35–894 

110TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1st Session 110–185 

ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS 

BILL, 2008 

JUNE 11, 2007.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of 

the Union and ordered to be printed 

Mr. VISCLOSKY, from the Committee on Appropriations, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

together with 

ADDITIONAL VIEWS 

[To accompany H.R. 2641] 

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, 2008, and for other purposes. 

INDEX TO BILL AND REPORT 

Page Number 

Bill Report 

Introduction ................................................................................................ ........ 5 

I. Department of Defense—Civil: 

Corps of Engineers—Civil: 

Introduction .................................................................................. ........ 9 

Investigations ............................................................................... 2 23 

Construction ................................................................................. 2 27 

Mississippi River and Tributaries .............................................. 4 31 

Operation and Maintenance ....................................................... 4 33 

Regulatory Program ..................................................................... 7 35 

Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies .................................... 7 36 

Expenses ....................................................................................... 7 36 

Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) 8 37 

General Provisions ....................................................................... 8 37 

II. Department of the Interior: 

Central Utah Project Completion Account ........................................ 10 38 

Bureau of Reclamation: 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
2 

Page Number 

Bill Report 

Fiscal Year 2008 Budget Overview ............................................ ........ 39 

Water and Related Resources ..................................................... 11 40 

Central Valley Project Restoration Fund ................................... 12 46 

California Bay-Delta Restoration ............................................... 13 47 

Policy and Administration .......................................................... 14 48 

General Provisions ....................................................................... 15 48 

III. Department of Energy: 

Introduction ......................................................................................... ........ 49 

Energy Supply and Conservation ...................................................... ........ 58 

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy ........................................ 16 59 

Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability ...................................... 16 65 

Nuclear Energy ................................................................................... 17 66 

Clean Coal Technology ....................................................................... 17 72 

Fossil Energy Research and Development ........................................ 17 72 

Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves ......................................... 19 75 

Strategic Petroleum Reserve .............................................................. 19 76 

Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve ............................................... 20 76 

Energy Information Administration .................................................. 20 77 

Non-Defense Environmental Management ....................................... ........ 77 

Non-Defense Environmental Cleanup ............................................... 20 78 

Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning 

Fund ................................................................................................. 21 79 

Science ................................................................................................. 21 80 

Nuclear Waste Disposal ...................................................................... 21 87 

Environment, Safety and Health ....................................................... 24 88 

Innovative Technology Loan Guarantee Program ............................ 24 89 

Departmental Administration ............................................................ 25 90 

Office of Inspector General ................................................................. 26 92 

Atomic Energy Defense Activities: 

National Nuclear Security Administration: 

Weapons Activities ................................................................... 26 93 

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation .......................................... 27 107 

Naval Reactors ......................................................................... 27 114 

Office of the Administrator ...................................................... 27 115 

Defense Environmental Management ........................................ ........ 115 

Defense Environmental Cleanup ................................................ 28 118 

Other Defense Activities ............................................................. 28 123 

Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal ................................................ 29 126 

Power Marketing Administrations: 

Bonneville Power Administration ............................................... 29 126 

Southeastern Power Administration .......................................... 29 127 

Southwestern Power Administration ......................................... 30 127 

Western Power Administration .................................................. 31 128 

Falcon and Amistad Operating and Maintenance Fund .......... 32 128 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ........................................... 32 129 

Committee Recommendation .............................................................. ........ 129 

General Provisions .............................................................................. 33 150 

IV. Independent Agencies: 

Appalachian Regional Commission ................................................... 37 151 

Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board ........................................... 37 151 

Delta Regional Commission ............................................................... 38 152 

Denali Commission ............................................................................. 38 153 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission ....................................................... 38 153 

Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board ........................................... 39 155 

Federal Coordinator for Alaska Natural Gas Transportation 

Projects ............................................................................................. 40 156 

Tennessee Valley Authority ............................................................... ........ 156 

V. General Provisions: 40 157 

House of Representatives Report Requirements ........ 157 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
3 

SUMMARY OF ESTIMATES AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee has considered budget estimates, which are contained in the Budget of the United States Government, 2008. The 

following table summarizes appropriations for fiscal year 2007, the 

budget estimates, and amounts recommended in the bill for fiscal 

year 2008. 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
4 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPTInsert graphic folio 001 34862A.041
5 

INTRODUCTION

The Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill for fiscal 

year 2008 totals $31,603,000,000, $1,130,983,000 above the President’s budget request, and $1,307,357,000 above the amount appropriated in fiscal year 2007. 

Title I of the bill provides $5,584,427,000 for the programs of the 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, an increase of $246,057,000 above 

the fiscal year 2007 enacted level (adjusted for one-time emergency 

spending) and $713,427,000 over the budget request. The fiscal 

year 2008 budget request for the Corps of Engineers totals 

$4,871,000,000, which is composed entirely of new budget authority. 

The fiscal year 2008 budget request for the Corps Civil Works 

program continues the performance-based ranking system with two 

major modifications to the guidelines. The first formalizes risks to 

human life for consideration along with economics for flood and 

storm damage reduction projects. The second changes the 

prioritization metric from the remaining-benefits-to-remainingcosts ratio to benefit-to-cost ratio for all projects with the exception 

of those for which the primary purpose is environmental restoration. 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. 

The Committee supports the concept of focusing limited resources 

on completing high-value projects already under construction. The 

Committee bill and report retain 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 $1,072,880,000 for the Department of Interior 

and the Bureau of Reclamation, $72,000,000 over the budget request and $13,864,000 above the fiscal year 2007 enacted level. The 

Committee recommends $1,029,880,000 for the Bureau of Reclamation, $72,000,000 above the budget request and $4,884,000 above 

the fiscal year 2007 enacted level. The Committee recommends 

$43,000,000 for the Central Utah Project, including $976,000 for 

deposit into the Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Account, both the same as the budget request. 

Title III provides $25,243,119,000 for the Department of Energy, 

an increase of $1,149,926,000 over fiscal year 2007 and 

$480,406,000 over the budget request of $24,762,713,000 (adjusted 

for one-time emergency spending). 

Beginning in fiscal year 2008, the Energy Supply and Conservation account is separated into new program accounts: Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy; Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, Nuclear Energy; and Environment, Safety and Health 

(non-defense). The Legacy Management (non-defense) account is 

transferred to the Environmental Management (nondefense) account. The Committee recommends funding for renewable energy and energy efficiency programs at $1,873,844,000, an 

increase of $637,645,000 over the request; nuclear energy programs 

at $759,227,000, a decrease of $42,476,000 below the request; nondefense environment, safety and health programs at $31,625,000. 

The Committee recommends $4,514,082,000 for the Office of 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
6 

Science an increase of $116,206,000 above the budget request and 

$716,788,000 over the current year. 

Environmental management activities—non-defense environmental cleanup, uranium enrichment decontamination and decommissioning, non-defense legacy management, defense environmental cleanup, and defense legacy management—are funded at 

$6,671,361,000, a decrease of $30,883,000 below the fiscal year 

2007 enacted level and an increase of $358,843,000 over the budget 

request. The Committee recommends a total of $494,500,000 for the 

Yucca Mountain repository. This includes $202,454,000 for Nuclear 

Waste Disposal, the same as the request, and $292,046,000 for Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal, the same as the request. 

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 $8,786,881,000, a decrease of $599,952,000 below 

the request, and a decrease of $294,132,000 below fiscal year 2007. 

The Committee recommendation includes $1,683,646,000 for Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation, an increase of $307,000 over the 

current year and $11,000,000 over the budget request. Funding for 

the Power Marketing Administrations is provided at requested levels. 

Title IV provides $239,895,000 for several Independent Agencies, a decrease of $70,051,000 from fiscal year 2007 and $12,850,000 

below the budget request of $252,745,000. The requested funding 

is provided for the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, the 

Delta Regional Authority, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Inspector General, and the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board, 

the Denali Commission, and the Office of the Federal Coordinator 

for Alaska Natural Gas Transportation Projects. The request for 

the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is increased by $17,150,000. 

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. 

PROJECTS

Congress has made significant reforms in the way it reviews and 

allocates funding for the Federal government, reforms that the 

Committee takes very seriously as it executes its constitutional authority. Earmarking or directed spending of Federal dollars does 

not begin with Congress. It begins with the Executive Branch. For 

example, the Administration requests funding for several Corps of 

Engineers accounts and one Bureau of Reclamation account as tabular lists of projects. The Administration, in selecting these 

projects, goes through a process that is the functional equivalent of 

earmarking. When the Committee reviews the budget request, it 

goes through a process of rigorous review and may alter or modify 

this list to reflect additional priorities. 

The Executive Branch also engages in another practice which 

steers or directs money to specific entities or purposes through a 

process of contracting out various activities and services. The Executive Branch steers or directs far greater spending to specific 

projects or corporations than is directed or earmarked by Congress. 

In nearly all Department of Energy work locations, the number of 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
7 

people working for contractors far exceeds the number of Federal 

employees at the same site. Many of the contracts at these locations, in fact, are non-competitive or sole-sourced. The Department 

of Energy manages its large holdings of research facilities and production sites primarily as Government-Owned, Contractor-Operated sites and facilities. These site management and operating contractors (M&O contractors) are granted great flexibility by the Department of Energy to subcontract out for goods and services and 

ultimately direct billions of dollars appropriated for programmatic 

activities to specific companies and other entities at the sole discretion of the M&O contractors. 

The Committee provides no recommendation at this time for specific projects contained in either the Administration’s budget or 

proposed by Members of Congress. Individual project allocations 

will be considered comprehensively after the Committee has properly analyzed all relevant information. 

FUNDING TO ADDRESS GAS PRICES AND CLIMATE CHANGE

For fiscal year 2008, the Energy and Water Development appropriation includes $3,403,857,000 to address climate change, an increase of $767,352,000 from the fiscal year 2007 enacted funding 

level and $1,065,144,000 more than requested by the President. 

Funding is provided for research, development, demonstration, and 

deployment of energy technologies that increase energy conservation and production of energy without emission of greenhouse 

gases. Funding also is provided for research to understand and predict climate change. While funding through this appropriation will 

not reduce or stabilize gas prices immediately, $503,497,000 of 

these funds are provided for research, development, and demonstration of improved vehicle technology and production of 

biofuels. On a five- to ten-year timescale, the results of these activities should reduce demand for oil and increase supplies of alternative motor fuels. 

The energy research funded at the Department of Energy ranges 

from basic work to map the genomes of microorganisms that digest 

cellulous to applied work to increase the efficiency of turbines. 

Work on conservation aims at development of zero energy houses 

by 2020, improved energy efficiency for U.S. industry, and technology to further increase the fuel efficiency of vehicles along with 

improved batteries for electric and hybrid cars and hydrogen storage for the FreedomCar of the future. Support for deployment of 

available conservation technology is provided through the weatherization grants, state energy grants, and federal energy management programs. Renewable energy generation includes biofuels, 

solar, wind, geothermal, and hydropower. Increased renewable energy production is supported through major refurbishment by the 

Army Corps of Engineers of existing hydropower dams. Nuclear energy provides 20% of current electricity generation in the United 

States. Sustaining this level of energy production is supported with 

research, subsidies for first applicants to the Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission for new types of licenses, and demonstration of safer, 

gas-cooled next generation nuclear power plants. Fossil energy 

spending is devoted to carbon separation and sequestration so that 

coal can be used to generate energy without greenhouse gas emisVerDate Aug 31 2005 02:49 Jun 12, 2007 Jkt 035894 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR185.XXX HR185

hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
8 

sions and to improving the energy efficiency of current coal-fired 

power plants. 

The science research features climate modeling using DOE’s 

state-of-the-art super computers, atmospheric radiation monitoring, 

and long-term experiments on the response of forests and other 

ecosystems to increased atmospheric carbon dioxide. 

REVERSING THE DECLINE IN ENERGY RD&D FUNDING SINCE THE

CARTER ADMINISTRATION

In the 1970s, the United States responded to an energy crisis 

with substantial funding for energy research, development, and 

demonstration (RD&D) through the newly-created Department of 

Energy. With the collapse in oil prices in the 1980’s, the long-term 

challenge of reducing U.S. dependence on imported oil was neglected and funding for these efforts was drastically reduced. Subsequently, energy RD&D funding was neglected for two decades. By 

fiscal year 2006, after adjusting for inflation, the research budget 

for renewable energy was only 20 percent of what it had been in 

fiscal year 1980. Similar declines occurred for nuclear energy with 

2006 funding at 11 percent and fossil energy at 25.5 percent of 

1980 levels. Funding for conservation fared better but also decreased to 49 percent of 1980 levels. 

In the year-long continuing resolution for fiscal year 2007, Congress began to reverse this decline by providing a $300,000,000 increase for renewable energy and conservation that the Department 

of Energy wisely allocated mostly to RD&D. This increase brought 

2007 funding for renewable energy and conservation up to 38 percent and 54 percent, respectively, of 1980 levels. 

This bill continues to increase the investment in energy RD&D 

so that the United States can invent and innovate its way to a better energy future. The Committee provides funding increases for 

renewable, nuclear, and fossil energy and conservation RD&D. 

These increases will bring fiscal year 2008 funding compared to 

1980 appropriations up to 47.5 percent for renewables, 31 percent 

for fossil, and 67 percent for conservation. Nuclear energy RD&D 

spending in the bill is still only at the 11 percent level compared 

to 1980 because most of the increase in nuclear energy is devoted 

to subsidies for licensing new nuclear power plants and fabricating 

mixed oxide fuel—non-research activities. 

While RD&D is only one tool in addressing the current energy 

crisis, it is the tool available to the Committee. As the above figures make clear, there is considerable room for increased investment in all four energy areas. The Department of Energy is encouraged to pursue all the technologies that can help abate the current 

energy crisis and to do so in creative and innovative ways. The Department must maintain a careful eye toward what can be used in 

the private and public sectors in the coming five to fifteen years. 

The Administration is encouraged to propose future budgets that 

build on the increased support provided by the Committee. 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
9 

TITLE I 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE—CIVIL 

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—CIVIL

INTRODUCTION

The Army Corps of Engineers is made up of approximately 

34,600 civilian and 650 military members. The military and civilian engineers, scientists and other specialists work together on engineering and environmental matters. The diverse workforce of biologists, engineers, geologists, hydrologists, natural resource managers and other professionals is necessary to meet the demands of 

changing times and requirements. 

The Energy and Water Development Act funds the Civil Works 

component of the Corps of Engineers, which encompasses approximately 23,000 civilians and 190 military personnel. Army involvement in works of civil nature dates back to the origins of the nation. Over the years, the Corps Civil Works mission has changed 

to accommodate changing societal needs and values. A brief legislative history of the Corps has been included in past Energy and 

Water Development reports. The section that follows outlines the 

major civil works mission areas of the Corps. 

MAJOR MISSION AREAS

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, 

and the construction of major improvements or rehabilitation features for existing projects. The Corps currently operates and maintains 12,000 miles of commercial inland navigation channels; owns 

and/or operates 257 navigation lock chambers at 215 sites; and 

maintains 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.’’ The Corps manages 383 major lakes and reservoirs, and inspects or controls 12,000 miles of federal levees. In addition, the 

Corps inspects 1,800 miles of levees that are non-Federal, but 

which participate in the Rehabilitation and Inspection Program. 

Over the last ten years, the average damages prevented by Corps 

projects totaled $21.1 billion per year. 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
10 

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. In 

addition, the Corps regulates all work in wetlands and waters of 

the United States and manages the cleanup of former Manhattan 

Project and Atomic Energy Commission sites. 

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. 

There is no general authority for Corps participation in a singlepurpose recreation project. 

CONTINUING AUTHORITIES PROGRAM

The continuing authorities program (CAP) provides a mechanism 

for the Corps to respond to a variety of local water resource problems without the need to obtain specific congressional authorization for each project. The CAP program is comprised of ten legislative authorities under which the Secretary of the Army, acting 

through the Chief of Engineers, is authorized to plan, design, and 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
11 

implement certain types of water resources projects. The individual 

authorities are as follows: 

Section 14—Emergency streambank and shoreline erosion. 

Section 103—Hurricane and storm damage reduction. 

Section 107—Small navigation improvements. 

Section 111—Shore damage caused by federal navigation works. 

Section 145—Placement of dredged material on beaches. 

Section 204—Beneficial uses of dredged material. 

Section 205—Small flood damage reduction projects. 

Section 206—Aquatic ecosystem restoration. 

Section 208—Snagging and clearing for flood control. 

Section 1135—Project modifications for environmental improvement. 

INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT IN THE UNITED STATES

Public infrastructure has played a critical role in the development and economic success of the United States. Past investment 

in the nation’s water resource infrastructure was not made by 

chance, nor was it made lightly. That infrastructure must be maintained and updated to meet the current requirements of our Nation. Despite the value to our economy and the safety of our citizens, the level of investment has not kept pace with critical requirements of existing infrastructure, let alone improvements to 

meet changing needs. One need only look at the decline in federal 

investment in public infrastructure over the last five decades, as 

detailed by the Congressional Budget Office in its report, ‘‘Trends 

in Public Infrastructure Spending,’’ to see the trend. A portion of 

this reduction can be attributed to elements of public infrastructure 

that have shifted from construction to less expensive maintenance 

and the move toward an economy based more on technology and 

services. However, public investment has declined beyond the level 

accounted for by these factors. 

In the area of water resource infrastructure, while investment 

has been static or declining in real terms, the needs of the Nation 

are increasing. This increased demand is required in part by aging 

infrastructure and in part by changing national needs and values. 

The long-term risk to the Nation of under-investment is an important issue, as illustrated by the tragedy that resulted from the hurricanes in New Orleans and the Gulf Coast area in 2005. However, 

the question of whether the investments we make are the right 

ones should be of equal concern. Current policy favors new construction over maintenance of existing infrastructure, even when 

maintenance or rehabilitation may offer a better outcome. Announcing that we are adequately maintaining what the public already owns is not newsworthy—it is simply expected. 

In 2005, the American Society of Civil Engineers estimated that 

nearly 50% of all Corps maintained locks are functionally obsolete, 

having reached or exceeded their design life of 50 years. While this 

information is necessary and important to investment decisions, 

project age does not always correlate directly with performance. As 

we move forward modernizing and updating our water resource infrastructure, we must look at the desired outcomes necessary for 

the future performance of the Nation’s navigation and flood control 

projects. 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
12 

As noted by the National Association of Public Administration’s 

report ‘‘Prioritizing America’s Water Resource Investments’’, the 

model used in the past for how we invest in the Nation’s water resource infrastructure is no longer appropriate. We face significant 

challenges that require a more disciplined and rigorous approach 

that encompasses a broader context than has been applied in the 

past. The Corps of Engineers and the Administration are making 

progress in this regard, with increased attention to fiscal management and project execution, recognition of risk, balancing of multiple objectives and longer term planning having all contributed to 

this progress. Yet much work remains. 

The Committee supports the Corps’ efforts to prioritize its portfolio of projects. While the Committee agrees in large part with the 

prioritization of projects, it does not believe the level of funding 

provided by the Administration is sufficient to meet the needs of 

the Nation. In light of the need for increased investment in public 

infrastructure, the Committee recommends a significant increase to 

the Corps of Engineers budget for fiscal year 2008 to address additional priorities. Were it not for current severe fiscal constraints, 

the Committee would have recommended more, particularly in the 

Construction account for ongoing projects to address flood control 

and navigation. The Committee remains adamant that the Corps 

of Engineers continue the reforms made in the last several years 

regarding project management and execution and out-year planning. The Committee’s expectation, regardless of the amount of the 

annual appropriation, is that the Corps will ensure its funding is 

expended in good faith and in the best interests of the public. 

PROJECTS

Congress has made significant reforms in the way it reviews and 

allocates funding for the Federal government, reforms that the 

Committee takes very seriously as it executes its constitutional authority. Earmarking or directed spending of Federal dollars does 

not begin with Congress. It begins with the Executive Branch. For 

example, the Administration requests funding for Corps of Engineers on a project-specific basis for the Investigations, Construction 

and Mississippi River and Tributaries accounts. The Administration has historically also asked for the Operation and Maintenance 

account as a tabular list of projects. A change to the presentation 

of the budget request this year shows these projects aggregated 

into regions; however, the substance of the request remains the 

same. If Operation and Maintenance is included, these project-specific requests amount to 84 percent of the Corps of Engineers budget. The Administration, in selecting these projects, goes through a 

process that is the functional equivalent of earmarking. When the 

Committee reviews the budget request, it goes through a process 

of rigorous review and may alter or modify this list to reflect additional priorities. 

The Committee provides no recommendation at this time for specific projects contained in either the Administration’s budget or 

proposed by Members of Congress. Individual project allocations 

will be considered comprehensively after the Committee has properly analyzed all relevant information. 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
13 

HYDROPOWER INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT

Energy security and issues of global climate change are increasingly important to the decisions made regarding infrastructure investment. Hydropower improvements at existing facilities provide 

a reliable, efficient, domestic, emission-free resource that is renewable. Hydropower plants have, without question, changed the natural river environment. However, with some exceptions, the environmental damages of existing dams are largely complete, and further investment in modern turbines can have the benefit of improving existing water quality and fish passage issues in addition to increasing generation efficiency and capacity. The Corps must continue to focus on minimizing the negative impacts to the environment, while maximizing the use of existing infrastructure. Hydropower benefits also include the flexibility to meet peak power demands, the displacement of additional thermal plants, and ancillary services such as voltage stability of the transmission system 

and system restoration after black-outs. 

The Corps of Engineers is the largest operator of hydroelectric 

power plants in the United States, accounting for 24 percent of the 

nation’s hydropower generating capacity. The total investment in 

these federal facilities is nearly $18 billion, but much of the hydropower infrastructure is approaching the end of, or exceeds, its design life. The Corps hydropower program has seen a decline in system availability that is now 15 percent below the industry standard. In addition, the force outage rate for Corps facilities has been 

increasing over the last five years and now is more than twice the 

industry standard. 

The Corps is in the process of developing overall short and long 

term asset management strategies. The Committee urges the Administration to complete the planning for this business line and 

budget more fully for this activity once the plan is in place and performance metrics are clearly articulated. The investment in existing hydropower plants can contribute to our nation’s energy security while providing direct repayment to the Treasury as the electricity reaches the market. 

The Committee provides $95,000,000 for major hydropower rehabilitations to provide near-term benefit to the nation’s energy 

supply. 

FISCAL YEAR 2007 CONTINUING RESOLUTION EXECUTION

Fiscal year 2007 appropriations were provided to the Corps 

through a full-year continuing resolution; this method of funding 

gave the Administration broad latitude to determine project allocations among all accounts. The Committee recognizes and appreciates the efforts of the Corps and the Administration in determining the project allocations. The methodology was fair, taking 

into account past commitments while trying to avoid unnecessary 

delays or terminations of projects. 

FISCAL YEAR 2008 BUDGET OVERVIEW

The fiscal year 2008 budget request for the Corps of Engineers 

totals $4,871,000,000, which is composed entirely of new budget authority. The Committee recommends a total of $5,584,427,000 for 

the Corps of Engineers, an increase of $246,057,000 from fiscal 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
14 

year 2007 enacted levels (adjusted for one-time emergency spending) and $713,427,000 above the request. The budget request for 

fiscal year 2008 represents a continuation of the performance-based 

system, using the ratio of total benefits-to-costs as the primary 

measure. This represents a change from the previous two years, 

when the Administration relied on the ratio of remaining-benefitsto-remaining-costs. 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. 

The Committee supports the changes the Administration has 

made in its project selection criteria. First and foremost in these 

changes is the recognition of the primary importance of human 

safety in project selection. Projects that address significant risk to 

human safety receive sufficient funding to support an uninterrupted effort during the budget year. The Committee has expressed 

concern over the last several years that risk to large populations 

was not being addressed due to the limitations of using a strict 

benefit-to-cost ratio. For fiscal year 2008, the budget request formalizes the consideration of risk including: the population in the 

100-year floodplain, velocity and depth of flow, warning time and 

paths of egress. This change resulted in budget requests for 14 

projects that otherwise would not have met the minimum benefitto-cost criteria. 

The second change made in project prioritization is the move 

from remaining-benefit-to-remaining-cost (RBRC) to benefit-to-cost 

ratio (BCR). RBRC introduced a perverse incentive to defer those 

elements of projects that provided the most benefits while focusing 

first on those that do not provide economic benefits. While still an 

imperfect measure, the BCR does not change significantly over the 

project development timeframe, resulting in more stability from 

year to year. Corps of Engineers projects are generally formulated 

as a total project rather than as a series of separable elements. As 

such, if a project is initiated, it should be done with the intent to 

complete the project. While the Committee believes this should be 

the general rule, there are inevitable circumstances where projects 

should be reevaluated in light of changed conditions or improved 

data. 

The budget request includes no projects in the Construction account which would be considered ‘‘new starts’’; however, it does include one new project study under the Mississippi River and Tributaries (MR&T) account. In addition, the request includes two new 

activities, the ‘‘Wise Use of Floodplains’’ study in the Investigations 

account and the ‘‘Portfolio Assessment for Reallocations’’ study in 

the Operation and Maintenance account. 

The Committee remains concerned that the initiation of additional, new projects will adversely impact ongoing projects. Available funding is insufficient to execute existing projects in a timely 

fashion; adding additional projects only exacerbates the problem. 

The Committee notes that the latter two activities are short-term 

efforts which will not result in significant out-year requirements. 

Evaluating policy, procedural and administrative issues related to 

investing in infrastructure and programs that reduce risk from 

flooding as proposed in the floodplains study is a wise investment 

that may improve the implementation of future projects; the study 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
15 

is a one-time cost of $1,000,000. The second study, Portfolio Assessment for Reallocations, is a two-year appraisal of the portfolio of 

existing Corps multipurpose projects to identify the best candidates 

for opportunities for operational changes and/or reallocation opportunities. 

The Committee will consider funding for the major rehabilitations at Markland Lock and Dam and Locks No. 27, Mississippi 

River, critical elements of the Ohio and Mississippi River systems. 

The Committee does not view the rehabilitation of existing infrastructure as a new construction start on par with entirely new investments, but rather a necessity to ensure adequate functioning of 

the Nation’s water resource infrastructure. 

A summary table illustrating the fiscal year 2007 enacted appropriation, the fiscal year 2008 budget request, and the Committee 

recommended levels is shown below: 

(Dollars in 000s) 

Account Fiscal year 2007 enacted Fiscal year 2008 request Committee recommendation 

Investigations .............................................. $162,916 $90,000 $120,100 

Rescission ............................................... (—) (—) (¥100) 

Emergency appropriations ...................... 8,165 (—) (—) 

Construction ................................................ 2,336,368 1,523,000 2,008,874 

Rescission ............................................... (—) (—) (¥4,688) 

Emergency appropriations ...................... 36,500 (—) (—) 

Mississippi River and tributaries ............... 396,565 260,000 278,000 

Operation and Maintenance ....................... 1,973,347 2,471,000 2,655,241 

Emergency appropriations ...................... 3,000 (—) (—) 

Regulatory program .................................... 159,273 180,000 180,000 

FUSRAP ........................................................ 138,672 130,000 130,000 

Flood control and coastal emergencies ...... — 40,000 40,000 

Emergency appropriations ...................... 1,561,000 (—) (—) 

Expenses ..................................................... 167,250 177,000 171,000 

Office of Assistant Secretary of the Army 

(Civil Works) ........................................... 3,979 (1) 6,000 

TOTAL, Corps of Engineers ................ 6,947,035 4,871,000 5,584,427 

Appropriations ........................... 5,338,370 4,871,000 5,584,427 

Emergency appropriations ........ 1,608,665 (—) (—) 

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 2008. 

FISCAL YEAR 2008 BUDGET PRESENTATION

For the second year, the Corps of Engineers has proposed several 

changes to the manner that the Civil Works program is presented 

and appropriated. The most significant change appears in the Operation and Maintenance account, where four categories of projects 

and programs are moved from Construction into the Operation and 

Maintenance account. These categories are: the rehabilitation of infrastructure; Endangered Species Act compliance; the construction 

of facilities, projects or features (including islands and wetlands) to 

use materials dredged during Federal navigation operation and 

maintenance activities; and the mitigation of impacts on shorelines 

resulting from Federal navigation operation and maintenance activities. Additionally, the budget request rolls operation and maintenance projects into geographical regions and provides a top line 

appropriation for all projects contained within each of the 21 regions. 

The Committee reiterates its support for a more systematic approach to funding the operation and maintenance of the nation’s 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
16 

waterways and understands the dynamic nature of the project 

needs under this account. The Committee remains concerned that 

the budget request simply reflects the summation of the projects 

under each region and is not a genuine effort to budget on a watershed basis. Moreover, it appears, on its face, to be an attempt to 

circumvent the Committee’s reprogramming restrictions. 

The Committee supports the proposal that three of the four categories be moved to the Operation and Maintenance account but 

maintains major rehabilitations within the Construction account. 

Further, the Committee recommends that the Operation and Maintenance account be appropriated based on the geographic regions 

contained in the budget request. Given the Committee’s concerns, 

this recommendation is made with the following stipulations: 

• The Corps will provide, under signature, 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 Fish Mitigation Project and the Missouri River Fish 

Mitigation Project; 

• 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 Appropriations; and 

• As part of the management plan, the Corps is instructed 

to develop a communication plan for how this process would be 

coordinated with, and justified to, the affected Members of 

Congress, water system users and other interested parties. 

Last year, the House report contained essentially the same recommendations and conditions; by contrast, the Senate report rejected the proposal in its entirety. Yet there is no evidence that the 

Corps has made an effort to provide additional justification for the 

change or detail how this new budget approach would be managed. 

Further, the Corps was instructed in fiscal year 2007 to reevaluate 

the fiscal management of this account; to the knowledge of this 

Committee, this review was never undertaken. If the Corps and the 

Administration expect this Committee to continue its support for 

this change, these issues must be addressed. 

The fiscal year 2008 request for the Operation and Maintenance 

account is nine percent above the fiscal year 2007 request. However, once adjusted for the projects involved in the shift of the 

above mentioned activities, the fiscal year 2008 request is 14 percent above the fiscal year 2007 request. The following table provides a comparison. 

Account Fiscal year 

2006 Enacted 

Fiscal year 

2007 Request 1

Fiscal year 

2007 Enacted 

Fiscal year 

2008 Request 1

Committee Recommended 1

Operations and Maintenance ...................... $1,969,000 $2,258,000 $1,973,347 $2,471,000 $2,655,241 

(1,916,000) (1,973,347) (2,175,079) (2,382,000) 

Construction ................................................ 2,348,000 1,555,000 2,336,368 1,523,000 2,008,874 

(1,897,000) (2,336,368) (1,818,921) (2,282,115) 

1 Bracketed figures reflect account totals following the structure used in fiscal year 2006. 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
17 

Within the funds provided, the Committee directs the Corps to 

implement the Ohio River and Tributaries navigation system improvements as outlined in the Lakes and River Division’s Five Year 

Development Perspective. Though inadequate to address all identified needs, additional funding is provided to support the efforts of 

the Division and stakeholders. Additionally, the Committee encourages the Corps to place greater priority on navigation improvements in the Great Lakes Region. 

PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND EXECUTION

In recent years, the Committee has directed the Corps to improve 

program management and project execution. In the current environment of aging infrastructure, static or declining budgets, increasing backlog, and changing societal values and requirements, 

past Corps management practices no longer serve the Nation well. 

The Corps of Engineers is uniquely qualified to play a significant 

role in the future of our water resource infrastructure, given its 

role over the past several centuries. To meet this challenge, the 

Corps must adapt to new circumstances and focus on its core missions and responsibilities. 

In executing this program, the lessons learned from the Gulf 

Coast hurricanes should remain at the forefront of the agency’s collective consciousness to ensure that the agency regains the public’s 

trust and mistakes of the past are not repeated. The Corps of Engineers has many talented and dedicated civil service employees, and 

the agency must rely on these individuals’ expertise for the technical assessments necessary to execute the Corps of Engineers’ program. It is incumbent upon leadership at the Corps of Engineers 

to provide the structure and culture that allows critical review and 

divergent opinions to be aired and seriously considered. The alternative to open and honest communication carries a risk far too 

high for the people who rely upon the Corps of Engineers. 

