition.—Section 301 modifies language carried in
the conference report for the Energy and Water Development Act,
2004 (P.L. 108–137), requiring the competition of the management
and operating contracts for Ames, Argonne, and Lawrence Livermore. The Committee renews the statutory requirement to compete
these contracts to be sure the Department follows through on the
commitments made by the present Secretary.
Section 301 also reiterates language from previous Energy and
Water Development Acts requiring notification of Congress if the
Secretary awards a management and operating contract in excess
of $100 million in annual funding at a current or former management and operating contract site or facility, or awards a significant
extension or expansion to an existing management and operating
contract, or other contract covered by this section, unless such contract is awarded using competitive procedures, or the Secretary of
Energy grants, on a case-by-case basis, a waiver to allow for such
a deviation. At least 90 days before granting such a waiver, the
Secretary of Energy must submit to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations a report notifying the Committees of the
waiver and setting forth, in specificity, the reasons for the waiver.
Section 301 does not preclude extensions of a contract awarded
using competitive procedures, but does establish a presumption of
competition unless the Secretary invokes the waiver option. The
waiver for non-competitive awards or extensions should be invoked
only in truly exceptional circumstances or in the case of exceptional
performance, not as a matter of routine. A non-competitive award
or extension may be in the taxpayers’ interest, but the burden of
proof is on the Department to make that case in the waiver request.
Workforce Restructuring.—Section 302 provides that none of the
funds in this Act may be used to prepare or implement workforce
restructuring plans or provide enhanced severance payments and
other benefits and community assistance grants for Federal employees of the Department of Energy under section 3161 of the National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 1993, Public Law
102–484. The Committee has provided no funds to implement
workforce restructuring plans which would provide benefits to Federal employees of the Department of Energy which are not available to other Federal employees of the United States Government.
A similar provision was included in the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, 2005.
Section 3161 Assistance.—Section 303 provides that none of the
funds in this Act may be used for enhanced severance payments to
contractors and other benefits and community assistance grants
authorized under the provisions of section 3161 of the National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 1993, Public Law 102–484.
Unfunded Requests for Proposals.—Section 304 provides that
none of the funds in this Act may be used to initiate requests for
proposals or other solicitations or expressions of interest for new
programs which have not yet been presented to Congress in the annual budget submission, and which have not yet been approved

VerDate Aug 31 2005

05:42 May 20, 2006

Jkt 027628

PO 00000

Frm 00151

Fmt 6601

Sfmt 6602

E:\HR\OC\HR474.007

HR474

152

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS

and funded by Congress. A similar provision was included in the
Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, 2005.
Unexpended Balances.—Section 305 permits the transfer and
merger of unexpended balances of prior appropriations with appropriation accounts established in this bill. A similar provision was
included in the Energy and Water Development Appropriations
Act, 2005.
Bonneville Power Administration Service Territory.—Section 306
provides that none of the funds in this or any other Act may be
used by the Administrator of the Bonneville Power Administration
to perform energy efficiency services outside the legally defined
Bonneville service territory unless the Administrator certifies in
advance that such services are not available from private sector
businesses. A similar provision was included in the Energy and
Water Development Appropriations Act, 2005.
User Facilities.—Section 307 establishes certain notice and competition requirements with respect to the involvement of universities in Department of Energy user facilities. A similar provision
was included in the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, 2005. The detailed guidance on the application of this
provision was provided in House Report 107–681 and continues to
apply.
Intelligence Activities.—Section 308 authorizes intelligence activities of the Department of Energy for purposes of section 504 of the
National Security Act of 1947 during fiscal year 2006 until the enactment of the Intelligence Authorization Act for fiscal year 2005.
Laboratory Directed Research and Development.—Section 309
provides for authorization of Laboratory Directed Research and Development (LDRD), Site Directed Research and Development, and
Plant Directed Research and Development (PDRD) activities.
Technology Commercialization Fund.—Section 310 includes a
funding limitation on the Technology Commercialization Fund.
Contractor Pension Benefits.—Sec. 311 includes language prohibiting funding to implement Department of Energy Order N 351.1
modifying contractor employee pension and medical benefits policy
from defined benefit plans to a defined contribution plan.

VerDate Aug 31 2005

05:42 May 20, 2006

Jkt 027628

PO 00000

Frm 00152

Fmt 6601

Sfmt 6602

E:\HR\OC\HR474.007

HR474

TITLE IV
INDEPENDENT AGENCIES
APPALACHIAN REGIONAL COMMISSION
Appropriation, 2006 ............................................................................
Budget estimate, 2007 .......................................................................
Recommended, 2007 ...........................................................................
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2006 ....................................................................
Budget estimate, 2007 ................................................................

