20–967 

109TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1st Session 109–86 

ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS 

BILL, 2006 

MAY 18, 2005.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of 

the Union and ordered to be printed 

Mr. HOBSON, from the Committee on Appropriations, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany H.R. 2419] 

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, 2006, and for other purposes. 

INDEX TO BILL AND REPORT 

Page Number 

Bill Report 

Summary of Estimates and Recommendations ....................................... ........ 2 

Introduction ................................................................................................ ........ 3 

I. Department of Defense—Civil: 

Corps of Engineers—Civil: 

Introduction .................................................................................. 2 7 

General investigations ................................................................. 2 19 

Construction, general .................................................................. 3 24 

Flood control, Mississippi River and Tributaries ...................... 5 42 

Operation and maintenance, general ......................................... 5 45 

Regulatory program ..................................................................... 7 66 

Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program ................... 7 66 

Flood control and coastal emergencies ....................................... ........ 67 

General expenses ......................................................................... 7 67 

Administrative provisions ........................................................... 8 ...........

Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) 8 70 

General provisions ....................................................................... 8 71 

II. Department of the Interior: 

Central Utah Project completion account ......................................... 12 73 

Bureau of Reclamation: 

Water and related resources ....................................................... 12 75 

California Bay-Delta ecosystem restoration .............................. 14 83 

2 

Page Number 

Bill Report 

Central Valley Project restoration fund ..................................... 14 83 

Policy and administration ........................................................... 15 85 

Administrative provisions ........................................................... 15 ...........

General provisions ....................................................................... 16 85 

III. Department of Energy: 

Energy supply and conservation ........................................................ 18 87 

Clean coal technology ......................................................................... 19 110 

Fossil energy research and development .......................................... 19 110 

Naval petroleum and oil shale reserves ............................................ 22 113 

Elk Hills School lands funds .............................................................. 22 113 

Strategic petroleum reserve ............................................................... 23 114 

Northeast home heating oil reserve .................................................. ........ 114 

Energy Information Administration .................................................. 23 115 

Non-defense environmental management: 

Non-defense environmental cleanup .......................................... 23 116 

Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning 

Fund .......................................................................................... 24 117 

Science ................................................................................................. 24 118 

Nuclear waste disposal ....................................................................... 25 124 

Departmental administration ............................................................ 27 127 

Office of Inspector General ................................................................. 28 128 

Atomic energy defense activities ........................................................ 28 128 

National Nuclear Security Administration: 

Weapons activities ....................................................................... 28 129 

Defense nuclear nonproliferation ............................................... 29 140 

Naval reactors .............................................................................. 29 145 

Office of the Administrator ......................................................... 29 146 

Environmental and Other Defense Activities ................................... 30 147 

Defense environmental management ................................................ 30 147 

Defense environmental cleanup .................................................. 30 149 

Other defense activities ............................................................... 30 151 

Defense nuclear waste disposal .................................................. 31 154 

Power marketing administrations ..................................................... 31 154 

Bonneville Power Administration ............................................... 31 155 

Southeastern Power Administration .......................................... 31 155 

Southwestern Power Administration ......................................... 32 156 

Western Area Power Administration ......................................... 33 156 

Falcon and Amistad operating and maintenance fund ............. 34 157 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ........................................... 34 157 

General provisions .............................................................................. 35 177 

IV. Independent agencies: 

Appalachian Regional Commission ................................................... 41 179 

Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board ........................................... 42 179 

Delta Regional Authority ................................................................... 42 180 

Denali Commission ............................................................................. 42 180 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission ....................................................... 43 181 

Office of Inspector General ................................................................. 44 182 

Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board ........................................... 44 183 

V. General provisions: 

House reporting requirements ........................................................... 44 187 

SUMMARY OF ESTIMATES AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee has considered budget estimates which are contained in the Budget of the United States Government, 2006, The 

following table summarizes appropriations for fiscal year 2005, the 

budget estimates, and amounts recommended in the bill for fiscal 

year 2006. Amounts shown include mandatory, discretionary and 

emergency appropriations. 

3 

[In thousands of dollars] 

2005 2006 estimate 2006 recommendation 

2006 recommendation compared with— 

2005 appropriation 2006 estimate 

Title I—Department of Defense—Civil ................ $5,039,948 $4,332,000 4,746,021 ¥$293,927 $414,021 

Title II—Department of the Interior ..................... 1,017,546 951,055 1,011,486 ¥6,060 60,431 

Title III—Department of Energy ........................... 24,419,197 24,213,307 24,317,857 ¥101,340 104,550 

Title IV—Independent Agencies ........................... 289,336 234,238 207,266 ¥82,070 ¥26,972 

Subtotal ................................................... 30,727,429 29,730,600 30,539,630 ¥187,799 ¥809,030 

Scorekeeping adjustments .................................... ¥849,747 16,128 ¥793,630 56,117 ¥809,758 

Grand Total of bill ................................... 29,877,682 29,746,728 29,746,000 ¥131,682 ¥728 

INTRODUCTION

The Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2006 totals $29,746,000,000 the same as the President’s budg- et request, and $131,682,000 below the amount appropriated in fiscal year 2005. Title I of the bill provides $4,746,021,000 for the programs of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, a decrease of $293,927,000 below 

the fiscal year 2005 enacted level and $414,021,000 over the budget 

request of $4,332,000. The fiscal year 2006 budget request for the 

Corps of Engineers totals $4,513,000,000, which is composed of 

$4,332,000,000 in new budget authority and $181,000,000 in new 

offsetting collections. A proposal to provide direct financing of the 

operation and maintenance of Corps of Engineers’ hydropower facilities as offsetting collections from the Power Marketing Administrations’ power sales revenues is rejected by the Committee. 

The fiscal year 2006 budget request for the Corps’ Civil Works 

program represents a significant departure from previous Administration requests for the Corps, as it applies a new performancebased system based on the ratio of remaining benefits-to-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 

found not to be of as high an economic value and on Congressionally mandated projects that have been included in prior Administration requests. The Committee supports the concept of focusing 

limited resources on completing high-value projects already under 

construction, and the Committee recommendation is based in large 

part on the Administration’s performance-based approach. The 

Committee bill and report also makes a number of 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 $1,011,486,000 for the Department of Interior 

and the Bureau of Reclamation, an increase of $60,431,000 above 

the budget request of $951,055,000 and $6,060,000 below the fiscal 

year 2005 enacted level. The Committee recommends $977,136,000 

for the Bureau of Reclamation, an increase of $60,431,000 over the 

request and $6,060,000 below the fiscal year 2005 enacted level. A 

proposal to provide direct financing of operation and maintenance 

costs associated with the power functions of Reclamation facilities 

that generate the power sold by the Western Power Administration 

4 

is rejected by the Committee. The Committee recommends 

$34,350,000 for the Central Utah Project and $946,000 for deposit 

into the Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Account, 

both the same as the budget request. Title III provides $24,574,857,000 for the Department of Energy (DOE), an increase of $278,103,000 over fiscal year 2005 and 

$361,550,000 over the budget request of $24,213,307,000. Consistent with the reorganization of the subcommittees within the 

House Committee on Appropriations, all Department of Energy 

programs are funded within this bill. The Committee funds new 

initiatives on the consolidation of special nuclear materials, the interim storage and integrated recycling of spent nuclear fuel, and on 

creating a sustainable nuclear stockpile and the DOE complex necessary to support that stockpile. 

The Energy Supply and Conservation account, which funds renewable energy, energy efficiency, nuclear energy, non-defense environment, safety, and health programs, and energy conservation, 

is funded at $1,762,888,000, an increase of $13,442,000 over the request and $44,050,000 below the current year enacted level. The 

Committee recommends $3,666,055,000 for the Office of Science, an 

increase of $203,337,000 over the budget request and $66,184,000 

over the current year. Additional funds are provided for priority 

work on advanced scientific computing, high energy physics, and 

operation of user facilities at fiscal year 2005 levels. 

Environmental management activities (i.e., non-defense environmental cleanup, uranium enrichment decontamination and decommissioning fund, and defense environmental cleanup) are funded at 

$7,379,768,000, a decrease of $395,675,000 below the fiscal year 

2005 enacted level and an increase of $423,292,000 over the budget 

request. A large portion of this increase results from the Committee retaining environmental cleanup responsibilities within Environmental Management for facilities under the National Nuclear 

Security Administration (NNSA), rather than transferring such responsibilities to the NNSA as proposed in the budget. The Committee recommendation also restores $194,905,000 from the proposed reduction for cleanup of the Hanford site. 

The Committee recommends a total of $661,447,000 for the 

Yucca Mountain repository, which includes $310,000,000 for Nuclear Waste Disposal, an increase of $10,000,000 over the request, 

and $351,447,000 for Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal, the same as 

the request. The additional funds are provided for the Department 

to begin to move spent nuclear fuel away from reactor sites to interim storage at one or more existing DOE sites. 

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 $8,848,449,000, an increase of $23,990,000 over fiscal year 2005 and a decrease of $548,792,000 from the budget request. Within the weapons activities account, the Committee provides no funds for the robust nuclear earth penetrator study, but 

provides significant increases for the Sustainable Stockpile Initiative, including development of the Reliable Replacement Warhead. 

Additional funds are also provided to accelerate the consolidation 

of special nuclear materials into a small number of secure sites. 

The Committee recommendation includes $1,500,959,000 for DeVerDate Aug 04 2004 16:26 May 19, 2005 Jkt 021245 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A20967.000 A20967
5 

fense Nuclear Nonproliferation, an increase of $7,926,000 over the 

current year and a decrease of $136,280,000 from the request. 

Much of this reduction comes from the mixed oxide fuel facility at 

Savannah River, which has large uncosted balances and is delayed 

by the absence of a liability agreement with the Russian Federation. 

Title IV provides $207,266,000 for several Independent Agencies, a decrease of $82,070,000 from fiscal year 2005 and $26,972,000 

below the budget request of $234,238,000. The requested funding 

is provided for the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, the 

Delta Regional Authority, the Denali Commission, the Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission Inspector General, and the Nuclear Waste 

Technical Review Board. An additional $21,000,000 is provided to 

the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for safety and security work. 

The request for the Appalachian Regional Commission is reduced 

by $26,972,000, and no funds are provided for the Office of Inspector General for the Tennessee Valley Authority. 

(7) 

TITLE I 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE—CIVIL 

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—CIVIL

INTRODUCTION

The United States Army Corps of Engineers traces its history to 

June 1775, when Congress established the Continental Army with 

a provision for a Chief Engineer to oversee the construction of fortifications for the Battle of Bunker Hill. An Act of Congress permanently established the Corps in 1802. The Corps’ Civil Works role 

and mission is grounded in a series of laws enacted since 1824. A 

brief legislative history of the Corps follows: 

• The General Survey Act of 1824 authorized the President to 

have surveys made of routes for roads and canals of national importance, from a commercial or military point of view, or necessary 

for the transportation of public mail. The President assigned responsibility for the surveys to the Corps of Engineers. A second 

Act, also signed in 1824, appropriated $75,000 to improve navigation on the Ohio and Mississippi rivers by removing sandbags, 

snags and other obstacles, and was subsequently amended to include other rivers such as the Missouri. This work was also given 

to the Corps of Engineers. Subsequent Acts of Congress expanded 

the Corps’ responsibilities for navigation. • The Rivers and Harbors Act of 1909 expanded the Corps’ Civil 

Works authority by authorizing the consideration of hydroelectric 

power generation in the planning, design and construction of water 

resource development projects. • The 1917 Flood Control Act established a role for the Corps in 

flood damage reduction, which became a national flood protection 

role for the Civil Works program in the 1936 Flood Control Act. 

The Flood Control Act of 1944 gave the Corps a recreation role that 

was added as part of flood control at Corps reservoirs. The 1962 

River and Harbor Flood Act expanded that role by authorizing the 

Corps to build recreational facilities as part of all water resource 

development projects. • The environmental role to protect, restore and manage the environment emanates from the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 that 

assigned the Corps the mission to prevent obstacles in navigable 

waterways. As concerns over the environment grew in the late 20th 

century, the Clean Water Act of 1972 broadened this responsibility 

by giving the Corps the authority and direction to regulate dredging and activities that result in fill being placed in the ‘‘waters of 

the United States,’’ including many wetlands. The 1986 Water ReVerDate Aug 04 2004 16:26 May 19, 2005 Jkt 021245 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\A20967.000 A20967
8 

sources Development Act further expanded the Corps’ environmental role to include enhancing and restoring natural resources 

at new and existing projects, and the Water Resources Development Act of 1990 made environmental protection one of the Corps’ primary water resources development missions. • The Water Supply Act of 1958 gave the Civil Works Program 

the authority to include water storage in new and existing reservoir projects for municipal and industrial uses. • The Flood Control and Coastal Emergency Act (P.L. 84–99) 

and the Stafford Disaster and Emergency Assistance Act gave the 

Civil Works program direct authority to help the nation in times 

of national disaster. P.L. 84–99 directed the Corps to provide emergency assistance during or following flood events to protect lives, 

public facilities and infrastructure. The Stafford Act authorized the 

Corps to support the Federal Emergency Management Agency in 

carrying out the Federal Response Plan (now the National Response Plan), which requires 26 federal departments and agencies 

to provide coordinated disaster relief and recovery operations. • Title 10 of the U.S. Code, (Navigation and Navigable Waterways), as further outlined in Title 33, enables the Civil Works program to provide services to other federal entities, states, or local 

governments on a reimbursable basis. This work includes flood control, the improvement of rivers and harbors, research, and support 

to private engineering and construction firms competing for, or performing, work outside the United States. The Support for Others 

program engages the Corps in reimbursable work that is determined to be in America’s best interests. 

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 major rehabilitation of existing projects. In fiscal year 2004, 

the Corps operated and maintained 12,000 miles of commercial inland navigation channels; owned and/or operated 257 navigation 

lock chambers at 212 sites; and maintained 926 coastal, Great 

Lakes and inland harbors. 

Flood damage reduction.—Section 1 of the Flood Control Act of 

1936 declared flood control to be a proper Federal activity since improvements for flood control purposes are in the interest of the general welfare of the public. The Act stipulated that, for Federal involvement to be justified, ‘‘ * * * the benefits to whomsoever they 

may accrue (must be) in excess of the estimated costs, and * * * 

the lives and social security of people (must be) otherwise adversely 

affected.’’ In fiscal year 2004, the Corps managed 383 major lakes 

and reservoirs; and constructed or controlled 8,500 miles of federal 

levees. Over the last ten years, the average annual damages prevented by Corps projects totaled $21.1 billion. 

9 

Ecosystem restoration.—The Corps of Engineers incorporated ecosystem restoration as a project purpose within the Civil Works program in response to increasing national emphasis on environmental restoration and preservation. Historically, Corps involvement in environmental issues focused on compliance with National 

Environmental Protection Act requirements related to flood protection, navigation, and other project purposes. More recent efforts 

have involved pro-active restoration measures to damaged ecosystems, and the provision of local environmental infrastructure. 

Hurricane and storm damage reduction.—Congress authorized 

Federal participation in the cost of restoring and protecting the 

shores of the United States, its territories and its possessions. 

Under current policy, shore protection projects are designed to reduce damages caused by wind-generated and tide-generated waves 

and currents along the nation’s ocean coasts, Gulf of Mexico, Great 

Lakes, and estuary shores. Hurricane protection was added to the 

erosion control mission in 1956 when Congress authorized costshared Federal participation in shore protection and restoration of 

publicly owned shore areas. Federal assistance for periodic nourishment was also authorized on the same basis as new construction, 

for a period to be specified for each project, when it is determined 

that it is the most suitable and economical remedial measure. 

Water supply.—National policy regarding water supply states 

that the primary responsibility for water supply rests with states 

and local entities. The Corps may participate and cooperate in developing water supplies in connection with construction, operation 

and modification of Federal navigation, flood damage reduction, or 

multipurpose projects. Certain conditions of non-federal participation are required. 

Hydroelectric power generation.—Congress, through various statutes, has directed the Corps to consider the development of hydroelectric power in conjunction with other water resources development plans. The Corps owns and operates nearly one-quarter of the 

United States’ hydropower capacity, with 75 projects in operation. 

Recreation.—The Corps is one of the nation’s largest providers of 

outdoor recreation opportunities, and ranks first among federal 

providers of outdoor recreation. Although known primarily for the 

opportunities managed at its lake projects, the Corps also participates in the planning, design and construction of recreation facilities at a wide variety of other types of water resource projects. 

Such facilities may include hiking and biking trails associated with 

a stream channel or levee primarily designed for flood damage reduction, though there is no general authority for Corps participation in a single purpose recreation project. 

FISCAL YEAR 2006 BUDGET OVERVIEW

The fiscal year 2006 budget request for the Corps of Engineers 

totals $4,513,000,000, which is composed of $4,332,000,000 in new 

budget authority and $181,000,000 in new offsetting collections. 

The Committee recommends a total of $4,746,021,000 for the Corps 

of Engineers, an increase of $78,473,000 from fiscal year 2005 enacted levels (adjusted for one-time emergency spending) and 

$414,021,000 above the request. A proposal to provide direct financing of the operation and maintenance of Corps of Engineers’

10 

hydropower facilities as offsetting collections from the Power Marketing Administrations’ power sales revenues is again included in 

the request, and again rejected by the Committee. The budget request represents, in part, a divergence from previous Administration’s requests for the Corps, as it applies a new performance-based 

system based on the ratio of remaining benefits-to-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 

found not to be of as high an economic value and on Congressionally mandated projects that have been included in prior Administration requests. 

A summary table illustrating the fiscal year 2005 enacted appropriation, the fiscal year 2006 budget request and the Committee 

recommended levels is shown below: 

[Dollars in 000s] 

Account Fiscal year 

2005 enacted 

Fiscal year 

2006 request 

Committee 

recommendation 

General investigations ............................................................................................ $143,344 $95,000 $100,000 

Hurricane disasters assistance (emergency) ................................................ 400 .................... ....................

Construction, general .............................................................................................. 1,781,720 1,637,000 1,900,000 

Hurricane disasters assistance (emergency) ................................................ 62,600 .................... ....................

Flood control, Mississippi River and tributaries .................................................... 321,904 270,000 290,000 

Hurricane disasters assistance (emergency) ................................................ 6,000 .................... ....................

Operation and maintenance, general ..................................................................... 1,943,428 1,979,000 2,000,000 

Offsetting collections ..................................................................................... .................... ¥181,000 ....................

Hurricane disasters assistance (emergency) ................................................ 145,400 .................... ....................

Subtotal, operation and maintenance .................................................. 2,098,828 1,798,000 2,000,000 

Regulatory program ................................................................................................ 143,840 160,000 160,000 

FUSRAP .................................................................................................................... 163,680 140,000 140,000 

Flood control and coastal emergencies .................................................................. .................... 70,000 ....................

Hurricane disasters assistance (emergency) ................................................ 148,000 .................... ....................

General expenses .................................................................................................... 165,664 162,000 152,021 

Office of Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) ........................................ 3,968 (1) 4,000 

Storm damage (emergency) .................................................................................... 10,000 .................... ....................

Total, Corps of Engineers ................................................................. 5,039,948 4,332,000 4,746,021 

1 The budget proposes to fund this office from funds appropriated to the Department of Defense, Army in the fiscal year 2006 Department of Defense Appropriations Act. For comparability purposes, the budget request includes $4,700,000 for these activities in fiscal year 2006. 

PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND EXECUTION

Over the past year, the Committee has embarked on a concerted 

effort to improve general budgeting and project execution by the 

Corps. This effort was precipitated, in part, by a progressively 

tighter fiscal environment, the enormous backlog of Civil Works 

projects, and the realization that the Civil Works program has become an agglomeration of individual projects of interest to the Congress and the Administration, with little or no systematic approach 

to the Nation’s water and coastal infrastructure underlying the selection of which projects received funding. In the view of this Committee, the Civil Works program needs to be managed as a program and not as a collection of individual projects. The Corps needs 

to take a more sophisticated approach to project and contract management and must undertake immediate structural improvements 

and process changes to ensure that the Corps remains healthy and 

focused during a time of static or declining budgets. As part of the 

Committee’s ongoing oversight activities, the Committee has identiVerDate Aug 04 2004 16:26 May 19, 2005 Jkt 021245 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A20967.000 A20967
11 

fied a number of issues requiring immediate attention. These 

issues include, but are not limited to: • the development of a five-year comprehensive budget plan; • a re-evaluation of the emphasis on expenditures; • a fully transparent accounting of all movement of funds in 

project execution through the conservative use of reprogramming authorities; • the development of performance-based guidelines for funding Corps construction projects; • a more limited use of continuing contracts authorities 

which have the effect of obligating the federal government in 

anticipation of future appropriations for which the Corps does 

not budget fully; and • a more thorough justification and improvement in the 

Corps’ annual budget submission to the Congress. 

Each of these areas is addressed more fully below. Collectively, 

the Congress, the Administration and the Corps of Engineers must 

work together to ensure that constrained Federal resources are 

spent efficiently, commitments to local sponsors are honored, 

projects do not drag on forever, and taxpayers receive the greatest 

return on their investment. 

Five-year comprehensive budget planning.—In response to growing concern that the Civil Works program lacks a clear set of priorities to guide either development of the annual budget request or 

annual appropriations bills, last year the Committee directed the 

Corps to prepare and submit with the fiscal year 2006 budget submission a comprehensive five-year plan for the Civil Works program. Such a plan, in the view of the Committee, would begin to 

allay the concern that the Civil Works program has become nothing 

more than an assortment of individual projects lacking a coherent 

focus. In its direction to the Corps, the Committee specifically identified the five-year development plan (FYDP) of the Department of 

Defense as the model for the Corps to emulate; however, the Committee received an inadequate and disappointing submission—a 

seven-page table delineating hundreds of projects and their costs. 

Given the structured approach used by the Department of the 

Army to develop its military five-year budget plan, the Civil Works 

plan is surprisingly poor. Additionally, such a plan must clearly reflect the thorough engagement of all stakeholders; the Corps submission showed no evidence of such engagement. 

The Committee reiterates its strong belief in the value of developing five-year plans and longer-term strategic visions to help 

guide budget requests and Congressional spending decisions. Many 

Corps projects last longer than five years and affect whole regions 

of the country such as the coast or the Gulf of Mexico or the watershed of the Ohio River. Such plans force discipline and regional integration in making budgetary decisions and encourage stability 

from year to year. By providing the Congress and the executive 

branch a view of what lies ahead in the Civil Works program, a 

comprehensive five-year plan may alleviate some of the pressure to 

fund every project in each fiscal year. The development of a plan 

will also require the Corps to make the necessary tradeoffs to integrate individual projects into a coherent future-years Civil Works 

program. In the absence of a rational and articulate strategy, the 

12 

long-term vitality of the Corps is placed at risk and scarce federal 

resources will be squandered on projects of limited national benefit. 

The Committee notes that the preparation of the FYDP at the 

Department of Defense is not a one-time or static report; rather, 

it is updated regularly to reflect changing policies, fiscal realities 

and other factors. Accordingly, the Corps is directed to submit to 

the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations concurrent 

with each annual budget submission hereafter, an updated fiveyear plan. The Committee further expects that the plan will be just 

one part of a larger submission that articulates a clear program of 

priorities and is a result of a deliberative process within the Corps 

and with its stakeholders. The submission shall include documents 

similar to the Program Objective Memorandum (POM) and the Defense Planning Guidance used by the Department of Defense in developing its FYDP. The plan is to be financially constrained in the 

budget year only and shall show the effects of the proposed budget 

in the out-years. In addition, the plan shall include the full annual 

costs of all continuing contracts for which the Corps has obligated 

the Federal government in advance of appropriations. 

Misplaced emphasis on expenditures.—In managing its national 

program, the Corps has sought to ensure the efficient expenditure 

of annual appropriations and has implemented a formal strategy to 

maximize expenditures, based in part on past Congressional guidance. While this strategy sounds reasonable in theory, the Corps 

has become inordinately focused on a 99-percent expenditure goal, 

which requires that program and project managers expend 99 percent of funds allocated to each project and, if they are unable to 

do so, excess funds are diverted to other projects so as to approach 

a national 99 percent expenditure rate. Program and project managers are then rated on their performance relative to this expenditure goal. This strategy, while it seeks to minimize annual carryover, ignores project financial requirements in future years and 

Congressional project allocations for the current year. This internal 

performance measure has resulted in the massive movements of 

funds and, in the aggregate, created significant payback requirements that are currently not budgeted. Taken to its extreme, the 

Government Accountability Office has determined that the Corps 

reprogrammed $0.06 from one project to meet this performance 

measure. By the Corps’ own admission, each year there may be as 

many as 20,000 transfers of funds among only 2,000 projects. (A 

more detailed discussion follows in the paragraphs below.) The 

Committee directs the Corps to abandon this internal directive and 

adopt a fiscal management practice that fully honors Congressional 

direction and accepts a higher level of carryover funds in order to 

achieve greatly increased transparency into project costs and 

multiyear funding commitments. 

Reprogrammings.—The fiscal year 2005 conference report accompanying the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act 

imposed new requirements on the Corps regarding the use of its reprogramming authorities. This action was deemed necessary as the 

Committee became more aware of a growing number of 

reprogrammings. This concern has not abated but intensified over 

the last several months as the Government Accountability Office 

(GAO) conducted an audit of the Corps’ reprogramming actions and 

13 

compliance with the Committee’s directives. The GAO has informed 

the Committee that the Corps has moved millions of dollars set 

aside for specific projects and has expended them on other activities, without the knowledge or approval of the Committee on Appropriations. 

Based on a preliminary review by the GAO of the reprogramming 

procedures employed by the Corps, the Corps has generally followed its own and Congressional reprogramming guidelines. However, within those guidelines, the Corps has interpreted these 

guidelines so as to enable it to transfer funds between projects and 

programs without having to notify or receive approval from Congress. For example, the Corps does not consider most actions reprogramming funds into projects as reprogrammings. Instead, 

these actions are classified as restorations of current and prior 

years’ revocations. Similarly, most actions reprogramming funds 

out of projects are classified as revocations. So, restorations and 

revocations are not counted as reprogrammings and therefore are 

not considered as counting toward the thresholds that trigger the 

need for Congressional notification or approval. The GAO further 

determined that the Corps uses different definitions of reprogramming depending on the appropriation account. 

Reprogramming, although a useful and needed management tool, 

has become the Corps’ routine way of doing business. However, the 

Corps manages funds using a ‘‘just-in-time’’ reprogramming strategy. This strategy has resulted in the Corps moving funds from 

projects that have currently available funds to projects with an immediate need, regardless of the donor project’s future needs; placed 

an excessive administrative burden from processing and tracking 

thousands of transactions; and lacks a formal Corps-wide reprogramming prioritization and planning strategy. The GAO notes, 

‘‘The Corps is using reprogramming as an ineffective substitute for 

a fiscally prudent financial planning and management system for 

its appropriations.’’

Reprogramming is defined in the GAO’s Principles of Federal Appropriations Law as the ‘‘utilization of funds in an appropriation 

account for purposes other than those contemplated at the time of 

appropriation.’’ It does not make distinctions for transfers of funds 

as defined as revocations, savings and slippage or restorations. Any 

movement of funds within an account for purposes other than for 

those purposes assumed at the time of the appropriation is a reprogramming. 

The Committee believes the Corps’ execution of Congressionally 

directed projects through its liberal use of reprogramming actions 

and its unbalanced emphasis on annual expenditures exhibit ongoing disregard of the specific program and project allocations provided by the Congress each year in report language. The Committee expects the Corps to honor Congressional directives contained in report language with the same reverence as those items 

contained in bill language. To ensure that the expenditure of funds 

in fiscal year 2006 is consistent with Congressional direction, to 

minimize the movement of funds and to improve overall budget 

execution, the bill incorporates by reference the projects identified 

in the report accompanying this Act into statute. In addition, the 

14 

bill includes a new section prohibiting the obligation or expenditure 

through a reprogramming of funds that: 

(1) creates or initiates a new program, project or activity; 

(2) eliminates a program, project or activity; 

(3) increases funds or personnel for any program, project or 

activity for which funds have been denied or restricted by this 

Act; 

(4) reduces funds that are directed to be used for a specific 

activity by this Act; 

(5) increases funds for any existing program, project or activity by more than $2,000,000 or 10 percent, whichever is less; 

or 

(6) reduces funds for any program, project or activity by 

more than $2,000,000 or 10 percent, whichever is less. 

This provision shall not apply to the initiation of new projects or 

activities under the continuing authorities programs. However, it 

shall apply to the program levels for the individual continuing authorities programs. New projects under the continuing authorities 

program that are not identified in the conference agreement to accompany this Act must be submitted to the House and Senate 

Committees on Appropriations for approval. Reprogramming approvals shall also be required for changes in a project’s scope and 

cost relative to what was submitted to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations in the justification sheets. The guidelines contained in this report supersede all other reprogramming 

guidance provided in previous appropriations Acts or their accompanying reports and shall be applied to all accounts and all no-year 

funds within the Corps of Engineers. 

The Committee recognizes special circumstances may arise that 

require an exception to these guidelines. In such circumstances, the 

Corps must provide prior notice to and approval by the House and 

Senate Committees on Appropriations. 

When the Corps transfers funds from one project to another, it 

makes a promise to ‘‘repay’’ the borrowed amounts. These cumulative actions have created a significant financial obligation that 

the Corps has no way to honor except to continue the practice ad 

infinitum and to repay these borrowings from future appropriations. However, these repayments are not budgeted, nor can the 

Corps even provide an accurate accounting of these accumulated 

IOUs. This system may have worked well for the Corps in the past 

when budgets were rising and when the Corps carried over substantial unobligated balances from year to year. But, more recently, 

unobligated balances have all but disappeared, endangering the 

Corps’ ability to honor its multitude of promises to ‘‘repay’’ borrowed funds to project sponsors except from new appropriations. 

The Committee is concerned that neither it nor the Corps knows 

the full extent of the payback required. Accordingly, the Corps is 

directed to submit a report to the House and Senate Committee on 

Appropriations, within 30 days of enactment of this Act summarizing, by project, the cumulative amount of repayments owed to 

the donor projects. The Committee further directs that these repayments be fully budgeted in the fiscal year 2007 budget presented 

to Congress. 

15 

Continuing contracts.—The Rivers and Harbors Appropriations 

Act of 1890 first authorized the Corps to award continuation contracts. Later, section 10 of the Rivers and Harbor Act of 1922 provided general authority to award continuing contracts for any public work on canals, rivers, and harbors adopted by Congress. These 

contracts are exempt from the Anti-Deficiency Act. When entering 

such contracts, the Corps obligates the Federal government to pay 

certain costs from future appropriations. Contractors may perform 

more work than is budgeted in any fiscal year, but when available 

appropriations for the current fiscal year are exhausted, work continues at the contractors’ risk, with an expectation that payment 

will be made from subsequent appropriations. Simple interest may 

be added to any delayed payment that the contracting officer determines was actually earned under the terms of the contract and 

would have been made but for exhaustion of funds. 

Over the last two years, the Committee has grown increasingly 

concerned with the Corps’ liberal use of and inadequate budgeting 

for continuing contracts. First, the Committee believes that the use 

of continuing contracts may be the rule and not the exception, as 

the Corps has executed continuing contracts for small-scale projects 

that extend only a few months beyond the current fiscal year. The 

Corps has not demonstrated to the Committee that the use of a 

continuing contract as the preferred means is established by a 

sound acquisition planning including an analysis of alternative contract vehicles. After executing continuing contracts, the Corps has 

failed to budget properly for the out-year costs of these projects. In 

fact, the Corps currently plans to execute continuing contracts for 

projects that do not meet the Administration’s own criteria and are 

proposed for termination in the budget request to Congress. The 

costs of these contracts are not reflected anywhere in the budget, 

yet the Corps is poised to obligate the Federal government for millions of dollars in contravention of the Administration’s proposed 

policies. 

Secondly, the Committee has learned that when a contractor exhausts the amounts reserved in a contract, the Corps has chosen 

to reprogram funds each year to satisfy the contractual obligations 

incurred under these contracts, though the Corps is not required to 

do so. When making such payments, the Corps borrows funds from 

other projects, creating an IOU, as discussed above under 

‘‘Reprogrammings.’’ 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 the 

funds provided each year. The Corps abrogates its management responsibilities and improperly intrudes upon Congressional prerogatives in determining annual appropriations levels when the Corps 

reserves insufficient funds to cover the work performed each fiscal 

year through the duration of the contract or when it makes available funds, through reprogramming, in excess of the amounts reserved in such contracts or appropriated in any fiscal year because 

of unbudgeted accelerated contractor earnings. The Federal government, not the contractor, must determine how much will be spent 

on each project each year. 

The budget request includes language repealing statutory authority for the Corps to execute new continuing contracts and proVerDate Aug 04 2004 16:26 May 19, 2005 Jkt 021245 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A20967.000 A20967
16 

poses new multi-year contract authority with better controls on 

spending. The Committee does not adopt this proposal. In lieu of 

the Administration’s proposal, 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 reserves an amount for a project in excess of 

the amount appropriated for such project in this Act. In addition, 

the Committee directs the Corps to: 

(1) discontinue the practice of reserving insufficient funds to 

cover the work to be performed each fiscal year through the 

duration of the contract; 

(2) discontinue the practice of reprogramming funds to satisfy contractor earnings in excess of the amounts reserved in 

the contract for the current fiscal year; 

(3) discontinue the practice of issuing continuing contracts 

for small-scale projects that are limited in scope, schedule, construction and funding requirements; 

(4) issue continuing contracts only when it is determined 

that such a contract is the preferred means, demonstrated by 

an alternative analysis, and only after the approval of the 

House and Senate Committees on Appropriations. Any new 

continuing contract shall be submitted by the Assistant Secretary for the Army (Civil Works) for approval to the House 

and Senate Committee on Appropriations, consistent with the 

reprogramming guidelines contained in this Act; 

(5) budget fully the out-year costs of all existing and new 

continuing contracts (or, if the budget year policy is to eliminate the authority to execute such contracts, fund fully the termination costs of such contracts in the budget year); 

(6) provide to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations within 30 days of enactment of this Act a report identifying all existing continuing contracts and the amount, by 

project, of the out-year funding requirements of those contracts; and 

(7) provide a quarterly update to the report identified above 

in item (6). 

The bill also includes a provision that prohibits the execution of 

any new continuing contract (or modifications to any existing continuing contract) after February 6, 2006 that obligates the Federal 

government during fiscal year 2007 to make payment under such 

contract for any project that is proposed for deferral or suspension 

in the fiscal year 2007 budget materials prepared by the Assistant 

Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) and submitted to Congress. 

Congressional justification materials.—The congressional justifications submitted by the Corps in support of the annual budget 

request are woefully inadequate. To justify an appropriation of over 

$4,513,000,000 for fiscal year 2006, the Corps submitted a 113-page 

‘‘press book’’, which included 11 brief paragraphs of narrative and 

111 pages of project tables distributed by state. In addition, justification materials supporting each of the projects included in the 

budget request were supplied to the Committee. These materials, 

in their totality, are incomplete, do not provide a clearly articulated 

discussion of the policy proposals included in the annual budget request, and reflect program delivery rather than project execution. 

17 

The justification materials provide little, if any, transparency of 

program activity in the current year or a comparison of the budget 

request to the enacted levels. For example, the Corps does not submit to the Committee on Appropriations justification materials for 

those programs, projects or activities for which the request seeks 

no appropriation but for which funding was provided in the current 

year. Without such information, the Committee is unable to determine the extent to which the agency is carrying out current-year 

programs and directives for which appropriations have been made. 

Similarly, the project fact sheets in many instances fail to include 

projected completion dates, without which the Committee cannot 

determine whether the Corps is meeting a project’s planned construction schedule or track cost increases relative to the initial cost 

estimate or to the authorized project cost ceiling. 

The Committee directs the Corps to improve its annual congressional budget submission by expanding the information presented 

to Congress each year and to present its budget estimate by mission area. That information shall include, but not be limited to, an 

analysis of appropriations language provisions and changes; comparative amounts available for obligation; comparative amounts 

showing obligations by object class; summary of changes from the 

enacted level; a delineation of responses to significant items included in the reports accompanying annual appropriations Acts; 

appropriations and authorizing histories; explanations of how individual projects fit in the context of larger regional objectives, and 

narrative and tabular summaries of program requests. The Corps 

is directed to transmit with its annual budget submission project 

justifications for those projects that are funded in the current year 

but for which no funds are requested in the budget estimate. In addition, justifications are to be provided for all activities of the Corps 

including regulatory and research function. The Corps is encouraged to review the materials submitted by the departments of Education and Transportation, as they are models for emulation. The 

Committee recognizes that the improvements needed in the budget 

justifications will need to be developed over time; however, the 

Committee expects major changes in the fiscal year 2007 budget 

submission and pledges to work with the Corps to develop implementing instructions to its program offices. 