The Committee supports the Corps’ efforts to improve its budgeting and management processes, as well as the implementation of 

the principles in the ‘‘12 Actions for Change’’ introduced last year. 

These principles were announced in the wake of the lessons of Hurricane Katrina and fall within three areas: effective implementation of a comprehensive systems approach; improved communication; and reliable public service professionalism. Institutional 

change is an extremely difficult and a long process, the Committee 

commends the Corps for recognizing the need for action. 

The Committee continues its focus on several program management issues including: five-year budget plans, conservative use of 

reprogramming and continuing contracts, performance based budgeting, and improved budget justification materials. The Corps and 

the Administration continue to improve in these areas, and the 

Committee commends the Corps and the Office of Management and 

Budget for the progress made to date. Additionally, the Committee 

adds accurate cost estimating as an area of focus to execution 

issues. The recent significant cost increases in New Orleans, as 

well as those on several large lock and dam projects, illustrate this 

is an area in which the Corps of Engineers needs to improve. 

Five-year comprehensive budget planning.—The Committee reiterates its strong belief in the value of five-year budget plans and 

longer-term strategic visions to help guide budget requests and 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
18 

Congressional spending decisions. The National Academy of Public 

Administration, in ‘‘Prioritizing America’s Water Resources Investments’’, recommends both shorter term project-specific plans as 

well as long-range planning on a 20-year time horizon. The circumstances of our nation’s economy and physical development have 

changed significantly from the time much of our existing infrastructure was designed and built. Global competitiveness, energy 

policy, and environmental values all affect our water resource 

needs. These longer-range budget plans are critical to understanding the outcome and timeline of current investments so that 

scarce resources may be spent with consideration of the future. 

Additionally, such plans force discipline and regional integration 

in 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 fiveyear 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 future-years Civil Works program. 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. This is one of the principal lessons from the Gulf Coast hurricanes, and a lesson that must not 

be forgotten. 

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 increased transparency into 

project costs and multi-year funding commitments. 

Prior to fiscal year 2006, the Corps of Engineers used 99% expenditure of appropriated funds as its primary performance metric. 

This metric was initiated in response to congressional direction to 

‘‘spend down’’ large unobligated balances. As with any performance 

metric, care must be taken when selecting measures to ensure that 

unintended consequences are minimized and that such metrics do 

not skew decision making in a manner that adversely impacts the 

ultimate performance of the program. Tying performance to fully 

expending an annual appropriation leads to decisions at the individual project level that would not be made if the metric was simply project budget and schedule. It also results in an inordinate 

amount of resources being directed to moving funds from project to 

project in order to meet the expenditure goal, rather than focusing 

on the primary task of the Corps of Engineers—planning, designing 

and building water resource projects. 

Changing the Corps’ business model to prioritize obligations as 

a performance measure rather than expenditures brings stability 

and certainty to the program and to individual projects. In addition, it honors congressional intent as to the allocations for individual projects. While this change does bring a short-term impact, 

it does not adversely impact projects over time, as it essentially 

shifts the funding profile of the program. Over any multi-year time 

horizon, the same number of projects will be funded at the same 

level—the difference is the sequencing of the funding. As fully 

funded contract obligations are entered into that span multiple 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
19 

years, additional resources are ‘‘freed’’ to fund other projects in future years. 

As the Corps improves its fiscal management practices, the carryover balances of unobligated funds will be reduced. Much has 

been made of the high carryover balances of fiscal year 2006. However, an objective analysis of unobligated funding shows that once 

supplemental appropriations and Act language (funding that cannot be reprogrammed without statutory language) are deducted, 

the carryover is approximately $460 million. If unobligated funding 

for congressionally directed projects is removed, the unobligated 

carryover is less than $200 million out of a more than $5.3 billion 

program. 

Reprogrammings.—The Committee again provides legislative language to guide reprogramming actions in fiscal year 2008. 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 do 

not preclude such flexibility, but do provide a method to exercise 

Congressional oversight to ensure that the Civil Works program is 

being executed consistent with Congressional intent. 

It is the Committee’s intent that the Corps should meet its commitments to Members and local sponsors. The Committee reminds 

the Corps that it is responsible for budgeting funds to fulfill the 

commitments made to local sponsors and Members of Congress. 

The Administration and the Corps made progress toward this goal 

in the fiscal year 2007 work plan. Additionally, the Committee has 

provided funding in the Construction and Investigations accounts 

to make further progress to this end. 

To ensure that the expenditure of funds in fiscal year 2008 is 

consistent with congressional direction, to minimize the movement 

of funds, and to improve overall budget execution, the bill 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 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; or 

(5) increases or reduces funds for any existing program, 

project or activity by more than $2,000,000 or 25 percent, 

whichever is less; 

Notifications pursuant to this section or any other authority for 

reprogramming or transfer shall be made solely to the House and 

Senate Committees on Appropriations. This provision shall not 

apply to the initiation of new projects or activities under the continuing authorities program. However, new projects under the continuing authorities program not identified in the report accompanying this Act must be submitted to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations for approval. This requirement is in recognition of the large backlog of existing projects. Until ongoing 

projects are complete, the Committee does not see the wisdom in 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
20 

initiating new projects that the Corps does not have the financial 

wherewithal to address. Reprogramming approvals shall also be required for changes in a project’s scope and cost relative to what 

was submitted in the project justifications. These guidelines vitiate 

all other reprogramming guidance provided in previous appropriations Acts or their accompanying reports and shall be applied to all 

accounts of the Corps of Engineers. In addition, the Corps is directed to submit to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations a quarterly report detailing project execution relative to 

stated capability and enacted appropriations. 

Continuing contracts.—The Rivers and Harbors Appropriations 

Act of 1890 first authorized the Corps to award continuing 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. Unlike the multi-year 

contracting authorities of other agencies under titles 10 and 41 of 

the U.S. Code, which do not provide for the obligation of funds in 

advance of appropriations and are subject to reasonable bounds, 

the Corps continuing contract authority has few constraints. Its use 

has resulted over the years in a large number of long-term contracts with high out-year funding commitments, which could also 

involve a significant unfunded cost to the taxpayer if the Corps 

later terminated the contract. 

In the past, when entering into such contracts, the Corps obligated the federal government to pay certain costs from future appropriations. The contract clause also allowed the contractor to perform more work than was budgeted in any fiscal year when available appropriations for the current fiscal year were exhausted, but 

at the contractors’ risk with an expectation that payment would be 

made from subsequent appropriations. 

These are the two fundamental objections this Committee has 

with the use of the ‘‘true’’ continuing contract clause. This Committee is unwilling to allow the Corps to make obligations on behalf of future Congresses. Also, the Federal government, not the 

contractor, must determine the level of resources committed to each 

project each year. The Committee once again reminds the Corps 

that Congress determines how much funding is to be available for 

a particular project in any given fiscal year, and the Corps must 

ensure that it manages its program within that amount. 

In fiscal year 2006, the Committee limited the Corps’ ability to 

use continuing contracts. This guidance was maintained under the 

Continuing Resolution for fiscal year 2007, and the Committee extends it for fiscal year 2008. Originally this action was the result 

of several years of increasing concern with the Corps’ liberal use 

of and inadequate budgeting for continuing contracts, concerns 

which were confirmed by a GAO study. The Committee recognizes 

that the Corps has taken significant steps to address the problem, 

including fully budgeting for the majority of contracts rather than 

using incremental funding for contracts of limited duration and 

cost. 

The Committee remains unconvinced that the Corps, in attending to these concerns, has endeavored to implement this change in 

a manner that balances all interests. The Committee is aware of 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
21 

several different strategies that have been used on large multi-year 

contracts and fails to understand why refinement of one or more 

of these alternatives could not be used to provide certainty for Congress as well as the contracting community. 

The Committee understands that the vastly varied scope of the 

projects the Corps is charged with constructing requires a variety 

of contract mechanisms and supports the use of continuing contracts on large multi-year projects as long as the two issues discussed above are directly addressed and an analysis shows this is 

the appropriate contract mechanism. The fiscal year 2006 Conference Report carried a provision that made continuing contracts 

optional rather than required. The Committee continues to believe 

that the continuing contract has a role; however, no specific contracting mechanism should be required without consideration to 

the specific circumstances of the situation. 

The Committee therefore directs the Corps to develop criteria 

and standards for the use of continuing contracts as well as examine alternatives to this contracting mechanism. The Committee has 

been unwilling to eliminate the use of continuing contracts. However, if the Corps cannot refine its current approach and justification for the use of this mechanism, perhaps it is time for the Corps 

of Engineers to function as every other Federal agency does with 

respect to contracting. This Nation landed men on the moon without the use of continuing contracts; surely a lock and dam can be 

built without one. 

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 amounts appropriated for 

such project that remain unobligated. 

Cost estimating.—Historically, the Committee has used the Corps 

as an example of technical competency in providing accurate cost 

estimates. The Committee is becoming concerned that the Corps 

has not provided sufficient emphasis in this area in recent years. 

The cost estimates for the provision of flood protection in New Orleans have been decidedly off the mark. While the Committee recognizes the existence of significant mitigating factors in this instance, Corps’ projects routinely see cost increases beyond the 

bounds of reason. This is not just an issue for this Committee, but 

adversely impacts many local sponsors. The Committee urges the 

Corps to take steps to improve project cost estimates, with particular attention given to using realistic funding profiles and marketplace trends. 

Congressional justification materials.—The Committee remains 

concerned that the congressional justifications submitted by the 

Corps in support of the annual budget request continue to be inadequate for an appropriation request of nearly $5 billion. The Committee continues to believe the materials must include a clearly articulated overview and discussion of policy proposals included in 

the annual budget request beyond that which is included in the annual summary of the President’s budget request. 

The Committee reiterates prior direction that this information 

shall include, but not be limited to: discussion of the individual 

mission areas and their value to the nation; an analysis of appropriations language provisions and changes; comparative amounts 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
22 

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; dispositions of projects directed by Congress but 

not requested by the Administration; explanations of how individual projects fit in the context of larger regional objectives, and 

narrative and tabular summaries of program requests. 

Performance-based budget.—In fiscal year 2006, the Committee 

directed the Corps to contract with the National Academy of Public 

Administration (NAPA) to study and recommend factors which 

should be used in determining the allocation of limited resources 

for the construction of water resource projects. This study resulted 

from concerns with the Administration’s use of remaining-benefitto-remaining-cost (RBRC) ratio as the primary factor in the consideration of projects for inclusion in the fiscal year 2006 budget request. 

The report, ‘‘Prioritizing America’s Water Resource Investments’’, 

released in February 2007, provides recommendations that, if implemented, would radically change the budget process at the Corps 

of Engineers. The Committee commends the panel responsible for 

the study as well as the many interested parties that contributed 

views and recommendations. While many of the proposals may 

prove to be long-term aspirations, there are several that are well 

within the Corps’ authority and ability to implement as the budget 

process evolves, including increasing the number of factors used to 

analyze, plan and prioritize Corps construction projects and the 

continued development of five-year planning as well as longerrange plans. 

The Committee supports the Administration’s change to ranking 

projects based on benefit-cost ratio (BCR) from RBRC, and the 

more rigorous approach to the risk to human safety. The Committee continues to believe the ranking system is a valuable guide 

but is not determinative in the allocation of funds. 

Savings and slippage.—In fiscal year 2006, the Committee discontinued the practice of assuming an estimate for savings and 

slippage with the Corps of Engineers Civil Works program. As 

noted in prior reports, the practice had devolved into a method to 

ratably reduce funding for individual projects in order to fund more 

projects than an appropriation would support. This was equivalent 

to an airline selling more seats than an aircraft can accommodate. 

The practice led to confusion, and in some cases, allocations to 

projects through reprogramming in excess of appropriated funding. 

Continuing authorities.—The Corps has taken significant measures in managing this program in response to Congressional concern and criticism on past practices. The Committee fully supports 

the measures taken and the proposal to begin prioritizing projects, 

as well as managing the approval of new agreements to realistic 

expectations of annual appropriations. The Committee does not 

renew the prohibition that has been in place for the last two years 

on executing new cost sharing agreements. However, the Corps is 

directed to maintain approval authority for all cost-share agreements for this program with the Chief of Engineers. This authority 

cannot be delegated. 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
23 

In addition, the Committee directs that all Congressionally-directed funding for specific Continuing Authorities projects must remain available for use on the intended project for a period of two 

years after the date of enactment of this Act. For Congressionallydirected projects funded in previous appropriations bills, for which 

funds remain, those funds shall remain available for two years 

from the date of enactment of this Act. After the two year period, 

or after completion of the Congressionally-directed projects, any remaining unobligated funding may be made available to other ongoing Continuing Authorities projects without creating any obligation 

to repay those funds to the source projects. Such use of unobligated 

funds will not require Congressional approval via the reprogramming process. The intent of this language is to ensure that Congressional intent is executed within a reasonable timeframe, while 

also encouraging the Corps to provide more realistic cost and 

schedule estimates for Continuing Authorities projects. 

The Committee remains concerned regarding the backlog of existing Continuing Authority projects. The Corps current estimate of 

the federal requirements of these projects is almost $2 billion, for 

a program which receives an average of $120 million per year. Due 

to this backlog, the Committee continues its policy of no new starts. 

INVESTIGATIONS

(INCLUDING RESCISSION OF FUNDS)

Appropriation, 2007 ............................................................................ 1 $162,916,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ....................................................................... 90,000,000 

Recommended, 2008 ........................................................................... 120,100,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2007 .................................................................... ¥42,816,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ................................................................ +30,100,000 1 Excludes emergency supplemental appropriations of $8,165,000. 

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 $120,100,000, a decrease of $42,816,000 from the fiscal year 2007 enacted level, and 

$30,100,000 over the budget request. The Committee recommendation includes the rescission of $100,000 appropriated in Public Law 

106–554. 

The Committee provides no recommendation at this time for specific projects contained in either the Administration’s budget or 

proposed by Members of Congress. Individual project allocations 

will be considered comprehensively after the Committee has properly analyzed all relevant information. The budget request for this 

account and the approved Committee recommendation for national 

programs are shown on the following table: 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
24 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPTInsert offset folio 001 here 34862A.027
25 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPTInsert offset folio 002 here 34862A.028
26 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPTInsert offset folio 003 here 34862A.029
27 

National Inventory of Flood and Storm Damage Reduction 

Projects.—The budget request includes $10,000,000 to continue this 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, no funding is provided due to the 

lack of a specific authorization for this activity. 

CONSTRUCTION

(INCLUDING RESCISSIONS OF FUNDS)

Appropriation, 2007 ............................................................................ 1 $2,336,368,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ....................................................................... 1,523,000,000 

Recommended, 2008 ........................................................................... 2,008,874,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2007 .................................................................... ¥327,494,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ................................................................ +485,874,000 1 Excludes emergency supplemental appropriations of $36,500,000. 

This appropriation funds construction, major rehabilitation, and 

related activities for water resource 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. The Committee recommends an appropriation of $2,008,874,000 a decrease of $327,494,000 from the fiscal year 2007 enacted appropriation and $485,874,000 over the budget request. The Committee 

recommendation includes the proposal to move funding in the 

amount of $273,241,000 for three of the four categories of projects 

from the Construction account to the Operation and Maintenance 

account. Additionally, the Committee recommendation includes the 

rescission of $4,688,000 for projects where the Corps has determined no federal interest exists or work is complete and the funding is no longer required. 

The Committee provides no recommendation at this time for specific projects contained in either the Administration’s budget or 

proposed by Members of Congress. Individual project allocations 

will be considered comprehensively after the Committee has properly analyzed all relevant information. The budget request for this 

account and the approved Committee recommendation for national 

programs are shown on the following table: 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
28 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPTInsert offset folio 004 here 34862A.030
29 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPTInsert offset folio 005 here 34862A.031
30 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPTInsert offset folio 006 here 34862A.032
31 

MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES

Appropriation, 2007 ............................................................................ $396,565,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ....................................................................... 260,000,000 

Recommended, 2008 ........................................................................... 278,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2007 .................................................................... ¥118,565,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ................................................................ +18,000,000 

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 

Giradeau, Missouri. 

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $278,000,000, a decrease of $118,565,000 from the fiscal year 2007 enacted appropriation and an increase of $18,000,000 over the budget request. 

The Committee provides no recommendation at this time for specific projects contained in either the Administration’s budget or 

proposed by Members of Congress. Individual project allocations 

will be considered comprehensively after the Committee has properly analyzed all relevant information. The budget request for this 

account is shown on the following table: 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
32 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPTInsert offset folio 007 here 34862A.033
33 

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

Appropriation, 2007 ............................................................................ 1 $1,973,347,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ....................................................................... 2,471,000,000 

Recommended, 2008 ........................................................................... 2,655,241,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2007 .................................................................... +681,894,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ................................................................ +184,241,000 1 Excludes emergency appropriations of $3,000,000. 

This appropriation funds operation, maintenance, and related activities at the water resource 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 Fund. 

It has come to the Committee’s attention that the Administration 

has not budgeted for the Corps of Engineers’ financial obligations 

for the National Fish Hatchery System. The Committee expects the 

Corps of Engineers to work with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

to determine and budget for the costs associated with operating 

and maintaining mitigation fish hatcheries related to Corps water 

projects. 

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $2,655,241,000, 

an increase of $681,894,000 over the fiscal year 2007 enacted level 

and $184,241,000 above the budget request. The Committee recommendation does not include the proposal to move funding in the 

amount of $22,680,000 for rehabilitation of existing projects from 

the Construction account to Operation and Maintenance. 

The budget request and the approved Committee allowance are 

shown on the following table: 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
34 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPTInsert offset folio 008 here 34862A.034
35 

REGULATORY PROGRAM

Appropriation, 2007 ............................................................................ $159,273,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ....................................................................... 180,000,000 

Recommended, 2008 ........................................................................... 180,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2007 .................................................................... +20,727,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ................................................................ – – –

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. Appropriated 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. 

The Committee is concerned that the Corps is not completing 

regulatory approvals and Environmental Impact Reports (EIR) and 

Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) in an expeditious manner. 

The Committee urges the Corps of Engineers to ensure a 12-month 

time frame for completion of all EIR/EIS and to undertake other 

improvements that would expedite regulatory processes, such as requiring an EIR/EIS on major dredge and fill projects only, and expediting or waiving superfluous review at the division level. 

Additionally, the Committee is concerned with the performance 

of the Sacramento Regulatory Division. While the Committee does 

not support, in any manner, the Corps of Engineers abrogating its 

responsibilities under the Clean Water Act, the Sacramento District seems to have a disproportionate backlog associated with its 

area of jurisdiction. Given the region’s continued projected growth, 

recent court decisions and the existing backlog, it is critical that 

this issue receive additional direct oversight by Corps leadership. 

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $180,000,000, 

which is the same as the budget request and $20,727,000 over the 

fiscal year 2007 enacted level. 

FORMERLY UTILIZED SITES REMEDIAL ACTION PROGRAM (FUSRAP) 

Appropriation, 2007 ............................................................................ $138,672,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ....................................................................... 130,000,000 

Recommended, 2008 ........................................................................... 130,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2007 .................................................................... ¥8,672,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ................................................................ – – –

This appropriation funds the cleanup of certain low-level radioactive materials and mixed wastes, located mostly at sites contaminated as a result of the Nation’s early efforts to develop atomic 

weapons. 

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 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
36 

to provide its institutional knowledge and expertise to serve the 

Nation and the affected communities to ensure the success of this 

program. The Committee recommends an appropriation of $130,000,000, the same level as the budget request, and $8,672,000 below the fiscal year 2007 enacted level. 

FLOOD CONTROL AND COASTAL EMERGENCIES

Appropriation, 2007 ............................................................................ – – – Budget estimate, 2008 ....................................................................... 1 $40,000,000 Recommended, 2008 ........................................................................... $40,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2007 .................................................................... +40,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ................................................................ – – – 1 Excludes emergency appropriations of $1,561,000,000. 

This appropriation funds the planning, training, exercises, and 

other measures that ensure the readiness of the Corps to respond 

to floods, hurricanes, and other natural disasters, and to support 

emergency operations in response to such natural 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. The requested 

amount is the base funding necessary for preparedness activities. 

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $40,000,000, the 

same level as the budget request, and $40,000,000 above the fiscal 

year 2007 enacted level. 

EXPENSES

Appropriation, 2007 ............................................................................ $167,250,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ....................................................................... 1 177,000,000 

Recommended, 2008 ........................................................................... 171,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2007 .................................................................... +3,750,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ................................................................ ¥6,000,000 1The budget proposes to fund the Office for the Assistant Secretary for Civil Works under this account. The Committee recommendation includes funding in the amount of $6,000,000 for this office under the 

seperate heading ‘‘Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works).’’

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. 

The Committee is concerned that the cost of many A–76 contacting out studies exceeds the benefits of the studies, especially 

studies of small groups. The Committee notes that all A–76 studies 

performed by the Corps have been won by the Corps. The Committee believes that, in most areas, the government functions are 

so intermixed with the ‘‘contractible’’ functions that it is very difficult to reorganize to separate them into contractible and governmental functions groups. 

The Corps of Engineers has requested funding for the development of a high performing organization that could dramatically affect the work performed by 3,500 employees. The Committee is 

aware that the Corps has successfully performed and implemented 

High Performing Organization (HPO) studies that follow the study 

process of A–76 studies with similar results, without incurring the 

additional time and costs associated with contracting out competitions. As the Corps moves forward on new HPO studies, the Committee urges the Corps to involve as much as possible the affected 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
37 

rank-and-file employees and their union representatives in the development of the high performing organization. The Committee reminds the Corps that no high performance organization can, ultimately, be implemented without the agreement of the Congress. 

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $171,000,000, 

an increase of $3,750,000 from the fiscal year 2007 enacted level 

and $6,000,000 less than the budget request. The decrease from the 

budget request is due to the Committee’s recommendation to fund 

the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works 

separately. 

OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE ARMY (CIVIL WORKS) 

Appropriation, 2007 ............................................................................ $3,979,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ....................................................................... 1 6,000,000 

Recommended, 2008 ........................................................................... 6,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2007 .................................................................... +2,021,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ................................................................ – – – 1The budget proposes this office be funded from Expenses. 

The Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) oversees Civil 

Works budget and policy whereas the Corps’ executive direction 

and management of the Civil Works program are funded from the 

Expenses account. The budget request reflects $1,800,000 in support services not previously sub-allocated to ASA (CW) by the Department of the Army and includes this amount in the 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 provided $6,000,000 for this account. 

GENERAL PROVISIONS

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—CIVIL

The bill includes a provision that prohibits the obligation or expenditure of funds through a reprogramming of funds in this title 

except in certain circumstances. 

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 

that remains unobligated. 

The bill includes a provision that prohibits funds for the operation or maritime-related maintenance of the hopper dredge 

McFarland. 

The bill includes language relating to the Sacramento District office of the Corps of Engineers. 

The bill includes a provision prohibiting the use of funds for any 

A–76 study. 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
38 

TITLE II 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

CENTRAL UTAH PROJECT

CENTRAL UTAH PROJECT COMPLETION ACCOUNT

Appropriation, 2007 ............................................................................ $34,020,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ....................................................................... 43,000,000 

Recommended, 2008 ........................................................................... 43,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2007 .................................................................... +8,980,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ................................................................ – – –

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 2008 to carry out the Central Utah Project is $43,000,000, the same as the budget request, and $8,980,000 above the fiscal year 2007 enacted level. 

Within the $43,000,000 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 ......................................... $23,597,000 

Water conservation measures ............................................................... 5,000,000 

Uinta Basin replacement project .......................................................... 9,518,000 

Other Title II programs ......................................................................... 1,500,000 

Total, Central Utah water conservation district .......................... 39,615,000 

The Committee recommendation includes the requested amount 

of $976,000 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 of Public Law 102–575; and to complete mitigation measures 

committed to in pre–1992 Bureau of Reclamation planning documents, as follows: 

Provo River/Utah Lake fish and wildlife ............................................. $150,000 

Duchesne/Strawberry Rivers fish and wildlife .................................... 30,000 

CRSP/Statewide fish, wildlife and recreation ..................................... 535,000 

Section 201(a)(1) mitigation measures ................................................. 261,000 

Total, Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Commission ............................................................................................... 976,000 

For program oversight and administration, the Committee has 

provided $1,620,000, the same level as the budget request, and 

$112,000 below the fiscal year 2007 enacted level. For fish and 

wildlife conservation programs, the Committee has provided 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
39 

$789,000, the same level as the budget request and $270,000 above 

the fiscal year 2007 enacted level. 

BUREAU OF RECLAMATION

FISCAL YEAR 2008 BUDGET OVERVIEW

The mission of the 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 and 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 2008 budget request for the Bureau of Reclamation totals $957,880,000. The Committee recommendation totals 

$1,029,880,000 for the Bureau of Reclamation, $72,000,000 above 

the budget request and $4,884,000 above the fiscal year 2007 enacted level. 

A summary table illustrating the fiscal year 2007 enacted appropriation, the fiscal year 2008 budget request and the Committee 

recommendation is shown below: 

(Dollars in 000s) 

Account Fiscal Year 2007 Enacted Fiscal Year 2008 Request Committee Recommendation 

Water and related resources ...................... $878,623 $816,197 $871,197 

Emergency appropriations ........ 18,000 ––– –––

Central Valley project restoration fund ...... 52,150 59,122 59,122 

California Bay-Delta restoration ................. 36,648 31,750 40,750 

Policy and administration ........................... 57,575 58,811 58,811 

Legislative proposal, SJRRF ........................ – – – ¥8,000 – – –

Total, Bureau of Reclamation ............ 1,042,996 957,880 1,029,880 

Appropriations ........................... 1,024,996 – – – – – –

Emergency appropriations ........ 18,000 – – – – – –


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
40 

WATER AND RELATED RESOURCES

(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

Appropriation, 2007 ............................................................................ 1 $878,623,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ....................................................................... 816,197,000 

Recommended, 2008 ........................................................................... 871,197,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2007 .................................................................... ¥7,426,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ................................................................ +55,000,000 1 Excludes emergency supplemental appropriations of $18,000,000. 

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. 

For fiscal year 2008, the Committee recommends $871,197,000, $55,000,000 above the budget request and $7,426,000 below the fiscal year 2007 enacted level. 

Projects.—Congress has made significant reforms in the way it 

reviews and allocates funding for the Federal government, reforms 

which the Committee takes very seriously as it executes its constitutional authority. Earmarking or directed spending of Federal 

dollars does not begin with Congress. It begins with the Executive 

Branch. For example, the table following this section contains a list 

of individual Reclamation, Water and Related Resources projects 

submitted by the Administration. The Administration, in selecting 

these projects, goes through a process that is the functional equivalent of earmarking. When the Committee reviews the budget request, it goes through a process of rigorous review and may alter 

or modify this list to reflect additional priorities. 

The Committee provides no recommendation at this time for specific projects contained in either the Administration’s budget or 

proposed by Members of Congress. Individual project allocations 

will be considered comprehensively after the Committee has properly analyzed all relevant information. The budget request for this 

account and the approved Committee recommendation for national 

programs are shown at the end of this section. 

Reprogramming.—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 per project 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. 

For 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 approval from the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations. For each project within the Resources 

Management and Development category for which less than 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
41 

$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 approval from the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations. A transfer is defined as any 

movement of funds into or out of a program, project or activity. 

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 any funds, without prior approval 

from the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations, 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 

using an internal reprogramming action to initiate, restart, or resume any program, project, or activity that does not receive a congressional appropriation in fiscal year 2008. 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
42 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPTInsert graphic folio 1 HR185.035
43 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPTInsert graphic folio 2 HR185.036
44 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPTInsert graphic folio 3 HR185.037
45 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPTInsert graphic folio 4 HR185.038
46 

VARIOUS PROGRAMS

Site security.—In fiscal year 2006, the Committee recognized that 

Federal reclamation law, specifically the Reclamation Act of 1939, 

allocates annual operation and maintenance (O&M) and replacement costs on Reclamation projects 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. 

Water 2025.—The budget request includes $11,000,000 for Water 

2025. This program is intended to reduce crises and conflict over 

water and is to establish a framework to identify problems, solutions and plans 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 

2008. 

CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT RESTORATION FUND

Appropriation, 2007 ............................................................................ $52,150,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ....................................................................... 59,122,000 

Recommended, 2008 ........................................................................... 59,122,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2007 .................................................................... +6,972,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ................................................................ – – –

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 2008, the Committee recommends $59,122,000, 

the same level as the budget request and $6,972,000 above the fiscal year 2007 enacted level. The budget request includes 

$7,500,000 of funds derived from Friant Division surcharges. Additional funds, as proposed in the budget request, are provided as follows: 

Anadromous fish restoration program ................................................. $4,500,000 

Other Central Valley project impacts .................................................. 1,500,000 

Dedicated project yield .......................................................................... 800,000 

Flow fluctuation study .......................................................................... 50,000 

Restoration of riparian habitat and spawning gravel ......................... 1,000,000 

Central Valley comprehensive assessment/monitoring program ....... 300,000 

Anadromous fish screen program ......................................................... 4,432,000 

Refuge wheeling conveyance ................................................................. 8,800,000 

Refuge water supply, facility construction .......................................... 5,000,000 

Ecosystem/water systems operations model ........................................ 7,650,000 

Water acquisition program ................................................................... 9,990,000 

San Joaquin Basin action plan ............................................................. 2,800,000 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
47 

Land retirement program ..................................................................... 1,000,000 

Clear Creek restoration ......................................................................... 800,000 

Trinity River restoration program ........................................................ 1,000,000 

San Joaquin River Basin resource management initiative ................ 2,000,000 

Total, Central Valley project restoration fund ............................. 51,622,000 

CALIFORNIA BAY-DELTA RESTORATION

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriation, 2007 ............................................................................ $36,648,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ....................................................................... 31,750,000 

Recommended, 2008 ........................................................................... 40,750,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2007 .................................................................... +4,102,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ................................................................ +9,000,000 

The California Bay-Delta account funds 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. In 2005, the 

CALFED Bay-Delta Authorization Act (P.L. 108–361) was enacted, 

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 2007 amount to almost $904,000,000. 

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 provide water supply for central and southern California, it should share in the responsibility of maintaining and 

strengthening delta levees and has provided $5,000,000 under the 

CALFED Bay-Delta program for this purpose to be transferred to 

the Corps of Engineers. 

Due to the increasing need for water supply in the West, the 

Committee recommendation also includes an additional $5,000,000 

for water use efficiency efforts. The Committee recommendation 

also includes a reduction of $1,000,000 for planning and management activities. 

For fiscal year 2008, the Committee recommends $40,750,000, 

$9,000,000 above the budget request and $4,120,000 above the fiscal year 2007 enacted level. The funds provided are intended to 

support the following activities, as delineated below: 

Science .................................................................................................... $3,000,000 

Delta Levees ........................................................................................... 5,000,000 

Environmental water account ............................................................... 7,000,000 

Storage program .................................................................................... 8,500,000 

Conveyance ............................................................................................. 5,000,000 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
48 

Planning and management activities ................................................... 1,000,000 

Water use efficiency ............................................................................... 5,000,000 

Ecosystem restoration ........................................................................... 1,500,000 

Water Quality ........................................................................................ 4,750,000 

Total, California Bay-Delta Restoration ....................................... 40,750,000 

POLICY AND ADMINISTRATION

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriation, 2007 ............................................................................ $57,575,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ....................................................................... 58,811,000 

Recommended, 2008 ........................................................................... 58,811,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2007 .................................................................... +1,236,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ................................................................ – – –

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, DC, 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 

2008, the Committee recommends $58,811,000, the same as the 

budget request and $1,236,000 above the fiscal year 2007 enacted 

level. 

Five-year budget planning.—In fiscal year 2006, 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 subsequently informed the Committee that it would be 

unable to provide a five-year plan in fiscal year 2007 and intended 

to make the initial submission with the fiscal year 2008 budget request. The Bureau failed to make that submission either, and now 

informs the Committee that the five-year plan will be submitted at 

some undefined time in the future. As a result of this Committee’s 

extreme frustration with the Bureau’s inability to provide a fiveyear budget plan, the Act contains a provision that transfers 

$10,000,000 from the Policy and Administration account to the 

Water and Related Resources account to meet unbudgeted needs in 

the event the five-year budget plan is not received 60 days after 

the date enactment of this Act. 