$64,817,000
65,472,000
35,472,000
¥29,345,000
¥30,000,000

The Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC) is a regional economic development agency established in 1965. It is comprised of
the Governors of the thirteen Appalachian States and has a Federal co chairman, who is appointed by the President. For fiscal year
2007, the budget includes $65,472,000, of which $54,079,000 is for
program development; $5,301,000 is local development districts and
technical assistance; and $5,437,000 is for salaries and expenses.
The ARC budget justification indicates that it targets fifty percent of its funds to distressed counties or distressed areas in the
Appalachian region. In times of budget austerity, the Committee
believes this should be the primary focus of the ARC. The Committee recommendation for ARC is $35,472,000, $30,000,000 less
than the fiscal year 2005 enacted level and the budget estimate.
The reduction is to be taken from the area development activities
that serve other than distressed counties and distressed areas.
Within the funds provided, the Committee has included the following activities:
Portsmouth, OH, Shawnee State University Motion Capture Facility ........................................................................................................
North Carolina WNC Center for Entrepreneurial Growth ................
North Carolina Blue Ridge Food Ventures ..........................................
Kentucky Bluegrass Pride Wastewater ...............................................
Mahoning County, OH, Petersburg Water Project .............................
Perry County, OH, Clover Hill-Saltillo Waterline Extension ............
Perry County, OH, Village of Corning Wastewater Project ...............
Perry County, OH, New Lexington water treatment facility .............
Ross County, OH, Chillicothe Veteran’s Memorial Stadium ..............
Guernsey County, OH, Sewer Project ..................................................
Ross County, OH, Richmond Dale Sewer Project ...............................
Vinton County, OH, Water Project .......................................................
Carroll County, OH, Village of Leesville Sewer Project .....................
Morgan County, OH, Tri-County Rural Water Project .......................
Central West Virginia Environmental Infra .......................................

$1,050,000
1,000,000
500,000
1,000,000
500,000
290,000
1,000,000
432,000
315,000
750,000
500,000
250,000
500,000
250,000
1,000,000

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS

(153)

VerDate Aug 31 2005

05:42 May 20, 2006

Jkt 027628

PO 00000

Frm 00153

Fmt 6601

Sfmt 6611

E:\HR\OC\HR474.007

HR474

154
DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD
SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation, 2006 ............................................................................
Budget estimate, 2007 .......................................................................
Recommended, 2007 ...........................................................................
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2006 ....................................................................
Budget estimate, 2007 ................................................................

$21,812,000
22,260,000
22,260,000
+448,000
............................

The Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (DNFSB) was created by the Fiscal Year 1989 National Defense Authorization Act.
The Board, composed of five members appointed by the President,
provides advice and recommendations to the Secretary of Energy
regarding public health and safety issues at the Department’s defense nuclear facilities. The Board is responsible for reviewing and
evaluating the content and implementation of the standards relating to the design, construction, operation, and decommissioning of
defense nuclear facilities of the Department of Energy. The Committee recommendation for fiscal year 2007 is $22,260,000, the
same as the budget request.
The Committee is disappointed in the Board’s oversight of the
Hanford Waste Treatment and Immobilization project (WTP). This
is not a criticism of the professionals who performed the role, rather an acknowledgement that the mission, mandate and resources
of the Board do not provide the rigor of oversight necessary in the
construction of a first-of-a-kind nuclear facility with an environmental mission. As such, the Committee directs the Board to close
out its oversight activities with the WTP, coinciding with the beginning of the oversight activities of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). The Committee directs the Board to work with the Department and the NRC on this transition plan, and report to the
Committee within 30 days of enactment of this bill on the plan.
Funds proposed for fiscal year 2007 that otherwise would be used
for Board oversight of WTP may be distributed to other high priority projects within the Board’s mission.
DELTA REGIONAL COMMISSION
Appropriation, 2006 ............................................................................
Budget estimate, 2007 .......................................................................
Recommended, 2007 ...........................................................................
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2006 ....................................................................
Budget estimate, 2007 ................................................................

$11,880,000
5,940,000
5,940,000
¥5,940,000
............................

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS

The Delta Regional Authority (DRA) is a federal-state partnership serving a 240-county/parish area in an eight-state region. Led
by a Federal Co-Chairman and the governors of each participating
state, the DRA is designed to remedy severe and chronic economic
distress by stimulating economic development and fostering partnerships that will have a positive impact on the region’s economy.
The DRA seeks to help economically distressed communities leverage other federal and state programs, which are focused on basic
infrastructure development and transportation improvements, business development, and job training services. Under federal law, at
least 75 percent of funds must be invested in distressed counties
and parishes and pockets of poverty, with 50 percent of the funds

VerDate Aug 31 2005

05:42 May 20, 2006

Jkt 027628

PO 00000

Frm 00154

Fmt 6601

Sfmt 6602

E:\HR\OC\HR474.007

HR474

155
earmarked for transportation and basic infrastructure improvements. For fiscal year 2007, the Committee recommends
$5,940,000, the same as the enacted level and the budget estimate.
DENALI COMMISSION
Appropriation, 2006 ............................................................................
Budget estimate, 2007 .......................................................................
Recommended, 2007 ...........................................................................
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2006 ....................................................................
Budget estimate, 2007 ................................................................

$49,500,000
2,536,000
7,536,000
¥41,964,000
+5,000,000

Introduced by Congress in 1998, the Denali Commission is a federal-state partnership designed to provide critical utilities, infrastructure, and economic support throughout Alaska. For fiscal year
2007, the Committee recommends $7,536,000 for the costs of the
Commission’s operations, an increase of $5,000,000 over the budget
estimate. The Committee provides the $5,000,000 increase for
Phase 2 of the coal to synthetic gas Blue Sky Project project located
in Kenai, Alaska.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation, 2006 ............................................................................
Budget estimate, 2007 .......................................................................
Recommended, 2007 ...........................................................................
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2006 ....................................................................
Budget estimate, 2007 ................................................................