Performance-based budget proposal.—Last year, the Committee 

challenged the Corps of Engineers and the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) to engage the Committee on Appropriations in 

a constructive dialog in an attempt to close the gap between the 

enormous backlog of Civil Works projects—estimated to be 

$50,000,000,000—and the limited financial resources available to 

address that backlog. This backlog has grown significantly in recent years and has resulted in some projects costing more than necessary and most projects being finished many months and sometimes years later than they could be. In response, the OMB proposed seven performance guidelines for funding Corps construction 

projects in order to generate greater benefits. The Committee appreciates the efforts of the Administration in developing a rationale 

for focusing limited federal resources on finishing the most important projects in a timely manner. The proposal is a performanceVerDate Aug 04 2004 16:26 May 19, 2005 Jkt 021245 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A20967.000 A20967
18 

based ranking system based primarily on the ratio of remaining 

benefits-to-remaining costs. 

The Committee has several observations about the approach 

adopted by OMB. First, the budget proposes to fund fourteen dam 

safety projects at full capability, but one dam, Fern Ridge, categorized as aging infrastructure in active failure, was not funded 

at all. The second category of priority projects are those projects 

that have a remaining benefit-to-remaining cost ratio in excess of 

6–to–1, which are nationally significant environmental restoration 

projects, or which can be completed in fiscal year 2006 with a final 

increment of funding. Those projects with an RBRC ratio in excess 

of 6 would receive 80 to 100 percent of the capability level of funding. The third category includes several projects with an RBRC 

ratio less than 5, and these projects receive something less than 

the capability level of funding, but the ratio of funding to capability 

is inconsistent across this set of projects. The budget proposes a 

fourth category of priority construction projects, or ‘‘special cases,’’ which have RBRC ratios less than 3 but for which funding is requested. Lastly, for those 31 ongoing projects that received federal 

funding in fiscal year 2005 that did not meet the thresholds described above, the budget proposes to terminate or suspend them. 

With respect to beach nourishment, the budget proposes to undertake only that portion of renourishment that is attributable to the 

impacts of federal navigation structures. 

Specifically, the ranking system appears to prejudice those 

projects that have completed initial segments where the benefitsto-costs ratios are greater than the remaining benefits-to-remaining 

costs on their unfinished segments. In addition, the RBRC ratio 

contains an inherent bias toward protecting expensive property as 

opposed to property that may be less valuable but involves the protection of more people; it does not consider how water resources infrastructure contributes to national economic development or multimodal transportation; and it ignores other related Federal investment in the project. The RBRC ratio is a good place to start, but 

the proposal has its limitations. It needs further refinement and 

consideration before the Committee can recommend that it be 

strictly applied. In determining the projects identified in this report, the Committee has used the ranking system as a guide but 

not as a final determinative factor in the allocation of funds. The 

Committee directs the Corps, working with the OMB, to refine further the performance measures to address the concerns outlined 

above as part of the fiscal year 2007 budget submission. 

Savings and slippage.—Traditionally, savings and slippage referred to the amount of funds that were determined to be excess 

to project needs at a particular time during the project’s development. Statistically, the Corps is unable to execute 100 percent of 

the appropriation for 100 percent of the projects, so a program appropriation would include a percentage reduction for savings and 

slippage to reflect this less-than-100-percent execution. The Congress has abused this historic average over the years, applying an 

inflated savings and slippage factor to squeeze more projects into 

programs with finite funding. The Corps, too, would abuse this average by taxing all projects to obtain funds to increase funding for 

particular programs and projects in excess of the levels included in 

19 

annual appropriations Acts. The Corps would subsequently restore 

these reductions through reprogramming actions. 

The Committee has discontinued the practice of assuming an estimate for savings and slippage within the Corps of Engineers civil 

works program and has returned to the traditional definition of 

savings and slippage. As savings and slippage occurs on any project 

in the Corps civil works Construction and General Investigations 

programs and the general investigations and construction elements 

of the Flood Control, Mississippi River and Tributaries account in 

fiscal year 2006, resources excess to a project’s needs shall remain 

with that project and shall be available for two years after the date 

of enactment of the Act containing appropriations for that project, 

after which time the unobligated balances may be transferred to 

other ongoing projects, consistent with the reprogramming guidelines contained in this Act. In addition, the Corps shall submit to 

the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations a quarterly 

report detailing project execution relative to stated capability and 

enacted appropriations. 

GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS

Appropriation, 2005 ............................................................................ 1 $143,344,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ....................................................................... 95,000,000 

Recommended, 2006 ........................................................................... 100,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2005 .................................................................... ¥43,344,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ................................................................ +5,000,000 1 Excludes emergency appropriations of $400,000. 

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 $100,000,000, a decrease of $43,344,000 from the fiscal year 2005 enacted level, and 

$5,000,000 over the budget estimate. The budget request and the 

approved Committee allowance are shown in the following table: 

20 


Insert offset folio 20 here HR86.001
21 


Insert offset folio 21 here HR86.002
22 


Insert offset folio 22 here HR86.003
23 


Insert offset folio 23 here HR86.004
24 

Eastern Shore, Mid-Chesapeake Bay Island, Maryland.—The 

Committee has included $500,000 to continue the Mid-Chesapeake 

Bay Island environmental restoration feasibility study. These funds 

are to be expended to identify and study existing natural islands 

in need of restoration and not artificial islands. 

Southwest Valley Flood Damage Reduction, Albuquerque, New 

Mexico.—The Committee recommendation includes $180,000 to 

complete preconstruction engineering and design for the Southwest 

Valley flood damage reduction project in Albuquerque, New Mexico. 

Upper Trinity River Basin, Texas.—The Committee recommendation includes $1,000,000 for Upper Trinity River Basin, Texas to facilitate the project component associated with improvements to the 

existing Dallas Floodway. 

Remaining items, flood plain management services.—For fiscal 

year 2006, the Committee recommends $5,625,000 for flood management services, the same level as requested. Within the funds 

provided, the Corps is directed to undertake the following activity 

with the amount allocated below: 

Jackson, Tennessee GIS system ..................................................................... $500,000 

Remaining items, research and development.—For fiscal year 

2006, the Committee recommends $19,643,000. Within the funds 

provided for research and development, the Committee directs the 

Corps to evaluate advanced polymer technologies in concert with 

the Construction Engineering Research Lab to establish compliance 

of these new material coatings to meet or exceed current performance of materials used by the Corps. 

The Committee is frustrated by the lack of progress in the Corps’

commitment to begin pilot testing of rapid deployment flood walls 

and reiterates its direction that, within available funds, the Corps 

begin pilot tests of these alternatives to sandbags within 90 days 

of enactment of this Act. 

Remaining items, planning assistance to states.—For fiscal year 

2006, the Committee recommends $4,650,000 for planning assistance to states, the same level as requested. Within the funds provided, the Corps is directed to undertake the following studies with 

the amounts allocated below: 

Assabet River sediment remediation study, Massachusetts .............. $300,000 

Bartlesville, Oklahoma water study ..................................................... 100,000 

Lake Rogers, Creedmoor, North Carolina water quality study ......... 60,000 

Pike River, Wisconsin hydraulic and hydrological study ................... 40,000 

La Mirada, California flood control and drainage study .................... 250,000 

Memphis, Tennessee riverfront development ...................................... 200,000 

Lafayette Wabash River waterfront development, Indiana ............... 100,000 

CONSTRUCTION

Appropriation, 2005 ............................................................................ 1 $1,781,720,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ....................................................................... 1,637,000,000 

Recommended, 2006 ........................................................................... 1,900,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2005 .................................................................... +118,280,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ................................................................ +263,000,000 1 Excludes emergency appropriations of $62,600,000. 

This appropriation funds construction, major rehabilitation, and 

related activities for water resources projects whose principal purpose is to provide commercial navigation, flood and storm damage 

25 

reduction, or aquatic ecosystem restoration benefits to the nation. 

Portions of this account are funded from the Harbor Maintenance 

Trust and the Inland Waterways Trust funds. 

For fiscal year 2006, the Committee recommends an appropria- tion totaling $1,900,000,000, an increase of $118,280,000 over the 

fiscal year 2005 enacted appropriation and $263,000,000 over the 

budget estimate. The budget request and the Committee allowance 

are shown in the following table: 

26 


Insert offset folio 26 here HR86.005
27 


Insert offset folio 27 here HR86.006
28 


Insert offset folio 28 here HR86.007
29 


Insert offset folio 29 here HR86.008
30 


Insert offset folio 30 here HR86.009
31 

Deferrals and suspensions.—The Committee has chosen not to restore funding for nearly half of the 31 projects proposed for deferral 

or suspension in the budget request. For those projects that were 

proposed for deferral or suspension in the request and for which 

the Committee has recommended funds in this Act, funds are available only to complete elements currently under construction and 

are not be available to initiate new elements not presently underway unless such elements would result in a complete separable element of the project. The Committee directs the Corps to determine 

the costs to defer or suspend those projects for which the Committee has not provided appropriations in this Act and provide 

those estimates on a project-by-project basis to the House Committee on Appropriations by September 1, 2005. 

Consistent with the budget request, the Committee recommendation assumes the deferral or suspension of the following projects: 

Big Sioux River, Sioux Falls, South Dakota 

Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, Lower Brule Sioux, South Dakota 

Delaware Coast, Rehobeth Beach to Dewey Beach, Delaware 

Larose to Golden Meadow, Louisiana 

Missouri River levee system, IA NE, KS and MO 

New Orleans to Venice, Louisiana 

Nome Harbor improvements, Alaska 

Oates Creek, Richmond County, Georgia 

Sand Point Harbor, Alaska 

St. Paul Harbor, Alaska 

Upper St. John’s River, Florida 

Whitney Lake powerhouse, Texas 

American River watershed, California.—The Committee has pro- vided $28,960,000 for American River watershed activities. Within 

this amount, not less than $7,000,000 shall be available for the permanent bridge below Folsom Dam. 

Broward County, Florida.—Funds provided for Broward County, 

Florida, are solely for reimbursement to the local sponsor for the 

federal share of segment 3 renourishment. 

Elk Creek Lake, Oregon.—The Committee has not recommended 

funding for the Elk Creek Lake project in Oregon given limited fiscal resources. The Committee reiterates its previous directive that 

any funding allocated to the project by the Corps through reprogramming actions in fiscal year 2006 shall not be available to 

further work on the Corps’ original proposal to remove a section of 

the dam for fish passage. 

Folsom Dam, California.—The Committee notes that sections 

128 and 134 of Public Law 108–137 authorize funds for the construction of a permanent bridge at Folsom Dam. These authorizations provide appropriate and ample authority for the Corps to construct the bridge, including the $30,000,000 authorization contained in section 134 of Public Law 108–137. The Committee further notes that the appropriations Acts since fiscal year 2004 have 

appropriated funds pursuant to these authorizations and the Corps 

has carried out projects under thse authorities. Accordingly, the 

Committee directs the Corps to budget for the permanent replacement at Folsom Dam. 

Levisa and Tug Forks and Upper Cumberland River, WV, VA 

and KY.—For fiscal year 2006, the Committee recommends a total of $20,0000,000 for Levisa and Tug Forks and Upper Cumberland 

River, WV, VA and KY. Within the amounts provided, $17,500,000 

32 

shall be for elements of the project in the Commonwealth of Kentucky and the remaining $2,500,000 shall be available for the 

Grundy, Virginia element. 

Miami Harbor Channel, Florida.—The Committee has not recommended any funding in fiscal year 2006 for the Miami Harbor 

Channel, Florida as the Committee has been informed by the Corps 

that it expects to reprogram sufficient funds to complete the project 

during fiscal year 2005. 

Muddy River, Boston and Brookline, Massachusetts.—The Committee recommends $1,500,000 for the Muddy River, Boston and 

Brookline, Massachusetts project. Funds are provided to continue 

project design, including ecosystem restoration features. 

New York and New Jersey Harbor, New York and New Jersey.—

Within the funds provided for New York and New Jersey Harbor, 

the Committee directs the Corps of Engineers to use up to 

$2,000,000 to plan for and enter into an agreement with a state or 

non-Federal sponsor to develop a dredged material processing facility that would accomplish the objectives of reducing the cost of 

dredged material management in the port, preparing dredged material for beneficial uses, and implementing innovative dredged material management technologies. 

New York City watershed, New York.—The Committee directs the 

Corps to make available unexpended balances from previous allocations contained in Energy and Water Development Acts for fiscal 

years 1998 and 1999 to dredge the Federal channel in the vicinity 

of Hudson City Light to the north dock at Union Street, Athens, 

New York for New York City watershed projects in the Catskill/ 

Delaware watershed in Delaware and Greene Counties, New York. 

Ohio environmental infrastructure.—The bill provides 

$13,000,000 for Ohio environmental infrastructure for fiscal year 

2006. These funds shall be distributed as follows: 

Benton Ridge wastewater treatment ................................................... $500,000 

Brookfield Center South santiary sewer .............................................. 250,000 

Cambridge sewer system east of I–77 .................................................. 425,000 

Cuyahoga River environmental restoration ........................................ 500,000 

Elyria water treatment plant ............................................................... 200,000 

Environmental infrastructure improvements to serve northern 

Pickaway County ................................................................................ 1,000,000 

Fulton County Elmira/Burlington wastewater collection and treatment .................................................................................................... 300,000 

Gallia County water and sewer ............................................................ 300,000 

Higginsport sanitary sewer ................................................................... 750,000 

Lake County Madison Township Chapel Road Interceptor sewer ..... 1,000,000 

Licking County, Village of Alexandria sanitary sewer ....................... 1,000,000 

Licking County, Village of Hanover wastewater collection ................ 325,000 

Marysville water treatment facility upgrades ..................................... 1,000,000 

Norwalk wastewater treatment plant .................................................. 300,000 

Rushsylvania wastewater treatment ................................................... 500,000 

Springfield Hospital water and sewer project ..................................... 1,000,000 

Springfield Nextedge Technology Park water and sewer ................... 750,000 

Toledo wastewater treatment plant ..................................................... 250,000 

Trotwood storm drain and stream relocation ...................................... 750,000 

University of Dayton, Brown and Stewart Streets water and sewer 1,000,000 

Village of Ottawa regional water line .................................................. 300,000 

Yellow Springs McGregor Center for Business and Education Park, 

water and sewer ................................................................................. 435,000 

Yellow Springs Morris Bean sanitary sewer ....................................... 165,000 

33 

Ozark-Jeta Taylor powerhouse (major rehabilitation), Arkansas.—The Committee has not provided any funds for major rehabilitation of the Ozark-Jeta Taylor powerhouse in Arkansas. This 

project was proposed for termination in the budget request as the 

project did not meet the remaining benefits-to-remaining costs ratio 

threshold. The Committee is aware that, in correspondence from 

the Administrator of the Southwestern Power Administration to 

the Director of Civil Works of the Corps of Engineers dated April 

1, 2005, the Southwestern Area Power Administration has committed to using the Jonesboro Memorandum of Agreement to fund 

the Ozark/Webbers Falls contract. The Committee expects the 

Corps to use these funds to pay the contractual obligations in fiscal 

year 2006 and not to reprogram any funds from any other project 

to meet such contractual obligations. 

San Antonio channel improvement project, Texas.—The Committee has provided $3,640,000 for continuation of design and construction of the ecosystem restoration and recreation features for 

the project in accordance with the report of the Fort Worth District 

Engineer titled: San Antonio River, San Antonio, Texas Channel 

Improvement Project Ecosystem and Recreation, General Reevaluation Report and Integrated Environmental Assessment, dated September 2004 for Plan DC3BB. 

Santa Ana River mainstem, California.—In total, the Committee 

provides $61,650,000 for Santa Ana River mainstem in California, 

of which $6,000,000 is available to complete the San Timoteo Creek 

project; $4,000,000 is available to repair damage caused by recent 

storms and to clean out debris basins; and $650,000 is available for 

the repair of erosion damage to the outlet tunnel in Seven Oaks 

Dam that occurred during high flow testing; and $1,000,000 is 

available for the Seven Oaks Dam water quality study. 

South Florida Everglades Ecosystem Restoration.—The Committee recommendation includes $137,000,000 for South Florida 

Ecosystem Everglades Restoration program, which includes the 

Central and Southern Florida Project, the Kissimmee River Restoration project, and the Everglades and South Florida Restoration 

projects, which were previously budgeted separately. In addition, 

this program incorporates a share of the federal costs of the Modified Water Deliveries Project, for which the Committee has provided $35,000,000 in fiscal year 2006. Additional funds are budgeted and cost-shared by the Department of the Interior. The consolidated appropriation included herein includes the following separable elements: West Palm Beach Canal, South Dade County, Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, Manatee Pass Thru 

Gates, East Coast Canal Structures, Western C–111 Basin, Seminole Big Cypress, Ten Mile Creek, Tamiami Trail (Western Segment), Florida Keys Carrying Capacity, Lake Okeechobee Water 

Retention, Southern CREW, Lake Trafford, Kissimmee River 

Project and the Modified Water Deliveries to Everglades National 

Park Project. The Everglades National Park Protection and Expansion Act of 1989 (16.U.S.C. 410–r–8 and section 601 of the Water 

Resource Development Act of 2000 (Public Law 106–541)) provide 

sufficient authorizations for the Corps to expend Civil Works funds 

and proceed with the construction of modifications to improve 

water deliveries to Everglades National Park. 

34 

The Committee is very concerned about schedule delays and cost 

increases on the South Florida Everglades Ecosystem restoration 

projects, particularly Modified Water Deliveries to Everglades National Park. The Corps is directed to work with the Department of 

Interior, the Council on Environmental Quality and the Office of 

Management and Budget to improve oversight and project management; implement actions to achieve savings and develop an implementation schedule consistent with available funds, and to report 

to the Committee 60 days after the enactment of this Act on the 

project’s revised cost, delivery schedule and actions planned to 

achieve savings. The Corps is further directed to work with the Department of Interior and the Department of Transportation to determine if the Department of Transportation’s Federal Highway 

Administration is able to construct the most cost effective alternative to modify Tamiami Trail to ensure appropriate water flow 

between the park and the water conservation areas more cheaply 

than the Corps. 

Stillwater, Minnesota (St. Croix River), Minnesota.—The Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers, is directed to use previously appropriated funds to proceed with design 

and construction to complete the Stillwater, Minnesota, levee and 

flood control project. 

Upper Newport Bay Ecosystem Restoration project, California.—

The Committee notes that recently the Corps of Engineers executed 

an agreement with the California Department of Fish and Game 

and Orange County, California, to provide at their discretion, funds 

to construct certain key features of the Upper Newport Bay Ecosystem Restoration project. A significant portion of the non-Federal 

share would be provided by the California Coastal Conservancy to 

the non-Federal sponsors in the forms of grants. These funds would 

be in excess of those funds required to maintain a cost-shared balance in the project expenditures, but would not exceed the total 

non-Federal share. The Committee recommends $2,000,000 for this 

project in fiscal year 2006. 

CONTINUING AUTHORITIES PROGRAM

The continuing authorities program (CAP) establishes a process 

by which the Corps of Engineers can respond to a variety of water 

resource problems without the need to obtain specific congressional 

authorization for each project. The CAP program is comprised of individual programs for nine different types of projects, each with its 

own program authority and strict limits on the Federal contribution, which are as follows: 

Section 14 Emergency streambank and shoreline erosion.—

Authorized by section 14 of the 1946 Flood Control Act, work 

under this authority allows emergency streambank and shoreline protection for public facilities, such as roads, bridges, hospitals, schools, and water/sewage treatment plants, that are in 

imminent danger of imminent danger of major damage. The 

cost share is 65% federal and 35% non-federal; and the federal 

share cannot exceed $1,000,000 per project. 

Section 103 Hurricane and storm damage reduction.—Authorized by section 103 of the 1962 River and Harbor Act, work 

under this authority provides for protection or restoration of 

35 

public shorelines by the construction of revetments, groins, and 

jetties, and may also include periodic sand replenishment. The 

cost share is 65% federal and 35% non-federal; and the federal 

share cannot exceed $3,000,000 per project. 

Section 107 Small navigation improvements.—Authorized by 

section 107 of the 1960 River and Harbor Act, work under this 

authority is intended to provide improvements to navigation 

including dredging of channels, widening of turning basins, 

and construction of navigation aids. The cost share is 80% federal and 20% non-federal; and the federal share may not exceed $4,000,000 for each project. 

Section 111 Storm damage attributable to Federal navigation 

works.—Authorized by section 111 of the 1968 River and Harbor Act, work under this authority provides for the prevention 

or mitigation of erosion damages to public or privately owned 

shores along the coastline of the United States when the damages are a result of a Federal navigation project. This authority cannot be used for shore damages caused by riverbank erosion or vessel-generated wave wash. It is not intended to restore shorelines to historic dimensions, but only to reduce erosion to the level that would have existed without the construction of a Federal navigation project. Cost sharing may not be 

required for this program. If the Federal cost limitation of 

$2,000,000 per project is exceeded, specific congressional authorization is required. 

Section 204 Beneficial uses of dredged material.—Authorized 

by section 204 of the Water Resources Development Act of 

1992, work under this authority provides for the use of dredged 

material from new or existing federal projects to protect, restore, or create aquatic and ecologically related habitats, including wetlands. The cost sharing (25% non-federal, 75% Federal) would be applied to the incremental cost above the least 

cost method of dredged material disposal consistent with engineering and environmental criteria. 

Section 205 Small flood control projects.—Authorized by section 205 of the 1948 Flood Control Act, work under this authority provides for local protection from flooding by the construction or improvement of flood control work such as levees, 

channels, and dams. Non-structural alternatives are also considered and may include measures such as installation of flood 

warning systems, raising and/or flood proofing of structures, 

and relocation of flood prone facilities. The cost share is 65% 

federal and 35% non-Federal; and the Federal share may not 

exceed $7,000,000 per project. 

Section 206 Aquatic ecosystem restoration.—Authorized by 

section 206 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996, 

work under this authority may carry out aquatic ecosystem 

restoration projects that will improve the quality of the environment, are in the public interest, and are cost-effective. 

There is no requirement that a Corps project be involved. The 

cost share is 65% federal and 35% non-Federal; and the Federal share per project cannot exceed $5,000,000 including studies, plans and specifications, and construction. 

36 

Section 208 Snagging and clearing for flood control.—Authorized by section 208 of the 1954 Flood Control Act, work 

under this authority provides for local protection from flooding 

by channel clearing and excavation, with limited embankment 

construction by use of materials from the clearing operation 

only. The cost share is 65% federal and 35% non-Federal; and 

the Federal share may not exceed $500,000 for each project. 

Section 1135 Project modifications for improvement of the environment.—Authorized by section 1135 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986, work under this authority 

provides for modifications in the structures and operations of 

water resources projects constructed by the Corps of Engineers 

to improve the quality of the environment. Additionally, the 

Corps may undertake restoration projects at locations where a 

Corps project has contributed to the degradation. The primary 

goal of these projects is ecosystem restoration with an emphasis on projects benefiting fish and wildlife. The project must be 

consistent with the authorized purposes of the project being 

modified, environmentally acceptable, and complete within 

itself. A non-federal sponsor is required to provide 25% of the 

cost of the project; and the Federal share of each separate 

project may not exceed $5,000,000, including studies, plans and 

specifications, and construction. 

The continuing authorities program (CAP) remains an effective 

way for the Corps to address the Nation’s water resource challenges. The various authorities allow the Corps to assist local communities in addressing in a timely manner issues ranging from 

flood damage reduction and navigation to stream and riverbank 

protection and environmental restoration. The demand on the program continues to grow, particularly in the area of environmental 

restoration and flood damage reduction where significant out-year 

financial requirements exist for projects currently underway. 

In the fiscal year 2006 budget request, the Corps took steps to 

move to a performance-based budget for projects in the specifically 

authorized Construction account. The Committee asserts that the 

need for a prioritization process exists for all projects, regardless 

of their size or scope. While the criteria may prove different for 

projects pursued under the continuing authorities than that for the 

larger, more complex water resource projects, the fundamental 

principle remains the same—providing the largest benefit for the 

expenditure of Federal resources in the most efficient manner practicable. A well-articulated prioritization process will ensure that 

CAP projects that are undertaken are the most viable and beneficial projects the Corps has the ability and authority to execute. 

The Committee endeavored last year to provide sufficient appropriations for to continue various Corps initiated CAP projects while 

also allocating funds for Congressionally directed projects. The 

Committee remains concerned regarding the execution of projects 

detailed in this and past reports. The Committee is also troubled 

to learn that the Corps supplemented appropriated funds for the 

various CAP authorities by taxing other construction projects. 

While the Committee understands that the Corps has taken steps 

to address certain project execution issues, the Committee has not 

yet received a plan detailing the process by which the CAP proVerDate Aug 04 2004 16:26 May 19, 2005 Jkt 021245 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A20967.001 A20967
37 

gram is to be managed. Therefore, within 60 days of enactment of 

the Act and annually thereafter concurrent with the budget submission, the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) is directed to submit to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations a program management plan detailing the specific actions 

the Corps will take to prioritize projects and to manage the program in the future. This management plan shall include at least 

a five-year time horizon consistent with the Five-Year Comprehensive Budget Plan and may, after the initial submission, be incorporated into the larger planning effort. Additionally, the Corps 

shall provide to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations, concurrent with the annual budget submission, a status report delineating all ongoing projects, identifying on a project-byproject basis the annual out-year budgetary requirements to complete each project. 

In last year’s report, the Committee noted that many projects selected for funding in fiscal 2004 under the CAP program did not 

receive funding as directed in that report. Further, the report stipulated that those projects receive priority consideration for any 

available funds in fiscal 2005 and in the subsequent years. Again, 

the Committee notes the apparent disregard of report language 

identifying specific funding levels for CAP projects, and accordingly, has chosen to include, by reference, CAP projects in statutory 

language this year. 

The following table includes the name of the project, the CAP authority under which the project is authorized and the amount of 

funding recommended by the Committee: 

38 


Insert graphic folio 38 here HR86.010
39 


Insert graphic folio 39 here HR86.011
40 


Insert graphic folio 40 here HR86.012
41 


Insert graphic folio 41 here HR86.013
42 

Funding provided for CAP projects in this Act shall not be available to initiate construction unless construction can be completed 

within the funds provided. Unobligated funds carried forward from 

previous years may not be used to initiate any new projects unless 

submitted and approved to the House and Senate Committee on 

Appropriations. 

MISCELLANEOUS PROGRAMS

Estuary restoration program.—Due to limited funding and lack of 

justification, the Committee recommends no funding for the estuary restoration program. 

Big Paint Creek, Iowa.—Within the funds provided for section 

206, the Corps is directed to complete the planning and design 

analysis for the Big Paint Creek, Iowa project. 

FLOOD CONTROL, MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES ARKANSAS, 

ILLINOIS, KENTUCKY, LOUISIANA, MISSISSIPPI, MISSOURI AND TEN- NESSEE

Appropriation, 2005 ............................................................................ 1 $321,904,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ....................................................................... 270,000,000 

Recommended, 2006 ........................................................................... 290,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2005 .................................................................... ¥31,904,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ................................................................ +20,000,000 1 Excludes emergency appropriations of $6,000,000. 

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 budget request and the approved Committee allowance are shown on the following table: 

43 


Insert graphic folio 43 here HR86.014
44 


Insert graphic folio 44 here HR86.015
45 

Bayou Meto Basin, Arkansas.—The Committee recommends 

$1,640,000 to complete authorized preconstruction, engineering and 

design on this project. 

Mississippi River levees, AE, IL, KY, LA, MS, MO, and TN.— Within the funds provided for Mississippi River levees construction 

activities, the Committee has included $3,000,000 for St. Johns 

Bayou and New Madrid and box culverts in the State of Missouri. 

For maintenance, the Committee recommends $9,902,000, of which 

$1,100,000 shall be available for levee gravel placement at Commerce to Birds Point, Missouri. 

St. Francis Basin, AR and MO.—The bill includes $6,800,000 for 

construction activities in the St. Francis Basin, Arkansas and Missouri project, which includes $4,160,000 to further 10/15 Mile Bayous; $570,000 to complete Buffalo Island Inlet, Arkansas; $390,000 

for right of way acquisition for Piggott Seepage, Arkansas; and 

$500,000 for work within the State of Missouri. The Committee recommendation also includes $8,800,000 for St. Francis Basin, Arkansas and Missouri maintenance activities, of which $2,000,000 

shall be available to complete work on the floodway in the State 

of Missouri. 

St. Johns Bayou and New Madrid floodway, Missouri.—The 

Committee has included $5,500,000 for St. Johns Bayou and New 

Madrid floodway, Missouri project. These funds shall be available 

to further work on the New Madrid pumping station and shall not 

be available to initiate new construction on any remaining project 

elements. 

Wolf River, Memphis, Tennessee.—The Committee provides $3,500,000 for the Wolf River ecosystem restoration project, which 

shall be available only to complete construction of the weirs and access roads and not to initiate construction of any remaining project 

elements. 

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

Appropriation, 2005 ............................................................................ 1 $1,943,428,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ....................................................................... 2 1,798,000,000 

Recommended, 2006 ........................................................................... 2,000,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2005 .................................................................... +56,572,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ................................................................ +21,000,000 1 Excludes emergency appropriations of $145,000,000. 

2The budget proposes certain receipts from the Power Marketing Administration totaling $181,000,000 be 

credited to this account as offsetting collections. 

This appropriation funds operation, maintenance, and related activities at the water resources projects that the Corps of Engineers 

operates and maintains. Work to be accomplished consists of dredging, repair, and operation of structures and other facilities, as authorized in various River and Harbor, Flood Control, and Water 

Resources Development Acts. Related activities include aquatic 

plant control, monitoring of completed projects, removal of sunken 

vessels, and the collection of domestic waterborne commerce statistics. Portions of this account are financed through the Harbor 

Maintenance Trust Fund. 

For fiscal year 2006, the Committee recommends an appropria- tion of $2,000,000,000, an increase of $56,572,000 over the fiscal 

year 2005 enacted level and $21,000,000 over the budget estimate. 

46 

The Committee recommendation does not include the proposal included in the budget estimate to reclassify certain receipts collected 

by the Southwestern Power Administration, the Southeastern 

Power Administration, and the Western Area Power Administration. 

The budget request and the approved Committee allowance are 

shown in the following table: 

47 


Insert graphic folio 47 here HR86.016
48 


Insert graphic folio 48 here HR86.017
49 


Insert graphic folio 49 here HR86.018
50 


Insert graphic folio 50 here HR86.019
51 


Insert graphic folio 51 here HR86.020
52 


Insert graphic folio 52 here HR86.021
53 


Insert graphic folio 53 here HR86.022
54 


Insert graphic folio 54 here HR86.023
55 


Insert graphic folio 55 here HR86.024
56 


Insert graphic folio 56 here HR86.025
57 


Insert graphic folio 57 here HR86.026
58 


Insert graphic folio 58 here HR86.027
59 


Insert graphic folio 59 here HR86.028
60 


Insert graphic folio 60 here HR86.029
61 


Insert graphic folio 61 here HR86.030
62 


Insert graphic folio 62 here HR86.031
63 


Insert graphic folio 62A here HR86.032
64 


Insert graphic folio 62B here HR86.033
65 

Burns Harbor, Indiana.—Within available funds, the Committee 

directs the Corps to give priority consideration to the Bailly intake 

pipe. 

Dry Creek (Warm Springs) Lake and Channel, California.—The 

Committee recommendation includes a total of $5,825,000 for operation and maintenance at Dry Creek (Warm Springs) Lake and 

Channel, California. The amounts provided in excess of the request 

shall be available to complete outlet channel riprap repairs, control 

tower elevator shaft seepage repair, and spillway inlet channel repair. 

Duluth—Superior Harbor, MN and WI.—For Duluth—Superior 

Harbor, Minnesota and Wisconsin, the Committee has provided 

$5,381,000, of which $300,000 shall be available for a freshwater 

corrosion study. 

Garrison Dam, Lake Sakakawea, North Dakota.—Funds in excess of the budget request shall be for the removal of noxious 

weeds. 

Grays Harbor and Chehalis River, WA.—The Committee has included $9,000,000 to maintain the navigation channel of Grays 

Harbor, including the maintenance and improvement of the north 

and south jetties. The Corps is directed to identify operation and 

maintenance practices for the south jetty that will keep the breach 

closed and the Half Moon Bay shoreline stable. 

Kinzua Dam and Allegheny Reservoir, PA.—For Kinzua Dam and 

Allegheny Reservoir, Pennsylvania, the Committee has provided 

$1,447,000, of which $300,000 shall be available for recreational 

improvements to include visitor center and fishing access improvements. 

Hudson River, New York (O&C).—Within the funds provided, the 

Committee directs the Corps to conduct a reconnaissance study 

under section 216 authority of the Flood Control Act of 1970, as 

amended, for review of the completed projects for the Hudson 

River, Troy Lock and Dam, Troy, New York. 

Miami River, Florida.—The Committee recommends $1,000,000 

for operations and maintenance of Miami River, Florida. The Committee is aware of the ongoing economic analysis of the Miami 

River maintenance project, and expects the Corps to complete and 

approve this analysis. 

Ohio River Locks and Dams, Kentucky, Ohio and West Virginia.—Within the funds provided, the Corps of Engineers is directed to utilize $2,500,000 in cooperation with Operation Respond, 

a non-profit organization, to implement a project collecting and integrating imagery of a selected segment of the Ohio Basin, gathering data from Federal and non-Federal interests, and developing 

and testing software primarily for the use of emergency responders. 

Ouchita and Black Rivers, AR & LA.—In total, the Committee 

recommends $10,400,000, of which $1,900,000 shall be available to 

complete annual maintenance dredging. 

Whitney Lake, Texas.—For fiscal year 2006, the Committee recommends $6,803,000, of which not less than $900,000 of the funds 

in excess of the budget request shall be for Ham Creek Park and 

not more than $300,000 of the funds in excess of the budget request shall be available for Kimball Bend Park. 

66 

Remaining items, coastal inlet research program (CIRP).—Within 

the funds provided for the coastal inlet research program, the Committee has included sufficient resources to use data from the Grays 

Harbor navigation study and the regional sediment management 

study at the mouth of the Columbia, in connection with the new 

CIRP models, to identify operation and maintenance changes to reduce maintenance costs. 

Remaining items, long term option assessment for low use navigation.—Due to funding limitations, the Committee has not recommended funding for the long term option assessment for low use 

navigation study. No funds were provided for this activity in fiscal 

year 2005. 

Remaining items, regional sediment management support program.—Within the funds provided for the regional sediment management support program, the Committee has included sufficient 

funds for the design of a sand retention structure at Fletcher Cove 

in the city of Solana Beach, California. 

REGULATORY PROGRAM

Appropriation, 2005 ............................................................................ $143,840,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ....................................................................... 160,000,000 

Recommended, 2006 ........................................................................... 160,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2005 .................................................................... +16,160,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ................................................................ ............................

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. 

For fiscal year 2006, the Committee recommends an appropria- tion of $160,000,000, which is the same as the budget estimate and 

$16,160,000 over the fiscal year 2005 enacted level. 

The Committee is concerned with the growing backlog and the 

delay in approving various permits, particularly in the Jacksonville, Florida and Sacramento, California offices. Therefore, the 

Committee directs that not less than ten percent of the increase 

over the fiscal year 2005 enacted level be directed to each of these 

offices. 

FORMERLY UTILIZED SITES REMEDIAL ACTION PROGRAM

Appropriation, 2005 ............................................................................ $163,680,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ....................................................................... 140,000,000 

Recommended, 2006 ........................................................................... 140,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2005 .................................................................... ¥23.680,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ................................................................ ............................

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. The Committee recommendation for the Formerly UtiVerDate Aug 04 2004 16:26 May 19, 2005 Jkt 021245 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A20967.001 A20967
67 

lized Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP) is $140,000,000, 

the same level as the budget request, and $23,680,000 below the 

fiscal year 2005 enacted level. 

Congress transferred FUSRAP from the Department of Energy 

(DOE) to the Corps of Engineers in fiscal year 1998. In appropriating FUSRAP funds to the Corps of Engineers, the Committee 

intended to transfer only the responsibility for administration and 

execution of cleanup activities at FUSRAP sites where DOE had 

not completed cleanup. The Committee did not transfer to the 

Corps ownership of and accountability for real property interests, 

which remain with DOE. The Committee expects DOE to continue 

to provide its institutional knowledge and expertise to serve the 

Nation and the affected communities to ensure the success of this 

program. 

In addition, the Committee directs the Corps of Engineers during 

fiscal year 2006 to prepare design specifications for Luckey, Ohio, 

and Shallow Land Disposal Area, Parks Township, Pennsylvania, 

and to complete investigations and initiate cleanup expeditiously 

for the former Sylvania nuclear fuel site at Hicksville, New York. 