To reiterate the Committee’s expectation, the program plans 

shall clearly state the assumptions and priorities behind the 

choices the Bureau will make between competing agency programs 

and projects, 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. 

GENERAL PROVISIONS

DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR

The bill includes a provision regarding the San Luis Unit and 

Kesterson Reservoir in California. 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
(49) 

TITLE III 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

INTRODUCTION

Funds recommended in Title III provide for all Department of 

Energy (DOE) programs, including Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Nuclear Energy, Fossil Energy Research and Development, Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, Naval Petroleum 

and Oil Shale Reserves, the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, the 

Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve, the Energy Information Administration, Non-Defense Environmental Management, Uranium 

Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund, Science, 

Nuclear Waste Disposal, Environmental Safety and Health, 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 Management, 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 $24,762,713,000 in fiscal year 2008 to fund programs in its five 

primary mission areas: science, energy, environment, nuclear nonproliferation and national security. The overall DOE budget request is increased 2.8 percent compared to the fiscal year 2007 enacted level—essentially the rate of inflation, but the five mission 

areas fare quite differently under the Department’s budget proposal. Science research would increase by over 15.8 percent while 

the budget for Nuclear Nonproliferation decreases by 0.6 percent. 

When the budget for constructing a domestic fuel fabrication facility is omitted, the proposed reduction in spending on actual nonproliferation activities is 5.8 percent. The total environmental 

cleanup budget request proposes a reduction of 8.7 percent compared to fiscal year 2006. 

Compared to fiscal year 2007 (adjusted for one-time emergency 

spending), the fiscal year 2008 budget request for applied energy 

research is actually down by 0.9 percent in the midst of an ongoing energy crisis with increased, volatile costs for petroleum and 

natural gas, over-reliance on imported oil, and growing emissions 

of greenhouse gases. The Administration is proposing a 75.4 percent increase for nuclear energy and decreases for all other energy 

technologies. This increase is driven by the studies of potential nuclear fuel recycling facilities and fast reactors that comprise most 

of the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership proposal. 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
50 

The Committee recommends a number of significant changes to 

the fiscal year 2008 budget request to reflect specific Congressional 

priorities that better address our national interests. The Committee recommendation substantively funds the request for the Office of Science and supports the projected doubling of this area of 

research and development funding over the decade from 2006 to 

2016. Significant adjustments to funding for nuclear nonproliferation, applied energy research, development, demonstration, and deployment, environmental cleanup, and weapons programs are recommended. In the current, constrained budget environment, total 

funding for the Department of Energy is $25,243,119,000, an increase of $1,149,925,000 over fiscal year 2007 and $480,406,000 

over the budget request. 

MAJOR COMMITTEE CONCERNS

Overall, the Committee is concerned with two tendencies in DOE 

program formulation and execution. First, like many agencies, 

DOE seems focused more on preserving its component institutions 

than on accomplishing its work and serving the people of the 

United States, its customers, in a cost-effective manner. Second, 

the Department has established a pattern of rushing into the latest 

new initiative with unbridled enthusiasm, neglecting the completion of on-going work, and letting haste make waste. Most major 

DOE projects have long time scales, longer than those of political 

change. This means that it is essential to take time up-front to establish the reliability of new technologies that will be used, to complete end-to-end system engineering and include all mission requirements, and to build bipartisan political support for long-term 

missions that is broad rather than local. 

PROJECT MANAGEMENT

Project management is the Committee’s number one concern at 

the Department of Energy. The Department of Energy is the largest civilian contracting agency in the federal government and 

spends over 90 percent of its annual budget on contracts to operate 

its laboratories, production facilities, and environmental restoration 

sites. In 1990, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) began 

an annual assessment resulting in a list of programs that are at 

high-risk for fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement. DOE contract management has been on this list since its inception. 

The Committee acknowledges some improvements have been 

made during the last two years—policies and guidance have been 

revised to require senior management approval at critical decision 

points, earned value management systems are now required of contractors, and federal project directors are now expected to complete 

a training and certification program. Despite these improvements, 

GAO found in January 2007 that performance on DOE projects is 

not substantially improved, and DOE has failed to ensure that its 

project management guidelines are consistently followed. Recently, 

Department management at the highest levels has chosen to shortcircuit project management policy and combine critical decision 

milestones rather than follow the established procedure of making 

these decisions in sequence. 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
51 

DOE has set a performance goal of having 90 percent of its ongoing projects within a 10 percent variance of cost and schedule baseline. GAO has found that, since October 2002, DOE has achieved 

its performance goals for individually funded construction projects 

only about one-third of the time. Four significant projects, estimated to cost more than $100 million each, were not reporting cost 

and schedule information into DOE’s tracking system. These and 

other findings have led GAO to conclude that DOE contract management remains, for the sixteenth year in a row, at high-risk for 

fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement. 

Despite the fact that DOE contract management remains on 

GAO’s high-risk list, the Department proposes to proceed rapidly 

with major projects to build the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement Building, the MOX Fuel Fabrication Facility, 

and the Uranium Processing Facility at Y–12, and is embarking on 

an aggressive plan utilizing the H–Canyon at the Savannah River 

Site, proceeding with development of a Reliable Replacement Warhead nuclear weapon, and conducting studies leading to construction of Global Nuclear Energy Partnership commercial scale facilities. 

The Committee repeats its prior guidance on the importance of 

improving the project management culture within the Department 

and on faithful 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 for 

major capital projects. 

The Committee directs the Department to work with GAO and 

develop an action plan with concrete steps and schedule milestones 

whose implementation will result in DOE contract management 

being removed from the GAO High-Risk List as soon as possible. 

This action plan is to be provided to the Committees on Appropriations of the House and Senate not later than November 1, 2007. 

Given the persistence of this problem, the Committee recognizes 

that this achievement may require more than a year, but the Committee expects the plan to include items of measurable progress 

that can and will be reported to the Committees on Appropriations 

of the House and Senate with submission to Congress of the annual 

budget request beginning with the request for fiscal year 2009. 

The Department is directed to comply fully with Management 

Order 413.3 for every project exceeding $100 million in total cost, 

and to strengthen 413.3 by adding requirements for assessing the 

readiness of technology to be used in every project and to have 

demonstrated technology ready for project implementation before 

proceeding past critical decision 2. Given the cost increases that 

have occurred due to increased requirements to mitigate seismic 

risks, the Department should consider adding requirements for 

seismic risk assessment and appropriate designs to address this 

risk in all construction projects. Once the Department has certified 

estimates of project cost as part of reaching critical decision 2, the 

Department shall not proceed without obtaining Congressional approval for the project with its full construction and life-cycle costs 

as part of the annual appropriations process. 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
52 

NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION

The Committee has long held that nuclear weapons material in 

the hands of terrorists poses the greatest threat to the United 

States. The most effective protection from this threat is to ensure 

that nuclear material is well-monitored and protected so that it 

does not fall into the hands of terrorists. Should material be illicitly 

removed from its protected locations, it is vital to detect it in transit. Accordingly, the Congress has consistently provided funding at 

or above the requested levels for work in partnership with Russia 

and other countries of the former Soviet Union, as well as others, 

to guard and account for fissional materials, to remove weapons-usable material from unsafe locations, and to provide and improve 

systems to detect radioactive materials at borders and other transportation nodes. The Administration request in this area is not 

commensurate with the importance of this issue, and the Committee provides significantly more funding for this work. These programs are an area where the performance of the Department has 

been quite good and the Committee commends the program officials responsible for their work to enhance the safety of the United 

States and the world. 

ENERGY RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, DEMONSTRATION, AND

DEPLOYMENT

The United States is in the midst of a multifaceted energy crisis 

that threatens our economy, our independence, and the environment. Reliance on imported petroleum makes the U.S. dependent 

on several politically unstable regions of the world. Growth in 

world demand for petroleum has created tight markets where 

prices are high and unstable. High prices for imported oil are major 

contributors to the U.S. trade deficit. Burning fossil fuels with current technologies leads to emission of carbon dioxide in amounts 

that cannot be absorbed by the environment fast enough to prevent 

significant increases in its atmospheric concentration. Carbon dioxide absorbs infrared radiation and thereby contributes to the greenhouse effect. The magnitude of the results is uncertain, but generally global average temperature increases, with especially significant warming of nights, winters, and polar latitudes. This global 

warming has the potential to cause environmental change that occurs faster than human infrastructure and economies can comfortably adapt. 

Given this threat to the well-being of the United States, the Administration request for energy research, development, demonstration, and deployment is woefully inadequate. The Committee has 

added significant funding for renewable energy sources and improvements to energy efficiency while providing additional funding 

for fossil energy technologies, particularly those to sequester carbon 

dioxide from coal combustion. The Committee redirects most of the 

major increase in funding for nuclear energy to activities that are 

more needed now than those associated with DOE’s Global Nuclear 

Energy Partnership proposal. The budget structure is changed to 

highlight these major areas of energy investment along with electricity delivery and energy reliability. The Committee would have 

provided additional funds to invest in achieving energy independVerDate Aug 31 2005 02:49 Jun 12, 2007 Jkt 035894 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR185.XXX HR185

hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
53 

ence and lowered emissions of greenhouse gases while supporting 

growth in the U.S. economy, but current constraints on the federal 

budget prevent this. 

ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT

Creating and maintaining a credible strategic deterrent of nuclear weapons from World War II to the end of the Cold War has 

left a legacy of toxic and radioactive chemicals and despoiled sites 

to be cleaned up, excess facilities to be removed, and former employees with retirement and health care needs that must be met. 

Early experiments associated with establishing a nuclear energy 

industry have also left behind a much smaller but still significant 

set of sites with similar requirements. The Defense and Non-Defense Environmental Clean-Up, Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning, and Legacy Management accounts at the Department of Energy fund this work. With closure 

of the Rocky Flats site, the budget for these activities should decrease somewhat, but the reduced spending level recommended by 

the Administration is inadequate. The Committee recommends additional funds for these activities and would have recommended 

even more were there not profound constraints on funding for government programs such as this. 

NUCLEAR WEAPONS ACTIVITIES

Currently, the Administration has not provided to Congress an 

updated strategic assessment that articulates the role of nuclear 

weapons in a post-Cold War world. The national security environment for the United States has changed dramatically since the fall 

of the Soviet Union; however, the policy objectives that continue to 

require a large Cold War era nuclear stockpile have not been updated to reflect the changed international security environment. 

The Committee directs the Administration to develop a comprehensive nuclear defense strategy that defines the future mission, global 

threats, and the specific characteristics of the U.S. nuclear stockpile necessary to address the nation’s nuclear deterrent requirements before proceeding with the Reliable Replacement Warhead 

proposal or significant nuclear complex modernization plans. The 

Department of Energy, as a civilian agency, is charged with maintaining a reliable stockpile of strategic nuclear weapons. The Cold 

War has left DOE with an eight-site weapons complex. The Department appears determined to retain this expensive complex and 

modernize it in place. The Committee rejects any such proposal. 

The nuclear weapons complex modernization plan needs to focus on 

the near-term milestones within five-year schedule windows with 

the intention of reducing the number, size, and cost of the NNSA 

sites and facilities while also requiring the minimum number of 

personnel for the mission. 

CONGRESSIONAL DIRECTION

The Committee renews the direction provided in previous fiscal 

years requiring the Secretary to submit to the House and Senate 

Committees on Appropriations a quarterly report on the status of 

all projects, reports, fund transfers, and other actions directed in 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
54 

this House bill and report. 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. 

RESEARCH PRIORITIES AND COORDINATION

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. These resources 

are concentrated in the physical sciences where DOE is the largest 

source of research funding in the federal government. The major 

increase in funding for the Office of Science is intended to begin to 

remedy years of neglect in support for these research areas and addresses the recommendations in the report by the National Academies, ‘‘Rising Above the Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future’’. The Committee 

fully supports this increase, which will directly support an additional 3,500 individuals engaged in research sponsored by DOE’s 

Science account. In general, the Department performs its basic 

science research and applied energy research missions well. 

The Committee notes that the Department sponsors energy research and development through the Office of Science, the four energy programs—Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Fossil 

Energy, Nuclear Energy, Science, and Technology, and Electricity 

Delivery and Energy Reliability—and through Laboratory Directed 

Research and Development (LDRD). The LDRD program consists of 

individual research projects selected at the discretion of DOE laboratory directors with Department concurrence and funded via 

overhead charge on all funding, direct and reimbursable, coming 

into each laboratory. In fiscal year 2006, the Department spent 

$476,000,000 on LDRD. The Committee directs the Department to 

make support for creative ‘‘out-of-the-box’’ energy research a priority within LDRD, especially at science laboratories, and to establish a process coordinating research and development across the 

Department. 

FIVE-YEAR BUDGET PLANNING

Fiscal year 2008 was the second 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 Administration used the uncertainty in the fiscal year 2007 

budget that resulted from the enactment of three successive continuing resolutions to appropriate funds for the Department as an 

excuse for providing plans that were almost useless in many areas. 

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 2009 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 made among competing Department programs, and should include a copy of the diVerDate Aug 31 2005 02:49 Jun 12, 2007 Jkt 035894 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR185.XXX HR185

hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
55 

rection provided to the program offices to guide their submissions 

to the five-year plan. The five-year budget plans for each major 

program also should identify clearly 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., 

the Hanford Waste Treatment Plant), all new projects (e.g., NSLS– II), 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. 

The Committee appreciates the effort of the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management in detailing the spending plan for licensing, opening, and operating the Yucca Mountain Geologic HighLevel Nuclear Waste Repository. This plan extends well beyond 

five years and was critical in making the case for the fiscal year 

2008 budget request for this activity. Accordingly, the Committee 

recommends full funding for this request. In contrast, the plan for 

the Office of Science was disappointing and only communicated the 

intention to double the overall spending level within 10 years. The 

budget requirements for the International Thermonuclear Energy 

Reactor (ITER) are known to the Department, but the variation in 

this major funding activity within Fusion Energy Research was not 

visible in the overall funding projected for this area. Were it not 

for the Committee’s strong support for strengthening U.S. research 

in the physical sciences, the budget request for the Office of Science 

would not be funded. 

The programs of the Office of Environmental Management offer 

a clear example of the 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 

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 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. 

The Department proposes significant work leading to the development of a reliable replacement warhead (RRW) within the weapons program. The Committee directs the Administration to develop 

a comprehensive nuclear defense strategy that defines the future 

mission, global threats, and the specific characteristics of the U.S. 

nuclear stockpile necessary to address the nation’s nuclear deterrent requirements before proceeding with the RRW or significant 

nuclear complex modernization plans. Additionally, the Committee 

views this as a possibility only as part of a major consolidation of 

the nuclear weapons complex with significant reductions in operVerDate Aug 31 2005 02:49 Jun 12, 2007 Jkt 035894 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR185.XXX HR185

hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
56 

ating costs. The plan for the complex is named by the Department 

the ‘‘Complex 2030’’. The Committee cannot support continued 

spending at current rates on the weapons program nor planning for 

the RRW absent a clear plan to restructure the complex over the 

coming five years and reduce the costs. The United States can ill 

afford to reconstitute the twentieth century Cold War nuclear 

weapons complex in the twenty-first century with its radically different threats and requirements. 

FUNDING OF SAFEGUARDS AND SECURITY ACTIVITIES

The Committee again 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 still 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. 

BUDGET JUSTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS

The fiscal year 2009 budget justifications submitted by the Department must include the following: (1) a section identifying the 

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 

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 2009 budget request is delivered to Congress. 

AUGMENTING FEDERAL STAFF

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 2008, 

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 2007 

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, 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
57 

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 

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, 2006 through September 30, 

2007, and is due to the Committee no later than January 31, 2008. 

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, 2006 through September 30, 2007, and is due to the Committee no later than January 31, 2008. 

REPROGRAMMING GUIDELINES

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. The Committee directs the Department to follow this 

guidance for all programs and activities unless specific reprogramming guidance is provided below for a program or activity. The 

Committee is aware of two instances in the previous fiscal year in 

which, from the Committee’s perspective, the Department abused 

its reprogramming authorities. In the reorganization of the Environment, Safety and Health organization, the Department refused 

to submit a reprogramming request to the Committees, despite explicit direction to do so and despite the fact that the reorganization 

clearly involved the reallocation of funds in a manner significantly 

different than described in the budget request and approved in the 

conference report. In the second instance, the Department internally reprogrammed funds to begin implementation of the loan 

guarantee program after the Committee formally disapproved a reprogramming request for that purpose. This internal reprogramming by the Department led to a determination by the Government 

Accountability Office that the Department violated the Anti-Deficiency Act by these actions. 

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 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
58 

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 2008, unless specifically identified in the House, Senate, or conference reports for particular programs, projects, or activities. Any reallocation of new or prior year 

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 2008 are described in the following sections. 

A detailed funding table is included at the end of this title. 

ENERGY SUPPLY AND CONSERVATION

Appropriation, 2007 ............................................................................ $2,154,504,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ....................................................................... 2,187,943,000 

Recommended, 2008 ........................................................................... – – –

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2007 .................................................................... ¥2,154,504,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ................................................................ ¥2,187,943,000 

In previous years the Committee has funded the Energy Supply 

and Conservation account that included 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 (non-defense). The Committee views that this combination obscures the 

nation’s true investments in energy research, development, demonstration, and deployment. Consequently, four of these five programs will now have their own accounts, and together with the 

Fossil Energy account, which now will subsume the full Clean Coal 

Technology program, spending levels for energy at DOE will be 

more transparent. Legacy management (non-defense) now will be 

funded as a subaccount of Non-Defense Environmental Management. 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
59 

ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY

Appropriation, 2007 ............................................................................ $1,474,285,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ....................................................................... 1 1,236,199,000 

Recommended, 2008 ........................................................................... 1,873,844,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2007 .................................................................... +399,559,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ................................................................ +637,645,000 1The budget request for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy of $1,236,199,000 was included in the 

request for Energy Supply and Conservation. The Committee is separating this line into its component accounts for FY 2008. 

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy programs include renewable energy and energy conservation research, development, 

demonstration and deployment activities (RDD&D), and federal energy assistance programs. Renewable energy research, development, demonstration, and deployment activities include biomass 

and biorefinery systems, 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. Federal energy assistance programs include weatherization assistance, state 

energy programs, international renewable energy program, tribal 

energy activities, and the renewable energy production incentive. 

The total Committee recommendation for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) programs is $1,873,844,000, an increase 

of $637,645,000 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. 

The Committee directs the Department to quantify and track the 

progress and impact of the substantial investments the Committee 

has made in the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy portfolio. 

The Department shall brief the Committee on an annual basis on 

the return on investment for each of the accounts. 

Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Research, Development, Demonstration, and Deployment.—The Committee provides 

$1,558,897,000 for renewable energy and energy conservation 

RDD&D programs, an increase of $527,602,000 over the budget request. 

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 recommendation is 

$194,600,000, a decrease of $18,400,000 below the budget request. 

Most research and development activities within this account will 

not generally realize benefits until the 2050 timeframe, and therefore activities more appropriately funded in the longer term have 

been reduced in favor of other renewable energy and efficiency programs with nearer term benefits. The Committee recommends 

$30,000,000 for hydrogen production and delivery, a reduction of 

$10,000,000 below the budget request; $14,000,000 for safety and 

codes and standards, a reduction of $2,000,000 below the budget request; $2,000,000 for education, a reduction of $1,900,000 below the 

budget request; $10,000,000 for systems analysis, $1,500,000 below 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
60 

the budget request; and $2,000,000 for manufacturing, a reduction 

of $3,000,000 below the budget request. 

Biomass and Biorefinery Systems R&D.—Biomass and Biorefinery Systems R&D conducts 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 $250,000,000, an increase of $70,737,000 

over the budget request. The Committee provides $10,000,000 for 

feedstock infrastructure, $59,400,000 for platforms research and 

development, $104,863,000 for utilization of platform outputs, and 

$5,000,000 for cellulosic ethanol reverse auction, the same as the 

budget request. The increase of $70,737,000 includes $40,000,000 

to support additional commercial biorefinery demonstrations to increase feedstock options and conversion technologies; $20,000,000 

to support solicitations for new state-of-the-art biorefineries operating at 10 percent of commercial scale, enabling faster validation 

of cellulosic ethanol configurations and reducing the technological 

risks for scale-up to commercial operations; $4,000,000 for continuation of the FreedomPrize challenge to encourage private sector 

ideas to displace oil; and $4,237,000 to secure and upgrade high 

speed data infrastructure to provide access to DOE lab supercomputing capabilities to accelerate high volume protein and enzyme 

modeling. The Committee provides $2,500,000 for coordination with 

the Department of Transportation for work on the transport of 

biofuels, to include development of logistical movement patterns for 

diverse feedstock, utilizing different modes of transportation to include barges, rail and pipelines. 

The Committee directs DOE to implement an aggressive program 

to take advantage of the Historically Black Colleges and Universities and Hispanic Serving Institutions 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 (PV) and concentrating solar 

power, that are reliable, affordable and environmentally sound. The 

Committee provides $200,000,000 for solar energy programs, an increase of $51,696,000 over the budget request. The Committee recommendation includes $149,000,000 for photovoltaic energy systems, an increase of $11,696,000 over the budget request for applied research on semi-conductor material, device and processing 

issues, technology acceptance and technology evaluation. The Committee recommendation includes $34,000,000 for concentrating 

solar power, an increase of $25,000,000 over the budget request to 

improve thermal storage technologies and systems to allow utilities 

to dispatch energy into the grid as needed, and to accelerate manufacturing technologies to enable scale-up and deployment of advanced systems. The Committee recommendation includes 

$12,000,000 for solar heating and lighting, an increase of 

$10,000,000 over the budget request to develop and validate integrated solar PV and solar thermal systems essential to the developVerDate Aug 31 2005 02:49 Jun 12, 2007 Jkt 035894 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR185.XXX HR185

hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
61 

ment of cost-neutral Zero Energy Buildings. The Committee recommendation provides $5,000,000 not included in the budget request, for accelerating the development and adoption of a solar PV 

rating system, including EnergyStar testing and qualification to accelerate market penetration. 

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 

$57,500,000 for wind energy systems, an increase of $17,431,000 

over the budget request. The increase is to support renewable grid 

integration, a joint effort with the Office of Electricity Delivery and 

Energy Reliability to maximize and scale renewable resource, utilization and delivery. 

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. Analysis published in January 2007 by a Massachusetts Institute of Technology-led panel identified the potential for 

enhanced geothermal systems to contribute 100,000 MWe to the 

Nation’s energy supplies. The budget request included no funding 

for this activity. The Committee recommendation provides 

$44,258,000 for technology development and application strategies 

for enhanced geothermal systems, to be competitively awarded to 

industry, universities and national laboratories for exploration, 

drilling and conversion technologies. 

Hydropower.—The Committee provides $22,000,000 for hydro- power research, an increase of $22,000,000 over the budget request. 

Hydropower is a major source of energy for the nation, and increased efficiency of existing plants coupled with emerging waterpower technologies can make a major contribution to clean energy 

generation. The Committee recommends $4,000,000 for environmental studies to maximize the potential of conventional and alternative hydropower technologies; $6,000,000 for RDD&D of new waterpower technologies for ocean, tidal, and instream-based generation; $7,000,000 for the advanced turbine program; and $5,000,000 

for hydropower resource assessments at existing dams. 

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 

$235,441,000, an increase of $59,303,000 over the budget request. 

The recommendation provides $93,664,000 for hybrid electric systems, an increase of $13,000,000 over the budget request. Of the 

increase, $10,000,000 is for energy storage research and development for advanced batteries for electric, hybrid-electric and plugin hybrid electric vehicle (PHEV) applications, and $3,000,000 is 

for a competitively bid award to independently test and evaluate 

all vehicles developed in the upcoming PHEV demonstration. The 

Committee is concerned that DOE is moving forward with a demonstration program for plug-in hybrid electric vehicles that will not 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
62 

be independently evaluated outside of the car companies. The Committee recommends $49,550,000 for advanced combustion engine 

research and development, an increase of $15,000,000 to restore 

funding to the heavy truck engine research that was eliminated in 

the budget request. The Committee recommends $48,382,000 for 

materials technology research, an increase of $15,000,000 over the 

budget request to accelerate the development of cost-effective materials and manufacturing processes that contribute to fuel-efficient 

passenger and commercial vehicles. The Committee supports the 

lightweight materials technology research and development on advanced high-strength steels to reduce the weight of commercial vehicles. The Committee provides $23,845,000 for fuels technology, an 

increase of $10,000,000 over the request for non-petroleum based 

fuels and lubricants evaluation to expand and accelerate RDD&D 

for optimized ethanol engine and vehicle technologies. The Committee provides $20,000,000 for technology integration, an increase 

of $6,303,000 over the budget request. This increase is for the vehicles technologies deployment (VTD) program, formerly the Clean 

Cities program, and increases the budget request for VTD/Clean 

Cities from $9,593,000 to $15,896,000, to promote the adoption and 

use of petroleum reduction technologies and practices by working 

with local Clean Cities coalitions and their stakeholders, industry 

partners, fuel providers, and end users. 

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. A key program objective is the availability of market-viable, 

net zero energy homes by 2020. The Committee recommends 

$146,456,000, an increase of $60,000,000 over the budget request, 

for Building Technologies. The Committee provides $43,361,000 for 

technology validation and market introduction, an increase of 

$30,000,000 over the request, of which $28,751,000 is for building 

energy codes, an increase of $25,000,000 over the budget request. 

The Committee directs that $10,000,000 of the building energy code 

increase be directed to state compliance programs as authorized 

under Section 128 of EPAct 2005, and encourages states and/or 

local governments to provide direct training to builders and building code inspectors as part of their compliance plans. The additional $15,000,000 increase in building energy codes is to continue 

the development of the commercial zero-energy building initiative 

to improve building codes program support to code setting organizations and States. The Committee encourages the Department to 

work through EnergySmart schools and EnergySmart hospitals to 

ensure emergency preparedness while reducing energy costs. The 

Committee provides $11,776,000 for Energy Star, an increase of 

$5,000,000 over the budget request, for accelerating and modernizing Energy Star to include advanced technologies such as solar 

water heaters, photovoltaics, fuels cells and other consumer appliances. The Committee recommends work on early Energy Star ratings and deployment of LED white lighting, and encourages its use 

by the Federal Energy Management Program. The Committee provides $23,639,000 for equipment standards and analysis, an increase of $10,000,000 over the budget request, to update appliance 

standards. Currently the program is behind schedule on over 20 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
63 

standards and the delay is costing consumers and businesses billions of dollars in higher energy bills. The Committee has also provided additional resources in the DOE Office of the General Counsel dedicated to reviewing appliance standards to expedite the promulgation of the standards. The Committee provides $52,756,000 

for emerging technologies, an increase of $20,000,000 over the 

budget request for lighting R&D, to accelerate the solid state lighting portfolio in core technology, product development and commercialization support. 

Industrial Technologies.—The Industrial Technologies program 

costshares research in critical technology areas identified in partnership with industry in order to realize significant energy benefits. The Committee recommends $57,000,000, an increase of 

$11,002,000 over the budget request, and consistent with fiscal 

year 2006 appropriated levels. The recommendation includes 

$16,254,000 for Industries of the Future (Specific), an increase of 

$7,000,000 over the budget request, to be allocated as follows: 

metal casting at $1,006,000, an increase of $812,000 over the budget request; steel industry at $3,716,000, an increase of $2,111,000 

over the budget request; $2,330,000 for the aluminum industry, an 

increase of $580,000 over the budget request; $2,961,000 for the 

forest and paper products industry, an increase of $1,209,000 over 

the budget request; and, $5,982,000 for the chemicals industry, an 

increase of $2,288,000 over the budget request. The Committee provides $2,002,000 for the Inventions and Innovations program, 

which is not included in the Administration’s budget request. This 

program provides small grants to independent investors and small 

technology-based businesses to develop skills in technology commercialization. The Committee provides $38,744,000 for Industries 

of the Future (crosscutting), an increase of $2,000,000 to expand 

outreach to the Information Technologies industry and data centers 

for energy savings, and development of software for verification 

and accountability in measuring energy savings in industry. 

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 $27,000,000, an increase of $10,209,000 over the budget 

request, of which $7,209,000 supports additional investment in 

more projects. The Federal government should lead by example in 

the area of energy efficiency by trying to squeeze every bit of productivity from energy use. As such, the Committee provides an additional $3,000,000 to leverage DOE specific initiatives at DOE facilities to lead the federal government in the use of energy efficiency products and practices. 

Facilities and Infrastructure.—The Committee recommendation 

for renewable energy Facilities and Infrastructure is $195,699,000, 

an increase of $188,717,000 over the budget request. This amount 

includes the budget request of $6,982,000 for operations and maintenance of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) in 

Golden, Colorado; an increase of $8,000,000 to complete recapitalization and expansion of the solar program research and developVerDate Aug 31 2005 02:49 Jun 12, 2007 Jkt 035894 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR185.XXX HR185

hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
64 

ment equipment; $13,000,000 for South Table Mountain infrastructure, to include testing facilities for plug-in hybrid vehicles; and 

$77,000,000 for the acceleration of the NREL energy systems integration facility. The Committee provides $90,717,000 for the NREL 

Strategic Investments facilities program, to include $25,000,000 for 

project engineering and design for site planning; and $65,717,000 

for the preliminary design and initial construction of the biological 

and chemical research facility. 

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 $18,930,000, an increase of $5,649,000 

over the budget request. The Committee provides an increase of 

$1,000,000 to assist in the establishment of a FACA-chartered Federal Advisory Council within the Office of EERE for Finance and 

Investment. The goal of this advisory council will be to help generate policy within EERE to stimulate capital investments in 

emerging technologies and thereby bring these technologies to the 

marketplace. The Department is directed to report back to the 

Committees on Appropriations within 60 days of enactment of this 

Act on the plan to establish this advisory council. The Committee 

provides $6,000,000 for the Energy Efficiency Public Information 

Initiative, an increase of $4,649,000, to leverage private sector 

funds to provide public service information on energy efficiency. 

The Committee believes that there is no further benefit to be 

gained from the National Academy of Sciences Phase 3 study effort 

on Prospective Benefits of DOE’s Applied Energy R&D Programs, 

and directs the Department to use all remaining funding for this 

effort to support U.S. contributions to the Global Energy Assessment. 

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 $110,013,000, an increase of 

$5,000,000 over the budget request, to provide additional federal 

support in the management and oversight of added resources provided by the Committee. The Committee encourages that resources 

first be applied to the work of promulgating appliance standards. 

Federal Energy Assistance Programs.—The Committee provides a 

total of $314,947,000 for federal energy assistance programs, an increase of $110,043,000 over the budget request. These programs 

are described in detail in the following sections. 

Weatherization Assistance.—The Committee recommends 

$245,550,000 for weatherization assistance program grants, an increase of $101,550,000 over the budget request, to include 

$4,550,000 for training and technical assistance. The Committee is 

concerned that the Department has severely under-funded this program, which almost immediately results in significant energy savings in American homes. The Secretary is directed to make FY 

2008 Weatherization funding available from Oct 1, 2007, to March 

31, 2009, for states that submit plans requesting allocations for all 

or part of this period. 

International Renewable Energy Program.—The Committee recommends $10,000,000 for the International Renewable Energy ProVerDate Aug 31 2005 02:49 Jun 12, 2007 Jkt 035894 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR185.XXX HR185

hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
65 

gram, an increase of $10,000,000 over the budget request. No funds 

are provided specifically for the Asia Pacific Initiative account, a 

reduction of $7,500,000 from the budget request. The Committee 

believes there is value in working collaboratively with our global 

partners in promoting renewable energy and energy efficiency efforts, and supports the work of the Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy to this end. However, singling out one part of 

the globe to support an Administration initiative makes no sense. 

The Committee is disappointed that the Department has chosen to 

fund only the Asia-Pacific Initiative and provide no funds for other 

ongoing international exchange efforts. As such, the Committee 

provides $10,000,000 for international efforts addressing greenhouse gas reduction technologies, energy efficiency, international 

standards, and energy security for continuing dialogue to include 

western nations, and countries with emerging economies. Within 

the International Renewable Energy Program account, no more 

than $2,000,000 may be spent on the Asia-Pacific Initiative. 