$727,032,000
768,410,000
808,410,000
+81,378,000
+40,000,000

REVENUES

Appropriation, 2006 ............................................................................
Budget estimate, 2007 .......................................................................
Recommended, 2007 ...........................................................................
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2006 ....................................................................
Budget estimate, 2007 ................................................................

¥611,010,000
¥628,328,000
¥656,328,000
¥45,318,000
¥36,000,000

NET APPROPRIATION

Appropriation, 2006 ............................................................................
Budget estimate, 2007 .......................................................................
Recommended, 2007 ...........................................................................
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2006 ....................................................................
Budget estimate, 2007 ................................................................

116,022,000
148,896,000
152,082,000
+36,060,000
+4,000,000

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS

The Committee recommendation for the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) salaries and expenses for fiscal year 2007 is
$808,410,000, an increase of $40,000,000 over the budget request.
The Committee provides an additional $40,000,000 of budget authority to prepare for the anticipated growth in new reactor licensing. The additional funds are available to hire, relocate, and train
additional staff, support pre-application activities not chargeable to
a specific licensee, and build out, equip, and rent additional office
space. The total amount of budget authority is offset by estimated
revenues of $656,328,000, resulting in a net appropriation of
$152,082,000. The recommendation includes the requested amount
of $40,981,840 to be derived from the Nuclear Waste Fund to sup-

VerDate Aug 31 2005

05:42 May 20, 2006

Jkt 027628

PO 00000

Frm 00155

Fmt 6601

Sfmt 6602

E:\HR\OC\HR474.007

HR474

156

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS

port the Department of Energy’s effort to develop a permanent geologic repository at Yucca Mountain for spent nuclear fuel and highlevel waste.
Fee Recovery.—The Committee recommendation assumes that
the NRC will recover 90 percent of its budget authority from user
fees and annual charges, as authorized in Section 637 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109–58), less the appropriation derived from the Nuclear Waste Fund, the amount necessary to implement Section 3116 of the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (P.L. 108–375), and the
amount necessary for homeland security activities of the Commission. Of the $808,410,000 gross appropriation for fiscal year 2007,
$40,981,840 is drawn from the Nuclear Waste Fund, $2,867,000 is
drawn from the General Fund of the Treasury to execute NRC’s responsibilities to provide oversight of certain Department of Energy
activities under Section 3116 of Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (P.L 108–375), and
$35,308,000 is drawn from the General Fund of the Treasury to
execute NRC’s homeland security responsibilities. Ninety percent of
the balance of $729,253,160 (i.e., $656,328,000) is funded by fees
collected from NRC licensees, and the remaining 10 percent (i.e.,
$72,925,000) is funded from the General Fund of the Treasury.
NRC Oversight of Hanford Waste Treatment Plant.—The NRC
had significant involvement in the Waste Treatment Plant (WTP)
at Hanford during 1997–2000. When the Department of Energy
(DOE) was pursuing its privatization strategy for the WTP, the
NRC would have been responsible for licensing the private facility.
When DOE terminated the privatization approach in 2000, the
NRC role at Hanford was also terminated, as DOE intended to selfregulate itself and its contractor for the new non-privatized WTP.
As detailed elsewhere in this report, there are major cost overruns
and schedule delays for the WTP. In addition, there are technical
and management problems with this project that have very significant nuclear safety implications. Because of these concerns, because of the NRC’s past involvement with the privatized precursor
to WTP, and because of the NRC’s current role at Idaho and Savannah River with respect to Waste Incidental to Reprocessing, the
Committee directs the NRC to provide nuclear safety oversight of
the WTP. Elsewhere in this report, the Committee directs the DOE
to transfer $10,000,000 to the NRC and to conclude a Memorandum of Understanding with the NRC to define the scope of
these oversight responsibilities. The Committee does not intend by
this action to give the NRC the authority to license or otherwise
regulate the WTP.
Reports.—The Committee directs the Commission to continue to
provide quarterly reports on the status of its licensing and other
regulatory activities. In addition, the Committee directs the NRC
to submit a report to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations, not later than February 28, 2007, that provides Congress
and interested parties with a comprehensive roadmap on the actions and tasks that must be completed prior to and during the
new plant application process. The roadmap should allow for the
early identification of issues requiring management intervention to
maintain established licensing schedules. The Committee has been