FLOOD CONTROL AND COASTAL EMERGENCIES

Appropriation, 2005 ............................................................................ ............................

Budget estimate, 2006 ....................................................................... $70,000,000 

Recommended, 2006 ........................................................................... ............................

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2005 .................................................................... ............................

Budget estimate, 2006 ................................................................ ¥70,000,000 

Funds needed to respond to floods, hurricanes, and other natural 

disasters, and to support emergency operations in response to flood 

and hurricane disasters, including advance measures, flood fighting, emergency operations, providing potable water on an emergency basis, and the repair of certain flood and storm damage reduction projects are provided in emergency appropriations Acts on 

an as needed basis. In addition, the Corps has the legislative authority to tap other appropriated program funds to meet emergency 

requirements. The budget proposes an appropriation of $70,000,000 

in fiscal year 2006 to meet the emergency needs of a typical year 

without disrupting activities in other program areas. The Committee does not recommend an appropriation for this account in fiscal year 2006 and will address emergency funding requirements as 

the needs arise. 

GENERAL EXPENSES

Appropriation, 2005 ............................................................................ $165,664,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ....................................................................... 162,000,000 

Recommended, 2006 ........................................................................... 152,021,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2005 .................................................................... ¥13,643,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ................................................................ ¥9,979,000 

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 recommends an appropriation of $152,021,000, a 

decrease of $13,643,000 from the fiscal year 2005 enacted level and 

$9,979,000 less than the budget request. 

68 

The recommended level assumes the following adjustments to the 

budget request: 

Executive direction and management: 

Headquarters baselevel operating expenses: 

Undistributed reduction due to budget constraints .............. ¥$10,479,000 

Civil Works program accounts: 

Decrease in implementing competitive sourcing .................. ¥2,000,000 

Decrease in e-government initiatives .................................... ¥500,000 

Undistributed reductions due to budget constraints ............ ¥2,000,000 

Other activities ...................................................................................... +5,000,000 

Headquarters baselevel operating expenses.—The Committee recommendation includes an undistributed reduction of $10,479,000 

due to budget constraints; this reduction is appropriate given the 

lack of detailed justification material accompanying the request. 

This reduction shall be taken from operating expenses at the headquarters level solely and not distributed to the divisions. 

Civil works program accounts.—Reductions of $2,000,000 to implement competitive outsourcing measures and $500,000 for e-government initiatives are recommended by the Committee. The Committee recommendation includes sufficient funds to further these 

activities in fiscal year 2006. In addition, an undistributed reduction of $2,000,000 is recommended by the Committee due to budget 

constraints and a lack of detailed justification in support of the request. 

Other activities.—The Committee has included $5,000,000 to conduct comprehensive analyses on water resource management on a 

watershed or regional scale. These analyses are needed to examine 

multi-jurisdictional use and management of water resources, 

which, in the view of the Committee, are not being addressed 

under current project analyses. With few exceptions, existing costsharing requirements have resulted inadvertently in narrowly focused water resource management studies that are limited to single jurisdictions. The funds provided in this account are to be available without cost-sharing requirements; however, the Corps shall 

work directly with state and local governments in the study areas. 

Individual study areas shall include multiple states, and multiple 

watersheds shall be studied. 

District office closures or staff realignment.—The Committee is 

troubled to learn that the Corps is contemplating the closure of certain district offices in fiscal year 2005, largely because of the shifting workload among districts and divisions expected under the 

Civil Works program levels assumed in the budget request for fiscal year 2006. The Committee believes that it is premature to consider the closure or permanent relocation of staff from district and 

division offices until after the distribution of work is known with 

the enactment of appropriations for the civil works program for fiscal year 2006. District workloads in the Corps can vary significantly from year to year. Given current technology, the distributed 

engineering and other expertise of the Corps should be readily 

available to address Corps requirements wherever they occur. The 

issue of how many divisions and districts are needed to serve effectively the Nation and where they should be located is a larger issue 

that requires a comprehensive plan for the Corps and its civil 

works. In addition, the Corps shall re-evaluate the need to contract 

out to architect engineering firms thirty percent of planning and 

69 

design activities in an effort to avoid personnel disruptions and to 

maintain in-house technical capability. 

CFO audit.—In fiscal year 2005, the Corps had planned to fund 

the CFO audit from funds appropriated for General Expenses, but 

has informed the Committee that the audit will not be performed 

in fiscal year 2005. For fiscal year 2006, the Corps proposes to fund 

the recurring costs of the CFO audit from the revolving fund. The 

Committee observes that the out-year costs associated with the 

CFO audit seem relatively high. Given the delay in award and the 

unknown out-year costs, the Committee directs that the initial and 

recurring costs associated with an annual CFO audit be paid and 

budgeted from amounts provided for the General Expenses appropriation. 

Intermodal transportation and containerization.—Within the 

funds provided, the Institute of Water Resources (IWR) is directed 

to submit to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations, 

within 180 days of enactment of this Act, a study delineating ways 

to improve and expand inland waterway containerization. In conducting its review, the IWR shall develop its recommendations in 

consultation with private shippers and carriers and the Department of Transportation. The Committee notes that the energy costs 

per ton-mile for shipping by barge are the lowest of any means of 

transport and increased use of the water infrastructure of the country therefore contributes to energy conservation. 

REVOLVING FUND

PLANT REPLACEMENT AND IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM

The revolving fund accounts for facilities, payroll and operations 

throughout the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers at its divisions, districts, separate field offices and laboratories including its engineer 

research and development centers. The fund incurs expenses for acquisition, rehabilitation, operation and maintenance of multiple use 

structures such as warehouses, shops and garages, as well as general-purpose plant, such as dredges, tugs, launches, trucks, cranes, 

bulldozers, drill rigs and other construction equipment. It also provides for reimbursement of the general and administrative expenses of district, laboratory and field offices. 

Dredge McFarland.—The Committee has deleted funds contained 

in the request for rehabilitation and asbestos and lead abatement 

of the Dredge McFarland in fiscal year 2006. Funds for these activities are premature as the Corps has yet to submit a final report 

to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations on the benefits and effects of the current and proposed restrictions on the 

Corps’ hopper dredge fleet, as required by the conference report accompanying the Energy and Water Appropriations Act of 2004. 

This report is to include recommendations on investment decisions 

regarding Corps hopper dredges, including the McFarland. Preliminary reports have included ten options for the Corps and Congress 

to consider, of which six include the retirement of the McFarland. 

Any expenditure to rehabilitate the dredges or to remove is premature asbestos and lead from the McFarland is premature until 

such time as the Corps makes a final decision on its preferred option with respect to the disposition of the McFarland, and until 

70 

such time as a final report has been submitted to the House and 

Senate Committees on Appropriations for full consideration. Accordingly, the Committee recommendation deletes these funds in 

fiscal year 2006. The Corps is further directed not to expend any 

additional funds on McFarland rehabilitation or asbestos or lead 

abatement in fiscal year 2005. 

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

Appropriation, 2005 ............................................................................ $3,968,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ....................................................................... (1) 

Recommended, 2006 ........................................................................... 4,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2005 .................................................................... +32,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ................................................................ (1) 1The budget proposes that this office be funded from amounts appropriated to the Department of Defense, 

Operation and maintenance, Army, and that within those amounts, $4,700,000 is assumed for the Office of 

the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works). 

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 

general expenses account. Congress had funded the Assistant Secretary’s office from funds appropriated for the Operation and Maintenance, Army (OMA) account in the annual Department of Defense Appropriations Acts until fiscal year 2005. Last year, however, Congress chose to fund the Assistant Secretary’s office within 

the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act. Again, for 

fiscal year 2006, the Committee recommends that a separate appropriation for the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army 

(Civil Works) be made in the annual Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, and has provided $4,000,000 for this account. 

Roles and responsibilities of the Office of the Assistant Secretary 

of the Army (Civil Works).—Army regulations and General Order 

No. 3 clearly stipulate that the Assistant Secretary of the Army 

(Civil Works) (ASA(CW)) has the principal responsibility for overall 

policy direction and supervision of the Department of the Army 

functions relating to all aspects of the civil works program, including all reimbursable work performed on behalf of Federal and nonFederal entities. Among the responsibilities of the ASA(CW) are 

managing the Department of Army civil works program for conservation and development of the national water resources, including flood damage reduction, river and harbor navigation, environmental restoration and protection, water supply, shore protection, 

hydroelectric power, recreation, and related purposes. This includes 

the following: 

(1) developing, defending, and directing the execution of the 

Army civil works policy, legislative, and financial programs 

and budget. 

(2) developing policy and guidance for and administering the 

Department of the Army regulatory program to protect, restore, and maintain the waters of the United States in the interest of the environment, navigation, and national defense. 

(3) serving as congressional liaison on civil works matters, 

including serving as the Department of the Army point of contact for House and Senate authorization and Appropriations 

71 

Committees charged with oversight of the Department of the 

Army civil works program. 

The Committee is extremely disappointed that the Office of the 

ASA(CW) has not been more actively engaged in the most significant issues facing the Corps in years, namely reprogrammings, 

project paybacks and continuing contracts, and has effectively allowed the Corps to dictate the role of the ASA(CW). The Committee 

expects the Office of the ASA(CW) to fully exercise its roles and responsibilities as delineated in Army General Order No. 3. Should 

the office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Works not involve 

itself in these and other pertinent issues, the Committee will reevaluate the need for such an office. 

Indirect costs.—Budgeting for and tracking Army Headquarters 

costs is complex and involves many funding allocations, each with 

its own budgeting and management practices. While some of the 

Army Headquarters expenses are budgeted and directly attributed 

to specific offices, such as that of the Assistant Secretary of the 

Army (Civil Works), other expenses are centrally budgeted and 

managed within the Army Headquarters, even though the expenditures may be tracked to individual offices at the end of the accounting period. Examples of these expenses include information technology and ADP support, communications, long-term training, performance bonuses for Senior Executive Service employees, and use 

of Pentagon space. Moreover, for other costs—such as public affairs, contracting services, legal services, executive motor pool—attribution of costs to specific offices has not been a matter of practice and, as a result, there are no established charging procedures 

or algorithms for allocating these costs to date. 

The fiscal year 2006 appropriation for the Office of the Assistant 

Secretary for the Army (Civil Works) is intended to cover expenses 

budgeted for and tracked to that office in the following general categories: civilian salaries and benefits, travel, supplies, equipment, 

contracts, communications, information technology, printing and 

postage, and rent. The Committee anticipates that OMA appropriations provided in the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 

2006, are to fund those expenses currently centrally—budgeted and 

managed within the Army Headquarters, as described above. This 

policy continues the practice in place for fiscal year 2005. For fiscal 

year 2007, the Office of the Assistant Secretary (Civil Works) is directed to separate out these costs from the OMA budget and include and fully justify them in the Assistant Secretary of the Army 

(Civil Works) budget request to the Appropriations Subcommittee 

on Energy and Water Development. 

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 Act 

except in certain circumstances. This provision is discussed more 

fully under ‘‘Program Management and Execution.’’

The bill includes a provision prohibiting the Corps of Engineers 

from supporting activities related to the proposed Ridge Landfill in 

Tuscarawas County, Ohio. 

72 

The bill includes a provision prohibiting the Corps of Engineers 

from supporting activities related to the proposed Indian Rum Sanitary Landfill in Sandy Township, Stark County Ohio. 

The bill includes a provision that requires the Secretary of the 

Army, when overseeing the use of multiyear contracts for water resource projects, to limit the duration of each multiyear contract to 

the term needed to achieve a substantial reduction of costs on the 

margin and limit the amount of work performed each on year on 

each project to the funding provided for that project during the fiscal year. 

The bill includes a provision prohibiting the use of funds in this 

Act to carry out any continuing contract that reserves an amount 

for a project in excess of the amount appropriated for such project 

in this Act. 

The bill includes a provision prohibiting the use of funds in this 

Act after February 6, 2006, to carry out any continuing contract (or 

modifications to any existing continuing contract) that obligates the 

Federal government during fiscal year 2007 to make payment 

under such contract for any project that is not contained in the fiscal year 2007 budget materials of the civil works functions of the 

Corps of Engineers submitted by the Assistant Secretary of the 

Army (Civil Works) to Congress. 

The bill includes a provision that prohibits funds for the rehabilitation and lead and asbestos abatement activities of the dredge 

McFarland. A more detailed discussion of the dredge McFarland is 

contained under ‘‘Revolving Fund.’’ In addition, the bill includes a 

provision that reduces funds contained in title I of this Act by 

$18,630,000. 

The bill includes a provision prohibiting the use of funds in this 

Act for any fiscal year to carry out the construction of the Port Jersey element of the New York and New Jersey Harbor or reimbursement to the local sponsor for the construction of the Port Jersey 

element until commitments for construction of container handling 

facilities are obtained from the non-Federal sponsor for a second 

user along the Port Jersey element. 

(73) 

TITLE II 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

CENTRAL UTAH PROJECT

CENTRAL UTAH PROJECT COMPLETION ACCOUNT

Appropriation, 2005 ............................................................................ $47,625,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ....................................................................... 34,350,000 

Recommended, 2006 ........................................................................... 34,350,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2005 .................................................................... ¥13,275,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ................................................................ ............................

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 2006 to carry out 

the Central Utah Project is $34,350,000, the same as the budget request, and $13,275,000 below the fiscal year 2005 enacted level. 

Within the $34,350,000 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 ......................................... $600,000 

Diamond Fork system ........................................................................... 14,600,000 

Water conservation measures ............................................................... 2,889,000 

Uinta Basin replacement project .......................................................... 12,182,000 

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

Total, Central Utah water conservation district .................. 31,271,000 

The Committee recommendation includes the requested amount of $946,000 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; initiating fish and wildlife measures on section 203(a) Uinta 

Basin replacement projects; and in completing 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 

74 

CRSP/Statewide fish, wildlife and recreation ..................................... 295,000 

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

Section 203(a) mitigation measures ..................................................... 210,000 

Total, Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation 

Commission .......................................................................... 946,000 

For program oversight and administration, the Committee has provided $1,736,000, the same level as the budget request, and 

$16,000 above the fiscal year 2005 enacted level. For fish and wildlife conservation programs, the Committee has provided $397,000, 

the same level as the budget request. 

BUREAU OF RECLAMATION

FY 2006 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 

(32 Stat. 388), the Bureau of Reclamation has developed water supply facilities that have contributed to sustained economic growth 

and an enhanced quality of life in the western states. Lands and 

communities served by Reclamation projects have been developed 

to meet agricultural, tribal, urban, and industrial needs. The Bureau continues to develop authorized facilities to store and convey 

new water supplies. The Bureau is the largest supplier and manager of water in the 17 western states. The Bureau maintains 471 

dams and 348 reservoirs with the capacity to store 245 million 

acre-feet of water. These facilities deliver water to one of every five 

western farmers for about 10 million acres of irrigated land, and 

to over 31 million people for municipal, rural, and industrial uses. 

The Bureau is also the Nation’s second largest producer of hydroelectric power, generating 42 billion kilowatt hours of energy each 

year from 58 power plants. In addition, its facilities provide substantial flood control, recreation, and fish and wildlife benefits. 

The fiscal year budget request for the Bureau of Reclamation totals $916,705,000, and includes $30,000,000 in new offsetting collections. The Committee recommendation totals $997,136,000 for 

the Bureau of Reclamation, an increase of $60,431,000 over the 

budget request and $12,215,000 above the fiscal year enacted level 

(adjusted for one-time emergency spending). A proposal to provide 

direct financing of operation and maintenance costs associated with 

the power functions of Reclamation facilities that generate the 

power sold by the Western Power Administration is rejected by the 

Committee. 

A summary table illustrating the fiscal year 2005 enacted appropriation, the fiscal year 2006 budget request and the Committee 

recommendation is shown below: 

[Dollars in 000s] 

Account Fiscal year 

2005 enacted 

Fiscal year 

2006 request 

Committee 

recommendation 

Water and related resources .................................................................................. $852,605 $801,569 $832,000 

Offsetting collections ..................................................................................... .................... ¥30,000 ....................

Subtotal, water and related resources ................................................. 852,605 771,569 832,000 

Central Valley project restoration fund .................................................................. 54,628 52,219 52,219 

75 

[Dollars in 000s] 

Account Fiscal year 

2005 enacted 

Fiscal year 

2006 request 

Committee 

recommendation 

California Bay-Delta restoration ............................................................................. .................... 35,000 35,000 

Policy and administration ....................................................................................... 57,688 57,917 57,917 

Drought conditions, Nevada (emergency) ............................................................... 5,000 .................... ....................

Total, Bureau of Reclamation ................................................................... 969,921 916,705 977,136 

WATER AND RELATED RESOURCES

[INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS]

Appropriation, 2005 ............................................................................ $852,605,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ....................................................................... 1 771,569,000 

Recommended, 2006 ........................................................................... 832,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2005 .................................................................... ¥20,605,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ................................................................ +60,431,000 1The budget proposes certain receipts from the Western Area Power Administration totaling $30,000,000 

be credited to this account as offsetting collections. 

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 2006, the Committee recommends $832,000,000, 

an increase of $60,431,000 from the budget request and 

$20,605,000 below the fiscal year 2005 enacted level. The Committee does not adopt the proposal included in the budget request 

to reclassify certain receipts from the Western Area Power Administration and to credit them as offsetting collections to this account. 

The budget request and the approved Committee allowance for specific projects are shown, by state, in the following table: 

76 


Insert graphic folio 74 here HR86.034
77 


Insert graphic folio 75 here HR86.035
78 


Insert graphic folio 76 here HR86.036
79 


Insert graphic folio 77 here HR86.037
80 


Insert graphic folio 78 here HR86.038
81 

Central Valley project, California, miscellaneous project programs.—Within the funds provided for Central Valley project, miscellaneous project programs, the Committee has provided the funds 

necessary to complete phase II of the Kaweah River Delta Corridor 

Enhancement Study. 

Colorado River Front Work and Levee System, Arizona and California.—Within the funds provided, the Committee has included $750,000 to continue planning and design of regulating reservoirs 

near the All American Canal. 

Equus Beds Groundwater Recharge Demonstration Project, Kansas.—The Committee is aware that the pilot program for the Equus 

Beds project is complete. The Committee strongly urges the Bureau 

to work with the impacted communities and the State of Kansas 

on design and engineering of the full-scale project. 

Salton Sea research project, California.—The Committee has pro- vided $4,800,000 for the Salton Sea research project, including 

$1,500,000 to continue environmental restoration efforts at the 

Alamo and New Rivers, and for other authorized pilot projects. The 

Bureau is encouraged to work jointly with the Salton Sea Authority 

and assist the authority in running its own pilot projects. 

Santa Margarita River conjunctive use project, California.—The 

Committee has provided $500,000 to complete the feasibility study 

for the project. 

South/central Arizona investigations program.—The Committee 

recommends $795,000 for the south/central Arizona investigations 

program. Within the funds provided, $210,000 shall be available to 

complete the final report for phase II of the central Arizona salinity 

study and $250,000 for the West Salt River Management Study. 

Southern California investigations program.—Within the funds 

provided for the Southern California Investigations Program, 

$150,000 has been included for the Los Angeles Basin Watershed 

Water Supply Augmentation Study, as requested in the budget; 

$100,000 to assist the Western Municipal Water District in general 

planning and associated environmental compliance activities related to the Riverside-Corona Feeder project; $300,000 to assist the 

Lake Arrowhead Community Services District to develop a groundwater management plan; and $100,000 to assist the City of Apple 

Valley, California to develop an appraisal study of the water reclamation portion of the City of Apple Valley’s sewage treatment 

and reclamation project. 

St. Mary Diversion Facilities to the Milk River Basin, Montana.—

The Committee is supportive of efforts to rehabilitate or replace the 

St. Mary Diversion Facilities to the Milk River Basin, Montana 

project given the agricultural, municipal, recreational, cultural and 

economic benefits the project accrues to the people its serves in 

North Central Montana. 

Washington investigations program.—The Committee recommendation provides $550,000 for Washington investigations program, of which $250,000 shall be available for technical assistance 

and studies for solutions to address the depletion of the Odessa 

Subaquifer. 

Yuma area projects, Arizona and California.—The Committee 

has provided a total of $22,600,000 for Yuma area projects in Arizona and California, of which $500,000 is available for renovation 

82 

and refurbishment of the City of Needles, California Bureau Bay 

Reclamation Project site. 

VARIOUS PROGRAMS

Site security.—After the terrorists attacks of September 11, 2001, 

the Bureau of Reclamation strengthened security at Federal dams 

and similar facilities and has undertaken—but not completed—extensive risk assessments for over 400 units throughout the west. 

The Bureau proposed to seek reimbursement for certain expenditures. The Committee expressed concern regarding reimbursability 

and directed the Bureau to provide to the Committee a report that 

included a breakout of planned reimbursable and non-reimbursable 

security costs by project and by region. The conference report went 

further to direct the Commissioner not to begin the reimbursement 

process until the Congress provides direct instruction to do so. 

The Committee now recognizes that in accordance with Federal 

reclamation law, specifically the Reclamation Act of 1939, annual 

operation and maintenance (O&M) and replacement costs on Reclamation projects are allocated to a project’s various authorized 

purposes. The ongoing costs of the additional security guards and 

patrols necessary to ensure the security of a project may be considered project O&M costs. Therefore, these costs are subject to reimbursement based on project cost reimbursable allocations beginning 

in fiscal year 2006. Recognizing that the Bureau would expect to 

receive approximately $10,000,000 in reimbursements in fiscal year 

2006, the budget request for site security has been reduced by the 

Committee to $40,000,000. 

Science and technology programs.—Within the appropriation of 

$9,684,000 for science and technology programs, the Committee has 

provided $1,000,000 to continue the successful alliance with the 

International Center for Water Resources Management at Central 

State University for Central State University in Ohio, the Ohio 

View Consortium, and Colorado State University, for the development of advanced remote sensing technologies for use in operational decisions to manage the current drought conditions, and to 

develop optimal strategies for managing water resources and with 

future constraining events. 

Title XVI, water reclamation and reuse program.—The budget request included $1,229,000 for activities under the Title XVI, water 

reclamation and reuse program. This program is not authorized in 

fiscal year 2006, and accordingly the Committee does not recommend funding for this activity. 

Water 2025.—The budget request includes $30,000,000 for Water 

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

water and is to set a framework to identify problems, solutions and 

plans to focus a needed dialog as the Department of the Interior 

works with states, tribes, local government 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 2006. 

Water conservation field service program.—The Committee has 

provided $9,875,000 for water conservation field service program, of 

83 

which $1,000,000 shall be allocated for the Many Farms Irrigation 

Water Conservation project. 

CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT RESTORATION FUND

Appropriation, 2005 ............................................................................ $54,628,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ....................................................................... 52,219,000 

Recommended, 2006 ........................................................................... 52,219,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2005 .................................................................... ¥2,409,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ................................................................ ............................

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 2006, the Committee recommends $52,219,000, 

the same level as the budget request and $2,409,000 below the fiscal year enacted level. Funds, as proposed in the budget request, 

are provided as follows: 

Anadromous fish restoration program ................................................. $5,000,000 

Other Central Valley project impacts .................................................. 2,500,000 

Dedicated project yield .......................................................................... 900,000 

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

Restoration of riparian habitat and spawning gravel ......................... 500,000 

Central Valley comprehensive assessment/monitoring program ....... 500,000 

Anadromous fish screen program ......................................................... 3,500,000 

Refugee wheeling conveyance ............................................................... 7,800,000 

Refuge water supply, facility construction .......................................... 3,500,000 

Ecosystem/water systems operations model ........................................ 6,434,000 

Water acquisition program ................................................................... 9,952,000 

San Joaquin Basin action plan ............................................................. 7,583,000 

Land retirement program ..................................................................... 1,500,000 

Coleman fish hatchery .......................................................................... 200,000 

Clear Creek restoration ......................................................................... 300,000 

Trinity River restoration program ........................................................ 2,000,000 

Total, Central Valley project restoration fund ...................... 52,219,000 

CALIFORNIA BAY-DELTA RESTORATION

[INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS]

Appropriation, 2005 ............................................................................ (1) 

Budget estimate, 2006 ....................................................................... $35,000,000 

Recommended, 2006 ........................................................................... 35,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2005 .................................................................... +35,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ................................................................ ............................ 1Funds were appropriated in fiscal year 2005 within the Central Valley project to carry out activities now 

authorized from this account. 

The purpose of the California Bay-Delta account is to fund the 

Federal share of water supply and reliability improvements, ecosystem improvements and other activities being developed for the 

Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and associated watersheds by a 

State and Federal partnership (CALFED). Federal participation in 

this program was initially authorized in the California Bay-Delta 

84 

Environmental and Water Security Act enacted in 1996. That Act 

authorized the appropriation of $143,300,000 for ecosystem restoration activities in each of fiscal years 1998, 1999, and 2000. Absent 

an explicit authorization, no funds were provided in this account 

for the CALFED effort between fiscal years 2001 and 2005. However, the Committee funded CALFED programs and activities within the general authorities of the Water and Related Resources account even though a specific programmatic authorization was lacking. Funding for fiscal year 2001 totaled $79,030,000; fiscal year 

2002, $126,775,000; fiscal year 2003, $84,403,000; fiscal year 2004, 

$78,929,000; and fiscal year 2005, $74,571,000. Total Federal expenditures under this Act from fiscal year 1998 through 2005 

amount to almost $830,000,000. 

In 2005, the CALFED Bay-Delta Authorization Act was enacted 

(P.L. 108–361), authorizing $389,000,000 in Federal appropriations 

for fiscal year 2005 through fiscal year 2010. The authorizing legislation required an annual cross-cut budget in order to reflect the 

budget requests of all Federal agencies engaged in CALFED implementation. The Committee is pleased the CALFED Bay-Delta program was included in the fiscal year 2006 budget request and recommends the budget request of $35,000,000. However, the Committee notices a missing program element from the budget request, 

a ‘‘water quality’’ section, and has added funding for this element 

as shown below. The Committee has redirected the funding for 

higher priority projects that will support the implementation of the 

CALFED program. The funded projects will produce increased 

sources of water for the state of California, otherwise known as 

‘‘firm yield’’ projects, improve drinking water quality, and improve 

water delivery flexibility. 

In light of the new Federal authorization for CALFED Bay-Delta 

Program and the initial implementation phase of the CALFED program, the Committee expects the budget request for fiscal year 

2007 to include funds for all program elements at the fully authorized level. 

The funds provided are intended to support the following activities, as delineated below: 

Environmental water account ............................................................... $5,000,000 

Storage program .................................................................................... 12,700,000 

San Joaquin River basin ................................................................ (4,000,000) 

Los Vaqueros ................................................................................... (3,200,000) 

Shasta enlargement ........................................................................ (4,000,000) 

Sites ................................................................................................. (1,500,000) 

Conveyance ............................................................................................. 6,300,000 

San Luis Reservoir Low Point ....................................................... (3,000,000) 

Frank Tract ..................................................................................... (1,000,000) 

Planning and management activities ................................................... 500,000 

Water use efficiency ............................................................................... 6,500,000 

Westside regional drainage program ............................................ (2,300,000) 

Butte County Groundwater Model ................................................ (200,000) 

Inland Empire Utilities Agency regional water recycling project (1,000,000) 

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

Sacramento River small diversion fish screen program .............. (1,000,000) 

Water Quality ........................................................................................ 3,000,000 

Contra Costa Water District alternative intake project .............. (2,000,000) 

South Delta temporary barriers .................................................... (1,000,000) 

Total, California Bay-Delta Restoration ....................................... 35,000,000 

85 

POLICY AND ADMINISTRATION

Appropriation, 2005 ............................................................................ $57,688,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ....................................................................... 57,917,000 

Recommended, 2006 ........................................................................... 57,917,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2005 .................................................................... +229,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ................................................................ ............................

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 

2006, the Committee recommends $57,917,000, the same as the 

budget request and $229,000 above the fiscal year 2005 enacted 

level. 

Five-year budget planning.—Concurrent with the submission of 

the fiscal year 2007 budget request and for every fiscal year thereafter, the Department of the Interior shall submit to the Congress 

detailed five-year budget plans for each of the major components 

including Water and Related Resources, California Bay-Delta Restoration program, Central Valley Project Restoration Fund and 

Central Utah Project Completion. The program plans shall clearly 

state the assumptions and priorities behind the choices it will 

make between competing agency programs, and shall include a 

copy of the guidance provided to the program offices to guide their 

submissions into the five-year plan. The plan shall provide both fiscally constrained and unconstrained data. 

GENERAL PROVISIONS

DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR

The bill includes a provision regarding the San Luis Unit and 

Kesterson Reservoir in California. This language has been included 

in annual Energy and Water Development Appropriations Acts for 

several years. 

The bill includes language prohibiting the use of funds for any 

water acquisition or lease in the Middle Rio Grande or Carlsbad 

Projects in New Mexico unless the acquisition is in compliance with 

existing State law and administered under state priority allocation. 

The bill includes a provision relating to agreements with the city 

of Needles, California or the Imperial Irrigation District for the design and construction of stages of the Lower Colorado Water Supply Project. 

(87) 

TITLE III 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Department of Energy (DOE) has requested $24,213,307,000 

in fiscal year 2006 to fund programs in its four primary mission 

areas: science, energy, environment, and national security. The 

overall DOE budget would decline by 2.0 percent compared to the 

fiscal year 2005 enacted level, but the four mission areas fare quite 

differently under the Department’s budget proposal. Science research would decline by 3.8 percent and Environment programs 

would decline by 6.4 percent, while National Security programs 

would increase by 2.5 percent and Energy programs by 3.0 percent. 

Total funding for the Department of Energy is $24,574,857,000, an 

increase of $278,103,000 over fiscal year 2005 and $361,550,000 

over the budget request. The Committee makes a number of 

changes to the fiscal year 2006 budget request to reflect specific 

Congressional priorities and to fund several major new initiatives 

for the Department of Energy. 

Material Consolidation Initiative.—The Department currently 

has weapons-usable special nuclear materials (i.e., plutonium and 

highly enriched uranium) stored at a number of sites around the 

DOE complex. Most of these sites are under the control of the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), but special nuclear 

materials are also stored at sites under the control of the Office of 

Science, the Office of Nuclear Energy, and Environmental Management. Unfortunately, the Department has indicated that it will not 

be able to bring all of its facilities and operations into compliance 

with the latest Design Basis Threat until 2008. This delay is unacceptable. The Committee directs the Department to take prompt 

action to consolidate these materials into fewer locations to reduce 

security risks and costs. This initiative is discussed more fully 

under the NNSA and Other Defense Activities sections of this report. 

Spent Fuel Recycling Initiative.—Commercial spent nuclear fuel, 

as well as government-owned spent fuel and high level radioactive 

waste, is stored at over one hundred sites around the country and 

poses an analogous security problem. While this material poses a 

very different security risk than the weapons-usable special nuclear 

materials, it still creates a costly and unnecessary security risk 

until these materials can be moved to the Yucca Mountain repository. The Department has estimated that it will cost the federal 

government approximately $1 billion per year for every year that 

the repository is delayed and these materials must remain in interim onsite storage. To maintain or expand the role of nuclear 

power in this country’s energy portfolio will require DOE to propose expansion of the authorized capacity of the Yucca Mountain 

88 

repository, or begin the difficult process of siting a second repository. Therefore, the Committee directs the Department to take action in fiscal year 2006 to begin accepting spent commercial fuel 

from the nuclear utilities and placing it in centralized interim storage at one or more DOE sites. In addition, the Committee directs 

the Department to prepare an integrated spent fuel recycling plan 

for implementation in fiscal year 2007, including selection of an advanced reprocessing technology and a competitive process to select 

one or more sites to develop integrated spent fuel recycling facilities (i.e., reprocessing, preparation of mixed oxide fuel, vitrification 

of high level waste products, and temporary process storage). This 

initiative is discussed more fully in the Nuclear Energy section of 

the Energy Supply and Conservation account, and in the Nuclear 

Waste Disposal account. 

Sustainable Stockpile Initiative.—The Committee does not believe that the existing U.S. stockpile of nuclear weapons is sustainable in the long-term future. The United States relies on an arsenal of Cold War legacy designs with an average warhead age nearing twenty five years. These old weapons are expensive to maintain, hard to dismantle, and increasingly difficult to certify in the 

absence of nuclear testing. Because of uncertainties in the performance of these aging weapons, the U.S. is forced to retain absurdly 

large numbers of weapons in its nuclear stockpile to maintain a 

sufficient ‘‘hedge’’ against these uncertainties. Further, we also 

maintain a Cold War nuclear weapons complex to support this 

stockpile, maintaining antiquated facilities using antiquated processes to support antiquated weapons. In light of increased post–9/ 

11 security concerns, this is neither a sound nor sustainable strategy. The Committee continues the Reliable Replacement Warhead 

effort, initiated in the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, 2005, to improve the reliability, longevity, and 

certifiability without testing of existing nuclear weapons and their 

components. The Committee does not view these as new weapons, 

but rather re-engineered versions of existing weapons, using modern materials and manufacturing methods, to serve the same military function as existing warheads. A shift to modern Reliable Replacement Warheads will allow two important changes in the near 

term, namely a phased reduction in the current Life Extension Program and a corresponding increase in the rate of dismantlement of 

these aging weapons. This reduction in the total stockpile size is 

consistent with Presidential guidance on the future size and composition of the U.S. nuclear arsenal. In addition, the Committee is 

looking forward to receiving the recommendations of the task force 

established under the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board to conduct a Nuclear Weapons Complex Infrastructure Study. As the U.S. 

shifts to a smaller stockpile with re-engineered warheads, the Committee anticipates that there will be major changes in the DOE nuclear weapons complex will be needed to support that stockpile. 

This initiative is discussed more fully in the NNSA section of this 

report. 

CONGRESSIONAL DIRECTION

The Committee renews the direction provided in previous fiscal 

years requiring the Secretary to submit to the House and Senate 

89 

Committees on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Energy and 

Water Development, a quarterly report on the status of all projects, 

reports, fund transfers, and other actions directed in this bill and 

report, in the corresponding Senate bill and report, in the Energy 

and Water Development Appropriations Act, 2006, and in the statement of managers accompanying that Act. Any reports, transfers, 

or other actions directed in prior fiscal years that have not been 

completed as of the date of enactment of this Act should also be 

included in this quarterly report. 

BUDGET STRUCTURE

Funds recommended in Title III provide for all Department of 

Energy (DOE) programs. In previous years, the DOE was funded 

in two separate appropriations Acts. The Energy and Water Development appropriations Act funded DOE programs relating to: Energy Supply; Non-Defense Environmental Management (Non-Defense Site Acceleration Completion; Non-Defense Environmental 

Services, and Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund); Science; Nuclear Waste Disposal; Departmental 

Administration; the Inspector General; the National Nuclear Security Administration (Weapons Activities, Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation, Naval Reactors, Office of the Administrator); Defense 

Environmental Management (Defense Site Acceleration Completion, Defense Environmental Services); Other Defense Activities; 

Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal; the Power Marketing Administrations; and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. The Interior 

and Related Agencies Appropriations Act funded DOE programs relating to: Clean Coal Technology; Fossil Energy Research and Development; Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves; the Elk Hills 

School Lands Fund; Energy Conservation; the Strategic Petroleum 

Reserve; the Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve; and the Energy 

Information Administration. 

With the reorganization in early 2005 of the subcommittee jurisdictions of the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations, 

the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act now funds 

all DOE programs. The Committee recommendation for fiscal year 

2006 proposes the following changes to the previous account structure: the merger of the previously separate Energy Supply and Energy Conservation accounts into a single Energy Supply and Conservation account; the merger of Non-Defense Site Acceleration 

Completion and Non-Defense Environmental Services into a single 

Non-Defense Environmental Cleanup account; and the merger of 

Defense Site Acceleration Completion and Defense Environmental 

Services into a single Defense Environmental Cleanup account. 

BUDGET JUSTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS

The fiscal year 2007 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). 

90 

The budget justifications must also include a statement that all appropriate project management requirements from DOE Order 413.3 

will have been met at the time the budget justifications are submitted to Congress. The Committee understands that all such requirements may not be met, and need not be met, at the time the 

budget request is formulated. The Committee does expect, however, 

that these project management requirements will have been fulfilled at the time the fiscal year 2007 budget request is delivered 

to Congress. 

FIVE-YEAR BUDGET PLANNING

Concurrent with the submission of the fiscal year 2007 budget 

request and for every fiscal year thereafter, the Department should 

submit to Congress detailed five-year budget plans for all major 

programs, including Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy; 

Electricity Transmission and Distribution; Nuclear Energy, Science 

and Technology; Fossil Energy R&D; Science; Non-Defense Environmental Cleanup; Defense Environmental Cleanup; Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning; Nuclear Waste 

Disposal (including Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal); Departmental Administration, Nuclear Weapons Activities, Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation; Naval Reactors; Other Defense Activities; 

the Power Marketing Administrations; and the Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission). Beginning with the submission of the fiscal year 2007 budget request and for every fiscal year thereafter, 

the Department shall also submit an integrated five-year budget 

plan for the entire Department. The program plans and the integrated Department-wide plan should state clearly the assumptions 

and priorities behind the choices the Secretary will make between 

competing Department programs, and shall include a copy of the 

guidance provided to the program offices to guide their submissions 

into the five-year plan. 

Essential to producing five-year budget plans for the major programs and for the entire Department is the need to define the missions and activities, and therefore the future budget requirements, 

of the various laboratories in the Department. The five-year plans 

prepared by the major program offices, and the comprehensive fiveyear plan for the Department, should reflect the business plans for 

each of the Department’s laboratories. These business plans, to be 

submitted concurrent with the fiscal year 2007 budget submission, 

shall include a clear statement of the primary mission of each laboratory as such mission relates to each lab’s lead program office(s), 

a clear statement of secondary missions to support other DOE program offices and other Federal agencies, and a five-year plan identifying the research, facilities, and resource requirements necessary 

to fulfill these primary and secondary missions. The laboratory 

business plans shall also include a longer-range vision statement to 

define where these laboratories are heading beyond the five-year 

budget horizon. 

The Committee had previously directed the Department to submit, with its fiscal year 2006 budget request, five-year program 

plans for the Nuclear Weapons Activities of the NNSA, for the Office of Science, and for Environmental Management (including 

Non-Defense Environmental Cleanup, Uranium Enrichment D&D 

91 

Fund, and Defense Environmental Cleanup). The five-year plans 

submitted to date for these programs are of limited utility to Congress as real multiyear budget plans, but it is hoped these initial 

efforts for three programs will ease the task of preparing an integrated DOE five-year plan for the fiscal year 2007 submission. 

The NNSA plan for Nuclear Weapons Activities is adequate, but 

needs to have an improved explanation of how the outyear funding 

levels were derived and the connection between specific DoD-imposed stockpile requirements and funding items in the NNSA fiveyear plan. Many of the funding lines appear to be flat-line projections from current funding levels, with no rationale provided on 

whether these funding levels are realistic for the mission at hand 

or consistent with the latest decisions and assumptions about the 

future of the U.S. nuclear stockpile and the supporting DOE weapons complex. 

The five-year plan for Environmental Management fails to provide any meaningful detail on either how the specific funding levels 

were derived for each site or on the implications of those funding 

levels on project costs, closure dates, and compliance agreements. 

It also fails to include the Uranium Enrichment Decontamination 

and Decommission program as previously directed. For any sites to 

be closed in the five-year timeframe, the Environmental Management plan should clearly identify the responsibilities and liabilities 

being handed off to the Office of Legacy Management and should 

quantify the costs of those responsibilities and liabilities. 

The five-year plan prepared by the Office of Science is the most 

useful of the five-year plans, largely because it provides information on alternative funding scenarios. Such information enables 

Congress to understand how different funding levels translate into 

specific actions such as the ability to support all existing Science 

laboratories into the future, to operate existing user facilities at or 

near optimum levels, and to initiate new research facilities and 

programs. The presentation by the Office of Science, and in particular the inclusion of constrained and unconstrained funding scenarios, is the most useful to Congress and should be adopted by the 

Department for its future five-year plans. 

SAFEGUARDS AND SECURITY IMPLEMENTATION

The Committee is disappointed by the findings of its Surveys and 

Investigations Staff that the Department of Energy (DOE) is not 

basing current and future costs to secure the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) nuclear weapons complex on quality 

intelligence. The Committee is particularly troubled by the calculation of safeguards and security requirements and attendant costs 

based on a dubious interagency Postulated Threat process that only 

feeds departmental apprehension, contributing to the perception 

that site security can only be assured by a Design Basis Threat 

(DBT) created to repel a worst-case assault. Each NNSA site has 

unique risk factors, a fact that DOE knows well, and the Committee will not appropriate scarce resources on the basis of worstcase suppositions. Augmenting site defenses to accommodate worstcase scenarios can seldom be funded at a level that will assure a 

risk-free environment; therefore, to sustain the highest level of site 

security, DOE must fully exploit all relevant Intelligence CommuVerDate Aug 04 2004 16:26 May 19, 2005 Jkt 021245 PO 00000 Frm 00091 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\A20967.002 A20967
92 

nity (IC) products to assure NNSA’s site defensive postures and all 

risk factors are carefully managed. 

Because the October 2004 DBT is not anchored in contemporaneous intelligence focused on threats to this country’s nuclear facilities, it is unknown whether the enormous cost to implement this 

DBT is truly necessary. The Committee believes that the failed 

Postulated Threat process must give way to a more comprehensive 

and reliable system of recurring intelligence estimates, the responsibility for which will rest with the Director of National Intelligence 

(DNI). The DNI will ensure that each member of the IC vigorously 

and continuously tasks its intelligence bases to develop the kind 

and quality of intelligence that has, heretofore, been unavailable to 

DOE in support of its DBT process. Although the Committee remains firmly committed to the defense of the nuclear weapons complex, the Committee will not mechanically fund every security 

funding increase request for the 2004 DBT, either through the regular budget process or through supplemental appropriations, until 

the DNI produces an intelligence estimate on which a fully justifiable DBT can be prepared. The first intelligence estimate should be 

available to DOE on or before September 15, 2005, with recurring 

estimates at intervals to be determined by the DNI. 

Special Nuclear Material Consolidation Initiative.—In the absence of a reliable DBT, the Committee directs the Department to 

focus on common-sense security measures such as the Material 

Consolidation Initiative. Recognizing that increased security requirements are an inevitable outcome of the revised threat environment, the Committee has been unimpressed with the apparent lack 

of urgency with which the Department has pursued the consolidation of special nuclear material around the Department of Energy’s 

complex. The Committee understands the historical legacy that results in the fact that special nuclear material is stored at multiple 

sites and multiple facilities within those sites across the DOE complex. However, nearly four years after the 9/11 attacks and nearly 

15 years after the end of significant production activities, the Department has not accomplished any meaningful material consolidation. This indicates to the Committee that there is no institutional 

incentive in the Department to accomplish the material consolidation mission. The security and financial implications of continuing 

business as usual at the Department are unacceptable. The Department’s programmatic stovepiping and the failure of past Departmental attempts to implement common sense directives across the 

entire organization concerns the Committee. The Committee, therefore, directs a number of specific actions in fiscal year 2006 to expedite the consolidation of special nuclear materials. 

Lastly, the Committee finds the lack of oversight applied by Federal site officials within the nuclear weapons complex to be particularly disturbing. Federal oversight is diminished by the fact that 

too few Federal personnel are assigned to oversight responsibilities, 

and those few who do fulfill oversight roles are ill-trained to administer oversight and are denied professional development opportunities to advance their oversight knowledge, skills, and abilities. The 

lack of quality federal oversight, which DOE cannot assure, risks 

producing inaccurate budget estimates that receive only cursory review at critical junctures and are merely passed along to the next 

93 

authority level. If weakened oversight within DOE cannot determine when a contractor is providing inaccurate, incomplete or misleading information, it follows that Federal site officials are incapable of overseeing and assuring quality security. The Committee will 

not accept a weakened oversight capability and urges prompt corrective action. 

LABORATORY DIRECTED RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT (LDRD)

Laboratory Directed Research and Development (LDRD) funding 

levels.—The Committee provides that not more than $250,000,000 

of the funds provided in this Act for the Department of Energy national laboratories and production plants are available for Laboratory Directed Research and Development (LDRD), Plant Directed 

Research and Development (PDRD), and Site Directed Research 

and Development (SDRD) activities. This limitation reflects the 

constrained budget realities that face the Committee generally and 

the DOE funding specifically in fiscal year 2006. 

In a budget year when federal funding constraints have resulted 

in Congress being unable to fund many Congressional priorities 

and when the Department’s overall budget is essentially flat, the 

Committee is unable to reconcile the Department’s significant level 

of support provided to the DOE national laboratories under the authority of the LDRD program. In fiscal year 2004, the national laboratories generated nearly $400,000,000 in discretionary funding 

with an LDRD tax on mission direct activities. This discretionary 

research continued undiminished even though, in one highly publicized instance, the laboratory contractor performed so poorly that, 

for the first time in the laboratory’s history, the Department levied 

a significant reduction in performance fee against the contractor. 

The Committee notes the Department’s misplaced outrage demonstrated by the constant complaining against Congressionally-directed spending priorities while at the same time providing its government contractor executives nearly $400,000,000 of discretionary 

money for activities that are neither explicitly included in the 

President’s budget request nor subject to Congressional review and 

approval. The Committee finds this arrangement not to be in the 

interest of the taxpayer or the Department of Energy and has 

ceased to continue the implicit LDRD earmark to the Department’s 

national laboratories. The Committee feels it is time the Nation realize benefits from the LDRD spending. The Committee notes that 

the Office of Management and Budget apparently agrees, as it proposed a reduction of the maximum allowable LDRD tax in the 

President’s fiscal year 2006 budget request. 

By reducing the contractor-directed LDRD funding to an acceptable level, the Committee action will make available roughly 

$150,000,000 in additional fiscal year 2006 funding for actual program priorities at the laboratories and production plants, such as 

maintaining the reliability of the nation’s nuclear stockpile and ensuring the safety and security of the Department’s special nuclear 

materials. The Committee directs the Department to report to the 

Committee on additional reforms to the current LDRD program 

that would promote cutting edge discretionary research and development while opening up the LDRD funding to non-Laboratory entities to compete for research funds in support of the national deVerDate Aug 04 2004 16:26 May 19, 2005 Jkt 021245 PO 00000 Frm 00093 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\A20967.002 A20967
94 

fense and science mission. The Committee notes that the authorizing language in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 1991 (P.L. 101–510) for Laboratory Directed R&D at DOE’s 

national multipurpose laboratories, required the Secretary of Energy to provide a specific amount to be used by such laboratories 

for national security activities. The Committee directs the Secretary to follow the authorization language and provide a specific 

amount to each Department of Energy facility within the 

$250,000,000 made available for LDRD, PDRD, and SDRD in fiscal 

year 2006. The budget request for fiscal year 2007 should identify 

clearly the recommended LDRD amounts for each laboratory, 

plant, and site conducting LDRD, PDRD, and SDRD, respectively. 

Laboratory Directed Research and Development (LDRD) Cost Accounting Practices.—In a March 4, 1996, memorandum signed by 

the DOE Comptroller, the Department included LDRD project costs 

as part of the General & Administrative (G&A) expense pool. That 

policy effectively increased the value of an LDRD research dollar 

by defining it as an indirect cost that is held harmless when allocating the G&A overhead burden on laboratory activities and, 

therefore, results in a disproportionate additional overhead burden 

on direct program activities. Such a policy undermines the intent 

of the Congress when it authorized the LDRD activity and limited 

the total funding to a percentage of operations and management 

funds. Because laboratory research and development activities are 

functionally identical whether or not the researcher is working on 

a project funded by LDRD funds or direct funded program budgets, 

the Committee does not support the favorable accounting treatment of LDRD project costs as indirect costs for the purposes of defining a contractor’s reimbursable costs. LDRD activities are directly allocable costs that should not be accorded an accounting 

standard that inappropriately increases the actual value of LDRD 

R&D activities at the expense of the direct program mission work 

at the DOE facilities. The Committee directs the Secretary of Energy to implement cost accounting practices for the Major Facility 

Operating Contractors that define LDRD, PDRD, and SDRD as a 

Direct Cost element subject to all appropriate overhead burdens allowable under the respective contracts. 

This direction will generate additional resources for the direct 

funded mission activities by eliminating the disproportional overhead burden on the basic mission work that results from waiving 

overhead costs on laboratory research activities funded with LDRD 

funds. 

NON-NNSA WORK AT NNSA FACILITIES

In the statement of managers accompanying the Energy and 

Water Development Appropriations Act, 2005 (P.L. 108–447), the 

conferees directed the Secretary of Energy, working with the Administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration 

(NNSA), to put in place within 90 days of enactment of the Act 

written procedures for work taskings originating from non-NNSA 

program offices in DOE to NNSA laboratories. These procedures 

must be consistent with the constraints of Section 3213 of Public 

Law 106–65, as subsequently modified by Section 3157 of Public 

Law 106–398, and must follow the chain of command (i.e., through 

95 

the Secretary of Energy and the Administrator of the NNSA to the 

NNSA field elements ) that is clearly specified in those statutes. To 

date, the Committee has seen no evidence that the Secretary has 

complied with this direction. 

PROJECT MANAGEMENT

The Committee repeats its prior guidance on the importance of 

improving the project management culture within the Department 

and on compliance with Project Management Order 413.3. It is important for the Department to maintain its focus on project management for all aspects of its work, but most especially to major 

capital projects. 

AUGMENTING FEDERAL STAFF

The Committee continues to believe there is too much reliance on 

support service contractors and other non-Federal employees 

throughout the Department of Energy, but particularly in the Department’s Washington operations. The number of management 

and operating (M&O) contractor employees assigned to the Washington metropolitan area in fiscal year 2006 shall not exceed 220, 

the same as the fiscal year 2005 ceiling. 

Report on M&O contractor employees.—The Department is to 

provide at the end of fiscal year 2005 a report to the Committee 

on the use of M&O contractor employees assigned to the Washington metropolitan area. The report is to identify all M&O contractor employees who work in the Washington metropolitan area, 

including the name of the employee, the name of the contractor, 

the organization to which he or she is assigned, the job title and 

a description of the tasks the employee is performing, the annual 

cost of the employee to the Department, the Headquarters program 

organization sponsoring each M&O employee, the program account 

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, 2004 through September 30, 

2005, and is due to the Committee on January 31, 2006. 

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, 2004 through September 30, 2005, and is due to the Committee on January 31, 2006. 

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 

96 

and activities funded in the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act. 

Definition.—A reprogramming includes the reallocation of funds 

from one activity to another within an appropriation, or any significant departure from a program, project, or activity described in the 

agency’s budget justification as presented to and approved by Congress. For construction projects, a reprogramming constitutes the 

reallocation of funds from one construction project identified in the 

justifications to another project, or a significant change in the scope 

of an approved project. 

Criteria for Reprogramming.—A reprogramming should be made 

only when an unforeseen situation arises, and then only if delay of 

the project or the activity until the next appropriations year would 

result in a detrimental impact to an agency program or priority. 

Reprogrammings may also be considered if the Department can 

show that significant cost savings can accrue by increasing funding 

for an activity. Mere convenience or preference should not be factors for consideration. 

Reprogrammings shall not be employed to initiate new programs 

or to change program, project, or activity allocations specifically denied, limited, or increased by Congress in this Act or the accompanying report. In cases where unforeseen events or conditions are 

deemed to require such changes, proposals shall be submitted in 

advance to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations 

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 2006, 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 House and Senate Committees on Appropriations. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee’s recommendations for Department of Energy 

programs are described in the following sections. A detailed funding table is included at the end of this title. 

ENERGY SUPPLY AND CONSERVATION

Appropriation, 2005 ............................................................................ $1,806,936,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ....................................................................... 1,749,446,000 

Recommended, 2006 ........................................................................... 1,762,888,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2005 .................................................................... ¥44,048,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ................................................................ +13,442,000 

The Energy Supply and Conservation account includes the following programs: Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Nuclear Energy, Electricity Transmission and Distribution, Environment, Safety and Health (non-defense), and Legacy Management. 

Energy Conservation programs previously funded by the Interior 

97 

and Related Agencies Appropriations Act are now funded by the 

Energy Supply and Conservation appropriation, and are combined 

with energy efficiency activities in the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy account. As in fiscal year 2005, the Committee recommends that the funds for Energy Supply and Conservation activities remain available until expended. 

ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY RESOURCES

The total Committee recommendation for energy efficiency and 

renewable energy resources is $1,235,816,000 an increase of 

$35,402,000 compared to the budget request. This increase is for 

additional research and development activities in biomass and biorefinery systems, building and industrial energy conservation, and 

weatherization. 

The Committee supports the efforts by the Assistant Secretary 

for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) and his staff 

to strengthen project management in EERE, with the establishment of the Project Management Center (PMC). With the success 

of the PMC, the Committee sees no need for third-party contracting 

agents, and discourages the Department from engaging in thirdparty arrangements for the award and distribution of federal funds. 

ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY PROGRAMS

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Programs include biomass and biorefinery systems R&D, geothermal technology, hydrogen technology, hydropower, solar energy, and wind energy technologies. Energy conservation activities include improving the efficiency of vehicle, building, fuel cell, industrial, and distributed energy technologies. 

Hydrogen Technology.—This account combines the Energy Supply Hydrogen Technology account and the Energy Conservation 

Fuel-Cell Technologies account, previously funded within the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations. The hydrogen technology 

program seeks to develop hydrogen production, storage, delivery, 

and fuel cell technologies for transportation and stationary applications. These technologies will be more energy efficient, cleaner, 

safer and less costly than those currently in use. The Committee 

recommendation for hydrogen technology is $182,694,000, the same 

as the budget request, of which $83,600,000 is designated for fuel 

cell technologies. 

Biomass and Biorefinery Systems R&D.—This account combines 

the Energy Supply Biomass and Biorefinery systems R&D account 

and the Energy Conservation Biomass and Biorefinery Systems 

R&D account, previously funded by the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act. Biomass and Biorefinery Systems R&D 

will conduct research, development and technology validation on 

advanced technologies that will enable future biorefineries to convert cellulosic biomass to fuels, chemicals, heat and power. The 

program focuses on reducing processing energy requirements and 

production costs in biomass processing plants and future integrated 

industrial biorefineries. The Committee recommendation for integrated research and development on biomass and biorefinery systems is $86,164,000, an increase of $14,000,000 from the budget reVerDate Aug 04 2004 16:26 May 19, 2005 Jkt 021245 PO 00000 Frm 00097 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A20967.002 A20967
98 

quest. The increase is for additional thermochemical and bioconversion platform research and development. 

Solar Energy.—Solar energy technologies include: photovoltaic 

energy systems, solar heating and lighting, and concentrating solar 

power. These subprograms are combined into a single account for 

solar energy, and the control level for fiscal year 2006 continues at 

the solar energy program account level. The total Committee recommendation for solar energy for fiscal year 2006 is $83,953,000, 

the same as the budget request. 

Wind Energy Systems.—Wind energy systems are beginning to 

penetrate the electricity generation market in the United States. 

Given the technical maturity of high-capacity wind energy systems, 

the wind energy systems program will focus on 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 resources, particularly beyond the viewshed of coastal 

communities. The Committee recommends $44,249,000 for wind energy systems, the same as the budget request. 

Geothermal Technology.—This program develops enhanced geothermal systems that will allow the broader use of geothermal energy throughout the United States, through cooperative research 

with industry, universities, and other government agencies to reduce the cost of geothermal development and to identify new resources. The Committee provides $23,299,000 for geothermal technology development, the same as the budget request. 

Hydropower.—The Committee recommends $500,000 for hydropower research, the same as the budget request. The Department 

should complete integration studies and close out outstanding contracts in advanced hydropower technology. 

Vehicle Technologies.—This program was previously funded in 

the Energy Conservation account in the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, and now is funded within the Energy Supply and Conservation account of this Act. The Vehicle Technologies 

program seeks technology breakthroughs to reduce greatly 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 

$167,943,000, an increase of $2,000,000 above the budget request. 

The increase provides $1,000,000 for the High Temperature Material Laboratory, and $1,000,000 for Advanced Combustion R&D, 

Combustion and Emission Control. 

Building Technologies.—This program was previously funded in 

the Energy Conservation account in the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, and now is funded within the Energy Supply and Conservation account. In partnership with the buildings industry, this program develops, promotes, and integrates energy 

technologies and practices to make buildings more efficient and affordable. The Committee recommends $64,966,000, an increase of 

$7,000,000 over the budget request of $57,966,000. The recommendation provides $2,000,000 to restore funding at fiscal year 

2005 levels for equipment standards and analysis at $10,256,000; 

and an increase of $5,000,000 for emerging technologies, which inVerDate Aug 04 2004 16:26 May 19, 2005 Jkt 021245 PO 00000 Frm 00098 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A20967.002 A20967
99 

cludes $2,000,000 for lighting R&D, and $3,000,000 for thermal insulation and building materials. 

Report Requirement.—The appliance efficiency standards program, funded within the equipment standards and analysis subaccount, may be the most successful of all federal efficiency programs. The Committee understands that the Department is delayed in meeting legal deadlines for issuing approximately twenty 

new and updated programs, and that its three highest priority 

rulemakings will be delayed at least two years. The Committee 

notes that while the Department is behind in meeting legal deadlines for the issuance of certain rulemakings, its budget request reflects a reduction in resources needed to process such rulemakings. 

The goal of the Department’s own ‘‘Process Improvement’’ rule (61 

FR 36974) is to complete rulemakings within three years, including 

18 months from Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to 

issuance of a final rule. The Committee strongly urges the Secretary to expedite the process, and requests that the Secretary report to the Committee by December 1, 2005 on plans to accelerate 

standards rulemakings, including: —A timeline for work on issuing the three highest priority 

standards, with an explanation for the additional delays announced in December 2004; —A plan for addressing the backlog of standards 

rulemakings that have missed legal or internal deadlines, including a list of the affected products and deadlines, timelines 

for action on each product, and funding requirements to complete each rulemaking; and —A description of how the Department will meet the timeframe goals of the ‘‘Process Improvement’’ rule, or of how the 

process should be changed so that the Department can meet 

the goals. 

Lighting R&D.—Improvements in energy efficiency that can result from development and deployment of solid-state lighting technologies show great promise. The goal is to have lighting systems 

that deliver 150 lumens per watt—roughly 50% better in terms of 

light per watt of electricity than most conventional systems—at 

costs that are competitive. Lighting constitutes about 30% of total 

energy use in US buildings, so increased investment in lighting 

technologies has the potential to reduce total building energy consumption by 10%. 

Industrial Technologies.—This program was previously funded in 

the Energy Conservation account in the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, and now is funded within the Energy Supply and Conservation appropriation account within this Act. The 

Industrial technologies program cost shares research in critical 

technology areas identified in partnership with industry in order to 

realize significant energy benefits. The Committee recommends 

$58,891,000, an increase of $2,402,000 over the budget request, and 

a reduction of $16,458,000 below fiscal year 2005 levels. The recommendation provides the $2,402,000 increase for Industries of the 

Future to partially restore some of these programmatic reductions. 

Distributed Energy and Electricity Reliability Program.—This 

program was previously funded in the Energy Conservation account in the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, and 

100 

now is funded within the Energy Supply and Conservation account 

within this Act. This program funds research and development to 

transform the current electrical generation sector to a smarter, 

more flexible and efficient energy system through the development 

and integration of distributed generation and combined heat and 

power technologies. The Committee recommends $56,629,000, the 

same as the budget request. 

Federal Energy Management Programs.—The Federal Energy 

Management Program was previously funded in the Energy Conservation account in the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act. The Committee has combined it with the Energy Supply 

and Conservation Departmental Energy Management Program, so 

that energy efficiency programs for both the DOE and other Federal agencies are funded in one appropriations account. Federal 

Energy Management Programs 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 $19,166,000, the same as the budget request. 

Facilities and Infrastructure.—The Committee recommendation 

for renewable energy Facilities and Infrastructure is $16,315,000, 

the same as the budget request and an increase of $4,926,000 compared to fiscal year 2005. This amount includes $5,800,000 for operations and maintenance of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) in Golden, Colorado, and $10,515,000 to complete 

construction of the new Science and Technology facility at NREL 

(project 02–E–001). 

Weatherization and Intergovernmental activities.—Weatherization assistance program grants, state energy program grants, state 

energy activities and gateway deployment were previously funded 

in the Energy Conservation account in the Interior and Related 

Agencies Appropriations Act, and are now funded within the Energy Supply and Conversation account within this Act. Intergovernmental activities within the Energy Supply and Conversation appropriation include the International Renewable Energy Program, 

Tribal energy activities and the Renewable Energy Production Incentive. 

The Committee recommends $235,400,000 for weatherization assistance program grants, $4,600,000 for training and technical assistance, $41,000,000 for state energy program grants, $500,000 for 

state energy activities the same as the request, and $25,657,000 for 

gateway deployment, a reduction of $1,000,000 from the request. 

The Committee recommends that gateway deployment funds be 

distributed as follows: $2,807,000 for Rebuild America, $350,000 for 

energy efficiency information and outreach, $5,500,000 for building 

codes training and assistance, $7,000,000 for Clean Cities, 

$6,000,000 for Energy Star, and $4,000,000 for inventions and innovations. The Committee recommends $12,910,000 for Intergovernmental Activities, an increase of $1,000,000 over the budget request, to include $3,910,000 for the international renewable energy 

program, $4,000,000 for tribal energy activities, and $5,000,000 for 

the Renewable Energy Production Incentive (REPI). 

101 

Program Support.—This account reflects a consolidation of the 

Energy Conservation Program Management activities, such as 

planning, analysis and evaluation and, information, communications and outreach, which were funded previously in the Interior 

and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, with the Energy Supply 

Renewable Program Support. The Committee recommendation for 

Program Support is $9,456,000 the same as the budget request. 

Program Direction.—This account reflects a consolidation of the 

Energy Conservation Program Direction account, which was funded 

previously in the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 

with the Energy Supply Renewable Program Direction account. 

The Committee recommendation for Program Direction is 

$101,524,000, the same as the budget request. 

Congressionally Directed Projects.—The Committee recommendation includes the following Congressionally directed projects, within 

available funds. The Committee reminds recipients that statutory 

cost sharing requirements may attach to these projects. 

102 


Insert graphic folio 100 HR86.039
103 

ELECTRICITY TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION

The Committee recommendation for Electricity Transmission and 

Distribution is $99,849,000, an increase of $4,245,000 from the 

budget request. The Committee does not support the entire requested increase for program direction. Instead, the Committee recommends $10,447,000 for program direction activities, an increase 

of $2,312,000 over the fiscal year 2005 level. Detailed subprogram 

allocations are shown in the table at the end of Title III. 

Congressionally Directed Projects.—The Committee recommendation includes the following Congressionally directed projects, within 

available funds. The Committee reminds recipients that statutory 

cost sharing requirements may attach to these projects. 

104 


Insert graphic folio 040 here 20967.040
105 

NUCLEAR ENERGY PROGRAMS

The Committee recommendation for nuclear energy programs 

under the Energy Supply and Conservation appropriation is 

$377,701,000, a decrease of $12,205,000 below the budget request. 

This net decrease reflects the Committee’s recommendation to shift 

the responsibility for U–233 disposition at Oak Ridge from Nuclear 

Energy Programs to NNSA, a reduction of $18,705,000, and a reduction of $10,000,000 to Nuclear Power 2010. The Committee has 

provided an additional $16,500,000 for increased programmatic activities for the Office of Nuclear Energy, as described below. 

Of the total funding of $515,074,000 provided for Nuclear Energy 

programs and facilities, $137,373,000 represents costs allocated to 

the 050 budget function (i.e., defense activities.) These defense-related costs, which include $3,003,000 representing the security 

charges for reimbursable work, and are funded under the Other 

Defense Activities and Naval Reactors accounts. Within the total 

amount provided, $3,000,000 is for the transfer and implementation of nuclear safety technologies in Lithuania. 

UNIVERSITY REACTOR FUEL ASSISTANCE AND SUPPORT

The Committee recommends $24,000,000, the same as the budget 

request. The Committee continues to support DOE’s programs to 

sustain existing university reactors and provide grants and fellowships that support nuclear science and engineering education. 

NUCLEAR ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

Nuclear Power 2010.—The Committee provides $46,000,000 for Nuclear Power 2010, a decrease of $10,000,000 from the budget request. 

Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems.—The Committee supports the Department’s collaborative efforts on the research and development of a Generation IV reactor design that will be safer, 

more cost effective, and more proliferation resistant than current 

designs. The Committee recommends a total of $45,000,000 for 

Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems, the same as the budget request and an increase of $5,320,000 over the fiscal year 2005 enacted level. Within available funds, $1,000,000 is made available 

for work on high temperature fuel fabrication techniques in support 

of the Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems under the direction 

of Idaho National Laboratory (INL). 

Nuclear hydrogen initiative.—The Committee provides 

$20,000,000 for the nuclear hydrogen initiative, the same as the 

budget request. The Committee expects the Department to meet 

the requirements of the Hydrogen Future Act of 1996 (P.L. 104–

271) for competition and industry cost sharing, and expects the Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology to coordinate the 

nuclear hydrogen initiative fully with the other hydrogen research 

being conducted by the Office of Science and the Office of Energy 

Efficiency and Renewable Energy. 

Spent Fuel Recycling Initiative.—As mentioned previously in this 

report, the Committee directs the Department to conduct a new 

Spent Fuel Recycling Initiative, which has linked elements in both 

the Nuclear Energy and Nuclear Waste Disposal accounts. One 

106 

part of this initiative requires the Department to begin to move existing spent nuclear fuel away from commercial reactor sites to centralized interim storage at one or more DOE sites. This task is the 

responsibility of the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, and funding and direction are provided under the Nuclear 

Waste Disposal account. The other part of this initiative deals with 

developing a new strategy for managing future spent fuel, which is 

the responsibility of the Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and 

Technology within the Energy Supply and Conservation account. 

Up until the mid-1970s, the Federal government encouraged the 

reprocessing of commercial spent fuel in the United States, and 

commercial reprocessing facilities were developed at Morris (IL), 

West Valley (NY), and Barnwell (SC). Only the West Valley facility 

was ever operated, and it reprocessed both commercial and defense 

spent fuel. In the late 1970s, the United States decided to suspend 

commercial reprocessing efforts, primarily due to non-proliferation 

concerns that separated plutonium could be diverted to produce illicit nuclear weapons. Spent nuclear fuel, which contains a small 

percentage of plutonium created during the fission reaction, was 

considered to be inherently self-protecting because its high radiation levels would prevent its diversion to other purposes. Therefore, as long as it was not reprocessed, spent nuclear fuel was not 

considered to pose a significant proliferation risk. The U.S. ban on 

reprocessing was lifted in the 1980s, but economics did not support 

the reprocessing of commercial spent nuclear fuel at that time, especially in light of the lack of new nuclear plant orders and cancellation of existing orders after the Three Mile Island accident in 

1979. 

Since the 1970s, U.S. policy on spent nuclear fuel has been to 

utilize the once-through fuel cycle and to store the spent fuel at reactor sites until it can be sent to the repository for permanent geologic disposal, without recycling the spent fuel. By the year 2005, 

however, several key conditions have changed significantly. A number of European countries are using existing reprocessing capabilities to recycle spent fuel in a safe and secure manner using the 

chemical reprocessing technology known as PUREX. There is no 

evidence that these reprocessing operations pose a significant proliferation risk. In part, the proliferation risk is manageable and acceptable because these countries recycle as they go, so that spent 

fuel is reprocessed and then promptly made into new mixed oxide 

fuel. These countries also vitrify the high-level waste promptly, 

avoiding the problems that the U.S. has encountered with storing 

large volumes of liquid high-level radioactive waste. New reprocessing technologies are becoming available that reduce the volume, 

toxicity, and fissile material content of the material requiring disposal in a permanent repository. New separation and reprocessing 

technologies may avoid the problems caused by separated plutonium and will produce smaller waste streams of high-level radioactive waste. Lastly, the theft or diversion of weapons-grade nuclear materials (i.e., plutonium and highly-enriched uranium) is no 

longer the only nuclear-related security concern. After the terrorist 

attacks of September 11, 2001, there are serious concerns about the 

potential for using spent nuclear fuel to create a ‘‘dirty bomb’’ to 

spread radioactive contamination over a large area. Spent nuclear 

107 

fuel is currently stored at 72 commercial reactor sites in 33 States, 

as well as at a number of other DOE and commercial storage sites. 

The utilities and the Federal government spend a significant 

amount of money securing this spent fuel. While some onsite storage of spent fuel is necessary while the spent fuel cools, and more 

extensive onsite storage may be a manageable security risk, the 

large-scale and long-term storage of spent fuel at reactor sites is 

nevertheless an expensive and unnecessary risk. These security 

costs are making the once-through fuel cycle progressively more expensive. Common sense dictates that these materials would be better stored in fewer, centralized interim storage facilities in remote 

locations, away from population centers and water supplies. Although reprocessed mixed oxide reactor fuel is presently more costly than fresh uranium oxide fuel, the price of uranium has been 

rising in recent years. Also, there is not a life-cycle comparison that 

reflects the added costs for onsite storage of once-through spent 

fuel, the extended life of the repository up to 300,000 years (in accordance with the court-ordered review of the radiation standard), 

and the estimated $1 billion per year cost for delay in opening the 

Yucca Mountain repository. 

Shifting away from a once-through fuel cycle to a recycling approach does not eliminate the need for a geologic repository for future spent fuel disposal, because significant quantities of high-level 

waste that will require long-term geologic isolation will remain. 

However, recycling via advanced reprocessing technologies can reduce the volume of such high-level waste substantially. Such a volume reduction could obviate the need to expand Yucca or site a second repository in the near future. Reprocessing can also reduce the 

radiotoxicity of the waste products, making a repository a simpler 

proposition to license. Also, by vitrifying the high-level waste into 

glass cylinders, the long-term protection comes from the properties 

of the glass itself, lessening the reliance on metal containers for 

long-term isolation of spent fuel. A shift to recycling our nuclear reactor fuel will reduce the Nation’s dependence on foreign sources 

of fuel for present and planned future reactors, and the construction of new reactors can reduce the Nation’s dependence on imported fossil fuels. 

Therefore, the Committee directs the Office of Nuclear Energy, 

Science and Technology to focus its research under the Advanced 

Fuel Cycle Initiative to develop advanced reprocessing and transmutation technologies that will improve upon the existing PUREX 

process. The Department shall accelerate this research in order to 

make a specific technology recommendation, not later than the end 

of fiscal year 2007, to the President and Congress on a particular 

reprocessing technology that should be implemented in the United 

States. In addition, the Department shall prepare an integrated 

spent fuel recycling plan for implementation beginning in fiscal 

year 2007, including recommendation of an advanced reprocessing 

technology and a competitive process to select one or more sites to 

develop integrated spent fuel recycling facilities (i.e., reprocessing, 

preparation of mixed oxide fuel, vitrification of high level waste 

products, and temporary process storage). Some of the DOE sites 

would seem obvious candidates for such facilities, but there may 

108 

also be interest from some States and other entities to host such 

facilities. 

Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative.—The Committee recommendation 

for the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative (AFCI) is $75,500,000, an increase of $8,044,000 over the current year and $5,500,000 more 

than the budget request. The additional funds are to be used to accelerate the development and selection of a separations technology 

no later than the end of fiscal year 2007 that can address the current inventories of commercial spent nuclear fuel, and prepare an 

integrated spent nuclear fuel recycling plan. The Committee directs 

the Department to submit the integrated spent nuclear fuel recycling plan to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations 

by January 31, 2007. 

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 users 

fund DOE’s actual operational, production, and research activities 

on a reimbursable basis. 

Space and defense infrastructure.—The Committee recommendation is $39,700,000, an increase of $8,500,000 over 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. 

The Committee recognizes the need to make available additional 

floor space in TA–55 for pit production, and directs the Department 

to develop a strategy to relocate expeditiously the mission for Pu– 238 processing from Los Alamos to Idaho National Laboratory. The 

Committee provides an increase of $8,500,000 for INL to plan and 

build the capability to assume the Pu–238 mission, avoiding a gap 

in capability during the mission transfer. The Committee directs 

the Department to provide a mid-year report by January 31, 2006, 

on the transfer strategy and associated costs. 

Medical isotopes infrastructure.—The Committee recommendation is $14,395,000, a reduction of $18,705,000 from the budget request. The recommendation provides the requested amounts for 

Oak Ridge buildings 3047, 5500, 9204–3, the Calutron building at 

Y–12, isotope business management information, and for various 

facility costs at Brookhaven, Los Alamos, and Sandia national laboratories. 

The Committee provides no funding for the Medical Isotope Production and Building 3019 Complex Shutdown project. The Committee has been skeptical since the onset of this project, skepticism 

which has been confirmed when the fiscal year 2006 budget justification data sheet reveals that the costs for this project have increased by 3.5 times over the previous cost estimate. The Department acknowledges that this new increased estimate does not even 

include funding necessary to meet the latest security requirements 

for this facility. Therefore, the Committee directs the Department 

to terminate promptly the Medical Isotope Production and Building 

3019 Complex Shutdown project, and directs the NNSA to retrieve 

the U–233 material and put it into secure storage at a NNSA site. 

109 

One of the highest priorities for the Committee is to ensure the 

swift and safe consolidation of special nuclear materials at DOE 

sites. The Committee expects the Office of Nuclear Energy to work 

cooperatively and effectively with the Office of Security and Performance Assurance to expeditiously achieve consolidation goals, 

thereby limiting the number of sites where the DOE holds and protects category I and II special nuclear materials. 

Enrichment facility infrastructure.—The Committee recommendation includes the requested $500,000 for oversight of enrichment facilities at the Government-owned, USEC-operated gaseous diffusion plant at Paducah. 

IDAHO FACILITIES MANAGEMENT

This program funds the operations and construction activities at 

the Idaho National Laboratory (INL), including ANL–West and the 

Test Reactor Area. The Committee provides $113,862,000 for Idaho 

Facilities Management, an increase of $16,000,000 over the budget 

request. Of this total, $82,600,000 is allotted to the 270 budget 

function and the balance, $31,262,000, is allotted to the 050 function and funded under Other Defense Activities and Naval Reactors. 

INL operations.—The Committee recommendation provides the 

requested amount of funding, $69,145,000 from function 270 Energy Supply, $17,762,000 from Other Defense Activities, and an increase of $13,500,000 from the Office of Naval Reactors to support 

the Idaho National Laboratory’s Advanced Test Reactor (ATR). The 

increase is provided to maintain the current level of operations, 

make improvements, and implement the Long Range Operating 

Plan at the ATR. The Committee also provides an additional 

$2,500,000 for the utility corridor extension project at the Idaho 

National Laboratory. 

INL Construction.—The Committee recommends $10,955,000 for 

Idaho facilities construction, the same as the budget request. This 

includes the requested amounts for the Gas Test Loop in the Advanced Test Reactor. 

Idaho Site-wide Safeguards and Security 

Consistent with the budget request, this activity is funded at the 

requested level of $75,008,000 as an 050 defense activity under the 

Other Defense Activities account. 

PROGRAM DIRECTION

The Committee recommends a total funding level for program direction of $61,109,000, the same as the budget request and 

$1,033,000 more than the current fiscal year. Of this amount, 

$30,006,000 is funded in the Energy Supply appropriation under 

budget function 270, and $31,103,000 is funded in the Other Defense Activities appropriation under budget function 050. 

ENVIRONMENT, SAFETY AND HEALTH

The Committee recommendation is $26,000,000, a reduction of 

$4,000,000 from the budget request due to overall funding constraints. The Committee recommendation includes $20,900,000 for 

110 

program direction, the same as the budget request. Like fiscal year 

2005, no funds are provided in this Act for the Department to finalize or implement a new worker safety rule in fiscal year 2006. 

LEGACY MANAGEMENT

The Committee recommendation includes $23,522,000 for the Office of Legacy Management, a reduction of $10,000,000 from the 

budget request. Committee directs the Department to reassess the 

proportional split between non-defense and defense funding for 

Legacy Management activities in anticipation of the defense closure 

sites transitioning to Legacy Management responsibility. Funding 

from the Energy Supply account is provided for the long-term surveillance and maintenance of non-defense DOE sites where remediation has been substantially completed, to oversee post-retirement 

benefits for former DOE contractor employees, and for records 

management and retrieval. 

CLEAN COAL TECHNOLOGY

(DEFERRAL)

The Committee recommends the deferral of $257,000,000 in clean 

coal technology funding until fiscal year 2007. These balances are 

not needed to complete active projects in this program. Funds are 

to be used for costs associated with the FutureGen program in fiscal 2007 and beyond, to develop a coal-fired, nearly emissions-free 

electricity and hydrogen generation plant. 

FOSSIL ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

Fossil energy research and development programs are intended 

to make prudent investments in long-range research and development that help protect the environment through higher efficiency 

power generation, advanced technologies and improved compliance 

and stewardship operations. These activities safeguard our domestic energy security. This country will continue to rely on traditional 

fossil fuels for the majority of its energy requirements for the foreseeable future, and the activities funded through this account ensure that energy technologies continue to improve with respect to 

emissions reductions and control and energy efficiency. 

Fossil fuels, especially coal, are this country’s most abundant and 

lowest cost fuels for electric power generation. The power generation technology research funded under this account has the goal of 

developing virtually pollution-free coal power plants within the 

next 15 or 20 years and doubling the amount of electricity produced 

from the same amount of fuel. 

The Committee recommendation is $502,467,000, an increase of 

$11,011,000 over the request, and a decrease of $69,387,000 from 

fiscal year 2005 enacted levels. 

Appropriation, 2005 ............................................................................ $571,854,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ....................................................................... 491,456,000 

Recommended, 2006 ........................................................................... 502,467,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2005 ........................................................................ ¥69,387,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 .................................................................... +11,011,000 

111 

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 $50,000,000 for the clean coal power initiative, the 

same as the budget request. This funding will support the third 

round of demonstration projects, incorporating the latest advances 

in clean coal technologies. 

FutureGen.—FutureGen is a $1 billion project, cost-shared with 

the private sector, to create the world’s first fossil fuel-fired, zero 

emissions, electricity and hydrogen-producing power plant. The 

Committee recommends $18,000,000, the same as the request, for 

FutureGen. This funding will support the continuation of site characterization, technology assessments and preliminary design. 

Fuels and Power Systems.—The Committee recommends a total 

of $265,800,000 for fuels and power systems, a decrease of 

$17,200,000 from the budget request. The recommendation provides $23,850,000 for innovations for existing plants, $56,450,000 

for advanced Integrated Gas Combined Cycle, and $18,000,000 for 

advanced turbines, the same as the request. The Committee recommends $50,000,000 for carbon sequestration, a reduction of 

$17,200,000 from the request, and an increase of $4,639,000 over 

last year’s level. The Committee believes that this level of funding 

is sufficient to accomplish numerous pilot-scale capture tests. The 

program cannot absorb the scale of resources proposed in the request, and these resources are better utilized for other nearer-term 

technologies within the Fossil Energy R&D portfolio. The Committee recommends $22,000,000 for fuels, $65,000,000 for fuel cells, 

and $30,500,000 for advanced research, the same as the request. 

Natural Gas Technologies.—The Committee recommends 

$33,000,000 for natural gas technologies, an increase of 

$23,000,000 over the budget request and $11,389,000 below the fiscal year 2005 level. The budget request is $10,000,000 for natural 

gas technologies, to terminate the program and close-out existing 

contracts. The Committee is concerned that with U.S. over-reliance 

on foreign oil imports and the pressures to increase greatly imports 

of natural gas, the budget proposes to terminate the federal research and development programs that seek to promote enhanced 

oil and gas recovery from existing domestic sources through new 

technology. 

Within the $33,000,000 provided, the Committee recommends 

$9,000,000 for advance drilling, completion and stimulation, including Deep Trek; $4,000,000 to continue work aimed at expanding 

the recoverability of natural gas from low-permeability formations; 

$2,000,000 for stripper wells and technology transfer; $1,000,000 to 

improve the reliability and efficiency of gas storage system; and 

$2,000,000 for liquid 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. Within the funds provided, the Committee recommends 

$12,000,000 for gas hydrates, an increase of $12,000,000 over the 

112 

request, and an increase of $2,632,000 over fiscal year 2005 enacted levels. The Committee recommends $3,000,000 to continue 

research to develop treatment technologies that will allow water 

from conventional gas wells or coal bed methane wells to be put to 

beneficial use or to be safely discharged to the surface. 

Petroleum-Oil Technologies.—The Committee recommends 

$29,000,000 for petroleum-oil technologies, an increase of 

$19,000,000 over the budget request and $4,921,000 below the fiscal year 2005 level. The budget request of $10,000,000 for petroleum-oil technologies is to terminate the program and close-out existing contracts. The Committee supports the continuance of these 

important research and development programs that are targeted at 

maximizing domestic oil production for the smaller producer, and 

decreasing reliance on foreign oil imports. Small independent businesses account for 50 percent of domestic petroleum production in 

the lower 48 states. Even when new technology is available, independent producers often lack the investment capital to cope with 

the increased technical risks associated with hard-to-recover resources. As a result, anywhere from 30 to 70 percent of oil is not 

recovered in field development. It is estimated that enhanced oil recovery projects, including development of new recovery techniques, 

could add about 60 billion barrels of oil nationwide from existing 

fields. 

Within the funds provided, the Committee recommends 

$4,000,000 for enhancing utilization of industrial carbon dioxide; 

$4,000,000 for drilling and completion enhancements that support 

Microhole exploration; $4,000,000 for reservoir imaging; $3,000,000 

for improved gas flooding recovery methods; $6,000,000 for reservoir life extension; and $8,000,000 for environmental protection. 

Strategic Plans.—In light of the criticism launched at the natural 

gas and petroleum/oil research and development programs, illustrated by the poor score achieved in the Administration’s PART 

tool, the Department needs a better mechanism to articulate its 

achievements in these areas. The Department is encouraged to develop a strategic planning process that demonstrates a clear path 

of investment that will yield demonstrable results, and better reflect the successes of these programs. The Department is directed 

to report to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations 

by December 15, 2005, on the progress of implementing its strategic planning process for the natural gas and petroleum-oil research and development programs. 

Program Direction.—The Committee recommends $105,152,000 

for program direction, an increase of $6,211,000 over the budget request. The Committee seeks to maintain the personnel that otherwise would be lost as the result of the proposed gas and petroleumoil program terminations. 

Other programs.—The Committee recommendation includes the 

requested amounts of $8,060,000 for fossil energy environmental 

restoration; $1,799,000 for import/export authorization; $8,000,000 

for advanced metallurgical research; $656,000 for special recruitment programs and $3,000,000 for cooperative research and development. 

113 

Prior year balances.—The Committee recommends a reduction of 

$20,000,000 of prior year uncommitted balances from excess contingency estimates in demonstration projects. 

Congressionally Directed Projects.—The Committee recommendation includes the following Congressionally directed projects, within 

available funds: 

Fuels & Power: 

Center for Zero Emissions Research & Technology (MT) ..................... $4,000,000 

Jupiter Oxy Fuel Technology (multi state) ............................................ 5,000,000 

Solid Oxide fuel cell tech. stat. power applications project (NC) ......... 1,000,000 

MW-scale oxide fuel cell gas turbine hybrid system (multi state) ....... 2,500,000 

MW-scale solid oxide fuel cell stat. power generation (OH) ................. 3,000,000 

Ramgen engine development (multi state) ............................................. 2,500,000 

Center for Advanced Separation Technologies (VA) .............................. 1,000,000 

Power Plant Flue Gas Cleaning/Pill Elimination Project (VA) ............ 2,000,000 

NAVAL PETROLEUM AND OIL SHALE RESERVES

The Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves no longer serve the 

national defense purpose envisioned in the early 1900’s, and consequently the National Defense Authorization Act for 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 

Corporation in 1998. Following the sale of Elk Hills and the transfer of the oil shale reserves, DOE retains two Naval Petroleum Reserve properties: the Naval Petroleum Reserve 3 in Wyoming (Teapot Dome field), a stripper well oil field that the Department is 

maintaining until it reaches its economic production limit; and the 

Buena Vista Hills Naval Petroleum Reserve 2 in California, a 

checkerboard pattern of government and privately owned tracts adjacent to the Elk Hills field. The DOE continues to be responsible 

for routine operations and maintenance of NPR–3, management of 

the Rocky Mountain Oilfield Testing Center at NPR–3, lease management at NPR–2, and continuing environmental and remediation 

work at Elk Hills. 

Appropriation, 2005 ............................................................................ $17,750,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ....................................................................... 18,500,000 

Recommended, 2006 ........................................................................... 18,500,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2005 ........................................................................ +750,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 .................................................................... ............................

The Committee recommends $18,500,000, the same as the budget 

request for the operation of the naval petroleum and oil shale reserves and an increase of $750,000 above the fiscal year 2005 level. 

ELK HILLS SCHOOL LANDS FUND

Payment to the Elk Hills school lands fund was part of the settlement associated with the sale of the Naval Petroleum Reserve 

Number 1. Under the settlement, payments to the fund are to be 

made over a period of seven years. The payments to date 

($216,000,000) were based on an estimate of the amount that 

would be required to pay the State of California nine percent of the 

net sales of proceeds. 

114 

Appropriation, 2005 ............................................................................ 1 $36,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ....................................................................... 48,000,000 

Recommended, 2006 ........................................................................... 48,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2005 ........................................................................ +48,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 .................................................................... ............................

1The FY 2005 enacted level reflects an advanced appropriation available on October 1, 2005. 

The Committee recommends $48,000,000, the same as the budget 

request, and combined with the fiscal year 2005 advance appropriation of $36,000,000, will make available a total of $84,000,000 in 

fiscal year 2006. While this represents Payment #7 in a series of 

seven payments, the Committee understands that the final amount 

due will be based on the resolution of equity determinations, which 

cannot be determined until all divestment-related expenses are accounted for. 

STRATEGIC PETROLEUM RESERVE

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 will be filled 

to 700 million barrels in 2005, providing 59 days of net import protection. 

Appropriation, 2005 ............................................................................ $169,710,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ....................................................................... 166,000,000 

Recommended, 2006 ........................................................................... 166,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2005 ........................................................................ ¥3,710,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 .................................................................... ............................

The Committee recommends $166,000,000, the same as the budget request, for operation of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, a decrease of $3,710,000 from the fiscal year 2005 level. 

NORTHEAST HOME HEATING OIL RESERVE

The acquisition and storage of heating oil for the Northeast 

states began in August 2000 when the Department of Energy, 

through the Strategic Petroleum Reserve account, awarded contracts for the lease of commercial storage facilities and acquisition 

of heating oil. The purpose of the reserve is to assure home heating 

oil supplies for the Northeast States during times of very low inventories and significant threats to immediate supply of heating 

oil. The Northeast Heating Oil Reserve was established as a separate entity from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve on March 6, 2001. 

The 2,000,000 barrel reserve is stored in commercial facilities in 

New York Harbor, New Haven, Connecticut, and the Providence, 

Rhode Island area. 

Appropriation, 2005 ............................................................................ $4,960,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ....................................................................... ............................

Recommended, 2006 ........................................................................... ............................

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2005 .................................................................... ¥4,960,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ................................................................ ............................

The Committee recommends no new appropriation, the same as 

the budget request, for the Northeast Home Heating Oil reserve, 

115 

a decrease of $4,960,000 from the fiscal 2005 level. All activities in 

fiscal year 2006 are funded from carryover balances. 

ENERGY INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION

The Energy Information Administration (EIA) is a quasi-independent agency within the Department of Energy established to 

provide timely, objective, and accurate energy-related information 

to the Congress, executive branch, State governments, industry, 

and the public. The information and analysis prepared by the EIA 

is widely disseminated and the agency is recognized as an unbiased 

source of energy information by government organizations, industry, professional statistical organizations, and the public. 

Appropriation, 2005 ............................................................................ $83,819,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ....................................................................... 85,926,000 

Recommended, 2006 ........................................................................... 86,426,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2005 .................................................................... +2,607,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ................................................................ +500,000 

The Committee recommends $86,426,000, $500,000 above the request, for the Energy Information Administration, an increase of 

$2,607,000 above fiscal year 2005 level. The Committee’s increase 

of $500,000 above the request is to fund increased requirements for 

cybersecurity measures to safeguard computer systems and data 

integrity. 

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 type of action. 

The Non-Defense Environmental Management activities were 

previously funded in three separate accounts, two of which are now 

combined: Non-Defense Site Acceleration Completion, and Non-Defense Environmental Services are now one account, Non-Defense 

Environmental Cleanup. The Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund for environmental management 

responsibilities at the three gaseous diffusion enrichment plants 

(Oak Ridge, Portsmouth, and Paducah) and for reimbursement of 

licensees conducting cleanup of uranium and thorium processing 

sites remains the same. 

The Committee remains committed to the strategy of accelerating cleanup and closing sites. However, the categorization of 

funding activities by planning goals has diminished in utility over 

time—dates slip, and activities that do not fit the ‘‘2012’’ timeframe 

were merely moved into the ‘‘2035’’ timeframe as a matter of 

course. As such, the Committee no longer finds this display of activities useful, and has moved to a location/site-based display, to increase the transparency of where environmental cleanup dollars 

are being spent. The Committee requests that Congressional budget submissions be submitted in this format in the future. 

Milestone report.—While the budget structure has changed, the 

Committee remains interested in whether the Department has met 

116 

its goals for completion for years 2006, 2012, and 2035. Beginning 

December 31, 2005, the Committee requests a quarterly report, by 

site, that tracks accelerated clean-up milestones, whether they are 

being met or not, and includes annual budget estimates and lifecycle costs. 

Reprogramming Authority.—The Committee continues to support 

the need for flexibility to meet changing funding requirements at 

sites. In fiscal year 2006, the Department may transfer up to 

$2,000,000 between control points, to reduce health or safety risks 

or to gain cost savings as long as no program or project is increased 

or decreased by more than $2,000,000 once during the fiscal year. 

The control points for reprogramming are the Fast Flux Test Reactor Facility, West Valley Demonstration Project, Gaseous Diffusion 

Plants, 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 of the House and 

Senate must be notified within thirty days prior to 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, 2005 ............................................................................ $439,601,000 

Budget Estimate, 2006 ....................................................................... 259,934,000 

Recommended, 2006 ........................................................................... 319,934,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2005 .................................................................... ¥119,667,000 

Budget Estimate, 2006 ............................................................... ¥30,000,000 

The Committee recommendation for Non-Defense Environmental 

Cleanup is $319,934,000, a reduction of $30,000,000 from the budget request. 

The recommendation provides $77,100,000 for solid waste stabilization and disposition, and nuclear facility decontamination and 

decommissioning at the West Valley Demonstration Project, and 

$45,528,000 for decontamination and decommissioning of the gaseous diffusion plants, the same as the budget request. The recommendation provides $41,113,000 for the decontamination and decommissioning of the Fast Flux Test Facility (FFTF), a decrease of 

$5,000,000 from the budget request. Given the delay in the contract 

award for the FFTF in fiscal year 2005, the Committee expects sufficient carryover funds in fiscal year 2006 will be available for this 

project. 

The recommendation provides $70,803,000 for depleted uranium 

hexafluoride conversion at Portsmouth and Paducah, a reduction of 

$15,000,000 from the budget request. The Committee understands 

there are large prior year balances that have not been expended for 

this project, and therefore recommends the reduction in new resources. The recommendation provides $18,006,000, for soil and 

water remediation measures at the former Atlas uranium mill 

tailings site at Moab, Utah, a reduction of $10,000,000 from the reVerDate Aug 04 2004 16:26 May 19, 2005 Jkt 021245 PO 00000 Frm 00116 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A20967.002 A20967
117 

quest, and an increase of $10,295,000 over fiscal year 2005 enacted 

levels. The final Environmental Impact Statement will be issued 

late in fiscal year 2005 for this site, and the Committee believes 

that the $18,006,000 will be sufficient to begin the recommended 

remediation alternative in fiscal year 2006. 

Small Sites.—The recommendation provides $34,328,000 for soil 

and water remediation, graphite research reactor and high flux 

beam reactor decontamination and decommissioning at Brookhaven 

National Laboratory; $10,487,000 for soil and water remediation 

and nuclear facility decontamination and decommissioning at Argonne National Laboratory; and $5,274,000 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 

recommendation provides $3,900,000 for soil and water remediation at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory; $3,500,000 for 

soil and water remediation at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center; $9,000,000 for nuclear facility decontamination and decommissioning for the Energy Technology Engineering Center; $490,000 

for decontamination and decommissioning of the Tritium System 

Test Assembly Facility at Los Alamos National Laboratory; 

$305,000 for soil and water remediation at Inhalation Toxicology 

Laboratory; and $100,000 for cleanup work at various sites in California. 

Uranium assets.—The Committee reaffirms last year’s directive 

to use uranium assets to self-finance cost effective operation of the 

Portsmouth S&T Facility to remove Technetium-99 contamination 

from DOE and USEC inventories. 

URANIUM ENRICHMENT DECONTAMINATION AND DECOMMISSIONING

FUND

Appropriation, 2005 ............................................................................ $495,015,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ....................................................................... 591,498,000 

Recommended, 2006 ........................................................................... 591,498,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2005 .................................................................... +96,483,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ................................................................ ............................

Congress created the Uranium Facilities Maintenance and Remediation account in fiscal year 2001 to consolidate two previously 

separate programs. The consolidated Uranium Facilities Maintenance and Remediation account was managed by the Office of Environmental Management and included two sub-accounts, the Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund, 

and Other Uranium Activities. Beginning in fiscal year 2004, the 

activities previously funded under the Other Uranium Activities 

sub-account were transferred into the new Non-Defense Environmental Services account. 

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 

118 

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 $591,498,000 for activities funded 

from the Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund, the same as the budget request. This amount includes $571,498,000 for decontamination and decommissioning activities at the gaseous diffusion plants and $20,000,000 for Title X 

uranium and thorium reimbursements. 

RCRA closure.—The Committee expects the Department to complete the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act closure of building X-7725 by September 30, 2006, by any means feasible, within 

available funds. 

SCIENCE

Appropriation, 2005 ............................................................................ $3,599,871,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ....................................................................... 3,462,718,000 

Recommended, 2006 ........................................................................... 3,666,055,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2005 .................................................................... +66,184,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ................................................................ +203,337,000 

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, science workforce development, and 

science program direction. 

The Department of Energy is the largest financial supporter of 

research in the physical sciences. The essential role of DOE is often 

neglected in discussions of government science, yet DOE funding 

and facilities have supported major discoveries, including many 

that have resulted in Nobel prizes. Its initial work with nuclear reactors and particle accelerators has led DOE to support a wide 

range of government, academic, and industrial research by providing light sources and neutron sources for use in studying the 

structure of materials and processes at the atomic and subatomic 

scale. Researchers from diverse fields and backgrounds rely increasingly on the advanced capabilities provided by the DOE user 

facilities. Existing and planned new facilities will offer researchers 

the revolutionary ability to observe chemical reactions as they happen, including those that take place within living cells. 

While DOE Science laboratories and researchers possess many 

multidisciplinary research capabilities, the unique niche that DOE 

fills is in the area of large research instruments (‘‘big iron’’) such 

as accelerators, colliders, and most recently the Spallation Neutron 

Source. These projects are of such a scale, complexity, and cost that 

they exceed the capabilities of universities, private companies, and 

even other government agencies. The DOE Office of Science takes 

on these challenging, high-risk research projects, and while it does 

not always achieve its schedule and budget targets, this experience 

in managing high-risk science projects has helped shape its science 

activities. In many ways, the work of the DOE Office of Science 

complements the funding strengths of the National Science FounVerDate Aug 04 2004 16:26 May 19, 2005 Jkt 021245 PO 00000 Frm 00118 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A20967.002 A20967
119 

dation and National Institutes of Health with their focus on providing grants to individual researchers and research teams. While 

DOE also makes grants and has committed to increasing use of 

agency-wide research announcements inviting open competition 

among universities, government labs, industry and others, often 

DOE is the provider of state-of-the-art user facilities—both research machines and computers—that are used by NSF and NIH 

grantees. The health and success of science programs at DOE is 

critical to the overall health of research and development in the 

United States. National security, both from an economic and a defense perspective, rests on a foundation grounded in the physical 

sciences, and depends on DOE’s continued leadership in these 

fields. 

The Committee was disappointed in the Department’s budget request for the Office of Science in fiscal year 2006. The Committee 

recommendation is $3,666,055,000, an increase of $203,337,000 

compared to the budget request and $66,184,000 over the fiscal 

year 2005 enacted level. The Committee has provided additional 

funding for the Office of Science to address the following Committee priorities: high performance computing; additional operating 

time at Office of Science user facilities; and redirection of fusion 

funding to restore domestic fusion research that was displaced by 

the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER). 

HIGH ENERGY PHYSICS

The Committee recommends a total of $735,933,000 for high energy physics, an increase of $22,000,000 over the budget request. 

With the proposed transfer of the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (SLAC) to the Basic Energy Sciences account, the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory will become the only remaining high 

energy physics national laboratory in the country. High energy 

physics is the cornerstone of our understanding of the physical universe, and the Department of Energy maintains unique capabilities 

that cannot be duplicated in the academic or private sector, or by 

any other federal agency. The Committee provides an additional 

$22,000,000 to maintain high energy physics at the fiscal year 2005 

enacted level. Of the additional funds, $11,000,000 is provided for 

research on the next-generation international linear collider and 

$11,000,000 is provided for upgrades to the neutrino research program. The Committee supports the Department’s decision to maximize the operating time of its high energy physics user facilities 

during fiscal year 2006. The control level is at the High Energy 

Physics level. 

NUCLEAR PHYSICS

The Committee recommendation for nuclear physics is 

$408,341,000, an increase of $37,600,000 over the budget request. 

An additional $6,000,000 is provided to initiate a competitive downselect process for design and operations concepts for the Rare Isotope Accelerator, and an additional $31,600,000 is provided to restore operating time of the user facilities in the Nuclear Physics 

program (i.e., RHIC, TJNAF, HRIBF, and ATLAS) to fiscal year 

2005 levels. 

120 

BIOLOGICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH

The Committee recommendation for biological and environmental 

research (BER) is $525,688,000, an increase of $70,000,000 over 

the budget request. The Committee approves the Department’s decision to maintain the operation of BER user facilities at fiscal year 

2005 levels. Within available funds, the Department shall continue 

to fund the Savannah River Ecology Laboratory until the expiration of the current contract. The Committee recommendation provides an additional $70,000,000, with $35,000,000 for Congressionally-directed university and hospital earmarks and $35,000,000 for 

Medical Applications and Measurement Science. Congressionallydirected projects are shown in the table below. 

121 


Insert graphic folio 119 HR86.040
122 

BASIC ENERGY SCIENCES

The Committee recommendation for Basic Energy Sciences is 

$1,173,149,000, an increase of $27,132,000 over the budget request. 

For purposes of reprogramming during fiscal year 2006, 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 

$772,025,000 for materials sciences and engineering, and 

$223,051,000 for chemical sciences, geosciences, and energy biosciences. An additional $19,737,000 is provided to maintain operating time on the Basic Energy Sciences user facilities at fiscal 

year 2005 levels, and an additional $7,395,000 is provided to restore university grants for core research in the basic energy 

sciences. The Committee recommendation funds nanoscale science 

research and the science research portion of the hydrogen initiative 

at the requested levels. Also included within this account is 

$7,280,000 for the Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive 

Research (EPSCoR), the same as the budget request. 

Construction.—The Committee recommendation includes 

$178,073,000 for Basic Energy Sciences construction projects, the 

same as the requested amount. The Committee recommendation 

provides the requested funding of: $41,744,000 for the Spallation 

Neutron Source (99–E–334) at Oak Ridge National Laboratory; 

$2,544,000 for Title I and Title II design work (03–SC–002) and 

$83,000,000 to initiate construction (05–R–320) for the Linac Coherent Light Source at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center; 

$36,553,000 for the Center for Functional Nanomaterials (05–R–

321) at Brookhaven National Laboratory; $9,606,000 for the Molecular Foundry (04–R–313) at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory; and $4,626,000 for the Center for Integrated 

Nanotechnologies (03–R–313) at Los Alamos and Sandia National 

Laboratories. 

ADVANCED SCIENTIFIC COMPUTING RESEARCH

The Committee recommendation is $246,055,000, an increase of 

$39,000,000 over the budget request. The additional $39,000,000 is 

provided to support the Office of Science initiative to develop the 

hardware, software, and applied mathematics necessary for a leadership-class supercomputer to meet scientific computation needs; 

not more than $25,000,000 of this increase should be dedicated to 

hardware, and $9,000,000 of the total increase should be dedicated 

to competitive university research grants. The Committee is disappointed that the Department’s fiscal year 2006 budget request 

did not preserve the increases that Congress provided for this purpose during the past two fiscal years. Consistent with guidance 

provided in prior years, the Committee has chosen not to earmark 

these additional funds for a particular laboratory or a particular 

technology. However, the Committee expects the Department to 

make full use of the laboratory-industry capabilities that have already been selected competitively in previous years and not ‘‘reinvent the wheel’’ each fiscal year. 

123 

FUSION ENERGY SCIENCES

The Committee recommendation for fusion energy sciences is 

$296,155,000, an increase of $5,605,000 over the budget request 

but with a significant redirection of funds as outlined below. The 

Committee is concerned that two-thirds of the proposed increase for 

the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) 

would be achieved by reducing domestic fusion research and operating time on domestic user facilities. Under the proposed fiscal 

year 2006 budget, operating time at the three major fusion research facilities (DIII–D, Alcator C–Mod, and NSTX) would be reduced from 48 weeks in fiscal year 2005 to a total of only 17 weeks 

in fiscal year 2006. If the United States expects to be a serious contributor to international fusion research in general and to ITER in 

particular, the Nation needs to maintain strong domestic research 

programs and user facilities to train the next generation of fusion 

scientists and engineers. The Department’s proposal to increase 

support for ITER at the expense of domestic fusion research is unwise and unacceptable. Such an approach is not only short-sighted, 

but inconsistent with prior Congressional guidance. Therefore, the 

Committee directs the Department to utilize $29,900,000 of funding 

proposed for ITER and the additional $5,605,000 to restore U.S.- 

based fusion funding to fiscal year 2005 levels as follows: 

$7,300,000 for high performance materials for fusion; $14,305,000 

to restore operation of the three major user facilities to fiscal year 

2005 operating levels; $7,200,000 for intense heavy ion beams and 

fast ignition studies; $5,100,000 for compact stellarators and smallscale experiments; and $1,600,000 for theory. As in previous years, 

the Committee directs the Department to fund the U.S. share of 

ITER through additional resources rather than through reductions 

to domestic fusion research or to other Office of Science programs. 

If the Department does not follow this guidance in its fiscal year 

2007 budget submission, the Committee is prepared to eliminate 

all U.S. funding for the ITER project in the future. 

SCIENCE LABORATORIES INFRASTRUCTURE

The Committee recommendation provides a total of $42,105,000 

for Science Laboratories Infrastructure, an increase of $2,000,000 

over the budget request. The additional funds are provided to complete PED and initiate construction for project 04–05 MEL 001–

046, the capability replacement laboratory at PNNL. The Committee expects the Department to request sufficient funds in fiscal 

year 2007 to have this replacement facility available for occupancy 

by 2009. Within available funds, the Committee directs the Department to continue to make PILT payments associated with Argonne 

National Laboratory at the fiscal year 2005 level. 

SAFEGUARDS AND SECURITY

The Committee recommends $74,317,000, the same as the budget 

request, to meet additional safeguards and security requirements 

at Office of Science facilities. 

124 

SCIENCE WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT

The Committee provides $7,192,000 for Workforce Development 

for Teachers and Scientists in fiscal year 2006, the same as the requested amount. 

SCIENCE PROGRAM DIRECTION

The Committee recommendation is $162,725,000 for Science program direction, the same as the budget request. This amount includes: $92,593,000 for program direction at DOE field offices and 

$70,132,000 for program direction at DOE headquarters. The control level for fiscal year 2006 is at the program account level of 

Science Program Direction. 

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, 2005 ............................................................................ $343,232,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ....................................................................... 300,000,000 

Recommended, 2006 ........................................................................... 310,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2005 .................................................................... ¥33,232,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ................................................................ +10,000,000 

The Department of Energy requested a total of $651,447,000 for 

work on the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository in fiscal year 

2006, $300,000,000 for Nuclear Waste Disposal and $351,447,000 

for Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal. According to the Department’s 

budget justification, these requested funds will be sufficient to 

maintain the schedule for the December 2005 submission of a repository license application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

and to continue the scientific and engineering work to defend that 

license application and to prepare for design and construction of 

the repository. 

At this time last year, the Department was still on track to open 

the repository in 2010. However, several events have combined to 

push that date out to 2012, at the earliest. In July 2004, the U.S. 

Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit vacated the 

10,000-year radiation standard for the repository promulgated by 

the Environmental Protection Agency. Also during the summer of 

2004, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission invalidated the Department’s initial certification of documentation for the Licensing Support Network (LSN). Most recently, the Department discovered 

that certain documents related to the quality assurance of water 

modeling for the repository may have been falsified by employees 

of the U.S. Geological Survey. Underlying these technical and policy challenges, Congress has consistently underfunded the repository program in recent years. In fiscal year 2005, the budget request was for $880,000,000, but Congress ultimately provided only 

$572,384,000 for the program. 

The net result is that the date for opening the Yucca Mountain 

repository continues to recede into the future. Indications suggest 

125 

that the Department will not be able to open the repository by 

2012, and actual initial operations might be delayed into the latter 

half of the next decade. This means that spent nuclear fuel and 

high level radioactive waste, both destined for final disposal in the 

repository, will remain in interim storage at 129 private and governmental sites scattered across the country. While such onsite interim storage is a manageable risk, it is an unnecessary risk. It is 

also becoming a very expensive proposition, as DOE has estimated 

that every year of delay in opening the Yucca Mountain repository 

will cost the federal government an additional $1 billion per year, 

with a conservative estimate of $500 million in legal liability for 

failure to take title to commercial spent fuel, and another $500 million to monitor and guard defense spent fuel and high level radioactive waste at DOE sites. 

In addition to the challenges facing the Department in opening 

the first repository at Yucca Mountain, there are questions about 

spent fuel disposal once that repository is full. The authorized inventory capacity for the Yucca Mountain repository is 70,000 metric tons of heavy metal from spent fuel or solidified high level 

waste resulting from reprocessing, of which 63,000 tons are commercial spent fuel and 7,000 tons are defense spent fuel and highlevel waste. DOE estimates that this capacity will be fully utilized 

by the year 2010. In other words, spent fuel generated after 2010 

cannot be disposed in Yucca Mountain as that repository is presently authorized. Section 161 of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, as 

amended, outlines a process for siting a second repository. Absent 

an effort to increase the authorized capacity at Yucca Mountain, 

the Secretary is required to report to Congress on or after January 

1, 2007, on the need for a second repository. 

As discussed earlier in this report, the Committee believes the 

Department should embark on a concerted initiative to begin recycling our spent nuclear fuel, starting with the preparation of an integrated spent fuel recycling plan for implementation in fiscal year 

2007, including selection of an advanced reprocessing technology 

and a competitive process to select one or more sites to develop integrated spent fuel recycling facilities (i.e., reprocessing, preparation of mixed oxide fuel, vitrification of high level waste products, 

and temporary process storage). 

Until such an integrated recycling approach becomes operational, 

the Committee believes the Department should move aggressively 

to take title to commercial spent fuel and consolidate such fuel in 

a smaller number of more secure, above-ground interim storage facilities located at existing DOE facilities. Such interim storage at 

DOE sites is not a new concept. In the interests of nonproliferation, 

the United States is bringing back spent fuel from various foreign 

research reactors and storing such fuel on DOE sites, at Federal 

expense. Rather than create one or more new and separate interim 

storage sites for this foreign fuel, it is clearly more cost-effective to 

store this fuel at a centralized DOE site that is already secure because of the requirement to protect other DOE facilities and materials at the site. Given the sunk cost of protecting the DOE site for 

national and homeland security reasons, the incremental costs of 

storing additional foreign spent fuel at a DOE site are modest. The 

126 

same logic should be applied to interim storage of domestic spent 

fuel. 

The Federal government should establish one or more centralized 

interim storage sites for commercial spent nuclear fuel. Interim 

storage would make the most sense co-located with the permanent 

repository at Yucca Mountain, but the Nuclear Waste Policy Act 

specifically prohibits siting an interim storage facility or a Monitored Retrievable Storage facility at the same location as the permanent repository. Other possible alternative DOE sites include 

Hanford, Idaho, and Savannah River, all of which presently store 

government-owned spent fuel and high level waste and both of 

which already have extensive site security measures in place. 

Should these or other DOE sites prove impractical, the Department 

should investigate other alternatives for centralized interim storage, including other federally-owned sites, closed military bases, 

and non-federal fuel storage facilities. The Committee encourages 

the Department to maximize use of existing NRC-approved designs 

for storage casks and independent spent fuel storage installations. 

The Committee also encourages DOE to consider making use of existing European capabilities for reprocessing, vitrification, MOX 

fuel fabrication, and interim storage. 

DOE should take prompt action to take title to some commercial 

spent fuel and begin to move that fuel from the reactor sites to one 

or more centralized interim storage sites. There is an established 

queue that defines the order in which DOE is to take title to commercial spent fuel. However, there can be legitimate arguments to 

move fuel other than that with priority in the queue, such as spent 

fuel from reactors that are already decontaminated and decommissioned, or fuel from a utility which agrees to settle, drop, or otherwise limit its claim against the Federal government. The Committee defers to the Secretary’s judgment on which fuel can and 

should be moved first. 

For Nuclear Waste Disposal in fiscal year 2006, the Committee 

provides $310,000,000, an increase of $10,000,000 over the budget 

request. When coupled with the $10,000,000 included within the 

budget request for the acquisition of transportation casks, this provides a total of $20,000,000 to support this early acceptance of commercial spent fuel. If the process for licensing the repository is delayed further in fiscal year 2006, the Committee would support a 

reprogramming request to reallocate additional funds to this Spent 

Fuel Initiative. The Committee directs the Secretary to provide to 

Congress, within 120 days of enactment of this Act, an implementation plan for such early acceptance of commercial spent fuel, 

transportation to a DOE site, and centralized interim storage at 

one or more DOE sites. Although the Committee believes that the 

Department already has authority for these actions under the 

Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, the implementation plan 

should propose any changes to legislative language necessary to 

execute this plan. Further, the Committee directs the Department 

to begin the movement of spent fuel to centralized interim storage 

at one or more DOE sites within fiscal year 2006. 

127 

DEPARTMENTAL ADMINISTRATION 

GROSS APPROPRIATION

Appropriation, 2005 ............................................................................ $238,503,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ....................................................................... 279,976,000 

Recommended, 2006 ........................................................................... 253,909,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2005 .................................................................... +15,406,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ................................................................ ¥26,067,000 

MISCELLANEOUS REVENUES

Appropriation, 2005 ............................................................................ $¥122,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ....................................................................... ¥123,000,000 

Recommended, 2006 ........................................................................... ¥123,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2005 .................................................................... ¥1,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ................................................................ ............................

The Committee recommendation for Departmental Administration is $253,909,000, a decrease of $26,067,000 from the budget request of $279,976,000. 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 program execution. 

Of the total $279,976,000 requested for Departmental Administration, roughly half ($139,651,000) represents salaries and benefits for the Federal employees at DOE headquarters. When the salary increase proposed for civilian federal employees is only 2.3 percent in fiscal year 2006, and when the overall DOE budget would 

decline by 2.0 percent in fiscal year 2006 compared to fiscal year 

2005, the Committee does not support the requested 17.4 percent 

increase for the overall Departmental Administration account. 

Three accounts (i.e., Chief Information Officer, Policy and International Affairs, and Public Affairs) show increases for salaries and 

expenses in excess of 20 percent, and several other accounts (i.e., 

Office of the Secretary, and General Counsel) show increases in excess of 10 percent. The Committee considers such proposed increases to be excessive in light of the modest Federal pay raise and 

the overall reduction proposed for the Department’s total budget 

for fiscal year 2006. Therefore, the Committee limits the increase 

for the various salaries and expenses subaccounts within Departmental Administration to no more than 5 percent in fiscal year 

2006, and maintains the program support subaccounts at the lesser 

of the fiscal year 2005 enacted level or the fiscal year 2006 request 

level. 

Office of Engineering and Construction Management.—The Committee continues to support the Office of Engineering and Construction Management as the focal point for improving project 

management within the Department. The Committee directs the 

Chief Financial Officer to reserve the appropriate amount of funds 

in the first quarter of the fiscal year from the Offices of Nuclear 

Energy, Science, Environmental Management, the National Nuclear Security Administration, and any other program offices with 

construction projects to conduct External Independent Reviews, at 

128 

a sufficient level of detail to verify project baselines as required 

under Project Management Order 413.3. 

Working Capital Fund.—The Committee renews its guidance as 

presented in House Report 107–681 regarding management of the 

Working Capital Fund. 

Revenues.—The recommendation for revenues is $123,000,000, 

consistent with the estimate of revenues provided by the Congressional Budget Office. 

Transfer from Other Defense Activities.—For fiscal year 2006, the Department requested $87,575,000 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, 2005 ............................................................................ $41,176,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ....................................................................... 43,000,000 

Recommended, 2006 ........................................................................... 43,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2005 .................................................................... +1,824,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ................................................................ ............................

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 $43,000,000, the same as the 

budget request. 

ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES

The Atomic Energy Defense Activities programs of the Department of Energy include the National Nuclear Security Administration that consists of Weapons Activities, Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation, Naval Reactors, and the Office of the Administrator; 

Defense Environmental Management; Other Defense Activities; 

and Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal. Descriptions of each of these 

accounts are provided below. 

NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

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 

129 

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 recommendation for the NNSA is $8,848,449,000 

a decrease of $548,792,000 from the budget request of 

$9,397,241,000, but an increase of $23,990,000 over fiscal year 

2005 when adjusted for the one-time transfer from Department of 

Defense. 

WEAPONS ACTIVITIES

Appropriation, 2005 ............................................................................ 1 $6,331,590,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ....................................................................... 6,630,133,000 

Recommended, 2006 ........................................................................... 6,181,121,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2005 .................................................................... ¥295,518,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ................................................................ ¥449,012,000 1Does not include $300,000,000 transferred from the Department of Defense 

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 for Weapons Activities is $6,181,121,000, a decrease of $449,012,000 from the budget request of $6,630,133,000. The Committee recommendation did not 

include the proposed cleanup transfer from Environmental Management to the NNSA and the Committee recommendation returns 

the $221,386,000 back to the cleanup program. The net reduction 

to the Weapons Activities budget request is $227,626,000 from the 

budget request. 

Nuclear Weapons Complex Wide Review.—The Committee tasked 

the previous Secretary of Energy with conducting an independent 

assessment of the Department of Energy’s infrastructure requirements for the nuclear weapons complex over the next twenty-five 

years. The Secretary established a Task Force within the Secretary 

of Energy’s Advisory Board (SEAB) to conduct the Nuclear Weapons Complex Infrastructure Study. The Committee is encouraged 

by the preliminary work of the Task Force but will not act on any 

recommendations until the final report is finished this summer. 

The Committee will consider the Task Force recommendations in 

the fiscal year 2006 Conference Report this fall. The Committee 

notes the timeliness of the Task Force study based on the distribution of funds requested in the fiscal year 2006 budget request. The 

budget request for direct stockpile support by weapon tail number 

is only ten percent of the total Weapons Activities request. Too 

much of the remaining 90 percent of the budget request supports 

a residual Cold War capacity within the weapons complex which is 

not needed for the long term sustainable stockpile. 

Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW).—Congress initiated the 

Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW) program in the Consolidated 

Appropriations Act, 2005 (Public Law 108–447), to focus DOE and 

DOD on implementing a program for improving the long-term safeVerDate Aug 04 2004 16:26 May 19, 2005 Jkt 021245 PO 00000 Frm 00129 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A20967.002 A20967
130 

ty, reliability, and security of the nuclear weapons stockpile. The 

Committee is supportive of the Administration taking an accelerated approach to implement a new nuclear weapons paradigm that 

ensures the continued moratorium on nuclear testing and results 

in a dramatically smaller nuclear weapons stockpile in the near future. The RRW weapon will be designed for ease of manufacturing, 

maintenance, dismantlement, and certification without nuclear 

testing, allowing the NNSA to transition the weapons complex 

away from a large, expensive Cold War relic into a smaller, more 

efficient modern complex. A more reliable replacement warhead 

will allow long-term savings by phasing out the multiple redundant 

Cold War warhead designs that require maintaining multiple obsolete production technologies to maintain the older warheads. The 

Committee’s qualified endorsement of the RRW initiative is based 

on the assumption that a replacement weapon will be designed 

only as a re-engineered and remanufactured warhead for an existing weapon system in the stockpile. The Committee does not endorse the RRW concept as the beginning of a new production program intended to produce new warhead designs or produce new 

weapons for any military mission beyond the current deterrent requirements. The Committee’s support of the RRW concept is contingent on the intent of the program being solely to meet the current military characteristics and requirements of the existing stockpile. 

Sustainable Stockpile Initiative.—The Committee views the RRW 

initiative as part of a larger Sustainable Stockpile Initiative. The 

end of the Cold War left the DOE production complex awash in 

special nuclear material and excess weapons and weapons parts 

with no additional mission requirement. The post-9/11 threat environment has made providing safeguards and security for these old 

warheads and excess materials a serious security liability and a 

seemingly unlimited budget liability. The Committee expects the 

Department to develop an integrated RRW implementation plan 

that challenges the complex to produce a RRW certifiable design 

while implementing an accelerated warhead dismantlement program and an infrastructure reconfiguration proposal that maximizes special nuclear material consolidation. The Committee recognizes all of these program initiatives implemented together with 

the SEAB Infrastructure Task Force recommendations as the beginning of a responsive infrastructure for maintaining the future 

nuclear stockpile. The Committee directs the Secretary of Energy 

to establish a Federal Advisory Committee on the Reliable Replacement Warhead initiative and to advise on implementation of recommendations stemming from the Nuclear Weapons Complex Infrastructure Study. 

Proposed Cleanup Transfer to NNSA.—The Committee recommendation does not include the proposed transfer of Environmental Management cleanup activities at the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) weapons sites to the NNSA. The 

Committee believes that this proposal was not sufficiently justified 

by the Department, and has concerns that the mission orientation 

and experience in the Environmental Management organization is 

not resident in the NNSA. 

131 

Reprogramming Authority.—The Committee provides limited reprogramming authority within the Weapons Activities account 

without submission of a reprogramming to be approved in advance 

by the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations. The reprogramming control levels will be as follows: subprograms within 

Directed Stockpile Work; Life Extension Programs, Stockpile Systems, Reliable Replacement Warhead, Warhead Dismantlement, 

and Stockpile Services. Additional reprogramming control levels 

will be as follows: Science Campaigns, Engineering Campaigns, Advanced Simulation and Computing, Pit Manufacturing and Certification, Readiness Campaigns, and Operations of Facilities for readiness in technical base and facilities. This should provide the needed flexibility to manage these programs. In addition, funding of not more than $5,000,000 may be transferred between each of these categories and each construction 

project 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

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. 

The Committee notes that the Directed Stockpile Work Life Extension activities are being reduced in anticipation of a revised outyear baseline plan from the NNSA that integrates all the elements 

of a long-term sustainable stockpile plan that supports the ability 

to maintain a safe secure and reliable nuclear deterrent with a 

much smaller stockpile. The Committee expects a rebaselined life 

extension program plan by weapon type, a Reliable Replacement 

Warhead program plan, and a Warhead Dismantlement plan that, 

taken together, will provide reliable nuclear deterrence with a post2025 stockpile significantly smaller that the 2012 Nuclear Stockpile 

levels committed to in the Moscow Treaty and specified in the revised Nuclear Stockpile Plan. The current Life Extension Plans will 

be scoped back to lower levels and the resources will be redeployed 

to support the Sustainable Stockpile Initiative. 

The Committee’s recommendation for Directed Stockpile Activities is $1,283,682,000 a decrease of $137,349,000 from the budget 

request. 

132 

Life Extension Programs.—The Committee recommendation includes $313,318,000 for the DSW Life Extension Programs, a reduction of $35,000,000 from the budget request. The Committee directs the reduction to be taken against the W80 LEP activity. 

Stockpile Systems.—The Committee provides $301,804,000 for the DSW Stockpile Systems activities, a decrease of $10,000,000 

from the budget request. The Committee directs the reduction to be 

taken against the W80 activity. 

Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW).—The Committee recommendation includes $25,000,000 for the Reliable Replacement 

Warhead (RRW) initiative, an increase of $15,649,000 from the 

budget request. The additional funds are provided to accelerate the 

planning effort to initiate a competition between the NNSA weapons laboratories to develop the design for the RRW re-engineered 

and remanufactured warhead. The Committee expects the initial 

design approved by the Department will be selected based a combination of considerations including the ability to certify the warhead without underground nuclear testing, cost of production, and 

ease of maintenance and dismantlement. 

Warhead Dismantlement.—The Committee recommendation includes $110,245,000 for the Warhead Dismantlement subprogram, 

an increase of $75,000,000 over the budget request. The Committee 

expects the NNSA to implement a robust warhead dismantlement 

program as part of the Sustainable Stockpile Initiative with aggressive near-term dismantlement milestones. Each year, the Committee notes with disappointment the funding levels for warhead 

dismantlement both in the request year and in the out-years of the 

NNSA Five Year National Security Plan (FYNSP). The fiscal year 

2006 budget request of $35,245,000 would drop to less than 

$30,000,000 in fiscal year 2008 and remain flat through fiscal year 

2010. The cumulative FYNSP total for warhead dismantlement is 

only two percent of the total Directed Stockpile Work resources 

through fiscal year 2010. As part of a concerted effort to relieve the 

weapons complex of excess Cold War era warheads and continue 

the development of a responsive infrastructure, the Committee expects to see significant program effort directed at the dismantlement of the existing Cold War stockpile. 

Stockpile Services.—The Committee recommendation includes 

$533,315,000 for the DSW Stockpile Services activities, a reduction 

of $182,998,000 from the request. The Committee notes the fiscal 

year 2006 budget justification references a ‘‘Responsive Infrastructure’’ initiative that was to be started in fiscal year 2005 and funded out of DSW/Stockpile Services/ Research and Development Certification and Safety subprogram and the DSW/Stockpile Services/ 

Management, Technology, and Production subprogram. The fiscal 

year 2005 budget justification included no reference to a Responsive Infrastructure initiative within the Directed Stockpile Work 

request and, as such, the Committee did not approve funding in the 

fiscal year 2005 Conference agreement within the specified subprograms for a Responsive Infrastructure initiative. Further, for the 

‘‘Responsive Infrastructure’’ initiative in the fiscal year 2006 budget request justification is inadequate and the Committee recommendation includes no funding for any related activity within 

the DSW Stockpile Services appropriation. The Committee supVerDate Aug 04 2004 16:26 May 19, 2005 Jkt 021245 PO 00000 Frm 00132 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A20967.002 A20967
133 

ports the development of a responsive infrastructure in the context 

of a larger transformation of the weapons complex, and will review 

a request submitted by the Department that provides an integrated 

program description and justification and associated budget requirements in the fiscal year 2007 request. 

Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator (RNEP).—The Committee recommendation provides no funding for RNEP. The Committee continues to oppose the diversion of resources and intellectual capital 

away from the more serious issues that confront the management 

of the nation’s nuclear deterrent, primarily the transformation of 

the Cold War nuclear weapons complex and existing stockpile into 

a sustainable enterprise. The Committee has been disappointed at 

the bureaucracy’s adherence to an initiative that threatens Congressional and public support for sustainable stockpile initiatives 

that will actually provide long-term security and deterrent value 

for the Nation. It is the understanding of the Committee that, instead of conducting an RNEP study at a DOE national laboratory, 

the Department of Defense will conduct a non-nuclear penetrator 

study at a Department of Defense facility. 

CAMPAIGNS

Campaigns are focused efforts involving the three weapons laboratories, the Nevada Test Site, the weapons production plants, 

and selected external organizations to address critical capabilities 

needed to achieve program objectives. The Committee recommendation is $1,911,686,000, a decrease of $168,758,000 below the budget 

request of $2,080,444,000. The Committee’s recommendation takes 

into consideration the reduced scope of the Life Extension activities 

and the existing Science-based Stockpile Stewardship program to 

restructure the weapons program to transition to a Sustainable 

Stockpile configuration. 

In order to facilitate review of the President’s annual budget request, the Committee continues to direct the Department to provide project baseline data for each campaign to include a brief description of the campaign with planned completion dates, the total 

estimated cost of each campaign, the costs by fiscal year for each 

major component of the campaign, and a list of major milestones 

by year. The Committee expects the Department to provide detailed project baseline data for each campaign showing the annual 

and five-year costs, schedule, scope, and deliverables for individual 

project activities as part of the fiscal year 2007 budget request. 

From within funds provided for the various campaigns, the Committee directs that $4,350,000 be provided to continue the University Research Program in Robotics (URPR) for the development of 

advanced robotic technologies for strategic national applications at 

the fiscal year 2005 funding level. 

Science campaigns.—The Committee recommendation for science 

campaigns is $216,905,000, a reduction of $45,020,000 from the 

budget request. The Committee’s recommendation takes into consideration the reduced scope of the Life Extension activities and 

the existing Science-based Stockpile Stewardship program to restructure the weapons program to transition to a Sustainable 

Stockpile configuration. 

134 

The Committee provides $35,179,000 for the primary assessment technology subprogram, a reduction of $10,000,000 from the request. The Committee recommendation includes $15,000,000 for 

the Test Readiness subprogram, a reduction of $10,000,000 from 

the budget request. The Committee continues to oppose the 18- 

month test readiness posture and refers the Department to the unambiguous language provided in the reports accompanying the fiscal year 2004 and 2005 Appropriation Acts requiring the Department to maintain the current 24-month test readiness posture. The 

initiation of the Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW) program designed to provide for the continuance of the existing moratorium on 

underground nuclear testing by insuring the long-term reliability of 

the nuclear weapons stockpile obviates any reason to move to a 

provocative 18-month test readiness posture. The Committee recommendation includes $70,894,000 for the dynamic materials properties subprogram, a reduction of $10,000,000 from the budget request. The Committee recommendation includes $40,500,000 for 

the advanced radiography subprogram, a reduction of $9,020,000 

from the budget request. The Committee is disappointed with the 

continued delay in the commissioning of the Dual-Axis Radiographic Hydrotest facility (DARHT), which is significantly over 

budget and behind schedule. The secondary assessment technologies subprogram recommendation is $55,332,000, a reduction of 

$6,000,000 from the budget request. 

Engineering campaigns.—The Committee recommendation for 

engineering campaigns is $192,704,000, a decrease of $37,052,000 

from the budget request. The Committee recommendation for the 

enhanced surety subprogram is $22,000,000, a reduction of 

$7,845,000 from the budget request to maintain current year funding levels. The Committee provides $15,040,000 for the Weapons 

Systems Engineering Assessment Technology subprogram, a decrease of $9,000,000 from the budget request. The Committee provides $9,386,000 for the Nuclear Survivability subprogram, the 

same as the budget request. The Committee recommendation for 

enhanced surveillance subprogram is $76,000,000, a reduction of 

$20,207,000 from the budget request. 

Construction projects.—The Committee recommends $65,564,000 

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 $541,418,000 for the inertial confinement 

fusion and high yield program, which maintains the program at the 

current year level and is an increase of $81,000,000 over the budget request. 

The Committee supports the Department’s response to the Congressional concern expressed last year regarding the fiscal year 

2005 budget request proposed schedule slip to the program goal of 

ignition demonstration in 2010 for the National Ignition Facility 

(NIF). The Committee continues to view ignition demonstration as 

the primary benchmark for success in this program. The Committee commends the Department’s effort to projectize the ICF program consistent with DOE Order 413.3, and to manage the ignition, diagnostic, cryogenic and experimental programs as projects 

135 

incorporating a work breakdown structure to track scope, cost, and 

schedule milestones, within a project management control system. 

The Committee directs the NNSA to report quarterly on the milestone cost and schedule variance within the respective experimental programs on progress toward the NIF 2000 rebaselined program. The Committee recommendation includes a total of $69,623,000 

for Facility Operations and Target Production, of which 

$15,000,000 shall be available to accelerate target fabrication. The 

Committee believes that a target that meets all the NIF ignition 

criteria should be produced and characterized in a cryogenic environment. NNSA should provide the Committee with a detailed 

schedule by March 2006 to accomplish this requirement. Should 

fabrication of the new beryllium target prove too high risk to ensure meeting the NIF milestones, NNSA is required to provide the 

Committee with the alternative that will be pursued in order to 

keep to the 2010 ignition schedule. 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; within that amount, the 

Committee includes $2,000,000 for the high density matter laser at 

the Ohio State University Technology Park. The Committee recommendation includes $15,000,000 for the Naval Research Laboratory, and $71,558,000 for the University of Rochester’s Laboratory for Laser Energetics (LLE), an increase of $26,000,000 over the 

budget request. The LLE is the principal research and experimentation laser facility for NNSA Science-based Stockpile stewardship 

activities. The Committee increase includes an additional 

$4,000,000 for OMEGA operations to provide additional shots to 

support the ICF campaign goal of an ignition demonstration in 

2010 and an additional $22,000,000 to accelerate the OMEGA Extended Performance capability project, a four beam super-high-intensity, high-energy laser facility to support the nation’s stockpile 

stewardship program. The Committee notes that the University of 

Rochester is providing $21 million for the building to house the 

OMEGA EP. 

The Committee recommendation provides $141,913,000 for construction of the National Ignition Facility (NIF), the same as the 

budget request. 

Advanced simulation and computing (ASCI).—The Committee 

recommendation for Advanced Simulation and Computing is 

$500,830,000, a reduction of $160,000,000 from the budget request. 

The Committee has consistently supported ASCI funding based on 

the assumption that spending three quarters of a billion dollars 

every year on high-end computing power at the three weapons laboratories; Los Alamos, Sandia, and Livermore was required to 

maintain the safety and reliability of the nuclear stockpile without 

underground testing. However, Congressional testimony by NNSA 

officials is beginning to erode the confidence of the Committee that 

the Science-based Stockpile Stewardship is performing as advertised. The Department continues to argue for an 18 month test 

readiness posture because of the possibility of unanticipated problems in the existing stockpile due to aging that ultimately will impact confidence in the reliability of the nuclear deterrent. The DeVerDate Aug 04 2004 16:26 May 19, 2005 Jkt 021245 PO 00000 Frm 00135 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A20967.002 A20967
136 

partment’s argument for building a ‘‘responsive infrastructure’’ is 

also based on the need to respond to unforeseen problems in the 

existing stockpile. The Committee recommendation recognizes the 

Department’s inability to achieve the promises of the Stockpile 

Stewardship effort and redirects ASCI funding to maintain current 

life extension production capabilities pending the initiation of the 

Reliable Replacement Warhead program. The Committee recommendation includes the following projects from within available 

funds: Nonprofit AVETeC for Nextedge Technical Park, Springfield 

(OH), $9,725,000; Wittenberg University supercomputer (OH), 

$1,000,000; Notre Dame/Purdue Supercomputer Grid (IL, IN), 

$5,000,000; and $6,000,000 provided to continue the demonstration 

at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory of advanced electronics packaging and thermal engineering for thermally-efficient 

electronics related to high performance data servers using three dimensional chip scale packaging integrated with spray cooling (WA). 

Pit Manufacturing and Pit Certification.—The Committee recommendation for pit manufacturing and certification campaign is 

$241,074,000, a reduction of $7,686,000 from the budget request. 

The Committee commends the Los Alamos National Laboratory for 

its work restoring the pit production capability to the nuclear 

weapons production complex. The Committee continues to oppose 

the Department’s accelerated efforts to site and begin construction 

activities on a modern pit facility and urges the Department to continue to concentrate its management attention on meeting the fiscal year 2007 schedule for a certified pit ready for the stockpile. 

The Committee provides $120,926,000 for W88 Pit Manufacturing 

and $61,895,000, for W88 Certification, the same as the budget request. The Committee recommendation for pit manufacturing capability is $23,071,000 the same as the budget request. The Committee does not provide the requested $7,686,000 for the 

modern pit facility (MPF) pending the outcome of the Nuclear 

Weapons Complex Infrastructure Study and the accelerated plutonium aging experiments. The Committee recommends the NNSA 

focus its efforts on how best to lengthen the life of the stockpile and 

minimize the need for an enormously expensive infrastructure facility until the long-term strategy for the physical infrastructure of 

the weapons complex has incorporated the Reliable Replacement 

Warhead strategy, and the potential for a significantly reduced outyear stockpile requirement, and the expanding TA–55 pit production capacity at the Los Alamos National Laboratory. The post2025 stockpile size and the evolving responsive infrastructure 

strategy for the weapons complex should dictate the timing and location of a pit production facility. The Committee will consider a 

modern pit facility site and design only when the detailed analysis 

of the pit aging experiments and the concomitant capacity requirements tied to the long-term stockpile size are determined. The 

Committee provides the budget request for Pit Campaign support 

activities at the Nevada Test Site. 

Readiness campaigns.—The Committee recommendation for 

Readiness Campaigns is $218,755,000, the same as the budget request. The Committee recommends $31,400,000, for Stockpile 

Readiness, the same as the budget request. The Committee recommends $17,097,000 for High Explosives Manufacturing & WeapVerDate Aug 04 2004 16:26 May 19, 2005 Jkt 021245 PO 00000 Frm 00136 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A20967.002 A20967
137 

ons Assembly/Disassembly, the same as the budget request. The 

Committee recommends $28,630,000 for Nonnuclear Readiness. 

The Committee recommendation includes $54,040,000 for Advanced 

Design and Production Technologies, the same as the budget request. The Committee recommends $87,588,000 for Tritium Readiness, 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 $1,610,870,000, a reduction of 

$20,516,000 below the budget request. 

Operations of facilities.—The Committee recommendation for Op- erations of Facilities is $1,204,786,000, an increase of $44,003,000 

over the budget request. The comparison to the budget request includes a transfer of $46,997,000 from the RTBF account back to the 

Environmental Management appropriation. Additional funding of 

$51,000,000 has been provided for the Pantex plant in Texas and 

$40,000,000 for the Y–12 Plant in Tennessee to address chronic 

under-funding in the maintenance of production plant facilities. 

The Committee recognizes the efforts made by the NNSA to accelerate the reduction of the facility footprint at the Y–12 plant to 

modernize operations and reduce security costs and encourages additional aggressive efforts. The Committee recommendation includes the following projects from within available funds: 

$1,150,000 for risk based data management in Oklahoma (OK); 

$2,000,000 for Robotics repetitive system technology (OH); 

$3,750,000 for Plasma Separation Process High Energy Storage 

Isotope research (TN); $1,500,000 for Multi-Platform dosimeter radiation detection devices (WA); $2,000,000 for Secure Wireless 

Technologies at Y–12 (TN); $2,000,000 for Airborne Particulate 

Threat Assessment (PA); $2,000,000 for comand and control of Vulnerable Materials Security System (PA, NJ); $1,000,000 for Advanced Engineering Environment at Sandia National Laboratory 

(NM). 

Program Readiness.—The Committee recommendation for Program Readiness is $105,738,000, the same as budget request. 

Material Recycle and Recovery.—The Committee recommendation 

for material recycle and recovery is $72,730,000, the same as the 

budget request. 

Containers.—The Committee recommendation for containers is 

$17,247,000, the same as the budget request. 

Storage.—The Committee recommendation for storage is 

$25,322,000. 

Special Projects.—The Committee recommendation includes no 

funding for Special Projects, a reduction of $6,619,000 from the 

budget request. The Committee directs future budget requests include all necessary activities within the RTBF Operations of Facilities account. 

Construction projects.—

Project 06–D–140, Project engineering and design (PED)—RTBF, 

various locations. The Committee recommends $14,113,000 the 

same as the budget request. 

138 

Project 06–D–402, Nevada Test Site Replace Fire Stations No. 1 

and No. 2, Nevada Site Office, NV. The Committee recommends 

$8,284,000, the same as the budget request. 

Project 06–D–403, Tritium Facility Modernization, Lawrence 

Livermore National Laboratory, CA. The Committee recommends 

$2,600,000, the same as the budget request. 

Project 06–D–404, Building remediation, restoration, and upgrade, Nevada Site Office, NV. The Committee recommends 

$16,000,000, the same as the budget request. 

Project 04–D–125, Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Facility 

Replacement (CMRR), LANL. The Committee recommends no funding for the CMRR project, a decrease of $55,000,000 from the budget request. Construction at the CMRR facility should be delayed 

until the Department determines the long-term plan for developing 

the responsive infrastructure required to maintain the nation’s existing nuclear stockpile and support replacement production anticipated for the RRW initiative. The Committee’s recommendation 

does not prejudge the outcome of the Secretary’s SEAB subcommittee’s assessment of the NNSA weapons complex. However, the production capabilities proposed in the CMRR will be best located at 

whatever future production complex configuration the Department 

determines necessary to support the long term stockpile program. 

Project 01–D–124, Highly Enriched Uranium Materials Facility, 

Y–12 National Security Complex, Oak Ridge, TN. The Committee 

recommends $81,350,000, an increase of $11,000,000 over the budget request. Consistent with the Committee’s priority to address special nuclear material consolidation requirements across the DOE 

complex, the Committee directs the Department to accelerate the 

construction and operational start of the HEU Materials Facility to 

the extent practicable to provide for consolidated storage of HEU 

at the Y–12 plant. 

Project 03–D–103, Project engineering and design (PED)—various locations. The Committee recommends $15,000,000 a reduction 

of $14,000,000 from the budget request. The reduction supports 

current year funding levels consistent with a reduction in the accelerated CMRR design activities pending the outcome of the SEAB 

Infrastructure Task Force assessment. 

FACILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE RECAPITALIZATION

The Committee recommendation for Facilities and Infrastructure 

Recapitalization Program (FIRP) is $250,509,000, a reduction of 

$33,000,000 from the budget request. The Committee directs the 

NNSA to reassess its out-year planning for FIRP projects to ensure 

coordination between the highly allocated FIRP funds and the reduced facility requirements consistent with the consolidation of the 

complex under the long-term Responsive Infrastructure planning. 

FIRP is a corporate program to restore, rebuild, and revitalize 

the physical infrastructure of the nuclear weapons complex. Its 

purpose is to stem the deterioration of the complex and address the 

backlog of maintenance, repair, and upgrade projects. The Committee directs the NNSA to ensure that funds for recapitalization 

are not diverted to fund ongoing maintenance and programmatic 

needs while at the same time guarding against the inefficiency of 

large uncosted balances. The Committee directs the NNSA to reasVerDate Aug 04 2004 16:26 May 19, 2005 Jkt 021245 PO 00000 Frm 00138 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A20967.003 A20967
139 

sess its outyear planning for FIRP projects to ensure coordination 

between the highly allocated FIRP funds and the reduced facility 

requirements consistent with the consolidation of the complex 

under the long term responsive infrastructure planning. 

The Committee directs that not less than $30,000,000 of the facilities and infrastructure funding in fiscal year 2006 be used to 

dispose of excess facilities. The Committee encourages continuation 

of this program to reduce the overall facilities footprint of the complex. The Committee continues to expect that services for D&D and 

demolition of excess facilities services be procured through opencompetition where such actions provide the best return on investment for the federal government. The Committee directs the NNSA 

to continue a free and open competition process for at least 70 percent of the funds provided for disposal of excess facilities. 

The Committee recommendation provides $50,025,000 for FIRP 

construction projects, the same as the budget request. 

Facility Infrastructure and Recapitalization Construction 

Projects.—

06–D–160 FIRP project engineering design (PED), various locations. The Committee recommends $5,811,000, the same as the 

budget request. 

06–D–601 Electrical Distribution System Upgrade, Pantex Plant, 

TX. The Committee recommends $4,000,000, the same as the budget request. 

06–D–602 Gas Main & Distribution System upgrade, Pantex 

Plant, TX. The Committee recommends $3,700,000, the same as 

the budget request. 

06–D–603 Steam Plant Life Extension project, Y–12 National Security Complex. The Committee recommends $729,000, 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 $212,100,000, the same as the 

budget request. 

NUCLEAR WEAPONS INCIDENT RESPONSE

The Committee recommendation for nuclear weapons incident response is $118,796,000, the same as the budget request. 

SAFEGUARDS AND SECURITY

This program provides for all safeguards and security requirements at NNSA landlord sites. The Committee recommendation is 

$825,478,000, an increase of $85,000,000 over the budget request. 

The Committee increase includes $60,000,000 for the Y–12 National Security Complex to accelerate security infrastructure upgrades and consolidate the facility footprint, and $25,000,000 for 

the Pantex Plant to cover a shortfall in security personnel, enhanced weapons and vehicle procurements to meet critical security 

requirements. The Committee urges the Department to review its 

140 

DBT implementation strategy to bring innovative technology to 

bear on the problems of increased physical safeguards and security 

measures. Additional manpower is only a stopgap solution to address security concerns throughout the weapons complex if the Department hopes to have any resources remaining to execute the 

program. With program needs going unmet and infrastructure deteriorating, the Committee strongly encourages the NNSA to review these growing costs and seek smarter and more efficient ways 

to meet necessary security improvements. 

Construction Projects.—

05–D–170 Project engineering and design (PED), various locations. The Committee recommends $41,000,000, the same as the 

budget request. 

FUNDING ADJUSTMENTS

The budget request included an offset of $32,000,000 for the safeguards and security charge for reimbursable work. 

DEFENSE NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION

Appropriation, 2005 ............................................................................ $1,493,033,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ....................................................................... 1,637,239,000 

Recommended, 2006 ........................................................................... 1,500,959,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2005 .................................................................... +7,926,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ................................................................ ¥136,280,000 

The Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation account includes funding 

for Nonproliferation and Verification Research and Development; 

Nonproliferation and International Security; Nonproliferation Programs with Russia including International Materials Protection, 

Control, and Cooperation, Russian Transition Initiative, Highly Enriched Uranium (HEU) Transparency Implementation, Elimination 

of Weapons-Grade Plutonium Production; Fissile Materials Disposition; and Global Threat Reduction Initiative and Program Direction 

funding. Descriptions of each of these programs are provided below. 

The Committee’s recommendation for Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation is $1,500,959,000, a decrease of $136,280,000 from the 

budget request of $1,637,239,000, but an increase of $7,926,000 

over fiscal year 2005. 

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 recommendation is $335,218,000, an increase of 

$63,000,000 over the budget request, and includes $177,471,000 for 

proliferation detection, an increase of $25,000,000 over the budget 

request for high priority research requirements; $138,642,000 for 

nuclear explosion monitoring, an increase of $30,000,000 over the 

141 

request, of which $25,000,000 is for ground-based systems for treaty monitoring; and $6,105,000 for supporting activities. The Committee provides $13,000,000 for Project 06–D–180, National Security Laboratory at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory 

(PNNL), an increase of $8,000,000 from the budget request. The 

additional $8,000,000 is provided as construction funds to maintain 

the aggressive schedule in fiscal year 2006 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 supports the Department’s cleanup goal for 

300 Area and the timely development of replacement infrastructure 

to maintain the national security capabilities resident at PNNL. 

From within available funds, the Committee recommendation includes $4,000,000 for portable high purity germanium detectors for 

incident response and radiation detection applications. The Committee recommendation includes the following projects from within 

available funds: $1,000,000 for the National Center for Biodefense 

at George Mason University (VA); $1,000,000 for the Offshore Detection Integrated System (OH); $750,000 for developing neutron 

dosimeter and Gamma-Beta Survey meter (OH); and $300,000 for 

the Texas A&M Moscow Physics Institute-Nonproliferation and 

International Security Program (TX). 

The Committee expects the Department to provide significantly 

greater opportunities for open competition where appropriate for 

nonproliferation and verification research and development activities and directs the Department to conduct a free and open competitive process for at least $20,000,000 of its research and development activities during fiscal year 2006 for ground-based systems 

treaty monitoring. The Committee is concerned with the potential 

for systematic bias against non-Federal entities in the conduct of 

competitive procurements if non-Federal entities are required to 

team with DOE national laboratories. The competitive process 

should be 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, lab performing the 

research and development, and the proposed user and submit this 

with the fiscal year 2007 budget. 

NONPROLIFERATION AND INTERNATIONAL SECURITY

The Nonproliferation and International Security program (formerly the Arms Control program) seeks to detect, prevent, and reverse the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction materials, 

technology, and expertise. The major functional areas of the program include: nonproliferation policy; international safeguards; export control; treaties and agreements; and international emergency 

management and cooperation. The Committee recommendation for 

Nonproliferation and International Security is $75,836,000, a reduction of $4,337,000 from the budget request. The Committee does 

not support the increase over current year level for the International Emergency Management activities. The Committee recommendation includes $25,321,000 for Nonproliferation Policy, 

$26,045,000 for International Safeguards, $19,970,000 for Export 

142 

Control activities, $2,000,000 for Treaties and Agreements, and 

$2,500,000 for International Emergency Management and Cooperation. 

NONPROLIFERATION PROGRAMS WITH RUSSIA

The Department of Energy funds many nonproliferation programs with Russia. These programs help secure Russian nuclear 

weapons and weapons material, prevent the outflow of scientific expertise from Russia, eliminate excess nuclear weapons materials, 

and help downsize the Russian nuclear weapons complex. 

Limitation on Russian Program Funds.—The Committee remains 

concerned that the Department is not placing a high management 

priority on ensuring that as much of the funds appropriated for the 

Russian programs as practical be spent in Russia, rather than at 

the Department’s own national laboratories in the United States. 

The Department’s contracting mechanisms are resulting in excessive funds paying laboratories for contract administration and oversight that would be better performed by Federal personnel. The 

Committee expects more direct contracting will be a result of the 

Nuclear Nonproliferation office achieving its Federal staffing goals 

in the current year. The Department’s national laboratories should 

be used to provide technical oversight and programmatic guidance 

in those areas where they have special expertise. The Committee 

directs that not more than 40 percent of the funding for Russian 

programs may be spent in the United States. 

INTERNATIONAL NUCLEAR MATERIALS PROTECTION AND COOPERATION

The International Nuclear Materials Protection and Cooperation 

(MPC&A) program is designed to work cooperatively with Russia 

to secure weapons and weapons-usable nuclear material. The focus 

is to improve the physical security at facilities that possess or process significant quantities of nuclear weapons-usable materials that 

are of proliferation concern. Activities include installing monitoring 

equipment, inventorying nuclear material, improving the Russian 

security culture, and establishing a security infrastructure. The Committee recommendation is $428,435,000, in increase of 

$85,000,000 over the budget request. The Committee’s increase to 

the MPC&A program recognizes the expanded opportunities for 

high priority work at 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. Given budget constraints, the Committee views 

the hundreds of metric tons of nuclear material in Russia still 

stored under inadequate security and subject to theft or diversion 

as the highest risk potential for weapons-usable nuclear material 

diversion. Within funds provided for MPC&A, the Committee provides an additional $40,000,000 for Strategic Rocket Forces activities to accelerate securing nuclear warhead sites in Russia. The 

Committee recommendation includes $86,185,000 for the Rosatom 

Weapons Complex, the same as the budget request. The Committee 

provides $142,929,000 for the Second Line of Defense program, an 

increase of $45,000,000 over the budget request. The Committee 

recommendation provides an additional $25,000,000 for the core 

143 

Second Line of Defense program to accelerate installation of radiation detection equipment in the Baltic and Caucasus regions and 

other critical border areas. The Committee provides $93,929,000 for 

the MegaPorts initiative, a $20,000,000 increase over the budget 

request, to accelerate this work at additional high-risk ports. 

RUSSIAN TRANSITION INITIATIVES

The Committee recommendation for the Russian Transition Initiative (RTI) program is $30,312,000, a reduction of $7,578,000 

from the budget request. The Russian Transition Initiative includes 

the Initiative for Proliferation Prevention (IPP) program and the 

Nuclear Cities Initiatives (NCI) to develop projects to employ Russian weapons scientists and downsize the Russian weapons complex. The Committee is disappointed that the Department chose to 

lower the RTI Annual Performance Targets in the fiscal 2006 budget request compared to the fiscal 2005 budget request. The program 

performance target is defined as the annual percentage of non-US 

Government project funding contributions obtained. The fiscal year 

2005 budget request included a goal of reaching 80% matching contributions of non-US Government contributions in fiscal year 2006 

and 100% by fiscal year 2008. Instead of improving performance to 

achieve the goal, the Department lowered the fiscal year 2006 goal 

to 70% and abandoned the 100% goal altogether. The Committee 

expects the RTI program will be able to meet the Annual Performance Target in the fiscal year 2005 budget request at the revised 

fiscal year 2006 budget level. The Committee does not agree with 

the requested name change for the Russian Transition Initiatives 

program. 

HIGHLY ENRICHED URANIUM (HEU) TRANSPARENCY IMPLEMENTATION

The highly enriched uranium (HEU) transparency implementation program develops and implements mutually agreeable transparency measures for the February 1993 agreement between the 

United States and the Russian Federation. This agreement, which 

has an estimated value of $12 billion, covers the purchase over 20 

years of low enriched uranium (LEU) derived from 500 metric tons 

of HEU removed from dismantled Russian nuclear weapons. Under 

the agreement, conversion of HEU components into LEU is performed in Russian facilities. The Committee recommendation is 

$20,483,000, the same as the budget request. 

ELIMINATION OF WEAPONS-GRADE PLUTONIUM PRODUCTION

The Elimination of Weapons-Grade Plutonium Production Program (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 lifetime and could generate an additional 25 metric tons 

of weapons-grade plutonium. They also provide heat and electricity 

required for the surrounding communities. The current approach is 

to shut down these three reactors within six years by providing two 

alternative fossil-fueled energy plants to supply heat and electricity 

to the surrounding communities generated by the nuclear plants. 

144 

The Committee recommendation is $197,000,000, a $65,000,000 increase to the budget request. The Committee is concerned that the 

Department’s plan for funding the Zheleznogorsk reactor shutdown 

by soliciting contributions from international partners will not succeed given the recent setbacks in receiving commitments from the 

G–8 partners. The Committee provides $65,000,000 in additional 

funding to maintain the Zheleznogorsk reactor shutdown schedule. 

The Committee acknowledges the management improvements implemented by NNSA since the program transfer from the Defense 

Department and supports the program goal of halting plutonium 

production at all three Russian reactors. 

FISSILE MATERIALS DISPOSITION

The fissile materials disposition program is responsible for the 

technical and management activities to assess, plan and direct efforts to provide for the safe, secure, environmentally sound longterm storage of all weapons-usable fissile materials and the disposition of fissile materials declared surplus to national defense 

needs. The Committee concludes that the continued impasse between the United States and Russia over liability protections for 

U.S. companies and personnel conducting nonproliferation work in 

Russia has created a programmatic environment incompatible with 

the efficient execution of the Fissile Materials Disposition program. 

The latest financial data from the Department shows an available 

prior year balance of over $650,000,000 in the Mixed Oxide (MOX) 

construction project. The fiscal year 2006 budget request would increase those balances to over $1,000,000,000, yet no nuclear nonproliferation or national security benefits have been realized due to 

continued program delays. Faced with severe budget constraints, 

the Committee cannot support the continued inefficient use of 

these nonproliferation funds. To restate the Committee’s position 

from last year, there is no reason to proceed with the fiscal year 

2006 budget request under the assumption that the liability dispute is nearing resolution. The Department assured the Committee 

during fiscal year 2006 budget hearings that a resolution was imminent, as it did last year at this time, and the year before that. 

While the Committee supports successful implementation of the 

Department’s nuclear nonproliferation activities, it is troubled by 

the inability of the Department to maintain the continuity of the 

government-to-government implementing agreements for Plutonium Disposition activities. The Committee’s severe budget constraints in other high priority areas of Congressional interest make 

it an irresponsible act to allocate hundreds of millions for a program that is currently prohibited from spending the funds. The 

Committee will recommend a General Accounting Office (GAO) report on the realistic expenditure rates for the MOX construction 

project if the liability impasse is resolved to assess the most efficient use of the large uncosted balances that exist on this project. 

The Committee recommendation is $301,700,000, a reduction of 

$351,365,000 from the budget request, to accommodate a delay in 

full funding until program activities can continue under a revised 

U.S.-Russia Plutonium Disposition implementing agreement. The 

Committee includes $35,000,000 in the MOX construction project to 

fund site preparation activities if resolution of the liability proviVerDate Aug 04 2004 16:26 May 19, 2005 Jkt 021245 PO 00000 Frm 00144 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A20967.003 A20967
145 

sion allows construction activities to proceed in fiscal year 2006. 

Funding of $52,300,000 is provided for U.S. surplus materials disposition and $64,000,000 for the Russian plutonium disposition 

program. The Committee recommendation maintains O&M program activities at roughly current year levels. 

Construction projects.—The Committee recommendation includes 

$35,000,000 in fiscal year 2006 for Project 99–D–143, the Mixed 

Oxide Fuel Fabrication facility project, a reduction of $303,565,000 

from the budget request. Funding of $24,000,000 is provided for 

Project 99–D–141, the Pit Disassembly and Conversion Facility project. The Committee recommendation includes $10,000,000 for 

conceptual design activities for the plutonium immobilization facility requested under the Environmental Management program. The 

Committee determines that the Fissile Materials program more 

suitably manages the plutonium disposition activities for the Department. 

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 recommendation is $111,975,000, a 

$14,000,000 increase to the President’s request. The Committee 

provides an additional $20,000,000 for the Reduced Enrichment for 

Research and Test Reactors (RERTR) program to accelerate the 

conversion of domestic research reactors fuel from highly enriched 

uranium to low enriched uranium. The Committee recommendation 

includes $2,000,000 for the Kazakhstan Spent Fuel Disposition initiative, a reduction of $6,000,000 from the request. The Committee 

is concerned the baseline plan for the BN–350 reactor spent fuel 

does not reflect the post-9/11 threat environment of the region and 

requires additional review. None of the funds provided for this activity in fiscal year 2006, or previous fiscal years, may be obligated 

for transportation equipment or activities without first notifying 

the House and Senate Appropriations Committees. 

NAVAL REACTORS

Appropriation, 2005 ............................................................................ $801,437,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ....................................................................... 786,000,000 

Recommended, 2006 ........................................................................... 799,500,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2005 .................................................................... ¥1,034,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ................................................................ +13,500,000 

The Naval Reactors program is responsible for all aspects of 

naval nuclear propulsion, from technology development through reactor operations to ultimate reactor plant disposal. The program 

provides for the design, development, testing, and evaluation of improved naval nuclear propulsion plants and reactor cores. These efforts are critical to ensuring the safety and reliability of 102 operating Naval reactor plants and to developing the next generation 

reactor. The Committee recommendation is $799,500,000, an increase of $13,500,000 over the budget request. This additional 

amount is to be transferred to the Office of Nuclear Energy to support the Idaho National Laboratory’s Advanced Test Reactor (ATR). 

146 

The Committee’s increase is provided to maintain the current level 

of operations and implement the Long Range Operating Plan at the 

ATR. 

OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR

Appropriation, 2005 ............................................................................ $353,350,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ....................................................................... 343,869,000 

Recommended, 2006 ........................................................................... 366,869,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2005 .................................................................... +13,019,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ................................................................ +23,000,000 

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 

$366,369,000, an increase of $22,500,000 above the budget request. 

The increase is provided as the NNSA contribution to the Department’s support for the Historically Black Colleges and Universities 

(HBCUs). The Committee expects the Administrator to continue to 

maintain separate program direction budget and reporting accounting codes for the Office of Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation to 

maintain cost accountability between the separate programs within 

the NNSA. The Committee recommendation provides funds to support two additional Federal employees for the NNSA counterintelligence program. The additional staff is needed to support NNSA 

counterintelligence (CI) initiatives, integration with national level 

counterintelligence objectives and NNSA CI program management. The Committee recommendation provides $12,000, the same as 

the budget request, for official reception and representation expenses for the NNSA. 

Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs).—The Committee appreciates the serious effort of the NNSA to follow last 

year’s Congressional direction to implement an aggressive program 

to take advantage of the HBCU educational institutions across the 

country in order to deepen the recruiting pool of diverse scientific 

and technical staff available to the NNSA and its national laboratories in support of the nation’s national security programs. The 

Committee is again providing $22,500,000 of additional funding to 

expand the support to the HBCUs scientific and technical programs 

in fiscal year 2006. The Committee expects the Department to provide financial support in rough parity to both HBCUs and the Hispanic Serving Institutions (HSI). The Committee recommendation 

includes $2,000,000 each for Wilberforce University and Central 

State University in Wilberforce, Ohio; $2,000,000 for Claflin College in Orangeburg, SC; $4,000,000 for Allen University in Columbia, SC; and $1,000,000 each for Voorhees College in Denmark, SC 

and South Carolina State University in Orangeburg, SC, and Florida Memorial University for the Carrie Meek Health and Science 

Complex in Miami Gardens, FL. The Committee directs the Department to provide funds to HBCU institutions to allow for infrastructure improvements and technical programs. The Committee 

expects the Department to ensure the Dr. Samuel P. Massie Chairs 

of Excellence are fully supported within the HBCU program. 

147 

ENVIRONMENTAL AND OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES

DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT

The Defense Environmental Management program is responsible 

for identifying and reducing risks and managing waste at sites 

where the Department carried out defense-related nuclear research 

and production activities that resulted in radioactive, hazardous, 

and mixed waste contamination requiring remediation, stabilization, or some other type of cleanup action. These responsibilities include facilities and areas at 114 geographic sites. These sites are 

located in 30 States and one territory and occupy an area equal to 

that of Rhode Island and Delaware combined, or about two million 

acres. 

The Defense Environmental Management activities were previously funded in two separate accounts, Defense Site Acceleration 

Completion and Defense Environmental Services, and are now combined into one account, Defense Environmental Cleanup. 

The Committee remains committed to the strategy of accelerating cleanup and closing sites. However, the categorization of 

funding activities by planning goals has diminished in utility over 

time—dates slip, and activities that do not fit the ‘‘2012’’ timeframe 

were merely moved into the ‘‘2035’’ timeframe as a matter of 

course. As such, the Committee no longer finds this display of activities useful, and has moved to a location/site-based display, to increase the transparency of where environmental cleanup dollars 

are being spent. The Committee requests that Congressional budget submissions be submitted in this format in the future. 

Milestone report.—While the budget structure has changed, the 

Committee remains interested in whether the Department has met 

its goals for completion for years 2006, 2012, and 2035. Beginning 

December 31, 2005, the Committee requests a quarterly report by 

site that tracks accelerated clean-up milestones, whether they are 

being met or not, and includes annual budget estimates and lifecycle costs. 

NNSA Transfer.—The Committee does not support the transfer 

of environmental cleanup responsibilities to the National Nuclear 

Security Administration (NNSA). The Committee believes that this 

proposal was not sufficiently justified by the Department, and has 

concerns that the mission orientation and experience in environmental cleanup is not resident in NNSA. As currently proposed, 

the transfer has the potential for unintentional adverse outcomes 

for both the weapons mission and cleanup programs. The Committee will consider future transfer requests when the Department 

has provided a more extensive, thoughtful justification. 

Low-level radioactive waste disposal costs.—The Energy and 

Water Development Appropriations Act, 2002, directed the Department to prepare analysis of life-cycle costs of disposing of low-level 

radioactive waste and mixed low-level radioactive waste (LLW/ 

MLLW). The conference committee was concerned with DOE’s practices for disposal of LLW. These concerns centered on DOE’s use 

of federal versus commercial disposal facilities and the life-cycle 

costs of each option. The House Committee on Appropriations noted 

that (1) DOE’s was relying too heavily on its on-site and off-site 

disposal facilities, inhibiting development of a viable and competiVerDate Aug 04 2004 16:26 May 19, 2005 Jkt 021245 PO 00000 Frm 00147 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A20967.003 A20967
148 

tive commercial disposal industry, and (2) commercial disposal facilities may offer DOE the lowest life-cycle cost for waste disposal. 

DOE responded with a July 2002 life-cycle cost report to Congress, 

which specified actions it would take to ensure that sites use lifecycle cost analyses, including justification for expansion or new 

construction of on-site disposal facilities. DOE issued guidance in 

July 2002 directing its field offices to use full ‘‘cradle to grave’’ life 

cycle costs and analysis of options in making LLW disposal decisions. The Committee requested that the Government Accountability Office (GAO) review the Department’s implementation of 

using life-cycle analyses to evaluate LLW/MLLW disposal options. 

GAO found that DOE sites do not consistently use life-cycle analyses to evaluate LLW/MLLW disposal options, which may be 

caused by DOE’s ineffective communication and implementation of 

life cycle cost analysis guidance, and lack of oversight. GAO found 

that sites may conduct cost analyses of disposal options for major 

waste streams or projects, but most analyses did not include all 

life-cycle cost elements; some sites pursue waste disposal without 

fully considering alternatives; and DOE sites do not always use 

life-cycle analyses to evaluate on-site versus off-site disposal options. The Committee is most concerned with the Department’s response to GAO that, rather than relying on life-cycle cost analyses, 

DOE is relying increasingly on incentive-based contracts to ensure 

cost-effective decisionmaking. The Committee could not disagree 

more. 

Report Requirement.—The lack of implementing life-cycle cost 

analyses when considering LLW/MLW disposal options is a blatant 

disregard for Congressional direction. While contractors should 

pursue cost-effective clean-up activities at a site, it is up to the 

Federal management responsible for those contractors to provide 

guidance and make decisions that benefit the whole DOE complex. 

Relying on incentive-based contracts to ‘‘take care of it all’’ is an 

abrogation of duty by the federal managers. As such, the Secretary 

is directed to report to the Committee, within 30 days of enactment, on the specific steps the Department will take to ensure that 

life-cycle cost guidance is implemented in the consideration of 

LLW/MLW options by DOE contractors, and that a robust federal 

cadre of employees will oversee the implementation of such guidance. 

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 2006, the Department may transfer up to 

$5,000,000 between control points, 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 once during the fiscal year. 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 of the House and Senate must 

be notified within thirty days of the use of this reprogramming authority. 

149 

CONTROL LEVELS FOR REPROGRAMMING

Savannah River site, 2012 accelerations Closure sites 

Savannah River site, 2035 accelerations Program direction 

Savannah River Tank Form 

Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Program support 

Idaho National Laboratory UE D&D fund contribution 

Oak Ridge Reservation Technology development 

Hanford site, 2012 accelerated completions All construction line items 

Hanford site, 2035 accelerated completions NNSA sites & Nevada off-sites 

Office of River Protection, waste treatment & immobilization Safeguards and Security 

Office of River Protection, tank farm activities 

Details of the recommended funding levels follow below for the 

Defense Environmental Cleanup account. 

DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP

Appropriation, 2005 ............................................................................ $6,808,319,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ....................................................................... 6,015,044,000 

Recommended, 2006 ........................................................................... 6,468,336,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2005 .................................................................... ¥339,953,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ................................................................ +453,292,000 

The Committee’s recommendation for Defense Environmental 

Cleanup totals $6,468,336,000, an increase of $453,292,000 to the 

budget request of $6,015,044,000. Within the amounts provided, 

the Department is directed to fund hazardous waste worker training at $10,000,000. 

Closure Sites.—The Committee recommendation provides $1,038,589,000, an increase of $30,000,000 over the budget request. 

Cleanup of this category of sites is expected to be complete in fiscal 

year 2006. The recommendation provides $579,950,000 for Rocky 

Flats, Colorado; $327,609,000 for Fernald, Ohio; $16,000,000 for 

Ashtabula, Ohio; and $9,500,000 for West Jefferson site, Columbus, 

Ohio. The Committee provides $105,530,000, an increase of 

$30,000,000 for the Miamisburg Closure Project. The increase over 

the request is to address the remaining hazardous wastes serving 

as the source term for Operable Unit 1 (OU–1). 

The Committee directs the Department to work with the 

Miamisburg Mound Community Improvement Corporation 

(MMCIC) to establish a remedy for OU–1 that is protective of 

human health and the environment, complies with regulatory requirements, is permanent, reduces contaminants, demonstrates an 

efficient use of the Government’s resources, and permits reuse as 

provided in the MMCIC Comprehensive Reuse Plan. The Committee directs the Department to report back to the House and 

Senate Committees on Appropriations on the path forward for remediating OU–1 not later than December 1, 2005. 

Savannah River Site.—The Committee recommendation provides 

$1,219,082,000 for cleanup at the Savannah River Site, a reduction 

of $10,000,000 from the budget request. The Committee does not 

support the request of $10,000,000 for the melt and dilute technology for excess weapons-grade plutonium, because it is more appropriately funded within the National Nuclear Security Administration, as it addresses the disposition of fissile material, not cleanup responsibilities. 

Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP).—The Committee recommendation provides $212,629,000 for the Waste Isolation Pilot 

150 

Project, the same as the budget request, and a decrease of 

$12,743,000 from fiscal year 2005. 

Idaho National Laboratory.—The Committee recommendation 

provides $531,725,000, the same as the budget request. 

Oak Ridge Reservation.—The Committee recommendation pro- vides $202,652,000, an increase of $16,100,000 over the budget request. The recommendation includes an increase of $3,600,000 for 

the design of an upgraded waste treatment system; an increase of 

$6,000,000 to accelerate nuclear facility decontamination and decommissioning at Oak Ridge National Laboratory; and, an increase 

of $6,500,000 to accelerate the nuclear facility decontamination and 

decommissioning at East Tennessee Technology Park. 

Hanford Site.—The Committee recommendation provides $821,010,000 for the Hanford Site, an increase of $71,293,000 over 

the budget request. The recommendation provides $206,565,000 for 

nuclear material stabilization and disposition, an increase of 

$15,793,000 over the budget request, and $188,501,000 for nuclear 

facility decontamination and decommissioning River Corridor, an 

increase of $20,000,000 over the budget request. These increases 

are provided to maintain 2012 completion. The Committee recommendation provides $7,500,000 for the Volpentest Hazardous 

Materials Management and Emergency Response (HAMMER) 

training and education center, and $1,000,000 for preservation of 

the B Reactor as a historic landmark. The recommendation provides $58,479,000 for spent nuclear fuel stabilization and disposition, the same as the budget request. The recommendation includes $173,113,000 for solid waste stabilization and disposition in the 200 Area, an increase of 

$8,000,000 over the budget request, $86,955,000 for soil and water 

remediation, an increase of $14,000,000 over the budget request, 

and $75,812,000 for nuclear facility decontamination and decommissioning for the remainder of Hanford, an increase of $5,000,000 

over the request. The Committee recommendation provides 

$5,861,000 to operate the waste disposal facility, $1,813,000 for 

spent fuel stabilization and storage, and $15,411,000 for Richland 

community and regulatory support, the same as the budget request. 

Office of River Protection.—The Committee recommendation provides $1,051,918,000 for the Office of River Protection, an increase 

of $123,612,000 over the request, and an increase of $59,505,000 

over fiscal year 2005 enacted levels. The recommendation includes 

$690,000,000 for the waste treatment and immobilization plant, an 

increase of $64,107,000 over the request of $625,000,000, and an 

increase of $5,520,000 over fiscal year 2005 enacted levels. The increase is to maintain the project on a pace consistent with contractual agreements and completion dates. The recommendation includes $361,447,000 for radioactive liquid tank waste stabilization 

and disposition, an increase of $67,000,000 over the request of 

$294,447,000, to continue tank retrievals and closure demonstrations. The Committee supports the expeditious removal of highlevel liquid waste from the tanks, and immobilization, and is concerned the Administration does not share these same priorities, as 

reflected in the budget request. The Committee recommends no 

funding for the immobilized high level waste interim storage facilVerDate Aug 04 2004 16:26 May 19, 2005 Jkt 021245 PO 00000 Frm 00150 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A20967.003 A20967
151 

ity, a $7,495,000 reduction from the budget request. Construction 

of the storage facility for vitrified waste is premature in light of the 

timetable for the immobilization facility. The recommendation provides $471,000, the same as the budget request, for community and 

regulatory support. 

Program Direction.—The Committee recommendation provides $248,816,000, an increase of $17,885,000 over the request of 

$230,931,000. The increase reflects the return of program direction 

funds to the Environmental Management program that otherwise 

would have gone to the NNSA. Of the total amount of 

$248,816,000, $82,924,000 is available for obligation only after the 

report delivery to the Committee by the Secretary on the specific 

steps the Department will take to ensure that life-cycle cost guidance is implemented in the consideration of LLW/MLW options by 

DOE contractors. 

Program Support.—The Committee recommendation provides $32,846,000 for program support, the same as the budget request. 

Federal Contribution to Uranium Enrichment Decontamination 

and Decommissioning Fund.—The Energy Policy Act of 1992 (Public Law 102–486) created the Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund to pay for the cost of cleanup of 

the gaseous diffusion facilities located in Oak Ridge, Tennessee; Paducah, Kentucky; and Portsmouth, Ohio. The Committee recommendation includes the budget request of $451,000,000 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 $21,389,000, the same as the budget request. Within the amounts provided, the Department is directed to 

fund the real-time identification warning system at $250,000, the 

Hanford Tank Waste Operations Simulator at $2,000,000, and the 

Mid-Atlantic Recycling Center for End of Life Electronics at 

$1,000,000. 

NNSA sites and Nevada off-sites.—The Committee recommendation provides $349,457,000, an increase of $204,402,000 over the 

budget request. The increase reflects the return of cleanup activities to the Environmental Management program that otherwise 

would have transferred to the NNSA. 

Safeguards and Security.—The Committee recommendation provides $287,223,000, the same as the budget request. 

OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES

Appropriation, 2005 ............................................................................ $687,149,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ....................................................................... 635,998,000 

Recommended, 2006 ........................................................................... 702,498,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2005 .................................................................... +15,349,000 

Budget estimate, 2005 ................................................................ +66,500,000 

This account provides funding for the Office of Security and Performance Assurance; Intelligence; Counterintelligence; Environment, Safety and Health (Defense); Legacy Management; Funding 

for Defense Activities in Idaho; Defense Related Administrative 

Support; and the Office of Hearings and Appeals. Descriptions of 

each of these programs are provided below. 

152 

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 $357,595,000, an increase of 

$56,500,000 over the budget request. The Committee’s increase is 

provided to support design and construction activities to upgrade 

CPP–651 and CPP–691 at the Idaho National Laboratory for complex-wide material consolidation of special nuclear material. The 

Department is directed to provide an implementation plan for consolidation to the Committee, due September 30, 2005, on the total 

cost, schedule, and consolidation capacity of the Idaho facilities and 

the candidate material inventories available for consolidation. The 

Committee also provides $20,000,000 to begin the immediate transfer of the excess uranium-233 stored in Building 3019 at the Oak 

Ridge National Laboratory to the Y–12 National Security Complex 

for safe, secure interim storage. As a legacy weapons material, the 

Committee recognizes that the program owner of the excess uranium-233 material is the National Nuclear Security Administration 

and program responsibility transfers to the NNSA with the termination of Medical Isotope Production and Building 3019 Complex 

Shutdown project. The Committee provides funding within SSA to 

coordinate the shutdown activities and the transfer of this material 

to secure storage on an NNSA site. The Committee directs the Department to evaluate other existing blend down/reprocessing capability within the complex to complete the material stabilization for 

long-term interim safe storage. The Secretary is directed to submit 

the report to the Committee on alternative disposition options for 

excess uranium-233 in Building 3019 that includes all options 

meeting the 2004 DBT requirements, maintaining all worker 

health and safety requirements, and cost estimates based on total 

life cycle costs including long term disposition. This report is due 

to the House and Senate Appropriations Committees by September 

30, 2005. 

In fiscal year 2006, the Department of Energy will spend $1.45 

billion on safeguards and security activities at Headquarters and 

field locations. Funding for safeguards and security activities at 

Departmental facilities and laboratories for programmatic activities 

in the field is included within each program budget. 

OFFICE OF INTELLIGENCE

The intelligence program provides information and technical 

analyses on international arms proliferation, foreign nuclear programs, and other energy related matters to policy makers in the 

Department and other U.S. Government agencies. The focus of the 

Department’s intelligence analysis and reporting is on emerging 

proliferant nations, nuclear technology transfers, foreign nuclear 

materials production, and proliferation implications of the breakup 

of the Former Soviet Union. 

153 

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 $77,029,000, the same as the 

budget request. 

LEGACY MANAGEMENT

The Committee recommendation provides a total of $78,598,000 

for the Office of Legacy Management to manage the long-term 

stewardship responsibilities at the Department of Energy clean up 

sites. The Committee recommendation provides $55,076,000 in 

Other Defense Activities and the balance of $23,522,000 is provided 

in the non-defense Energy Supply account. The Department is directed to provide a report to the Committee, due September 30, 

2005, on the Department’s management plan and five-year cost estimates associated with procuring the services of a national stewardship contractor to administer the pension and benefit payments 

to former Environmental Management closure site contractor employees. The report should include detailed cost estimates of the 

pension and benefit liability by site and contract at the former 

cleanup sites. The Committee recommendation provides no funds 

for the worker and community transition activities. 

FUNDING FOR DEFENSE ACTIVITIES IN IDAHO

The Committee recommendation includes $123,873,000 to fund 

the defense-related (050 budget function) activities at the Idaho 

National Laboratory (INL) and associated Idaho cleanup sites. This 

amount includes $17,762,000 for INL infrastructure, the same as 

the budget request, 75,008,000 for Idaho site-wide safeguards and 

security, the same as the budget request; and $31,103,000 for program direction to support Headquarters and Idaho Field Office personnel. 

DEFENSE RELATED ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT

The Committee recommendation includes $87,575,000, the same 

as the budget request, to provide administrative support for programs funded in the atomic energy defense activities accounts. This 

will fund Departmental activities performed by offices such as the 

Secretary, Deputy Secretary and Under Secretary, the General 

Counsel, Chief Financial Officer, Human Resources, Congressional 

Affairs, and Public Affairs, which support the organizations and activities funded in the atomic energy defense activities accounts. 

154 

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 $4,353,000, the same as the budget 

request. 

FUNDING ADJUSTMENTS

The Committee recommendation for funding adjustments includes an offset of $3,003,000 for the safeguards and security 

charge for reimbursable work, the same as the budget request. 

DEFENSE NUCLEAR WASTE DISPOSAL

Appropriation, 2005 ............................................................................ $229,152,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ....................................................................... 351,447,000 

Recommended, 2006 ........................................................................... 351,447,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2005 .................................................................... +122,295,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ................................................................ ............................

Since passage of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as 

amended, the Nuclear Waste Fund has incurred costs for activities 

related to the disposal of high-level waste and spent nuclear fuel 

generated from the atomic energy defense activities of the Department of Energy. The Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal appropriation was established to ensure payment of the Federal government’s contribution to the nuclear waste repository program. The 

total amount due from defense contributions is estimated at $5.8 

billion, of which only $2.6 billion has been appropriated through 

the end of fiscal year 2005, with a balance owed of approximately 

$3.2 billion. An estimated defense contribution of $2.8 billion will 

be required after fiscal year 2006 to fulfill the remaining defense 

obligation. 

The Committee recommendation is $351,447,000, the same as 

the budget request. Coupled with the $310,000,000 provided under 

the Nuclear Waste Disposal account, the Committee provides a 

total of $661,447,000 for the Yucca Mountain repository. 

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. 

The Committee rejects the Administration proposal to recover expenses related to operations and maintenance activities and program direction expenditures using offsetting collections and the 

proposal to increase the power marketing administration rates to 

reflect market based rates. 

155 

All power marketing administrations except the Bonneville 

Power Administration are funded annually with appropriated 

funds. Revenues collected from power sales and transmission services are deposited in the Treasury to offset expenditures. The Committee recommendation for fiscal year 2006 does not support the 

Administration proposal to continue the phase-out of Federal financing of the customers’ purchase power and wheeling expenses 

for the Southeastern Power Administration, the Southwestern 

Power Administration, and the Western Area Power Administration. Also, the Committee recommendation does not at this time incorporate the Administration proposal for the Power Marketing Administrations to fund directly from revenues the costs of operation 

and maintenance of federal hydropower facilities at Corps of Engineers dams. 

Operations of the Bonneville Power Administration are self-financed under the authority of the Federal Columbia River Transmission System Act (P.L. 93–454). Under this Act, the Bonneville 

Power Administration is authorized to use its revenues to finance 

the costs of its operations, maintenance, and capital construction, 

and to sell bonds to the Treasury if necessary to finance any additional capital program requirements. 

Purchase power and wheeling.—The Committee finds no compelling reason to continue the phase out of purchase power and wheeling, particularly since this activity is budget neutral. The Committee recommendation for fiscal year 2006 maintains purchase 

power and wheeling activities at approximately the fiscal year 2005 

level. The Committee will continue to establish ceilings on the use 

of receipts for purchase power and wheeling, and also establish the 

amount of offsetting collections. 

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 2006. 

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, SOUTHEASTERN POWER

ADMINISTRATION

Appropriation, 2005 ............................................................................ $5,158,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ....................................................................... ............................

Recommended, 2006 ........................................................................... 5,600,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2005 .................................................................... +442,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ................................................................ +5,600,000 

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. 

156 

The Committee recommendation for the Southeastern Power Administration is $5,600,000, an increase of $5,600,000 from the 

budget request. The total program level for Southeastern in fiscal 

year 2006 is $38,313,000, with $32,713,000 for purchase power and 

wheeling and $5,600,000 for program direction. The purchase 

power and wheeling costs will be offset by collections of 

$32,713,000 provided in this Act. 

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, SOUTHWESTERN POWER

ADMINISTRATION

Appropriation, 2005 ............................................................................ $29,117,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ....................................................................... 3,166,000 

Recommended, 2006 ........................................................................... 30,166,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2005 .................................................................... +1,049,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ................................................................ +$27,000,000 

The Southwestern Power Administration markets the hydroelectric power produced at 24 Corps of Engineers projects in the 

six-state area of Arkansas, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Oklahoma 

and Texas. Southwestern operates and maintains 1,380 miles of 

transmission lines, with the supporting substations and communications sites. Southwestern gives preference in the sale of its 

power to publicly and cooperatively owned utilities. 

The Committee recommendation for the Southwestern Power Administration is $30,166,000, an increase of $27,000,000. The Committee’s restoration of $27,000,000 to the fiscal year 2006 budget 

reflects the Committee’s rejection of the Administration’s proposal 

to recover expenses related to operations and maintenance activities and program direction expenditures using offsetting collections. 

The total program level for Southwestern in fiscal year 2006 is 

$30,166,000, including $7,042,000 for operating expenses, 

$1,235,000 for purchase power and wheeling, $19,958,000 for program direction, and $3,166,000 for construction. The offset of 

$1,235,000 from collections for purchase power and wheeling yields 

a net appropriation of $30,166,000. The offsetting collections total 

$1,235,000 provided in this Act. 

CONSTRUCTION, REHABILITATION, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, WESTERN AREA POWER ADMINISTRATION

Appropriation, 2005 ............................................................................ $171,715,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ....................................................................... 53,957,000 

Recommended, 2006 ........................................................................... 226,992,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2005 .................................................................... +55,277,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ................................................................ +173,035,000 

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 $226,992,000, an increase of $173,035,000 from the 

budget request. The total O&M program level for Western in fiscal 

157 

year 2006 is $379,654,000, which includes $40,192,000 for construction and rehabilitation, $47,295,000 for system operation and maintenance, $148,500,000 for purchase power and wheeling, and 

$143,667,000 for program direction. Offsetting collections total 

$152,662,000; with the use of $4,162,000 of offsetting collections 

from the Colorado River Dam Fund (as authorized in P.L. 98–381), 

this requires a net appropriation of $226,992,000. 

The Committee continues to keep a keen interest in the on-going 

implementation and operation of the Sierra-Nevada Region’s Post2004 Power Marketing Plan and Transmission Operations. The 

Committee is supportive of the newly created sub-control area and 

plan; however it reiterates its concern to WAPA that is must follow 

the five criteria laid out in the Federal Register to maintain and 

enhance flexibility, certainty, durability, operating transparency, 

and most importantly, cost effectiveness to its customers. Therefore, the Committee directs WAPA to submit a report to the Committee on Appropriations and the Committee on Resources by January 1, 2006 regarding the implementation of the Post-2004 Power 

Marketing Plan and Transmission Operations, and specifically 

identify the difference, if any, in the cost effectiveness, operating 

transparency, durability, certainty and flexibility of the current 

plan versus the Federal Register notice of December 3, 2003. 

Within available funds, the Committee recommendation includes 

$6,000,000 to complete the Topock-Davis segment of the TopockDavis-Mead line to provide additional transmission capacity by 

using aluminum matrix composite conductor technology. 

FALCON AND AMISTAD OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE FUND

Appropriation, 2005 ............................................................................ $2,804,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ....................................................................... ............................

Recommended, 2006 ........................................................................... 2,692,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2005 .................................................................... ¥112 

Budget estimate, 2006 ................................................................ +2,692,000 

Falcon Dam and Amistad Dam are two international water 

projects located on the Rio Grande River between Texas and Mexico. Power generated by hydroelectric facilities at these two dams 

is sold to public utilities through the Western Area Power Administration. The Foreign Relations Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 

1994 and 1995 created the Falcon and Amistad Operating and 

Maintenance Fund to defray the costs of operation, maintenance, 

and emergency activities. The Fund is administered by the Western 

Area Power Administration for use by the Commissioner of the 

U.S. Section of the International Boundary and Water Commission. 

The Committee recommendation is $2,692,000. 

FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation, 2005 ............................................................................ $208,320,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ....................................................................... 220,400,000 

Recommended, 2006 ........................................................................... 220,400,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2005 .................................................................... +12,080,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ................................................................ ............................

158 

REVENUES APPLIED

Appropriation, 2004 ............................................................................ $¥208,320,000 

Budget estimate, 2005 ....................................................................... ¥220,400,000 

Recommended, 2005 ........................................................................... ¥220,400,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2004 .................................................................... ¥12,080,000 

Budget estimate, 2005 ................................................................ ............................

The Committee recommendation for the Federal Energy Regu- latory Commission (FERC) is $220,400,000, 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. 

159 


Insert offset folio 157 here HR86.041
160 


Insert offset folio 158 here HR86.042
161 


Insert offset folio 159 here HR86.043
162 


Insert offset folio 160 here HR86.044
163 


Insert offset folio 161 here HR86.045
164 


Insert offset folio 162 here HR86.046
165 


Insert offset folio 163 here HR86.047
166 


Insert offset folio 164 here HR86.048
167 


Insert offset folio 165 here HR86.049
168 


Insert offset folio 166 here HR86.050
169 


Insert offset folio 167 here HR86.051
170 


Insert offset folio 168 here HR86.052
171 


Insert offset folio 169 here HR86.053
172 


Insert offset folio 170 here HR86.054
173 


Insert offset folio 171 here HR86.055
174 


Insert offset folio 172 here HR86.056
175 


Insert offset folio 173 here HR86.057
176 


Insert offset folio 174 here HR86.058
177 

GENERAL PROVISIONS

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Contract Competition.—Section 301 modifies language carried in 

the conference report for the Energy and Water Development Act, 

2005 (P.L. 108–447), requiring the competition of the management 

and operating contracts for Ames, Argonne, Lawrence Berkeley, 

Lawrence Livermore, and Los Alamos national laboratories. The 

Committee appreciates the efforts of the Secretary and his staff to 

comply with the provisions of the existing Section 301 in P.L. 108– 137 and to schedule competitions for these five laboratory contracts. The Committee renews the statutory requirement to compete these five contracts to be sure the Department follows through 

on the commitments made by the present Secretary. 

Section 301 also reiterates language from previous Energy and 

Water Development Acts requiring notification of Congress if the 

Secretary awards a management and operating contract in excess 

of $100 million in annual funding at a current or former management and operating contract site or facility, or 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. At least 90 days before granting such a waiver, the 

Secretary of Energy must submit to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations a report notifying the Committees of the 

waiver and setting forth, in specificity, the reasons for the waiver. 

Section 301 does not preclude extensions of a contract awarded 

using competitive procedures, but does establish a presumption of 

competition unless the Secretary invokes the waiver option. The 

waiver for non competitive awards or extensions should be invoked 

only in truly exceptional circumstances or in the case of exceptional 

performance, not as a matter of routine. A non-competitive award 

or extension may be in the taxpayers’ interest, but the burden of 

proof is on the Department to make that case in the waiver request. 

Limitation on Benefits for Federal Employees.—Section 302 provides that none of the funds in this Act may be used to prepare 

or implement workforce restructuring plans or provide enhanced 

severance payments and other benefits and community assistance 

grants for Federal employees of the Department of Energy under 

section 3161 of the National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal 

Year 1993 (Public Law 102–484). The Committee has provided no 

funds to implement workforce restructuring plans which would provide benefits to Federal employees of the Department of Energy 

which are not available to other Federal employees of the United 

States Government. A similar provision was included in the Energy 

and Water Development Appropriations Act, 2005. 

Limitation on Funding for Section 3161 Benefits.—Section 303 

provides that none of the funds in this Act may be used for enhanced severance payments to contractors and other benefits and 

community assistance grants authorized under the provisions of 

section 3161 of the National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal 

Year 1993 (Public Law 102–484). 

178 

Limitation on Initiation of Requests for Proposals.—Section 304 

provides that none of the funds in this Act may be used to initiate 

requests for proposals or expressions of interest for new programs 

which have not yet been presented to Congress in the annual budget submission, and which have not yet been approved and funded 

by Congress. A similar provision was included in the Energy and 

Water Development Appropriations Act, 2005. 

Transfer and Merger of Unexpended Balances.—Section 305 permits the transfer and merger of unexpended balances of prior appropriations with appropriation accounts established in this bill. A 

similar provision was included in the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, 2005. 

Limitation on Bonneville Power Administration.—Section 306 

provides that none of the funds in this or any other Act may be 

used by the Administrator of the Bonneville Power Administration 

to perform energy efficiency services outside the legally defined 

Bonneville service territory unless the Administrator certifies in 

advance that such services are not available from private sector 

businesses. A similar provision was included in the Energy and 

Water Development Appropriations Act, 2005. 

User Facilities.—Section 307 establishes certain notice and competition requirements with respect to the involvement of universities in Department of Energy user facilities. A similar provision 

was included in the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, 2005. The detailed guidance on the application of this 

provision was provided in House Report 107–681 and continues to 

apply. 

Research, Development and Demonstration Activities.—Section 

308 provides authority for up to 2 percent of national security funding to be used for research, development, and demonstration activities at the four nuclear weapons plants (i.e., Kansas City, Pantex, 

Savannah River, and Y–12) and at the Nevada Test Site. A similar 

provision was included in the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, 2005. 

Authorization of Intelligence Activities.—Section 309 authorizes 

intelligence activities of the Department of Energy for purposes of 

section 504 of the National Security Act of 1947 during fiscal year 

2006 until the enactment of the Intelligence Authorization Act for 

fiscal year 2005. 

Siting of Modern Pit Facility.—Section 310 provides that none of 

the funds made available in this or any other appropriations act 

may be used to select a site for the Modern Pit Facility during fiscal year 2006. As explained in the NNSA section of this report, the 

Committee believes any siting decision on the Modern Pit Facility 

is premature at this time. 

Laboratory Directed Research and Development.—Section 311 

provides that none of the funds made available in title III of this 

Act shall be available for the Department of Energy national laboratories and production plants for Laboratory Directed Research 

and Development (LDRD) and Plant Directed Research and Development (PDRD) and Site Directed Research and Development 

(SDRD) activities in excess of $250,000,000. 

Laboratory Directed Research and Development.—Section 312 

provides that none of the funds made available in title III of this 

179 

Act shall be available for Department of Energy LDRD and PDRD 

and SDRD activities for project costs incurred as Indirect Costs by 

Major Facility Operating Contractors under OMB’s Federal Cost 

Accounting Standards (FAR Part 9900) or the Generally Accepted 

Accounting Principles issued by the Financial Accounting Standards Board. 

Laboratory Directed Research and Development.—Section 313 

provides that none of the funds made available in this Act may be 

used to finance LDRD, PDRD, and SDRD activities at Department 

of Energy laboratories on behalf of other Federal agencies. 

(181) 

TITLE IV 

INDEPENDENT AGENCIES 

APPALACHIAN REGIONAL COMMISSION

Appropriation, 2005 ............................................................................ $65,472,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ....................................................................... 65,472,000 

Recommended, 2006 ........................................................................... 38,500,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2005 .................................................................... ¥26,972,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ................................................................ ¥26,972,000 

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 

2006, the budget includes $65,472,000, of which $53,954,000 is for 

program development; $6,228,000 is local development districts and 

technical assistance; and $5,290,000 is for salaries and expenses. In 

addition, $450,000,000 is available to the ARC to construct approximately 25 additional miles of highway. 

The ARC budget justification indicates that it targets fifty percent of its funds to distressed counties or distressed areas in the 

Appalachian region. In times of budget austerity, the Committee 

believes this should be the primary focus of the ARC. The Committee recommendation for ARC is $38,500,000, nearly $27,000,000 

less than the fiscal year 2005 enacted level and the budget estimate. The reduction is to be taken from the area development activities that serve other than distressed counties and distressed 

areas. 

Within the funds provided, the Committee has included the following activities: 

Central West Virginia public water and wastewater facilities .......... $2,000,000 

Southern West Virginia public water and wastewater treatment facilities .................................................................................................. 2,000,000 

Scioto County, Ohio sanitary sewer pump station renovations and 

improvements ..................................................................................... 750,000 

Copeland low water bridge, Breathitt County, Kentucky .................. 1,800,000 

Watershed coordination activities, Athens, Meigs, Gallia, Lawrence 

and Scioto counties, Ohio .................................................................. 500,000 

Logan County, West Virginia flood warning system .......................... 305,000 

DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation, 2005 ............................................................................ $20,106,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ....................................................................... 22,032,000 

Recommended, 2006 ........................................................................... 22,032,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2005 .................................................................... +1,926,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ................................................................ --- 

182 

The Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board was created by the 

Fiscal Year 1989 National Defense Authorization Act. The Board, 

composed of five members appointed by the President, provides advice and recommendations to the Secretary of Energy regarding 

public health and safety issues at the Department’s defense nuclear 

facilities. The Board is responsible for reviewing and evaluating the 

content and implementation of the standards relating to the design, 

construction, operation, and decommissioning of defense nuclear facilities of the Department of Energy. The Committee recommendation for fiscal year 2006 is $22,032,000, the same as the budget request. 

DELTA REGIONAL COMMISSION

Appropriation, 2005 ............................................................................ $6,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ....................................................................... 6,000,000 

Recommended, 2006 ........................................................................... 6,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2005 .................................................................... --- 

Budget estimate, 2006 ................................................................ --- 

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. 

For fiscal year 2006, the Committee recommends $6,000,000, the 

same as the enacted level and the budget estimate. 

DENALI COMMISSION

Appropriation, 2005 ............................................................................ $66,464,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ....................................................................... 2,562,000 

Recommended, 2006 ........................................................................... 2,562,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2005 .................................................................... 63,902,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ................................................................ --- 

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 

2006, the Committee recommends $2,562,000 for the costs of the 

Commission’s operations, the same level as the budget estimate. In 

addition to these funds, the Commission plans to expend other 

funds totaling $4,000,000 in fiscal year 2006 on renovating or 

building bulk fuel storage facilities in two Alaskan communities. 

183 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation, 2005 ............................................................................ $657,475,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ....................................................................... 693,376,000 

Recommended, 2006 ........................................................................... 714,376,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2005 .................................................................... +56,901,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ................................................................ +21,000,000 

REVENUES

Appropriation, 2005 ............................................................................ ¥$530,079,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ....................................................................... ¥559,643,000 

Recommended, 2006 ........................................................................... ¥580,643,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2005 .................................................................... ¥50,564,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ................................................................ ¥21,000,000 

NET APPROPRIATION

Appropriation, 2005 ............................................................................ $127,396,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ....................................................................... 133,733,000 

Recommended, 2006 ........................................................................... 133,733,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2005 .................................................................... +6,337,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ................................................................ ............................

The Committee recommendation for the Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) salaries and expenses is $714,376,000, an increase of $21,000,000 over the budget request. This amount is offset by estimated revenues of $580,643,000, resulting in a net appropriation of $133,733,000. The recommendation includes 

$66,717,000 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 high-level 

waste. 

Fee recovery.—The Committee recommendation includes bill language providing for a one-year extension of the authority to continue the fee recovery percentage used in fiscal year 2005, namely, 

that the NRC is required in fiscal year 2006 to recover 90 percent 

of its budget authority, less the appropriation derived from the Nuclear Waste Fund and the amount necessary to implement Section 

3116 of the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act 

for Fiscal Year 2005 (P.L. 108–375), by assessing license and annual fees. Of the $717,376,000 gross appropriation for fiscal year 

2006, $66,717,000 is drawn from the Nuclear Waste Fund, 

$2,500,000 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), 90 percent of the balance of $645,159,000 (i.e., $580,643,000) 

is funded by fees collected from NRC licensees, and the remaining 

10 percent (i.e., $64,516,000) is funded from the General Fund of 

the Treasury. 

Safety and Security of Spent Nuclear Fuel.—In its fiscal year 

2004 conference report on Energy and Water Development Appropriations, the conferees directed the National Academy of Sciences 

(NAS) to conduct a study on the safety and security of spent nuVerDate Aug 04 2004 16:26 May 19, 2005 Jkt 021245 PO 00000 Frm 00183 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A20967.003 A20967
184 

clear fuel storage at commercial reactor sites. The NAS completed 

the classified version of this study in the summer of 2004 and released an unclassified summary of the study in early 2005. In its 

fiacal year 2005 conference report on Energy and Water Development Appropriations, the conferees provides the following direction 

to the NRC: ‘‘The National Academy completed this study and 

found a number of areas in which the NRC could improve its modeling of the risks to spent fuel storage and the mitigation of such 

risks. The conferees expect the NRC to take the necessary steps to 

improve its analyses, including the preparation of site-specific models, and to work with the utilities to ensure timely application of 

this information to mitigate risks.’’

From the Committee’s perspective, the NAS identified a number 

of risks that, while significant, are manageable risks given prompt 

and appropriate action by the NRC. However, the Committee has 

been disappointed by the NRC’s response to date to the NAS recommendations. The Committee notes deficiencies in the following 

areas: (a) slow response by the NRC to post-9/11 changes and to 

the NAS recommendations; (b) analysis of only worst-case 

vulnerabilities, with little or no attention to alternative scenarios; 

(c) focus on site-specific consequence assessments to the exclusion 

of site-specific vulnerability assessments; (d) delegation of the sitespecific consequence assessments to the trade association, the Nuclear Energy Institute, rather than placing that contract under 

NRC control; and (e) willingness to allow industry to determine 

what measures are appropriate and ‘‘readily available’’ to mitigate 

against pool incidents. The Committee does not believe the NRC 

has taken the necessary steps to resolve fully the concerns identified by the NAS. The Committee expects the NRC to redouble its 

efforts to address the NAS-identified deficiencies, and to direct, not 

request, industry to take prompt corrective actions. 

Public confidence in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission requires 

that the NRC be perceived to be an independent regulator of the 

nuclear industry. Steps such as asking industry to identify ‘‘readily 

available’’ mitigation measures and allowing the industry trade association to manage the contracts for force-on-force security assessments and site-specific consequence assessments do not inspire 

such confidence. The Committee provides an additional $21,000,000 

for the NRC to perform the necessary technical analyses and award 

the contracts to respond to the NAS safety and security recommendations. 

Reports.—The Committee directs the Commission to continue to 

provide monthly reports on the status of its licensing and other 

regulatory activities. 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

GROSS APPROPRIATION

Appropriation, 2005 ............................................................................ $7,458,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ....................................................................... 8,316,000 

Recommended, 2006 ........................................................................... 8,316,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2005 .................................................................... +858,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ................................................................ – – –

185 

REVENUES

Appropriation, 2005 ............................................................................ ¥$6,712,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ....................................................................... ¥7,485,000 

Recommended, 2006 ........................................................................... ¥7,485,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2005 .................................................................... ¥773,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ................................................................ ............................

NET APPROPRIATION

Appropriation, 2005 ............................................................................ $746,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ....................................................................... 831,000 

Recommended, 2006 ........................................................................... 831,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2005 .................................................................... +85,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ................................................................ ............................

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $8,316,000, the 

same as the budget request. The Committee recommendation includes bill language providing for a one-year extension of the authority to continue the fee recovery percentage used in fiscal year 

through the assessment of license and annual fees, as proposed by 

the Administration. Therefore, the revenue estimate is $7,485,000, 

resulting in a net appropriation for the NRC Inspector General of 

$831,000. 

NUCLEAR WASTE TECHNICAL REVIEW BOARD

Appropriation, 2005 ............................................................................ $3,152,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ....................................................................... 3,608,000 

Recommended, 2006 ........................................................................... 3,608,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2005 .................................................................... +456,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ................................................................ ............................

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 $3,608,000 for 

the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board in fiscal year 2006, the 

same as the budget request and an increase of $456,000 over fiscal 

year 2005 funding. 

TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

GROSS APPROPRIATION

Appropriation, 2005 ............................................................................ ............................

Budget estimate, 2006 ....................................................................... $9,000,000 

Recommended, 2006 ........................................................................... ............................

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2005 .................................................................... +9,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ................................................................ ¥9,000,000 

186 

OFFSET FROM TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY FUND

Appropriation, 2005 ............................................................................ ............................

Budget estimate, 2006 ....................................................................... ¥$9,000,000 

Recommended, 2006 ........................................................................... ............................

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2005 .................................................................... ¥9,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ................................................................ +9,000,000 

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 

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. 

(187) 

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. 

(189) 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES REPORT REQUIREMENTS 

The following items are included in accordance with various requirements of the Rules of the House of Representatives. 

CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY

Clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives states that: 

Each report of a committee on a public bill or public 

Joint resolution shall contain the following: (1) A statement citing the specific powers granted to Congress in the 

Constitution to enact the law proposed by the bill or joint 

resolution. 

The Committee on Appropriations bases its authority to report 

this legislation from Clause 7 of Section 9 of Article I of the Constitution of the United States of America which states: 

No money shall be drawn from the Treasury but in consequence of Appropriations made by law. 

Appropriations contained in this Act are made pursuant to this 

specific power granted by the Constitution. 

COMPARISON WITH BUDGET RESOLUTION

Clause 3(c)2 of ru1e XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives requires an explanation of compliance with section 

308(a)(1)(A) of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control 

Act of 1974 (Public Law 93–344), as amended, which requires that 

the report accompanying a bill providing new budget authority contain a statement detailing how that authority compares with the 

reports submitted under section 302 of the Act for the most recently agreed to concurrent resolution on the budget for the fiscal 

year from the Committee’s section 302(a) allocation. This information follows: 

[In millions of dollars] 

302(b) Allocation This bill 

Budget authority Outlays Budget authority Outlays 

Discretionary .......................................... 29,746 30,273 29,746 30,264 

Mandatory .............................................. 0 0 0 0 

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: 

190 

The Committee on Appropriations considers program performance, including a program’s success in developing and attaining 

outcome-related goals and objectives, in developing funding recommendations. 

FIVE-YEAR OUTLAY PROJECTIONS

In compliance with section 308(a)(1)(B) of the Congressional 

Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (Public Law 933–

44), as amended, the following table contains five-year projections 

associated with the budget authority in the accompanying bill: 

Millions 

Budget Authority ................................................................................... $29,746 

Outlays: 

2006 .......................................................................................... 19,208 

2007 .......................................................................................... 8,707 

2008 .......................................................................................... 1,683 

2009 .......................................................................................... 87 

2010 and beyond ...................................................................... 118 

ASSISTANCE TO STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS

In accordance with section 308(a)(1)(C) of the Congressional 

Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (Public Law 933–

44), as amended, the financial assistance to State and local governments is as follows: 

Millions 

Budget authority .................................................................................... $301 

Fiscal year 2006 outlays resulting therefrom ...................................... 134 

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. 

Under Title II, Bureau of Reclamation, Water an Related Resources: 

* * * of which $55,544,000 shall be available or transfer 

to the Upper Colorado River Basin Fund $21,998,000 and 

shall be available for transfer to the Lower Colorado River 

Basin Development Fund; of which such amounts as may 

be necessary may be advanced to the Colorado River Dam 

Fund; * * * 

* * * Provided further, That such transfers may be increased or decreased within the overall appropriations 

under this heading: * * * 

Under Title III, General Provisions: 

Sec. 305. The unexpended balances of prior appropriations provided for activities in this Act may be transferred 

to appropriation accounts for such activities established 

pursuant to this title. Balances so transferred may be 

merged with funds in the applicable established accounts 

and thereafter may be accounted for as one fund for the 

same time period as originally enacted. 

191 

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, General 

Investigations, providing for detailed studies and plans and specifications of projects prior to construction. 

Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, General 

Investigations, providing that amounts made available under this 

paragraph shall be provided in accordance with the terms and conditions specified in the report accompanying this Act. 

Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, Construction, to provide appropriations that remain available until expended for South Florida Everglades Restoration projects. 

Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, Construction, permitting the use of funds from the Inland Waterways Trust 

Fund and the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund. 

Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, Construction, providing that amounts made available under this paragraph 

shall be provided in accordance with the terms and conditions specified in the report accompanying this Act. 

Language has been included under the Corps of Engineers, Operation and Maintenance, stating that funds can be used for: providing security at facilities owned and operated by or on behalf of 

the Corps of Engineers, including the Washington Aqueduct; maintenance of harbor channels provided by a State, municipality, or 

other public agency that serve essential navigation needs of general 

commerce; and surveys and charting of northern and northwestern 

lakes and connecting waters, clearing and straightening channels, 

and removing obstructions to navigation. 

Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, Operation and Maintenance, permitting the use of funds from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund; providing for the use of funds from 

a special account for resource protection, research, interpretation, 

and maintenance activities at outdoor recreation areas; and allowing use of funds to cover the cost of operation and maintenance of 

dredged material disposal facilities for which fees have been collected. 

Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, Operations and Maintenance, providing that amounts made available 

under this paragraph shall be provided in accordance with the 

terms and conditions specified in the report accompanying this Act. 

Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, General 

Expenses, regarding support of the Humphreys Engineer Support 

Center Activity, the Institute for Water Resources, the United 

States Army Corps of Engineers Research and Development Center, and headquarters support functions at the United States Army 

Corps of Engineers Finance Center. 

192 

Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, General 

Expenses, prohibiting the use of funds other funds in this Act for 

the Office of the Chief of Engineers and the division offices. 

Language has been included to provide for funding for the Office 

of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works). 

Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, Administrative Provisions, providing that funds are available for official reception and representation expenses, and for purchase and hire of 

motor vehicles. 

Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, General 

Provisions, pertaining to the reprogramming of funds contained in 

title I of this Act. 

Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, General 

Provisions, prohibiting the use of funds provided in this Act to support activities related to the proposed Ridge Landfill in Tuscarawas 

County, Ohio. 

Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, General 

Provisions, prohibiting the use of funds provided in this Act to support activities related to the proposed Indian Run Sanitary Landfill 

in Sandy Township, Stark County, Ohio. 

Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, General 

Provisions, pertaining to the oversight and execution of multiyear 

contracts. 

Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, General 

Provisions, prohibiting after February 6, 2006, the execution of any 

continuing contract that obligates the United States Government 

during fiscal year 2007 to make payment under such contract for 

any project that is not contained in the fiscal year 2007 budget materials of the civil functions of the Corps of Engineers submitted by 

the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) to the Congress. 

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 under Corps of Engineers, General 

Provisions, reducing funds otherwise provided in title I of this Act 

by $18,630,000. 

Language has been included prohibiting the use of funds in this 

Act to carry out the construction of the Port Jersey element of the 

New York and New Jersey Harbor or reimbursement to the local 

sponsor for the construction of the Port Jersey element until commitments for construction of container handling facilities are obtained from the non-Federal sponsor for a second user along the 

Port Jersey element. 

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. 

193 

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 appropriation in the Act shall be available for activities budgeted as 

policy and administration. 

Language has been included under Bureau of Reclamation, Administrative Provisions providing for the purchase of motor vehicles. 

Language has been included under Title II, General Provisions, 

regarding the San Luis Unit and the Kesterson Reservoir in California. This language has been carried in prior appropriations Acts. 

194 

Language has been included under Title II, General Provisions, 

prohibiting the use of funds for any water acquisition or lease in 

the Middle Rio Grande or Carlsbad Projects in New Mexico unless 

the acquisition is in compliance with existing state law and administered under state priority allocation. 

Language has been included under Title II, General Provisions, 

relating to agreements with the city of Needles, California or the 

Imperial Irrigation District for the design and construction of 

stages of the Lower Colorado Water Supply Project. 

TITLE III–DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Language has been included under Energy Supply and Conservation for the purchase, construction, and acquisition of plant and 

capital equipment. 

Language has been included under Clean Coal Technology deferring certain funding for one year. 

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; specifying certain 

conditions for the Clean Coal Power Initiative; and, prohibiting the 

field-testing of nuclear explosives for the recovery of oil and gas. 

Language has been included under the Naval Petroleum and Oil 

Shale Reserves, permitting the use of unobligated balances, and 

the hire of passenger vehicles. 

Language has been included under the Elk Hills School Lands 

Fund specifying the amount that can be derived from the Fund. 

Language has been included under the Strategic Petroleum Reserve providing for vehicle, aircraft, and guard services, and uniform allowances. 

Language has been included under Non-Defense Environmental 

Cleanup providing for the purchase of motor vehicles. 

Language has been included under Science providing for the purchase of motor vehicles. 

Language has been included under Nuclear Waste Disposal limiting the use of external oversight funds. 

Language has been included under Departmental Administration, notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, and consistent with the authorization in Public Law 95–238, to permit the Department of Energy to use revenues to offset appropriations. The appropriations 

language for this account reflects the total estimated program 

funding to be reduced as revenues are received. This language has 

been carried in prior appropriations Acts. 

Language has been included under Departmental Administration 

providing, notwithstanding the provisions of the Anti-Deficiency 

Act, such additional amounts as necessary to cover increases in the 

estimated amount of cost of work for others, as long as such increases are offset by revenue increases of the same or greater 

amounts. This language has been carried in prior appropriations 

Acts. 

Language has been included under Departmental Administration 

providing, notwithstanding the provisions of the Anti-Deficiency 

Act, such additional amounts as necessary to cover increases in the 

195 

estimated amount of cost of work for others, as long as such increases are offset by revenue increases of the same or greater 

amounts. This language has been carried in prior appropriations 

Acts. 

Language has been included under Departmental Administration providing not to exceed $35,000 for official reception and representation expenses. 

Language has been included under Weapons Activities providing 

for the purchase of motor vehicles. 

Language has been included under the Office of the Adminis- trator 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 Administra- tion 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, 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, 

providing not to exceed $1,500 for official reception and representation expenses. 

Language has been included under Construction, Rehabilitation, 

Operation and Maintenance, Western Area Power Administration, 

providing that, not withstanding the provisions of 31 U.S.C. 3302, 

amounts collected to recover purchase power and wheeling expenses shall be credited to the account as offsetting collections and 

remain available until expended for the sole purpose of making 

purchase power and wheeling expenditures. 

Language has been included under Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission to permit the hire of passenger motor vehicles, to provide official reception and representation expenses, and to permit 

the use of revenues collected to reduce the appropriation as revenues are received. This language has been included in prior appropriation Acts. 

Language has been included under Department of Energy, General Provisions, Section 301, providing that none of the funds may 

196 

be used to make payments for a noncompetitive management and 

operating contract unless certain conditions are met. 

Language has been included under Department of Energy, General Provisions, Section 302, prohibiting the use of funds to prepare 

workforce restructuring plans or to provide enhanced severance 

payments and other benefits for Department of Energy employees 

under section 3161 of Public Law 102–484. 

Language has been included under Department of Energy, General Provisions, Section 303, prohibiting the use of funds to augment the funding provided for section 3161 of Public Law 102-484 

unless a reprogramming is submitted to the Committee. 

Language has been included under Department of Energy, General Provisions, Section 304, 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 305, providing that unexpended balances of 

prior appropriations may be transferred and merged with new appropriation accounts established in this Act. 

Language has been included under Department of Energy, General Provisions, Section 306, prohibiting the Administrator of the 

Bonneville Power Administration to enter into any agreement to 

perform energy efficiency services outside the legally defined Bonneville service territory. 

Language has been included under Department of Energy, General Provisions, Section 307, requiring the Department of Energy 

to ensure broad public notice when it makes a user facility available to universities and other potential users or seeks input regarding significant characteristics or equipment in a user facility or a 

proposed user facility, and requiring competition when the Department partners with a university or other entity for the establishment or operation of a user facility. 

Language has been included under Department of Energy, General Provisions, Section 308, allowing the manager of a nuclear 

weapons facility to engage in research, development, and demonstration activities using no more than 2 percent of the amounts 

available from national security programs. 

Language has been included under Department of Energy, General Provisions, Section 309, providing that funds for intelligence 

activities are deemed to be specifically authorized for purposes of 

section 504 ofthe National Security Act of 1947 during fiscal year 

2005 until enactment of the Intelligence Authorization Act for fiscal 

year 2005. 

Language has been included under Department of Energy, General Provisions, Section 310, prohibiting the use of funds to select 

a site for a Modern Pit Facility during fiscal year 2006. 

Language has been included under Department of Energy, General Provisions, Section 311, prohibiting the use of funds in this act 

to finance laboratory directed research and development activities 

in excess of $250,000,000. 

Language has been included under Department of Energy, General Provisions, Section 312, prohibiting the use of funds in this act 

to finance laboratory directed research and development activities 

197 

for project costs incurred as Indirect Costs by Major Facility Operating Contractors. 

Language has been included under Department of Energy, General Provisions, Section 313, prohibiting the use of funds in this act 

in fiscal year 2006 to finance laboratory directed research and development activities on behalf of other Federal agencies. 

Language has been included under Department of Energy, General Provisions, Section 314 limiting programs for price supports 

and loan guarantees to what is provided in appropriations Acts. 

TITLE IV–INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

Language has been included under Title IV, General Provisions, 

continuing the fee arrangement used in fiscal year 2005 through 

fiscal year 2006 for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

TITLE V–GENERAL PROVISIONS

Language has been included under General Provisions, prohibiting the use of funds in this Act to influence congressional action 

on any legislation or appropriation matters pending before Congress. 

Language has been included under General Provisions, prohibiting the transfer of funds in this Act except pursuant to a transfer 

made by, or transfer authority provided in, this Act or any other 

appropriation Act. 

COMPLIANCE WITH CLAUSE 3 OF RULE XIII (RAMSEYER RULE) 

In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by the bill, 

as reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is printed in italic, 

existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in roman): 

ACT OF NOVEMBER 14, 1986 

AN ACT Entitled the ‘‘Lower Colorado Water Supply Act’’. 

(Public Law 99–655) 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 

United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. AUTHORIZATION. 

(a) The Secretary of the Interior is authorized to construct, operate, and maintain the Lower Colorado Water Supply Project, California, in order to supply water for domestic, municipal, industrial, 

and recreational purposes only: Provided, That, the Secretary is 

hereby authorized, in his discretion, to contract with non-Federal 

interests for the care, operation, and maintenance of all or any part 

of the project works, subject to such rules and regulations as he 

may prescribe. Such project shall be constructed in stages as increases in demand warrant and substantially in accordance with 

the plans set forth in the document entitled ‘‘Lower Colorado Water 

Supply Study, California’’ (December 1985): Provided, That the Secretary is prohibited from constructing facilities with a total capacity in excess of ten thousand acre-feet per annum under authority 

198 

of this Act. The Secretary is authorized to enter into an agreement 

or agreements with the city of Needles or the Imperial Irrigation 

District for the design and construction of the remaining stages of 

the Lower Colorado Water Supply Project on or after November 1, 

2004, and the Secretary shall ensure that any such agreement or 

agreements include provisions setting forth (1) the responsibilities of 

the parties to the agreement for design and construction; (2) the locations of the remaining wells, discharge pipelines, and power 

transmission lines; (3) the remaining design capacity of up to 5,000 

acre-feet per year which is the authorized capacity less the design 

capacity of the first stage constructed; (4) the procedures and requirements for approval and acceptance by the Secretary of the remaining stages, including approval of the quality of construction, 

measures to protect the public health and safety, and procedures for 

protection of such stages; (5) the rights, responsibilities, and liabilities of each party to the agreement; and (6) the term of the agreement. 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 2. REPAYMENT OF COSTS. 

(a) * * * 

(b) Any contracts executed by the Secretary to fulfill the requirements of subsections (a)(2) and (a)(3) of this section must be with 

persons, or Federal or non-Federal governmental entities whose 

lands or interests in lands are located adjacent to the Colorado 

River in the State of California who do not hold rights to Colorado 

River water or whose rights are insufficient to meet their present 

or anticipated future needs, as determined by the Secretary. Such 

persons, or Federal or non-Federal governmental entities shall include the city of Needles, the town of Winterhaven, and other domestic, municipal, industrial, and recreational water users along 

the Colorado River in the State of California. Subject to the demand of such users along or adjacent to the Colorado River for 

Project water, the Secretary is further authorized to contract with 

additional persons or entities who hold Boulder Canyon Project Act 

section 5 contracts for municipal and industrial uses within the 

State of California for the use or benefit of Project water under such 

terms as the Secretary determines will benefit the interest of Project 

users along the Colorado River. 

* * * * * * * 

SECTION 6101 OF OMNIBUS BUDGET 

RECONCILIATION ACT OF 1990 

SEC. 6101. NRC USER FEES AND ANNUAL CHARGES. 

(a) ANNUAL ASSESSMENT.— (1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

ø(3) LAST ASSESSMENT OF ANNUAL CHARGES.—The last assessment of annual charges under subsection (c) shall be made 

not later than September 20, 2005.¿ 

* * * * * * * 

199 

(c) ANNUAL CHARGES.— (1) * * * 

(2) AGGREGATE AMOUNT OF CHARGES.— (A) * * * 

(B) PERCENTAGES.—The percentages referred to in 

subparagraph (A) are— (i) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(v) 90 percent for fiscal year 2005 and fiscal 

year 2006. 

* * * * * * * 

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: 

[Thousand dollars] 

Agency/Program Last year of 

authorization 

Authorization level 

Approrpiation 

in last year of 

authorization 

Corps of Engineers: 

Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action programs ....................................... (1) (1) 140,000 

Energy Supply: 

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy: 

Hydrogen Technology ............................................................................. 2001 40,000 26,594 

Solar Energy .......................................................................................... 1993 150,000 161,394 

Wind Energy .......................................................................................... 1993 55,000 23,841 

Hydropower ............................................................................................ 1980 100,000 20,939 

Geothermal Technology ......................................................................... 1993 23,000 23,252 

Biomass and Biorefinery Systems R&D ................................................ 1994 50,000 55,830 

Intergovernmental Activities ................................................................. 1997 10,000 4,000 

Departmental Energy Management Program ........................................ 1979 10,000 15,055 

Program Direction ................................................................................. 1977 (2) (2) 

Facilities and Infrastructure ................................................................. 1977 (2) (2) 

Nuclear Energy: 

Advanced Nuclear Reactor Technology ................................................. 1994 (3) 95,235 

Fast Flux Test Facility ........................................................................... 1993 70,000 60,656 

Environment, Safety and Health .................................................................... 1977 (2) (2) 

Non-Defense Environmental Management: 

Commercial Waste Management/Operating Expenses .................................. 1984 300,000 (2) 

Commercial Waste Management/Plant and Capital Equipment ................... 1982 975 (2) 

UMTRA Groundwater and Long-Term Surveillance and Maintenance .......... 1998 (2) 5,052 

West Valley Demonstration ............................................................................ 1981 5,000 5,000 

Uranium Activities: 

DUF6 Conversion ............................................................................................ 2004 (3) 98,800 

Science: 

General Science and Research Activities ...................................................... 1984 50,000 635,417 

High Energy Physics ...................................................................................... 1984 (3) 477,947 

Nuclear Physics .............................................................................................. 1984 (3) 155,220 

Biological and Environmental Research ........................................................ 1994 (3) 388,298 

Basic Energy Sciences ................................................................................... 1994 (3) 743,590 

Advanced Scientific Computing Research ..................................................... 1996 169,000 111,068 

Science Laboratories Infrastructure ............................................................... 1994 (3) 39,327 

Fusion Energy Sources ................................................................................... 1994 380,000 322,277 

Program Direction .......................................................................................... 1994 (2) (2) 

Science Education .......................................................................................... 1991 40,000 42,667 

Federal Laboratory Consortium ............................................................................... 1995 (2) (2) 

Departmental Administration .................................................................................. 1984 246,963 185,682 

Office of Economic Impact and Diversity ............................................................... 1981 6,000 583 

Office of Inspector General ..................................................................................... 1984 (2) 14,670 

200 

[Thousand dollars] 

Agency/Program Last year of 

authorization 

Authorization 

level 

Approrpiation 

in last year of 

authorization 

Atomic Energy Defense Activities: 

National Nuclear Security Administration: 

Weapons Activities ................................................................................ 2005 6,592,053 6,583,350 

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation ......................................................... 2005 1,348,647 1,422,103 

Naval Reactors ...................................................................................... 2005 797,900 801,437 

Office of Administrator ......................................................................... 2005 343,700 343,869 

Defense Environmental Management: 

Defense Site Acceleration Completion ........................................................... 2005 5,970,837 5,725,935 

Defense Environmental Services .................................................................... 2005 986,470 845,704 

Other Defense Activities ......................................................................................... 2005 636,036 672,590 

Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal ............................................................................ 2005 120,000 229,152 

Power Marketing Administration: 

Southeastern .................................................................................................. 1984 24,240 20,594 

Southwestern .................................................................................................. 1984 40,254 36,229 

Western Area .................................................................................................. 1984 259,700 194,630 

WAPA Emergency Fund .................................................................................. 1984 (2) 500 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ................................................................. 1984 275,000 (2) 

Fossil Energy: 

Fossil Energy Research and Development ..................................................... 1997 (3) (3) 

Clean Coal ..................................................................................................... 1998 (3) ¥101,000 

Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves ...................................................... 2005 20,000 18,000 

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy: 

Energy Conservation 

Vehicle Technologies—Fuels ......................................................................... 2000 (3) 21,600 

Vehicle Technologies—Electric Motor Vehicle ............................................... 2001 50,000 (2) 

Fuel Cell Technologies ................................................................................... 1997 40,000 50,117 

Weatherization .................................................................................................... 1994 5,000 200,000 

Building Technologies ........................................................................................ 1997 (2) 81,198 

Energy Information Administration ......................................................................... 1992 (2) 83,819 

1 Program was initiated in 1972 and has never received a separate authorization. 

2 No amount specified. 

3 Such sums as necessary. 

RESCISSIONS

Pursuant to clause 3(f)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, the Committee reports that it recommends no 

rescissions in this bill. 

FULL COMMITTEE VOTES

Pursuant to the provisions of clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules 

of the House of Representatives, the results of each roll call vote 

on an amendment or on the motion to report, together with the 

names of those voting and those voting against, are printed below: 

There were no roll call votes. 

201 


Insert offset folio 199 here HR86.059
202 


Insert offset folio 200 here HR86.060
203 


Insert offset folio 201 here HR86.061
204 


Insert offset folio 202 here HR86.062
205 


Insert offset folio 203 here HR86.063
206 


Insert offset folio 204 here HR86.064
207 


Insert offset folio 205 here HR86.065
208 


Insert offset folio 206 here HR86.066
209 


Insert offset folio 207 here HR86.067