Tribal Energy Activities.—The Committee provides $5,000,000, an increase of $2,043,000 over the budget request, for tribal energy 

activities for additional energy projects. The Committee encourages 

the Department to consider uniform contracts for investment, in 

order to leverage tribal renewable energy contracts in a more efficient manner and with a longer term vision. The Committee directs 

the Department to establish a director for Indian Energy Policy 

and Programs to provide much needed coordination of the Department’s activities and services to assist Indian tribes in developing 

their energy resources. 

Renewable Energy Production Incentive.—The Committee pro- vides $4,946,000 for the Renewable Energy Production Incentive, 

the same as the budget request. 

State Energy Program.—The Committee recommends 

$49,451,000 for the State Energy Program, an increase of 

$3,950,000 over the budget request, to include $10,501,000 for competitive projects, the same as the budget request. The Committee 

directs the Department to implement section 140 of EPAct to support state-wide pilot programs that encourage the reduction of electricity or natural gas consumption within the total funds provided. 

ELECTRICITY DELIVERY AND ENERGY RELIABILITY

Appropriation, 2007 ............................................................................ $137,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ....................................................................... 1 114,937,000 

Recommended, 2008 ........................................................................... 134,161,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2007 .................................................................... ¥2,839,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ................................................................ +19,224,000 1The budget request for Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability of $114,937,000 was included in the request for Energy Supply and Conservation. The Committee is separating this line into its component accounts for FY 2008. 

The mission of the Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability is to lead national efforts to modernize the electric grid, enhance security and reliability of the energy infrastructure, and facilitate recovery from disruptions to the energy supply. The Committee recommendation for Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability is $134,161,000, an increase of $19,224,000 over the budget 

request. The President has designated DOE as the Lead SectorVerDate Aug 31 2005 02:49 Jun 12, 2007 Jkt 035894 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR185.XXX HR185

hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
66 

Specific Agency responsible for protecting the Nation’s critical energy infrastructure. The Committee provides the $19,224,000 increase for infrastructure security and energy restoration, to further 

assist State and local governments with energy disruption and response preparedness. 

NUCLEAR ENERGY

Appropriation, 2007 ............................................................................ $482,191,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ....................................................................... 1 1,233,052,000 

Recommended, 2008 ........................................................................... 759,227,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2007 .................................................................... +277,036,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ................................................................ ¥473,825,000 1The budget request for Nuclear Energy of $801,703,000 was included in the request for Energy Supply 

and Conservation. The Committee is separating this line into its component accounts for FY 2008 and has 

transferred from Nuclear Nonproliferation to Nuclear Energy the MOX fuel fabrication facility requested at 

$431,349,000 and work on Generation IV reactor fuel in partnership with Russia for which the request was 

zero. 

The Committee recommendation for the Nuclear Energy appro- priation is $759,227,000, a decrease of $473,825,000 below the 

budget request. This net decrease reflects the Committee’s recommendation to fund the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership 

(GNEP) program at $120,000,000, $35,000,000 below the authorization ceiling of $155,000,000, fund the Nuclear Power 2010 program 

at the fiscal year 2007 appropriations level, and fund the Mixed 

Oxide fuel fabrication facility below the budget request. The Committee has transferred the Mixed Oxide (MOX) fuel fabrication facility program from the Office of Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation 

to the Nuclear Energy programs account. The Committee provides 

increased funding for nuclear energy facility infrastructure, and for 

the deployment of a reactor from the Generation IV nuclear energy 

systems initiative. The Committee provides no funds for the university education assistance program at the DOE, the same as the 

budget request; however, the Committee has provided additional 

funding for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to implement an 

education assistance program. 

Of the total funding of $835,176,000 provided for Nuclear Energy 

programs and facilities, $75,949,000 represents costs allocated to 

the 050 budget function, (i.e. defense activities) for Idaho Site-wide 

and Security activities. 

Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP).—The Department 

requests $405,000,000 for a major new initiative called the Global 

Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) including $10,000,000 under 

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation. This initiative claims to 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. While the Committee is generally supportive of continued research that could lead to an eventual program of light water nuclear reactor spent fuel recycling, 

should that become necessary in the future, the aggressive program 

proposed by the Department is at best premature. The Committee 

has provided considerable funding in previous years and does so 

again in fiscal year 2008, to support a renaissance in nuclear energy generation in the United States. This renaissance appears to 

be coming, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is anticipating 

multiple license applications for new light water nuclear reactors 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
67 

before the end of 2008. But the renaissance has not taken shape 

as yet. It will be some years before one can be confident the industry will be renewed. The licensing, financing and construction of 

new reactors have not happened, and the economic viability of nuclear power will not be known until the first few new reactors are 

providing energy to the electric grid. 

GNEP and Nuclear Nonproliferation.—At the recent DOE-sponsored international ministerial meeting on GNEP, the Administration abandoned any pretext that GNEP will promote international 

nuclear nonproliferation by relenting to partner demands that 

‘‘partnership’’ countries can continue to produce weapons-usable 

plutonium in their reprocessing activities. The Committee is disappointed that the Administration would support any effort that 

leads to increased availability of plutonium anywhere in the world. 

GNEP’s inclusion of fast reactors.—The Department’s concept of 

the GNEP includes the development of fast burner reactors. The ultimate benefit of reducing the requirements for permanent geologic 

disposal largely results from the destruction of long-lived radionuclides in fast reactors and requires multiple cycles of reprocessing spent fast reactor fuel. Considerable research is needed before 

it is possible to judge the actual technology to be used or the costs 

and economic viability of this critical element of the GNEP approach. 

There are also concerns with the development of fast reactors in 

general. To date, virtually all fast reactors have been configured as 

breeder reactors, and breeder reactors, as the name implies, create 

more plutonium than they consume in fissionable material. Encouraging the development of this technology and reliance on fast reactors as part of spent fuel management poses proliferation risks. 

Divergence of Congressional and Department concepts for spent 

nuclear fuel recycling.—When Congress provided funding in fiscal 

year 2006 for Integrated Spent Fuel Recycling, Congress understood integrated recycling to involve four steps: an advanced separations 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. The Department has failed to convince the Committee that advanced separations technology coupled with fast reactors is a viable, comprehensive approach to recycling spent fuel. 

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 $12 billion in just three years, and there are numerous other 

examples of major construction projects with considerable cost 

growth and poor project management by the Department. Embarking on a costly process leading to major new construction projects 

is unwise, particularly where there is no urgency, and the Department has failed to persuade the Committee of the critical need to 

proceed with GNEP now. In addition, before the Department can 

expect the Committee to support funding for a major new initiative, 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
68 

the Department must provide a complete and credible estimate of 

the life-cycle costs of the program demonstrate that it can manage 

and control the costs of its ongoing projects. 

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 in Yucca Mountain. However, the current fleet 

of reactors are generally one-third to one-half through their expected operating lifetimes. To retain this component of our domestic energy supply, even at the twenty percent level of electricity 

generation, the United States will have to reach a consensus supporting the construction of dozens of new nuclear reactors beginning with improved versions of light water reactors and subsequently including thermal neutron Generation IV reactors. Delays 

in opening the Yucca Mountain repository and the legislated capacity limit of the repository cast a shadow over the future of nuclear 

energy, raising doubts about a viable disposal path for the spent 

fuel current and future reactors will generate. 

Generation IV high-temperature gas reactors.—The Committee 

notes that there are designs for Generation IV, thermal-neutron, 

high output-temperature nuclear reactors that offer the potential of 

enhanced safety, improved efficiency in the generation of electricity, 950 degree Celsius output temperatures that may enable efficient generation of hydrogen from water, and the ability for higher burn-up of fissionable elements. A true nuclear renaissance 

should not be confined to improved versions of current light-water 

reactors. Accordingly, the Committee shifts significant support to 

the Generation IV program to accelerate demonstration of this reactor type, which is not subject to core meltdown. 

University education assistance.—The Committee provides no 

funding in the DOE nuclear energy account for grants and fellowships that support nuclear science and engineering education, the 

same as the budget request. However, the Committee provides 

$15,000,000 for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to execute the university education assistance program. DOE annually 

requests no funding for education assistance, and the Congress 

sees fit every year to restore the funding. It is irresponsible for the 

Department to zero out education assistance at a time when the 

nuclear industry is attempting to revitalize. By requesting no funds 

for this program, the Department sends the wrong signal to aspiring students in the nuclear field that there is a lack of a commitment to a future with nuclear energy. The Committee therefore entrusts the NRC with the responsibility of providing a sustainable 

education assistance program. 

Nuclear Power 2010.—The Committee provides $80,291,000 for 

Nuclear Power 2010, a decrease of $33,709,000 below the budget 

request and the same as fiscal year 2007. The Committee believes 

the funds should be to assist in addressing the financial burden of 

new license applicants, and not to subsidize the work of reactor designers. 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
69 

NUCLEAR ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

Generation IV nuclear energy systems.—The Committee supports 

the Department’s collaborative efforts on the research and development of a Generation IV (Gen IV) reactor design that will be safer, 

more cost effective, and more proliferation resistant than current 

designs. The Committee recommends a total of $115,145,000 for 

Generation IV nuclear energy systems, an increase of $79,000,000 

over the budget request, which includes $70,000,000 for the Next 

Generation Nuclear Plant program and $9,000,000 to continue 

work on fuel for Gen IV reactors in partnership with Russia, transferred from the Nuclear Nonproliferation account. The Committee 

directs the Department to make the Next Generation Nuclear 

Plant a higher priority than the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership and to begin a competitive solicitation process for a commercial demonstration of a thermal-neutron gas reactor, to be located 

at the Department’s nuclear energy laboratory, the Idaho National 

Laboratory (INL). The DOE cost share with industry partners 

should be 50/50, with the management of the construction of the 

reactor to be undertaken by industry. In fiscal year 2008, these 

funds shall be used to prepare and conduct the solicitation, to develop a licensing strategy for this reactor in partnership with the 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and to identify infrastructure 

needs at INL to support this endeavor. 

Nuclear Hydrogen Initiative.—The Committee provides 

$19,265,000 for the nuclear hydrogen initiative, a reduction of 

$3,335,000 from the budget request. The Committee’s recommendation is consistent with the Department’s fiscal year 2007 operating 

plan. 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. 

NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE

The Committee creates a new subaccount entitled Nuclear Fuel 

Cycle that incorporates the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative (AFCI) 

and the Mixed Oxide (MOX) Fuel Fabrication Facility transferred 

from Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation. 

Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative.—The Committee provides 

$120,000,000 for the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative, $35,000,000 

below the fiscal year 2008 authorization level, and $275,000,000 

below the budget request, but the same as the House-recommended 

level for fiscal year 2007. The Committee supports continued research on advanced fuel cycles, including the development of technologies for recycling spent nuclear fuel. However, the Committee 

does not support the Department’s rushed, poorly-defined, expansive, and expensive Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) 

proposal. There is no compelling urgency to reach a decision point 

in the summer of 2008, nor is there urgency to begin the development of commercial-scale recycling facilities. Further research is 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
70 

required before the U.S. should commit the magnitude of funding 

proposed under the GNEP initiative. 

The Department should focus its limited AFCI resources in fiscal 

year 2008 on research activities at the Idaho National Laboratory, 

the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, and the Argonne National 

Laboratory, with support from university and private sector researchers as appropriate. The success of AFCI will be judged on the 

quality of the research it produces, not on the number of national 

laboratories that it supports. 

The Committee is pleased with the number of communities that 

volunteered to host GNEP facilities, and the Committee directs the 

Department to make available up to $5,000,000 to maintain this 

community interest in fiscal year 2008. Such interest may translate 

into candidate sites for fuel cycle facilities in the future. 

The Committee notes with disapproval that the Department used 

the flexibility it received under the year-long Continuing Resolution to allocate $167,484,000 for the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative 

in fiscal year 2007, a level that exceeds the authorized ceiling of 

$150,000,000 for AFCI activities in fiscal year 2007 that was established in section 953 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. 

The Committee has learned that DOE’s use of technology readiness levels in the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership technology 

development plan of April 2007 does not apply readiness in a manner consistent with the recommendations in the Government Accountability Office report from March 2007 (GAO–07–336). Specifically, DOE has applied technology readiness levels to an entire facility, rather than assessing and reporting readiness levels for each 

of the critical technologies within each of the facilities. Such an 

evaluation would provide the transparency needed to understand 

the current maturity of each of the critical technologies and processes, and a clearer understanding of the cost and schedule of intended facilities. The Committee directs the Department to provide 

the technology readiness levels individually for each of the specific 

technologies within the proposed GNEP facilities, consistent with 

the GAO recommendations, in a revised GNEP technology development plan, including cost and schedules, to the Committee by January 31, 2008. 

Fuel Fabrication Facilities.—The Committee provides 

$167,849,000 for Fuel Fabrication Facilities, which includes 

$142,849,000 for construction of the Mixed Oxide (MOX) Fuel Fabrication Facility at the Savannah River Site, a reduction of 

$191,000,000 from the request. The Committee also provides 

$25,000,000 for other project costs associated with this facility, a 

decrease of $72,500,000 below the request. The MOX project has 

been transferred from the Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation account because the project ceased to be a nonproliferation project 

once it was de-linked from the companion Russian fissile material 

disposition project. 

The Committee strongly encourages the Department to take a 

fresh look at how the current single-purpose MOX design can be 

adapted to be a more versatile fuel fabrication facility that can not 

only process the 34 metric tons of excess weapons-usable plutonium 

to fulfill the terms of the agreement with Russia, but can also fabricate fuel for advanced U.S. reactors that may be developed under 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
71 

the AFCI and Gen IV research initiatives. Given the high capital 

costs for constructing the single-purpose MOX plant, this project 

may only be a worthwhile investment if the Department can find 

a way to maximize the utility of this plant. 

The control point is at the Nuclear Fuel Cycle level, so that funds 

may be reprogrammed within and between the AFCI and Advanced 

Fuel Fabrication Facilities accounts without the need for prior Congressional approval. 

Project management.—The Committee is very concerned about 

the past mismanagement of the MOX fuel fabrication facility. The 

ever-increasing project cost baseline warrants a real-time project 

management oversight function performed by a group outside of 

the Department, as the MOX facility goes into the construction 

phase. As such, the Committee directs the Government Accountability Office to monitor the construction and management of the 

MOX facility, and report to the Committee on a quarterly basis on 

the progress of the fuel fabrication facility, regarding scope, cost 

and schedule changes and performance. 

RADIOLOGICAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT

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 $35,110,000, the same as the budget request. This includes 

the requested amounts to operate radioisotope power systems at 

the Idaho National Laboratory (INL), maintain iridium capabilities 

at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, and maintain and operate the 

Pu–238 mission at Los Alamos National Laboratory. 

Medical isotopes infrastructure.—The Committee recommendation is $14,964,000, the same as the budget request. The recommendation provides the requested amounts for Oak Ridge buildings 4501, 7920, 5500, and 9204–3 at Y–12, and for various facility 

costs at Brookhaven and Los Alamos National Laboratories. 

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. 

Oak Ridge nuclear infrastructure.—The Committee provides $10,000,000, not requested in the budget, to maintain the nuclear 

energy facilities and technical infrastructure at Oak Ridge National 

Laboratory without degradation. 

IDAHO FACILITIES MANAGEMENT

This program funds the operations and construction activities at 

the Idaho National Laboratory (INL), including the former ANL 

West and the Test Reactor Area. 

INL operations and infrastructure.—The Committee recommendation includes $122,263,000, $17,550,000 over the budget 

request, for INL operations and infrastructure. The Committee provides a $20,000,000 increase for the INL Advanced Test Reactor 

(ATR) Life Extension Program to continue safety posture improvements to ensure that the ATR remains contemporary with industry 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
72 

design and construction code standards, and for site infrastructure 

laboratory facilities. The Committee reduces INL operations and 

infrastructure by $2,450,000, which is for the Radiological and Environmental Sciences Laboratory. The Committee provides this 

funding in the Office of Environment, Safety and Health account 

in fiscal year 2008. 

IDAHO SITE-WIDE SAFEGUARDS AND SECURITY

Consistent with the budget request, this activity is funded at the requested level of $75,949,000 as a 050 Defense Activity under the 

Other Defense Activities account. 

PROGRAM DIRECTION

The Committee recommends a total funding level for program direction of $71,393,000, a reduction of $4,831,000 below the budget 

request. The reduction of $1,682,000 is commensurate with the reduction to the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership’s overall programmatic funding. The Committee never received a reprogramming request from the Department for the movement of funds as 

the result of abolishing the Office of Environment, Safety, and 

Health. The Committee thereby reduces Nuclear Energy program 

direction by $3,149,000. This funding, which is for the Radiological 

and Environmental Sciences Laboratory, is provided by the Committee for fiscal year 2008 in the Office of Environment, Safety and 

Health account. 

CLEAN COAL TECHNOLOGY

(INCLUDING RESCISSION OF FUNDS)

The Revised Continuing Appropriations Resolution for Fiscal 

Year 2007 (Public Law 110–5), deferred $257,000,000 in unobligated Clean Coal Technology balances to fiscal year 2008. The 

Committee recommends the transfer of $108,000,000 of the 

$257,000,000 deferral to the FutureGen project, and rescinds the 

remaining $149,000,000 from the deferral. These balances are no 

longer needed in the Clean Coal Technology program to complete 

active projects. Of the $66,000,000 in unobligated balances carried 

forward at the start of fiscal year 2008, $58,000,000 is transferred 

to the carbon sequestration program, leaving $8,000,000 in balances for closeout activities. The Committee’s recommendation differs from the budget request in that the budget request transferred 

the $58,000,000 in balances to the Clean Coal Power Initiative program. The Committee believes carbon sequestration is a higher research, development, and demonstration priority for the future of 

coal. 

FOSSIL ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriation, 2007 ............................................................................ $592,621,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ....................................................................... 566,801,000 

Recommended, 2008 ........................................................................... 708,801,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2007 .................................................................... +116,180,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ................................................................ +142,000,000 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
73 

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 help to safeguard our 

domestic energy security. 

Coal is this country’s most abundant fuel for electric power generation. Faced with the threat of global warming, and increased 

costs of carbon sequestration and plant efficiency, the power generation technology research funded under this account has the difficult goal of developing virtually pollution-free power plants, while 

increasing plant efficiency in order to compete with other forms of 

electricity generation. The Committee recommendation is $708,801,000, an increase of 

$142,000,000 over the budget request and an increase of 

$116,180,000 from fiscal year 2007 enacted levels. 

Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Report.—The February 2007 Government Accountability Office report, ‘‘Public Safety Consequences 

of a Terrorist Attack on a Tanker Carrying Liquefied Natural Gas 

Need Clarification,’’ found that the most likely public safety impact 

of an LNG spill is the heat hazard of a fire, but disagreed with the 

specific heat hazard of a fire and cascading failure conclusions, 

which is used by the Coast Guard to prepare Waterway Suitability 

Assessments for LNG facilities. Additionally, GAO found that the 

Department’s ‘‘recently funded study involving large-scale LNG fire 

experiments addresses some, but not all, of the research priorities 

identified by the expert panel.’’ Therefore, the Committee directs 

the Department to incorporate the following key issues, as identified by the expert panel, into its current LNG study: cascading failure, comprehensive modeling (interaction of physical processes), 

risk tolerability assessments, vulnerability of containment systems 

(hole size), mitigation techniques, the effect of sea water coming in 

as LNG flows out, and the impact of wind, weather and waves. 

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 $73,000,000 for the clean coal power initiative (CCPI), 

the same as the budget request. The Committee is concerned that 

past awards in this program were selected with priority given to 

factors other than technical merit. The Committee believes that no 

future awards should be made without a carbon capture sequestration component. The Committee believes that resources are more 

critical in the areas of demonstrating carbon capture, transport 

technologies and carbon sequestration, and directs the Department 

to recast the CCPI program with these objectives. 

FutureGen.—FutureGen was originally a $950 million project, 

cost-shared with the private sector, to create the world’s first coalfired, zero emissions, electricity, heat and hydrogen producing 

power plant. The Committee has been informed, through testimony 

and follow-up information from the Department, that the costs of 

FutureGen now approximate $1,800,000,000. Given the Department’s track record for project management, the Committee expects 

this cost to escalate even further in the future. The Committee 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
74 

agrees with recent reports on the imperative to demonstrate the 

commercial viability of coal-based power generation with carbon 

capture and sequestration (CCS). FutureGen needs to be refocused 

as an integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) plant with carbon capture and sequestration, and drop the ambiguity of other 

less-critical research components. The Committee believes that, by 

streamlining the design to demonstrate IGCC and CCS, critical 

goals will be reached in a more timely and fiscally prudent manner. 

The Committee directs the Department to optimize the project design to support a proper sequestration demonstration. The Department is directed to provide a total life-cycle cost and project baseline for the streamlined FutureGen demonstration project by 120 

days of enactment of this legislation. The Committee recommends $108,000,000, the same as the request, for FutureGen. This funding will support the plant re-design 

and procurement activities, and continue permitting and site characterization efforts. It maintains the agreed level of federal commitment to this program. 

Fuels and power systems.—The Committee recommends a total of 

$375,602,000 for fuels and power systems, an increase of 

$130,000,000 over the budget request. The Committee provides 

$50,000,000 for innovations at existing plants, an increase of 

$50,000,000 over the budget request. Fifty percent of the nation’s 

electricity generated in the U.S. comes from coal. With increased 

concern regarding CO2 emissions from coal plants as a contributing 

factor to climate change, there needs to be a rigorous research program on the potential for retrofitting existing coal plants for CO2

capture and sequestration. The Committee directs the Department 

to focus R&D efforts on CO2 capture technology for existing pulverized coal (PC) combustion plants, to include efforts on highstrength materials for heat intensive operations, plant efficiency, 

and oxy-fuel combustion PC retrofit technology. The recommendation provides the following amounts consistent with the budget request: $50,000,000 for advanced Integrated Gas Combined Cycle 

and, $22,000,000 for advanced turbines. The Committee recommends $131,577,000 for carbon sequestration, an increase of 

$52,500,000 over the budget request. The Department is directed 

to undertake large scale (i.e., one million tons per year injection) 

carbon sequestration experimental projects in reservoirs that are 

instrumented, monitored and analyzed to verify the practical reliability and implementation of sequestration. The Committee recommends $10,000,000 for fuels, the same as the budget request. 

The Committee provides $62,025,000 for fuel cells, the same as the 

budget request. The Committee provides $50,000,000 for advanced 

research, an increase of $27,500,000 over the budget request. Of 

the increased amount, $8,000,000 is to support the liquefied natural gas report. The Committee is concerned about the findings 

that the Department is severely deficient in engineering-economic 

simulation tools for analysis of integrated coal combustion and conversion systems with carbon capture sequestration. The Committee 

provides the increase of $19,500,000 to be awarded competitively 

among universities, other nonprofits, industry and national laboratories to establish a strong program for modeling and simulation 

capability that will permit the analysis of design tradeoffs, turbine 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
75 

operation and sequestration requirements, and other factors that 

can accommodate validated engineering and cost data. 

Petroleum-oil technologies.—The Committee recommends 

$2,700,000 for petroleum-oil programs, an increase of $2,700,000 

over the budget request. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct 

2005) authorizes the use of $50,000,000 of mandatory receipts 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 2005 legislation, but should continue. 

Natural gas technologies.—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 2005 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 and high 

risk, but has the potential for a high pay-off. The Committee provides $12,000,000 for gas hydrates research and development, an 

increase of $12,000,000 over the budget request and the same as 

fiscal year 2007 enacted levels. 

Program direction.—The Committee recommends $127,273,000 

for program direction, a reduction of $2,700,000 from the budget request, to be taken from support services. The Committee finds the 

21.4 percent increase for support services to be excessive, and questions the need for the budget’s proposed levels of outside government contracting when it has been emphasized that the work performed by the laboratories is inherently governmental. 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, the same as the budget request. The 

Committee provides $9,570,000 for fossil energy environmental restoration, and $656,000 for special recruitment programs, the same 

as the budget request. 

NAVAL PETROLEUM AND OIL SHALE RESERVES

Appropriation, 2007 ............................................................................ $21,316,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ....................................................................... 17,301,000 

Recommended, 2008 ........................................................................... 17,301,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2007 .................................................................... ¥4,015,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ................................................................ – – –

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 fiscal year 

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 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
76 

Corporation in 1998. Following the sale of Elk Hills, the transfer 

of the oil shale reserves, and transfer of administrative jurisdiction 

and environmental remediation of the Naval Petroleum Reserve 2 

(NPR–2) to the Department of the Interior, DOE retains one Naval 

Petroleum Reserve property, the Naval Petroleum Reserve 3 (NPR– 3) in Wyoming (Teapot Dome field). This is 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, and continuing environmental and remediation work at Elk Hills. 

The Committee recommends $17,301,000, the same as the budget 

request, for the operation of the naval petroleum and oil shale reserves. 

STRATEGIC PETROLEUM RESERVE

Appropriation, 2007 ............................................................................ $164,441,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ....................................................................... 331,609,000 

Recommended, 2008 ........................................................................... 163,472,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2007 .................................................................... ¥969,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ................................................................ ¥168,137,000 

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’s current inventory of 690.3 million barrels provides 56 days of net import protection 

The Committee recommends $163,472,000, a decrease of 

$168,137,000 below the budget request. The Committee provides 

for the operation of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR), but 

does not support the expansion of the reserve to 1.5 billion barrels. 

Current cost estimates and schedule for the expansion are $10 billion for new facilities, $55 billion for the cost of the oil fill, and will 

not be complete until 2027. In addition, an August 2006 Government Accountability Office report recommended reviews of the proposed optimal oil mix, and said that clarity was needed in DOE’s 

models on estimating the impact of the reserve, and the appropriate size of the SPR should be reassessed. Given the analytical 

shortcomings of the expansion plan, and the enormous cost and 

timeframe of the expansion, the Committee does not support proceeding with the expansion at this time. 

NORTHEAST HOME HEATING OIL RESERVE

Appropriation, 2007 ............................................................................ $5,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ....................................................................... 5,325,000 

Recommended, 2008 ........................................................................... 5,325,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2007 .................................................................... +325,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ................................................................ – – –

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 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
77 

for the Northeastern 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. 

The Committee recommends $5,325,000, the same as the budget 

request, for the Northeast Home Heating Oil reserve. 

ENERGY INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION

Appropriation, 2007 ............................................................................ $90,653,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ....................................................................... 105,095,000 

Recommended, 2008 ........................................................................... 105,095,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2007 .................................................................... +14,442,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ................................................................ –––

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 

are 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. 

The Committee recommends $105,095,000, the same as the budget request, for the Energy Information Administration. 

NON-DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT

The Non-Defense Environmental Management program includes 

funds to manage and clean up sites used for civilian, energy research, and non-defense related activities. These past activities resulted in radioactive, hazardous, and mixed waste contamination 

that requires remediation, stabilization, or some other action. 

Starting in fiscal year 2008, the Non-Defense Environmental Management program will include funding for the Office of Legacy 

Management (non-defense) activities. The Office of Legacy Management (non-defense) manages the Department’s post-closure responsibilities, including long-term surveillance and maintenance, pension and benefit continuity for former contractor retirees, and archives management for non-defense sites. 

Legacy Management consolidation.—Beginning in fiscal year 

2008, the Committee has combined the Office of Legacy Management with the Environmental Management Program. The Committee believes that consolidating these activities in one organization will improve the communications and operations of both organizations. The Committee expects that the Office of Legacy Management will still operate as a separate office within the Environmental Management Program. 

Reprogramming authority.—The Committee continues to support 

the need for flexibility to meet changing funding requirements at 

sites. In fiscal year 2008, the Department may transfer up to 

$2,000,000 between accounts, to reduce health or safety risks or to 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
78 

gain cost savings as long as no program or project is increased or 

decreased by more than $2,000,000 during the fiscal year. The account control points for reprogramming are the Fast Flux Test Reactor Facility, West Valley Demonstration Project, Gaseous Diffusion Plants, Legacy Management, Small Sites, 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, 2007 ............................................................................ $349,687,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ....................................................................... 180,937,000 

Recommended, 2008 ........................................................................... 286,041,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2007 .................................................................... ¥63,646,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ................................................................ +105,104,000 

The Committee recommendation for Non-Defense Environmental 

Cleanup is $286,041,000, an increase of $105,104,000 over the 

budget request. Of this increase, $35,104,000 reflects the consolidation of the Office of Legacy Management account within the NonDefense Environmental Cleanup account, and $70,000,000 is provided for additional priority cleanup activities. The recommendation provides $60,895,000 for solid waste stabilization and disposition, and nuclear facility decontamination and 

decommissioning (D&D) at the West Valley Demonstration Project, 

an increase of $6,500,000 over the budget request for the increased 

costs of shipping and disposing of low level waste. The Committee 

provides $84,620,000 for D&D of the gaseous diffusion plants, an 

increase of $46,500,000 over the budget request. The Committee 

does not support the Administration’s proposed language on uranium barter, and instead funds the uranium cleanup activities 

through direct appropriations. As such, the Committee provides the 

increase of $46,500,000 for the completion of technetium-99 contaminated uranium cleanup, including appropriate staffing levels, 

operations, severance payments and contract close-out costs. The 

recommendation provides $10,342,000 for the deactivation of facilities and surveillance and maintenance of the Fast Flux Test Facility (FFTF), the same as the budget request. 

Small Sites.—The Committee is concerned that funds for Small 

Sites have been maintained ‘‘flat’’ for years, which extends the 

cleanup activities and contributes to the overall total cost of the 

program because cleanup takes longer. Therefore, the Committee 

recommends $33,699,000 for Brookhaven National Laboratory, an 

increase of $10,000,000 over the budget request, to accelerate the 

D&D of the graphite reactor. The Committee recommends 

$2,437,000 for soil and water remediation and nuclear facility decontamination and decommissioning at Argonne National LaboraVerDate Aug 31 2005 02:49 Jun 12, 2007 Jkt 035894 PO 00000 Frm 00078 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR185.XXX HR185

hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
79 

tory, the same as the budget request. The Committee recommends 

$5,400,000, the same as the budget request, for spent nuclear fuel 

stabilization and disposition at Idaho National Laboratory. 

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 

provides $1,200,000, the same as the budget request, for completed 

sites administration. The Committee recommendation provides 

$5,900,000 for the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center, the same as 

the budget request, for soil and groundwater remediation; and 

$20,000,000 for nuclear facility decontamination and decommissioning at the Energy Technology Engineering Center, an increase 

of $7,000,000 over the budget request, to complete cleanup and remediation of all radiological contamination. The Committee recommends $1,905,000 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 $427,000 for soil and water remediation at the Inhalation 

Toxicology Laboratory, $160,000 for cleanup work at various sites 

in California, and $23,952,000 for soil and water remediation measures at the former Atlas uranium mill tailings site at Moab, Utah, 

the same as the budget request. The Committee directs the Department to provide a report within 120 days of enactment of this Act 

on the annual funding requirements needed to complete remediation of the Moab uranium mill tailings site and removal of the 

tailings to the Crescent Junction site in Utah no later than the 

year 2019. 

Legacy Management.—The Committee recommendation includes 

$35,104,000 for the Office of Legacy Management, the same as the 

budget request. 

URANIUM ENRICHMENT DECONTAMINATION AND DECOMMISSIONING

FUND

Appropriation, 2007 ............................................................................ $556,606,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ....................................................................... 573,509,000 

Recommended, 2008 ........................................................................... 618,759,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2007 .................................................................... +62,153,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ................................................................ +45,250,000 

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 $618,759,000 for activities funded 

from the Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund, an increase of $45,250,000 over the budget request. 

This amount includes $598,759,000 for decontamination and decommissioning activities at the gaseous diffusion plants and 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
80 

$20,000,000 for Title X uranium and thorium reimbursements. The 

increase of $45,250,000 includes $11,000,000 for Paducah solid 

waste and stabilization to address the emerging problems of the 

soil and rubble piles; $11,000,000 for Paducah nuclear facility D&D 

of the C–410 complex buildings; and $23,250,000 for accelerated 

D&D of the K–25 and K–27 process buildings. 