VerDate Aug 31 2005

05:42 May 20, 2006

Jkt 027628

PO 00000

Frm 00156

Fmt 6601

Sfmt 6602

E:\HR\OC\HR474.007

HR474

157
very supportive of the Commission in recent years by providing
substantial additional resources to meet an anticipated round of
new plant licensing activities. The Committee believes the NRC
should use these additional resources, both from taxpayer funds
and from licensees, to conduct an efficient, understandable, and
predictable licensing process. Further, this roadmap report should
include, at a minimum: detailed schedules for the completion of the
revised Standard Review Plan, Early Site Permit (ESP) applications, design certification applications, Combined Operating License (COL) applications, the Part 52 rulemaking, and all related
guidance documents; details on current and future activities to improve the 21-month goal for completing the FSAR and FEIS for
ESP applications, and the 42-month goal of completing action on
COL applications. Thereafter, the Committee expects to be notified
promptly of any changes or additions to the schedules and plans
listed in the initial report, the reasons for the change, and efforts
underway to ameliorate or eliminate delays. Included in these
monthly reports should be an update on the number of new hires,
including the organizational location of permanent assignments for
each.
OFFICE

OF INSPECTOR

GENERAL

GROSS APPROPRIATION

Appropriation, 2006 ............................................................................
Budget estimate, 2007 .......................................................................
Recommended, 2007 ...........................................................................
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2006 ....................................................................
Budget estimate, 2007 ................................................................

$8,233,000
8,144,000
8,144,000
¥89,000
............................

REVENUES

Appropriation, 2006 ............................................................................
Budget estimate, 2007 .......................................................................
Recommended, 2007 ...........................................................................
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2006 ....................................................................
Budget estimate, 2007 ................................................................

¥$7,410,000
¥7,330,000
¥7,330,000
+80,000
............................

NET APPROPRIATION

Appropriation, 2006 ............................................................................
Budget estimate, 2007 .......................................................................
Recommended, 2007 ...........................................................................
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2006 ....................................................................
Budget estimate, 2007 ................................................................

$823,000
814,000
814,000
¥9,000
............................

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $8,144,000, the
same as the budget request. Given the formula for fee recovery, the
revenue estimate is $7,330,000, resulting in a net appropriation for
the NRC Inspector General of $814,000.

VerDate Aug 31 2005

05:42 May 20, 2006

Jkt 027628

PO 00000

Frm 00157

Fmt 6601

Sfmt 6602

E:\HR\OC\HR474.007

HR474

158
NUCLEAR WASTE TECHNICAL REVIEW BOARD
Appropriation, 2006 ............................................................................
Budget estimate, 2007 .......................................................................
Recommended, 2007 ...........................................................................
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2006 ....................................................................
Budget estimate, 2007 ................................................................

$3,572,000
3,670,000
3,670,000
+98,000
............................

The Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board was established by
the 1987 amendments to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 to
provide independent technical oversight of the Department of Energy’s nuclear waste disposal program. The Committee sees the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board as having a continuing independent oversight role, as is specified in Section 503 of the Nuclear
Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended, as the Department begins
to focus on the packaging and transportation of high-level radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel.
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $3,670,000 for
the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board in fiscal year 2007, the
same as the budget request and an increase of $98,000 over fiscal
year 2006 funding.
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY
OFFICE

OF INSPECTOR

GENERAL

GROSS APPROPRIATION

Appropriation, 2006 ............................................................................
Budget estimate, 2007 .......................................................................
Recommended, 2007 ...........................................................................
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2006 ....................................................................
Budget estimate, 2007 ................................................................

............................
$15,100,000
............................
............................
¥15,100,000

OFFSET FROM TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY FUND
Appropriation, 2006 ............................................................................
Budget estimate, 2007 .......................................................................
Recommended, 2007 ...........................................................................
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2006 ....................................................................
Budget estimate, 2007 ................................................................

............................
¥15,100,000
............................
............................
+15,100,00

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS

The Committee recommendation does not include the Administration proposal to establish a Congressionally-funded Office of Inspector General to oversee the Tennessee Valley Authority. In recent years, the TVA has funded the requests of the TVA–IG office
out of power revenues and receipts. This process has worked well
and the Committee sees no compelling reason to change that mechanism for financing the TVA–IG.
Reports.—The Committee directs the Inspector General to forward copies of all audit and inspection reports to the Committee
immediately after they are issued, and immediately make the Committee aware of any review that recommends cancellation of, or
modification to, any major acquisition project or grant, or which
recommends significant budgetary savings. The Inspector General
is also directed to withhold from public distribution for a period of
15 days any final audit or investigation report that was requested
by the House Committee on Appropriations.

VerDate Aug 31 2005

05:42 May 20, 2006

Jkt 027628

PO 00000

Frm 00158

Fmt 6601

Sfmt 6602

E:\HR\OC\HR474.007

HR474

TITLE V
GENERAL PROVISIONS
The Committee recommendation includes several general provisions pertaining to specific programs and activities funded in the
Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act.
Prohibition on lobbying.—The bill includes a provision that none
of the funds appropriated in this Act may be used in any way, directly or indirectly, to influence congressional action on any legislation or appropriation matters pending before Congress, other than
to communicate to Members of Congress as described in section
1913 of Title 18, United States Code.
Transfers.—The bill includes language regarding the transfer of
funds made available in this Act to other departments or agencies
of the Federal government.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES REPORT REQUIREMENTS
The following items are included in accordance with various requirements of the Rules of the House of Representatives.
CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY
Clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives states that:
Each report of a committee on a public bill or public
Joint resolution shall contain the following: (1) A statement citing the specific powers granted to Congress in the
Constitution to enact the law proposed by the bill or joint
resolution.
The Committee on Appropriations bases its authority to report
this legislation from Clause 7 of Section 9 of Article I of the Constitution of the United States of America which states:
No money shall be drawn from the Treasury but in consequence of Appropriations made by law.
Appropriations contained in this Act are made pursuant to this
specific power granted by the Constitution.
COMPARISON WITH BUDGET RESOLUTION
Clause 3(c)2 of ru1e XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives requires an explanation of compliance with section
308(a)(1)(A) of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control
Act of 1974 (Public Law 93–344), as amended, which requires that
the report accompanying a bill providing new budget authority contain a statement detailing how that authority compares with the
reports submitted under section 302 of the Act for the most reycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS

(159)

VerDate Aug 31 2005

05:42 May 20, 2006

Jkt 027628

PO 00000

Frm 00159

Fmt 6601

Sfmt 6601

E:\HR\OC\HR474.007

HR474

160
cently agreed to concurrent resolution on the budget for the fiscal
year from the Committee’s section 302(a) allocation. This information follows:
[in millions of dollars]
302(b) Allocation
Budget authority

Discretionary ..................................................................................
Mandatory ......................................................................................

STATEMENT

OF

30,017
....................

This bill
Budget authority

Outlays

31,414
5

GENERAL PERFORMANCE GOALS

Outlays

30,017
....................

AND

31,411
5

OBJECTIVES

Pursuant to clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House
of Representatives, the following is a statement of general performance goals and objectives for which this measure authorizes funding:
The Committee on Appropriations considers program performance, including a program’s success in developing and attaining outcome-related goals and objectives, in developing
funding recommendations.
FIVE-YEAR OUTLAY PROJECTIONS
In compliance with section 308(a)(1)(B) of the Congressional
Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (Public Law 933–
44), as amended, the following table contains five-year projections
associated with the budget authority in the accompanying bill:
Millions

Budget Authority ................................................................................
Outlays:
2007 ..............................................................................................
2008 ..............................................................................................
2009 ..............................................................................................
2010 ..............................................................................................
2011 and beyond ..........................................................................

ASSISTANCE

TO

STATE

AND

$30,017
18,787
9,005
2,022
151
65

LOCAL GOVERNMENTS

In accordance with section 308(a)(1)(C) of the Congressional
Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (Public Law 933–
44), as amended, the financial assistance to State and local governments is as follows:
Millions

Budget authority ................................................................................
Fiscal year 2006 outlays resulting therefrom ..................................

TRANSFER

OF

$45
7

FUNDS

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS

Pursuant to clause 3(f)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House
of Representatives, the following is submitted describing the transfer of funds provided in the accompanying bill.
Under Title II, Bureau of Reclamation, Water and Related Resources:
• of which $57,298,000 shall be available or transfer to
the Upper Colorado River Basin Fund $26,952,000 and

VerDate Aug 31 2005

05:42 May 20, 2006

Jkt 027628

PO 00000

Frm 00160

Fmt 6601

Sfmt 6601

E:\HR\OC\HR474.007

HR474

161
shall be available for transfer to the Lower Colorado River
Basin Development Fund; of which such amounts as may
be necessary may be advanced to the Colorado River Dam
Fund; * * *
• Provided further, That such transfers may be increased or decreased within the overall appropriations
under this heading: * * *
Under Title III, General Provisions:
Sec. 305.—The unexpended balances of prior appropriations provided for activities in this Act may be transferred
to appropriation accounts for such activities established
pursuant to this title. Balances so transferred may be
merged with funds in the applicable established accounts
and thereafter may be accounted for as one fund for the
same time period as originally enacted.
CHANGES

IN THE

APPLICATION

OF

EXISTING LAW

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

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS

Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, General
Investigations, providing for detailed studies and plans and specifications of projects prior to construction.
Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, General
Investigations, providing that amounts made available under this
paragraph shall be provided in accordance with the terms and conditions specified in the report accompanying this Act.
Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, Construction, to provide appropriations that remain available until expended for South Florida Everglades Restoration projects.
Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, Construction, permitting the use of funds from the Inland Waterways Trust
Fund and the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund.
Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, Construction, providing that amounts made available under this paragraph
shall be provided in accordance with the terms and conditions specified in the report accompanying this Act.
Language has been included under the Corps of Engineers, Operation and Maintenance, stating that funds can be used for: providing security at facilities owned and operated by or on behalf of
the Corps of Engineers, including the Washington Aqueduct; maintenance of harbor channels provided by a State, municipality, or
other public agency that serve essential navigation needs of general
commerce; and surveys and charting of northern and northwestern
lakes and connecting waters, clearing and straightening channels,
and removing obstructions to navigation.
Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, Operation and Maintenance, permitting the use of funds from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund; providing for the use of funds from
a special account for resource protection, research, interpretation,

VerDate Aug 31 2005

05:42 May 20, 2006

Jkt 027628

PO 00000

Frm 00161

Fmt 6601

Sfmt 6601

E:\HR\OC\HR474.007

HR474

162

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS

and maintenance activities at outdoor recreation areas; and allowing use of funds to cover the cost of operation and maintenance of
dredged material disposal facilities for which fees have been collected.
Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, Operations and Maintenance, providing that amounts made available
under this paragraph shall be provided in accordance with the
terms and conditions specified in the report accompanying this Act.
Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, General
Expenses, regarding support of the Humphreys Engineer Support
Center Activity, the Institute for Water Resources, the United
States Army Corps of Engineers Research and Development Center, and headquarters support functions at the United States Army
Corps of Engineers Finance Center.
Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, General
Expenses, prohibiting the use of funds other funds in this Act for
the Office of the Chief of Engineers and the division offices.
Language has been included to provide for funding for the Office
of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works).
Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, Administrative Provisions, providing that funds are available for official reception and representation expenses, and for purchase and hire of
motor vehicles.
Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, General
Provisions, pertaining to the reprogramming of funds contained in
title I of this Act.
Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, General
Provisions, pertaining to the oversight and execution of continuing
contracts.
Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, General
Provisions, prohibiting the execution of any continuing contract
that reserves an amount for a project in excess of the amount appropriated for such project in this Act.
Language has been included prohibiting the use of funds in this
Act to carry out the construction of the Port Jersey element of the
New York and New Jersey Harbor or reimbursement to the local
sponsor for the construction of the Port Jersey element until commitments for construction of container handling facilities are obtained from the non-Federal sponsor for a second user along the
Port Jersey element.
Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, General
Provisions, prohibiting the expenditure of funds for operation or
maritime related maintenance of the hopper dredge McFarland.
Language has been included prohibiting the expenditure of funds
to prevent or limit any reprogramming of funds for a project to be
carried out by the Crops of Engineers.
Language has been included relating to the repayment of the Department of Treasury’s Judgment Fund.
Language has been included relating to the funding of A–76
studies.
Language has been included relating to Elk Creek Dam, Oregon.
Language has been included relating to the master control plans
and master manuals of the Corps of Engineers for the Alabama,
Coosa, Tallapoosa River basin in Alabama and Georgia or the Apa-

VerDate Aug 31 2005

05:42 May 20, 2006

Jkt 027628

PO 00000

Frm 00162

Fmt 6601

Sfmt 6601

E:\HR\OC\HR474.007

HR474

163
lachicola, Chattahoochee, Flint River Basin in Alabama, Georgia,
and Florida.
TITLE II—DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS

Language has been included under Bureau of Reclamation,
Water and Related Resources providing that funds are available for
fulfilling Federal responsibilities to Native Americans and for
grants to and cooperative agreements with State and local governments and Indian tribes.
Language has been included under Bureau of Reclamation,
Water and Related Resources allowing fund transfers within the
overall appropriation to the Upper Colorado River Basin Fund and
the Lower Colorado River Basin Development Fund; providing that
such sums as necessary may be advanced to the Colorado River
Dam Fund; providing that funds may be used for work carried out
by the Youth Conservation Corps; and providing that transfers may
be increased or decreased within the overall appropriation.
Language has been included under Bureau of Reclamation,
Water and Related Resources providing that funds may be derived
from the Reclamation Fund or the special fee account established
by 16 U.S.C. 4601–6a(i); that funds contributed under 43 U.S.C.
395 by non-Federal entities shall be available for expenditure; and
that funds advanced under 43 U.S.C. 397a for operation and maintenance of reclamation facilities are to be credited to the Water and
Related Resources account. Language has been included under Bureau of Reclamation, Water and Related Resources permitting the
use of funds available for the Departmental Irrigation Drainage
Program for site remediation on a non-reimbursable basis.
Language has been included under Bureau of Reclamation, Central Valley Project Restoration Fund directing the Bureau of Reclamation to assess and collect the full amount of additional mitigation and restoration payments authorized by section 3407(d) of
Public Law 102–575.
Language has been included under Bureau of Reclamation, Central Valley Project Restoration Fund providing that none of the
funds under the heading may be used for the acquisition or lease
of water for in-stream purposes if the water is already committed
to in-stream purposes by a court order adopted by consent or decree.
Language has been included under Bureau of Reclamation, California Bay-Delta Restoration permitting the transfer of funds to appropriate accounts of other participating Federal agencies to carry
out authorized programs; providing that funds made available
under this heading may be used for the Federal share of the costs
of the CALFED Program management; providing that use of any
funds provided to the California Bay-Delta Authority for
programwide management and oversight activities shall be subject
to the approval of the Secretary of the Interior; providing that
CALFED implementation shall be carried out with clear performance measures demonstrating concurrent progress in achieving the
goals and objectives of the program.
Language has been included under Bureau of Reclamation, Policy and Administration providing that funds may be derived from
the Reclamation Fund and providing that no part of any other ap-

VerDate Aug 31 2005

05:42 May 20, 2006

Jkt 027628

PO 00000

Frm 00163

Fmt 6601

Sfmt 6601

E:\HR\OC\HR474.007

HR474

164
propriation in the Act shall be available for activities budgeted as
policy and administration.
Language has been included under Bureau of Reclamation, Administrative Provisions providing for the purchase of motor vehicles.
Language has been included under Title II, General Provisions,
regarding the San Luis Unit and the Kesterson Reservoir in California. This language has been carried in prior appropriations Acts.
Language has been included under Title II, General Provisions,
prohibiting the use of funds for any water acquisition or lease in
the Middle Rio Grande or Carlsbad Projects in New Mexico unless
the acquisition is in compliance with existing state law and administered under state priority allocation.
TITLE III—DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS

Language has been included under Clean Coal Technology rescinding prior year balances.
Language has been included under Fossil Energy Research and
Development providing for vehicle and guard services, and uniform
allowances; providing funding and limitations for the FutureGen
program; specifying certain conditions for the Clean Coal Power
Initiative; and, prohibiting the field-testing of nuclear explosives
for the recovery of oil and gas.
Language has been included under the Naval Petroleum and Oil
Shale Reserves, permitting the use of unobligated balances, and
the hire of passenger vehicles.
Language has been included under the Strategic Petroleum Reserve providing for vehicle, aircraft, and guard services, and uniform allowances.
Language has been included under Non-Defense Environmental
Cleanup providing for the purchase of motor vehicles.
Language has been included under Science providing for the purchase of motor vehicles.
Language has been included under Nuclear Waste Disposal limiting the use of external oversight funds.
Language has been included under Departmental Administration, notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, and consistent with the authorization in Public Law 95–238, to permit the Department of Energy to use revenues to offset appropriations. The appropriations
language for this account reflects the total estimated program
funding to be reduced as revenues are received. This language has
been carried in prior appropriations Acts.
Language has been included under Departmental Administration
providing, notwithstanding the provisions of the Anti-Deficiency
Act, such additional amounts as necessary to cover increases in the
estimated amount of cost of work for others, as long as such increases are offset by revenue increases of the same or greater
amounts. This language has been carried in prior appropriations
Acts.
Language has been included under Departmental Administration
providing not to exceed $35,000 for official reception and representation expenses.
Language has been included under Weapons Activities providing
for the purchase of motor vehicles.

VerDate Aug 31 2005

05:42 May 20, 2006

Jkt 027628

PO 00000

Frm 00164

Fmt 6601

Sfmt 6601

E:\HR\OC\HR474.007

HR474

165

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS

Language has been included under the Office of the Administrator providing not to exceed $12,000 for official reception and representation expenses.
Language has been included under Defense Environmental
Cleanup for the purchase, construction, and acquisition of plant
and capital equipment. Language has also been included requiring
the completion of a memorandum of understanding between the
Department of Energy and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Language has been included under Other Defense Activities providing for the purchase of motor vehicles.
Language has been included under Bonneville Power Administration Fund providing not to exceed $1,500 for official reception and
representation expenses, and precluding any new direct loan obligations. Language has also been included providing for expenditure
of funds on specific fish recovery projects.
Language has been included under Southwestern Power Administration providing that, not withstanding the provisions of 31
U.S.C. 3302, amounts collected to recover purchase power and
wheeling expenses shall be credited to the account as offsetting collections and remain available until expended for the sole purpose
of making purchase power and wheeling expenditures, and to provide not to exceed $1,500 for official reception and representation
expenses.
Language has been included under Construction, Rehabilitation,
Operation and Maintenance, Western Area Power Administration,
providing not to exceed $1,500 for official reception and representation expenses.
Language has been included under Construction, Rehabilitation,
Operation and Maintenance, Western Area Power Administration,
providing that, not withstanding the provisions of 31 U.S.C. 3302,
amounts collected to recover purchase power and wheeling expenses shall be credited to the account as offsetting collections and
remain available until expended for the sole purpose of making
purchase power and wheeling expenditures.
Language has been included under Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission to permit the hire of passenger motor vehicles, to provide official reception and representation expenses, and to permit
the use of revenues collected to reduce the appropriation as revenues are received. This language has been included in prior appropriation Acts.
Language has been included under Department of Energy, General Provisions, Section 301, providing that none of the funds may
be used to make payments for a noncompetitive management and
operating contract unless certain conditions are met.
Language has been included under Department of Energy, General Provisions, Section 302, prohibiting the use of funds to prepare
workforce restructuring plans or to provide enhanced severance
payments and other benefits for Department of Energy employees
under section 3161 of Public Law 102–484.
Language has been included under Department of Energy, General Provisions, Section 303, prohibiting the use of funds to augment the funding provided for section 3161 of Public Law 102–484
unless a reprogramming is submitted to the Committee.