SCIENCE

Appropriation, 2007 ............................................................................ $3,797,294,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ....................................................................... 4,397,876,000 

Recommended, 2008 ........................................................................... 4,514,082,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2007 .................................................................... +716,788,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ................................................................ +116,206,000 

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 2008. This request 

for a 15.8 percent increase is the major incremental increase 

planned within the overall 10-year doubling of funding for these activities in DOE. A critical element of this increase is the support 

it will provide for 3,500 more research personnel, including graduate students. This addresses a major concern for the future of the 

United States economy, namely the availability of highly educated 

scientists and engineers to support the technical innovations that 

drive economic growth. 

The fiscal year 2008 request fully funds operating time at most 

existing DOE user facilities and equal or increased operating time 

at several others. The request supports investments in major new 

research facilities such as the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor, the Linac Coherent Light Source, and the 12 GeV 

upgrade to the Continuous Electron Beam Accelerator Facility, 

along with project engineering and design for the National Synchrotron Light Source II. U.S. scientific and technical leadership 

also is supported through the availability of advanced scientific 

computing facilities, and it is noteworthy that the Leadership Computing Facility at Oak Ridge National Laboratory is projected to 

achieve petaflop levels of performance before the end of fiscal year 

2008. 

The Committee has several areas of concern. First, despite the 

large increase in funding, insufficient funds are proposed to fulfill 

the various landlord functions of the Office of Science. The considerable backlog of World War II vintage buildings cluttering the 

Oak Ridge National Laboratory is an example. Second, growth in 

the estimated cost for the International Linear Collider (ILC) 

means that the schedule for this major high energy physics facility, 

which the United States aspires to host, will be delayed. Implementation of the Dark Energy Mission without further delay can provide significant intellectual progress on the question of dark energy 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
81 

while further study is done on the ILC. Third, not all user facilities 

can be retained as new cutting-edge capabilities come on line, and 

some hard choices must be made. Fourth, while total funding for 

Fusion Energy Sciences increases significantly, the large increase 

to fund the U.S. contribution to the International Thermonuclear 

Energy Reactor (ITER) results in an increase to the domestic fusion 

research program that is only slightly above the rate of inflation 

and far smaller than the percentage increases for most other research areas. The Committee recommends some shifts in funding 

and priority from those proposed by the Administration to address 

these concerns. 

The Committee is disturbed by the lack of energy research and 

development coordination across the Office of Science, the applied 

energy programs—Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Nuclear Energy, Fossil Energy, and Electricity Delivery and Energy 

Reliability—and the extensive funding through Laboratory Directed 

Research and Development (LDRD). The Department is directed to 

establish effective coordination mechanisms across these research 

efforts. The Committee recommends that LDRD emphasize advanced energy technologies. The Committee recommendation is $4,514,082,000, an increase of 

$116,206,000 from the budget request and $716,788,000 over the 

fiscal year 2007 enacted level. The Committee disapproves of the 

transfer of certain security functions to the Office of Science from 

the Office of Security as proposed by the Department, and this removes funding for these functions from the Science budget. Funding for these functions is provided under Other Defense Activities. 

HIGH ENERGY PHYSICS

The Committee recommends a total of $782,238,000 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. 

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 

on the nature of 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. Furthering this delay, the Administration has set up a 

panel to decide which scientific mission should go first in NASA’s 

queue of after Einstein space science missions. 

The situation with regard to JDEM raises critical science policy 

questions. Are scientific activities supported in the United States 

according the missions and interests of different agencies or according to the technology involved? DOE support for JDEM is predicated on the science priorities of High Energy Physics. The Administration’s insistence that this mission be held hostage to NASA’s 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
82 

mission agenda sends the clear signal that space science is the purview of NASA regardless of the scientific questions to be addressed. 

If space science is the special preserve of NASA within the U.S. 

Government, then all funding for such missions should be provided 

by NASA and the Dark Energy Mission should proceed on that 

basis with NASA providing the funding for all work at DOE national laboratories selected by NASA for participation. 

The Committee notes that NASA funds ground-based telescopes 

and that NSF funds a particle accelerator. Therefore, use of space 

technology by DOE to accomplish a mission that is a priority for 

its high energy physics program should proceed regardless of its 

priority to another agency. The Committee directs the Department 

to select, using competitive procedures, a mission science team and 

approach as soon as possible and proceed with a dark energy mission with a launch in fiscal year 2013. As part of this, the Committee directs DOE to explore other launch options, including cooperative international approaches and the procurement of private 

launch services, to get the Dark Energy Mission into space. DOE 

is to proceed with its project implementation in compliance with 

Project Management Order 413.3. Additional funding in fiscal year 

2008 for proceeding with the Dark Energy Mission should be no 

more than $20,000,000 above the $3,500,000 requested for work by 

the SNAP team and should be taken from other lower-priority 

areas within High Energy Physics. 

The control level is at the High Energy Physics level. 

NUCLEAR PHYSICS

The Committee recommendation for nuclear physics is 

$471,319,000, the same as the budget request. The requested funding will support operations of the Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility and the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider. The requested funding will continue construction of the Electron Beam 

Ion Source at Brookhaven National Laboratory (project 07–SC–02) 

and the PED for the 12 GeV upgrade to the Continuous Electron 

Beam Accelerator Facility at the Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility (project 06–SC–01). 

The nuclear physics community has proposed a shift in its priorities for future facilities to provide rare isotope beams. Specifically, 

the fiscal year 2008 request includes $4,000,000 for research and 

development activities aimed at development of rare isotope beam 

capabilities. The Rare Isotope Beams (RIB) will involve modifications to existing accelerators rather than the construction of a new 

Rare Isotope Accelerator (RIA). This approach is projected to 

achieve much of the science planned for RIA but at significantly reduced cost. The Committee commends the nuclear physics research 

community for its constructive approach. 

BIOLOGICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH

The Committee notes that this area of the Office of Science encompasses two distinct research efforts: using biology to address 

energy production and environmental remediation and a combination of climate and ecosystem modeling, field research, and radiation monitoring as part of the Climate Change Research Program. 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
83 

Funding is provided in separate subaccounts for these two efforts 

and this practice should be used in future fiscal years. 

BIOLOGICAL RESEARCH

The Committee recommendation for Biological Research is $423,773,000, an increase of $30,000,000 above the budget request. 

The increase is provided for the Life Sciences component of Biological Research and is to be used to expand research efforts to develop 

new strategies for biofuels and sequestration of carbon, both important in addressing climate change. All of the added funds must be 

awarded competitively in solicitations that include all sources—universities, the private sector, and government laboratories—on an 

equal basis. 

The Committee applauds the use of genomics to address multiple 

areas associated with energy production including hydrogen and 

ethanol. The competitive selection of the Genomes to Life Bioenergy Research Centers is a major progressive step, and the Committee hopes that the Department will not confine its research in 

this area to just a few major centers but will complement these 

centers with an extensive program of competitive research grants 

to university, government laboratory and for-profit and not-for-profit private sector researchers. 

CLIMATE CHANGE RESEARCH

The Committee recommendation for Climate Change Research is $158,124,000, an increase of $20,000,000 above the budget request. 

The increase is provided for enhanced climate modeling to take advantage of the advanced computing resources of the Department. 

The Committee is providing this increase to accelerate progress toward horizontal spatial resolutions of 10 kilometers. When this 

finer resolution is achieved, models should resolve local phenomena 

that punctuate the climate, such as severe storms with their intense precipitation and ability to transform the local landscape. 

The Climate Change Research Program at DOE is a collection of 

small efforts within the overall, multi-agency effort to understand 

and better predict climate change. This approach may prove inefficient in terms of research management and coordination and will 

be successful only if the extensive coordination of the Climate 

Change Research Program across multiple agencies, which has 

been a hallmark of this effort since its inception in the late 1980s, 

is continued. Long-term, ground-based monitoring of the environment is generally the province of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), while the long term ecological research sites are supported through the National Science Foundation (NSF). Climate modeling at DOE benefits from the Department’s preeminence in scientific computing, but climate modeling 

is also done by groups sponsored by NSF, NOAA, and NASA. The 

Committee is concerned that with the static budget for Climate 

Change Research and the true intellectual excitement of the other 

research areas in the Office of Science, climate change research is 

not a priority nor a unique expertise of the Department. Given the 

need for detailed understanding and predictions at local and regional scales to guide responses to climate change, it is time for the 

Department to make this area a priority. 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
84 

BASIC ENERGY SCIENCES

The Committee recommendation for basic energy sciences is 

$1,498,497,000, the same as the budget request and an increase of 

$248,247,000 over the current fiscal year. For purposes of reprogramming during fiscal year 2008, 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 

$1,093,219,000 for materials sciences and engineering, and 

$283,956,000 for chemical sciences, geosciences, and energy biosciences. The Committee recommendation funds operations of the 

five Nanoscale Science Research Centers, operations of the Advanced Light Source, the Advanced Photon Source, the National 

Synchrotron Light Source, the Stanford Synchrotron Radiation 

Laboratory, the Intense Pulsed Neutron Source, and the Manuel 

Lujan, Jr. Neutron Scattering Center at their full optimal numbers 

of hours, additional instrumentation for the recently-completed 

Spallation Neutron Source (SNS), and the science research portion 

($59,500,000) of the hydrogen initiative at the requested levels. 

Given the long-term nature of hydrogen as an energy transfer medium, with timescales for deployment similar to those for fusion energy, funding for hydrogen research in the Office of Science is particularly appropriate. The Committee previously directed the National Nuclear Security Administration to make available, from existing stocks, sufficient heavy water to meet SNS needs, and the 

Committee renews this direction for fiscal year 2008. Also included 

within this account is $8,240,000 for the Experimental Program to 

Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR), the same as the budget 

request. 

Given the dismal operating record of the High Flux Isotope Reactor (HFIR) in fiscal year 2006 with 89.5% unscheduled downtime 

and the lack of major research accomplishments from its operation, 

the Committee will be watching to see that the steps taken by DOE 

to put HFIR back on track are successful. 

Construction.—The Committee recommendation includes 

$121,322,000 for Basic Energy Sciences construction projects, the 

same as the requested amount. The Committee recommendation 

provides the requested funding of: $51,356,000 to continue construction of the Linac Coherent Light Source (05–R–320) at the 

Stanford Linear Accelerator Center; $366,000 to complete construction of the Center for Functional Nanomaterials (05–R–321) at 

Brookhaven National Laboratory; $45,000,000 for continued project 

engineering and design of the National Synchrotron Light Source 

II (07–SC–06) at Brookhaven National Laboratory; $17,200,000 for 

construction of the Advanced Light Source User Support Building 

(08–SC–01) at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory; $950,000 

for PED of the Photon Ultrafast Laser Science (08–SC–10) and Engineering Building Renovation at the Stanford Linear Accelerator 

Center; and $6,450,000 to begin renovation of the Photon Ultrafast 

Laser Science and Engineering Building Renovation (08–SC–11) at 

the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center. 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
85 

Given the extremely poor record of the Department in correctly 

estimating and controlling costs for major projects, particularly 

construction, the Committee compliments the Office of Science for 

completing the Spallation Neutron Source almost on schedule and 

almost on budget. 

ADVANCED SCIENTIFIC COMPUTING RESEARCH

The Committee recommendation is $340,198,000, the same as 

the budget request and an increase of $56,783,000 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. Perhaps no other 

area of research at the Department is so critical to sustaining U.S. 

leadership in science and technology, revolutionizing the way 

science is done, and improving research productivity. 

FUSION ENERGY SCIENCES

The Committee recommendation for fusion energy sciences is 

$427,850,000, the same as the budget request, and $108,900,000 

above the previous year reflecting the $100,000,000 growth in the 

budget for the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor 

(ITER). 

The Committee does not support funding for a new program in 

High Energy Density Physics and provides no funds for this research area. The Committee directs that the $12,281,000 requested 

for High Energy Density Physics be used to increase funding for 

the following: $7,500,000 for facility operations at the three U.S. 

user facilities—the DIII–D, Alcator C-Mod, and National Spherical 

Torus Experiment, $1,500,000 for Theory, $1,500,000 for materials 

research within Enabling R&D, and $1,781,000 for Alternative 

Concept Experimental Research. 

The Committee notes that major growth in support for ITER, 

with an additional increase in this support of $54,500,000 planned 

for fiscal year 2009, is affecting the overall funding picture for Fusion Energy Sciences and for the Office of Science as a whole. 

When direct funding for ITER is excluded, Fusion Energy Sciences 

increases by just 3.8 percent and the increase requested for the Office of Science, while still large, is 13.4 percent rather than 15.8 

percent. If delays in ITER associated with international cooperation reduce the amount that can be spent on ITER in fiscal year 

2008, the Committee directs the Office of Fusion Energy Sciences 

to invest the funds made available in Theory, materials research 

within Enabling R&D, Alternative Concept Experimental Research 

and operating time at the three U.S. user facilities rather than retaining the money for ITER and carrying it over to future fiscal 

years. 

SCIENCE LABORATORIES INFRASTRUCTURE

The Committee recommendation provides a total of $151,806,000 for Science Laboratories Infrastructure, $72,850,000 above the 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
86 

budget request. The Committee supports the $6,145,000 for the 

continued demolition of the Bevatron at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. The $35,000,000 requested for the Physical 

Sciences Facility at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory 

(project 07–SC–05) is increased to $100,000,000 and should be used 

for all needed buildings, including those proposed for third party 

development. None of these funds should be held in reserve so that 

the pending cleanup and closure of all but three critical facilities 

of the 300 Area at the Hanford site can proceed without further 

delay. Within available funds, the Committee directs the Department to continue to make Payments In Lieu of Taxes associated 

with Argonne National Laboratory and Brookhaven National Laboratory at the requested level of $1,520,000. Given the 

$325,000,000 backlog of science facilities currently in need of demolition or cleanup for reuse, reduction in funding for Excess Facilities Disposition is unwise. Accordingly, $16,678,000 is provided for 

Excess Facilities Disposition, an increase of $7,850,000 above the 

request. 

The Committee is aware of significant legacy radioactive contamination at Argonne National Laboratory, and directs the Department to prepare an inventory of such contamination, including 

a determination of the parent programs responsible for such contamination, so that the Committee can apportion remediation costs 

fairly. This inventory is due to the Committee not later than November 30, 2007. 

SAFEGUARDS AND SECURITY

The Committee recommends $76,592,000, the same as the budget 

request, to meet safeguards and security requirements at Office of 

Science facilities. 

SCIENCE WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT

The Committee provides $11,000,000 for workforce development 

for teachers and scientists in fiscal year 2008, the same as the requested amount. The Committee concurs with the proposed expansion of the laboratory science teacher professional development program. It is desirable that science teachers at the secondary level 

be enabled to be scientists who teach at the precollegiate level 

rather than teachers who happen to teach science. Teachers should 

be encouraged to involve their students in doing science rather 

than just reading about and reproducing well-established principles. 

SCIENCE PROGRAM DIRECTION

The Committee recommendation is $178,290,000 for Science program direction, $6,644,000 below the budget request. This amount 

includes: $104,193,000 for program direction at DOE field offices 

and $74,097,000 for program direction at DOE headquarters. Funding for certain security functions proposed to be transferred to the 

Office of Science is removed from this budget and provided in the 

budget for the Office of Security in Other Defense Activities. The 

control level for fiscal year 2008 is at the program account level of 

Science Program Direction. 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
87 

FUNDING ADJUSTMENTS

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. 

NUCLEAR WASTE DISPOSAL

Appropriation, 2007 ............................................................................ $99,206,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ....................................................................... 202,454,000 

Recommended, 2008 ........................................................................... 202,454,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2007 .................................................................... +103,248,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ................................................................ – – –

The Department of Energy requested a total of $494,500,000 for 

work on the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository in fiscal year 

2008, $202,454,000 for Nuclear Waste Disposal and $292,046,000 

for Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal. According to the Department’s 

testimony to the Committee, it will submit a License Application 

to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in June 2008, and the funding requested is required to support that effort. The requested 

funds will be used for preparation of the License Application and 

activities to keep the site safe and secure. 

In testimony before the Committee, the Department indicated 

that the best achievable schedule for opening the Yucca Mountain 

repository would be 2017. This schedule assumes that the Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission would complete its review and grant a construction license to DOE in 36 months. It also assumes no delay 

in the opening due to litigation. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission review may require 48 months and there could be significant 

delays due to litigation once a license is granted. Fines and other 

payments due to the failure of the U.S. Government to take custody and remove spent nuclear fuel from commercial reactor sites 

will continue for more than two decades following the opening of 

the repository, as there will be a considerable backlog of waste to 

be emplaced. The government’s liability for failure to remove spent nuclear fuel from reactor sites will grow to $7 billion and delays 

in opening Yucca Mountain will increase this total liability by approximately $500 million for each year of delay. 

Onsite storage of spent nuclear fuel at operating commercial reactor sites is a manageable risk. A recent study by the American 

Physical Society concludes that moving spent fuel to an alternative 

interim storage site and then to Yucca Mountain does not make 

sense given the costs of moving the spent fuel twice and the fact 

that operating reactors will always have an inventory of spent fuel 

to be guarded and managed. The same conclusion does not hold 

true for spent fuel in storage at the nine decommissioned reactor 

sites as removal of the fuel from these sites would allow them to 

be completely closed. While the requirement that DOE take custody of spent fuel is a matter of law, testimony to the Committee 

last year pointed out that failure to take custody of the fuel undermines public confidence in the overall policy on spent fuel from 

commercial nuclear reactors. The Committee directs the Department to develop a plan to take custody of spent fuel currently 

stored at decommissioned reactor sites to both reduce costs that are 

ultimately borne by the taxpayer and demonstrate that DOE can 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
88 

move forward in the near-term with at least some element of nuclear waste policy. The Department should consider consolidation 

of the spent fuel from decommissioned reactors either at an existing DOE site, at one or more existing operating reactor sites, or at 

a competitively-selected interim storage site. The Department 

should engage the 11 sites that volunteered to host GNEP facilities 

as part of this competitive process. 

In March 2007, the Department submitted a legislative proposal 

to Congress intended to enhance the management and disposal of 

spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste. 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 supports the effort to remove the arbitrary legislative limit 

on the capacity of Yucca Mountain, the Committee strongly opposes 

any attempt to legislate away the waste confidence problem. 

For Nuclear Waste Disposal in fiscal year 2008, the Committee provides $202,454,000, same as the budget request. The Committee 

also fully funds the request of $292,046,000 for Defense Nuclear 

Waste Disposal, providing a total of $494,500,000 for the nuclear 

waste repository in fiscal year 2008. 

ENVIRONMENT, SAFETY AND HEALTH

(NON-DEFENSE)

Appropriation, 2007 ............................................................................ $27,841,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ....................................................................... – – – Recommended, 2008 31,625,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2007 .................................................................... +3,784,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ................................................................ +31,625,000 

The Committee recommendation for non-defense environment, 

safety, and health activities is $31,625,000, an increase of 

$31,625,000 over 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. 

Reorganization of the Environment, Safety and Health Office.—In 

August 2006, the Department chose to abolish the existing Environment, Safety and Health (EH) organization and assign its functions to a number of other DOE offices, with primary responsibility 

resting with a new Office of Health, Safety and Security. While the 

Committee has no objective information to show that the new arrangement is performing better or worse than the previous EH organization, the Committee recognizes the authority of the Secretary to reorganize the Department in order to improve performance and accountability. However, the Committee reserves its own 

authority to determine the appropriations the Department receives 

for given activities in a fiscal year. In the case of the EH organization, which clearly involved moving funds from one organization to 

another in a manner inconsistent with the budget request or with 

the final appropriation, the Department refused to submit a reVerDate Aug 31 2005 02:49 Jun 12, 2007 Jkt 035894 PO 00000 Frm 00088 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR185.XXX HR185

hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
89 

programming request to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations. 

There were two consequences to this decision by the Department. 

First, in the year-long Continuing Resolution for fiscal year 2007 

(P.L. 110–5), Congress eliminated the long-standing transfer authority that the Department used to execute the EH reorganization. Second, the Committee for fiscal year 2008 provides funding 

for the EH-related functions to the original pre-reorganization offices within DOE. The Committee does not fund the new Office of 

Health, Safety and Security as proposed by the Department in the 

budget request. 

Reprogramming requirement.—Per Committee reprogramming 

guidance and Department of Energy reprogramming guidelines, a 

reprogramming request submitted to the Committee for consideration is required to implement any reorganization proposal which 

includes moving previous appropriations between appropriation accounts. The Committee will not recognize any Departmental shift 

of previous appropriations for the Office of Environment, Safety 

and Health until a reprogramming request is submitted by the Department to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations. 

Government Accountability Office (GAO) Report.—The Committee 

directs the GAO to prepare a report on the programmatic impacts 

of the proposed dissolution of the Environment, Safety and Health 

organization and the reorganization of the Office of Security at the 

Department. A preliminary report is due to the Committee on August 31, 2007. 

INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY LOAN GUARANTEE PROGRAM

The budget request proposes language limiting the aggregate 

loan amount to $9,000,000,000 for loans to be made in fiscal year 

2008 under the authority of Title XVII of the Energy Policy Act of 

2005. The Committee provides a fiscal year 2008 loan volume limitation of $7,000,000,000 to guarantee $2,000,000,000 in loans for 

carbon sequestration optimized coal power plants, $4,000,000,000 

in loans for projects that promote biofuels and clean transportation 

fuels, and $1,000,000,000 in loans for projects using new technologies for electric transmission facilities or renewable power generation systems. 

The budget request proposes $8,390,000 in administrative expenses for the loan guarantee office; the Committee provides 

$2,390,000 for administrative expenses for the loan guarantee office, $6,000,000 below the request, in the Departmental Administration account. Initial funds were provided for the Office of Loan 

Guarantees in the fiscal year 2007 Joint Resolution after the budget request was formulated, and the Committee believes there are 

ample resources available to fund this office with the amount provided. Language has been provided to enable the Departmental Administration account to credit loan guarantee fees as offsetting collections. 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
90 

DEPARTMENTAL ADMINISTRATION

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

GROSS APPROPRIATION

Appropriation, 2007 ............................................................................ $276,832,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ....................................................................... 310,366,000 

Recommended, 2008 ........................................................................... 304,782,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2007 .................................................................... +27,950,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ................................................................ ¥5,584,000 

REVENUES

Appropriation, 2007 ............................................................................ ¥123,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ....................................................................... ¥161,818,000 

Recommended, 2008 ........................................................................... ¥161,818,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2007 .................................................................... ¥38,818,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ................................................................ – – –

NET APPROPRIATION

Appropriation, 2007 ............................................................................ 153,832,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ....................................................................... 148,548,000 

Recommended, 2008 ........................................................................... 142,964,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2007 .................................................................... ¥10,868,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ................................................................ ¥5,584,000 

The Committee recommendation for Departmental Administra- tion is $304,782,000, a decrease of $5,584,000 below the budget request. The recommendation for revenues is $161,818,000, consistent with the budget request, resulting in a net appropriation of 

$142,964,000. The Congressional Budget Office concurs with this 

estimate for revenues in fiscal year 2008. 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. 

Communications with Congress.—The Committee is aware of several instances in which the Department has attempted to suppress 

communication from its field personnel, both federal employees and 

contractors, to the committee. In one instance, laboratory personnel 

were threatened for responding to a direct inquiry from the Committee. The Committee will not tolerate any attempts by headquarters to intimidate field personnel answering legitimate Congressional questions. The Committee reserves the right to communicate with whoever can provide timely, accurate, and candid information on conditions and problems in the field. 

DOE pension and medical benefits.—The Committee provides no 

funding for implementing a revised contract reimbursement policy 

concerning pension and medical benefits. The proposed revised Department of Energy Order N351.1 would prohibit contractors from 

providing traditional defined benefit pensions to future employees. 

To date, the Department has not provided adequate justification for 

such a sweeping and ill-defined change of existing policy. For instance, the Department’s cost calculation for existing defined benVerDate Aug 31 2005 02:49 Jun 12, 2007 Jkt 035894 PO 00000 Frm 00090 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR185.XXX HR185

hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
91 

efit plans reflects only a limited snapshot in time, and fails to consider either the long-term historical costs of these plans, or future 

costs reasonably projected under the Pension Protection Act of 

2006. The Committee notes that the three DOE contracts with disproportionate retiree benefits far outpacing the Federal DOE workforce are the three nuclear weapons design laboratories—Sandia 

National Laboratory, Los Alamos National Laboratory, and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. The Department is directed 

to assess reducing the government’s liabilities and normalizing the 

pension benefits across the DOE complex by reducing the disproportionately generous pension plans at the NNSA national laboratories. The Committee recommendation includes a request for 

the Government Accountability Office (GAO) report assessing the 

adequacy of the Department’s analysis of pension and medical liabilities. The Committee requests a preliminary report by October 

1, 2007 and a final report due by December 31, 2007. 

Management.—The Committee provides $60,725,000 for the Man- agement account, a reduction of $3,214,000 below the budget request. The Committee provides an increase of $2,000,000 for the 

Office of Management to contract with the National Academy of 

Public Administration (NAPA). The Committee directs the Department to work with the NAPA on an organizational review of the 

offices of Procurement, Human Resources, and the Chief Financial 

Officer. The NAPA identified these three organizations as choke 

points for successful work flow during its review of the Environmental Management organization, and the Committee has heard 

this observation from DOE offices as well. As such, the Department 

can benefit much from a periodic review of its critical management 

support functions. The Committee also provides a reduction of 

$5,214,000 for Environmental, Safety and Health and Security Performance funds that are provided in the ES&H account and the Office of Security and Performance Assurance in fiscal year 2008. 

Loan Guarantee Office.—The Committee provides an increase of $2,390,000 over the budget request for the loan guarantee office 

within the Departmental Administration (DA) account. This office 

was proposed in the budget request as a separate account outside 

the DA structure funded at $8,390,000. The Committee provides 

funding for this activity at a level $6,000,000 below the request because initial funds were provided in the fiscal year 2007 Joint Resolution, after the budget request was formulated, and provides 

these funds within the Departmental Administration account, consistent with the Joint Resolution. Language has been provided to 

enable this account to credit loan guarantee fees as offsetting collections. 

General Counsel.—The Committee provides $27,086,000 for the 

General Counsel, a decrease of $2,990,000 below the budget request, reflecting a reduction of $3,990,000 for the transfer of funds 

to the Environmental Health and Safety account. Of the funds 

made available for the Office of the General Counsel, the Committee provides an increase of $1,000,000 to support additional attorney assistance for energy-efficiency related matters. The Committee leaves the decision to the Department on whether this additional legal support should be provided by procuring services from 

contractor attorneys or by hiring additional Federal employees. 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
92 

However, the additional support should be obtained as soon as possible. The Committee is aware that the Department is years behind 

schedule in promulgating energy conservation standards for consumer appliances and industrial equipment, and in establishing appropriate test procedures. The Committee believes that these additional resources will assist the Department in catching up on any 

overdue activities and, therefore, intends that the additional resources provided would be used for attorneys to support that work. 

The Committee provides no funds for the Competitive Sourcing 

Initiative (A–76), a reduction of $1,770,000 below the request. The 

Committee does not support the activities of this office. 

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 commends the work of the Department in the 

Clean Energy Technology Export (CETE) program. 

Transfer from Other Defense Activities.—For fiscal year 2008, the 

Department requested $99,000,000 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, 2007 ............................................................................ $41,819,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ....................................................................... 47,732,000 

Recommended, 2008 ........................................................................... 47,732,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2007 .................................................................... +5,913,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ................................................................ – – –

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 $47,732,000, the same as the 

budget request. 

ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES

The Atomic Energy Defense Activities programs of the Department of Energy in the National Nuclear Security Administration 

(NNSA) consists of Weapons Activities, Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation, Naval Reactors, and the Office of the Administrator; 

outside of the NNSA, these include Defense Environmental Management; Other Defense Activities; and Defense Nuclear Waste 

Disposal. Descriptions of each of these accounts are provided below. 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
93 

NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

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 

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 $8,786,881,000 for the NNSA, a reduc- tion of $599,952,000 below the budget request and a reduction of 

$294,132,000 below the current year level. 

WEAPONS ACTIVITIES

Appropriation, 2007 ............................................................................ $6,275,583,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ........................................................................ 6,511,312,000 

Recommended, 2008 ........................................................................... 5,879,137,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2007 ..................................................................... ¥396,446,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ................................................................ ¥632,175,000 

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 $5,879,137,000, for Weapons Activities, a reduction of $632,175,000 

below the budget request and a reduction of $396,446,000 below 

the current year level. 

U.S. Strategic Nuclear Weapons Strategy for the 21st century and 

the Future Nuclear Weapons stockpile.—The Department of Energy 

(DOE) and the Department of Defense (DoD) are proposing to develop a new nuclear warhead under the Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW) program and begin a nuclear weapons complex modernization proposal called Complex 2030. These multi-billion dollar 

initiatives are being proposed in a policy vacuum without any Administration statement on the national security environment that 

the future nuclear deterrent is designed to address. The Committee’s concern is supported by statements made by nuclear weapon 

experts in recent reports by the Defense Science Board and the 

American Association for the Advancement of Science, and in congressional testimony by such credible experts as a former Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee and a former Secretary of Defense. These review panel and national security experts 

all agreed that there has been no clear policy statements that articulate the role of nuclear weapons in a post-Cold War and post– 9/11 world. The lack of any definitive analysis or strategic assessVerDate Aug 31 2005 02:49 Jun 12, 2007 Jkt 035894 PO 00000 Frm 00093 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR185.XXX HR185

hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
94 

ment defining the objectives of a future nuclear stockpile makes it 

impossible to weigh the relative merits of investing billions of taxpayer dollars in new nuclear weapon production activities when the 

United States is facing the problem of having too large a stockpile 

as a Cold War legacy. Currently, there exists no convincing rationale for maintaining the large number of existing Cold War nuclear 

weapons, much less producing additional warheads, or for the DoD 

requirements that drive the management of the DOE nuclear 

weapons complex. 

The Committee believes it is premature to proceed with further 

development of the RRW or a significant nuclear complex modernization plan, until a three-part planning sequence is completed, 

including: (1) a comprehensive nuclear defense strategy, based 

upon current and projected global threats; (2) clearly defined military requirements for the size and composition of the nuclear stockpile derived from the comprehensive nuclear defense strategy; and 

(3) alignment of these military requirements to the existing and estimated future needs and capabilities of NNSA’s weapons complex. 

The Committee views completion of this three-part planning sequence as a necessary condition before considering additional funding for Complex 2030 and RRW activities. 

Therefore, the Committee directs the Secretary, in consultation 

with the Department of Defense and Intelligence Community, to 

submit to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations, a 

comprehensive nuclear security plan that: 

(1.) Includes a comprehensive nuclear defense and nonproliferation strategy, developed by all relevant stakeholders 

across the Administration, defining the future U.S. nuclear deterrent requirements and nuclear nonproliferation goals. To 

the extent this strategy involves the production and deployment of new warheads and acceleration of legacy warhead 

dismantlements, a statement of how such actions will impact 

the state of global security, with respect to the future U.S. nuclear deterrent and nonproliferation goals, should be included 

in the comprehensive strategy. 

(2.) Includes a detailed description, prepared by the Department of Defense (DoD) and the Department of Energy (DOE), 

that translates the strategy described in (1) above into a specific nuclear stockpile, that: 

a. Aligns estimated global threats to the required characteristics of the U.S. nuclear stockpile in terms of specific 

numbers and types of warheads, both active and inactive, 

and associated delivery systems. 

b. Includes a complete, quantitative status of the current 

stockpile warhead inventory by type and delivery system 

and anticipated changes to reach the 2012 Moscow Treaty 

commitments, including an unclassified summary of the 

topline stockpile quantity. 

c. Defines, in year by year increments planned changes 

in the size and composition of the nuclear stockpile 

through fiscal year 2030 required to meet the strategy described in (1) above. Identify changes in the stockpile related to the nuclear force structure based on the strategy 

described in (1) above; the impact of accelerated warhead 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
95 

retirements and dismantlements based on out year stockpile requirements under the Moscow Treaty, as well as, potential reductions associated with the strategy described in 

(1) above; the impact of completing planned life extension 

milestones to extend the service life of the existing stockpile; the impact on the future stockpile employing both existing warheads and new warheads under the RRW proposal; required life extension program throughput rates; 

required production rates for an operationally deployed 

RRW replacing an existing system; and associated dismantlement rates. This should include an unclassified 

summary of the topline stockpile quantity, per year, up 

through 2030. 

d. Includes a detailed analysis comparing the risks, costs 

and benefits, stockpile size, and relationship to achieving 

the nuclear defense and nonproliferation strategic goals of 

maintaining the existing stockpile under the Life Extension Program (LEP) versus transitioning to the reliable replacement warhead strategy, by warhead type and delivery 

system. 