VerDate Aug 31 2005

05:42 May 20, 2006

Jkt 027628

PO 00000

Frm 00165

Fmt 6601

Sfmt 6601

E:\HR\OC\HR474.007

HR474

166
Language has been included under Department of Energy, General Provisions, Section 304, prohibiting the use of funds to prepare
or initiate requests for proposals or other solicitations for programs
that have not yet been funded by Congress.
Language has been included under Department of Energy, General Provisions, Section 305, providing that unexpended balances of
prior appropriations may be transferred and merged with new appropriation accounts established in this Act.
Language has been included under Department of Energy, General Provisions, Section 306, prohibiting the Administrator of the
Bonneville Power Administration to enter into any agreement to
perform energy efficiency services outside the legally defined Bonneville service territory.
Language has been included under Department of Energy, General Provisions, Section 307, requiring the Department of Energy
to ensure broad public notice when it makes a user facility available to universities and other potential users or seeks input regarding significant characteristics or equipment in a user facility or a
proposed user facility, and requiring competition when the Department partners with a university or other entity for the establishment or operation of a user facility.
Language has been included under Department of Energy, General Provisions, Section 308, providing that funds for intelligence
activities are deemed to be specifically authorized for purposes of
section 504 of the National Security Act of 1947 during fiscal year
2007 until enactment of the Intelligence Authorization Act for fiscal
year 2007.
Language has been included under Department of Energy, General Provisions, Section 309, regarding the laboratory directed research and development activities.
Language has been included under Department of Energy, General Provisions, Section 310, prohibiting a tax on research and development activities to fund the Technology Commercialization
Fund.
Language has been included under Department of Energy, General Provisions, Section 311, prohibiting funding to implement Department of Energy Order N 351.1 modifying contractor employee
pension and medical benefits policy.
TITLE V—GENERAL PROVISIONS

Language has been included under General Provisions, prohibiting the use of funds in this Act to influence congressional action
on any legislation or appropriation matters pending before Congress.
Language has been included under General Provisions, prohibiting the transfer of funds in this Act except pursuant to a transfer
made by, or transfer authority provided in, this Act or any other
appropriation Act.
COMPLIANCE WITH CLAUSE 3

OF

RULE XIII (RAMSEYER RULE)

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS

In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, there are no changes in existing law
made by the bill.

VerDate Aug 31 2005

05:42 May 20, 2006

Jkt 027628

PO 00000

Frm 00166

Fmt 6601

Sfmt 6601

E:\HR\OC\HR474.007

HR474

167
APPROPRIATIONS NOT AUTHORIZED

BY

LAW

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS

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

VerDate Aug 31 2005

05:42 May 20, 2006

Jkt 027628

PO 00000

Frm 00167

Fmt 6601

Sfmt 6601

E:\HR\OC\HR474.007

HR474

VerDate Aug 31 2005

05:42 May 20, 2006

Jkt 027628

PO 00000

Frm 00168

Fmt 6601

Sfmt 6601

E:\HR\OC\HR474.007

HR474

Insert graphic folio 046 HR474.046

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS

168

169
RESCISSIONS
Pursuant to clause 3(f)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House
of Representatives, the following table is submitted describing the
rescissions recommended in the accompanying bill:
RESCISSIONS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL
Department or Activity

Amount

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS

Bureau of Reclamation: At Risk Desert Terminal Lakes Program ...
Corps of Engineers: Construction .........................................................
Department of Energy: Clean Coal Technology ..................................

VerDate Aug 31 2005

05:42 May 20, 2006

Jkt 027628

PO 00000

Frm 00169

Fmt 6601

Sfmt 6611

E:\HR\OC\HR474.007

$88,000,000
56,046,000
257,000,000

HR474

VerDate Aug 31 2005

05:42 May 20, 2006

Jkt 027628

PO 00000

Frm 00170

Fmt 6601

Sfmt 6602

E:\HR\OC\HR474.007

HR474

Insert graphic folio 047 HR474.047

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS

170

VerDate Aug 31 2005

05:42 May 20, 2006

Jkt 027628

PO 00000

Frm 00171

Fmt 6601

Sfmt 6602

E:\HR\OC\HR474.007

HR474

Insert graphic folio 048 HR474.048

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS

171

VerDate Aug 31 2005

05:42 May 20, 2006

Jkt 027628

PO 00000

Frm 00172

Fmt 6601

Sfmt 6602

E:\HR\OC\HR474.007

HR474

Insert graphic folio 049 HR474.049

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS

172

VerDate Aug 31 2005

05:42 May 20, 2006

Jkt 027628

PO 00000

Frm 00173

Fmt 6601

Sfmt 6602

E:\HR\OC\HR474.007

HR474

Insert graphic folio 050 HR474.050

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS

173

VerDate Aug 31 2005

05:42 May 20, 2006

Jkt 027628

PO 00000

Frm 00174

Fmt 6601

Sfmt 6602

E:\HR\OC\HR474.007

HR474

Insert graphic folio 051 HR474.051

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS

174

VerDate Aug 31 2005

05:42 May 20, 2006

Jkt 027628

PO 00000

Frm 00175

Fmt 6601

Sfmt 6602

E:\HR\OC\HR474.007

HR474

Insert graphic folio 052 HR474.052

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS

175

VerDate Aug 31 2005

05:42 May 20, 2006

Jkt 027628

PO 00000

Frm 00176

Fmt 6601

Sfmt 6602

E:\HR\OC\HR474.007

HR474

Insert graphic folio 053 HR474.053

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS

176

VerDate Aug 31 2005

05:42 May 20, 2006

Jkt 027628

PO 00000

Frm 00177

Fmt 6601

Sfmt 6602

E:\HR\OC\HR474.007

HR474

Insert graphic folio 054 HR474.054

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS

177

VerDate Aug 31 2005

05:42 May 20, 2006

Jkt 027628

PO 00000

Frm 00178

Fmt 6601

Sfmt 6602

E:\HR\OC\HR474.007

HR474

Insert graphic folio 055 HR474.055

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS

178