(3.) Includes a comprehensive, long-term expenditure plan, 

from fiscal year 2008 through fiscal year 2030, that fully defines the needs and capabilities of the NNSA weapons complex 

to support the stated military requirements outlined in (2) 

above, including: 

a. A comprehensive, fiscal year 2008 complex operating 

cost inventory by site and activity as a baseline; 

b. A year-by-year resource plan from fiscal year 2008 

through fiscal year 2030, subdivided into five-year milestones for dismantlements, stockpile reduction, cost savings (with respect to the established, fiscal year 2008 baseline), complex consolidation, life extension programs, warhead refurbishments, special nuclear material consolidation, physical and cyber security requirements, proposed 

RRW production and deployment, and how achievement of 

such milestones aligns with long-term complex transformation goals, specifically identifying the cost impacts of 

alternative strategies. This should include an unclassified 

summary of dismantlement progress, relative to the 

topline stockpile quantity for the given year. 

c. A detailed description of the potential impacts of significant reductions in the overall stockpile in terms of cost 

savings, physical security benefits, complex consolidation, 

and stockpile reliability, safety, and security. 

d. Estimates of staffing requirements corresponding to 

achievement of five-year milestones and long-term complex 

transformation plans. 

e. A detailed cost-benefit analysis comparing the resources required to maintain the existing facilities for the 

existing stockpile to new facilities required to support 

RRW production and deployment, and a description of how 

NNSA will mitigate the potential risks and costs associated with simultaneously managing both competing objectives in the near term. 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
96 

The Committee does not accept the same policy argument put 

forward by the nuclear weapons establishment after the Cold War 

ended that justified the Science-Based Stockpile Stewardship program. With the demise of the Soviet Union, the U.S. halted nuclear 

weapons production activities and implemented a moratorium of 

underground nuclear testing. In 1995, the Department of Energy 

proposed, and Congress supported, investing billions in new science 

facilities and super-computing capabilities to maintain the safety, 

security, and reliability of the existing stockpile without underground nuclear testing. Only a decade later, and after having spent 

billions of dollars, the NNSA is proposing to begin production of a 

new nuclear warhead before the country has received any significant return on the earlier investments, even though the major 

Stockpile Stewardship facilities are not yet completed and fully 

operational. 

In order to make more informed policy and funding decisions, the 

revised nuclear strategy and stockpile plan must address the specific threats the nuclear stockpile of the future needs to address; 

the arms control treaties and agreements that bound our nuclear 

weapons activities; the nuclear policies and programs of other nations; and the impact on nonproliferation goals, policies and programs supported by the United States. Neither the Quadrennial 

Defense Reviews nor the Administration’s 2001 Nuclear Posture 

Review provided a long term nuclear weapons strategy or the defined total nuclear stockpile requirements for the 21st century. The 

Administration’s contention that the Moscow Treaty puts the U.S. 

on the path toward the lowest number of nuclear weapons necessary for national security would only be accurate if the Moscow 

Treaty addressed the actual status of all the warheads in the U.S. 

stockpile and all the above concerns. It does not. 

The future of the nuclear weapons complex.—At the Committee’s 

direction in fiscal year 2004, the Secretary of Energy tasked the 

Secretary of Energy’s Advisory Board (SEAB) to conduct an independent assessment of the Department’s future infrastructure requirements for the nuclear weapons complex over the next twentyfive years. The Committee strongly commended the SEAB’s Task 

Force efforts in developing the report on Recommendations for the 

Nuclear Weapons Complex of the Future. The SEAB report began 

the policy process of debating the future of the nation’s nuclear 

weapons program and led the NNSA to propose its competing future vision in the spring of 2006, called ‘‘Complex 2030’’. The Committee notes that, on October 19, 2006, the NNSA issued in the 

Federal Register a Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement entitled the ‘‘Complex 2030 Supplement 

to the Stockpile Stewardship and Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement.’’ The NOI outlines the alternatives 

that the NNSA will consider in transforming the nuclear weapons 

complex to meet the future national security requirements. 

The Committee has strong reservations concerning the NNSA’s 

preferred alternative proposed in the Complex 2030 EIS NOI. Despite the Committee’s repeated attempts through the legislative 

process to encourage an effective, thoughtful process within the 

NNSA to develop a plan for transforming the nuclear weapons complex, the NNSA has rejected that support. Instead of working with 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
97 

the Committee to arrive at a realistic plan that has the possibility 

of garnering bipartisan political support, the NNSA continues to 

pursue a policy of rebuilding and modernizing the entire complex 

in situ without any thought given to a sensible strategy for longterm efficiency and consolidation. 

The Complex 2030 plan assumes the immediate support for an 

RRW design, development, and production program, while also assuming continuation of the Life Extension Program extending the 

service life for the legacy systems and the Science-Based Stockpile 

Stewardship activities supporting the legacy stockpile. The schedule implicit in the NNSA’s plans requires all the current facilities, 

production facilities and processes be sustained for decades. As 

pointed out in the AAAS RRW report, this has the effect of divorcing the first RRW from complex transformation and proceeds to 

build the RRW using the existing legacy weapons complex. The 

total redundancy required by the NNSA Complex 2030 plan is the 

highest cost option of any possible scenario. The NNSA’s program 

will result in maximizing the budget for the nuclear weapons complex with little thought given to efficiency or cost savings. The 

Committee rejects any such proposal. The nuclear weapons complex modernization plan needs to focus on the near-term milestones 

within five-year schedule windows with the intention of reducing 

the number, size, and cost of the NNSA sites and facilities while 

also requiring the minimum number of personnel for the mission. 

A ‘‘Complex 2012’’ plan might be credible, especially if tied to a 

Stockpile 2012 plan; a Complex 2030 plan not tied to any revised 

future nuclear stockpile plan is not. If the NNSA continues to adhere to a transformation schedule stretched out over 23 years, the 

Committee assumes adequate funding can be supported with marginal appropriations allocated over the same schedule. 

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 a program to improve the long-term reliability, longevity, 

and certifiability of the existing weapons and their components. 

The Committee finds the RRW program the DoD and NNSA have 

pursued at the direction of Congress goes far beyond the scope and 

purpose of the original congressional language and intent. The 

Committee supported the RRW design competition undertaken by 

the two weapons design laboratories and notes that its conclusion 

satisfies one of the primary objectives of the RRW proposal, that 

being to reestablish the design capability of the weapons laboratories. That objective has successfully been accomplished. The Committee is unconvinced that pursuing the RRW design competition 

to a production phase is necessary at this time. 

Under any realistic future U.S. nuclear defense scenario, the existing legacy stockpile will continue to provide the nation’s nuclear 

deterrent for well over the next two to three decades. The effort by 

the NNSA to apply urgency to developing a significant production 

capacity for the RRW while lacking any urgency to rationalize an 

oversized complex appears to mean simply more costs to the American taxpayer. The Committee notes that maintaining the legacy 

stockpile was acceptable to DoD and DOE while the large funding 

allocations were flowing for the Science-Based Stockpile StewardVerDate Aug 31 2005 02:49 Jun 12, 2007 Jkt 035894 PO 00000 Frm 00097 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR185.XXX HR185

hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
98 

ship facilities and programs. Now that the Stockpile Stewardship 

facilities are nearing completion and the funding curve is flattening 

out, NNSA is raising concerns with the reliability of the existing 

stockpile and wants Congress to embark on a new multi-billion, 

multi-decade initiative that will ensure an expanding funding 

curve. The Committee recognizes it may be a skeptical view of the 

budgeting process within the nuclear weapons complex to assume 

a direct correlation between newly emergent concerns with the existing stockpile and the NNSA’s desire to begin building a new 

RRW nuclear warhead, but DOE and DoD have not made a compelling national security argument to prove this view wrong. 

A particularly troubling issue for the Committee related to the 

RRW proposal is the contradictory U.S. policy position of demanding other nations give up their nuclear ambitions while the U.S. 

aggressively pursues a program to build new nuclear warheads. 

The Administration needs to develop a policy rationale that explains why the RRW program is not contradictory and does not undermine our international nuclear nonproliferation goals. The Committee will reconsider the RRW proposal when the requisite nuclear strategy, nuclear stockpile and weapons complex transformation plans have been delivered to Congress. 

Oversight model for NNSA sites.—The NNSA implemented a new 

Federal oversight model called Streamlined Oversight as a pilot 

initiative at the Kansas City Plant and the Los Alamos National 

Laboratory with the goal of reducing the authority and responsibility of the Federal personnel at the sites because a perception 

that the heavy hand of federal oversight was causing ‘‘excessive 

risk aversion’’ in achieving programmatic missions. The Committee 

notes with interest the NNSA implementation memorandum attributed the concern over ‘‘excessive risk aversion’’ to observations by 

outside groups. The Committee is troubled by the federal senior 

management’s decision-process that delegates the management 

model for an inherently governmental responsibility such as overseeing the contractors running the nuclear weapons complex to a 

nongovernmental outside group. An apparent bias for accepting the 

complaints from the contractors instead of supporting the federal 

employees has resulted in mismanagement at the national laboratories and near complete erosion of credibility outside the Department that any federal oversight exists across the nuclear weapons 

complex. Rather than undermining the federal oversight located at 

the complex site offices by accepting the ‘‘trust us’’ model insisted 

on by site contractors, the Committee supports a stronger role by 

the federal program managers in improving safety and security and 

controlling costs and achieving program objectives. The underlying 

security and safety performance failures at LANL, coupled with the 

NNSA’s failure to include the financial penalty clause for noncompliance in the new laboratory contract, prove the fallacy of this 

‘‘management’’ strategy. 

Cost Analysis and Improvement Group (CAIG).—The Committee 

is aware the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) requested 

the DoD Cost Analysis and Improvement Group (CAIG) provide 

cost analytical support for the Administration by leading an independent assessment of the NNSA’s proposed Complex 2030 proposal, competing plans, and an evaluation of the risks and proVerDate Aug 31 2005 02:49 Jun 12, 2007 Jkt 035894 PO 00000 Frm 00098 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR185.XXX HR185

hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
99 

jected resource requirements necessary to support these plans. The 

Committee anticipates the fiscal year 2009 NNSA budget request 

will reflect more rigorous analysis developing the out year cost 

data. 

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, 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, Readiness Campaigns, 

and Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities (RTBF). Because 

the NNSA has ignored House funding direction in the past, the 

Committee provides no reprogramming authority between site allocations for Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities Operations 

of 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

The Committee recommendation provides $1,336,594,000 for Directed Stockpile Activities, a reduction of $110,642,000 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 

nuclear weapons stockpile, by providing new subsystems and components for each warhead thereby extending the operational service 

life. 

Life Extension Programs.—The Committee provides $238,686,000 

for the DSW life extension programs, the same as the budget request. 

Stockpile Systems.—The Committee provides $319,345,000 for 

the DSW stockpile systems activities, a reduction of $27,372,000 

from the budget request. The reduction is applied to the W80 acVerDate Aug 31 2005 02:49 Jun 12, 2007 Jkt 035894 PO 00000 Frm 00099 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR185.XXX HR185

hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
100 

tivities that have been terminated by the Nuclear Weapons Council. 

Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW).—The Committee recommendation provides no funding for the reliable replacement warhead (RRW) initiative, a decrease of $88,769,000 from the budget 

request. The Committee has noted elsewhere that it is premature 

to continue design activities for a new nuclear warhead until a revised U.S. nuclear weapons strategy is developed that describes the 

long term nuclear stockpile requirements and demonstrates how a 

new nuclear warhead is necessary to address specific U.S. national 

security requirements and nuclear nonproliferation commitments. 

Warhead Dismantlement.—The Committee recommendation pro- vides $173,250,000 for the warhead dismantlement program, an increase of $121,000,000 over the budget request. The Committee 

provides an additional $30,000,000 to begin dismantlement activities at the Device Assembly Facility (DAF) at the Nevada Test Site 

(NTS). During testimony before the subcommittee, the Secretary of 

Energy identified the Pantex Plant as the single most inefficient 

element of the current nuclear weapons complex. The Pantex Plant 

is the only weapons site presently authorized for warhead dismantlement activities. Based on the Secretary’s judgment, the 

Committee is concerned that the workload requirements of stockpile evaluation and maintenance and ongoing life extension activities will preclude any significant warhead dismantlement progress 

at the Pantex Plant, particularly with increased stockpile reductions to be made over the next two decades. The Committee expects 

sufficient facility space at the underutilized Device Assembly Facility at NTS to be retrofit for unique dismantlement operations. The 

DAF was originally constructed for warhead operations and has the 

security posture to accommodate temporary warhead staging for 

the purposes of dismantlement. The Committee commends the 

NNSA for finally implementing a robust warhead dismantlement 

program as directed by the Committee for the past four years with 

significant funding increases over the Administration’s request as 

part of a concerted effort to relieve the weapons complex of excess 

Cold War era warheads. However, the Department must view dismantlement as a priority in and of itself, rather than as a workload 

leveling function to fill-in for down times in the life extension workload at Pantex. 

Pit Disassembly and Conversion Facility.—The Committee recommendation transfers the Department’s activity to construct a Pit 

Disassembly and Conversion Facility (PDCF) to the Office of Defense programs from the Office of Nuclear Nonproliferation and directs the Department to begin the siting process for constructing 

the facility at the Pantex Plant in Amarillo, Texas. The Committee 

provides $91,000,000 to continue the facility design activity, the 

same as the budget request. The Committee recognizes that pit disassembly is the last step in the warhead dismantlement process 

and the Pantex plant is the only site within the NNSA complex 

currently authorized to conduct dismantlement operations on a nuclear warhead. Co-locating the Pit Disassembly facility with the pit 

storage facilities at the Pantex Plant provides an obvious security 

improvement and program efficiency element to the PDCF proposal. The Committee finds the Department initial decision to site 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
101 

the Pit Disassembly facility at the Savannah River Site (SRS) not 

appropriate in light of the post 9/11 security environment. The 

Committee finds the security vulnerabilities inherent in transporting intact nuclear weapon pits from the storage location at the 

Pantex Plant to a disassembly operation 1,200 miles across the 

country too significant and costly to justify constructing the facility 

at SRS. The Committee also recognizes the sensitivity of the State 

of South Carolina concerning the shipment of plutonium from out 

of state to the Savannah River Site and assumes this programmatic change will address the State’s concerns by delaying the 

shipment of any plutonium to South Carolina until the material is 

in oxide form for fuel fabrication minimizing any storage requirement at SRS. The Committee notes the PDCF is in a very early 

design phase and the transfer should not be significantly disruptive 

to the planning process. 

Stockpile services.—The Committee recommendation provides $605,313,000 for the DSW stockpile services activities, a decrease 

of $115,501,000 from the request. The Committee provides no additional funding in fiscal year 2008 for the responsive infrastructure 

activities until an in-depth, schedule-driven, fully costed transformation plan for the weapons complex is developed by the NNSA. 

The Committee’s reductions in Stockpile Services are targeted to 

maintain approximate current year funding levels pending the development of rigorous out-year planning documents as noted elsewhere in the report. 

CAMPAIGNS

Campaigns are focused on 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. The Committee recommendation provides $1,725,236,000, a de- crease of $140,984,000 from the budget request. 

From within funds provided for the various campaigns, the Committee supports the budget request for the university research program in robotics (URPR) for the development of advanced robotic 

technologies for strategic national applications. 

Science campaigns.—The Committee provides $201,534,000 for 

the science campaigns, a reduction of $71,541,000 from the budget 

request. 

The Committee recommendation provides $40,000,000 for the 

primary assessment technologies subprogram, a reduction of 

$23,527,000 from the budget request. The Committee recommendation provides $65,000,000 for the dynamic materials properties subprogram, a reduction of $33,014,000 from the budget request. The 

Committee recommendation includes $20,995,000 for the advanced 

radiography activities, a reduction of $10,000,000 from the budget 

request. The Committee reductions reflect a funding redirection 

away from premature funding of Complex 2030 and RRW activities. The Committee is disappointed with the delay in achieving 

full capability for the second axis of the Dual-Axis Radiographic 

Hydrotest facility (DARHT). The secondary assessment technologies subprogram recommendation is $55,539,000, a reduction of 

$25,000,000 from the budget request. The Committee does not supVerDate Aug 31 2005 02:49 Jun 12, 2007 Jkt 035894 PO 00000 Frm 00101 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR185.XXX HR185

hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
102 

port the Administration’s budget request for significant funding increases for the Z machine at Sandia National Laboratory and the 

LANSCE center at Los Alamos National Laboratory. 

Test readiness.—The Committee supports the 24-month test 

readiness posture at the Nevada Test Site and provides an additional $20,000,000 to restore the funding in the Administration’s 

budget request which terminated the activity. The Committee is 

baffled by the Administration’s decision to eliminate funding for 

nuclear test readiness after four budget cycles of insisting that 

shortening to an 18-month test readiness posture was required for 

national security reasons. Congress provided an additional $50 million in additional budget authority to restore the test readiness capabilities and achieve a readiness posture of 24-months rather than 

the more provocative 18-month posture. In the fiscal year 2008 

budget request, the NNSA proposes what the Committee believes 

to be a wasteful investment by allowing the restored test readiness 

activities to be degraded. The Committee views such inconsistent 

program, planning and budgeting as a significant credibility issue 

with the NNSA decision-making process. 

Engineering campaigns.—The Committee provides $152,749,000 

for the engineering campaigns, the same as the budget request. 

Construction projects.—The Committee recommends $11,198,000, 

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 $524,046,000 for the inertial confinement 

fusion and yield program, an increase of $111,787,000 over the 

budget request. The Committee is disappointed the NNSA has 

failed to propose sufficient resources in the budget request to support key activities to ensure that the 2010 ignition goal for the National Ignition Facility (NIF) is reached. The Committee restores 

adequate funding to the ICF campaign to support the 2010 ignition 

goal. 

The Committee recommendation for Facility Operations and Target Production is $114,383,000, an increase of $28,300,000 over the 

budget request. The additional Facility Operation funding is provided for enhanced target production and characterization capabilities. The Committee recommendation for NIF diagnostics, cryogenics and experimental support is $85,935,000, an increase of 

$18,000,000 over the budget request. The increased funding is provided for additional cryogenics and diagnostic activities necessary 

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 a total of $62,044,000 for the Laboratory for Laser 

Energetics (LLE) operations, an increase of $9,000,000 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 recommendation proVerDate Aug 31 2005 02:49 Jun 12, 2007 Jkt 035894 PO 00000 Frm 00102 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR185.XXX HR185

hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
103 

vides an additional $15,000,000 for the Ignition subprogram and 

$13,700,000 for the NIF demonstration program to restore funding 

required to meet the 2010 ignition goal for NIF. The Committee provides $10,139,000 for construction of the National Ignition Facility (NIF), the same as the budget request. 

The Committee recommendation does not include the proposed 

Joint program in High Energy Density Laboratory Plasmas. The 

Committee expects the NNSA to include sufficient operating funding for the Naval Research Laboratory in the fiscal year 2009 budget request. 

Advanced simulation and computing (ASCI).—The Committee 

recommendation for Advanced Simulation and Computing is 

$535,738,000, a reduction of $50,000,000 from the budget request. 

No funding is provided for the Administration’s budget request at 

Los Alamos National Laboratory for the procurement of the super 

computer designated Roadrunner. The Committee is aware this 

procurement was a laboratory initiated request and not supported 

by the Federal weapons program computing program and is unnecessary for providing computational capability to address weapons 

stockpile requirements. 

Pit manufacturing and Pit certification.—The Committee recommendation for pit manufacturing and certification campaign is 

$150,000,000, a reduction of $131,230,000 below the budget request. The Committee notes the NNSA budget request has funding 

requests in multiple lines for plutonium work at Los Alamos National Laboratory that assume a preferred future programmatic approach. The ad hoc management and budgeting approach to upgrading plutonium operations in TA–55 ensures unnecessary expenditures and lack of accountability. Any future program activities for upgrading TA–55 pit manufacturing operations must strictly adhere to DOE Order 413.3A. The Committee will not continue 

to fund activities that are not part of a clearly articulated facilities 

strategy. Until the Committee receives a new nuclear weapons 

strategic plan that addresses the future requirements for plutonium production including specifically how plutonium facilities factor into supporting the future stockpile, the Committee will not 

support funding activities that assume a modernization-in-place 

strategy for the current nuclear weapons complex. 

The Committee recommendation includes no funds for the consolidated plutonium center proposal. 

Readiness campaigns.—The Committee recommendation for 

Readiness Campaigns is $161,169,000, the same as the budget request. 

READINESS IN TECHNICAL BASE AND FACILITIES

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 $1,479,632,000, a reduction of 

$182,512,000 below the budget request as detailed below. 

Operations of facilities.—The Committee recommendation for Operations of Facilities is $1,041,379,000, a decrease of $117,926,000 

below the budget request. The Committee recommendation includes 

an additional $20,000,000 for the Lawrence Livermore National 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
104 

Laboratory in California, an additional $45,000,000 for the Pantex 

plant in Texas, and an additional $60,000,000 is for the Y–12 Plant 

in Tennessee to address chronic under-funding in the maintenance 

of production plant facilities. Within the additional funds provided 

for the Y–12 Plant, the Committee provides $22,000,000 for addressing the safety and deferred maintenance issues identified by 

the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board in the 9212 Complex 

Facility Risk Review. The Committee notes both the December 

2001 Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) and the Defense Science 

Board Report on Nuclear Capabilities observed there has been a 

significant underinvestment in the nuclear production complex. 

The NNSA opted to prioritize the national laboratory funding over 

the production plants since the end of Cold War production activity. The Committee recommendations are intended to redress the 

investment imbalance and ensure a minimum capacity to maintain 

current nuclear weapons capabilities and restore lost capabilities at 

the complex production sites. The Committee directs the NNSA 

and the Office of Science to coordinate activities to ensure sufficient 

stocks of heavy water are available when needed to avoid schedule 

disruption for the Spallation Neutron Source requirements. 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 $71,466,000, the same as budget request. 

Material recycle and recovery.—The Committee recommendation 

for material recycle and recovery is $72,962,000, an increase of 

$3,000,000 to budget request to fully support the required Life Extension program schedules. 

Containers.—The Committee recommendation for containers is 

$22,184,000, an increase of $3,000,000 to the budget request to 

support nuclear material consolidation efforts. 

Storage.—The Committee recommendation for storage is $35,133,000, the same as the budget request. 

Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities (RTBF) Construction 

projects.—

Project 08–D–801, High pressure fire loop (HPFL), Pantex, TX.—

The Committee recommends $7,000,000, the same as the budget 

request. 

Project 08–D–802, High explosive pressing facility, Pantex, TX.—

The Committee recommends $25,300,000, the same as the budget 

request. 

Project 08–D–804, TA–55 Reinvestment project, Los Alamos National Laboratory, NM.—The Committee recommends $6,000,000, 

the same as the budget request. 

Project 07–D–140, Project engineering and design (PED), various 

locations.—The Committee recommends $2,500,000, the same as 

the budget request. 

Project 07–D–220, Radioactive liquid waste treatment facility upgrade project, Los Alamos National Laboratory, NM.—The Committee recommends $26,672,000, the same as the budget request. 

Project 06–D–140, Project engineering and design (PED), various 

locations.—The Committee recommends $63,862,000, an increase of 

$40,000,000 to the budget request. The Committee provides the adVerDate Aug 31 2005 02:49 Jun 12, 2007 Jkt 035894 PO 00000 Frm 00104 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR185.XXX HR185

hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
105 

ditional funding to restore the baseline Uranium Processing Facility (UPF) PED funding that was reprogrammed in fiscal year 2007 

to fund other purposes by the NNSA. The Committee supports the 

facility and material consolidation activities at the Y–12 Plant. 

Project 04–D–125, Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Facility 

Replacement (CMRR), LANL.—The recommendation provides no 

funds for the CMRR project, a decrease of $95,586,000 from the 

budget request. The Committee direction halts the construction activity at the CMRR facility. Proceeding with the CMRR project as 

currently designed will strongly prejudice any nuclear complex 

transformation plan. The CMRR facility has no coherent mission to 

justify it unless the decision is made to begin an aggressive new 

nuclear warhead design and pit production mission at Los Alamos 

National Laboratory. The NNSA is directed to develop a long-term 

plan to maintain the nation’s nuclear stockpile requirements that 

does not assume an a priori case for the current program. Production capabilities proposed in the CMRR should be located at the future production sites identified in a detailed complex transformation plan that supports the long-term stockpile requirements. 

The Committee is concerned the NNSA is proceeding with large expenditures for this project while there are significant unresolved 

issues, and recommends the fiscal year 2007 funding be held in reserve. Although the NNSA claims the Nuclear Facility Phase 3 of 

the project is under review, the Committee notes the Laboratory 

excavated 90,000 cubic yards of soil at the construction site where 

the CMRR Phase 3 Nuclear Facility is proposed to be built. The 

Committee also notes the Department’s CMRR acquisition strategy 

combines Critical Decision 2 (approval of performance baseline) 

and Critical Decision 3 (approval to start construction) under DOE 

Order 413.3A on project management. The Committee does not 

support construction projects that fail to strictly adhere to DOE 

Order 413.3 requirements by abbreviating the process. 

Project 04–D–128, TA–18 mission relocation project, Los Alamos 

National Laboratory.—The Committee recommends $14,455,000, a 

decrease of $15,000,000 from the budget request. The Department 

of Energy’s Inspector General conducted an audit on the NNSA’s 

ability to maintain capability of the TA–18 mission to conduct nuclear criticality experiments during the transfer of the special nuclear materials from the TA–18 facility at Los Alamos National 

Laboratory to the Device Assembly Facility (DAF) at the Nevada 

Test Site. Although the NNSA goal was to restore interim criticality operations as early as 2005, the current NNSA plan delays 

transfer and reestablishment of capability at DAF until 2010 at the 

earliest. The Department recognized the security requirement to 

remove the SNM from TA–18 in 1999; however, according to the 

DOE IG, it will now take over a decade for the NNSA to complete 

the relocation of the criticality experiments mission. While the 

Committee is disappointed at the failure of the NNSA and Los Alamos National Laboratory to complete the SNM consolidation activity, the funding reduction reflects the schedule slip and reallocation 

of funding for higher priorities. 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
106 

FACILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE RECAPITALIZATION

The Committee recommendation for Facilities and Infrastructure 

Recapitalization Program (FIRP) is $137,720,000, a reduction of 

$156,023,000 from the budget request. The FIRP program was 

begun in fiscal year 2002 to work off the deferred maintenance requirements that were allowed to build up at all the nuclear weapons complex sites. The complex transformation plans will have a direct impact on the facilities required for future program activities. 

The Committee directs the NNSA to reassess its out-year planning 

for FIRP projects to coordinate the final years of FIRP activities to 

be consistent with the long-term facilities planning process of the 

weapons complex transformation. The Committee directs not less than $25,000,000 of the facilities 

and infrastructure funding in fiscal year 2008 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 open competition where such actions provide the best return on investment 

for the federal government. The Committee recommendation provides $62,720,000 for FIRP 

construction projects, the same as the budget request. 

SECURE TRANSPORTATION ASSET

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 

and nuclear weapons complex facilities within the United States. 

The Committee recommendation is $215,646,000, the same as the 

budget request. 

NUCLEAR WEAPONS INCIDENT RESPONSE

The Nuclear Weapons Incident Response (NWIR) program responds to and mitigates nuclear and radiological incidents worldwide. The Committee recommendation for nuclear weapons incident response is $161,748,000, the same as the budget request. 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS AND OPERATIONS

The Committee provides no funding for Environmental Projects 

and Operations activities, consistent with the NNSA fiscal year 

2007 operating plan. 

SAFEGUARDS AND SECURITY

This program provides for all safeguards and security requirements for the NNSA. The Committee recommendation is 

$911,561,000, an increase of $30,504,000 over the budget request. 

Of the total S&S funding, $112,243,000 is for Cyber Security activities, an increase of $10,000,000 over the budget request. The Committee increase includes $14,000,000 for the Y–12 National Security Complex, of which $4,000,000 is for cyber security requirements, to accelerate security infrastructure upgrades required to 

consolidate the facility footprint, and an additional $16,000,000 for 

the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory to address superblock 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
107 

security and cyber security upgrades. The Committee provides 

$50,000,000 for a material consolidation and upgrade construction 

project at the Idaho National Laboratory. 

The Committee is concerned about career-threatening retaliatory 

acts against contractor personnel at DOE sites that identify and report security vulnerabilities. The Committee takes a dim view of 

any management reaction that appears to be more about protecting 

their reputation and avoiding bad press reports than addressing 

potential security vulnerabilities within their institutions. 

Safeguards and Security Construction Projects.—Project 08–D– 701, Nuclear materials S&S upgrade project, Los Alamos National 

Laboratory.—The Committee recommendation provides no funds 

for Nuclear materials S&S upgrade project, a decrease of 

$49,496,000 from the budget request. The current plan to spend 

$250,000,000 to upgrade the security posture at the TA–55 facility 

and the proposed Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Facility Replacement (CMRR) is based on the assumption that the CMRR facility is going to proceed on schedule. The Committee has strong 

reservations about the requirements for the CMRR facility as currently configured. Production capabilities proposed in the CMRR 

should be located at the future production sites identified in a detailed complex transformation plan that supports the long term 

stockpile requirements. 

Building 651 and Building 691 refurbishment, Idaho National 

Laboratory.—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 $50,000,000 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 $4,900,000 provided to the Office of Security and Performance Assurance for planning the material consolidation construction activity in the fiscal year 2006 Conference 

report be transferred to the NNSA Office of Safeguards and Security for planning, engineering and design activities. 

FUNDING ADJUSTMENTS

The Committee directs the use of $55,000,000 of prior year balances of funds made available from cancelled construction projects. 

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

DEFENSE NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION

Appropriation, 2007 ............................................................................ 1 $1,683,339,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ....................................................................... 1,672,646,000 

Recommended, 2008 ........................................................................... 1,683,646,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2007 .................................................................... +307,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ................................................................ +11,000,000 1 Excludes emergency appropriations of $135,000,000. 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
108 

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 the Global Threat Reduction Initiative. The Committee recommendation for 

fiscal year 2008 includes a new initiative; the International Nuclear Fuel Bank. 

The Committee’s recommendation for Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation is $1,683,646,000 an increase of $11,000,000 above the 

budget request of $1,672,646,000 and approximately the same as 

the new budget authority provided in fiscal year 2007. The Committee provides funding direction for a total program level for Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation activities in fiscal year 2008 of 

$2,070,646,000, a $398,000,000 increase over the fiscal year 2008 

budget request. The Committee directs the use of $387,000,000 of 

prior year balances in fiscal year 2008 to accelerate high priority 

nuclear nonproliferation activities. 

Global coordination.—The Committee views NNSA’s nuclear nonproliferation mission as a critical, global effort that must be 

choreographed amongst various military, intelligence, customs, and 

law enforcement entities in order to be effective. The Committee 

expects NNSA to lead this effort through strategic investment planning across all foreign and domestic stakeholders as well as the expansion of cooperative border detection opportunities around the 

world. To further this mission, the Committee provides a robust increase in available funding for Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation, 

as detailed later in this report. The Committee directs NNSA to expand and intensify the use of intelligence and the coordination of 

law enforcement and customs resources throughout Asia and, in 

particular, Russia and the former Soviet states, to further constrict 

avenues for illicit transport of nuclear and radiological material. 

This effort should include an appropriate allocation of resources to 

proactive, intelligence-driven security operations as well as the 

strengthening of the current and planned global nuclear detection 

architecture. 

International Nuclear Fuel Bank.—The Committee recommendation provides $100,000,000, under Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation as the United States Government’s contribution to the implementation of an International Nuclear Fuel Bank that establishes 

a nuclear fuel supply for peaceful means under the auspices of the 

International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). The International Nuclear Fuel Bank would provide a nuclear fuel stockpile to be available as a fuel supply reserve for nations that have made the sovereign choice to develop their civilian nuclear energy industry 

based on foreign sources of nuclear fuel and therefore have no requirement to develop an indigenous nuclear fuel enrichment capability. 

The initiative will ensure that fuel supplies from the international market are secure by offering customer states that are in 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
109 

full compliance with their nonproliferation obligations reliable access to a nuclear fuel reserve under impartial IAEA control should 

their traditional international market supply arrangements be disrupted. None of the funds made available for the International Nuclear Fuel Bank are available for obligation until the Secretary of 

Energy submits a report to the House and Senate Committees on 

Appropriations certifying the objectives and the conditions of use 

for the IAEA nuclear fuel reserve program achieves the congressional intent for the International Nuclear Fuel Bank and additional funds in a total amount of not less than $50,000,000 have 

been pledged for the purposes of this initiative by the other member states to the International Atomic Energy Agency. Not later 

than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary 

of Energy shall transmit to the House and Senate Committees on 

Appropriations and the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House 

of Representatives and the Committee on Foreign Relations of the 

Senate a report on the progress of the United States to support the 

establishment of a nuclear fuel supply for peaceful means under 

the auspices of the International Atomic Energy Agency. 

NONPROLIFERATION AND VERIFICATION RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

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 $484,313,000 for Nonproliferation and Verification research and development, an increase of $219,061,000 

over the budget request. The Committee recommendation includes 

$267,107,000 for proliferation detection, an increase of 

$120,000,000 over the budget request. The Committee’s recommendation reflects the urgent need to develop advanced proliferation detection technology and nuclear explosion monitoring capability. The Committee’s concerns are based not only on the nuclear weapons test by North Korea and the well known nuclear ambitions of Iran, but also the clandestine and unknown nuclear ambitions of other states and non-state or terrorist and international 

criminal organizations. The Nonproliferation R&D program is the 

principal U.S. government activity focusing on long-term, next generation radiation detection capabilities that are specific for nonproliferation and counter proliferation applications expected to be 

fielded within 3–10 years. The Committee notes that, across all 

agencies, the Federal government collectively invests less than 

$100 million on this type of advanced, breakthrough research and 

development on nuclear detection capabilities. The Committee 

views such minimal investment for developing important capabilities such as stand off nuclear detection as a serious security issue. 

The Committee recommendation provides an additional 

$120,000,000 to aggressively expand critical research and development in high-risk, high return cutting edge nuclear detection areas. 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
110 

The Committee recommendation for nuclear explosion monitoring is $173,750,000, an increase of $61,100,000 over the budget request; and $5,495,000 for supporting activities. The Committee increase for nuclear explosion monitoring is directed at expanding 

nuclear explosion monitoring for very low yield nuclear testing 

around the world. The Committee notes the Nonproliferation R&D 

program is the sole science-based provider for the U.S. national nuclear test monitoring system. The Committee provides $37,961,000 for Project 06–D–180, National Security Laboratory at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL), an increase of $37,961,000 over the budget request. The Committee is exasperated by the continued failure to 

make meaningful progress within the Department on building the 

facilities necessary 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. The Committee is 

concerned at the possibility of an interruption in critical capabilities maintained in the 300 area attributable to the Department’s 

apparent lack of interest in this project. The Committee recommendation accelerates the NNSA fiscal year 2009 funding share 

based on the project baseline in the budget request. 

The Committee recommendation includes an increase of 

$25,000,000 for ground-based systems treaty monitoring activities. 

The additional funds 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 2009 budget request. 

NONPROLIFERATION AND INTERNATIONAL SECURITY

The Committee recommendation provides $144,870,000 for Non- proliferation and International Security, an increase of $20,000,000 

above the budget request. The Committee provides an additional 

$20,000,000 for the Dismantlement and Transparency subprogram, 

and an additional $10,000,000 for the Global Security Engagement 

and Cooperation subprogram to restore funding for the Nuclear 

Cities Initiative eliminated in the budget request. 

The Committee recommendation supports none of the proposed 

$10,000,000 for the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) activities within the Office of Nonproliferation and International Security. The Committee finds the nuclear nonproliferation arguments proposed by the Department describing the GNEP reprocessing initiative advocating separating weapons grade special nuclear 

materials as a nonproliferation initiative unpersuasive and largely 

contradictory. 

INTERNATIONAL NUCLEAR MATERIALS PROTECTION AND COOPERATION

The International Nuclear Materials Protection and Cooperation 

(MPC&A) program is designed to work cooperatively with Russia 

and the border states of the former Soviet Union to secure weapons 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
111 

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. Programmatic activities include installing monitoring equipment, inventorying nuclear material, improving the 

Russian security culture, and establishing a security infrastructure. 

The Committee provides $831,771,000 for MPC&A activities, an increase of $359,041,000 over the Department’s FY 2007 operating plan and $460,000,000 over the budget request. The Committee’s 

increase is in recognition that the MPC&A activities securing nuclear material in Russia and at other vulnerable locations is the 

front line in the global war on terror protecting the U.S. against 

a terrorist using a nuclear device on U.S. soil. The devastating consequences domestically and internationally of such an act are difficult to quantify or imagine; however, the large inventories of special nuclear material in vulnerable locations worldwide and the 

well-known hostile intent of terrorist movements to inflict the maximum devastation to U.S. interests make this threat very real. Although past financial commitments by the Committee to address 

the terrorist threat of a nuclear detonation in a U.S. city were significant, the urgency increases with each year as large inventories 

of nuclear material continue to exist in unsecured international locations. The increased financial commitment in the Committee recommendation is clear congressional direction to the Administration 

to shift the nuclear nonproliferation issues beyond marginally supported security programs to one accorded the highest priority in the 

war on world wide terror. 

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 $127,114,000 for the Rosatom 

Weapons Complex, an increase of $67,000,000 over the budget request. The additional funds are provided to conduct expanded 

training programs for Russian nuclear facility security forces, forceon-force exercises, and to upgrade facility perimeter detection. The 

Committee provides an additional $85,000,000 for Material, Consolidation and Conversion, Civilian Nuclear sites and other National Programs and Sustainability subprograms. The additional 

funds are provided for new security upgrades focused on insider 

threats to secure materials against theft or unauthorized diversion. 

The Committee supports additional sustainability activities to implement rigorous regulation, inspections protocols, and training 

programs at the nuclear facilities. The Committee supports these 

activities to institutionalize a ‘‘best practices’’ security culture and 

U.S.-Russian long-term coordination in program collaboration to 

ensure sustainability of security improvements funded through cooperative security programs. The Committee provides an additional 

$15,000,000 for expanded activities within the Strategic Rocket 

Force subprogram to secure nuclear warhead storage and transfer 

locations in Russia. 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
112 

The recommendation provides $412,331,000 for the Second Line 

of Defense program, an increase of $293,000,000 over the budget 

request. The Committee recommendation provides an additional 

$125,000,000 for the core Second Line of Defense (SLD) program to 

accelerate installation activities in the Baltic and Caucasus regions 

and other critical border activities. The Committee is aware that 

nearly 200 priority border crossings in twelve countries remain to 

be secured with nuclear detection capability. The Committee directs the Department to expand the SLD activities to take advantage of mobile detection capabilities and coordination with law enforcement and custom agencies in countries of interest. In addition, 

the Committee directs targeted SLD activities to protect against 

the diversion of nuclear material from North Korea. The Committee supports coordinating activities with the International 

Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to develop a security ‘‘best practices’’

organization for addressing security deficiencies at nuclear material storage and operational facilities world wide. 

The Committee provides $214,797,000 for the Second Line of Defense megaports initiative, a $168,000,000 increase over the budget 

request. The additional funding for megaports activities will address port security activities in twelve countries with either signed 

implementation agreements or agreements anticipated in fiscal 

year 2007 that are not funded in the fiscal year 2008 budget request to complete deployment of radiation detection equipment for 

scanning U.S.-bound cargo containers at high-risk foreign seaports. 

MegaAirports.—The Committee recommendation provides 

$20,000,000 within the megaports activities to expand Second Line 

of Defense nuclear detection activities to include selected high-risk 

major international airports. The Committee is aware the Second 

Line of Defense program has installed detection equipment at a 

limited number of airports in sensitive locations. The Committee 

believes the policy rationale supports rapid expansion of the 

MegaPorts activity for nuclear detection scanning for air cargo 

bound for the U.S., particularly factoring in the much shorter time 

frames with air transport. 

ELIMINATION OF WEAPONS-GRADE PLUTONIUM PRODUCTION

The Committee recommendation for the Elimination of WeaponsGrade Plutonium Production Program (EWGPP) is $191,593,000, a 

$10,000,000 increase to the budget request. The Committee provides the additional funding to accelerate work on the backup boilers to achieve early reactor shutdown and cost savings at the 

Zheleznogorsk reactor. EWGPP is a cooperative effort with the Federation of Russia to halt plutonium production at three nuclear reactors still in operation in Russia, two located at Seversk and one 

at Zheleznogorsk. The three reactors have approximately 15 years 

of remaining service life and could generate an additional 25 metric 

tons of weapons-grade plutonium. They also provide heat and electricity required for the surrounding communities. The program approach is to shutdown these three reactors within five years by providing two alternative fossil-fueled energy plants to supply heat 

and electricity to the surrounding communities. 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
113 

FISSILE MATERIALS DISPOSITION

The Committee recommendation provides $66,843,000 for U.S. 

uranium disposition activities, the same as the budget request. 

The Committee recommendation funds the activities for the 

Mixed Oxide (MOX) Fuel Fabrication Facility construction project 

and the Pit Disassembly and Conversion Facility (PDCF) activity, 

previously funded under Fissile Materials Disposition, in the Office 

of Nuclear Energy and the NNSA Office of Defense Programs, respectively. The fissile materials disposition program was originally 

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. 

However, to date Congress has appropriated $1.7 billion for the 

domestic MOX program facilities without any nuclear nonproliferation benefit accrued to the U.S. taxpayer. The Committee points to 

the continued delays in this activity, including the Administration’s 

year-long delay in 2001 reviewing the disposition activity, the 

lengthy impasse with the Russian Government over liability protection for U.S. contractors working in Russia, and the current program redirection by the Russian Government in 2006, abandoning 

the MOX-light water reactor disposition path for surplus Russian 

plutonium unless the U.S. and international community bear the 

full cost of such disposition. Instead, the Russian Government announced 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 Russian 

action resulted in the U.S. Government delinking the requirements 

under the Agreement, thereby marginalizing the original nuclear 

nonproliferation goals of the program. The Committee notes the 

Administration’s decision to terminate U.S. support in the budget 

request for the Russian Surplus Fissile Materials Disposition activities under the Agreement as a sensible acknowledgement of the 

failure of the bilateral process under the Agreement. 

Given these changes in the United States and Russia, the Committee sees no further reason to proceed with the U.S. MOX program as a nonproliferation activity. The plutonium disposition program, as it relates to domestic priorities, is primarily a fuel fabrication facility construction project for domestic nuclear energy goals. 

However, the Committee recommendation reflects the redirection of 

plutonium disposition activities within the United States in light of 

continued Russian inaction and the domestic choices on GNEP and 

the future of nuclear energy in the U.S. 

The Committee action recognizes that continued funding of the 

MOX and PDCF construction activities within the ‘‘Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation’’ appropriation in a flat out year budget environment will result in the quick erosion of funding available for 

true nuclear nonproliferation activities that protect against direct 

and potentially immediate terrorist nuclear threats. The Committee cannot, and will not, support such a misguided prioritization 

of resources. 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
114 

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 $251,256,000 for GTRI activities, an increase of $131,630,000 over the budget request. The Committee provides an additional $20,000,000 for the Reduced Enrichment for Research and Test Reactors to accelerate the reactor conversion from highly enriched uranium (HEU) fuel to low enriched 

uranium (LEU) fuel, $7,000,000 for Russian Research Reactor Fuel 

Return, $10,000,000 in Emerging Threats and Gap Materials for 

recovery of U.S.-origin orphaned material overseas, and 

$94,630,000 in the International Radiological Threat Reduction 

program to accelerate the significant inventory of nuclear materials 

in vulnerable, unsecured or poorly guarded international locations. 

The Committee is aware that delaying the recovery schedule to secure these materials increases the risk for theft and diversion of 

the material for use as an improvised nuclear device (IND) or a radiological dispersal device (RDD). The Committee recommendation 

includes $31,722,000 for the Kazakhstan Spent Fuel Disposition 

initiative, the same as the budget request. None of the funds provided for this activity in fiscal year 2008, or previous fiscal years, 

may be obligated for transportation equipment or activities without 

written notification to the House and Senate Appropriations Committees. 

FUNDING ADJUSTMENTS

The Committee recommendation for funding adjustments in Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation includes the use of $387,000,000 of 

prior year balances. The sources of the prior year balances are 

$57,000,000 from the Russian Surplus Materials Disposition program, $230,000,000 from unobligated, uncosted balance within the 

Mixed oxide fuel fabrication facility construction line, and 

$100,000,000 from the remaining $151,000,000 of unexpended balances from the Russian material disposition funding provided in 

the fiscal year 1999 emergency supplemental (P.L. 105–277). 

NAVAL REACTORS

Appropriation, 2007 ............................................................................ $781,800,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ....................................................................... 808,219,000 

Recommended, 2008 ........................................................................... 808,219,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2007 .................................................................... +26,419,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ................................................................ – – –

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 $808,219,000, 

the same as the request, for Naval Reactors activities. 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
115 

OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR

Appropriation, 2007 ............................................................................ $340,291,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ....................................................................... 394,656,000 

Recommended, 2008 ........................................................................... 415,879,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2007 .................................................................... +75,588,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ................................................................ +21,223,000 

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 

$415,879,000, an increase of $21,223,000 above the budget request. 

The Committee recommendation provides $31,000,000 as the 

NNSA contribution to the Department’s support for the Historically 

Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs). 

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation.—The Committee provides $75,000,000 for program direction support for Federal employees in 

the Office of Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation. The Committee provides an additional $15,000,000 program direction funding and directs the NNSA to increase the Federal personnel workforce to 

oversee the additional nuclear nonproliferation activities proposed 

in the Committee’s fiscal year 2008 recommendation. The Committee directs the ‘‘Office of the Administrator’’ funding for Defense 

Nuclear Nonproliferation be identified and executed separately 

from other ‘‘Office of the Administrator’’ funding categories. The 

Committee identifies the nuclear nonproliferation funding to allow 

greater management flexibility and more effective Federal oversight when implementing NNSA activities to address international 

nuclear proliferation threats. None of these funds may be taxed by 

the NNSA for any purpose without prior notification and approval 

by the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations. 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 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 providing $31,000,000 of additional 

funding to expand the support to the HBCUs’ scientific and technical programs in fiscal year 2008. 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). 

DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT

The Defense Environmental Management (EM) 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, hazVerDate Aug 31 2005 02:49 Jun 12, 2007 Jkt 035894 PO 00000 Frm 00115 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR185.XXX HR185

hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
116 

ardous, and mixed waste contamination requiring remediation, stabilization, or some other cleanup action. 

Workforce and Technology Development Investments.—The Committee views that the oversight of contractor performance by the 

federal workforce is critical to ensure that taxpayers are getting 

good value for their money. The Committee is providing resources 

to improve this oversight, such as increasing the federal staff by 

120 positions in the areas of contract management and project 

management. These resource recommendations are consistent with 

the preliminary recommendations of the National Academy of Public Administration’s review of the EM program, which will be complete in the fall of 2007. The Committee also provides a significant 

increase to the Technology Development program, to improve the 

technical approaches to waste treatment, and produce cost-savings 

in the long run. The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) is currently working with EM on a technology roadmap, and the Committee endorses EM’s effort to engage the NAS. 

Project management.—The Committee is pleased with the Assistant Secretary’s emphasis on project management and his followthrough to this commitment by seeing that managers are trained 

and certified in project management. The Committee re-emphasizes 

the Government Accountability Office’s (GAO) findings that DOE 

must ‘‘ensure that project management guidelines are consistently 

followed . . . and that exceptions to follow the guidelines are allowed only after senior management review’’. The Committee also 

notes that while earned-value reports are an information tool, they 

are not a substitute for regular project baseline and technical reviews. The Committee directs that the Department incorporate the 

GAO’s technology readiness recommendations into the management of all EM projects. 

Unfunded Environmental Liabilities.—The Committee is aware 

that the Environmental Management program has responsibility 

for facility decontamination and decommissioning for legacy buildings across the complex. The Committee needs to be aware of environmental liabilities that the EM program will assume in the future, and directs the Department to prepare a report on the scope 

of this liability, the facilities and sites to be considered, life-cycle 

cost estimates of work to be performed, and the schedule as to 

when the work will begin and end. The report is due to the Committee by June 30, 2008. 

Hanford Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant (WTP).—In 

the fall of 2005, the total cost of WTP was estimated at $9.3 billion 

with start-up being delayed to 2015. On April 6, 2006, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) testified before the Committee 

that the cost of the Hanford waste treatment plant was nearly $11 

billion, and the completion schedule extended to at least 2017. The 

fiscal year 2008 budget request now indicates the total project cost 

for the WTP is $12,263,000,000, with a completion date of November, 2019. The project has had extensive reviews for the past two 

years, and the Committee expects that the project is on track in resolving technical issues, and sequencing work so that construction 

begins when designs are mature, and that facilities are not sitting 

idle waiting for waste to be processed. The Committee also expects 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
117 

that the latest project cost for WTP has taken into account all the 

‘‘findings’’ of the reviews, and cost growth is now under control. 

However, the Committee remains concerned that the necessary 

management improvements on the project are not fully realized. 

There are two senior federal manager positions at the Hanford site 

that are vacant, including the one for WTP. Providing a strong 

management team at the federal level is critical, particularly as an 

Administration transition begins in 18 months. The Committee 

notes there was a dearth of executive leadership in calendar year 

2000, which contributed to the shoddy contract transfer for WTP, 

and may be a contributing factor as to why the total project cost 

is now $12.2 billion. The federal coffers cannot afford another lapse 

in management oversight at WTP. 

The Committee has learned of preliminary findings of a review 

of the DOE’s internal controls for accounting and monitoring contractor costs for WTP. The findings indicate there is little review 

of contractor invoices or supporting documents, with a reliance on 

periodic reviews by outside auditors, rather than ongoing oversight 

of WTP-specific costs. There also appears to be little oversight of 

contractor-accountability for government-owned property, and lack 

of adequate procedures and policies for maintaining property accountability. The Committee will not comment on the findings 

while they still are preliminary, but emphasizes it is a critical function of the federal workforce to ensure payments to contractors are 

tracked, verified and appropriately reported, and governmentowned assets are accounted for. The Committee expects an immediate action plan from the Department should the preliminary findings become final. 

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 2008, 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 reprogramming authority may not be used to initiate new programs or to 

change funding for 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, nuclear material stabilization and disposition 

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 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
118 

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 

Legacy Management 

Office of Material Consolidation 

Details of the recommended funding levels follow for the Defense 

Environmental Cleanup account. 

DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP

Appropriation, 2007 ............................................................................ $5,731,839,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ....................................................................... 5,363,905,000 

Recommended, 2008 ........................................................................... 5,766,561,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2007 .................................................................... +34,722,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ................................................................ +402,656,000 

The Committee’s recommendation for Defense Environmental 

Cleanup totals $5,766,561,000, an increase of $402,656,000 over the 

budget request of $5,363,905,000. Within the amounts provided, 

the Department is directed to fund hazardous waste worker training at $10,000,000. 

Closure Sites.—The Committee recommendation provides $42,437,000, the same as the budget request. The recommendation 

provides $11,834,000 for Closure Sites Administration, $30,308,000 

for Miamisburg, Ohio, and $295,000 for Ashtabula, Ohio. 

Savannah River Site.—The Committee recommendation provides $1,160,463,000 for cleanup at the Savannah River Site, a decrease 

of $45,627,000 below the budget request. The Committee provides 

$31,000,000 for container surveillance, $12,500,000 for community 

and regulatory support, and $31,133,000 for spent nuclear fuel stabilization and disposition, the same as the budget request. The 

Committee provides several increases for environmental cleanup 

activities at the site: the Committee provides $80,000,000 for solid 

waste stabilization and disposition, an increase of $18,472,000 over 

the budget request for the acceleration of transuranic waste disposal; $90,000,000 for soil and water remediation, an increase of 

$14,809,000 over the budget request for increased groundwater corrective actions; and, $24,000,000 for nuclear facility decontamination and decommissioning (D&D), an increase of $21,092,000 over 

the budget request, for deferred D&D workscope. The Committee 

provides $665,019,000 for tank farm activities, the same as the 

budget request. 

The Committee was not sufficiently informed of the Department’s 

decision to utilize H-canyon for a 10-year campaign, despite several 

meetings with a senior EM official who was coordinating the Department’s material consolidation efforts. The Committee received 

DOE planning documents from the Government Accountability OfVerDate Aug 31 2005 02:49 Jun 12, 2007 Jkt 035894 PO 00000 Frm 00118 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR185.XXX HR185

hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
119 

fice that brought these decisions to the Committee’s attention. The 

Committee was struck by the lack of rigorous options analysis contained in these documents, and in particular, the disregard for addressing the proper National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) implications. The Committee is very concerned about the lack of data 

supporting the decision to operate the canyon another decade, including costs of operations, canyon upgrades, assessment of plausible alternatives, and waste generation impacts on the tank farms. 

The Committee provides $226,811,000 for nuclear material stabilization and disposition, a reduction of $85,000,000 for H canyon/ 

HB line operations and surveillance and maintenance. The fiscal 

year 2008 budget request for this activity was predicated on full 

operations of H-canyon in a high state of readiness. The Committee 

transfers $30,270,000 of the $85,000,000 reduction, to the new Office of Material Consolidation, located at Headquarters, to be held 

in reserve until a rigorous options analysis for the excess materials 

consolidation has been performed, taking into account all DOE 

sites interested in a materials consolidation mission, and presented 

to the Committees on Appropriations to their satisfaction. The 

Committee provides no funding for plutonium vitrification at Savannah River Site, a reduction of $15,000,000 from the budget request. The Committee transfers these funds to the new Office of 

Materials Consolidation at Headquarters, to be held in reserve 

until the aforementioned analysis has been presented to Committee. 

Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP).—The Committee recommendation provides $219,739,000 for the Waste Isolation Pilot 

Project, the same as the budget request. 

Idaho National Laboratory.—The Committee recommendation 

provides $600,815,000, an increase of $96,789,000 for cleanup activities at the Idaho National Laboratory. The Committee provides 

an increase of $39,377,000 for solid waste stabilization and disposition to operate the Advanced Mixed Waste Treatment Plant at capacity, and complete remote-handled transuranic shipments to the 

WIPP by the end of fiscal year 2008. The Committee provides an 

increase of $57,412,000 for nuclear facility deactivation and decommissioning, to accelerate the deactivation of the Materials Testing 

Reactor facility, the Fuel Reprocessing Complex, and complete 

close-out of the Engineering Test Reactor Demolition and the TAN–

607 Hot Shop demolition. 

Oak Ridge Reservation.—The Committee recommendation provides $235,284,000, an increase of $56,000,000 over the budget request. The recommendation includes $50,000,000 for the disposition 

of material in building 3019, an increase of $30,000,000 over the 

budget request. The Committee continues to view building 3019 as 

a high priority, and the Committee provides the increased funds to 

begin the disposition of the material in fiscal year 2008. The recommendation includes $61,446,000 for nuclear facility decontamination and decommissioning at Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), an increase of $10,000,000 for the acceleration of 

cleanup activities at the ORNL Central Campus to meet enforceable regulatory milestones. The Committee provides $29,855,000 

for nuclear facility decontamination and decommissioning at Y–12, 

an increase of $10,000,000 over the budget request, to meet enVerDate Aug 31 2005 02:49 Jun 12, 2007 Jkt 035894 PO 00000 Frm 00119 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR185.XXX HR185

hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
120 

forceable regulatory milestones to remediate the Y–12 scrap yard 

and Bear Creek burial ground. The Committee provides 

$12,379,000 for soil and water remediation at offsite locations, an 

increase of $6,000,000 to accelerate the completion of the David 

Witherspoon sites. 

Hanford Site.—The Committee recommendation provides $949,980,000 for the Hanford Site, an increase of $72,900,000 over 

the budget request, and $114,664,000 over fiscal year 2007 enacted 

levels. The Committee recommendation provides $7,500,000 for the 

Volpentest Hazardous Materials Management and Emergency Response (HAMMER) training and education center, not included in 

the budget request. The Committee provides $98,002,000 for nuclear material stabilization and disposition at the Plutonium Finishing Plant, and $99,815,000 for spent nuclear fuel stabilization 

and disposition, the same as the budget request. 

The Committee is very concerned that sufficient resources have 

not been requested to accommodate existing Tri-Party Agreement 

milestones. As such, the Committee recommendation provides 

$238,221,000 for river corridor nuclear facility decontamination and 

decommissioning, an increase of $23,000,000 over the budget request for additional soil and groundwater remediation along the 

Columbia River corridor to meet compliance milestones. The Committee provides $259,788,000 for solid waste stabilization and disposition, an increase of $23,000,00 over the budget request for additional transuranic waste retrieval and mixed-low level and low 

level waste disposal to meet compliance milestones. The Committee 

recommendation also provides $118,153,000, for Hanford nuclear 

facility decontamination and decommissioning, an increase of 

$19,400,000 over the budget request, for soil remediation in the 

Central Plateau, and a PUREX remedial investigation/feasibility 

study to meet compliance milestones. The Committee recommendation provides $3,329,000 to operate the waste disposal facility, and $19,620,000 for Richland community and regulatory support, the same as the budget request. The 

Committee is pleased to see and supports the budget request of 

$105,552,000 for soil and water remediation, which is an increase 

of $18,238,000 over fiscal year 2007 levels for Columbia River 

cleanup technologies, a Committee priority. 

Office of River Protection.—The Committee recommendation provides $863,443,000 for the Office of River Protection, a decrease of 

$100,000,000 below the request. During fiscal years 2005 and 2006, 

DOE slowed construction on the pretreatment and high-level waste 

facilities to address 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 2007 that will be available to offset a portion 

of the fiscal 2008 funding request. Based on this slowdown of work 

pending technical and managerial resolution, the GAO estimates 

that approximately $100,000,000 in uncosted balances would be 

available to offset the fiscal year 2008 appropriation. As such, the 

Committee has provided $590,000,000 for the Waste Treatment 

Plant, a decrease of $100,000,000 below the request of 

$690,000,000. The recommendation includes $212,000,000 for the 

pretreatment facility, a decrease of $41,000,000 below the budget 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
121 

request of $253,000,000; $118,000,000 for the high level waste vitrification facility, a decrease of $59,000,000 below the budget request of $177,000,000; $143,000,000 for the low activity waste facility, $45,000,000 for the analytical laboratory, and $72,000,000 for 

the balance of facilities, the same as the budget request. The Committee has provided language under the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) account to prepare a resource plan and regulatory 

framework should NRC become the regulator of the Waste Treatment Plant. 

The recommendation includes $272,972,000 for radioactive liquid 

tank waste stabilization and disposition, the same as the budget request. The recommendation provides $471,000, the same as the 

budget request, for community and regulatory support. 

Bulk vitrification.—The Committee requested the Government 

Accountability Office (GAO) review and report on the budget and 

life-cycle costs estimates for bulk vitrification, and the technical 

challenges and performance issues that have emerged so far on the 

demonstration of this technology. GAO reports that the extent 

which DOE continues to need a supplemental technology to treat 

a portion of the low-activity tank waste at Hanford is unclear, but 

DOE does not plan to reassess the need for the bulk vitrification 

project before completing the demonstration. In the four years since 

DOE selected the bulk vitrification technology for further development, conditions have changed. The original objectives DOE used 

to justify the project are no longer achievable. As a result, it is no 

longer clear when, or if, a supplemental technology will be needed. 

For example, DOE has estimated that the waste treatment plant 

operations may continue for 20 to 55 years, which may reduce the 

need for a supplemental technology as more of the low-activity 

waste could be treated in waste treatment plant facilities. In addition, DOE does not have a strategy that shows how the project will 

be integrated with the Waste Treatment Plant to meet mission requirements while controlling costs. Although DOE’s management 

guidance specifies that, when conditions have significantly 

changed, DOE should reassess the mission need of a project, DOE 

does not intend to conduct this reassessment because DOE officials 

said they want more information about the technology. Proceeding 

with the demonstration project before reaffirming the need for the 

project increases the risk that DOE will spend an additional $140 

million or more to develop a technology that may not be needed. 

Therefore, the Committee directs the Department to reassess the 

need for the bulk vitrification project, as well as present a defined 

integrated strategy for low-level waste, and present this strategy to 

the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations. The Committee will revisit the need for bulk vitrification for low-level waste 

in conference negotiations. 

Program direction.—The Committee recommendation provides 

$341,760,000, an increase of $32,000,000 over the budget request 

for program direction. The increase reflects an increase of 

$11,000,000 due to the transfer of Legacy Management activities 

under the Environmental Management program. The recommendation also provides an increase of $21,000,000 to fund approximately 

120 new full-time equivalent (FTE) positions, for contract management and project management. This increase, which bolsters the 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
122 

federal workforce contractor oversight function, implements a preliminary recommendation from the National Academy of Public Administration’s ongoing management review of the EM program. 

Program support.—The Committee recommendation provides 

$35,146,000 for program support, an increase of $2,000,000 over 

the budget request, and a decrease $2,885,000 from FY 2007 levels. 

The increase is for analytical work in support of the program’s mission. 

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 $463,000,000 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 $108,100,000, an increase of $86,711,000 

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. This lack of 

a technology R&D program exacerbates project management, because new or better cleanup approaches are not adopted, resulting 

in delays in projects, and increased overall project costs. The Committee supports an increased, expanded technology development 

program, and suggests the following overall areas for pursuit: tank 

wastes, soil and groundwater initiatives, and decontamination and 

decommissioning initiatives. The Committee’s immediate priorities 

are the following: (1) evaluation of alternative supplemental treatment of low-activity waste at Hanford, using a systems-analysis approach; (2) increased waste loading in glass; and (3) improving 

methods to remove non-radioactive components from the sludgeheels in the high-level waste tanks. The Committee directs the Department to report back to the Committee on the EM technology 

development plan in these areas by January 31, 2008. 

NNSA Sites.—The Committee recommendation provides 

$271,130,000, the same as the budget request. 

Safeguards and security.—The Committee recommendation provides $278,381,000 an increase of $5,000,000 over the budget request for safeguards and security. The recommendation includes 

$5,000,000 for the Paducah site, an increase of $5,000,000 over the 

budget request of no funds. 

Legacy Management consolidation.—Beginning in fiscal year 

2008, the Committee has combined the Office of Legacy Management with the Environmental Management Program. The Committee believes that consolidating these activities in one organization will improve the communications and operations of both organizations. The Committee expects that the Office of Legacy Management will still operate as a separate office within the Environmental Management Program. The Committee provides 

$148,063,000, the same as the budget request, for legacy management activities. 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
123 

Material Consolidation Office.—Beginning in fiscal year 2008, the Committee has provided $50,270,000 for a new Office of Material Consolidation. Of this amount, $15,000,000 was proposed in 

the budget request for plutonium vitrification activities at Savannah River, and $30,270,000 was proposed in the budget request for 

H-canyon operations at Savannah River. The Committee transfers 

these amounts to the Headquarters for material consolidation activities, to be held in reserve until a rigorous options analysis for 

the excess materials consolidation has been performed, taking into 

account all DOE sites interested in a materials consolidated mission, and presented to the Committees on Appropriations to their 

satisfaction. The Committee provides $5,000,000, not proposed in 

the budget request, for preparation of the options analysis and general support of this office. 

Environment, Safety and Health transfer.—The Committee recommendation includes a transfer of $1,450,000 to the Environment, 

Safety and Health account. 

OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES

Appropriation, 2007 ............................................................................ $635,577,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ....................................................................... 763,974,000 

Recommended, 2008 ........................................................................... 604,313,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2007 .................................................................... ¥31,264,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ................................................................ ¥159,661,000 

This account provides funding for the Office of Security and Performance Assurance; Intelligence; Counterintelligence; Environment, Safety and Health (Defense); 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. 

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 $345,959,000 the same as the 

budget request. The Committee provides the fiscal year 2008 funding in the same appropriation accounts as proposed in the fiscal 

year 2007 budget request until a reprogramming request is submitted for approval by the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations. The Committee recommendation includes bill language transferring $4,900,000 included in the fiscal year 2006 conference report for a special nuclear material consolidation building 

at the Idaho National Laboratory from the Office of Security and 

Performance Assurance to Weapons Activities. 

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 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
124 

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. The Committee expects the Office of 

Intelligence to assist and advise the Administrator of the NNSA in 

the prioritization of resources for Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation 

activities. 

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 $81,801,000, a $4,000,000 increase above the budget request. The Committee recommendation 

provides $16,500,000 for the former Worker Health Screening program, an increase of $4,000,000 over the budget request. 

Reorganization of the Environment, Safety, and Health Office.— In August 2006, the Department chose to abolish the existing Environment, Safety and Health (EH) organization and assign its functions to a number of other DOE offices, with primary responsibility 

resting with a new Office of Health, Safety and Security. While the 

Committee has no objective information to show that the new arrangement is performing better or worse than the previous EH organization, the Committee recognizes the authority of the Secretary to reorganize the Department in order to improve performance and accountability. However, the Committee reserves its own 

authority to determine the appropriations the Department receives 

for given activities in a fiscal year. In the case of the EH organization, which clearly involved moving funds from one organization to 

another in a manner inconsistent with the budget request or with 

the final appropriation, the Department refused to submit a reprogramming request to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations. 

There were two consequences to this decision by the Department. 

First, in the year-long Continuing Resolution for Fiscal Year 2007 

(P.L. 110–5), Congress eliminated the long-standing transfer authority that the Department used to execute the EH reorganization. Second, the Committee for fiscal year 2008 provides funding 

for the EH-related functions to the original pre-reorganization offices within DOE. The Committee does not fund the new Office of 

Health, Safety and Security as proposed by the Department in the 

budget request. 

Reprogramming requirement.—Per Committee reprogramming 

guidance and Department of Energy reprogramming guidelines, a 

reprogramming request submitted to the Committee for considerVerDate Aug 31 2005 03:31 Jun 12, 2007 Jkt 035894 PO 00000 Frm 00124 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR185.XXX HR185

hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
125 

ation is required to implement any reorganization proposal which 

includes moving previous appropriations between appropriation accounts. The Committee will not recognize any Departmental shift 

of previous appropriations for the Office of Environment, Safety 

and Health until a reprogramming request is submitted by the Department to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations. 

Government Accountability Office (GAO) Report.—The Committee 

directs the GAO to prepare a report on the programmatic impacts 

of the proposed dissolution of the Environment, Safety, and Health 

organization and the reorganization of the Office of Security at the 

Department. A preliminary report is due to the Committee on August 31, 2007. 

LEGACY MANAGEMENT

The Committee recommendation transfers the Office of Legacy 

Management to the Office of Environmental Management and provides the funding within the defense Environmental Management 

account. 

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 $99,000,000, 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 Secretaries, 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 $4,607,000, 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 and $990,000 use of prior year balances in the Office of Security and Performance Assurance, the 

same as the budget request. 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
126 

DEFENSE NUCLEAR WASTE DISPOSAL

Appropriation, 2007 ............................................................................ $346,500,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ....................................................................... 292,046,000 

Recommended, 2008 ........................................................................... 292,046,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2007 .................................................................... ¥54,454,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ................................................................ – – –

DEFENSE NUCLEAR WASTE DISPOSAL

The Committee recommendation is $292,046,000, the same as 

the budget request. Combined with the funding recommended for 

the Nuclear Waste Disposal, this will provide a total of 

$494,500,000 for nuclear waste disposal activities in fiscal year 

2008. 

POWER MARKETING ADMINISTRATIONS

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. 

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. 

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. 

The Committee rejects the Administration’s 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. 

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 2008. 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
127 

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, SOUTHEASTERN POWER

ADMINISTRATION

Appropriation, 2007 ............................................................................ $5,602,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ....................................................................... 6,463,000 

Recommended, 2008 ........................................................................... 6,463,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2007 .................................................................... +861,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ................................................................ – – –

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 $6,463,000, the same as the budget request. The 

total program level for Southeastern in fiscal year 2007 is 

$54,876,000, with $48,413,000 for purchase power and wheeling 

and $6,463,000 for program direction. The purchase power and 

wheeling costs will be offset by collections of $48,413 provided in 

this Act. Additionally, Southeastern has identified $13,802,000 in 

alternative financing for purchase power and wheeling that is not 

reflected in these totals. 

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, SOUTHWESTERN POWER

ADMINISTRATION

Appropriation, 2007 ............................................................................ $29,998,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ....................................................................... 30,442,000 

Recommended, 2008 ........................................................................... 30,442,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2007 .................................................................... +444,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ................................................................ – – –

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 $30,442,000, the same as the budget request. The 

total program level for Southwestern in fiscal year 2008 is 

$65,442,000, including $5,674,000 for operating expenses, 

$35,000,000 for purchase power and wheeling, $21,337,000 for program direction, and $3,431,000 for construction. The offsetting collections total of $35,000,000 from collections for purchase power 

and wheeling yields a net appropriation of $30,442,000. Additionally, Southwestern has identified $18,050,000 in alternative financing for program direction, operations and maintenance, construction, and purchase power and wheeling that is not reflected in 

these totals. 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
128 

CONSTRUCTION, REHABILITATION, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, 

WESTERN AREA POWER ADMINISTRATION

Appropriation, 2007 ............................................................................ $232,326,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ....................................................................... 201,030,000 

Recommended, 2008 ........................................................................... 201,030,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2007 .................................................................... ¥31,296,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ................................................................ – – –

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 $201,030,000, the same as the budget request. The 

total program level for Western in fiscal year 2007 is $463,669,000, 

which includes $15,000,000 for construction and rehabilitation, 

$41,300,000 for system operation and maintenance, $258,702,000 

for purchase power and wheeling, and $141,500,000 for program direction. The Committee recommendation includes $7,167,000 for 

the Utah Mitigation and Conservation Fund. 

Offsetting collections total $262,639,000; with the use of 

$3,937,000 of offsetting collections from the Colorado River Dam 

Fund (as authorized in P.L. 98–381), this requires a net appropriation of $201,030,000. Additionally, Western has identified 

$242,242,000 in alternative financing for program direction, operations and maintenance, construction and rehabilitation, and purchase power and wheeling that is not reflected in these totals. 

FALCON AND AMISTAD OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE FUND

Appropriation, 2007 ............................................................................ $2,665,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ....................................................................... 2,500,000 

Recommended, 2008 ........................................................................... 2,500,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2007 .................................................................... ¥165,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ................................................................ – – –

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. 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
129 

FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation, 2007 ............................................................................ $221,902,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ....................................................................... 255,425,000 

Recommended, 2008 ........................................................................... 255,425,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2007 .................................................................... +33,523,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ................................................................ – – –

REVENUES

Appropriation, 2007 ............................................................................ ¥221,902,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ....................................................................... ¥255,425,000 

Recommended, 2008 ........................................................................... ¥255,425,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2007 .................................................................... ¥33,523,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ................................................................ – – –

The Committee recommendation for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) is $255,425,000, 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

The Committee’s detailed funding recommendations for programs 

in Title III are contained in the following table. 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
130 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPTInsert graphic folio 003 34862A.001
131 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPTInsert graphic folio 004 34862A.002
132 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPTInsert graphic folio 005 34862A.003
133 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPTInsert graphic folio 006 34862A.004
134 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPTInsert graphic folio 007 34862A.005
135 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPTInsert graphic folio 008 34862A.006
136 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPTInsert graphic folio 009 34862A.007
137 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPTInsert graphic folio 010 34862A.008
138 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPTInsert graphic folio 011 34862A.009
139 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPTInsert graphic folio 012 34862A.010
140 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPTInsert graphic folio 013 34862A.011
141 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPTInsert graphic folio 014 34862A.012
142 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPTInsert graphic folio 015 34862A.013
143 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPTInsert graphic folio 016 34862A.014
144 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPTInsert graphic folio 017 34862A.015
145 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPTInsert graphic folio 018 34862A.016
146 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPTInsert graphic folio 019 34862A.017
147 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPTInsert graphic folio 020 34862A.018
148 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPTInsert graphic folio 021 34862A.019
149 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPTInsert graphic folio 0027 34862A.039
150 

GENERAL PROVISIONS

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Contract Competition.—Section 301 provides that none of the 

funds in this Act may be used to award a management and operating contract, or a contract for environmental remediation or 

waste management, in excess of $100 million in annual funding at 

a current or former management and operating contract site of facility, or award 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. Within 30 days of formally 

notifying an incumbent contractor of the intent to grant 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 Committee’s concern is to establish clearly that competition 

is the norm for the Department of Energy. The waiver for non-competitive awards or extensions should be invoked only in truly exceptional circumstances, not as a matter of routine. A non-competitive award or extensions may be in the taxpayers’ interest, but the 

burden of proof is on the Department to make that case in the 

waiver notice. 

Unfunded Requests for Proposals.—Section 302 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 that have not yet been presented to Congress in the annual budget submission, and that have not yet been approved and 

funded by Congress. 

Unexpended Balances.—Section 303 permits the transfer and 

merger of unexpended balances of prior appropriations with appropriation accounts established in this bill. 

Bonneville Power Administration Service Territory.—Section 304 

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. 

User Facilities.—Section 305 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 306 authorizes intelligence activities of the Department of Energy for purposes of section 504 of the 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
151 

National Security Act of 1947 during fiscal year 2008 until the enactment of the Intelligence Authorization Act for fiscal year 2008. 

Laboratory Directed Research and Development.—Section 307 

provides for authorization of Laboratory Directed Research and Development (LDRD), Site Directed Research and Development, and 

Plant Directed Research and Development (PDRD) activities. 

Contractor Pension Benefits.—Sec. 308 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. 

International Nuclear Fuel Bank.—Sec. 309 reallocates unexpended balances provided in Public Law 105–277 for Other Defense 

Activities to provide the U.S. contribution to an International Nuclear Fuel Bank under the auspices of the International Atomic Energy Agency, subject to authorization. 

TITLE IV 

INDEPENDENT AGENCIES 

APPALACHIAN REGIONAL COMMISSION

Appropriation, 2007 ............................................................................ $64,858,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ....................................................................... 65,000,000 

Recommended, 2008 ........................................................................... 35,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2007 .................................................................... ¥29,858,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ................................................................ ¥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 

2008, the budget request includes $65,000,000, of which 

$54,087,000 is for program development; $5,316,000 is local development districts and technical assistance; and $5,597,000 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, and in fact the sole, focus of 

the ARC. The Committee recommendation for ARC is $35,000,000, 

$29,817,000 less than the fiscal year 2007 enacted level and 

$30,000,000 less than the budget estimate. The reduction is to be 

taken from the area development activities that serve other than 

distressed counties and distressed areas. 

DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD

Appropriation, 2007 ............................................................................ $21,914,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ....................................................................... 22,499,000 

Recommended, 2008 ........................................................................... 22,499,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2007 .................................................................... +585,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ................................................................ – – –

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, 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
152 

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 2008 is $22,499,000, the 

same as the budget request. 

DELTA REGIONAL COMMISSION

Appropriation, 2007 ............................................................................ $11,888,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ....................................................................... 6,000,000 

Recommended, 2008 ........................................................................... 6,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2007 .................................................................... ¥5,888,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ................................................................ – – –

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 

earmarked for transportation and basic infrastructure improvements. 

The Committee is concerned with the level of administrative expenses and with the Authority’s lack of direction and strategic 

planning. The Committee directs the Federal Co-Chairman to provide to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations a fiveyear strategic plan that comprehensively addresses the development of annual and long-term measures for ensuring the performance and accountability of the Authority and its program partners. 

As part of this plan, the Federal Co-Chairman shall ensure that 

administrative expenses shall comply with the 5 percent limit of 

total appropriations, as provided in the authorizing legislation. As 

part of this plan, the Federal Co-Chairman shall outline an approach to ensure that administrative expenses shall comply with 

the 5 percent limit of total appropriations within 2 years. 

It has come to the Committee’s attention that the Delta Regional 

Authority is not responsive to Congressional inquiries. The Delta 

Regional Authority should be able to respond in a timely manner 

to inquiries regarding its budget and expenditures. 

For fiscal year 2008, the Committee recommends $6,000,000, the 

same as the budget request. 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
153 

DENALI COMMISSION

Appropriation, 2007 ............................................................................ $49,509,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ....................................................................... 1,800,000 

Recommended, 2008 ........................................................................... 1,800,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2007 .................................................................... ¥47,709,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ................................................................ – – –

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 

2008, the Committee recommends $1,800,000 for the costs of the 

Commission’s operations, the same as the budget request. 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

GROSS APPROPRIATION

Appropriation, 2007 ............................................................................ $816,639,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ....................................................................... 908,409,000 

Recommended, 2008 ........................................................................... 925,559,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2007 .................................................................... +108,920,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ................................................................ +17,150,000 

REVENUES

Appropriation, 2007 ............................................................................ ¥659,328,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ....................................................................... ¥757,720,000 

Recommended, 2008 ........................................................................... ¥757,720,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2007 .................................................................... ¥98,392,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ................................................................ – – –

NET APPROPRIATION

Appropriation, 2007 ............................................................................ 157,311,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ....................................................................... 150,689,000 

Recommended, 2008 ........................................................................... 167,839,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2007 .................................................................... +10,528,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ................................................................ +17,150,000 

The Committee recommendation for the Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) salaries and expenses for fiscal year 2008 is 

$925,559,000, an increase of $17,150,000 above the budget request. 

The total amount of budget authority is offset by estimated revenues of $757,720,000, resulting in a net appropriation of 

$167,839,000. The recommendation includes the requested amount 

of $37,250,000 to be derived from the Nuclear Waste Fund to support the Department of Energy’s effort to develop a permanent geologic repository at Yucca Mountain for spent nuclear fuel and highlevel waste. 

The Committee is pleased that the Commission is continuing to 

fund academic scholarships and fellowships to enable students to 

pursue education in science, engineering, and other fields of study 

that constitute critical skills areas needed to sustain the NRC’s 

regulatory mission. The Committee provides an additional 

$15,000,000 to support the Commission’s efforts. Some of these 

funds are to be used to help support scholarships to attend trade 

school programs that develop skills needed to facilitate construction 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
154 

and operation of nuclear facilities and the handling of nuclear materials. In addition, these funds are to be used for college scholarships and graduate fellowships to develop critical nuclear regulatory skills and those skills needed by the regulated industries, including engineering and health physics, and for faculty development grants supporting faculty in these academic areas in the first 

six years of their careers. 

The Committee recommendation provides $3,000,000 for international program activities at the Commission, an increase of 

$2,150,000 above the request. These funds are included in the 

homeland security responsibilities of the NRC and provided to enable the Commission to provide support to foreign regulators in addressing the control of high-risk radioactive sources. 

The Committee directs the NRC to provide, not later than November 30, 2007, a report to the House and Senate Committees on 

Appropriations, and appropriate authorizing Committees, on a plan 

for NRC regulation of the Hanford Waste Treatment Plant that includes resource requirements and regulatory structure. 

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), the 

$15,000,000 added above the request for nuclear education support, 

and the amount necessary for homeland security activities of the 

Commission. Of the $923,409,000 gross appropriation for fiscal 

year 2008, $37,250,000 is drawn from the Nuclear Waste Fund, 

$2,000,000 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 $29,398,000 is drawn from the General Fund of the 

Treasury to execute NRC’s homeland security responsibilities. 

Ninety percent of the balance of $841,911,000 (i.e., $757,720,000) 

is funded by fees collected from NRC licensees, and the remaining 

10 percent (i.e., $84,191,000) is funded from the General Fund of 

the Treasury. 

Reports.—The Committee directs the Commission to continue to 

provide quarterly reports on the status of its licensing and other 

regulatory activities. The Committee has been 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. 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
155 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

GROSS APPROPRIATION

Appropriation, 2007 ............................................................................ $8,285,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ....................................................................... 8,144,000 

Recommended, 2008 ........................................................................... 8,144,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2007 .................................................................... ¥141,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ................................................................ – – –

REVENUES

Appropriation, 2007 ............................................................................ ¥7,410,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ....................................................................... ¥7,330,000 

Recommended, 2008 ........................................................................... ¥7,330,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2007 .................................................................... +80,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ................................................................ – – –

NET APPROPRIATION

Appropriation, 2007 ............................................................................ 875,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ....................................................................... 814,000 

Recommended, 2008 ........................................................................... 814,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2007 .................................................................... ¥61,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ................................................................ – – –

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. 

NUCLEAR WASTE TECHNICAL REVIEW BOARD

Appropriation, 2007 ............................................................................ $3,591,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ....................................................................... 3,621,000 

Recommended, 2008 ........................................................................... 3,621,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2007 .................................................................... +30,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ................................................................ – – –

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 $3,621,000 for 

the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board in fiscal year 2008, the 

same as the budget request and an increase of $30,000 over fiscal 

year 2007 funding. 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
156 

OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL COORDINATOR FOR ALASKA NATURAL GAS

TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS

Appropriation, 2007 ............................................................................ – – – Budget estimate, 2008 ....................................................................... $2,322,000 

Recommended, 2008 ........................................................................... 2,322,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2007 .................................................................... +2,322,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ................................................................ – – –

The Office of the Federal Coordinator for Alaska Natural Gas 

Transportation Projects was established as an independent agency 

in the Executive Branch on December 13, 2006, pursuant to the 

Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline Act of 2004. The Federal Coordinator 

is responsible for coordinating all Federal activities for an Alaska 

natural gas transportation project, including joint surveillance and 

monitoring with the State of Alaska of construction of a project. An 

Alaska natural gas transportation project could deliver significant 

natural gas supply to the U.S. lower 48 states. Action by the State 

of Alaska in reaching agreement with potential project owners as 

to fiscal terms is necessary before project development can move 

forward. 

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $2,322,000 to 

support the activities of this office in fiscal year 2008, the same as 

the budget request. 

TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

GROSS APPROPRIATION

Appropriation, 2007 ............................................................................ – – – Budget estimate, 2008 ....................................................................... $15,000,000 

Recommended, 2008 ........................................................................... – – – Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2007 .................................................................... – – – Budget estimate, 2008 ................................................................ ¥15,000,000 

OFFSET FROM TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY FUND

Appropriation, 2007 ............................................................................ – – – Budget estimate, 2008 ....................................................................... ¥15,000,000 

Recommended, 2008 ........................................................................... – – – Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2007 .................................................................... – – – Budget estimate, 2008 ................................................................ +15,000,000 

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 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
157 

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. 

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. 

STATEMENT OF GENERAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND 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. 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
158 

TRANSFER OF FUNDS

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. 

TITLE II—BUREAU OF RECLAMATION

Under ‘‘‘Water and Related Resources’’, $57,615,000 is available 

for transfer to the Upper Colorado River Basin Fund and 

$26,825,000 is available for transfer to the Lower Colorado River 

Basin Development Fund. Such funds as may be necessary may be 

advanced to the Colorado River Dam Fund. The amounts of transfers may be increased or decreased within the overall appropriation 

under the heading. 

TITLE III—DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Under ‘‘Fossil Energy Research and Development’’, $166,000,000 

is transferred from ‘‘Clean Coal Technology’’, including $58,000,000 

in unexpended balances. 

Under ‘‘Other Defense Activities’’, $4,900,000 of funds provided 

under Public Law 109–103, are transferred to ‘‘Weapons Activities’’

for planning activities associated with special nuclear material consolidation. 

Under Section 305, ‘‘General Provision—Department of Energy’’, 

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

Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, Investigations, providing for detailed studies and plans and specifications of projects prior to construction. 

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, delineating the amounts available for the continuing authorities program. 

Language has been included under the Corps of Engineers, Operation and Maintenance, stating that funds can be used for: the operation, maintenance, and care of existing river and harbor, flood 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
159 

and storm damage reduction, aquatic ecosystem restoration, and 

related authorized projects, including the construction of facilities, 

projects, or features (including islands and wetlands) to use materials dredged during Federal navigation maintenance activities; the 

mitigation of impacts on shorelines resulting from Federal navigation operation and maintenance activities; to address the effects of 

civil works projects owned or operated by the Corps on federally 

listed species; to provide security for infrastructure operated by the 

Corps, or operated on its behalf, including administrative buildings 

and facilities, and laboratories; the maintenance of authorized 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 channels, and removal of obstructions 

to navigation. 

Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, Operation and Maintenance, delineating the amount of funding available to various regions. 

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, 

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, 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, Expenses, prohibiting the use of 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, 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 under Corps of Engineers, General 

Provisions, prohibiting the expenditure of funds on rehabilitation 

and lead and asbestos abatement of the dredge McFarland. 

Language has been included regarding staffing at the Sacramento District Corps of Engineers. 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
160 

Language has been included relating to the funding of A–76 

studies. 

TITLE II—DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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 apVerDate Aug 31 2005 03:31 Jun 12, 2007 Jkt 035894 PO 00000 Frm 00160 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR185.XXX HR185

hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
161 

propriation in the Act shall be available for activities budgeted as 

policy and administration. 

Language has been included under Bureau of Reclamation, Pol- icy and Administration providing for the transfer of $10,000,000 

from this account to Water and Related Resources, if a five-year 

budget plan is not received from the Secretary of the Interior within the 60-day period following the date of enactment. 

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. 

TITLE III—DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Activities formerly funded under Energy Supply and Conservation are now funded as Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, 

Electricity Distribution and Energy Reliability, Nuclear Energy, 

Environment, Safety and Health, and as part of Non-Defense Environmental Cleanup. 

Language has been included under Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy for the purchase, construction, and acquisition of plant 

and capital equipment. 

Language has been included under Electricity Distribution and 

Energy Reliability for the purchase, construction, and acquisition of 

plant and capital equipment. 

Language has been included under Nuclear Energy for the purchase, construction, and acquisition of plant and capital equipment 

and for the purchase of motor vehicles. 

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; permitting the use of funds from other program accounts 

for the National Energy Technology Laboratory; 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 Innovative Technology Loan 

Guarantee Program setting a fiscal year 2008 loan volume limitation. 

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 EnVerDate Aug 31 2005 03:31 Jun 12, 2007 Jkt 035894 PO 00000 Frm 00161 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR185.XXX HR185

hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
162 

ergy 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 

that fees collected for loan guarantee administrative expenses are 

credited as offsetting collections to this account. 

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 $5,000 for official reception and representation expenses. 

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 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 been included under Southeastern Power Administration providing that, not withstanding the provisions of 31 U.S.C. 

3302, funds received from any state, municipality, corporation, association, firm, district, or individual as advance payment for work 

that is associated with Southeastern’s Operation and Maintenance, 

consistent with that authorized in section 5 of the Flood Control 

Act of 1944, shall be credited to the account and be available until 

expended. 

Language has been included under Southeastern 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 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, 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
163 

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 Construction, Rehabilitation, 

Operation and Maintenance, Western Area Power Administration, 

providing for the operation, maintenance, and purchase through 

transfer, exchange or sale of one helicopter for replacement only. 

Language has been included under Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission to permit the hire of passenger motor vehicles, to provide official reception and representation expenses, not to exceed 

$3,000 and to permit the use of revenues collected to reduce the appropriation as revenues are received. 

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 

or initiate requests for proposals for programs that have not yet 

been funded by Congress. 

Language has been included under Department of Energy, General Provisions, Section 303, 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 304, 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 305, 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 306, 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 

2008 until enactment of the Intelligence Authorization Act for fiscal 

year 2008. 

Language has been included under Department of Energy, General Provisions, Section 307, regarding the laboratory directed research and development activities. 

Language has been included under Department of Energy, General Provisions, Section 308, providing that none of the funds may 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
164 

be used to implement a Department of Energy order modifying contractor employee pension and medical benefits policy. 

Language has been included under Department of Energy, General Provisions, Section 309, relating to allocation of funds provided 

under Public Law 105–277. 

TITLE IV—INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

Language has been included under Appalachian Regional Commission providing of the hire of passenger vehicles. 

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 RULE XIII, CL. 3(E) (RAMSEYER RULE) 

In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the Committee notes that the 

accomplanying bill doesn ot propose to repeal or amend a statute 

or part thereof. 

APPROPRIATIONS NOT AUTHORIZED BY LAW

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: 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
165 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPTInsert graphic folio 5 HR185.042
166 

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: 

Department or Activity 

Corps of Engineers-Civil: Investigations ...................................... $100,000 

Corps of Engineers-Civil: Construction ........................................ $4,688,000 

Department of Energy: Clean Coal Technology ........................... $149,000,000 

EARMARKS

Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House of Representatives, this bill, as reported, contains no congressional earmarks, limited 

tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined in clause 9(d), 9(e), or 9(f) 

of rule XXI. 

COMPARISON WITH THE BUDGET RESOLUTION

Pursuant to clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and section 308(a)(1)(A) of the Congressional Budget Act 

of 1974, the following table compares the levels of new budget authority provided in the bill with the appropriate allocation under section 

302(b) of the Budget Act. 

[in millions of dollars] 

302(b) allocation This bill 

Budget authority Outlays Budget authority Outlays 

Discretionary ................................................................................... 31,603 32,774 31,603 32,744 

Mandatory ....................................................................................... .................... 1 .................... 1 

FIVE-YEAR OUTLAY PROJECTIONS

Pursuant to section 308(a)(1)(B) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, 

the following table contains five-year projections prepared by the Congressional Budget Office of outlays associated with the budget authority provided int he accompanying bill: 

[in millions of dollars] 

Budget Authority ................................................................................ $31,603 

Outlays: 

2008 .............................................................................................. 19,566 

2009 .............................................................................................. 8,963 

2010 .............................................................................................. 2,637 

2011 .............................................................................................. 194 

2012 .............................................................................................. 77 

ASSISTANCE TO STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS

Pursuant to section 308(a)(1)(C) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, 

the amount of financial assistance to State and local governments is 

as follows: 

[In millions of dollars] 

Budget Authority ................................................................................... $39 

Fiscal Year 2008 outlays resulting therefrom ..................................... 5 

FULL COMMITTEE VOTES

Pursuant to the provisions of clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the House 

of Representatives, the results of each rollcall vote on an amendment or on the motion to report, together with the names of those 

voting for and those voting against, are printed below: 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
167 

ROLLCALL NO. 1

Date: June 6, 2007. 

Measure: Energy and Wagter Development Bill, FY 2008. 

Motion by: Mr. Hinchey. 

Description of Motion: To prohibit funds from being used by the 

Secretary of Energy to designagte a national electric transmission 

corridor or by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to take 

any action related to the processing or issuance of a permit under 

section 216(b) of the Federal Power Act. 

Results: Rejected 30 yeas to 35 nays. 

Members Voting Yea Members Voting Nay 

Mr. Alexander Mr. Aderholt 

Mr. Berry Mr. Bishop 

Mr. Boyd Mr. Calvert 

Mr. Chandler Mr. Carter 

Mr. Culberson Mr. Cramer 

Ms. DeLauro Mr. Crenshaw 

Mr. Dicks Mr. Edwards 

Mr. Farr Mrs. Emerson 

Mr. Fattah Mr. Goode 

Mr. Frelinghuysen Ms. Granger 

Mr. Hinchey Mr. Hobson 

Mr. Israel Mr. Honda 

Mr. Jackson Ms. Kaptur 

Mr. Kennedy Ms. Kilpatrick 

Ms. Lee Mr. Kingston 

Mrs. Lowey Mr. Kirk 

Ms. McCollum Mr. Knollenberg 

Mr. Mollahan Mr. LaHood 

Mr. Moran Mr. Latham 

Mr. Murtha Mr. Lewis 

Mr. Obey Mr. Olver 

Mr. Pastor Mr. Peterson 

Mr. Price Mr. Rehberg 

Mr. Rodriguez Mr. Rogers 

Mr. Rothman Ms. Roybal-Allard 

Mr. Udall Mr. Ruppersberger 

Mr. Walsh Mr. Ryan 

Ms. Wasserman Schultz Mr. Schiff 

Mr. Wicker Mr. Serrano 

Mr. Wolf Mr. Simpson 

Mr. Tiahrt 

Mr. Visclosky 

Mr. Wamp 

Dr. Weldon 

Mr. Young 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
168 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPTInsert graphic folio 0018 34862A.020
169 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPTInsert graphic folio 0019 34862A.021
170 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPTInsert graphic folio 0020 34862A.022
171 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPTInsert graphic folio 0021 34862A.023
172 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPTInsert graphic folio 0022 34862A.024
173 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPTInsert graphic folio 0023 34862A.025
174 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPTInsert graphic folio 0024 34862A.026
175 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPTInsert graphic folio 0031 34862A.040
(176) 

ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF REPRESENTATIVES LEWIS OF 

CALIFORNIA AND HOBSON 

302(B) ALLOCATION

The 302(b) discretionary allocation for the fiscal year 2008 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Bill is $31.6 billion, 

an increase of $1.13 billion (3.7 percent) above the President’s request and $1.3 billion (4.3 percent) above the amount provided in 

fiscal year 2007. Much of this increase in discretionary funding 

would be justified to address chronic underfunding of water resources infrastructure, but only if accompanied by project-specific 

guidance directing how these funds are to be spent. If the House 

is not able to include such project-specific guidance in the final conference report, then we do not support providing these increased 

funding levels to the agencies. 

PRIORITIES IN THE BILL

This bill addresses some very difficult issues, including reversing 

the degradation of our nation’s water infrastructure, developing domestic energy sources with less impact on global climate, and fostering our national security through rational efforts on nuclear 

nonproliferation and nuclear weapons. While these are legitimate 

priorities, the absence of Congressional direction for these large 

funding increases and the decision to defer such direction to conference is not only an abdication of our constitutional responsibilities, but a fundamental disservice to our constituents as well. We 

also caution that increased spending at the Department of Energy 

is no guarantee of increased results. The subcommittee must continue intensive oversight to ensure that the increases in funding 

are accompanied by increased results. 

NUCLEAR WEAPONS

The concept of the Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW) has 

merit if it allows the United States to meet our strategic defense 

goals while maintaining a smaller stockpile of more reliable weapons that will not require nuclear testing. Unfortunately, what the 

National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) has presented to 

Congress is little more than a vague promise that RRW might lead 

to a smaller future stockpile. At the same time, the NNSA is planning to modernize its infrastructure to meet anticipated needs out 

to the year 2030, and is basing this modernization plan on the assumption that the current stockpile remains largely unchanged in 

terms of systems and total numbers. What is needed is a specific 

stockpile plan from the Administration, based upon validated strategic goals and military requirements, that shows how developing 

the RRW will actually get us to a much smaller, more responsible 

future stockpile. Such a stockpile plan is absolutely essential before 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
177 

we invest in the modernization of the DOE nuclear weapons complex. NNSA must strive to transform its existing complex from a 

Cold War relic, with weapons laboratories plagued by security 

lapses, safety accidents, and persistent mismanagement, to a 

streamlined operation aligned with the national security demands 

and economic constraints of the post-9/11 environment. NNSA laboratories should not aspire to involvement in other program activities of the Department until they demonstrate they can execute 

their primary weapons responsibilities in a safe, secure, and efficient manner. 

MIXED OXIDE (MOX) FUEL FABRICATION FACILITY

This project, which DOE originally told Congress would cost only 

$1 billion, has now escalated to $4.7 billion before construction has 

even started. The life cycle cost for all of the activities and facilities 

necessary to dispose of 34 metric tons of excess U.S. weapons usable plutonium is currently estimated at $11 billion, and will most 

certainly climb higher. This project is simply a waste of money. It 

has completely lost its way from being a cooperative nonproliferation program with Russia to being little more than a jobs program 

in South Carolina. While we are appreciative of the majority’s proposed reduction in funding for this project, this funding should be 

eliminated entirely and applied to other higher priority needs. 

JERRY LEWIS. 

DAVE HOBSON. 

Æ 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT