27–628 

109TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 2d Session 109–474 

ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS 

BILL, 2007 

MAY 19, 2006.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of 

the Union and ordered to be printed 

Mr. HOBSON, from the Committee on Appropriations, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany H.R. 5427] 

The Committee on Appropriations submits the following report in 

explanation of the accompanying bill making appropriations for energy and water development for the fiscal year ending September 

30, 2007, and for other purposes. 

INTRODUCTION

The Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill for fiscal 

year 2007 totals $30,017,000,000, $545,773,000 above the President’s budget request, and $172,000,000 below the amount appropriated in fiscal year 2006. Title I of the bill provides $4,983,803,000 for the programs of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, a decrease of $345,367,000 below 

the fiscal year 2006 enacted level (adjusted for one-time emergency 

spending) and $250,803,000 over the budget request. The fiscal 

year 2007 budget request for the Corps of Engineers totals 

$4,733,000,000, which is composed of entirely of new budget authority. 

The fiscal year 2007 budget request for the Corps’ Civil Works 

program continues the performance-based ranking system instituted in fiscal year 2006 with two major modifications to the guidelines. The first allows risks to human life to be considered along 

with economics for flood and storm damage reduction projects. The 

second changes the prioritization process for environmental restoration projects. This performance-based system is intended to 

focus limited federal resources on the efficient completion of high 

economic-value projects while suspending or terminating work on 

other projects found not to be of as high an economic value and on 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
2 

congressionally mandated projects that have been included in prior 

Administration requests. The Committee supports the concept of focusing limited resources on completing high-value projects already 

under construction, and the Committee recommendation is based in 

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

The Committee bill and report retains changes to improve the 

Corps’ project management and execution, particularly in the areas 

of reprogrammings, continuing contracts, and five-year budget 

planning. Title II provides $940,934,000 for the Department of Interior and the Bureau of Reclamation, $17,198,000 over the budget request, 

and $113,939,000 below the fiscal year 2006 enacted level. The 

Committee recommends $900,779,000 for the Bureau of Reclamation, 17,198,000 above the budget request and $120,087,000 below 

the fiscal year 2006 enacted level. The Committee recommends 

$40,155,000 for the Central Utah Project including $965,000 for deposit into the Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Account, both the same as the budget request. Title III provides $24,373,489,000 for the Department of Energy, an increase of $326,717,000 over fiscal year 2006 and $298,772,000 

over the budget request of $24,074,717,000. 

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

is funded at $2,025,527,000, an increase of $102,166,000 over the 

request and $212,900,000 above the current year enacted level. The 

Committee recommends $4,131,710,000 for the Office of Science, an 

increase of $30,000,000 over the budget request and $535,317,000 

over the current year. 

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

$6,441,126,000, a decrease of $595,614,000 below the fiscal year 

2006 enacted level and an increase of $161,088,000 over the budget 

request. 

The Committee recommends a total of $574,500,000 for the 

Yucca Mountain repository. This includes $186,420,000 for Nuclear 

Waste Disposal, an increase of $30,000,000 over the request, and 

$388,080,000 for Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal, the same as the 

request. The additional funds are provided for the Department to 

begin to move spent nuclear fuel away from reactor sites to interim 

storage. 

Funding for the National Nuclear Security Administration 

(NNSA), which includes nuclear weapons activities, defense nuclear 

nonproliferation, naval reactors, and the Office of the NNSA Administrator, is $9,199,811,000, an increase of $95,314,000 over fiscal year 2006. The Committee recommendation includes 

$1,593,101,000 for Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation, a decrease of 

$21,738,000 over the current year and $133,112,000 below the 

budget request. 

Title IV provides $227,774,000 for several Independent Agencies, 

a decrease of $40,652,000 from fiscal year 2006 and $21,000,000 

below the budget request of $248,774,000. The requested funding 

is provided for the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, the 

Delta Regional Authority, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission InVerDate Aug 31 2005 05:42 May 20, 2006 Jkt 027628 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR474.000 HR474

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
3 

spector General, and the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board. 

The request for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is increased by 

$40,000,000, of which $36,000,000 is offset by license fees and annual charges. An additional $5,000,000 is provided for the Denali 

Commission. The request for the Appalachian Regional Commission is reduced by $30,000,000, and no funds are provided for the 

Office of Inspector General for the Tennessee Valley Authority. 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
(5) 

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 

1775, when Congress established the Continental Army with a provision for a Chief Engineer to oversee the construction of fortifications for the Battle of Bunker Hill. An Act of Congress permanently established the Corps in 1802. The Corps’ Civil Works role 

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

brief legislative history of the Corps follows. 

• The General Survey Act of 1824 authorized the President to 

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

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

also signed in 1824, appropriated $75,000 to improve navigation on 

the Ohio and Mississippi rivers by removing sandbags, snags and 

other obstacles, and was subsequently amended to include other 

rivers such as the Missouri. This work was also given to the Corps 

of Engineers. Subsequent Acts of Congress expanded the Corps’ responsibilities for navigation. 

• The Rivers and Harbors Act of 1909 expanded the Corps’ Civil 

Works authority by authorizing the consideration of hydroelectric 

power generation in the planning, design and construction of water 

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

flood damage reduction, which became a national flood protection 

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

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

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

River and Harbor Flood Act expanded that role by authorizing the 

Corps to build recreational facilities as part of all water resource 

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

assigned the Corps the mission to prevent obstacles in navigable 

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

Century, the Clean Water Act of 1972 broadened this responsibility 

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

the United States,’’ including many wetlands. Additional legislation 

passed in the 1986 Water Resources Development Act further exVerDate Aug 31 2005 05:42 May 20, 2006 Jkt 027628 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR474.000 HR474

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
6 

panded the Corps’ environmental role to include enhancing and restoring natural resources at new and existing projects, and the 

Water Resources Development Act of 1990 made environmental 

protection one of the Corps’ primary water resources development 

missions. • The Water Supply Act of 1958 gave the Civil Works Program 

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

and the Stafford Disaster and Emergency Assistance Act gave the 

Civil Works program direct authority to help the nation in times 

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

public facilities and infrastructure. The Stafford Act authorized the 

Corps to support the Federal Emergency Management Agency in 

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

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

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

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

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

MAJOR MISSION AREAS

Currently, the Corps accomplishes the Civil Works mission 

through the following major business programs: 

Navigation.—The role of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers with 

respect to navigation is to provide safe, reliable, and efficient waterborne transportation systems, such as channels, harbors and 

waterways, for movement of commerce, national security needs and 

recreation. The Corps seeks to accomplish this mission through a 

combination of capital improvements and the operation and maintenance of existing projects. Capital improvement activities include 

the planning, design, and construction of new navigation projects. 

In fiscal year 2004, the Corps operated and maintained 12,000 

miles of commercial inland navigation channels; owned and/or operated 257 navigation lock chambers at 212 sites; and maintained 

926 coastal, Great Lakes and inland harbors. 

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

1936 declared flood control to be a proper Federal activity since improvements for flood control purposes are in the interest of the general welfare of the public. The Act stipulated that for Federal involvement to be justified, ‘‘the benefits to whomsoever they may accrue (must be) in excess of the estimated costs, and the lives and 

social security of people (must be) otherwise adversely affected.’’ In 

fiscal year 2004, the Corps managed 383 major lakes and reservoirs; and constructed or controlled 8,500 miles of federal levees. 

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

Corps projects totaled $21.1 billion. 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
7 

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

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

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

Hurricane and storm damage reduction.—Congress authorized 

Federal participation in the cost of restoring and protecting the 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

that it is the most suitable and economical remedial measure. 

Water supply.—National policy regarding water supply states 

that the primary responsibility for water supply rests with states 

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

and modification of Federal navigation, flood damage reduction, or 

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

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

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

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

outdoor recreation opportunities, and ranks first among federal 

providers of outdoor recreation. Although known primarily for the 

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

Such facilities might include hiking and biking trails associated 

with a stream channel or levee primarily designed for flood damage 

reduction. There is no general authority for Corps participation in 

a single purpose recreation project. 

CONTINUING AUTHORITIES PROGRAM

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: 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
8 

Section 14 Emergency streambank and shoreline erosion.—

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

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

imminent danger of failing. The cost share is 65% federal and 

35% non-federal; and the federal share cannot exceed 

$1,000,000 per project. 

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

under this authority provides for protection or restoration of 

public shorelines by the construction of revetments, groins, and 

jetties, and may also include periodic sand replenishment. The 

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

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

Section 107 Small navigation improvements.—Authorized by 

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

authority is intended to provide improvements to navigation 

including dredging of channels, widening of turning basins, 

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

Section 111 Storm damage attributable to federal navigation 

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

or mitigation of erosion damages to public or privately owned 

shores along the coastline of the United States when these 

damages are a result of a federal navigation project. This authority cannot be used for shore damages caused by riverbank 

erosion or vessel-general wave wash. It is not intended to restore shorelines to historic dimensions, but only to reduce erosion to the level that would have existed without the construction of a federal navigation project. Cost sharing may not be 

required for this program. If the federal cost limitation of 

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

Section 204 Beneficial uses of dredged material.—Authorized 

by section 204 of the Water Resources Development Act of 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
9 

federal and 35% non-federal; and the federal share may not exceed $7,000,000 per project. 

Section 206 Aquatic ecosystem restoration.—Authorized by 

section 206 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996, 

work under this authority may carry out aquatic ecosystem 

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

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

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

share per project cannot exceed $5,000,000 including studies, 

plans and specifications, and construction. 

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

under this authority provides for local protection from flooding 

by channel clearing and excavation, with limited embankment 

construction by use of materials from the clearing operation 

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

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

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

provides for modifications in the structures and operations of 

water resources projects constructed by the Corps of Engineers 

to improve the quality of the environment. Additionally, the 

Corps may undertake restoration projects at locations where a 

Corps project has contributed to the degradation. The primary 

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

consistent with the authorized purposes of the project being 

modified, environmentally acceptable, and complete within 

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

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

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

specifications, and construction. 

FY 2007 BUDGET OVERVIEW

The fiscal year 2007 budget request for the Corps of Engineers totals $4,733,000,000. The Committee recommends a total of 

$4,983,803,000 for the Corps of Engineers, a decrease of 

$345,367,000 from fiscal year 2006 enacted levels (adjusted for onetime emergency spending) and $250,803,000 above the request. The 

budget request represents a continuation of the performance-based 

system based on the ratio of remaining benefits-to-remaining costs 

initially proposed in the fiscal year 2006 budget request. This performance-based system is intended to focus limited federal resources on the efficient completion of high economic-value projects 

while suspending or terminating work on other projects found not 

to be of as high an economic value and on Congressionally mandated projects that have been included in prior Administration requests. 

The Committee has recommended a rescission of unobligated balances from construction projects in Louisiana that have been fully 

funded through completion, at full federal expense, in supplemental 

appropriations. In recognition of the continuing and very real needs 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
10 

in the region for water resource projects, the majority of this funding is allocated to projects in the area not funded under the Administration’s budget request. The budget request also contains $20,000,000 in the Investiga- tions account to continue the effort, initiated with $30,000,000 in 

supplemental appropriations, to create a national inventory and 

database of flood and storm damage reduction projects and for assessing project structural and operational integrity and their associated risks. The Committee supports this effort; however, it is concerned with the Corps proposal for the execution of this activity. 

Given the uncertainty associated with the scope and process for 

this type of national inventory, the Committee believes the Corps 

should reevaluate its approach. The Committee therefore directs 

the Corps to execute a pilot project to determine the nature and extent of the task and further define the necessary parameters prior 

to initiating the inventory across the nation. The Committee further directs the Corps to give priority consideration to the Sacramento area for the pilot project as the region has a clear and 

pressing need for such an inventory and assessment. 

Until such time as the Committee is satisfied the Corps has a 

executable plan and direction for this activity, no additional funds 

are provided. Further, the Committee notes there is no explicit authorization for this activity in the Investigations account. 

The Committee has recommended funding for the major rehabilitations at Markland Locks and Dam and Locks No. 27, Mississippi 

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

The Committee does not view the rehabilitaiton of existing infrastructure as a new construction start, but rather a necessary investment to ensure adequate functioning of the Nation’s water resource infrastructure. 

A summary table illustrating the fiscal year 2006 enacted appropriation, the fiscal year 2007 budget request and the Committee 

recommended levels is shown below: 

[Dollars in 000s] 

Account Fiscal Year 2006 

Enacted 

Fiscal Year 2007 

Request 

Committee Recommendation 

Investigations .............................................................................................. $162,360 $94,000 $128,000 

Hurricane disasters assistance .................................................................. 37,300 ........................ ........................

Construction ................................................................................................ 2,348,280 1,555,000 1,929,471 

Hurricane disasters assistance .................................................................. 101,417 ........................ ........................

Rescission ................................................................................................... ........................ ........................ ¥56,046 

Mississippi River and tributaries ............................................................... 396,000 278,000 290,607 

Hurricane disasters assistance .................................................................. 153,750 ........................ ........................

Operation and maintenance, general ......................................................... 1,969,110 2,258,000 2,195,471 

Hurricane disasters assistance .................................................................. 327,517 ........................ ........................

Regulatory program .................................................................................... 158,400 173,000 173,000 

FUSRAP ........................................................................................................ 138,600 130,000 130,000 

Flood control and coastal emergencies ...................................................... ........................ 81,000 32,000 

Hurricane disasters assistance .................................................................. 2,277,965 ........................ ........................

General expenses ........................................................................................ 152,460 164,000 156,300

Hurricane disasters assistance .................................................................. 1,600 ........................ ........................

Office of Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) ............................ 3,960 (1) 5,000 

Total, Corps of Engineers ........................................................................... 8,228,719 4,733,000 4,983,803 

Appropriations ............................................................................................. 5,329,170 4,733,000 4,983,803 

Emergency Appropriations .......................................................................... 2,899,549 ........................ ........................

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


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
11 

FISCAL YEAR 2007 BUDGET PRESENTATION

The Corps of Engineers has proposed several changes to the 

manner in which the civil works program is presented and appropriated. The most significant is the movement of four categories of 

projects and programs from the Construction account into Operation and Maintenance. Additionally, the budget request aggregates Operation and Maintenance projects into geographical regions and provides only a top line appropriation for all projects contained within each of the 21 regions. 

The Committee supports a more systematic approach to the funding of the Operation and Maintenance account and understands the 

dynamic nature of the project needs within this account. The Committee is concerned that this method of budgeting provides little 

transparency of the proposed expenditures by project for Congress 

and for local and regional partners of the Corps of Engineers. We 

note, however, that the accountability of the Corps under this scenario differs little from that of past years, when the Corps interpreted its reprogramming authority to be 50 percent of the entire 

Operation and Maintenance account. In that case, while funding 

amounts were assigned to each project within the Act, there was 

no assurance that this amount of funding would be provided to the 

individual projects as identified. 

The Committee retains Endangered Species Act (ESA) compliance and beneficial use of dredged material in the Operation and 

Maintenance account with the exception of the Section 204 program. ESA compliance and dredged material facilities are a necessary and required cost of the nation’s waterway system and are 

appropriately considered an operation and maintenance cost. The 

Section 204 program is retained in the Construction account with 

the remaining Continuing Authorities. 

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

contained in the budget request with the following stipulations: 

• The Corps will provide, under signature within 30 days of 

enactment, to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations the planned funding allocations by project for this account, including a detailed accounting of activities previously 

funded under the Columbia River and the Missouri River Fish 

Mitigation projects; 

• The Corps will maintain this information on its website; 

• The Corps will not deviate from this allocation of funds 

without a clearly articulated management plan outlining the 

circumstances under which a reprogramming between individual projects is justified and the process by which these decisions will be made; 

• This management plan shall be provided to the House and 

Senate Committees on Appropriation for approval; 

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

to develop a communication plan for how this process will be 

coordinated with, and justified to, the impacted Members of 

Congress, water system users, and other interested parties. 

Further, the Corps is instructed to reevaluate the management 

of this account. At a minimum, the Corps shall consider: the proper 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
12 

level of decentralization versus centralized command and control; 

internal controls to ensure funds are spent appropriately; minimum 

standards of reporting for financial management purposes; and the 

method by which funds are allocated and shifted among specific 

projects. The Corps shall submit a report, with findings and recommendations, to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations within 60 days of enactment of this Act. 

The proposed movement of projects from the Construction account into Operation and Maintenance obfuscates that the Administration’s budget request reduces the level of funding allocated to 

operation and maintenance of our nation’s waterways by $52 million from the fiscal year 2006 request. The following table provides 

a comparison. 

Account Fiscal Year 2006 

Request 

Fiscal Year 2006 

Enacted 1

Fiscal Year 2007 

Request 

Fiscal Year 2007 

Adjusted 

Operations and Maintenance ......................................... $1,979,000 $1,969,000 $2,258,000 $1,927,000 

Construction ................................................................... 1,637,000 2,348,000 1,555,000 1,886,000 

1 Reflects 1% rescission. 

Last year, the Gulf Coast hurricanes showed in stark relief examples of the inadequacy and neglect of our nation’s water resource infrastructure. Given the lessons of last year, the level of 

Operations and Maintenance funding proposed by the Administration is inadequate. The Committee has reallocated funding to bring 

the account to approximate parity with last year’s funding. The Committee has also provided an additional $10,000,000 to the Ohio 

River and tributaries navigation system to implement the improvements as outlined in the Great Lakes and Ohio River Division’s 

Five Year Development Perspective. Though inadequate to address 

all identified needs, the additional funding is provided to support 

the efforts of the Division and stakeholders in the development of 

this perspective. This plan is discussed below in more detail under 

the heading Five-Year Development Plans. 

PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND EXECUTION

Over the past two years, the Committee has embarked on a concerted effort to improve general budgeting and project execution by 

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

tighter fiscal environment, the enormous backlog of Civil Works 

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

to the Nation’s water and coastal infrastructure underlying the selection of which projects received funding. 

The Committee maintains the Civil Works program must be 

managed as a program rather than a collection of individual 

projects. The Committee supports the Corps mission and believes 

the Nation’s water resource infrastructure is a critical element of 

our transportation system. Nevertheless, it is essential the Corps 

takes a more sophisticated, business-like approach to project execution. The Corps must restore this Committee’s confidence in its 

ability to execute the appropriations provided by Congress as well 

as provide technical assessments of the Nation’s water resource infrastructure needs. The Gulf Coast hurricanes of 2005 have reVerDate Aug 31 2005 05:42 May 20, 2006 Jkt 027628 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR474.000 HR474

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
13 

sulted in enormous pressures on the Corps; its ability to execute 

projects and critically assess its own performance, both past and 

present, are now at the forefront of the Nation’s consciousness. 

The Committee remains concerned that the Corps cannot provide 

the Congress with accurate accounting of its financial commitments, both in terms of contractual obligations and promises to 

repay past reprogrammings. The Committee supports the creation 

of a Chief Financial Officer for the Corps of Engineers and supports additional headquarters personnel to staff such a position. 

The level of decentralization versus command and control should be 

reevaluated in light of the Corps’ inability to provide timely and accurate accounting of financial information. In addition, the Corps 

should examine revising the reporting requirements in its financial 

accounting system to ensure that critical information is collected 

and reported upward. 

Last year, the Committee directed the Corps to give immediate 

attention to several program management issues including: fiveyear plans, conservative use of reprogramming and continuing contracts, performance based budgeting and Congressional justification materials. The Corps and the Administration have made 

progress in each of these areas, but much work remains. Collectively, the Congress, the Administration and the Corps of Engineers must work together to ensure that constrained federal resources are spent effectively, commitments to local sponsors are 

honored, projects are completed in an efficient manner, and taxpayers receive the greatest return on their investment. 

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

annual appropriations bills, the Committee directed the Corps over 

the last two years to prepare and submit a comprehensive five-year 

plan for the Civil Works program. Such a plan, in the view of the 

Committee, would begin to allay the concern that the Civil Works 

program has become nothing more than an assortment of individual projects lacking a coherent focus. 

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

guide budget requests and Congressional spending decisions. Such 

plans force discipline and regional integration in making budgetary 

decisions and encourage stability from year to year. By providing 

the Congress and the Executive Branch a view of what lies ahead 

in the Civil Works program, a comprehensive five-year plan may 

alleviate some of the pressure to fund every project in each fiscal 

year. The development of a plan will also require the Corps to 

make the necessary tradeoffs to integrate individual projects into 

a coherent Civil Works program for future years. In the absence of 

a rational strategy, the long-term vitality of the Corps is placed at 

risk and scarce federal resources will be squandered on projects of 

limited national benefit. 

The Committee is pleased with the ASA(CW)’s and OMB’s willingness to pursue a more robust five-year plan for the Corps of Engineers Civil Works Program. The version of the plan provided in 

fiscal year 2006 was an improvement over the last submission and 

the Committee looks forward to further refinements to the plan. 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
14 

The Committee is, however, disappointed in the decision made by 

the ASA(CW) to instruct the Great Lakes and Ohio River Division 

to remove the Ohio River and Tributaries Navigation System FiveYear Development Perspective from the Division’s website because 

it is not consistent with the Administration’s policy. This plan is 

the most comprehensive and informative report that has come to 

the attention of the Committee. In it, the Corps attempts to assess 

the current status and ‘‘acceptable’’ level of performance for 

projects under its jurisdiction. The Committee rejects the view that 

this plan would in any way require the Administration or the Congress to fund these projects at the level recommended in this plan, 

nor does the existence of the plan insinuate that the Administration or Congress agrees with the assessment. The report is, however, an attempt from a technical perspective to assess the current 

state of the Ohio River’s navigation infrastructure. As such, the 

Committee applauds the efforts of the Great Lakes and Ohio River 

Division and other interested parties in the development of this 

‘‘perspective.’’ Misplaced emphasis on expenditures.—The Committee continues 

its direction that the Corps adhere to a fiscal management practice 

that fully honors congressional direction and accepts a higher level 

of carryover funds in order to achieve greatly increased transparency into project costs and multiyear funding commitments. 

The management changes initiated last year have resulted in 

higher levels of carryover as predicted. However, the estimates of 

carryover of available funding, after adjusting for Act language, 

total 13 percent, of which only 5 percent is unobligated. In the 

Committee’s view this is an acceptable level of carryover and significantly less than other agencies that execute major public infrastructure projects. In a time of limited discretionary spending, it is 

the Committee’s belief that the Corps must execute its program in 

a fiscally responsible manner. This will require more attention and 

effort on the part of the Corps in developing project estimates, but 

should result in a lower level of unobligated carryover in the future 

as the transition to the new business model is fully executed 

through the budgeting process. 

As noted in last year’s report, prior to fiscal year 2006, the Corps 

operated with a formal strategy to expend 99 percent of annual appropriations. While this strategy had a justifiable basis and sounds 

reasonable in theory, the Corps became inordinately focused on the 

99-percent expenditure goal. The strategy ignored project financial 

requirements in future years and congressional project allocations 

for the current year. The consequence of this policy, perhaps unintended, is the creation of significant payback requirements that are 

not currently budgeted. 

Reprogrammings.—In fiscal year 2006, the Committee recommended changes to the reprogramming authorities allowed the 

Corps of Engineers. For the first year, these reprogramming requirements were carried in Act language rather than in the report. 

This change was based, in large part, on a report by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) which found that the Corps had 

come to rely on reprogramming as its primary instrument to manage funds. It no longer reprogrammed funds in cases of unforeseen 

need or changed circumstances but as a substitute for an effective 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
15 

and fiscally responsible financial planning, management and priority-setting system for the Civil Works program. GAO findings 

show that funds where moved into and subsequently, out of, 

projects on the same day or within a matter of days. 

The Committee recognizes that there are legitimate instances 

where reprogramming is necessary and desirable, and has endeavored to work with the Administration and the Corps to ensure 

those instances are addressed expeditiously. The flexibility to move 

funds among projects is a necessary tool to adjust to changing 

project conditions and needs; the guidelines imposed by the Committee are simply a method to exercise Congressional oversight to 

ensure that the Civil Works program is being executed consistent 

with Congressional intent. The Committee reminds the Administration that once a project is provided funding in this, or any other 

Act, and signed by the President, all projects are of equal merit. 

The Committee will not accept differential treatment of projects 

based on whether they are contained in the bill or in report language nor on whether the Administration considers a project to be 

‘‘budgetable.’’ One of the reasons given to allow the Corps broad reprogramming authority is that budgets are developed and submitted to the 

Congress months prior to the start of the fiscal year. The Committee is well aware that project circumstances may change in that 

timeframe, and has therefore offered the Corps and the Administration the opportunity to provide the Congress updated estimates 

for this subset of projects prior to the House and Senate conferencing their respective bills. This conference occurs only months 

prior to the start of the fiscal year and such changes can be accommodated as necessary. The Committee therefore no longer has patience for this argument. While there will likely still be changed 

circumstances to individual project needs during the year, these 

may be addressed through the reprogramming authorities and 

processes. 

The change to a new business model within the Corps has resulted in a transition period; however, the accountability and reliability of the program will improve as Members of Congress, local 

sponsors, and contractors can be certain that appropriated funds 

will be expended on those projects for which they were intended. 

It is this Committee’s intent that past commitments to Members 

and local sponsors be met. To this end, the Committee has provided 

funding in the Construction and Investigations accounts to address 

a subset of the projects that will require payback in fiscal year 

2007. 

Past practices have resulted in a cumulative financial obligation 

that is significant, a undefined, and in large part, unbudgeted. In 

an era of limited Federal budgets and increasing needs for our Nation’s infrastructure, this practice cannot be maintained. The Committee remains concerned that neither Congress nor the Corps 

knows the full extent of the payback required. Accordingly, and for 

the second year, the Corps is directed to submit a report to the 

House and Senate Committees on Appropriations within 30 days of 

enactment of this Act summarizing, by project, the total cumulative 

amount of repayments owed to the donor projects. As a result of 

this Committee’s extreme frustration in the Corps inability to proVerDate Aug 31 2005 05:42 May 20, 2006 Jkt 027628 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR474.000 HR474

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
16 

vide such critical information, the Act contains general provisions 

which transfer $10,000,000 from the Expense account and 

$1,000,000 from the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil 

Works into the Operations and Maintenance account to meet 

unbudgeted critical needs of the nation’s water resource infrastructure in the event the report is not received in the timeframe required. 

To ensure that the expenditure of funds in fiscal year 2007 is 

consistent with congressional direction, to minimize the movement 

of funds, and to improve overall budget execution, the bill incorporates by reference the projects identified in the report accompanying this Act into statute. In addition, the bill again includes 

a section prohibiting the obligation or expenditure through a reprogramming of funds that: 

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

(2) eliminates a program, project or activity; 

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

activity for which funds have been denied or restricted by this 

Act; 

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

activity by this Act; 

(5) increases funds for any existing program, project or activ- ity by more than $2,000,000 or 25 percent, whichever is less; 

or 

(6) reduces funds for any program, project or activity by more than $2,000,000 or 25 percent, whichever is less. 

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

activities under the continuing authorities programs. However, new 

projects under the continuing authorities program not identified in 

the conference agreement to accompany this Act must be submitted 

to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations for approval. Reprogramming approvals shall also be required for 

changes in a project’s scope and cost relative to what was submitted in the justification sheets. These guidelines vitiate all other 

reprogramming guidance provided in previous appropriations Acts 

or their accompanying reports and shall be applied to all accounts 

within the Corps of Engineers. 

Not later than 60 days after the date of enactment of this Act, 

the Corps of Engineers shall submit a report to the Committees on 

Appropriations of the Senate and the House of Representatives to 

establish the baseline for application of reprogramming and transfer authorities for the current fiscal year. The report shall include: 

(1) a table for each appropriation with a separate column to 

display the President’s budget request, adjustments made by 

Congress, adjustments due to enacted rescissions, if appropriate, and the fiscal year enacted level; 

(2) a delineation in the table for each appropriation both by 

object class and program, project and activity as detailed in the 

budget appendix for the respective appropriations; and 

(3) an identification of items of special congressional interest. 

The Corps of Engineers shall not reprogram any funds received as 

a non-Federal share for project costs. 

Continuing contracts.—When entering into such contracts, the 

Corps obligates the federal government to pay certain costs from 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
17 

future appropriations. Contractors may perform more work than is 

budgeted in any fiscal year, but when available appropriations for 

the current fiscal year are exhausted, work continues at the contractors’ risk, with an expectation that payment will be made from 

subsequent appropriations. Simple interest may be added to any 

delayed payment that the contracting officer determines was actually earned under the terms of the contract and would have been 

made but for exhaustion of funds. The Rivers and Harbors Appropriations Act of 1890 first authorized the Corps to award continuation contracts. Later, section 10 of the Rivers and Harbor Act of 

1922 provided general authority to award continuing contracts for 

any public work on canals, rivers, and harbors adopted by Congress. These specific authorizations for continuing contracts save 

the Corps from being in violation of the Anti-Deficiency Act. 

Last year, the Congress limited the Corps’ ability to use continuing contracts. This action was the result of several years of increasing concern with the Corps’ liberal use of and inadequate 

budgeting for continuing contracts. The Committee recognizes the 

Corps has taken significant steps to curb the inappropriate use of 

this contracting mechanism, but believes additional action is necessary to define the scope of out-year obligations on these contracts. 

Last year, the Committee requested that the Government Accountability Office (GAO) review the Corps’ use of continuing contracts during fiscal years 2003 to 2005. The results of this review, 

though preliminary, only confirm the Committee’s belief that the 

Corps had turned to this unique contracting authority as the rule 

and not the exception. Combined with the drive to expend virtually 

all of its annual appropriations, abuse of the continuing contract 

authority drove the massive merry-go-round of reprogramming. 

For the period of fiscal years 2003 to 2005, GAO found that the 

Corps had no real basis or rationale for the use of the continuing 

contract clause in most of the contracts reviewed. In the sample of 

continuing contracts reviewed, GAO found that over 50 percent 

were less than 12 months in duration and valued at less than $5 

million. These findings only validate the Committee’s concern over 

excessive use of the clause. In one case, the Corps even issued a 

continuing contract for janitorial services. The most disturbing 

finding of the GAO review was that the Corps was unable to identify the total number of contracts awarded that included the continuing contract clause. This was due to the fact that the Corps did 

not track information on continuing contracts, despite the fact that 

the Corps’ financial management database had a field that identified contracts with a continuing contract clause. 

The Committee remains concerned that the Corps does not have 

an accurate accounting of existing continuing contracts. Therefore, 

the Corps is directed to hire a national accounting firm, utilizing 

General Expense funding, to audit its contracting records and provide a full accounting of all existing continuing contracts, and their 

corresponding obligations by fiscal year for the planned duration of 

the contract. The findings of this audit should be provided to the 

Committees on Appropriations by August 1, 2007. 

The Committee reminds the Corps that Congress determines how 

much funding is to be available for a particular project in any given 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
18 

fiscal year, and the Corps must ensure that it manages its program 

within the funds provided each year. The Corps abrogates its management responsibilities and improperly intrudes upon congressional prerogatives in determining annual appropriation levels 

when the Corps reserves insufficient funds to cover the work performed each fiscal year through the duration of the contract or 

when, through reprogramming, it makes available funds in excess 

of the amounts reserved in such contracts in any fiscal year because of unbudgeted accelerated contractor earnings. The Federal 

government, not the contractor, must determine how much will be 

spent on each project each year. 

The bill includes a provision that prohibits the use of funds provided in title I of this Act to execute any new continuing contract 

(or modifications to any existing continuing contract) that commits 

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

such project in this Act. In addition, the Committee continues its 

direction from last year that the Corps shall: 

(1) discontinue the practice of reserving insufficient funds to 

cover the work to be performed each fiscal year through the 

duration of the contract; 

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

the contract for the current fiscal year; 

(3) discontinue the practice of issuing continuing contracts 

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

(4) issue continuing contracts only when it is determined 

that such a contract is the preferred means, demonstrated by 

an alternative analysis, and only after the approval of the 

House and Senate Committees on Appropriations; 

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

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

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

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

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

in item (6). 

In addition, any new continuing contract shall be submitted by the 

Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) for approval to the 

House and Senate Committees on Appropriations, consistent with 

the reprogramming guidelines contained in this Act. 

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

request, while vastly improved from last year, continue to be inadequate for an appropriation request of nearly $5 billion. For the 

first year, the Administration presents the budget estimate by mission area and presents information on projects funded in the current year but for which no funds are requested. The Committee 

continues to believe the materials must include a clearly articulated overview and discussion of policy proposals included in the 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
19 

annual budget request beyond that which is included in the annual 

summary of the President’s budget request. The Committees on Appropriation should not be required to consult multiple documents 

to gain a semi-complete accounting of the Corps’ budget request. 

The Committee reiterates this information shall include, but not be 

limited to, an analysis of appropriations language provisions and 

changes; comparative amounts available for obligation; comparative 

amounts showing obligations by object class; summary of changes 

from the enacted level; a delineation of responses to significant 

items included in the reports accompanying annual appropriations 

Acts; appropriations and authorizing histories; explanations of how 

individual projects fit in the context of larger regional objectives, 

and narrative and tabular summaries of program requests. 

The Committee recognizes that continued improvements required 

in the budget justifications will need to be developed over time; 

however, the Committee expects major changes in the fiscal year 

2008 budget submission and pledges to work with the Corps to develop implementing instructions to its program offices. 

Performance-based budget.—Last year, the OMB proposed seven 

performance guidelines for funding Corps construction projects in 

order to generate greater benefits. The current budget request supports a major change to the guidelines proposed in 2006 to ensure 

funding for flood and storm damage reduction projects that address 

a significant, ongoing risk to human safety. The Committee applauds the inclusion of this consideration and appreciates the continued efforts of the Administration in refining the rationale for focusing limited federal resources on finishing the most important 

projects in a timely manner. 

Based on concerns that the ranking system, the ratio of remaining benefits-to-remaining costs, has several inherent biases, in fiscal year 2006 the Congress directed the Corps to contract with the 

National Academy of Public Administration to study and recommend factors which should be used in determining the allocation 

of limited resources for the construction of water resource projects. 

In determining the projects identified in this report, the Committee 

used the Administration’s ranking system as a guide but not as a 

final determinative in the allocation of funds and awaits the results 

of the above study to further consider project allocations. 

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

slippage within the Corps of Engineers civil works program. As 

noted in last year’s report, the practice had devolved into a method 

to reduce projects in order to fund more projects than an appropriation would support. This practice led to confusion, and in some 

cases, allocations to projects in excess of appropriated funding 

through reprogramming. As savings and slippage occurs on any 

project in the Corps civil works construction and investigations programs and the investigations and construction elements of the 

Flood Control, Mississippi River and Tributaries account in fiscal 

year 2007, resources excess to a project’s total needs shall remain 

available for two years after the date of enactment of the Act making appropriations for that particular project, after which time unobligated balances may be transferred to other ongoing projects, 

consistent with the reprogramming guidelines contained in this 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
20 

Act. The Corps shall submit to the House and Senate Committees 

on Appropriations an annual report detailing project execution relative to stated capability and enacted appropriations. 

Continuing Authorities.—The Fiscal Year 2006 Act contained direction for the Corps to provide the Committees on Appropriations 

a management plan and delineation of all ongoing projects and outyear funding requirements; this plan has yet to be received though 

the Act directed it be submitted by January 7, 2006. The Committee is aware that much ado has been made with regard to 

Congress’s inclination toward directing funding to specific projects. 

The Committee has repeatedly requested detailed information on 

this program. In response, the Corps has not been able to provide 

information useful in decision-making nor has it demonstrated a 

thorough knowledge and accounting of the existing commitments or 

out-year program requirements. 

Until such time as the Corps can establish that it has a firm 

grasp of the program, Congress has no reason to give the Corps 

discretion. In light of the quality of information provided to date, 

the Committee believes it has given more than sufficient latitude 

by providing programmatic funding in excess of Congressionally directed projects. 

In an effort to reduce the backlog of projects, the fiscal year 2006 

Act placed a moratorium on the execution of new cost sharing 

agreements. The Committee continues this direction with the following exception: where sufficient funds are congressionally directed or otherwise available to complete the current phase, the 

Corps may execute the cost sharing agreement. This exception does 

not obviate the need for the Corps to meet all Congressionally directed project requirements prior to executing any new agreements. 

Funding provided for Continuing Authorities projects in this Act 

shall not be available to initiate construction unless construction 

can be completed within the funds provided. Unobligated funds carried forward from previous years may not be used to initiate any 

new projects unless submitted to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations and approved by them. 

INVESTIGATIONS

Appropriation, 2006 ............................................................................ 1 $162,360,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ....................................................................... 94,000,000 

Recommended, 2006 ........................................................................... 128,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2006 .................................................................... ¥34,360,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ................................................................ +34,000,000 1 Excludes emergency appropriations of $37,300,000. 

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 $128,000,000, a 

decrease of $34,360,000 from the fiscal year 2006 enacted level, and 

$34,000,000 over the budget estimate. The budget request and the 

approved Committee allowance are shown on the following table: 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
21 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 01 HR474.001
22 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 02 HR474.002
23 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 03 HR474.003
24 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 04 HR474.004
25 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 05 HR474.005
26 

Remaining items, planning assistance to states.—For fiscal year 2007, the Committee recommends $4,550,000 for planning assistance to states, the same level as requested. Within the funds provided, the Corps is directed to undertake the following studies with 

the amounts allocated below: 

Guist Creek Lake, Kentucky ................................................................... $160,000 

Lake Rogers, North Carolina ................................................................... 50,000 

Morgan State University, C&O Canal .................................................... 100,000 

Ocean Disposal Site, New Hampshire .................................................... 100,000 

Selmere, Tennessee .................................................................................. 35,800 

Water Quality Study, Charlottesville, Virginia ..................................... 90,000 

CONSTRUCTION (INCLUDING RESCISSION) 

Appropriation, 2006 ............................................................................ 1 $2,348,280,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ....................................................................... 1,555,000,000 

Recommended, 2007 ........................................................................... 1,947,171,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2006 .................................................................... ¥401,109,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ................................................................ +392,171,000 1 Excludes emergency appropriations of $101,417,000. 

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 

reduction, or aquatic ecosystem restoration benefits to the nation. 

Portions of this account are funded from the Harbor Maintenance 

Trust and the Inland Waterways Trust funds. 

For fiscal year 2007, the Committee recommends an appropria- tion of $1,947,171,000, a decrease of $401,109,000 from the fiscal 

year 2006 enacted appropriation and $392,171,000 over the budget 

estimate. This Committee’s recommendation includes a rescission 

of $56,046,000 of funds appropriated in fiscal year 2006 for projects 

subsequently funded through completion in supplemental appropriations. The budget request and the Committee allowance are 

shown on the following table: 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
27 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 06 HR474.006
28 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 07 HR474.007
29 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 08 HR474.008
30 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 09 HR474.009
31 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 010 HR474.010
32 

Deferrals and suspensions.—The Committee recognizes that a 

number of projects funded in fiscal year 2006 are not included in 

this Act. The Committee directs the Corps to determine the costs 

to defer or suspend those projects for which the Committee has not 

provided appropriations in this Act and provide those estimates on 

a project-by-project basis to the House Committee on Appropriations by September 1, 2006. 

McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation System, Arkansas 

and Oklahoma.—The Committee has provided $300,000 to complete the general reevaluation report for the developing cutoff that 

threatens the recently constructed Montgomery Point Lock and 

Dam. The funding is provided to assess best solution to ensure integrity of the navigation system. 

American River watershed, California.—The Committee has pro- vided $49,800,000 for American River watershed activities. Within 

this amount, not less than $15,000,000 shall be available for the 

permanent bridge below Folsom Dam; the remaining funds shall be 

directed to Folsom Dam Modifications, Common Features and the 

Folsom Dam Raise. 

The Committee has also provided $3,000,000 for the Secretary to 

prepare a report that supplements the American River Watershed 

Project, California Supplemental Information Report dated March 

1996 for the purpose of identifying and evaluating any potential for 

additional flood damage reduction to the Sacramento area that 

would result from construction of a multipurpose storage facility 

downstream of the confluence of the North and Middle forks of the 

American River. 

Further, the Committee directs the Secretary to continue to expedite all actions necessary for completion of the new bridge at Folsom Dam, California, including completing the environmental review and documentation, completing the final design, negotiating 

and executing the project cooperative agreement, utilizing abbreviated contracting procedures and other means of simplifying and 

expediting necessary procedures for approval and construction. The 

Committee directs the Secretary to consider the new bridge at Folsom Dam, California, as a non-Central Valley Project component. 

Inclusion of a feasibility study to contruct a dam in Auburn, CA, 

should not interfere with or delay efforts to proceed with the 

projects at Folsom Dam and should be viewed simply as an effort 

to explore additional flood control options in the region behold 

those that can be implemented at Folsom Dam. 

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

provides $56,080,000 for Santa Ana River main stem in California, 

of which $2,000,000 is available for the Seven Oaks Dam water 

quality study. 

The Committee recognizes that the raising of Prado Dam has endangered the existing Santa Ana River Interceptor brine line, 

which is critical to the region’s water resource infrastructure. The 

Committee directs the Corps of Engineers to finalize planning and 

enter into a cost share agreement consistent with the existing 

Santa Ana mainstem cost share agreement. 

Brevard County, Canaveral Harbor, Florida.—The Committee includes $10,000,000 for the project to provide for a full cycle of sand 

bypassing as mitigation for the erosion to the Brevard County 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
33 

beaches south of the Federal navigation channel. The Committee 

understands that bypassing the same quantity of sand as has been 

accomplished in the past, for a distance of approximately 1 mile 

farther, will reduce the amount of maintenance material that needs 

to be removed from the Federal navigation channel and will have 

other benefits as well. The Committee urges the Corps to consider 

this when awarding the sand bypass contract. 

Muddy River, Boston & Brookline, Massachusetts.—The Committee has provided $1,000,000 for flood control and ecosystem restoration. 

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

and construction to complete the Stillwater, Minnesota, levee and 

flood control project. 

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

Within fund provided, the Corps is directed to use up to $2,000,000 

to plan for and enter into an agreement with a state or non-Federal 

sponsor to develop a dredged material processing facility that 

would accomplish the objectives of reducing the cost of dredged material management in the port, preparing dredged material for beneficial uses, and implementing innovative dredged material management technologies. 

Rural Nevada, Nevada.—Within the funds provided for Southeastern Rural Nevada infrastructure program, the committee provides $200,000 for the Hemenway Valley project and $200,000 for 

the Boulder City project. 

Ohio environmental infrastructure.—The bill provides 

$18,300,000 for Ohio environmental infrastructure for fiscal year 

2007. These funds shall be distributed as follows: 

Clark County, Vicinity of Donnelsville waterline extension ................. $1,200,000 

Fairfield County, Village of Rushville wastewater plant expansion .... 1,000,000 

Fayette County, Culpepper area water system ..................................... 1,500,000 

Fayette County, Bloomingburg water and sewer .................................. 600,000 

Franklin County Rickenbacker Airport water and sewer ..................... 500,000 

Greene County Beaver Creek water and sewer project ........................ 250,000 

Toledo Harbor power plant conversion ................................................... 800,000 

Cuyahoga County high performance shoreline management system 

(green bulkheads) .................................................................................. 1,300,000 

Whittier Peninsula, City of Columbus storm water tanks upgrade ..... 750,000 

Franklin County, Timberlake water treatment infrastructure upgrade ...................................................................................................... 750,000 

Franklin County, Harrisburg water treatment infrastructure upgrade ...................................................................................................... 750,000 

City of Orrville water main replacement ............................................... 1,000,000 

City of Louisville environmental infrastructure improvement program ....................................................................................................... 1,000,000 

City of Dublin sanitary sewer and water system .................................. 750,000 

Montgomery County Austin Road Interchange ..................................... 1,250,000 

Montgomery County, City of Trotwood Landmark Stream improvements ..................................................................................................... 400,000 

Village of Green Springs wastewater improvements ............................ 300,000 

City of Clyde waterline project ................................................................ 300,000 

Williams County, Kunkle area sanitary sewer ...................................... 300,000 

City of Willoughby Hills, Euclid Creek sanitary sewer ......................... 3,600,000 

Elk Creek Lake, Oregon.—The Committee provides $1,440,000 for 

activities at Elk Creek Lake, Oregon. None of the funds provided 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
34 

shall be available to further work on the Corps’ proposal to remove 

a section of the dam for fish passage. 

Southeast, Pennsylvania.—Within the funds provided for Southeastern Pennsylvania infrastructure program, the Committee provides $100,000 for Cobbs Creek, $565,000 for Crum Creek and 

$525,000 for Alberts Run. 

Levisa and Tug Forks and Cumberland River, WV, VA & KY.— For fiscal year 2007, the Committee recommends a total of 

$20,000,000. Within the amounts provided, $17,500,000 shall be for 

elements of the project in the Commonwealth of Kentucky and the 

remaining $2,500,000 shall be available for the Commonwealth of 

Virginia elements of the project. 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
35 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 011 HR474.011
36 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 012 HR474.012
37 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 013 HR474.013
38 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 014 HR474.014
39 

FLOOD CONTROL, MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES

Appropriation, 2006 ............................................................................ 1 $396,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ....................................................................... 278,000,000 

Recommended, 2007 ........................................................................... 290,607,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2006 .................................................................... ¥105,393,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ................................................................ +12,607,000 1 Excludes emergency appropriations of $153,750. 

This appropriation funds planning, construction, and operation 

and maintenance activities associated with projects to reduce flood 

damage in the lower Mississippi River alluvial valley below Cape 

Girardeau, Missouri. The budget request and the approved Committee allowance are shown on the following table: 

For fiscal year 2007, the Committee recommends an appropriation of $290,607,000 a decrease of $105,393,000 from the fiscal year 

2006 enacted appropriation and $12,607 000 over the budget estimate. The budget request and the Committee allowance are shown 

on the following table: 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
40 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 015 HR474.015
41 

Bayou Meto Basin, Arkansas.—The Committee recommends 

$1,550,000 continue authorized preconstruction, engineering and 

design on this project. 

Mississippi River Levees, AR, IL, KY, LA, MS, MO, TN.—The 

Committee provides $3,000,000 in addition to the budget request 

for construction activities in the State of Missouri. 

St. Francis Basin, Arkansas.—Within the funds provided, the 

Corps is directed to execute the following elements: Buffalo Island 

Gated Outlet Structure, Ten and Fifteen Mile Bayous, bridge relocation and lands and damages and channel enlargement. 

Wappapello Lake, Missouri.—The Committee provides $2,000,000 

in addition to the budget request for operation and maintenance activity. 

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

Appropriation, 2006 ............................................................................ 1 $1,969,110,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ....................................................................... 2,258,000,000 

Recommended, 2007 ........................................................................... 2,195,471,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2006 .................................................................... +226,361,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ................................................................ ¥62,529,000 1 Excludes emergency appropriations of $327,517. 

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

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

Resources Development Acts. Related activities include aquatic 

plant control, monitoring of completed projects, removal of sunken 

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

Maintenance Trust and the Inland Waterways Trust funds. 

For fiscal year 2007, the Committee recommends an appropria- tion of $2,195,471,000 an increase of $226,361,000 over the fiscal 

year 2006 enacted level and $62,529,000 below the budget estimate. 

The budget request and the approved Committee allowance are 

shown on the following table: 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
42 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 016 here HR474.016
43 

Region 1 

Bridgeport Harbor, Connecticut.—The Committee has provided 

$250,000 to prepare plans and specifications for maintenance 

dredging. 

Connecticut River below Hartford, Connecticut.—The Committee 

has provided $750,000 for operation and maintenance activities. 

Mystic River, Connecticut.—The Committee has provided 

$400,000 to perform sampling and testing in relation to maintenance dredging. 

Aunt Lydia’s Cove, Massachusetts.—The Committee has provided 

$341,000 to perform maintenance dredging of the entrance channeling. 

Block Island Harbor, Rhode Island.—The Committee has provided $300,000 to perform maintenance dredging and related activities. 

Point Judith Harbor, Rhode Island.—In addition to the amount 

requested, $334,000 is provided for maintenance dredging and related activities. 

Region 2 

Mt. Morris Lake, New York.—In addition to the amount requested, $100,000 is provided for operation and maintenance activities. 

Jones Inlet, New York.—In addition to the amount requested, $4,000,000 is provided for operation and maintenance activities. 

Funds requested for the following projects are provided under the 

Construction account: 

Assateague, MD ..................................................................................... $2,000,000 

Cape May Inlet to Lower Township, NJ .............................................. 360,000 

Delaware Bay Coastline, Roosevelt Inlet to Lewis Beach, DE .......... 60,000 

Fier Island Inlet to Jones Inlet, NY ..................................................... 5,000,000 

Lower Cape May Meadows, Cape May Point, NJ ............................... 130,000 

Region 3 

Mobile Harbor, Alabama.—In addition to the amount requested, 

$1,000,000 is provided for dredging and related activities. 

Canaveral Harbor, Florida.—In addition to the amount requested, $1,000,000 is provided for required operation and maintenance activities. 

Horseshoe Cove, Florida.—The Committee provides $2,500,000 

for operation and maintenance activities. 

Jim Woodruff Lock and Dam, Lake Seminole, Florida, Alabama 

and Georgia.—In addition to the amount requested, $900,000 is 

provided for activities related to the control of the growth of 

hydrillia. 

Miami River, Florida.—In addition to the amount requested, 

$600,000 is provided for operation and maintenance activities. 

The Committee provides no funds for the following projects in 

North Carolina: New River Inlet and Manteo (Shallowbag) Bay. 

Funds requested for the following projects are provided under the 

Constructure account: 

Brevard County (Canaveral Harbor), FL ............................................. $10,000,000 

Folly Beach, SC ...................................................................................... 25,000 

Lake Worth Sand Transfer Plant, FL .................................................. 2,000,000 

Nassau County, FL ................................................................................ 6,500,000 

St. John’s County, FL ............................................................................ 200,000 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
44 

Region 4 

Arcadia, Michigan.—The Committee has provided $120,000 for 

maintenance dredging and related activities. 

Clinton River, Michigan.—The Committee has provided $660,000 

for maintenance dredging and related activities. 

Menominee, Michigan.—In addition to the amount requested, $350,000 is provided for recreation improvements. 

Ontonagon Harbor, Michigan.—In addition to the amount requested, $50,000 is provided for maintenance dredging and related 

activities. 

Penwater, Michigan.—The Committee has provided $150,000 for 

maintenance dredging and related activities. 

Duluth Superior Harbor, Minnesota and Wisconsin.—In addition 

to the amount requested, the Committee has provided $300,000 to 

complete a study of steel structure corrosion. 

Ashtabula Harbor, Ohio.—In addition to the amount requested, $400,000 is provided for maintenance dredging and related activities. 

Toledo Harbor, Ohio.—In addition to the amount requested, $800,000 is provided for maintenance dredging and related activities. 

Burns Harbor, Indiana.—In addition to the amount requested, $1,917,000 is provided for maintenance dredging and related activities with priority consideration to the Bailly intake pipe. 

Region 5 

In addition to the amount requested for the Ohio River Navigation System projects, $10,000,000 is provided to implement the improvements as outlined in the Great Lakes and Ohio River Division’s Five-Year Perspective. 

Ohio River Locks and Dams, Kentucky, Ohio and West Virginia.—Within the funds provided, the Corps of Engineers is directed to utilize $1,000,000 in cooperation with Operation Respond, 

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

and testing software primarily for the use of emergency responders. 

East Branch Clarion River Lake, Pennsylvania.—In addition to 

the amount requested, $100,000 is provided for recreational improvements. 

Tionesta Lake, Pennsylvania.—In addition to the amount requested, $455,000 is provided to investigate and initiate recreation 

improvements. 

Funds requested for the following projects are provided under the 

Construction account: 

Markland Locks and Dam, KY & IN (Rehab) ..................................... $8,000,000 

Region 6 

J Percy Priest, Tennessee.—In addition to the amount requested, 

$100,000 is included for this activity. 

Tennessee River, Tennessee.—In addition to the amount requested, $500,000 is provided to investigate and initiate recreation 

improvements. 

Region 7 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
45 

Kaskaskia River Navigation, Illinois.—In addition to the amount 

requested, $200,000 is included for this activity. 

Rock Island Boat Harbor, Illinois.—The Committee has provided $200,000 for maintenance dredging and related activities. 

Funds requested for the following projects are provided under the 

Construction account: 

Lock and Dam 11, Mississippi River, IA (Rehab) ............................... $20,300,000 

Lock and Dam 19, Mississippi River, IA (Rehab) ............................... 5,444,000 

Lock and Dam 24, IL & MO (Rehab) ................................................... 3,900,000 

Lock and Dam 27, Mississippi River, IL (Rehab) ............................... 3,400,000 

Region 8 

Osceola Harbor, Arkansas.—In addition to the amount requested, $488,000 is provided for dredging and related activities. 

Houma Navigation Channel, Louisiana.—In addition to the 

amount requested, $620,000 is provided for dredging and related 

activities. 

Ouachita and Black River, Louisiana.—In addition to the 

amount requested, $5,300,000 is provided for ongoing operation 

and maintenance activities. 

Region 10 

Missouri River Fish and Wildlife Mitigation Activities.—The 

Committee has provided $51,000,000 for activities and projects associated with this program. 

Region 11 

Table Rock, Missouri.—In addition to the amount requested, 

$1,150,000 is provided to construct Cow Creek Boat Ramp and for 

repairing roofs and other high priority backlog maintenance. 

Region 12 

The Committee provides no funds for the following projects in 

Texas: Matagorda Ship Channel, Channel to Victoria, Channel to 

Port Bolivar, GIWW Pt. O’Connor to Corpus Christi Bay. 

Whitney Lake, Texas.—In addition to the amount requested, $1,810,000 is provided for improvements to Ham Creek Park and 

$1,000,000 to Kimball Bend Park. 

Region 17 

Fort Peck Fish Hatchery, Montana.—The Corps is directed to 

complete the Fort Peck Fish Hatchery within the funds provided. 

Columbia River Fish Mitigation, Oregon, Washington and 

Idaho.—The Committee has provided $85,000,000 for activities and 

projects associated with this program. 

Coos Bay, Oregon.—In addition to the amount requested, 

$500,000 is included for this activity. 

Region 18 

Dry Creek (Warm Springs), California.—In addition to the 

amount requested, $104,000 is included to update inundation maps 

for the project. 

Isabella Lake, California.—The Committee is concerned by the 

current condition of the dam at Isabella Lake, California, given the 

potential impacts to the Bakersfield metropolitan area that would 

result from any failure, and urges the Corps to work expeditiously 

to take any necessary corrective action. 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
46 

Moss Landing Harbor, California.—The Committee has provided $500,000 to complete Dredged Material Management Plan and additional fish sampling. 

Noyo Harbor, California.—The Committee has provided $500,000 

for maintenance dredging and related activities. 

San Francisco Harbor, California.—In addition to the amount requested, $353,000 is provided to study placement of dredged material from Bar Channel in offshore area near Ocean Beach to prevent erosion. 

San Francisco Harbor and Bay (Drift Removal), California.—In 

addition to the amount requested, $1,472,000 is included for this 

activity. 

San Francisco Bay Long Term Management Study, California.— The Committee has provided $2,500,000 to continue this activity. 

Funds requested for the following projects are provided under the 

Construction account: 

Surfside-Sunset-Newport Beach, CA .................................................... $1,200,000 

Remaining Items 

Remaining items, regional sediment management.—Within the 

funds provided, the Committee has provided $2,000,000 for the 

evaluation of sump adjacent to the Columbia River North Jetty to 

provide dredged material to Benson Beach. In addition, $250,000 is 

provided for a demonstration project at Norfolk, Virginia. 

REGULATORY PROGRAM

Appropriation, 2006 ............................................................................ $158,400,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ....................................................................... 173,000,000 

Recommended, 2007 ........................................................................... 173,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2006 .................................................................... +14,600,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ................................................................ ............................

This appropriation provides funds to administer laws pertaining 

to regulation of activities affecting U.S. waters, including wetlands, 

in accordance with the Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act of 

1899, the Clean Water Act, and the Marine Protection, Research 

and Sanctuaries Act of 1972. Appropriate funds are used to review 

and process permit applications, ensure compliance on permitted 

sites, protect important aquatic resources, and support watershed 

planning efforts in sensitive environmental areas in cooperation 

with States and local communities. 

For fiscal year 2007, the Committee recommends an appropria- tion of $173,000,000, which is the same as the budget estimate and 

$14,600,000 over the fiscal year 2006 enacted level. 

FORMERLY UTILIZED SITES REMEDIAL ACTION PROGRAM

Appropriation, 2006 ............................................................................ $138,600,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ....................................................................... 130,000,000 

Recommended, 2007 ........................................................................... 130,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2006 .................................................................... ¥8,600,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ................................................................ ............................

This appropriation funds the cleanup of certain low-level radioactive materials and mixed wastes, located mostly at sites contamiVerDate Aug 31 2005 06:20 May 20, 2006 Jkt 027628 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR474.002 HR474

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
47 

nated as a result of the Nation’s early efforts to develop atomic 

weapons. 

The Committee recommendation for the Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP) is $130,000,000, the same as 

the budget request, and $8,600,000 below the fiscal year 2006 enacted level. 

Congress transferred FUSRAP from the Department of Energy 

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

intended to transfer only the responsibility for administration and 

execution of cleanup activities at FUSRAP sites where DOE had 

not completed cleanup. The Committee did not transfer to the 

Corps ownership of and accountability for real property interests, 

which remain with DOE. The Committee expects DOE to continue 

to provide its institutional knowledge and expertise to serve the 

Nation and the affected communities to ensure the success of this 

program. 

FLOOD CONTROL AND COASTAL EMERGENCIES

Appropriation, 2006 ............................................................................ ............................

Budget estimate, 2007 ....................................................................... $81,000,000 

Recommended, 2007 ........................................................................... 32,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2006 .................................................................... +32,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ................................................................ ¥49,000,000 

This appropriation provides funds needed to respond to floods, 

hurricanes, and other natural disasters, and to support emergency 

operations in response to flood and hurricane disasters, including 

advance measures, flood fighting, emergency operations, providing 

potable water on an emergency basis, and the repair of certain 

flood and storm damage reduction projects are provided in emergency appropriations Acts on an as needed basis. In addition, the 

Corps has the legislative authority to tap other appropriated program funds to meet emergency requirements. The budget proposes 

an appropriation of $81,000,000 in fiscal year 2007 to meet the 

emergency needs of a typical year without disrupting activities in 

other program areas. The Committee recommends an appropriation 

for this account of $32,000,000 which is the base funding to maintain the program; the remaining requirements will be addressed 

with emergency funding as the need arises. 

GENERAL EXPENSES

Appropriation, 2006 ............................................................................ $152,460,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ....................................................................... 1 164,000,000 

Recommended, 2007 ........................................................................... 142,100,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2006 .................................................................... ¥10,360,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ................................................................ ¥21,900,000 1The budget proposes to fund the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Civil Works under this account. The 

Committee recommendation includes funding in the amount of $5,000,000 for this office under the heading 

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

This appropriation funds the executive direction and management of the Office of Chief of Engineers, the Division Offices, and 

certain research and statistical functions of the Corps of Engineers. 

This Committee recommends an appropriation of $142,100,000, a 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
48 

decrease of $10,360,000 from the fiscal year 2006 enacted level and 

$21,900,000 less than the budget request. 

The recommendation includes the following reductions: $6,000,000 due to the Committee’s recommendation to fund the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) separately; a reduction of $1,700,000 for budgeted Competitive Sourcing 

activities; and a reduction of $14,200,000 due to the Corps and 

ASA(CW)’s inability to budget properly for Brunswick Harbor, 

Georgia. 

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

Appropriation, 2006 ............................................................................ $3,960,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ....................................................................... 1 6,000,000 

Recommended, 2007 ........................................................................... 1,500,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2006 .................................................................... ¥2,460,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ................................................................ ¥4,500,000 1The budget proposes this office be funded from General Expenses and reflects $1,900,000 in support services not previously sub-allocated to OSASA(CW) by the Department of Army. 

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

Works budget and policy. The budget request includes funding for 

this office in the General Expenses account. For purposes of transparency, the Committee recommends a separate appropriation for 

the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) and 

has recommended $1,500,000 for this account. Given the ASA(CW) 

was unable to meet the commitment to submit fiscal year budget 

hearing questions for the record in the timeframe useful for the development of this Act, the recommended level assumes a reduction 

of $1,000,000 reflecting a ban on all travel and training for the office and a reduction of $3,500,000 due to the ASA(CW)’s inability 

to budget properly for Brunswick Harbor, Georgia. 

Roles and responsibilities of the Office of the Assistant Secretary 

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

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

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

policy direction and supervision of the Department of the Army 

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

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

hydroelectric power, recreation, and related purposes. This includes 

the following: 

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

Army civil works policy, legislative, and financial programs 

and budget. 

(2) developing policy and guidance for and administering the 

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

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

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


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
49 

Committees charged with oversight of the Department of the 

Army civil works program. 

The Committee is extremely disappointed in the manner that the 

Office of the ASA(CW) has involved itself in the reprogramming of 

funds between projects. The Committee reminds the Office of the 

ASA(CW) that once an appropriation bill is passed by Congress, 

and signed by the President, all project allocations contained therein are of equal merit. The reprogramming reforms of fiscal year 

2006 were intended to limit reprogrammings, not to eliminate them 

entirely. Commitments made to Members of Congress and local 

sponsors will be met with or without the assistance of the Office 

of the ASA(CW). The Act contains a provision prohibiting the expenditure of funds to prevent or limit reprogrammings for appropriated projects to ensure the Office of the ASA(CW) does not continue to draw distinctions between projects previously funded in 

appropriation bills and those that meet the Administration’s budgeting guidelines. Last year, the Committee articulated the expectation the Office of the ASA(CW) fully exercise its roles and responsibilities as delineated in Army General Order No. 3. In doing so, 

the Committee expects the ASA(CW) to work constructively with 

the Corps and Congress to fulfill previous commitments. 

GENERAL PROVISIONS

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—CIVIL

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

except in certain circumstances. This provision is discussed more 

fully under ‘‘Program Management and Execution.’’

The bill includes a provision relating to the circumstances under 

which the Corps is required to issue continuing contracts. 

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

Act to carry out any continuing contract that commits an amount 

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

in this Act. 

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

Act or any other Act for any fiscal year to carry out the construction of the Port Jersey element of the New York and New Jersey 

Harbor or reimbursement to the local sponsor for the construction 

of the Port Jersey element until commitments for construction of 

container handling facilities are obtained from the non-Federal 

sponsor for a second user along the Port Jersey element. 

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

McFarland. 

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

Act or any other Act for any fiscal year to prevent or limit any reprogramming of funds for appropriated projects. 

The bill contains a provision relating to the repayment of the Department of Treasury’s Judgment Fund. 

The bill contains a provision prohibiting the use of funds for an 

A–76 study. 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
50 

The bill contains a provision prohibiting the use of funds to remove a section of the dam for fish passage or to study other alternatives to the trap and haul facility at Elk Creek Dam, Oregon. 

The bill includes a provision that prohibits the expenditure of 

funds to revise the master control plans and master manuals of the 

Corps of Engineers for the Alabama, Coosa, Tallapoosa River basin 

in Alabama and Georgia or the Apalachicola, Chattahoochee, Flint 

River Basin in Alabama, Georgia, and Florida. 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
(51) 

TITLE II 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

CENTRAL UTAH PROJECT

CENTRAL UTAH PROJECT COMPLETION ACCOUNT

Appropriation, 2006 ............................................................................ $34,007,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ....................................................................... 40,155,000 

Recommended, 2007 ........................................................................... 40,155,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2006 .................................................................... +6,148,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ................................................................ ............................

The Central Utah Project Completion Act (Titles II-VI of Public 

Law 102–575) provides for the completion of the Central Utah 

Project by the Central Utah Water Conservancy District. The Act 

also authorizes the appropriation of funds for fish, wildlife, and 

recreation mitigation and conservation; establishes an account in 

the Treasury for the deposit of these funds and of other contributions for mitigation and conservation activities; and establishes a 

Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Commission to administer funds in that account. The Act further assigns responsibilities for carrying out the Act to the Secretary of the Interior and 

prohibits delegation of those responsibilities to the Bureau of Reclamation. 

The Committee recommendation for fiscal year 2007 to carry out 

the Central Utah Project is $40,155,000, the same as the budget request, and $6,148,000 above the fiscal year 2006 enacted level. 

Within the $40,155,000 provided by the Committee, the following 

amounts are provided for the Central Utah Valley Water Conservation District by activity, as recommended in the budget request: 

Utah Lake drainage basin delivery system ...................................... $17,906,000 

Water conservation measures ........................................................... 3,661,000 

Uinta Basin replacement project ...................................................... 15,204,000 

Other Title II programs ..................................................................... 297,000 

Total, Central Utah water conservation district ................... 37,068,000 

The Committee recommendation includes the requested amount 

of $965,000 for deposit into the Utah Reclamation Mitigation and 

Conservation Account for use by the Utah Reclamation Mitigation 

and Conservation Commission. These funds, as proposed in the 

budget request, are to be used to implement the fish, wildlife, and 

recreation mitigation and conservation projects authorized in Title 

III; and in completing mitigation measures committed to in pre–

1992 Bureau of Reclamation planning documents, as follows: 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
52 

Provo River/Utah Lake fish and wildlife .......................................... $293,000 

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

CRSP/Statewide fish, wildlife and recreation .................................. 454,000 

Section 201(a)(1) mitigation measures ............................................. 188,000 

Total, Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation 

Commission ..................................................................................... 965,000 

For program oversight and administration, the Committee has provided $1,603,000, the same level as the budget request, and 

$133,000 below the fiscal year 2006 enacted level. For fish and 

wildlife conservation programs, the Committee has provided 

$519,000, the same level as the budget request. 

BUREAU OF RECLAMATION

FY 2007 BUDGET OVERVIEW

The mission of Bureau of Reclamation is to manage, develop, and 

protect water and related resources in an environmentally and economically sound manner in the interest of the American public. 

Since its establishment by The Reclamation Act of June 17, 1902, 

the Bureau of Reclamation has developed water supply facilities 

that have contributed to sustained economic growth and an enhanced quality of life in the western states. Lands and communities served by Reclamation projects have been developed to meet 

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

water supplies. The Bureau is the largest supplier and manager of 

water in the 17 western states. The Bureau maintains 472 dams 

and 348 reservoirs with the capacity to store 245 million acre-feet 

of water. These facilities deliver water to one of every five western 

farmers for about 10 million acres of irrigated land, and to over 31 

million people for municipal, rural, and industrial uses. The Bureau is also the Nation’s second largest producer of hydroelectric 

power, generating 42 billion kilowatt hours of energy each year 

from 58 power plants. In addition, its facilities provide substantial 

flood control, recreation, and fish and wildlife benefits. 

The fiscal year budget request for the Bureau of Reclamation totals $923,736,000, and includes $88,000,000 in rescissions. The 

Committee recommendation totals $900,779,000 for the Bureau of 

Reclamation, $7,000,000 over the budget request and $124,000,000 

below the fiscal year 2006 enacted level. 

A summary table illustrating the fiscal year 2006 enacted appropriation, the fiscal year 2007 budget request and the Committee 

recommendation is shown below: 

[Dollars in 000s] 

Account Fiscal Year 2006 

Enacted 

Fiscal Year 2007 

Request 

Committee Recommendation 

Water and related resources ................................................................ $874,679 $833,424 $849,122 

Rescission ............................................................................................. --- ¥88,000 ¥88,000 

Subtotal, water and related resources ............................................ 874,679 745,424 761,122 

Central Valley project restoration fund ................................................ 52,219 41,478 41,478 

California Bay-Delta restoration ........................................................... 36,630 38,610 40,110 

Policy and administration ..................................................................... 57,338 58,069 58,069 

Total, Bureau of Reclamation .......................................................... 1,020,866 883,581 900,779 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
53 

WATER AND RELATED RESOURCES

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS AND RESCISSION) 

Appropriation, 2006 ............................................................................ $874,679,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ....................................................................... 1 745,424,000 

Recommended, 2007 ........................................................................... 1 761,122,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2006 .................................................................... ¥25,557,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ................................................................ +15,698,000 1 Includes rescission of the unobligated balances for At Risk Desert Terminus Lakes in the amount of 

$88,000,0000. 

The Water and Related Resources account supports the development, management, and restoration of water and related natural 

resources in the 17 western states. The account includes funds for 

operating and maintaining existing facilities to obtain the greatest 

overall levels of benefits, to protect public safety, and to conduct 

studies on ways to improve the use of water and related natural 

resources. 

The Department is directed to conform to the following reprogramming guidelines. The Bureau is permitted to transfer, 

without prior Congressional approval and without regard to percentage limitation, not more than $5,000,000 in any one case to 

provide adequate funds for settled contractor claims, increased contractor earnings due to accelerated rates of operations, and real estate deficiency judgments, provided that such reprogramming is 

necessary to discharge legal obligations of the Bureau of Reclamation. 

As to each project within the Resources Management and Devel- opment category for which $2,000,000 or more is available at the 

beginning of the fiscal year, the Bureau is permitted to transfer to 

such project in that fiscal year no more than fifteen percent of the 

amount available at the beginning of the fiscal year for such 

project, without prior Congressional approval. As to each project 

within the Resources Management and Development category for 

which less than $2,000,000 is available at the beginning of the fiscal year, the Bureau is permitted to transfer to such project no 

more than $300,000 in that fiscal year without prior Congressional 

approval. 

The Bureau is further permitted to transfer funds within the Facility Operation, Maintenance and Rehabilitation category without 

prior Congressional approval and without regard to percentage or 

dollar limitation. 

The Bureau may not transfer, without prior Congressional approval, more than $500,000 from either the Facilities Operation, 

Maintenance and Rehabilitation category or the Resources Management and Development category to any project in the other category. The Bureau is prohibited from initiating any program, 

project or activity through an internal reprogramming action. 

For fiscal year 2007, the Committee recommends $849,122,000, 

$15,698,000 above the budget request and $25,557,000 below the 

fiscal year 2006 enacted level. The recommended level includes a 

recission of unobligated balances for At Risk Desert Terminus 

Lakes in the amount of $88,000,000. The budget request and the 

approved Committee allowance for specific projects are shown, by 

state, in the following table: 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
54 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 017 here HR474.017
55 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 018 here HR474.018
56 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 019 here HR474.019
57 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 020 here HR474.020
58 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 021 here HR474.021
59 

Yuma area projects, Arizona and California.—The Committee 

has provided a total of $23,227,000 for Yuma area projects in Arizona and California, of which $495,000 is available for renovation 

and refurbishment of the City of Needles, California Bureau Bay 

Reclamation Project site. 

Auburn-Folsom South Unit, California.—The Committee has also 

provided $1,000,000 to complete an assessment of the feasibility of 

relocating the Highway 49 bridge at the Auburn-South Unit of the 

Central Valley Project. 

Further, the Committee directs the Commissioner to expedite its 

review and complete all actions necessary for the new bridge at 

Folsom Dam, California, including coordination with the Corps of 

Engineers and the City of Folsom, granting necessary easements or 

rights-of-way and other means of simplifying and expediting necessary procedures. 

The Committee also directs the Commissioner to consider the 

new bridge at Folsom Dam, California, as a non-Central Valley 

Project component. 

Cachuma Project, California.—Within the funds provided for the Cachuma Project, the Committee has provided $500,000 for the 

Lake Cachuma Water and Sewage Project. 

Central Valley project, California, American River Division.— Within the funds provided, $1,250,000 shall be available for the El 

Dorado Temperature Control Device. 

Central Valley project, California, Auburn-Folsom South Unit.— Within the funds provided, $1,000,000 shall be available to complete an assessment of the feasibility of relocating the Highway 49 

bridge. 

Salton Sea research project, California.—The Committee has pro- vided $2,243,000 for the Salton Sea research project, including 

$1,500,000 to continue environmental restoration efforts at the 

Alamo and New Rivers, and for other authorized pilot projects. The 

Bureau is encouraged to work jointly with the Salton Sea Authority 

and assist the authority in running its own pilot projects. 

Southern California investigations program.—Within the funds 

provided for the Southern California Investigations Program, 

$250,000 has been included for the Los Angeles Basin Watershed 

Water Supply Augmentation Study; $500,000 is provided for the 

Upper Mohave River well field and water supply project; $300,000 

is provided to assist the Lake Arrowhead Community Services District to develop an integrated water resource plan. 

Equus Beds Groundwater Recharge Demonstration Project, Kansas.—The Committee is aware that the pilot program for the Equus 

Beds project is complete. The Committee strongly urges the Bureau 

to work with the impacted communities and the state of Kansas on 

design and engineering of the full-scale project. 

St. Mary Diversion Facilities to the Milk River Basin, Montana.—

The Committee remains supportive of efforts to rehabilitate or replace the St. Mary Diversion Facilities to the Milk River Basin, 

Montana project given the agricultural, municipal, recreational, 

cultural and economic benefits the project accrues to the people its 

serves in North Central Montana. 

Oklahoma Investigations Program.—Within the funds available, 

$750,000 is provided for the Arbuckle-Simpson Aquifer Study. 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
60 

Washington investigations program.—The Committee recommendation provides $352,000 for the Washington investigations 

program, of which $50,000 shall be available for technical assistance and studies for solutions to address the depletion of the Odessa Subacquifer. 

VARIOUS PROGRAMS

Site security.—Last year, the Committee recognized that in accordance with Federal reclamation law, specifically the Reclamation Act of 1939, annual operation and maintenance (O&M) and replacement costs on Reclamation projects are allocated to a project’s 

various authorized purposes. The ongoing costs of the additional security guards and patrols necessary to ensure the security of a 

project may be considered project O&M costs. The Committee remains concerned that these costs be justified and accounted for in 

a transparent manner. Further, the Committee directs the Department to work closely with power customers, water users and other 

customers to ensure these requirements are adequately communicated and justified to those parties who share in the costs. 

Technical Assistance to States.—Within the funds provided, the 

Bureau of Reclamation is directed to contribute technical expertise 

and operation, educational and recreational components to the City 

of Chandler, AZ Veteran’s Oasis Water Recharge Project. 

Water 2025.—The budget request includes $14,500,000 for Water 

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

water and is to set a framework to identify problems, solutions and 

plans to focus a needed dialog as the Department of the Interior 

works with states, tribes, local governments and the private sector 

to meet water supply challenges. While the Committee remains 

supportive of the program, given its lack of authorization, the Committee has not provided funding for the Water 2025 program for 

fiscal year 2007. 

Wetlands Development.—Within the funds provided, $500,000 

has been included for the Yuma East Wetlands Restoration. 

CENTRAL VALLEY PPROJECT RESTORATION FUND

Appropriation, 2006 ............................................................................ $52,219,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ....................................................................... 41,478,000 

Recommended, 2007 ........................................................................... 41,478,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2006 .................................................................... ¥10,741,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ................................................................ ............................

This fund was established to carry out the provisions of the Central Valley Project Improvement Act and to provide funding for 

habitat restoration, improvement and acquisition, and other fish 

and wildlife restoration activities in the Central Valley area of 

California. Resources are derived from donations, revenues from 

voluntary water transfers and tiered water pricing, and Friant Division surcharges. The account is also financed through additional 

mitigation and restoration payments collected on an annual basis 

from project beneficiaries. 

For fiscal year 2007, the Committee recommends $41,478,000, 

the same level as the budget request and $10,741,000 below the fisVerDate Aug 31 2005 05:42 May 20, 2006 Jkt 027628 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR474.003 HR474

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
61 

cal year 2006 enacted level. Funds, as proposed in the budget request, are provided as follows: 

Anadromous fish restoration program ................................................. $4,200,000 

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

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 ....... 400,000 

Anadromous fish screen program ......................................................... 3,000,000 

Refugee wheeling conveyance ............................................................... 8,008,000 

Refuge water supply, facility construction .......................................... 1,800,000 

Ecosystem/water systems operations model ........................................ 7,134,000 

Water acquisition program ................................................................... 8,086,000 

San Joaquin Basin action plan ............................................................. 1,400,000 

Land retirement program ..................................................................... 1,500,000 

Coleman fish hatchery .......................................................................... 200,000 

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

San Joaquin River Basin Resource Mgmt Int ..................................... 2,000,000 

Total, Central Valley project restoration fund ......................... 41,478,000 

CALIFORNIA BAY-DELTA RESTORATION

Appropriation, 2006 ............................................................................ $36,630,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ....................................................................... 38,610,000 

Recommended, 2007 ........................................................................... 40,110,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2006 .................................................................... +3,480,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ................................................................ +1,500,000 

The purpose of the California Bay-Delta account is to fund the 

Federal share of water supply and reliability improvements, ecosystem improvements and other activities being developed for the 

Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and associated watersheds by a 

State and Federal partnership (CALFED). Federal participation in 

this program was initially authorized in the California Bay-Delta 

Environmental and Water Security Act enacted in 1996. That Act 

authorized the appropriation of $143,300,000 for ecosystem restoration activities in each of fiscal years 1998, 1999, and 2000. Absent 

an explicit authorization, no funds were provided in this account 

for the CALFED effort between fiscal years 2001 and 2005. However, the Committee funded CALFED programs and activities even 

though a specific programmatic authorization was lacking. In 2005, 

the CALFED Bay-Delta Authorization Act was enacted (P.L. 108– 361), authorizing $389,000,000 in Federal appropriations for fiscal 

year 2005 through fiscal year 2010. The authorizing legislation required an annual cross-cut budget in order to reflect the budget requests of all Federal agencies engaged in CALFED implementation. 

The total Federal expenditures under this Act from fiscal year 1998 

through 2006 amount to almost $867,000,000. 

The Committee is pleased the CALFED Bay-Delta program was 

included in the fiscal year 2007 budget request and recommends 

$40,110,000 an increase of $1,500,000 over budget request. The 

Committee is also pleased the budget request included a water 

quality section and science program section in this year’s budget. 

However, the budget documentation was extremely limited in justifying the various levels of funding for each program/project under 

the CALFED Bay-Delta program. Therefore, the Committee has redirected the funding for higher priority projects that will support 

the implementation of the CALFED Bay-Delta program. The fundVerDate Aug 31 2005 05:42 May 20, 2006 Jkt 027628 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR474.003 HR474

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
62 

ed projects will produce increased sources of water for the State of 

California, otherwise known as ‘‘firm yield’’ projects, improve drinking water quality, and improve water delivery flexibility. 

The Committee recognizes the impending danger the Sacramento/San Joaquin Delta levees pose to the economy, environment, water users, and general welfare of the people within the 

State. It is the Committee’s belief that, because Reclamation relies 

on the Delta to move water from north to south, it should share 

in the responsibility of maintaining and strengthening delta levees 

and has provided funding under the CALFED Bay-Delta program 

for this purpose. 

All program funds provided under the CALFED Bay-Delta program are to be considered non-reimbursable. The Committee also 

is aware that Reclamation is not providing all funds to project cooperators as outlined in last year’s bill and insists Reclamation provide the funds listed below in full for 2007. The Committee again 

urges the Administration to fund all program elements at the fully 

authorized levels in future budget requests and include all cooperating agency budgets related to CALFED Bay-Delta program activities under this account. 

The funds provided are intended to support the following activities, as delineated below: 

Science .................................................................................................... $2,970,000 

Delta Levees ........................................................................................... 6,000,000 

Environmental water account ............................................................... 6,000,000 

Storage program .................................................................................... 11,385,000 

San Joaquin River basin ................................................................ (3,960,000) 

Los Vaqueros ................................................................................... (1,980,000) 

Shasta enlargement ........................................................................ (3,960,000) 

Sites ................................................................................................. (1,485,000) 

Conveyance ............................................................................................. 3,415,000 

San Luis Reservoir Low Point ....................................................... (1,485,000) 

Temporary Barriers ........................................................................ (500,000) 

Planning and management activities ................................................... 500,000 

Water use efficiency ............................................................................... 2,850,000 

Upper Feather River Basin Assessment ....................................... (750,000) 

Sac Valley Int Regional Mgmt Program ....................................... (1,100,000) 

Inland Empire Utilities Agency regional water recycling project (1,000,000) 

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

Water Quality ........................................................................................ 5,990,000 

Contra Costa Water District alternative intake project .............. (2,000,000) 

San Joaquin River Salinity Management ..................................... (3,990,000) 

Total, California Bay-Delta Restoration ................................... 40,110,000 

Conveyance.—Due to the legal action against the intertie project 

between the State Water Project California Aqueduct and the Central Valley Project Delta Mendota Canal, the Committee has eliminated the funding for this project. 

Delta Levees.—The Committee provides $6,000,000, to be transferred to the Corps of Engineers, which shall be available to begin 

implementation of the Delta Levee Stability Program High Priority, 

Priority Group A projects as identified in the draft 180–day report 

to Congress dated March 2006. 

Water Use Efficiency.—The Committee has provided funds, contingent upon completion and delivery of the appropriate feasibility 

report to the appropriate congressional committees by Reclamation, 

to be available for construction of the Inland Empire Utilities 

Agency Regional Water Recycling Project. 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
63 

The Committee has also provided $1,100,000 for the Sacramento 

Valley Integrated Regional Water Management Program which 

shall be shared between the Northern California Water Association 

member agencies and the counties of Butte, Colusa, Glenn, and 

Tehama, California. 

POLICY AND ADMINISTRATION

Appropriation, 2006 ............................................................................ $57,338,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ....................................................................... 58,069,000 

Recommended, 2007 ........................................................................... 58,069,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2006 .................................................................... +731,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ................................................................ ............................

The policy and administration account provides for the executive 

direction and management of all Reclamation activities, as performed by the Commissioner’s offices in Washington, D.C., and 

Denver, Colorado, and in five regional offices. The Denver and regional offices charge individual projects or activities for direct beneficial services and related administrative and technical costs. These 

charges are covered under other appropriations. For fiscal year 

2007, the Committee recommends $58,069,000, the same as the 

budget request and $731,000 above the fiscal year 2006 enacted 

level. 

Five-year budget planning.—Last year, the Committee directed 

the Department of Interior to submit with its fiscal year 2007 

budget request a detailed five-year budget plan for each of the 

major budget components including Water and Related Resources, 

California Bay-Delta Restoration program, Central Valley Project 

Restoration Fund and Central Utah Project Completion. The Department has informed the Committee that it will be unable to provide a five-year plan this fiscal year and hopes to make the initial 

submission with the fiscal year 2008 budget request. Given the 

five-year plan will be a year late, the Committee looks forward 

with great expectation to finally receiving the Department’s product. To reiterate last year’s instruction, the program plans shall 

clearly state the assumptions and priorities behind the choices it 

will make between competing agency programs, and shall include 

a copy of the guidance provided to the program offices to guide 

their submissions into the five-year plan. The plan shall provide 

both fiscally constrained and unconstrained data. 

Denver Technical Services Center.—The Bureau’s Technical Services Center (TSC) in Denver, CO provides centralized engineering 

and scientific services to the area and regional offices. The Committee is aware of the National Research Council’s recommendation 

that the Bureau reevaluate the competencies that exist at the TSC 

in light of current challenges faced by the Bureau. Depending upon 

the timeliness and thoroughness of this evaluation, the Committee 

will entertain an outside evaluation of the TSC’s current staffing 

and core competencies. 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
64 

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. 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
(65) 

TITLE III 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Funds recommended in Title III provide for all Department of 

Energy (DOE) programs, including Energy Supply and Conservation, Clean Coal Technology, Fossil Energy Research and Development, Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves, the Elk Hills 

School Lands Fund, the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, the Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve, the Energy Information Administration, Non-Defense Environmental Cleanup, Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund, Science, Nuclear Waste Disposal, Departmental Administration, Office of the 

Inspector General, the National Nuclear Security Administration 

(Weapons Activities, Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation, Naval Reactors, and the Office of the Administrator), Defense Environmental Cleanup, Other Defense Activities, Defense Nuclear Waste 

Disposal, the Power Marketing Administrations, and the Federal 

Energy Regulatory Commission. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Department of Energy (DOE) has requested a total budget of $24,074,717,000 in fiscal year 2007 to fund programs in its four 

primary mission areas: science, energy, environment, and national 

security. The overall DOE budget is essentially flat compared to 

the fiscal year 2006 enacted level, but the four mission areas fare 

quite differently under the Department’s budget proposal. Science 

research would increase by 14 percent, and the budget for the National Nuclear Security Administration increases by 2.3 percent. 

However, the budget for applied energy research is actually down 

by 4.8 percent, and the environmental cleanup budget sees a reduction of 11.6 percent compared to fiscal year 2006. 

The Committee makes a number of changes to the fiscal year 

2007 budget request to reflect specific Congressional priorities and 

interests. The Committee recommendation fully funds the request 

for the American Competitiveness Initiative under the Office of 

Science, but makes significant adjustments to funding for the 

NNSA, applied energy research, and environmental cleanup. Total 

funding for the Department of Energy is $24,373,489,000, an increase of $326,717,000 over fiscal year 2006 and $298,772,000 over 

the budget request. 

GLOBAL NUCLEAR ENERGY PARTNERSHIP (GNEP)

The Department requests $250,000,000 for a major new initiative 

called the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP). This initiative would address the challenges of spent fuel disposal, nuclear 

nonproliferation, and growth in nuclear energy through the application of advanced technologies to recycle spent nuclear fuel. The 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
66 

Committee strongly endorses the concept of recycling spent nuclear 

fuel. Continuing the once-through fuel cycle not only would waste 

much of the energy content of spent fuel and leave an environmental legacy of radioactive materials, some of them useable in nuclear weapons, but will require the construction of eight more 

Yucca-sized repositories by the end of the century (assuming nuclear energy continues to supply twenty percent of the nation’s 

electricity needs). 

However, the Committee has serious reservations about GNEP 

as proposed by the Administration. The overriding concern is simply that the Department of Energy has failed to provide sufficient 

detailed information to enable Congress to understand fully all aspects of this initiative, including the cost, schedule, technology development plan, and waste streams from GNEP. GNEP in some 

ways addresses Congressional direction with respect to Integrated 

Spent Fuel Recycling given in the Statement of Managers accompanying the Conference Report on Energy and Water Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2006, but the GNEP proposal differs in several significant aspects from what the conferees directed last year, 

and the GNEP proposal falls short in a number of critical areas: 

Integration of Recycling Facilities.—Congress provided funding in 

fiscal year 2006 for DOE to begin the competitive selection of sites 

willing to host integrated spent fuel recycling facilities. Integration 

is critical to address nonproliferation and security concerns, keeping sensitive materials and sensitive facilities within a secure perimeter and minimizing offsite transportation of special nuclear 

materials. Unfortunately, the Department has ignored this key concept of integration. The Request for Expressions of Interest for 

GNEP (solicitation DE–RP07–06ID14760) only mentions three facilities: one for the separation of usable elements from waste products in spent fuel, one for the conversion of transuranics, and an 

advanced fuel cycle facility. There is no mention of the requirement 

that these facilities be integrated or co-located at a single site, nor 

(as is detailed below) is there any mention of the need for interim 

storage as part of an integrated recycling complex. 

Interim Storage.—In the Committee’s view, any such integrated 

spent fuel recycling facility must be capable of accumulating sufficient volumes of spent fuel to provide efficient operation of the facility. A first test of any site’s willingness to host such a facility is 

its willingness to receive into interim storage spent fuel in dry 

casks that provide safe storage of spent fuel for 50 to 100 years or 

longer. In this Committee’s view, if any site refuses to provide interim storage as needed to support the operation of an integrated 

recycling facility, at whatever scale, then that site should be eliminated from all further consideration under GNEP. As noted above, 

the Department failed to include any requirement for interim storage in its Request for Expressions of Interest for hosting GNEP facilities. Further, the Department failed to include any language regarding interim storage in its legislative proposal that was submitted to Congress on April 5, 2006. 

Resolution of the spent fuel problem cannot wait for the many 

years required for the GNEP to proceed through comprehensive 

planning, engineering demonstration, NRC licensing of the recycling plant, any new reactor types such as fast reactors, and each 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
67 

new recycled fuel type, and ultimate operations. The credibility of 

the Administration’s support for the future of the nuclear power industry rests on its resolution of the issues associated with taking 

custody of spent fuel and opening a permanent geologic repository 

for high-level nuclear waste (Yucca Mountain), as required by the 

Nuclear Waste Policy Act. GNEP will not be ready to begin largescale recycling of commercial spent fuel until the end of the next 

decade, and the Yucca Mountain repository will not open until 

roughly the same time. Such delays are acceptable only if accompanied by interim storage beginning this decade. 

Inclusion of Fast Reactors.—When Congress provided funding in 

fiscal year 2006 for Integrated Spent Fuel Recycling, Congress understood integrated recycling to involve four steps: an advanced 

separation technology such as UREX+ that would not yield separated plutonium, fabrication of new mixed oxide (MOX) fuel for use 

in commercial light water power reactors thereby recycling any plutonium containing product of UREX+, vitrification of waste products, and interim storage of spent fuel to support the recycling 

process. GNEP envisions a very different process, using fast burner 

reactors to destroy more completely the plutonium and other 

actinides in the spent fuel. While such an approach may be desirable from a technical perspective, the inclusion of fast reactors 

adds significant cost, time, and risk to the recycling effort. The Department has failed to provide any comparison of the relative costs 

and benefits of the two approaches to convince Congress, and the 

public, that UREX+ coupled with fast reactors is the best approach 

to recycling spent fuel. 

Linkage to Yucca Mountain.—Unfortunately, it appears that the 

Department has decided to put its emphasis on GNEP and put 

Yucca Mountain on the back burner. That choice is unacceptable 

to the Committee. The Yucca Mountain repository is essential regardless of whether GNEP is successful or the United States retains a policy of a once-through nuclear fuel cycle, and the Committee fully supports proceeding to construct and operate this repository. The latest schedule from the Department of Energy has 

a license application for construction being filed in fiscal year 2008, 

construction start three to four years later and disposal of commercial spent fuel sometime near the end of the next decade. This is 

a seven-year delay from the schedule just two years ago. During 

the delay, the Department has estimated that it will incur added 

costs of $500 million per year in liabilities to the nuclear utilities 

for the Department’s failure to begin accepting commercial spent 

fuel. As noted above, this delay is acceptable only if accompanied 

by centralized interim storage in the near term. Furthermore, the 

Department has estimated that it will include an additional $500 

million per year in costs to protect and manage its own wastes that 

are destined to be placed in Yucca Mountain. The Committee is reluctant to embark on any new initiative that has the potential to 

produce significant chemical and radioactive waste streams. 

Inadequate Information on Waste Streams and Life Cycle Costs.—

The cost estimates for construction and commissioning of the Hanford Waste Treatment Plant (WTP) have gone from $4.3 billion to 

over $11 billion in just three years, and are still not yet well established. This plant is designed to process the high-level radioactive 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
68 

waste derived from past reprocessing activities. The Department 

has failed to produce a complete accounting of the estimated volumes, composition, and disposition of the waste streams that will 

be involved in GNEP. The Department has also failed to produce 

even the most rudimentary estimate of the life-cycle costs of GNEP. 

Before the Department can expect the Congress to fund a major 

new initiative, the Department should provide Congress with a 

complete and credible estimate of the life-cycle costs of the program. 

Future of Nuclear Energy.—At present, 103 civilian light-water 

nuclear reactors generate twenty percent of the nation’s electricity. 

The generation process produces no greenhouse gases, is carefully 

regulated by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and rate payers 

pay into the Nuclear Waste Fund for the permanent disposal of 

spent reactor fuel. However, the current fleet of reactors are generally one-third to half way through their expected operating lifetimes. To retain this component of our domestic energy supply, 

even at the twenty percent level, the United States will have to 

reach a consensus supporting the construction of dozens of new nuclear reactors. Delays in opening the Yucca Mountain repository 

cast a shadow over the future of nuclear energy, as it is doubtful 

that the NRC will be able to license new reactors without a clear 

disposal path for the spent fuel those reactors will generate. Unfortunately, the timeline for commercial-scale implementation of 

GNEP is too far off in the future to assist with licensing new reactors in the next decade. The Department has chosen, unwisely in 

this Committee’s view, to seek legislation that would eliminate the 

availability of disposal space in a permanent repository as a consideration for NRC in licensing new reactors. Aggressive development 

of the initial Yucca Mountain repository, coupled with either expansion of Yucca’s capacity or development of additional repositories, would be a responsible solution to the waste confidence 

question. The provision of centralized interim storage, so that the 

Department could begin moving spent fuel away from commercial 

reactor sites, would also be a responsible alternative. Attempting 

to legislate away the waste confidence problem is not. 

The concept of recycling spent nuclear fuel has real promise, with 

benefits both domestically and internationally. However, the Committee recognizes that implementation of advanced recycling on 

any significant scale is at least a decade or more in the future. The 

Department has yet to submit a compelling and complete justification for the $250,000,000 request for GNEP in fiscal year 2007. 

Therefore, the Committee supports a more modest effort on GNEP, 

continued emphasis on Yucca Mountain, and renewed emphasis on 

the provision of centralized interim storage. Specific guidance on 

this issue is provided in the sections of the report dealing with the 

Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative and with Nuclear Waste Disposal. 

CONGRESSIONAL DIRECTION

The Committee renews the direction provided in previous fiscal 

years requiring the Secretary to submit to the House and Senate 

Committees on Appropriations, Subcommittees on Energy and 

Water Development, a quarterly report on the status of all projects, 

reports, fund transfers, and other actions directed in this House 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
69 

bill and report, in the corresponding Senate bill and report, in the 

Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 

2007, and in the statement of managers accompanying that Act. 

Any reports, transfers, or other actions directed in prior fiscal years 

that have not been completed as of the date of enactment of this 

Act should also be included in this quarterly report. 

The Committee is disappointed that the Department is late in 

submitting several cruicial reports that were due in the spring of 

2006. These reporting deadlines were established so that the reports could be used to inform the House appropriations process for 

the coming fiscal year. By failing to meet its reporting deadlines, 

the Department not only disregards the direction of the House of 

Representatives, but it misses opportunities to participate constructively in the appropriations process. Future reporting requirements 

will be linked directly to funding in the Departmental Administration account or the responsible program account, so that late reports will translate directly to reduced funding. 

ASIA PACIFIC PARTNERSHIP

In January 2006, subsequent to the formulation of the budget request for the Department of Energy, the United States government 

formally committed to participate in the Asia Pacific Partnership 

for Clean Development and Climate to accelerate the deployment 

of clean, energy-efficient technologies. The Department has identified a number of technology development and deployment activities 

within the Energy Supply and Conservation account and the Fossil 

Energy Research and Development account that may be relevant to 

the Asia Pacific Partnership. The Department should submit a reprogramming request to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations if it intends to use any appropriated fiscal year 2006 

funds specifically for Asia Pacific Partnership activities. The Department’s fiscal year 2007 budget request does not provide any detailed justification for Asia Pacific Partnership activities in fiscal 

year 2007; therefore, the Committee provides no funds for this purpose in fiscal year 2007. The Department should submit to the 

House and Senate Committees on Appropriations a detailed budget 

justification if it proposes to use any funds in fiscal year 2007 for 

activities specific to the Asia Pacific Partnership, and the Committee may consider the matter further at conference. 

TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT

The Department possesses enormous resources, both in terms of 

people and physical infrastructure, to conduct basic and applied research to benefit the citizens of the United States. From the perspective of most of those citizens, the taxpayers contribute an enormous amount of resources to the Department, much of it spent on 

activities that yield little obvious benefit. The Committee understands the long-term nature of basic research, and fully supports 

those activities. The Committee also supports the applied energy 

research programs that serve to bring more efficient and environmentally-friendly energy technologies into the marketplace. 

In general, the Department performs its basic science research 

and applied energy research missions well. However, there is always room for improvement, and the recent report by the National 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
70 

Academies, ‘‘Rising Above the Gathering Storm: Energizing and 

Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future,’’ makes a 

number of recommendations that are relevant to the Department 

of Energy. 

One recommendation is create in DOE an organization called the 

Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA–E) to provide 

funding support for creative ‘‘out-of-the-box’’ energy research, similar to the way that the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) functions. The Committee is aware that the House 

Science Committee is considering legislation to create an ARPA–E. 

However, the proposal is not yet ripe, and no funds were requested 

in the fiscal year 2007 budget to fund any activities of an ARPA– E. 

Another recommendation, referenced but not necessarily endorsed in the ‘‘Rising Storm’’ report, deals with the gap between 

applied research and commercial implementation of new technologies. The large industrial laboratories used to fill that niche, 

but more recently, U.S. businesses have largely focused on research 

that yields short-term benefits. It has been suggested that DOE 

should combine the expertise resident in its national laboratories 

with that available in the private sector and academia to conduct 

research targeted at selected high-payoff technologies that can be 

manufactured competitively in the United States. It is not clear 

that filling this gap is a federal responsibility; however, it is clear 

that this gap exists, and that DOE does have talent to bring to 

bear on this problem. 

Regardless of the structure of a new research organization such 

as ARPA–E, and the technologies that might be selected as the 

focus for such work, there remains the question of how to fund 

such activities. As noted above, the fiscal year 2007 budget does 

not request any funding specifically for such purposes. However, 

the Committee notes that the Department is already sitting on a 

large untapped resource that could be used to address this problem. The Laboratory Directed Research and Development (LDRD) 

program consists of individual research projects selected at the discretion of the DOE laboratory directors with Department concurrence and funded via a tax on all funding, direct and reimbursable, 

coming into each laboratory. In fiscal year 2005, the Department 

spent $384,000,000 on LDRD. Although an accurate estimate is not 

yet available for the current fiscal year, the number will almost 

certainly approach $500,000,000. 

The Committee understands the value of discretionary research 

conducted at the DOE national laboratories. However, the Committee strongly encourages the Secretary to re-focus the LDRD to 

address better the high-priority research needs of the nation so 

that the American taxpayers, rather than just the laboratory contractors, benefit from this research. The Committee is hopeful that 

the Under Secretary for Science, a new position in the Department 

created in section 1006 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109–

58), will provide more effective coordination of the LDRD program. 

BUDGET JUSTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS

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


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
71 

last year that authorizing legislation was provided by Congress for 

each program; (2) funding within each construction project data 

sheet for elimination of excess facilities at least equal to the square 

footage of the new facilities being requested; and (3) funding to 

eliminate excess facilities at least equal to the square footage of 

new facilities being constructed as general plant projects (GPP). 

The budget justifications must also include a statement that all appropriate project management requirements from DOE Order 413.3 

will have been met at the time the budget justifications are submitted to Congress. The Committee understands that all such requirements may not be met, and need not be met, at the time the 

budget request is formulated. The Committee does expect, however, 

that these project management requirements will have been fulfilled at the time the fiscal year 2008 budget request is delivered 

to Congress. 

FIVE-YEAR BUDGET PLANNING

Fiscal year 2007 was the first year in which the Department submitted five-year budget plans for all of its major programs, an integrated five-year budget plan for the entire Department, and business plans for each of the Department’s national laboratories. The 

Committee directs the Department to submit updated versions of 

these plans (i.e, five-year budget plans for major DOE programs as 

listed in House Report 109–86, for the entire Department, and laboratory business plans) concurrent with submission of the fiscal 

year 2008 budget request. 

The Committee renews its previous direction that program plans 

and the integrated Department-wide plan should state clearly the 

assumptions and priorities behind the choices it will make between 

competing Department programs, and should include a copy of the 

guidance provided to the program offices to guide their submissions 

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

program should also clearly identify the five-year funding profiles 

for all major projects with total project costs in excess of 

$100,000,000. This direction applies to all ongoing projects (e.g., 

Hanford Waste Treatment Plant, Savannah River MOX plant, etc.), 

all new projects (e.g., ITER, NSLS–II, etc.), and all major cleanup 

projects in excess of the threshold. This information is generally 

available on the construction data sheets, but should be incorporated into the five-year plans as well. 

While the Committee appreciates the effort of the Department in 

submitting the first version of its five-year budget plans, the quality of these plans made them of limited value to Congress. The programs of the Office of Environmental Management offer a clear example of this problem. Environmental Management has developed 

milestone schedules for each of its cleanup sites. These schedules 

were developed in cooperation with local communities and regulators, and in some cases, are the result of legally-binding agreements. There are known resource requirements that are necessary 

to meet these existing cleanup milestones. By summing up the 

funding requirements that are necessary to keep all existing cleanup sites on schedule for the next five years, the Office of Environmental Management can derive the minimum funding level required for the Environmental Management programs over the next 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
72 

five years. Where OMB or the Department imposes a funding ceiling that provides less than the minimum necessary to keep all 

cleanup sites on schedule, the five-year plan then should identify 

clearly which sites would remain on schedule and which ones 

would see a schedule slip under the constrained funding levels and 

the extent of the slippage. Absent this level of detail, the five-year 

plan does not inform Congress of the trade-offs that are being made 

at the proposed five-year funding levels. A similar criticism applies 

to the five-year plans for the Department’s other major programs. 

The five-year budget plan is not meant to be a promotional brochure on the Administration’s budget request; it is meant to be a 

working tool to help both the Department and the Congress understand what will and will not be accomplished under the proposed 

five-year funding levels. 

PROJECT MANAGEMENT

The Committee repeats its prior guidance on the importance of 

improving the project management culture within the Department 

and on compliance with Project Management Order 413.3. It is important for the Department to maintain its focus on project management for all aspects of its work, but most especially to major 

capital projects. 

FUNDING OF SAFEGUARDS AND SECURITY ACTIVITIES

The Committee directs the Department of Energy (DOE) to continue to fund the safeguards and security activities within the DOE 

programs as a direct funded activity. The Committee notes security 

costs increases to fund increased requirements from changes to the 

Design Basis Threat (DBT) in the aftermath of the 9–11 attacks, 

requires a transparent accounting system to track funding across 

the Department of Energy’s complex of sites. The Committee is unaware of any compelling rationale to transition back to indirect 

funding of security activities within the DOE accounts and therefore the Committee will continue to appropriate funds for security 

activities as a direct appropriation. 

AUGMENTING FEDERAL STAFF

The Committee expects the Department to manage closely the 

number of management and operating (M&O) contractor employees 

assigned to the Washington metropolitan area in fiscal year 2007, 

in accordance with the guidance provided in the fiscal year 2006 

conference report. The Committee maintains the following reporting requirements: 

Report on M&O contractor employees.—The Department is to 

provide a report to the Committee at the end of fiscal year 2006 

on the use of M&O contractor employees assigned to the Washington metropolitan area. The report is to identify all M&O contractor employees who work in the Washington metropolitan area, 

including the name of the employee, the name of the contractor, 

the organization to which he or she is assigned, the job title and 

a description of the tasks the employee is performing, the annual 

cost of the employee to the Department, the Headquarters program 

organization sponsoring each M&O employee, the program account 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
73 

funding that employee, and the length of time the employee has 

been detailed to the Department or elsewhere in the Washington 

metropolitan area (e.g., the Congress, the Executive Office of the 

President, and other Federal agencies). The report should also include detailed information on the cost of maintaining each M&O office in the Washington metropolitan area. This report is to include 

actual data for the period October 1, 2005 through September 30, 

2006, and is due to the Committee on January 31, 2007. 

Report on support service contractors.—The report is to include 

for each support service contract at Headquarters: the name of the 

contractor; the program organization (at the lowest organization 

level possible) hiring the contractor; a description and list of the 

tasks performed; the number of contractor employees working on 

the contract; and the annual cost of the contract. This report is to 

include actual data for the period October 1, 2005 through September 30, 2006, and is due to the Committee on January 31, 2007. 

REPROGRAMMING GUIDELINES

The Committee requires the Department to inform the Committee promptly and fully when a change in program execution and 

funding is required during the fiscal year. To assist the Department in this effort, the following guidance is provided for programs 

and activities funded in the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act. 

Definition.—A reprogramming includes the reallocation of funds 

from one activity to another within an appropriation, or any significant departure from a program, project, or activity described in the 

agency’s budget justification as presented to and approved by Congress. For construction projects, a reprogramming constitutes the 

reallocation of funds from one construction project identified in the 

justifications to another project or a significant change in the scope 

of an approved project. 

Criteria for Reprogramming.—A reprogramming should be made 

only when an unforeseen situation arises, and then only if delay of 

the project or the activity until the next appropriations year would 

result in a detrimental impact to an agency program or priority. 

Reprogrammings may also be considered if the Department can 

show that significant cost savings can accrue by increasing funding 

for an activity. Mere convenience or preference should not be factors for consideration. 

Reprogrammings should not be employed to initiate new programs, or to change program, project, or activity allocations specifically denied, limited, or increased by Congress in the Act or report. 

In cases where unforeseen events or conditions are deemed to require such changes, proposals shall be submitted in advance to the 

Committee and be fully explained and justified. 

Reporting and Approval Procedures.—The Committee has not 

provided statutory language to define reprogramming guidelines, 

but expects the Department to follow the spirit and the letter of the 

guidance provided in this report. Consistent with prior years, the 

Committee has not provided the Department with any internal reprogramming flexibility in fiscal year 2007, unless specifically identified in the House, Senate, or conference reports for particular programs, projects, or activities. Any reallocation of new or prior year 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
74 

budget authority or prior year deobligations must be submitted to 

the Committees in writing and may not be implemented prior to 

approval by the Committees on Appropriations. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee’s recommendations for Department of Energy 

programs in fiscal year 2007 are described in the following sections. 

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

ENERGY SUPPLY AND CONSERVATION

Appropriation, 2006 ............................................................................ $1,812,627,000 

Budget Estimate, 2007 ....................................................................... 1,923,361,000 

Recommended, 2007 ........................................................................... 2,025,527,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2006 .................................................................... +212,900,000 

Budget Estimate, 2007 ............................................................... +102,166,000 

The Energy Supply and Conservation account includes the following programs Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Resources; Nuclear Energy; Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability; Environment, Safety and Health (non-defense); and Legacy 

Management. The Committee recommends that the funds for Energy Supply and Conservation activities remain available for three 

years. 

Reprogramming authority.—In fiscal year 2006, Congress provided the Department with unprecedented reprogramming authority. The Department’s mishandling of the employee layoffs at the 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) demonstrated 

clearly that the Department does not know when to use tools such 

as reprogramming authority to solve funding problems in a constructive manner. Accordingly, the Committee provides the Department with no reprogramming authority in fiscal year 2007 for any 

other projects, programs, and activities funded under the Energy 

Supply and Conservation account. 

ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY RESOURCES

The total Committee recommendation for energy efficiency and 

renewable energy resources is $1,319,434,000 an increase of 

$143,013,000 compared to the budget request. This increases 

Weatherization Assistance funding, provides facilities and equipment for research and development to further renewable energy 

technology, and deploys innovative renewable technologies. 

Financial Management.—The Committee is concerned about the 

financial management practices of the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) program. During fiscal year 2006, the 

EERE program was unable to account for prior year commitments 

and was subsequently unable to identify the amount of unobligated 

and obligated uncosted balances in a $1.2 billion appropriation. 

The Committee is especially concerned that senior DOE management directed personnel layoffs at the National Renewable Energy 

Laboratory when they did not know the status and availability of 

prior and current year funds. Such layoffs could have been avoided. 

The Committee sees two behaviors that contribute to this dilemma: 

1. The ‘‘no-year’’ funds appropriations availability promotes 

an undisciplined approach to financial management; and, 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
75 

2. A lack of accountability in tracking out-year cumulative 

funding commitments made by EERE over time. The Committee has heard many complaints from grant awardees that 

EERE initial solicitations include funding profiles that the Department fails to support because DOE does not request sufficient funding. Such ‘‘over promising’’ behavior was evidenced 

when, in February 2006, EERE issued a solicitation for 

$53,000,000 for a new program with funding to begin in fiscal 

year 2007, funding that has not yet been appropriated by the 

Congress. 

To help remedy this situation, the Committee has imposed a 

three-year funds limitation on the Energy Supply and Conservation 

appropriation to promote a closer accounting of funds. The Committee directs EERE to report to the Committee no later than January 31, 2007, on the steps taken to improve the financial tracking 

of multi-year awards, identify balances from prior year projects 

that no longer require resources, and provide an accounting of all 

out-year commitments. In addition, the Committee directs EERE to 

report on the progress of implementing the recommendations of the 

Inspector General audit report DOE/IG–0689 on the insufficient 

management attention to EERE cooperative agreements, by January 31, 2007. 

ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY PROGRAMS

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Programs include biomass and biorefinery systems R&D, geothermal technology, hydrogen technology, hydropower, solar energy, and wind energy technologies. Energy conservation activities include improving the efficiency of vehicle, building, fuel cell, and industrial technologies. 

Hydrogen Technology.—The hydrogen technology program seeks 

to research, develop and validate fuel cell and hydrogen production, 

delivery, and storage technologies. This program aims to have hydrogen from diverse domestic resources used in a clean, safe, reliable, and affordable manner in fuel cell vehicles and stationary 

power applications. The Committee supports the Savannah River 

Site National Laboratory’s work on hydrogen production and storage, and recommends funding levels in fiscal year 2007 no less 

than fiscal year 2006. The Committee recommendation for hydrogen technology is $195,801,000, the same as the budget request. 

Biomass and Biorefinery Systems R&D.—Biomass and Biorefinery Systems R&D will conduct research, development and 

technology validation on advanced technologies that will enable future biorefineries to convert cellulosic biomass to fuels, chemicals, 

heat and power. The program focuses on reducing processing energy requirements and production costs in biomass processing 

plants and future integrated industrial biorefineries. The Committee recommendation for integrated research and development 

on biomass and biorefinery systems is $149,687,000, the same as 

the budget request. The Committee provides $9,967,000 for feedstock infrastructure, and $50,530,000 for platforms research and 

development, the same as the budget request. Within the funds 

provided, the Committee directs the Department to fulfill its obligation by fully funding its competitively-awarded research and development grant to NatureWorks LLC. 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
76 

While the Committee supports the initiative to begin pilot scale 

biomass demonstrations with the private sector, the Committee 

also believes more bench scale research in a greater variety of feedstocks by a variety of users, such as universities, national laboratories and private interests, will yield a greater field of successes. 

As such, the Committee provides $69,190,000 for integration of biorefinery technologies to support two industrial scale commercial 

demonstration biorefineries and $15,000,000 to be used at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory to add to the existing biomass 

experimental facilities and complete a needed integrated biorefinery test facility (ITBF). The $15,000,000 is provided for the 

ITBF to perform systems experiments enabling the testing of new 

biomass feedstocks, the characterization of future technologies, the 

results of plant genomics research and to assess the many processes in an integrated biorefinery. The Committee provides 

$5,000,000 for grants to competitively selected colleges and universities around the country focused on conversion of cellulosic biomass to energy. Universities would: (1) Research the fundamental 

characteristics of cellulose in plants and how physical, biological, 

and chemical treatment can make the cellulose more amenable to 

conversion to sugars. (2) Research improved strains of bacteria or 

other microorganisms to convert cellulose to ethanol, particularly 

through breeding or engineering organisms that speedily convert 

cellulose to ethanol in a single step. The Committee directs that 

$2,000,000 of this grant money be targeted to rice straw and sugar 

cane bagasse as feedstocks. 

The Committee directs DOE to implement an aggressive program 

to take advantage of the Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) across the country in order to deepen the recruiting 

pool of diverse scientific and technical staff available to support the 

growing renewable energy marketplace. 

Solar Energy.—The Solar Energy program develops solar energy 

technologies, such as photovoltaics and concentrating solar power, 

that are reliable, affordable and environmentally sound. The Committee provides $148,372,000 for solar energy programs, the same 

as the budget request. The Committee recommendation includes 

$134,472,000 for photovoltaic energy systems, a reduction of 

$5,000,000 from the budget request; $8,900,000 for concentrating 

solar power; and $5,000,000 for solar heating and lighting, which 

was not funded in the budget request. The Committee is especially 

concerned that funding for solar water heater technology was eliminated, and directs the Department to prepare a report for the Committee by January 31, 2007, on the potential energy savings generated by solar water heaters, market impediments, and strategy 

for wider deployment of this technology. 

Wind Energy.—The Wind Energy program focuses on the development of wind turbines that can operate economically in areas 

with low wind speeds, small wind turbines that can serve a range 

of distributed power applications, and system technology in support 

of offshore wind systems further from shore, particularly beyond 

the viewshed of coastal communities. The Committee recommends 

$43,819,000 for wind energy systems, the same as the budget request. 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
77 

Geothermal Technology.—The Geothermal Technology program 

works in partnership with U.S. industry to establish geothermal 

energy as an economically competitive contributor to the U.S. energy supply. The Department proposes to close out the Geothermal 

Program in fiscal year 2007 and transfer results of its research and 

development work related to geothermal technology to industry and 

the public sector. The Committee provides no funding for the geothermal technology program, the same as the budget request. 

Hydropower.—The Committee recommends no funding for hydropower research, the same as the budget request. The Department 

plans to close out the hydropower program in fiscal year 2006 and 

transfer results of its research and development related to testing 

of fish-friendly large turbines to industry. 

Vehicle Technologies.—The Vehicle Technologies program seeks 

technology breakthroughs that will greatly reduce petroleum use 

by automobiles and trucks of all sizes, including R&D on lightweight materials, electronic power control, high power storage and 

hybrid electric drive motors. The Committee recommends 

$177,538,000, an increase of $11,514,000 over the budget request. 

The recommendation provides $19,980,000 for heavy truck engine 

research and development, an increase of $5,490,000 over the budget request, $10,000,000 for clean cities including $8,000,000 for development of E–85 infrastructure, an increase of $5,607,000 over 

the budget request and $3,479,000, an increase of $1,000,000 over 

the budget request for the Advanced Collaborative Emissions 

Study. The Committee is aware of the positive contributions of 

steel as an Automotive Lightweight Material in the Freedom Car 

project, through its USCAR and USAMP organizations. The Committee urges the Department to continue to include steel research 

as part of the Freedom Car program. 

Building Technologies.—In partnership with the buildings industry, this program develops, promotes, and integrates energy technologies and practices to make buildings more efficient and affordable. The Committee recommends $93,029,000, an increase of 

$15,700,000 over the budget request, including funding for Energy 

Star at $6,376,000, funding for Building Codes Training and Assistance at $5,000,000, and an increase of $10,100,000 for the acceleration of solid state lighting research and development. 

Industrial Technologies.—The Industrial Technologies program 

cost-shares research in critical technology areas identified in partnership with industry in order to realize significant energy benefits. The Committee recommends $51,563,000, an increase of 

$6,000,000 over the budget request. The recommendation includes 

an increase of $4,000,000 for Industries of the Future, to be allocated as follows: metal casting at $1,982,000, an increase of 

$1,000,000 over the budget request; glass industry at $2,000,000, 

an increase of $2,000,000 over the budget request; and, $1,000,000 

for the mining industry, an increase of $1,000,000 over the budget 

request. The Committee recommends $2,000,000 for the Inventions 

and Innovations program, an increase of $2,000,000 over the budget request. 

Distributed Energy and Electricity Reliability Program.—This account and its activities was moved to the Electricity Delivery and 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
78 

Energy Reliability program in the fiscal year 2006 Energy and 

Water Development conference report. 

Federal Energy Management Programs.—Federal Energy Management Programs (FEMP) reduce the cost and environmental impact of the Federal government by advancing energy efficiency and 

water conservation, promoting the use of renewable energy, and 

managing utility costs in Federal facilities and operations. The 

Committee recommendation for Federal Energy Management Programs is $18,906,000, an increase of $2,000,000 over the budget request. The Federal government should lead by example in the area 

of energy efficiency, by trying to squeeze every bit of productivity 

from energy use. With high fuel prices, FEMP activities are likely 

to yield higher returns than in the past; thus, the Committee supports additional investment for more projects. 

Facilities and Infrastructure.—The Committee recommendation 

for renewable energy Facilities and Infrastructure is $15,935,000, 

a $10,000,000 increase over the budget request. This amount includes the budget request of $5,935,000 for operations and maintenance of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) in 

Golden, Colorado; an increase of $5,000,000 to complete the initial 

research support buildings at NREL; and a $5,000,000 increase for 

laboratory equipment for the new Science and Technology facility 

at NREL. 

Weatherization Assistance.—The Committee recommends 

$250,000,000 for weatherization assistance program grants, an increase of $90,352,000 over the budget request. The Committee is 

very concerned that the Department has severely under-funded 

this program, which readily results in significant energy savings in 

American homes. The Committee recommends $4,554,000 for training and technical assistance, an increase of $4,000 over the budget 

request, and the same as fiscal year 2006 enacted levels. 

Other.—Other activities include the International Renewable Energy Program, Tribal energy activities and the Renewable Energy 

Production Incentive, state energy program grants, and state energy activities. Gateway deployment activities previously funded in 

this account have been moved to several EERE programs, and no 

funds are in the budget request for Gateway deployment. The Committee recommends $4,473,000 for the International Renewable Energy Program, an increase of $2,000,000 over the budget request; 

$3,957,000 for Tribal energy activities, and $4,946,000 for Renewable Energy Production Incentive, the same as the budget request. 

The Committee recommends no funding for state energy activities, the same as the budget request, and no funds for state energy 

program grants, a reduction of $49,457,000 from the budget request. The Committee is concerned that valuable federal tax dollars within an applied research and development account are funding salaries of state employees, meetings, and travel to meetings 

through the ‘‘state grant’’ process. The Inspector General report of 

April 26, 2006, notes ‘‘the Department is unable to determine the 

cost benefit of its yearly investment of approximately $40 million 

in Program activities.’’ Accordingly, the Committee has eliminated 

funding for these questionable activities, and restored funding to 

higher-priority renewable energy research and development activities, and weatherization assistance. 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
79 

Program Support.—Program Support activities for the EERE 

program include planning, analysis and evaluation, and information, communications and outreach. The Committee recommendation for Program Support is $10,930,000, the same as the budget 

request. 

Program Direction.—Program Direction provides for the Federal 

staffing resources and associated costs for supporting the management and oversight of EERE programs. The Committee recommendation for Program Direction is $91,024,000, the same as 

the budget request. 

Congressionally Directed Technology Deployment projects.—The 

Committee provides $54,900,000 for the following Congressionally 

directed projects. The Committee reminds recipients that statutory 

cost sharing requirements may apply to these projects. 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
80 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 022 HR474.022
81 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 023 HR474.023
82 

ELECTRICITY DELIVERY AND ENERGY RELIABILITY

The Committee recommendation for Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability is $144,028,000, an increase of $19,100,000 over 

the budget request. Energy storage technologies are crucial to the 

long-run integration of wind and solar energy into the marketplace 

on a large scale, and the Committee provides the $2,000,000 increase for energy storage for wind and solar power. The Committee 

is concerned that the Gridwise, Gridworks, and Transmission Reliability initiatives, which were started by the Department several 

years ago, have now been terminated and collapsed into yet another new initiative called ‘‘Visualization and Controls’’. The Committee directs that the projects funded under the research and development programs be competitively awarded and comprehensively managed by the Department to ensure that the federal dollars provided are spent effectively. Detailed subprogram allocations 

are shown on the attached table at the end of Title III. 

The Department’s Emergency Order 202–05–03 directed the 

Mirant Corporation to resume operations of its Potomac River Generating Station. The Committee encourages the Secretary to develop a report in full cooperation with the General Services Administration, the D.C. Public Service Commission and the region’s electric power generators and distributors, and other responsible parties that meets the Federal government’s and this region’s electric 

reliability and environmental concerns. The Department should report back to the Committees on Appropriations 180 days after enactment of this Act. 

Pursuant to Section 1106 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, the 

Department of Energy is strongly encouraged to initiate a process 

to designate a National Power Plant Operations Technology and 

Educational Center that meets the criteria established in Section 

1106. The Secretary shall consider non-federal commitments of 

support for the Center as part of the process. The Committee further encourages the Department to designate the Center by June 

30, 2007. 

Congressionally Directed Technology Deployment projects.—The 

Committee recommends $17,100,000 for the following Congressionally directed projects. The Committee reminds recipients that statutory cost sharing requirements may apply to these projects. 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
83 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 024 HR474.024
84 

NUCLEAR ENERGY PROGRAMS

The Committee recommendation for nuclear energy programs 

under the Energy Supply and Conservation appropriation is 

$499,805,000, a decrease of $59,947,000 below the budget request. 

This net decrease reflects the Committee’s recommendation to fund 

the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) $30,000,000 below 

the authorization level, continue Pu–238 consolidation, and fund 

nuclear energy infrastructure, and education assistance. The Committee supports the Savannah River National Laboratory’s work on 

hydrogen production and storage, and recommends funding levels 

in fiscal year 2007 no less than fiscal year 2006. The Committee 

has provided an additional $66,000,000 for increased programmatic 

activities for the Office of Nuclear Energy, as described below. 

Of the total funding of $572,751,000 provided for Nuclear Energy 

programs and facilities, $72,946,000 represents costs allocated to 

the 050 budget function, (i.e. defense activities) for Idaho Site-wide 

and Security activities. Beginning in fiscal year 2007, the Idaho Facilities Management Program previously funded through Naval Reactors and Other Defense Activities is requested and appropriated 

under the Energy Supply and Conservation appropriation. 

UNIVERSITY REACTOR INFRASTRUCTURE AND EDUCATION ASSISTANCE

The Committee recommends $27,000,000 for grants and fellowships that support nuclear science and engineering education, and 

to sustain existing university reactors, an increase of $24,053,000 

over the budget request. The recommendation includes $2,947,000 

for fuel that was requested in the Radiological Facilities Management budget under Research Reactor Infrastructure. This program 

is important to maintaining a supply of well trained engineers and 

scientists to design and operate the nuclear industry of the future. 

It is irresponsible for the Department to zero out education assistance at a time the nuclear industry is attempting to revitalize. The 

Committee does recognize that once the nuclear industry is revitalized in the United States and is a source of well-paying new jobs 

for trained nuclear professionals, some of the support in this program may be phased out. 

NUCLEAR ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

Nuclear power 2010.—The Committee provides $54,031,000 for 

nuclear power 2010, the same as the budget request. 

Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems.—The Committee supports the Department’s collaborative efforts on the research and development of a generation IV reactor design that will be safer, 

more cost effective, and more proliferation resistant than current 

designs. The Committee recommends a total of $31,436,000 for generation IV nuclear energy systems, the same as the budget request. 

Within available funds, $4,000,000 is provided for the development 

of multiple high temperature fuel fabrication techniques in support 

of the Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems. The Committee expects future planning for generation IV nuclear energy systems to 

be clearly coordinated with GNEP plans. 

Nuclear Hydrogen Initiative.—The Committee provides 

$18,665,000 for the nuclear hydrogen initiative, the same as the 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
85 

budget request. The Committee expects the Department to meet 

the requirements of the hydrogen future act of 1996 (P.L. 104–271) 

for competition and industry cost sharing, and expects the office of 

nuclear energy, science and technology to coordinate the nuclear 

hydrogen initiative fully with the other hydrogen research being 

conducted by the Office of Science and the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. 

Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative.—The Committee recommendation 

for the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative (AFCI) is $150,000,000, a 

decrease of $93,000,000 below the budget request. The Committee 

has yet to receive the spent nuclear fuel recycling technology plan 

from the Department due March 1, 2006, as directed by the fiscal 

year 2006 conference report. Without the detailed information regarding the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership Initiative, the 

Committee does not support activities beyond what was directed in 

the fiscal year 2006 bill and report and authorized in the Energy 

Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109–58). The Committee is very concerned 

regarding the acceleration of the UREX+ engineering scale demonstration, particularly according to DOE’s own documents, ‘‘The 

UREX+ process has been developed and successfully demonstrated 

on a laboratory-scale using up to 1 kilogram of spent nuclear fuel. 

These tests clearly show the viability of the chemistry of the 

UREX+1a process, however, there are a number of engineering 

challenges in scaling these processes to equipment capable of processing 100s of kgs to metric tons of spent nuclear fuel per year. Additionally, the UREX+1a process produces several by-products, and 

the treatment, storage and handling of these by-products requires 

testing of new innovative equipment designs that have not been 

done before. Continued development of select process and equipment alternatives is also warranted, to reduce technical risk.’’ The 

Committee’s concern is the primary and secondary waste forms and 

volumes that will result from the UREX process, or any other recycling process. Because the life-cycle approach to treating, storing 

and disposing of these byproducts is not determined, and still technically unknown, it is unclear why the UREX+1a process was 

quickly chosen as the recycling technology of the future, and then 

recast as the keystone technology in a multi-billion dollar integrated fuel recycling endeavor. The Committee is also concerned 

about the role of mixed-oxide (MOX) fuel and fast reactor in GNEP, 

the balance in future requirements for light water reactors versus 

fast reactors, the costs associated with GNEP, and the role of the 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission in regulating or participating in 

GNEP. 

The statutory authorization level established in the Energy Policy Act of 2005, Section 951(d)(1)(A) for the Advanced Fuel Cycle 

Initiative is $120,000,000. As such, the Committee’s recommendation of $120,000,000 should be allocated as follows: $11,000,000 for 

separations technology development; $9,000,000 for advanced fuels 

development; $6,000,000 for transmutation engineering; 

$10,000,000 for systems analysis; $20,000,000 for the advanced fuel 

cycle facility; $39,000,000 for technology development in support of 

the several UREX+ processes; and $25,000,000 for the advanced 

burner reactor. No funds have been provided for transmutation 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
86 

education. The Committee does not at this time support the development of small modular reactors for export. 

No funds have been provided for conceptual design or preliminary design of the UREX+ engineering scale demonstration. At the 

time of the fiscal year 2006 conference report, the Committee supported recycling with a mixed-oxide fuel strategy, because MOX 

fuel is a demonstrated, commercially available technology with little technical uncertainty. At that time, a demonstration of UREX+ 

made sense as the separation step was the riskiest part of the technologies involved. Now, with GNEP proposing UREX+ and fast 

burner reactors, the primary technical uncertainty is no longer 

with the separation step, but with the design of the fast reactors 

and the fabrication of fuel for those reactors. The Administration 

argues that accelerated development of an Engineering Scale Demonstration of UREX+ will inform a key decision in 2008 on whether 

or not to proceed with GNEP. Unfortunately, the UREX+ Engineering Scale Demonstration will demonstrate the best-known aspect of 

GNEP and will do nothing to inform decision-makers on the fast 

reactor components of GNEP. As such, the Committee cannot support going forward with conceptual design or preliminary design of 

the UREX+ engineering scale demonstration. 

Peer review.—Within the funds made available, the Department 

is directed to engage with the National Academy of Science and 

National Academy of Engineering for a peer review of the spent nuclear fuel recycling technology plan, encompassing all the proposed 

technologies and facilities. The Committee wants to be sure that 

the Federal government has systematically analyzed the entire nuclear fuel cycle before it begins building expensive demonstration 

projects. 

Report requirement.—Reprocessing facilities, the associated fuel 

testing and fabrication facilities, and fast reactors need to be integrated as a system. Testimony before both the House Committee on 

Appropriations and the House Committee on Science underscored 

the need for a complete and rigorous analysis of the fuel cycle from 

‘‘cradle to grave’’. No decisions on fuel types or technologies for the 

advanced burner reactor should be made before such a systems 

analysis has been completed and reviewed by an independent panel 

of experts. The Committee therefore directs the Department to prepare a report to the House and Senate Appropriations Committees 

and the House Committee on Science describing the status of this 

ongoing systems analysis, including life-cycle cost projections for 

the GNEP R&D program, by January 31, 2007. 

RADIOLOGICAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT

The purpose of the Radiological Facilities Management program 

is to maintain the critical infrastructure necessary to support users 

from the defense, space, and medical communities. These outside 

users fund DOE’s actual operational, production, and research activities on a reimbursable basis. 

Space and defense infrastructure.—The Committee recommendation is $44,650,000, an increase of $14,000,000 over the budget request. This includes the requested amounts to operate radioisotope 

power systems at the Idaho National Laboratory (INL), and mainVerDate Aug 31 2005 05:42 May 20, 2006 Jkt 027628 PO 00000 Frm 00086 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR474.005 HR474

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
87 

tain iridium capabilities at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, and 

maintain and operate the Pu–238 mission at Los Alamos. 

The Committee provides an increase of $9,000,000 for INL to 

complete the advanced conceptual design, initiate preliminary design activities, and validate process technologies associated with 

consolidation of Pu–238 operations at the Idaho National Laboratory. The Committee directs the Department to provide a mid-year 

report by January 31, 2007, on the transfer strategy and associated 

costs. The Committee provides an increase of $5,000,000 for the 

Oak Ridge National Laboratory hot cell maintenance program. 

Medical isotopes infrastructure.—The Committee recommendation is $15,634,000, the same as the budget request. The recommendation provides the requested amounts for Oak Ridge buildings 3047, 5500, and 9204–3 at Y–12, and the isotope business 

management information system, and for various facility costs at 

Brookhaven, Los Alamos, and Sandia National Laboratories. 

Enrichment facility infrastructure.—The Committee recommendation includes the requested $491,000, the same as the 

budget request, for oversight of enrichment facilities at the Government-owned, USEC-operated gaseous diffusion plant at Paducah, 

Kentucky. 

Research reactor infrastructure.—The Committee recommendation includes $2,947,000, the same as the budget request, for fresh 

reactor fuel and disposal of spent fuel for university reactors, but 

funds these activities under the University Reactor Infrastructure 

and Education Assistance program. 

IDAHO FACILITIES MANAGEMENT

This program funds the operations and construction activities at 

the Idaho National Laboratory (INL), including the former ANLWest and the Test Reactor Area. 

INL operations.—The Committee recommendation includes 

$97,260,000, $8,000,000 over the budget request, for INL operations. The Committee’s increase is provided for the INL Advanced 

Test Reactor (ATR) Life Extension Program to continue safety posture improvements to ensure that the ATR remains contemporary 

with industry design and construction code standards and to ensure that the reactor remains a viable national resource for the 

next several decades. 

INL Construction.—The Committee recommends $26,030,000 for 

Idaho facilities construction, $20,000,000 over the budget request. 

This includes the requested amounts for the project engineering 

and design work at Idaho, and $20,000,000 for four General Plant 

Projects that will house radio-analytical measurement laboratories, 

separations science chemistry laboratories, engineering and operations personnel, and operations and warehousing space. 

IDAHO SITE-WIDE SAFEGUARDS AND SECURITY

Consistent with the budget request, this activity is funded at the 

requested level of $72,946,000 as a 050 Defense Activity under the 

Other Defense Activities account. 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
88 

PROGRAM DIRECTION

The Committee recommends a total funding level for program direction of $64,608,000, a reduction of $3,000,000 below the budget 

request. The reduction is commensurate with the reduction to the 

Global Nuclear Energy Partnership’s overall programmatic funding. 

ENVIRONMENT, SAFETY AND HEALTH

The Committee recommendation for non-defense environment, 

safety, and health activities is $29,121,000, the same as the budget 

request. Within the funds provided, the Committee directs 

$465,000 for the medical monitoring program at the three gaseous 

diffusion plants in Paducah, Kentucky, Portsmouth, Ohio, and Oak 

Ridge, Tennessee. 

LEGACY MANAGEMENT

The Committee recommendation includes $33,139,000 for the Office of Legacy Management, the same as the budget request. 

CLEAN COAL TECHNOLOGY

(RESCISSION)

The Committee recommends the rescission of $257,000,000 in 

clean coal technology funding. These balances are no longer needed 

to complete active projects in this program. For several years the 

Administration has proposed, and Congress has to some extent 

obliged, the deferral of these balances to the out-years, for the appearance of retaining them for FutureGen activities. The practice 

of ‘‘deferring balances’’ or ‘‘transferring balances’’ is purely a budgetary optical illusion. Congress appropriates FutureGen activities 

on an annual basis. There are no budgetary savings by utilizing 

prior year clean coal technology balances. The Committee will continue to evaluate budget requests for FutureGen activities on an 

annual basis, and appropriate directly, without the budget scoring 

gimmickry of clean coal technology prior year balances. 

FOSSIL ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

Appropriation, 2006 ............................................................................ $592,014,000 

Budget Estimate, 2007 ....................................................................... 469,686,000 

Recommended, 2007 ........................................................................... 558,204,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2006 .................................................................... ¥33,810,000 

Budget Estimate, 2007 ............................................................... +88,518,000 

Fossil energy research and development programs are intended 

to make prudent investments in long-range research and development that help protect the environment through higher efficiency 

power generation, advanced technologies and improved compliance 

and stewardship operations. These activities safeguard our domestic energy security. This country will continue to rely on traditional 

fuels for the majority of its energy requirements for the foreseeable 

future, and the activities funded through this account ensure that 

energy technologies continue to improve with respect to emissions 

reductions and control and energy efficiency. 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
89 

Fossil fuels, especially coal, are this country’s most abundant and 

lowest cost fuels for electric power generation. The power generation technology research funded under this account has the goal of 

developing virtually pollution-free power plants within the next 15 

or 20 years and doubling the amount of electricity produced from 

the same amount of fuel. 

The Committee recommendation is $558,204,000, an increase of 

$88,518,000 over the request, and a decrease of $33,810,000 from 

FY 2006 enacted levels. 

Clean coal power initiative.—This program researches, develops, 

and demonstrates commercial readiness to implement advanced 

clean coal-based technologies that enhance electricity reliability, increase generation capacity, and reduce emissions. The Committee 

recommends $36,400,000 for the clean coal power initiative (CCPI), 

an increase of $31,443,000 over the budget request. This funding 

will support the third round of demonstration projects, incorporating the latest advances in clean coal technologies. The Committee believes it is important to keep momentum in this program 

towards the accumulation of balances for future rounds of CCPI 

awards. The Committee does not accept the Department’s argument that this next solicitation is not needed because the technologies demonstrated will be too late for incorporation in 

FutureGen. The Committee views FutureGen as a major step in 

the development of coal fired power plants, but not the end of new 

technology in this area. 

FutureGen.—FutureGen is a $1 billion project, cost-shared with 

the private sector, to create the world’s first coal-fired, zero emissions, electricity, heat and hydrogen producing power plant. The 

Committee recommends $54,000,000, the same as the request, for 

FutureGen. This funding will support the plant design and procurement activities, and continue permitting and site characterization efforts. 

Fuels and Power Systems.—The Committee recommends a total 

of $296,237,000 for fuels and power systems, an increase of 

$25,075,000 over the budget request. The recommendation provides 

$25,000,000 for innovations for existing plants, an increase of 

$8,985,000 over the request and $56,000,000 for advanced Integrated Gas Combined Cycle, $2,018,000 over the budget request. 

These increases reflect a restoration of program research funds 

consistent with fiscal 2006 funding levels. The Committee provides 

$20,000,000 for advanced turbines, $7,199,000 over the budget request. The Committee is very concerned that the advanced turbine 

request was dramatically reduced, and did not accurately reflect 

commitments made to technology partners. The Committee recommends $73,971,000 for carbon sequestration, the same as the 

budget request. The Committee recommends $29,000,000 for fuels, 

an increase of $6,873,000 over the budget request, which restores 

program research funds consistent with fiscal 2006 funding levels. 

The Committee provides $63,352,000 for fuel cells, and $28,914,000 

for advanced research, the same as the request. 

Petroleum-Oil Technologies.—The Committee recommends 

$2,700,000 for petroleum-oil programs, an increase of $2,700,000 

over the budget request of zero dollars. The Energy Policy Act of 

2005 (EPACT) authorizes the use of $50,000,000 of mandatory reVerDate Aug 31 2005 05:42 May 20, 2006 Jkt 027628 PO 00000 Frm 00089 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR474.005 HR474

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
90 

ceipts for oil and gas technologies, which will fund oil and gas research and development. The Committee provides $1,500,000 for 

the Stripper Well Consortium, and $1,200,000 for the states Risk 

Based Data Management System, both important activities that 

fall outside of the EPACT legislation, but should continue. 

Natural Gas Technologies.—The Committee recommends no 

funding for natural gas technologies, the same as the budget request. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 authorizes $50,000,000 of 

mandatory receipts for oil and gas technologies, which will fund oil 

and gas research and development. 

Gas Hydrates.—Methane hydrates hold tremendous potential to 

provide abundant supplies of natural gas. Globally, more energy 

potential is stored in methane hydrates than in all other known 

fossil fuel reserves combined. It appears that the United States 

may be endowed with over 25 percent of total worldwide methane 

hydrate deposits. While EPACT authorization provides mandatory 

receipts for expenditures for oil and gas exploration, it is unclear 

where the program consortium will focus these resources. The 

Committee believes that the federal government should maintain a 

rigorous research and development program for methane hydrates, 

in which the research is long-term, high risk, but potentially a high 

pay-off. The Committee provides $12,000,000, an increase of 

$12,000,000 over the budget request, and the same as fiscal year 

2006 enacted levels, for gas hydrates research and development 

funded then under Natural Gas Technologies. 

Program Direction.—The Committee recommends $126,496,000 

for program direction, a reduction of $2,700,000 from the budget request, to be taken from the Alaska natural gas transport project. 

The Committee finds the budget request for new federal employees 

for this office to be excessive and expects much of this work can 

be accomplished within existing FTE levels. The Committee directs 

the Department to continue to budget for all federal employees in 

the program direction account. 

Other.—The Committee recommendation includes no funding for 

plant and capital equipment, and cooperative research and development, the same as the budget request. The Committee provides no 

funding for import/export authorization and advanced metallurgical 

processes, the same as the budget request. These accounts previously funded federal employee expenses, which are now requested 

and funded in the Program Direction account beginning in fiscal 

year 2007. The Committee provides $9,715,000 for fossil energy environmental restoration, and $656,000 for special recruitment programs, the same as the budget request. 

Congressionally Directed Technology Deployment Projects.—The 

Committee recommends $20,000,000 for the following Congressionally directed projects. The Committee reminds recipients that statutory cost sharing requirements may apply to these projects. 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
91 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 025 HR474.025
92 

NAVAL PETROLEUM AND OIL SHALE RESERVES

The Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves no longer serve the 

national defense purpose envisioned in the early 1900’s, and consequently the National Defense Authorization Act for FY 1996 required the sale of the Government’s interest in the Naval Petroleum Reserve 1 (NPR–1). To comply with this requirement, the Elk 

Hills field in California was sold to Occidental Petroleum Corporation in 1998. Following the sale of Elk Hills and the transfer of the 

oil shale reserves, DOE retains two Naval Petroleum Reserve properties: the Naval Petroleum Reserve 3 in Wyoming (Teapot Dome 

field), a stripper well oil field that the Department is maintaining 

until it reaches its economic production limit. The DOE continues 

to be responsible for routine operations and maintenance of NPR–

3, management of the Rocky Mountain Oilfield Testing Center at 

NPR–3, lease management at NPR–2, and continuing environmental and remediation work at Elk Hills. 

Appropriation, 2006 ............................................................................ $21,285,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ....................................................................... 18,810,000 

Recommended, 2007 ........................................................................... 18,810,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2006 .................................................................... ¥2,475,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ................................................................ ............................

The Committee recommends $18,810,000, the same as the budget 

request, for the operation of the naval petroleum and oil shale reserves. 

ELK HILLS SCHOOL LANDS FUND

Payment to the Elk Hills school lands fund was part of the settlement associated with the sale of the Naval Petroleum Reserve 

Number 1. Under the settlement, payments to the fund are to be 

made over a period of seven years. The payments to date were 

based on an estimate of the amount that would be required to pay 

the State of California nine percent of the net sales proceeds. 

Appropriation, 2006 ............................................................................ $83,160,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ....................................................................... ............................

Recommended, 2007 ........................................................................... ............................

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2006 .................................................................... ¥$83,160,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ................................................................ ............................

The Committee recommends no funding, the same as the budget 

request. The Committee understands that the final amount due 

will be based on the resolution of equity determinations, which cannot be completed until all divestment-related expenses are accounted. 

STRATEGIC PETROLEUM RESERVE

The mission of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) is to store 

petroleum to reduce the adverse economic impact of a major petroleum supply interruption to the U.S. and to carry out obligations 

under the international energy program. The reserve inventory 

reached 700 million barrels, consistent with direction, but loaned 

9.8 million barrels of oil to refiners and sold 11 million barrels in 

response to Hurricane Katrina. 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
93 

Appropriation, 2006 ............................................................................ $164,340,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ....................................................................... 155,430,000 

Recommended, 2007 ........................................................................... 155,430,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2006 .................................................................... ¥8,910,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ................................................................ ............................

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

NORTHEAST HOME HEATING OIL RESERVE

The acquisition and storage of heating oil for the Northeast 

began in August 2000 when the Department of Energy, through 

the Strategic Petroleum Reserve account, awarded contracts for the 

lease of commercial storage facilities and acquisition of heating oil. 

The purpose of the reserve is to assure home heating oil supplies 

for the Northeast States during times of very low inventories and 

significant threats to the immediate supply of heating oil. The 

Northeast Heating Oil Reserve was established as a separate entity 

from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve on March 6, 2001. The 

2,000,000 barrel reserve is stored in commercial facilities in New 

York Harbor, New Haven, Connecticut, and the Providence, Rhode 

Island area. 

Appropriation, 2006 ............................................................................ ............................

Budget estimate, 2007 ....................................................................... $4,950,000 

Recommended, 2007 ........................................................................... $4,950,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2006 .................................................................... +4,950,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ................................................................ ............................

The Committee recommends $4,950,000 the same as the budget 

request, for the Northeast Home Heating Oil reserve. 

ENERGY INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION

The Energy Information Administration (EIA) is a quasi-independent agency within the Department of Energy established to 

provide timely, objective, and accurate energy-related information 

to the Congress, executive branch, state governments, industry, 

and the public. The information and analysis prepared by the EIA 

is widely disseminated and the agency is recognized as an unbiased 

source of energy information and projections by government organizations, industry, professional statistical organizations, and the 

public. 

Appropriation, 2006 ............................................................................ $85,314,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ....................................................................... 89,769,000 

Recommended, 2007 ........................................................................... 89,769,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2006 .................................................................... +4,455,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ................................................................ ............................

The Committee recommends $89,769,000, the same as the budget 

request for the Energy Information Administration. 

NON-DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT

The Non-Defense Environmental Management program includes 

funds to manage and clean up sites used for civilian, energy reVerDate Aug 31 2005 05:42 May 20, 2006 Jkt 027628 PO 00000 Frm 00093 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR474.005 HR474

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
94 

search, and non-defense related activities. These past activities resulted in radioactive, hazardous, and mixed waste contamination 

that requires remediation, stabilization, or some other type of action. 

Milestone report.—The Committee requests a report by site that 

tracks accelerated clean-up milestones, whether they are being met 

or not, and includes annual budget estimates and life-cycle costs. 

This report is due to the Committee by March 1 and September 1 

of each year. 

Reprogramming Authority.—The Committee continues to support 

the need for flexibility to meet changing funding requirements at 

sites. In fiscal year 2007, the Department may transfer up to 

$2,000,000 between accounts, to reduce health or safety risks or to 

gain cost savings as long as no program or project is increased or 

decreased by more than $2,000,000 in total once during the fiscal 

year. The account control points for reprogramming are the Fast 

Flux Test Reactor Facility, West Valley Demonstration Project, 

Gaseous Diffusion Plants, and construction line-items. This reprogramming authority may not be used to initiate new programs 

or programs specifically denied, limited, or increased by Congress 

in the Act or report. The Committees on Appropriations in the 

House and Senate must be notified within thirty days of the use 

of this reprogramming authority. 

Economic development.—None of the Non-Defense Environmental 

Management funds, including those provided in the Non-Defense 

Environmental Cleanup and Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund, are available for economic development activities. 

NON-DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP

Appropriation, 2006 ............................................................................ $349,687,000 

Budget Estimate, 2007 ....................................................................... 310,358,000 

Recommended, 2007 ........................................................................... 309,946,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2006 .................................................................... ¥39,741,000 

Budget Estimate, 2007 ............................................................... ¥412,000 

The Committee recommendation for Non-Defense Environmental 

Cleanup is $312,946,000, a decrease of $412,000 from the budget 

request. 

The recommendation provides $73,400,000 for solid waste stabilization and disposition, and nuclear facility decontamination and 

decommissioning at the West Valley Demonstration Project, and 

$74,860,000 for decontamination and decommissioning of the gaseous diffusion plants, the same as the budget request. The recommendation provides $34,843,000 for the deactivation of facilities 

and surveillance and maintenance of the Fast Flux Test Facility 

(FFTF) and $32,556,000 for depleted uranium hexafluoride conversion at Portsmouth and Paducah, the same as the budget request. 

The recommendation provides $19,865,000, for soil and water remediation measures at the former Atlas uranium mill tailings site 

at Moab, Utah, a decrease of $3,000,000 below the budget request. 

The decrease accomodates higher-priority compliance driven cleanups. 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
95 

Small Sites.—The Committee is concerned that funds for small 

sites have been maintained ‘‘flat’’ for years, which extend the cleanup activities, and contribute to the overall total cost of the program 

because cleanup takes longer. Therefore, the Committee recommends increases for several small sites that are near completion 

to accelerate work and close sooner. The recommendation provides 

$28,860,000 for Brookhaven National Laboratory, an increase of 

$588,000 over the budget request to accelerate the D&D of the Zero 

Power Reactor. The Committee recommends $11,726,000 for soil 

and water remediation and nuclear facility decontamination and 

decommissioning at Argonne National Laboratory, an increase of 

$1,000,000 over the budget request to accelerate cleanup activities. 

The Committee recommends $7,000,000, the same as the budget 

request, for spent nuclear fuel stabilization and disposition at 

Idaho National Laboratory. The Committee provides $500,000, 

which was not in the budget request, for litigation support for 

closed non-defense sites such as the Uranium Mill Tailings Remedial Action sites. 

Consolidated Business Center.—The Consolidated Business Center, located in Cincinnati, Ohio, provides administrative support 

and contractual assistance for the Environmental Management program, including the aforementioned Small Sites. The Committee 

recommendation provides $5,720,000 for the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center, and $16,000,000 for nuclear facility decontamination 

and decommissioning for the Energy Technology Engineering Center, the same as the budget request. The Committee recommends 

$1,025,000 for decontamination and decommissioning of the Tritium System Test Assembly Facility at Los Alamos National Laboratory, the same as the budget request. The Committee recommends $3,431,000 for soil and water remediation at the Inhalation Toxicology Laboratory, an increase of $500,000 over the budget 

request, to close out the clean up activities nine months earlier. 

The Committee recommends $160,000 for cleanup work at various 

sites in California, the same as the budget request. 

URANIUM ENRICHMENT DECONTAMINATION AND DECOMMISSIONING

FUND

Appropriation, 2006 ............................................................................ $556,606,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ....................................................................... 579,368,000 

Recommended, 2007 ........................................................................... 579,368,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2006 .................................................................... +22,762,000 

Budget Estimate, 2007 ............................................................... ............................

The Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund was established by the Energy Policy Act of 1992 

(P.L. 102–486) to carry out environmental remediation at the nation’s three gaseous diffusion plants, at the East Tennessee Technology Park in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, at Portsmouth, Ohio, and at 

Paducah, Kentucky. Title X of the 1992 act also authorized use of 

a portion of the fund to reimburse private licensees for the federal 

government’s share of the cost of cleaning up uranium and thorium 

processing sites. The committee recommends $579,368,000 for activities funded 

from the Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and DecommisVerDate Aug 31 2005 05:42 May 20, 2006 Jkt 027628 PO 00000 Frm 00095 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR474.005 HR474

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
96 

sioning Fund, the same as the budget request. This amount includes $559,368,000 for decontamination and decommissioning activities at the gaseous diffusion plants and $20,000,000 for Title X 

uranium and thorium reimbursements. 

SCIENCE

Appropriation, 2006 ............................................................................ $3,596,393,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ....................................................................... 4,101,710,000 

Recommended, 2007 ........................................................................... 4,131,710,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2006 .................................................................... +535,317,000 

Budget Estimate, 2007 ............................................................... +30,000,000 

The Science account funds the Department’s work on high energy 

physics, nuclear physics, biological and environmental sciences, 

basic energy sciences, advanced scientific computing, maintenance 

of the laboratories physical infrastructure, fusion energy sciences, 

safeguards and security, workforce development for teachers and 

scientists, safeguards and security at Office of Science facilities, 

and science program direction. 

The Committee is generally pleased with the Department’s budget request for the Office of Science in fiscal year 2007. This request 

finally reverses the trend of recent years, which saw the requests 

for the Office of Science held essentially flat. As a consequence, 

funding for physical sciences research, funded at the federal level 

primarily by the DOE Office of Science, lagged seriously behind 

funding for life sciences research. Congress was forced to provide 

additional funding to address obvious deficiencies in the Office of 

Science request. Fortunately, the fiscal year 2007 request fully 

funds operating time at existing DOE user facilities, funds the investment in major new research facilities such as the International 

Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor, the International Linear 

Collider, and the 12 GeV upgrade to the Continuous Electron Beam 

Accelerator Facility, and maintains a healthy level of funding for 

ongoing research at the DOE laboratories and at universities.. The 

fiscal year 2007 budget request appears to strike the right balance 

between maximizing existing capabilities and investing in new capabilities for the future. 

The Committee recognizes that funding a significant increase for 

the Office of Science required some difficult choices regarding other 

DOE programs. However, the Committee supports the Secretary’s 

judgment that robust funding for the basic research mission of the 

Department represents the best long-term use of the Department’s 

constrained resources, and the best long-term investment for the 

economic future of the country. The Office of Science took seriously 

the Congressional direction to prepare laboratory business plans 

and five-year budget plans, and these plans give added credibility 

and context to the fiscal year 2007 budget request. 

The Committee recommendation is $4,131,710,000, an increase of 

$30,000,000 compared to the budget request and $535,319,000 over 

the fiscal year 2006 enacted level. Compared to the previous fiscal 

year, the Committee has reduced the number and dollar value of 

House-directed projects in the Biological and Environmental Research subaccount to $30,000,000, and has provided additional 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
97 

funding for these projects so they do not diminish the proposed 

American Competitiveness Initiative. 

HIGH ENERGY PHYSICS

The Committee recommends a total of $775,099,000 for high energy physics, the same as the budget request. The Committee supports the requested increase in research and development activities, from $30,000,000 to $60,000,000, to prepare for the International Linear Collider (ILC), including detailed studies of possible U.S. sites for the ILC. The Committee also supports the construction funding request of $10,300,000 for Preliminary Engineering and Design (PED) for the new Electron Neutrino Appearance 

detector (project 07–SC–07), which will maximize the science to be 

obtained from the Neutrinos at the Main Injector (NuMI) project 

at Fermilab. 

Over the past few years, the Committee has consistently supported the DOE/NASA Joint Dark Energy Mission (JDEM), a space 

probe to help answer the fundamental physics question of our time 

what is the ‘‘dark energy’’ that constitutes the majority of the universe. Answering this question is among the top priorities of the 

physics community and of the Office of Science, and the Committee 

strongly believes that this initiative should move forward. DOE has 

done its part, developing the SuperNova Acceleration Probe (SNAP) 

as the DOE mission concept for JDEM. Unfortunately, NASA has 

failed to budget and program for launch services for JDEM. Unfortunately, in spite of best intentions, the multi-agency aspect of this 

initiative poses insurmountable problems that imperil its future. 

Therefore, the Committee directs the Department to begin planning for a single-agency dark energy mission with a launch in fiscal 

year 2013. The Committee directs DOE to explore other launch options, including cooperative international approaches and the procurement of private launch services, to get the SNAP platform into 

space. DOE is to report back to the House and Senate Appropriations Committees, not later than March 2, 2007, on the cost and 

feasibility of a single-agency mission, including the use of alternative launch options. The Committee will consider providing further guidance on this issue in the fiscal year 2008 appropriations 

bill and report. 

The control level is at the High Energy Physics level. 

NUCLEAR PHYSICS

The Committee recommendation for nuclear physics is $454,060,000, the same as the budget request. The requested funding will support increased operations of the Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility and the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider. 

The requested funding will also complete PED (project 06–SC–02) 

and initiate construction (project 07–SC–02) for the Electron Beam 

Ion Source at Brookhaven National Laboratory, and initiate PED 

for the 12 GeV upgrade to the Continuous Beam Electron Beam Accelerator Facility at the Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility (project 07–SC–01). 

Section 981 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109–58) directs 

the Secretary to construct and operate a Rare Isotope Accelerator 

(RIA), with construction to commence no later than September 30, 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
98 

2008. Unfortunately, the Department has ignored this direction, 

and the fiscal year 2007 budget includes no funding for RIA. Instead, the Department proposes $4,000,000 for ‘‘generic R&D activities aimed at development of exotic beam capabilities.’’ Despite the 

high near-term priority assigned to RIA in the ‘‘Facilities for the 

Future of Science: A Twenty-Year Outlook’’ report, prepared by the 

Office of Science in 2004, RIA seems to have been supplanted by 

a longer-term international facility for exotic beams research. The 

Department, in its March 20, 2006, report to the House and Senate 

Appropriations Committees as directed in the statement of managers accompanying the conference report for the Energy and 

Water Development Appropriations Act, 2006 (P.L. 109–103), argues that this shift is a sound programmatic decision and in the 

best interests of the nuclear physics community. The Committee directs the Department to submit a report to the House and Senate 

Appropriations Committees providing the Department’s plans to 

comply with Section 981 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, or the 

legislative proposal to seek relief from the requirements of that section. In order to inform Congress prior to conference on the fiscal 

year 2007 bill, this report should be submitted no later than August 11, 2006. 

BIOLOGICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH

The Committee recommendation for biological and environmental 

research is $540,263,000, an increase of $30,000,000 over the budget request. The Committee recommendation provides an additional 

$30,000,000 for House-directed university and hospital earmarks. 

The Committee concurs with the proposed re-scoping of the 

Genomics: GTL program, from four separate facilities to two 

vertically-integrated sets of facilities. The Committee reiterates its 

previous guidance that any Genomics: GTL facilities must be fully 

competed. The funds appropriated in fiscal year 2005 for Preliminary Engineering and Design (PED) work for the Genomics: GTL 

facilities are available to fund operating expenses for the proposed 

new Genomics: GTL centers. 

The list of House-directed projects is listed in the table below. 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
99 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 026 HR474.026
100 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 027 HR474.027
101 

BASIC ENERGY SCIENCES

The Committee recommendation for basic energy sciences is 

$1,420,980,000, the same as the budget request and an increase of 

$286,422,000 over the current fiscal year. For purposes of reprogramming during fiscal year 2007, the Department may allocate 

funding among all operating accounts within Basic Energy 

Sciences, consistent with the reprogramming guidelines outlined 

earlier in this report. 

Research.—The Committee recommendation includes 

$1,004,212,000 for materials sciences and engineering, and 

$268,499,000 for chemical sciences, geosciences, and energy biosciences. The Committee recommendation funds operations of the 

four completed nanoscale science research centers, instrumentation 

for the recently-completed Spallation Neutron Source (SNS), and 

the science research portion ($50,000,000) of the hydrogen initiative at the requested levels. The Committee has directed the National Nuclear Security Administration to make available, from existing stocks, sufficient heavy water to meet SNS needs. Also included within this account is $8,000,000 for the Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR), the same as 

the budget request. 

Construction.—The Committee recommendation includes 

$148,269,000 for Basic Energy Sciences construction projects, the 

same as the requested amount. The Committee recommendation 

provides the requested funding of: $161,000 for completion of PED 

(03–SC–002) and $105,740,000 to initiate construction of the Linac 

Coherent Light Source (05–SC–320) at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center; $18,864,000 to complete construction of the Center 

for Functional Nanomaterials (05–R–321) at Brookhaven National 

Laboratory; $257,000 to complete construction of the Molecular 

Foundry (04–R–313) at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory; 

$247,000 to complete construction of the Center for Integrated 

Nanotechnologies (03–R–313) at Los Alamos and Sandia National 

Laboratories; $20,000,000 for PED for the National Synchrotron 

Light Source II (07–SC–06)at Brookhaven National Laboratory; 

and $3,000,000 for PED for the Advanced Light Source User Support Building (07–SC–12) at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. 

ADVANCED SCIENTIFIC COMPUTING RESEARCH

The Committee recommendation is $318,654,000, the same as 

the budget request and an increase of $83,970,000 over the current 

fiscal year. The Committee commends the Office of Science and the 

Office of Advanced Scientific Computing Research for their efforts 

to provide cutting-edge capabilities to meet current scientific computational needs, and at the same time to extend the boundaries 

of that cutting edge into the next generation of high-performance 

scientific computers and supporting software 

FUSION ENERGY SCIENCES

The Committee recommendation for fusion energy sciences is 

$318,950,000, the same as the budget request. The Committee is 

pleased that the department finally requested sufficient funding for 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
102 

the U.S. participation in the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) Project without doing so at the expense of 

domestic fusion research activities or at the expense of other office 

of science programs. 

The Committee strongly encourages the Office of Fusion Energy 

Sciences to invest adequately in fast ignition research and leverage 

the new facilities such as OMEGA–EP and FIREX–I in Japan to 

conduct critical research to explore the feasibility of this innovative 

concept. Also, the Committee is aware of the recent proposal from 

the Naval Research Laboratory for a fusion test facility; the Committee encourages the department to give serious consideration to 

providing office of science funding support in the future for these 

alternative approaches to fusion energy. 

SCIENCE LABORATORIES INFRASTRUCTURE

The Committee recommendation provides a total of $50,888,000 

for Science Laboratories Infrastructure, the same as the budget request. Within the requested amount, the Committee transfers 

$7,000,000 from the delayed demolition of the Bevatron at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory to the Physical Sciences Facility at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (project 07–SC–

05) in order to accommodate the pending cleanup and closure of the 

300 Area at the Hanford site. Within available funds, the Committee directs the Department to continue to make PILT payments 

associated with Argonne National Laboratory at $246,000. 

SAFEGUARDS AND SECURITY

The Committee recommends $76,592,000, the same as the budget 

request, to meet additional safeguards and security requirements 

at Office of Science facilities. 

SCIENCE WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT

The Committee provides $10,952,000 for workforce development 

for teachers and scientists in fiscal year 2007, the same as the requested amount. The Committee concurs with the proposed expansion of the laboratory science teacher professional development program. 

SCIENCE PROGRAM DIRECTION

The Committee recommendation is $170,877,000 for Science program direction, the same as the budget request. This amount includes: $95,832,000 for program direction at DOE field offices and 

$75,045,000 for program direction at DOE headquarters. The control level for fiscal year 2007 is at the program account level of 

Science Program Direction. 

FUNDING ADJUSTMENTS

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. 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
103 

NUCLEAR WASTE DISPOSAL

Appropriation, 2006 ............................................................................ $148,500,000 

Budget Estimate, 2007 ....................................................................... 156,420,000 

Recommended, 2007 ........................................................................... 186,420,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2006 .................................................................... +37,920,000 

Budget Estimate, 2007 ............................................................... +30,000,000 

The Department of Energy requested a total of $544,500,000 for 

work on the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository in fiscal year 

2007, $156,420,000 for Nuclear Waste Disposal and $388,080,000 

for Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal. According to the Department’s 

testimony to the Committee, it will not submit a License Application during fiscal year 2007. The requested funds will be used for 

preparation of the License Application, design work on the surface 

and subsurface facilities, the waste packages, the national and Nevada transportation systems, and program management activities. 

The Department has made a number of significant technical and 

management changes to the repository. In general, the Committee 

views these as positive changes that will put the repository program on a more secure foundation, will provide a clearer path to 

repository licensing, and will increase public and Congressional 

confidence in the safety and efficiency of the final repository. The 

Committee supports the adoption of the phased approach to repository licensing and construction. Such an approach is consistent 

with the ‘‘adaptive staging’’ recommended by the National Research 

Council in its 2003 report, ‘‘One Step at a Time: The Staged Development of Geologic Repositories for High-Level Radioactive Waste.’’

This phased approach is also allowable under Section 114(d) of the 

Nuclear Waste Policy Act. 

At this time last year, the Department claimed to be on track to 

open the repository in 2012, a two-year slip from the schedule of 

the previous year. Unfortunately, a number of internal and external events the technical and management changes adopted by the 

Department, changes to the repository radiation standard directed 

by the court, internal reviews and quality control problems with 

the work done by the U.S. Geological Survey, and chronic underfunding by Congress have combined to push the schedule for repository operations back even further. At best, the phased approach 

will allow the Department to begin moving small quantities of 

spent fuel and high-level waste to the repository in the latter half 

of the next decade, with the first commercial spent fuel not moving 

until the end of the decade. 

The observation the Committee made last year, ‘‘the net result 

is that the date for opening the Yucca Mountain repository continues to recede into the future’’, regrettably still holds true. The 

slow pace of Yucca Mountain development has real consequences, 

as it means that spent nuclear fuel and high level radioactive 

waste will remain in interim storage at 129 private and governmental sites around the country. While such onsite interim storage 

is a manageable risk, it is an unnecessary and expensive risk. DOE 

estimates that every year of delay in opening the Yucca Mountain 

repository beyond the year 2010 will cost the federal government 

an additional $1 billion per year, with a conservative estimate of 

$500 million in legal liability for failure to take title to commercial 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
104 

spent fuel, and another $500 million to monitor and guard defense 

spent fuel and high level radioactive waste at DOE sites. As noted 

in the introduction to Title III of this report, the delay in opening 

the Yucca Mountain may have a very real impact on the ability of 

the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to license any new nuclear reactors in this country. 

The slower schedule for Yucca Mountain may make sense. Certainly, the Committee supports changes that make the repository 

safer, more licensable, and more cost effective. However, a slower 

schedule is acceptable only if the Department addresses the dual 

problems of the mounting financial liability, discussed in the previous paragraph, and waste confidence for new reactors, discussed 

in the Title III introduction. In April 2006, the Department submitted a legislative proposal to Congress intended to facilitate the 

licensing, construction, and operation of the proposed repository. 

Two of the proposed legislative provisions would address the waste 

confidence problem: the Administration proposes to repeal the statutory 70,000 metric ton capacity limit on Yucca Mountain, and also 

proposes to direct the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to deem that 

the timely availability of sufficient repository capacity shall no 

longer be a consideration in licensing new reactors. While the Committee strongly opposes any attempt to legislative away the waste 

confidence problem, the Committee supports the effort to expand 

the capacity of Yucca Mountain. However, this capacity expansion, 

while it may provide sufficient waste confidence to enable the NRC 

to license new reactors, does nothing to resolve the problem of accumulating spent fuel, and the liability associated with that spent 

fuel. As discussed in the introduction to Title III of this report, the 

Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) proposal for recycling 

spent fuel is a legitimate long-term strategy for spent fuel, but does 

nothing to address spent fuel or reactor licensing issues for at least 

another decade and a half. 

The only constructive way to address these problems in the near 

term is for the Department actually to begin to move spent fuel 

away from commercial reactor sites and into some version of interim storage. The Committee continues to believe the Department 

should move aggressively to take title to commercial spent fuel and 

consolidating such fuel in a smaller number of more secure, aboveground interim storage facilities. The Department has taken the 

position that it requires additional statutory authorization for interim storage, beyond its broad authorities under the Atomic Energy Act and the limited authorities provided under the Nuclear 

Waste Policy Act. Although the Secretary has indicated in testimony to the Committee support for the concept of interim storage, 

the Department’s legislative proposal to Congress failed to include 

any language authorizing interim storage. The Committee recommendation provides $30,000,000, not derived from the Nuclear 

Waste Fund, to initiate the process for selecting and licensing one 

or more interim storage sites. These interim storage sites may be 

located on DOE property, but the Department should also investigate the availability of other federal and private sites. If regional 

consolidation is not feasible, the Department should then explore 

consolidation of spent fuel within States with high volumes of 

spent fuel. The Department should conduct a voluntary, competiVerDate Aug 31 2005 05:42 May 20, 2006 Jkt 027628 PO 00000 Frm 00104 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR474.006 HR474

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
105 

tive process to select interim storage sites. The Department can either modify and re-issue the Request for Expressions of Interest for 

GNEP (solicitation DE–RP07–06ID14760) to include interim storage as the initial step for integrated recycling facilities, or issue a 

new Request for Proposals for interim storage alone. Of the 

$30,000,000 made available for interim storage, $20,000,000 is 

available to the selected candidate sites to support their efforts to 

license the interim storage facilities. If the Congress has not provided the Department with clear statutory authority for interim 

storage by the end of fiscal year 2007, the remaining funds shall 

be re-directed to non-site-specific activities to select a second repository for nuclear waste disposal, consistent with Section 161 of the 

Nuclear Waste Policy Act. 

For Nuclear Waste Disposal in fiscal year 2007, the Committee provides $186,420,000, an increase of $30,000,000 over the budget 

request to fund interim storage as described above. When coupled 

with the $388,080,000 provided under the Defense Nuclear Waste 

Disposal account, the Committee recommendation provides a total 

of $574,500,000 for nuclear waste disposal activities during fiscal 

year 2007. 

DEPARTMENTAL ADMINISTRATION

Gross Appropriation: 

Appropriation, 2006 ........................................................................ $250,289,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 .................................................................... 278,382,000 

Recommended, 2007 ....................................................................... 278,382,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2006 ........................................................................ +28,093,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 .................................................................... -–-–- 

Miscellaneous Revenues: 

Appropriation, 2006 ........................................................................ ¥$121,770,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 .................................................................... ¥123,000,000 

Recommended, 2007 ....................................................................... ¥123,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2006 ........................................................................ ¥1,230,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 .................................................................... -–-–- 

The Committee recommendation for Departmental Administration is $278,382,000, the same as the budget request. Funding recommended for Departmental Administration provides for general 

management and program support functions benefiting all elements of the Department of Energy, including the National Nuclear Security Administration. The account funds a wide array of 

headquarters activities not directly associated with the execution of 

specific programs. 

The Committee renews the direction provided in the fiscal year 

2006 conference report regarding the primary liaison with the 

House Appropriations Committee being the Department’s chief financial officer rather than the Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs. The Committee needs information provided 

in a timely, objective manner; too often, the information flow 

through the Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs, 

while spin-filled, has also been slow. The answers provided to questions for the record for the fiscal year 2007 appropriations have 

been notably content free. The Public Affairs Office is fully capable 

of presenting information in a manner that is to the Department’s 

advantage, and the CFO is fully capable of providing objective, 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
106 

quantitative information to the Committee. It remains unclear 

what value is added by the Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs. 

Revenues.—The recommendation for revenues is $123,000,000, 

consistent with the estimate of revenues provided by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). The original request of $149,557,000 

has been adjusted to reflect this CBO estimate of the revenues anticipated during fiscal year 2007. 

Transfer from Other Defense Activities.—For fiscal year 2007, the 

Department requested $93,258,000 as the defense contribution to 

the Departmental Administration account. The Committee provides 

the requested amount and expects the Department to continue to 

request a proportional defense contribution to Departmental Administration in future fiscal years. 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

Appropriation, 2006 ............................................................................ $41,580,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ....................................................................... 45,507,000 

Recommended, 2007 ........................................................................... 45,507,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2006 .................................................................... +3,927,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ................................................................ ............................

The Office of Inspector General performs agency-wide audit, inspection, and investigative functions to identify and correct management and administrative deficiencies that create conditions for 

existing or potential instances of fraud, waste and mismanagement. 

The audit function provides financial and performance audits of 

programs and operations. The inspections function provides independent inspections and analyses of the effectiveness, efficiency, 

and economy of programs and operations. The investigative function provides for the detection and investigation of improper and illegal activities involving programs, personnel, and operations. 

The Committee recommendation is $45,507,000, the same as the 

budget request. 

ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES

The Atomic Energy Defense Activities programs of the Department of Energy include the National Nuclear Security Administration that consists of Weapons Activities, Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation, Naval Reactors, and the Office of the Administrator; 

Defense Environmental Management; Other Defense Activities; 

and Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal. Descriptions of each of these 

accounts are provided below. 

NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

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 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
107 

weapons complex, naval reactors, and nuclear nonproliferation activities. Three offices within the NNSA carry out the Department’s 

national security mission: the Office of Defense Programs, the Office of Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation, and the Office of Naval 

Reactors. The Office of the NNSA Administrator oversees all NNSA 

programs. The Committee provides $9,199,811,000, for the NNSA, a reduc- tion of $116,000,000 under the budget request. 

Transformation of the DOE Nuclear Weapons Complex.—This 

Committee tasked the previous Secretary of Energy in March 2004 

with conducting an independent assessment of the Department of 

Energy’s infrastructure requirements for the nuclear weapons complex over the next twenty-five years. The Secretary established a 

Task Force within the Secretary of Energy’s Advisory Board 

(SEAB) on reform of the nuclear weapons complex infrastructure. 

This task force released its recommendations in July 2005, and 

they were formally presented from the SEAB to the Secretary in 

October 2005. 

The SEAB Task Force found the existing DOE nuclear weapons 

complex to be ‘‘neither robust, nor agile, nor responsive . . .’’, and 

concluded that ‘‘status quo is neither technically credible, nor financially sustainable.’’ The task force made five major recommendations for transforming the complex into a modern enterprise: • Design of a reliable replacement warhead (RRW); • Establishment of a consolidated nuclear production center; • Consolidation of special nuclear materials (SNM); • Accelerated warhead dismantlement; and • Creation of an office of transformation within the NNSA. 

The fiscal year 2007 budget request for the NNSA, and its subsequent testimony to the Committee, reveals that the Department 

has embraced the recommended reforms in only a very limited 

manner. While the SEAB Task Force developed their recommendations with an integrated perspective on the future of the nuclear 

weapons complex, the NNSA continues to propose modernization 

plans which maximize the physical size and the cost of the weapons complex. 

The 2001 Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) called for a more responsive NNSA infrastructure, able to design and produce new nuclear weapons and respond to unanticipated events in a useful time 

frame. The Department of Energy has adopted this objective into 

its Responsive Infrastructure initiative. However, an examination 

of the details provided in the fiscal year 2007 budget justification 

reveals that Responsive Infrastructure is merely a new title for the 

old DOE strategy of ‘‘modernization in place,’’ a strategy specifically rejected by the SEAB Task Force. What is clear to the Committee is that the Department intends only very limited reform—

RRW with a new pit facility, modernization-in-place of everything 

else, and only enough material consolidation and dismantlement to 

keep Congress satisfied. In this Committee’s view, the Department 

missed that mark by a wide margin. 

The Department’s adoption of the Reliable Replacement Warhead 

(RRW), a concept introduced in the Consolidated Appropriations 

Act, 2005 (P.L. 108–447), to design replacement warheads to meet 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
108 

existing military requirements, but with greater margins, improved 

surety, and simplified production, maintenance, and dismantlement 

requirements is laudable. If successful, the RRW will form the 

foundation for a future nuclear stockpile that is smaller than the 

existing Cold War stockpile, but at the same time safer, more secure, and more reliable. The Department has used fiscal year 2006 

funds to initiate a laboratory design competition for the first RRW. 

The Committee supports the RRW, but only if it is part of a larger 

package of more comprehensive weapons complex reforms. 

The Committee expects the Government Accountability Office 

(GAO) to assist the Committee with the Committee’s oversight of 

NNSA’s transformation process. In particular, the Committee will 

expect the GAO to evaluate, among other things, the cost effectiveness of NNSA’s proposal to build and operate the CMRR facility for 

less than 10 years before moving to the proposed consolidated plutonium facility, the NNSA’s implementation of the results of the 

RRW design competition, especially the extent to which this effort 

can be paid for by reductions in ongoing life extensions activities 

and stockpile maintenance activities, and the quality and comprehensiveness of the plans and cost estimates developed by NNSA 

to support its transformation decisions. The Committee fences additional funds for the RRW until it receives a comprehensive complex 

transformation plan from the Department. Further guidance on the 

issues of material consolidation and dismantlement is provided in 

the appropriate sections of this report. 

CONSOLIDATED NUCLEAR PRODUCTION CENTER

The Committee provides $100,000,000 for transition planning, 

site selection, and preliminary design and development for a consolidated nuclear production site for reliable replacement warheads 

and stockpile support. The Committee supports the recommendation of the Nuclear Weapons Complex Infrastructure Task Force to 

establish a cost-effective modern production center consolidating 

production and dismantlement activities. The Committee does not 

support the Department’s ‘‘modernization in place’’ strategy, which 

involves upgrading multiple redundant and inefficient facilities 

scattered around the country. The only production consolidation 

planned by the Department is for a Consolidated Plutonium Production Center to become operational by the year 2022. In the interim, the Department plans to reconstitute and upgrade pit production capabilities at the Los Alamos National Laboratory TA–55 

facility, while simultaneously planning for a Chemistry and Metallurgy Research replacement (CMRR) facility at Los Alamos to support the plutonium work at TA–55. The CMRR is being designed 

to handle and store Category I and II inventories of special nuclear 

material which require elaborate and expensive security requirements. CMRR has an estimated cost of nearly $1 billion. However, 

because of the NNSA proposal to build a Consolidated Plutonium 

Production Center by 2022 and transfer all the Category I and II 

material out of CMRR to the new plutonium facility, the CMRR 

will have a very limited functional lifetime. CMRR will serve its 

primary production support function for only eight years before it 

is made obsolete by the new plutonium facility, thereby making the 

Category I and II security characteristics of the CMRR unnecesVerDate Aug 31 2005 05:42 May 20, 2006 Jkt 027628 PO 00000 Frm 00108 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR474.006 HR474

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
109 

sary. The Committee finds this type of planning by the NNSA simply irrational. It appears designed to maximize future budgets and 

the number of new facilities required, rather than provide an efficient balancing of required capabilities, limited resources, and programmatic risk. 

The CMR Replacement facility may have made sense at one time 

as a replacement for the original CMR facility. However, consolidating activities and capabilities for future RRW production requires a reassessment of the funding decision to support a separate 

CMRR facility. The Committee directs the Department to terminate the CMRR project and instead co-locate future production capacity and the radiological chemistry and materials research work. 

A billion dollar investment in the CMRR at Los Alamos only makes 

sense if the NNSA is prepared to site the Consolidated Nuclear 

Production Center, or at a minimum the Consolidated Plutonium 

Production Center, at the same location. The Committee directs the 

Department to complete the responsive infrastructure planning in 

time to submit revised assumptions in the fiscal year 2008 budget 

request. 

WEAPONS ACTIVITIES

Appropriation, 2006 ............................................................................ $6,369,603,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ....................................................................... 6,407,889,000 

Recommended, 2007 ........................................................................... 6,412,001,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2006 .................................................................... +42,398,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ................................................................ +4,112,000 

The goal of the Weapons Activities program is to ensure the safety, security, reliability and performance of the Nation’s nuclear 

weapons stockpile. The program seeks to maintain and refurbish 

nuclear weapons to sustain confidence in their safety and reliability under the nuclear testing moratorium and arms reduction 

treaties. The Committee’s recommendation provides $6,412,001,000, for Weapons Activities, an increase of $4,112,000 

over the budget request. 

PEER REVIEW OF RRW DESIGN

JASON’s Review of the Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW).—

Congress initiated the Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW) program in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005 (Public Law 

108–447), to focus DOE and DOD on implementing a program for 

improving the long-term safety, reliability, and security of the nuclear weapons stockpile. The RRW warhead initiative seeks to develop a replacement warhead that improves manufacturing practices, lowers unit costs and increases performance margins while 

staying within the design parameters validated by past nuclear 

tests. The Committee understands that a competition is currently 

ongoing between the two nuclear weapon design laboratories to develop a design for the RRW that meets the objectives outlined by 

Congress and defined in testimony by the Department of Energy 

and the Department of Defense. The Committee also understands 

that a Reliable Replacement Warhead Project Officers Group (POG) 

will be recommending a design down select for an RRW warhead 

to the Nuclear Weapons Council (NWC) sometime in early fiscal 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
110 

year 2007. The Committee directs the NNSA to engage the JASON 

Defense Advisory Group as soon as practicable in 2006 as an independent outside peer reviewer to evaluate the competing RRW designs. The JASONs should evaluate the RRW design recommended 

by the POG against the requirements defined by congressional legislative actions to date and the elements defined in the Department 

of Defense’s military characteristics for a reliable replacement warhead requirements document. The JASON review should also include an analysis on the feasibility of the fundamental premise of 

the RRW initiative that a new nuclear warhead can be designed 

and produced and certified for use and deployed as an operationally-deployed nuclear weapon without undergoing an underground 

nuclear explosion test. 

The JASON’s RRW report is due March 31, 2007 to the congressional defense committees. 

Reprogramming Authority.—The Committee provides limited reprogramming authority within the Weapons Activities account 

without submission of a reprogramming to be approved in advance 

by the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations. The reprogramming control levels will be as follows: subprograms within 

Directed Stockpile Work; Life Extension Programs, Stockpile Systems, Reliable Replacement Warhead, Warhead Dismantlement, 

and Stockpile Services. Additional reprogramming control levels 

will be as follows: Science Campaigns, Engineering Campaigns, Advanced Simulation and Computing, Pit Manufacturing and Certification, Consolidated Production Center, Readiness Campaigns, and 

Operations of Facilities site allocations for readiness in technical 

base and facilities. This should provide the needed flexibility to 

manage these programs. 

In addition, funding of not more than $5,000,000 may be transferred between each of these categories and each construction 

project with the exception of the RTBF site allocations, subject to 

the following limitations: only one transfer may be made to or from 

any program or project; the transfer must be necessary to address 

a risk to health, safety or the environment; and funds may not be 

used for an item for which Congress has specifically denied funds 

or for a new program or project that has not been authorized by 

Congress. 

The Department must notify Congress within 15 days of the use 

of this reprogramming authority. Transfers during the fiscal year 

which would result in increases or decreases in excess of 

$5,000,000 or which would exceed the limitations outlined in the 

previous paragraph require prior notification of and approval by 

the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations. 

DIRECTED STOCKPILE WORK

The Committee’s recommendation provides $1,312,180,000 for Directed Stockpile Activities, a reduction of $98,088,000 from the 

budget request. Directed Stockpile Work (DSW) includes all activities that directly support weapons in the nuclear stockpile, including maintenance, research, development, engineering, certification 

and dismantlement and disposal activities. The DSW account provides all the direct funding for the Department’s life extension activities, which are designed to extend the service life of the existing 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
111 

nuclear weapons stockpile, by providing new subsystems and components for each warhead thereby extending the operational service 

life. 

Taken together, the Committee expects a rebaselined life extension program plan by weapon type, a Reliable Replacement Warhead program plan, and the Warhead Dismantlement plan will 

lead to reliable nuclear deterrence with a post-2030 stockpile significantly smaller that the 2012 Nuclear Stockpile levels committed 

to in the Moscow Treaty and specified in the revised Nuclear Stockpile Plan. The current W80 Life Extension Program will be terminated in an orderly fashion and the resources will be redeployed to 

support the NNSA weapons complex transformation activities. The 

Committee directs the NNSA to rebalance the remaining LEP 

workload and the additional funds for RRW and the Responsive Infrastructure line between the weapon design laboratories to ensure 

no adverse impact on the Livermore National Laboratory due to 

the reduction in funding for the W80 LEP. 

Life Extension Programs.—The Committee provides $232,662,000 

for the DSW life extension programs, a reduction of $80,000,000 

from the budget request. The Committee directs the reduction to be 

taken against the W80 LEP activity. The Committee directs the 

NNSA to close out and catalogue the W80 LEP program. 

Stockpile Systems.—The Committee provides $325,545,000 for 

the DSW stockpile systems activities, same as the budget request. 

Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW).—The Committee recommendation provides $52,707,000 for the reliable replacement 

warhead (RRW) initiative, an increase of $25,000,000 from the 

budget request, of which $25,000,000 is available for obligation 

only after the official delivery of the NNSA infrastructure transformation plan to Congress. The Committee expects the initial design approved by the Department will be selected based on a combination of considerations including the ability to certify the warhead without underground nuclear testing, cost of production, and 

ease of maintenance and dismantlement. 

Warhead Dismantlement.—The Committee recommendation provides $105,000,000 for the warhead dismantlement program, an increase of $30,000,000 over the budget request. 

The Committee expects the NNSA to implement a robust warhead dismantlement program as part of a concerted effort to relieve 

the weapons complex of excess Cold War era warheads and continue the development of a responsive infrastructure. 

Stockpile services.—The Committee recommendation provides 

$596,266,000 for the DSW stockpile services activities, a decrease 

of $73,088,000 under the request. The Committee provides additional funds to accelerate responsive infrastructure activities. The 

Committee’s reductions in Stockpile Services are targeted as percentage decreases to W80 LEP support activities. 

CAMPAIGNS

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. 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
112 

The Committee recommendation provides $2,033,590,000, an increase of $96,200,000 over the budget request. 

From within funds provided for the various campaigns, the Committee directs that $4,500,000 be provided to continue the university research program in robotics (URPR) for the development of 

advanced robotic technologies for strategic national applications. 

Science campaigns.—The Committee provides $263,762,000 for 

the science campaigns, the same as the budget request. The Committee supports the 24-month test readiness posture at the Nevada 

Test Site. 

Engineering campaigns.—The Committee provides $160,919,000 

for the engineering campaigns, the same as the budget request. 

Construction projects.—The Committee recommends $6,920,000, 

the same as the budget request, for Project 01–D–108, Microsystems and engineering science applications (MESA), SNL, New 

Mexico. 

Inertial Confinement Fusion (ICF) Ignition and High Yield.—The 

Committee recommends $528,191,000 for the inertial confinement 

fusion and yield program, an increase of $77,000,000 over the 

budget request. 

The Committee provides $58,021,000, for Facility Operations and 

Target Production, of which $15,000,000 is available for enhanced 

target production and characterization capabilities. The Committee 

provides $55,959,000, of which $10,000,000 is available for NIF 

diagnostics, cryogenics and experimental support to achieve the 

2010 ignition goal. The Committee recommendation includes 

$25,000,000 to continue development of high average power lasers 

and supporting science and technology within the Inertial Fusion 

Technology program line. The Committee recommendation includes 

$15,000,000 for the Naval Research Laboratory and $54,150,000 for 

the University of Rochester’s Laboratory for Laser Energetics 

(LLE), an increase of $10,000,000 over the budget request. The 

LLE is the principal research and experimentation laser facility for 

NNSA Science-based Stockpile stewardship activities. The Committee’s increase is for OMEGA operations to provide additional shots 

to support the ICF campaign goal of an ignition demonstration in 

2010. The Committee provides $2,000,000 for the Ohio State University Laboratory for Advanced Laser-Target Interactions. 

The Committee provides $111,419,000 for construction of the National Ignition Facility (NIF), the same as the budget request. 

Advanced simulation and computing (ASCI).—The Committee 

recommendation for Advanced Simulation and Computing is 

$635,155,000, an increase of $17,200,000 over the budget request. 

The Committee’s recommendation includes: $6,200,000 for the sensitive compartmented information facility (SCIF) at Nextedge, 

(OH), with the balance of funds not needed for SCIF construction 

to be used for advanced computing research in cooperation with 

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory: $5,000,000 for the Notre 

Dame/Purdue Computer Gride Project, (IN); and $6,000,000 is provided to continue the demonstration at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory of advanced electronics packaging and thermal 

engineering for thermally-efficient electronics related to high-performance data servers using spray cooling. 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
113 

Pit manufacturing and Pit certification.—The Committee recommendation for PIT manufacturing and certification campaign is 

$237,598,000, the same as the budget request. The Committee commends the Los Alamos National Laboratory for its work restoring 

the Pit production capability to the nuclear weapons production 

complex. 

Readiness campaigns.—The Committee recommendation for 

Readiness Campaigns is $207,965,000, an increase of $2,000,000 

over the budget request. The additional $2,000,000 is provided for 

Robotics Repetitive Systems Technology, (OH). 

Consolidated Production Center.—The Committee provides $100,000,000 for transition planning and preliminary design of a 

Consolidated Production Center for reliable replacement warheads 

and stockpile production support. 

READINESS IN TECHNICAL BASE AND FACILITIES

The Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities (RTBF) program 

supports the physical and operational infrastructure at the laboratories, the Nevada Test Site, and the production plants. The Committee recommendation is $1,658,772,000, a reduction of 

$27,000,000 below the budget request. 

Operations of facilities.—The Committee recommendation for Op- erations of Facilities is $1,276,786,000, an increase of $73,000,000 

over the budget request. The Committee recommendation includes 

an additional $10,000,000 for the Lawrence Livermore National 

Laboratory in California, an additional $20,000,000 is provided for 

the Pantex plant in Texas, and an additional $43,000,000 is for the 

Y–12 Plant in Tennessee to address chronic under-funding in the 

maintenance of production plant facilities. From within available 

funds, $1,000,000 for the Advanced Engineering Environment, at 

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory—Sandia Laboratory (CA) and $1,000,000 for the Multi-Disciplined Integrated Collaboration 

(MDICE) at the Kansas City Plant (KS). The Committee directs the 

NNSA transfer 20 tons of Heavy Water (D2O) for use as coolant for 

the target at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory’s Spallation Neutron Source (SNS). The Committee provides the Operations of Facilities account funding in site specific allocations specified in the 

detail table at the end of Title III. 

Program Readiness.—The Committee recommendation for Program Readiness is $75,167,000, the same as budget request. 

Material Recycle and Recovery.—The Committee recommendation 

for material recycle and recovery is $69,982,000, the same as the 

budget request. 

Containers.—The Committee recommendation for containers is 

$20,130,000, the same as the budget request. 

Storage.—The Committee recommendation for storage is 

$35,285,000. 

Construction projects.—

Project 07–D–140, Project engineering and design (PED)—various locations. The Committee recommends $4,977,000, the same as 

the budget request. 

Project 07–D–220, Radioactive Liquid Waste Treatment Facility 

Upgrade—Los Alamos National Laboratory. The Committee recommends $14,828,000, the same as the budget request. 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
114 

Project 04–D–125, Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Facility 

Replacement (CMRR), LANL. The Committee recommendation provides $12,422,000 for the CMRR project, a decrease of $100,000,000 

from the budget request. Construction at the CMRR facility should 

be terminated and the Department should revise its long-term plan 

for developing the responsive infrastructure required to maintain 

the nation’s existing nuclear stockpile and support replacement 

production for the reliable replacement warheads (RRW). Production capabilities proposed in the CMRR should be located at the future production site that supports the RRW and long term stockpile 

requirements. 

Project 01–D–124, Highly Enriched Uranium Materials Facility, 

Y–12 National Security Complex, Oak Ridge, TN. The Committee recommends $21,267,000, the same as the budget request. The 

Committee is disappointed that the Department of Energy’s only 

nuclear material consolidation effort has run into management 

problems resulting in cost overruns that may result in schedule 

delays for completing the HEU Materials Facility. Consistent with 

the Committee’s priority to address special nuclear material consolidation requirements across the DOE complex, the Committee 

directs the Department to report to the Committee by August 31, 

2006, with a recovery plan that includes cost estimates with 

sources of funding to offset cost increases and mitigation measures 

to maintain the construction schedule and operational start of the 

HEU Materials Facility. 

FACILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE RECAPITALIZATION

The Committee recommendation for Facilities and Infrastructure 

Recapitalization Program (FIRP) is $146,218,000, a reduction of 

$145,000,000 from the budget request. The Committee directs the 

NNSA to reassess its out-year planning for FIRP projects to ensure 

coordination between FIRP funds and the reduced facility requirements consistent with the consolidation of the complex under the 

long-term Responsive Infrastructure planning. The Committee directs that not less than $25,000,000 of the facilities and infrastructure funding in fiscal year 2007 be used to 

dispose of excess facilities. The Committee encourages continuation 

of this program to reduce the overall facilities footprint of the complex. The Committee continues to expect that services for D&D and 

demolition of excess facilities services be procured through opencompetition where such actions provide the best return on investment for the federal government. 

The Committee recommendation provides $45,935,000 for FIRP 

construction projects, the same as the budget request. 

Facility Infrastructure and Recapitalization Construction 

Projects.—

07–D–253 TA heating systems modernization (HSM), Sandia National Laboratory, NM. The Committee provides $14,500,000, the 

same as the budget request. 

SECURE TRANSPORTATION ASSET

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 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
115 

and nuclear weapons complex facilities within the United States. 

The Committee recommendation is $209,264,000, the same as the 

budget request. 

NUCLEAR WEAPONS INCIDENT RESPONSE

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS AND OPERATIONS

The Environmental Projects and Operations program operates 

and maintains the environmental cleanup systems and performs 

long-term environmental monitoring activities at the National Nuclear Security Administration sites. 

The Committee provides $17,211,000 for Environmental Projects 

and Operations activities, the same as the budget request. 

SAFEGUARDS AND SECURITY

This program provides for all safeguards and security requirements for the NNSA. The Committee recommendation is 

$832,412,000, an increase of $78,000,000 over the budget request. 

Of the total provided $89,711,000 is for Cyber Security activities, 

the same as the budget request. The Committee increase includes 

$25,000,000 for the Y–12 National Security Complex to accelerate 

security infrastructure upgrades and consolidate the facility footprint and an additional $12,000,000 for the Pantex Plant. The 

Committee provides $40,000,000 for a material consolidation and 

upgrade construction project at the Idaho National Laboratory, ID. 

The Committee provides an additional $1,000,000 for CIMTRAK 

cyber security software (IN). 

Construction Projects.—

The Committee directs the start of a construction project at the 

Idaho National Laboratory retrofitting Building 651 and completing Building 691 to handle special nuclear material consolidation and storage. The Committee provides $40,000,000 for the Material Security and Consolidation Project at Building 651 and 691, 

Idaho National Laboratory. The Committee understands that 

Building 651 requires minimal upgrades to provide secure storage 

space for special nuclear material inventories. Building 691 requires more extensive planning for estimating total cost and schedule to complete upgrades for using the unfinished structure for 

SNM storage and other future radiological handling activities. The 

Committee directs the $5,000,000 provided to the Office of Security 

and Performance Assurance for planning the material consolidation 

construction activity in the fiscal year 2006 Conference report be 

reprogrammed to the NNSA Office of Safeguards and Security for 

its intended purpose. 

FUNDING ADJUSTMENTS

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


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
116 

DEFENSE NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION

Appropriation, 2006 ............................................................................ $1,614,839,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ....................................................................... 1,726,213,000 

Recommended, 2007 ........................................................................... 1,593,101,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2006 .................................................................... ¥21,738,000 

Budget Estimate, 2007 ............................................................... ¥133,112,000 

The Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation account includes funding 

for Nonproliferation and Verification Research and Development; 

Nonproliferation and International Security (Global Initiatives for 

Proliferation Prevention and Highly Enriched Uranium Transparency Implementation programs are funded within the Nonproliferation and International Security activities); Nonproliferation Programs with Russia including International Materials Protection, Control, and Cooperation, Elimination of Weapons-Grade 

Plutonium Production; Fissile Materials Disposition; and Global 

Threat Reduction Initiative. 

The Committee’s recommendation for Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation is $1,593,101,000, a decrease of $133,112,000 from the 

budget request of $1,726,213,000. 

NONPROLIFERATION AND VERIFICATION RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

The nonproliferation and verification research and development 

program conducts applied research, development, testing, and evaluation of science and technology for strengthening the United 

States’ response to threats to national security and to world peace 

posed by the proliferation of nuclear weapons and special nuclear 

materials. Activities center on the design and production of operational sensor systems needed for proliferation detection, treaty 

verification, nuclear warhead dismantlement initiatives, and intelligence activities. 

The Committee provides $308,080,000 for Nonproliferation and 

Verification research and development, an increase of $39,193,000 

over the budget request. The Committee recommendation includes 

$169,397,000 for proliferation detection, an increase of $21,193,000 

over the budget request for high priority satellite technology research requirements; $114,601,000 for nuclear explosion monitoring, an increase of $8,000,000 for ground-based systems for treaty monitoring activities; and $6,162,000 for supporting activities. 

From within available funds, the Committee’s recommendation includes $1,600,000 for the Nuclear Security Science and Policy Institute at Texas A&M (TX), and $1,000,000 for the National Center 

for Biodefense at George Mason University (VA), $1,000,000 for 

Offshore Detection Integrated System (OH), and $500,000 for the 

Global Personal Locator Beacon (VA) project. 

The Committee provides $17,920,000 for Project 06–D–180, National Security Laboratory at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL), an increase of $10,000,000 over the budget request. The additional $10,000,000 is provided as construction funds 

to maintain the aggressive schedule in fiscal year 2007 for the relocation of laboratory personnel and facilities displaced by the 

planned shutdown and cleanup of the 300 Area at the Hanford reservation in Washington. 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
117 

The Committee’s increase of $8,000,000 for ground-based systems 

treaty monitoring activities should be allocated through a competitive process open to all Federal and non-Federal entities on an 

equal basis. 

Annual Reporting Requirement.—The Committee directs the Department to prepare an annual report on each project with the 

baseline cost, scope and schedule, deliverables, and the public or 

private entity performing the research and development, and the 

proposed user and submit this with the fiscal year 2008 budget request. 

NONPROLIFERATION AND INTERNATIONAL SECURITY

The Nonproliferation and International Security program seeks 

to detect, prevent, and reverse the proliferation of weapons of mass 

destruction materials, technology, and expertise. The major functional areas of the program include: nonproliferation policy; international safeguards; export control; treaties and agreements; Global Initiatives for Proliferation Prevention; HEU Transparency Implementation; and international emergency management and cooperation. The Committee recommendation provides $127,411,000 

for Nonproliferation and International Security, the same as the 

budget request. 

NONPROLIFERATION PROGRAMS WITH RUSSIA

The Department of Energy funds many nonproliferation programs with Russia. These programs help secure Russian nuclear 

weapons and weapons material, prevent the outflow of scientific expertise from Russia, eliminate excess nuclear weapons materials, 

and help downsize the Russian nuclear weapons complex. 

INTERNATIONAL NUCLEAR MATERIALS PROTECTION AND COOPERATION

The International Nuclear Materials Protection and Cooperation 

(MPC&A) program is designed to work cooperatively with Russia 

to secure weapons and weapons-usable nuclear material. The focus 

is to improve the physical security at facilities that possess or process significant quantities of nuclear weapons-usable materials that 

are of proliferation concern. Activities include installing monitoring 

equipment, inventorying nuclear material, improving the Russian 

security culture, and establishing a security infrastructure. 

The Committee provides $583,182,000 for MPC&A activities, an 

increase of $170,000,000 over the budget request. The Committee’s 

increase to the MPC&A program recognizes the expanded opportunities for high priority work at Rosatom and the 12th Main Directorate sites in Russia. The Committee supports the Department’s 

efforts to continue to negotiate greater access to the Russian serial 

production enterprise and accelerate aggressively opportunities to 

secure material as site access is granted. The Committee recommendation includes $121,505,000 for the Rosatom Weapons 

Complex, an increase of $65,000,000 over the budget request. The 

Committee provides $228,973,000 for the Second Line of Defense 

program, an increase of $105,000,000 over the budget request. The 

Committee recommendation provides an additional $40,000,000 for 

the core Second Line of Defense program to accelerate installation 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
118 

activities in the Baltic and Caucasus regions and other critical border activities. The Committee provides $105,118,000 for the 

MegaPorts initiative, a $65,000,000 increase over the budget request, to accelerate this work at additional high-risk foreign ports. 

ELIMINATION OF WEAPONS-GRADE PLUTONIUM PRODUCTION

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

FISSILE MATERIALS DISPOSITION

The fissile materials disposition program is responsible for the 

technical and management activities to assess, plan and direct efforts to provide for the safe, secure, environmentally sound longterm storage of all weapons-usable fissile materials and the disposition of fissile materials declared surplus to national defense 

needs. This program was created to execute the September 2000 

agreement between the United States and Russia on plutonium 

management and disposition. Under that agreement, the United 

States and Russia each committed to dispose of 34 metric tons of 

surplus weapons-grade plutonium. The NNSA manages the effort 

to dispose of the U.S. share of surplus plutonium and provides 

technical assistance to Russia to support their efforts. Congressional direction from the House and Senate Armed Services Committees requires the U.S. and Russian programs to proceed in parallel. 

The strategy to date has been that both the U.S. and Russia 

would dispose of this surplus plutonium by converting it to mixed 

oxide (MOX) fuel to be used as fuel in light water reactors in each 

country. The U.S. portion of this plan would require a Pit Disassembly and Conversion Facility, a MOX Fuel Fabrication Facility, and a Waste Facility, all to be built at the Savannah River Site 

in South Carolina. To date, Congress has appropriated $1.37 billion 

for the domestic MOX program facilities without any nonproliferation benefit accrued to the U.S. taxpayer. The Committee acknowledges that most of the real work had been delayed due to an impasse with the Russian government over liability protection for 

U.S. contractors working in Russia. However, that situation has 

not changed. For several years in a row, the Department has assured this Committee that the liability problem was on the verge 

of being resolved so that work could proceed. While the Committee 

does not believe the Department was intentionally misleading the 

Committee, clearly these assurances were in error. An agreement 

with the Russian government resolving the liability issue has yet 

to be finalized. The Committee reiterates the obvious—that as has 

been the case over the past three years, the Department is precluded from beginning construction activities in fiscal year 2006 

without a U.S.-Russian bilateral liability agreement ratified by the 

Russian Federation. These series of unfulfilled promises has led to 

the accumulation of substantial unobligated balances in the Fissile 

Materials Disposition account, including over $500 million in the 

MOX construction project alone. 

Unfortunately, in 2006 it has become obvious the Russian government is not going to participate in the MOX-light water reactor 

disposition path for surplus Russian plutonium unless the U.S. and 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
119 

international community bear the full cost of such disposition. Instead, the Russian government now prefers a new approach, with 

limited disposition in an existing BN–600 fast breeder reactor and 

the bulk of disposition to be accomplished in the yet-to-be-built 

BN–800 fast reactor. The U.S. continues to have proliferation concerns about the use of fast reactors for plutonium disposition. 

Compounding the Committee’s lack of confidence in this program’s future is the DOE Inspector General (DOE/Inspector General Report 0713) and Government Accountability Office findings 

that the U.S. MOX project has experienced significant cost overruns and management deficiencies. In February 2002, the Department reported to Congress that the construction of the MOX facility would start in fiscal year 2004, begin operations in fiscal year 

2007, and cost nearly $1 billion to design and construct. 

As of July 2005, NNSA’s unvalidated estimate for design and construction of the MOX facility was $3.5 billion, an increase of 

$2.5 billion. Now with the Russian government abandoning the 

MOX-light water reactor strategy for surplus Russian plutonium, it 

is clear to the Committee that there is no longer any justification 

for proceeding unilaterally with the U.S. MOX program for disposing of U.S. surplus plutonium. Converting plutonium to MOX 

fuel has always been the most expensive disposition option for plutonium, but it was a cost that Congress was willing to accept in 

order to help the Russian MOX program stay on track for disposing 

of Russian weapons origin plutonium. Further, the U.S. MOX program at one time had potential for domestic civilian applications, 

as the UREX+ separation technology, coupled with MOX, was 

being considered as a means for recycling domestic spent nuclear 

fuel. With the advent of the Administration’s Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP), the Department has abandoned MOX for 

domestic spent fuel and instead shifted to a strategy of UREX+ 

coupled with fast reactors. 

Given these changes in the United States and Russia, the Committee sees no further reason to proceed with the U.S. MOX program. The Committee provides $282,651,000 for fissile material 

disposition activities, a reduction of $320,610,000 from the budget 

request. The Committee provides no funds for the pit disassembly 

and conversion facility project and for the MOX fuel fabrication facility project and directs the Department to suspend all ongoing 

and planned construction activities associated with those projects. 

The Committee directs the Department to use the balance of prior 

year funds to close out ongoing design work and government obligations under existing contracts. The Department should also conduct an orderly suspension of technology development and supporting work relating to the U.S. MOX project, pending submission 

to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations a report 

re-defining the comprehensive plutonium disposition for the United 

States, in light of Russia actions and domestic choices on GNEP. 

This report should provide a life cycle cost analysis of all reasonable domestic plutonium disposition alternatives, including the no 

action alternative. The reduced MOX funding is redirected to higher priority international nonproliferation activities and to other environmental cleanup and plutonium immobilization needs at Savannah River Site. 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
120 

Plutonium Immobilization, Savannah River Site, SC.—The Committee provides $111,000,000 to continue conceptual design and 

commence preliminary design for a plutonium disposition facility 

utilizing immobilization technology, to enable the Department to 

address the material disposition requirements for the plutonium 

stored at the Savannah River Site. 

GLOBAL THREAT REDUCTION INITIATIVE

The Global Threat Reduction Initiative (GTRI) mission is to identify, secure, remove and facilitate the disposition of high-risk, vulnerable nuclear and radiological materials and equipment around 

the world. The Committee provides $119,818,000 for GTRI activities, an increase of $13,000,000 over the budget request. The Committee provides an additional $5,000,000 for Russian Research Reactor Fuel Return, $3,000,000 for U.S. Radiological Threat Reduction to address domestic radiological sealed source recovery, and 

$5,000,000 in Emerging Threats and Gap Materials for recovery of 

U.S. origin orphaned material overseas. The Committee recommendation includes $3,934,000 for the Kazakhstan Spent Fuel 

Disposition initiative, the same as the budget request. None of the 

funds provided for this activity in fiscal year 2007, or previous fiscal years, may be obligated for transportation equipment or activities without written notification to the House and Senate Appropriations Committees. 

NAVAL REACTORS

Appropriation, 2006 ............................................................................ $781,605,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ....................................................................... 795,133,000 

Recommended, 2007 ........................................................................... 795,133,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2006 .................................................................... +13,528,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ................................................................ –––

The Naval Reactors program is responsible for all aspects of 

naval nuclear propulsion from technology development through reactor operations to ultimate reactor plant disposal. The program 

provides for the design, development, testing, and evaluation of improved naval nuclear propulsion plants and reactor cores. These efforts are critical to ensuring the safety and reliability of 102 operating Naval reactor plants and to developing the next generation 

reactor. The Committee recommendation provides $795,133,000, 

the same as the request, for Naval Reactors activities. 

OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR

Appropriation, 2006 ............................................................................ $338,450,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ....................................................................... 386,576,000 

Recommended, 2007 ........................................................................... 399,576,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2006 .................................................................... +61,126,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ................................................................ +13,000,000 

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 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
121 

$399,576,000, an increase of $13,000,000 above the budget request, 

of which $399,576,000 is available for obligation only after the Administrator has officially retained the JASON Defense Advisory 

Group as an independent peer review evaluation committee to assess the competing reliable replacement warhead designs against 

the design criteria in the RRW competition between Los Alamos 

and Livermore National Laboratories. The increase is provided as 

the NNSA contribution to the Department’s support for the Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs). The Committee expects the Administrator to continue to maintain separate program 

direction budget and reporting accounting codes for the Office of 

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation to maintain cost accountability 

between the separate programs within the NNSA. The Committee recommendation provides $12,000, the same as 

the budget request, for official reception and representation expenses for the NNSA. 

Support to Minority Colleges and Universities.—The Committee 

appreciates the serious effort of the NNSA to follow last year’s Congressional direction to implement an aggressive program to take 

advantage of the HBCU educational institutions across the country 

in order to deepen the recruiting pool of diverse scientific and technical staff available to the NNSA and its national laboratories in 

support of the nation’s national security programs. The Committee is again providing $13,000,000 of additional funding to expand the 

support to the HBCUs scientific and technical programs in FY 

2006. The Committee recommendation includes $2,000,000 each for 

Wilberforce University and Central State University in Wilberforce, 

Ohio; and $2,500,000 for Claflin College in Orangeburg, SC; 

$3,000,000 for Allen University in Columbia, SC; and $1,000,000 

each for Voorhees College in Denmark, SC and South Carolina 

State University in Orangeburg, SC; $500,000 for Denmark Technical College (SC); $300,000 for the ACE program at Maricopa 

Community Colleges (AZ); and $700,000 for Morehouse College 

(GA). The Committee directs the Department to provide funds to 

HBCU institutions to allow for infrastructure improvements and 

technical programs. The Committee expects the Department to ensure the Dr. Samuel P. Massie Chairs of Excellence are fully supported within the HBCU program. The Committee expects the Department to provide financial support in rough parity to both 

HBCUs and the Hispanic Serving Institutions (HSI). 

ENVIRONMENTAL AND OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES 

DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT

The Defense Environmental Management program is responsible 

for identifying and reducing risks and managing waste at sites 

where the Department carried out defense-related nuclear research 

and production activities that resulted in radioactive, hazardous, 

and mixed waste contamination requiring remediation, stabilization, or some other type of cleanup action. 

Hanford Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant (WTP).— This project has been plagued with a long history of cost overruns 

and mismanagement. ‘‘The relative lack of outrage over a baseline 

change of that magnitude speaks volumes about what the Congress 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
122 

and public have come to expect from the Department’s clean-up 

program. The tank waste treatment project has a long and sordid 

history that indicates both the magnitude of the task before the 

Department, as well as the Department’s historic combination of 

overly optimistic cost estimates couples with consistent project mismanagement. The Committee notes its concerns in the demonstrated pattern of Departmental officials announcing reform of 

some aspect of the clean-up program, only to depart and be replaced by a new set of officials coming before the Committee to describe the dramatic cost overruns on the project baselines promised 

by their predecessors, and claiming no responsibility for the assumptions underlying those previous commitments.’’ These observations which capture accurately the frustration of Congress with 

the WTP, were made by our Senate counterparts nearly three years 

ago, when the WTP increased in cost by a mere $1.4 billion to 

$5.78 billion. 

Last fall, the House and Senate conferees raised concerns about 

the total cost of WTP increasing to $9.3 billion and start-up being 

delayed to 2015. The situation is now even worse. Only five months 

later—on April 6, 2006—the Government Accountability Office 

(GAO) testified before the Committee that the cost of the Hanford 

waste treatment plant is now nearly $11 billion, and the completion schedule has been extended to at least 2017. 

The inability of the contractor and the Department to estimate 

with any credibility the cost and schedule of the project is troubling 

in and of itself, but it also symptomatic of more serious underlying 

management issues. As root causes for the uncontrolled cost 

growth, the GAO identified contractor performance problems, DOE 

management shortcomings and difficulties addressing various technical challenges encountered during design and construction. According to GAO, ‘‘by just about any measure, the Hanford waste 

treatment project is in disarray’’. . . ‘‘what is happening on this 

project is uncharacteristic of a well-planned and well-managed construction project.’’. . . ‘‘A great concern to us is the fact that many 

nuclear safety and other technical problems have occurred on the 

project.’’

Years of revolving door DOE officials, continual promises to improve management controls and oversight, and sky-rocketing costs 

have led the Committee to the point where it no longer has confidence in the Department’s estimates in the WTP nor in the Department’s ability to manage its way back on this project. Given 

the potential for serious safety accidents as the result of the lack 

of management and safety discipline demonstrated on this one-ofa-kind nuclear construction project, the Committee has no other 

choice than to direct serious management reforms. 

As such, the Committee directs the following changes to the 

project, as recommended by the Government Accountability Office: 

1. Discontinue using a fast-track, design-build approach for WTP, 

and complete at least 90 percent of the facility design or components of the facility before restarting construction. DOE needs to 

follow nuclear industry construction guidelines and take a more 

conservative approach to design and construction activities that 

avoids carrying out these activities concurrently. 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
123 

2. Develop revised contract incentives for WTP that better balance 

cost and schedule incentives and incentives to ensure that the facilities operate safely and effectively, as well as improve the Department’s management and oversight of contractor activities. The 

Committee understands that the Department is already renegotiating its WTP contract with Bechtel National, Incorporated. It is 

not acceptable to renegotiate this contract with an expanded scope 

of work, a delayed schedule, and higher performance fees for the 

project. The Department must modify this contract to reflect an accurate scope, a firm cost and schedule, appropriate performance 

fees or performance incentive fees, and appropriate penalties for 

non-performance. 

In addition, the Committee directs the Department to enter into 

a Memorandum of Understanding with the Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC), to be signed no later than 60 days after enactment of this Act, to provide nuclear safety oversight of the design 

and construction of the Hanford Waste Treatment Plant. Under 

this approach, NRC would conduct a initial safety review of all 

WTP design and construction work completed to date, leading to 

the publication of a safety evaluation report. The NRC would then 

have a role to monitor DOE’s implementation of the findings, and 

ongoing monitoring of DOE’s nuclear safety compliance at WTP. 

NRC would review safety-related design documents and integrated 

safety measures, develop requests for additional information, write 

a safety evaluation report, and monitor the DOE contractor’s 

progress in addressing safety concerns raised by the NRC. Technical interactions with DOE and contractor would be conducted, as 

necessary and appropriate, in public meetings. NRC would also 

conduct one or more public presentations near the site to discuss 

its safety review with stakeholders. The Committee directs the 

NRC to report its findings directly to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations. 

Bill language has been included making the fiscal year 2007 appropriation for the WTP available only for one fiscal year. The 

Committee may reconsider this limitation in the future pending assurances from the Department that it will implement the management and contracting changes directed above and will execute the 

funding transfer and Memorandum of Understanding providing for 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission oversight of nuclear safety on the 

WTP. 

Milestone report.—The Committee requests a report, by site, that 

tracks accelerated clean-up milestones, whether they are being met 

or not, and includes annual budget estimates and life-cycle costs, 

due to Committee by March 1 and September 1 of each year. 

Economic development.—None of the Defense Environmental 

Management funds are available for economic development activities unless specifically authorized by law. 

Reprogramming Authority.—The Committee continues to support 

the need for flexibility to meet changing funding requirements at 

sites. In fiscal year 2007, the Department may transfer up to 

$5,000,000 within accounts, and between accounts, as noted in the 

table below, to reduce health or safety risks or to gain cost savings 

as long as no program or project is increased or decreased by more 

than $5,000,000 in total during the fiscal year. This reprogramVerDate Aug 31 2005 05:42 May 20, 2006 Jkt 027628 PO 00000 Frm 00123 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR474.006 HR474

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
124 

ming authority may not be used to initiate new programs or programs specifically denied, limited, or increased by Congress in the 

Act or report. The Committees on Appropriations in the House and 

Senate must be notified within thirty days of the use of this reprogramming authority. 

Account Control Points: 

Closure Sites 

Savannah River site, 2012 accelerations 

Savannah River site, 2035 accelerations 

Savannah River Tank Farm 

Waste Isolation Pilot Plant 

Idaho National Laboratory 

Oak Ridge Reservation 

Hanford site 2012 accelerated completions 

Hanford site 2035 accelerated completions 

Office of River Protection (ORP) Waste Treatment & Immobilization (WTP) Pretreatment facility 

ORP WTP High-level waste facility 

ORP WTP Low activity waste facility 

ORP WTP Analytical laboratory 

ORP WTP Balance of facilities 

Program Direction 

Program Support 

UE D&D Fund contribution 

Technology Development 

Details of the recommended funding levels follow below for the 

Defense Environmental Cleanup account. 

DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP

Appropriation, 2006 ............................................................................ $6,130,448,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ....................................................................... 5,390,312,000 

Recommended, 2007 ........................................................................... 5,551,812,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2006 .................................................................... ¥578,636,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ................................................................ +161,500,000 

The Committee’s recommendation for Defense Environmental 

Cleanup totals $5,551,812,000, an increase of $161,500,000 over the 

budget request of $5,390,312,000. Within the amounts provided, 

the Department is directed to fund hazardous waste worker training at $10,000,000. 

Closure Sites.—The Committee recommendation provides 

$321,937,000, an increase of $1,000,000 over the budget request. 

The recommendation provides $25,896,000 for Closure Sites Administration, the same as the budget request. The recommendation 

provides $258,877,000 for Fernald, Ohio and $34,869,000 for 

Miamisburg, Ohio, the same as the budget request. The Committee 

provides $1,295,000 for Ashtabula, Ohio, an increase of $1,000,000 

to close out the project. The Committee provides $1,000,000 for remaining close-out activities at Rocky Flats, the same as the budget 

request. 

Savannah River Site.—The Committee recommendation provides 

$1,195,394,000 for cleanup at the Savannah River Site an increase 

of $111,000,000 over the budget request. The Committee provides 

an increase of $111,000,000 over the request for radioactive liquid 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
125 

tank waste stabilization and disposition, to cover shortfalls in the 

tank waste program. Within available funds, the Committee directs 

$2,000,000 for AEA Technology to address alternative cost effective 

technologies for cleaning up legacy waste. 

Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP).—The Committee recommendation provides $213,278,000 for the Waste Isolation Pilot 

Project, the same as the budget request 

Idaho National Laboratory.—The Committee recommendation 

provides $544,604,000, an increase of $32,000,000 for design work 

on calcine processing in preparation for final disposition. 

Oak Ridge Reservation.—The Committee recommendation pro- vides $199,362,000, an increase of $39,500,000 over the budget request. The recommendation includes an increase of $25,000,000 for 

the disposition of material in building 3019. The recommendation 

includes an increase of $14,360,000 for the acceleration of cleanup 

activities at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory Central Campus. 

The Committee’s recommendation also includes a reallocation of 

the budget request, to better reflect current program needs. The effect of this redistribution is reflected in the detail table at the end 

of Title III. 

Hanford Site.—The Committee recommendation provides $832,716,000 for the Hanford Site, an increase of $28,000,000 over 

the budget request, and $59,870,000 over fiscal year 2006 enacted 

levels. The Committee recommendation provides $7,500,000 for the 

Volpentest Hazardous Materials Management and Emergency Response (HAMMER) training and education center, and $500,000 for 

preservation of the B Reactor as a historic landmark. The recommendation provides $81,651,000 for nuclear material stabilization and disposition at the Plutonium Finishing Plant, and 

$221,022,000 for nuclear facility decontamination and decommissioning river corridor closure project, the same as the budget request. The recommendation provides $78,937,000 for spent nuclear 

fuel stabilization and disposition, a decrease of $2,132,000 below 

the budget request, which reflects the movement of spent nuclear 

fuel storage costs to canister storage funding activities. 

The recommendation includes $191,121,000 for solid waste stabilization and disposition in the 200 Area, an increase of 

$2,132,000 over the budget request, which reflects the movement 

of spent nuclear fuel storage costs to canister storage funding. The 

recommendation includes $75,973,000 for soil and water remediation, and $94,270,000 for nuclear facility decontamination and decommissioning for the remainder of Hanford, the same as the budget request. The Committee recommendation provides $3,534,000 to 

operate the waste disposal facility, and $18,332,000 for Richland 

community and regulatory support, the same as the budget request. The recommendation provides $20,000,000, an increase of 

$20,000,000 over the budget request for Columbia River cleanup 

technologies. In fiscal year 2006, the conference report provided 

$10,000,000 in the Technology Development account for ‘‘analyzing 

contaminant migration to the Columbia River, and for introduction 

of new technology approaches to solving contamination migration 

issues.’’ The Committee is pleased with the progress that has been 

made, and recommends increasing the level of effort to identify migration of contaminants and strategies to stop it. 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
126 

Office of River Protection.—The Committee recommendation pro- vides $894,127,000 for the Office of River Protection, a decrease of 

$70,000,000 below the request, and an increase of $47,211,000 over 

FY 2006 enacted levels. 

Federal budget procedures require that DOE and other agencies 

develop work plans and schedules that support a budget request 

and demonstrate how the funds will be spent. The Department has 

done a poor job justifying the budget request of $690,000,00 for the 

waste treatment and immobilization plant. As of April 2006, the 

project was substantially behind schedule and over budget. During 

fiscal year 2005 and 2006, DOE slowed construction on the 

pretreatment and high-level waste facilities to address the technical and management problems. This slowdown is expected to continue through at least half of fiscal year 2007, and possibly through 

2008, resulting in uncommitted carryover from fiscal year 2006 

that will likely be available to offset a portion of the fiscal 2007 

funding request. Based on this slowdown of work pending technical 

and managerial resolution, the GAO estimates that WTP costs in 

fiscal year 2007 would be approximately $510 million. The Hanford/ORP combined request for $1,768,000,000 is a nine 

percent increase over fiscal year 2006 levels, mostly due to the 

‘‘placeholder’’ $690,000,000 request for WTP. It is difficult to reward the WTP project with the full request, when it has been poorly managed, and construction dollars will not be spent for some 

time on the pretreatment facility, and the vitrification facility, and 

budget justifications and workplans are poor or nonexistent. Additionally, the remainder of the nuclear waste cleanup sites budget 

requests are reduced from fiscal year 2006 levels, and the entire 

clean-up program’s request is declining by 3 percent. As such, the Committee recommendation includes $600,000,000 

for the waste treatment and immobilization plant, a decrease of 

$90,000,000 below the request of $690,000,000, and an increase of 

$79,206,000 over FY 2006 enacted levels. This level reflects a compromise between the Department’s request, and the GAO budget 

scrub. The Committee recommends allocating additional funds 

amongst the subprojects that are not subject to the seismic recalculations, and less for pretreatment and vitrification, which are 

still subject to technical uncertainties. The recommendation includes $218,500,000 for the pretreatment facility; $171,700,000 for 

the high level waste vitrification facility; $112,200,000 for the low 

activity waste facility; $45,200,000 for the analytical laboratory; 

and $52,400,000 for the balance of facilities. 

The recommendation includes $293,656,000 for radioactive liquid 

tank waste stabilization and disposition, an increase of $20,000,000 

over the request of $273,656,000, to determine a go/no go strategy 

for the bulk vitrification demonstration in order to maintain a 

strategy for low level tank waste. The recommendation provides 

$471,000, the same as the budget request, for community and regulatory support. 

The Committee directs the Government Accountability Office to 

review and report on the budget and life-cycle costs estimates for 

bulk vitrification, and the technical challenges and/or the technical 

performance issues that have emerged so far on the demonstration 

of this technology. 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
127 

Program Direction.—The Committee recommendation provides $301,216,000 an increase of $10,000,000 over the budget request 

for program direction. The Committee directs the Department to 

transfer $10,000,000 to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) 

and to conclude a Memorandum of Understanding with the NRC 

for WTP oversight activities, no later than 60 days following enactment of this bill. 

Program Support.—The Committee recommendation provides $37,881,000 for program support, the same as the budget request. 

Federal Contribution to Uranium Enrichment Decontamination 

and Decommissioning Fund.—The Energy Policy Act of 1992, Public Law 102–486, created the Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund to pay for the cost of cleanup of 

the gaseous diffusion facilities located in Oak Ridge, Tennessee; Paducah, Kentucky; and Portsmouth, Ohio. The Committee recommendation includes the budget request of $452,000,000 for the 

Federal contribution to the Uranium Enrichment Decontamination 

and Decommissioning Fund as authorized in Public Law 102–486. 

Technology Development and Deployment.—The Committee recommendation provides $31,389,000, an increase of $10,000,000 over 

the budget request. The EM technology development program funding has declined over the years, while at the same time, many technological challenges continue to face the program. For example, the 

National Research Council’s 2005 report on ‘‘Improving the Characterization and Treatment of Radioactive Wastes’’, recommends that ‘‘an improved capability for environmental monitoring would 

strengthen EM’s plans to leave waste and contaminated media at 

DOE sites’’, and, ‘‘Monitoring systems at EM closure sites have 

been estimated to be some 25 years behind the state-of-art.’’ The 

Committee directs the increase to address the technology shortfalls identified by this report. The Committee supports an increased, expanded technology development program, and directs 

the Department to prepare an EM technology roadmap, that identifies technology gaps that exist in the current program, and a strategy with funding proposals to address them. The report is due to 

the Committee by January 31, 2007. 

NNSA sites.—The Committee recommendation provides 

$232,068,000, the same as the budget request. 

Safeguards and Security.—The Committee recommendation provides $295,840,000, the same as the budget request. 

OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES

Appropriation, 2006 ............................................................................ $635,577,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ....................................................................... 717,788,000 

Recommended, 2007 ........................................................................... 720,788,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2006 .................................................................... +85,211,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ................................................................ +3,000,000 

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. 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
128 

OFFICE OF SECURITY AND PERFORMANCE ASSURANCE

The Office of Security and Performance Assurance (SSA) provides domestic safeguards and security for nuclear weapons, nuclear materials, nuclear facilities, and classified and unclassified 

information against sabotage, espionage, terrorist activities, or any 

loss or unauthorized disclosure that could endanger the national 

security or disrupt operations. The Committee recommendation for 

security and emergency operations is $301,497,000 an increase of 

$3,000,000 over the budget request. The increase is for high priority security priorities. 

In fiscal year 2007, the Department of Energy will spend $1.5 

billion on safeguards and security activities at Headquarters and 

field locations. Funding for safeguards and security activities at 

Departmental facilities and laboratories for programmatic activities 

in the field is included within each program budget. 

OFFICE OF INTELLIGENCE

The intelligence program provides information and technical 

analyses on international arms proliferation, foreign nuclear programs, and other energy related matters to policy makers in the 

Department and other U.S. Government agencies. The focus of the 

Department’s intelligence analysis and reporting is on emerging 

proliferant nations, nuclear technology transfers, foreign nuclear 

materials production, and proliferation implications of the breakup 

of the Former Soviet Union. 

OFFICE OF COUNTERINTELLIGENCE

The Office of Counterintelligence seeks to develop and implement 

an effective counterintelligence program throughout the Department of Energy. The goal of the program is to identify, neutralize, 

and deter foreign government or industrial intelligence threats directed at the Department’s facilities, personnel, information, and 

technologies. 

ENVIRONMENT, SAFETY AND HEALTH (DEFENSE)

The Office of Environment, Safety and Health develops programs 

and policies to protect the workers and the public, conducts independent oversight of performance, and funds health effects studies. 

The Committee recommendation is $80,814,000, the same as the 

budget request. 

LEGACY MANAGEMENT

The Committee provides a total of $200,990,000 for the Office of 

Legacy Management to manage the long-term stewardship responsibilities at the Department of Energy clean up sites. The Committee provides $167,851,000 in Other Defense Activities and the 

balance of $33,139,000 is provided in the non-defense Energy Supply account. 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
129 

FUNDING FOR DEFENSE ACTIVITIES IN IDAHO

The Committee recommendation includes $75,949,000 to fund 

the defense-related (050 budget function) activities at the Idaho 

National Laboratory (INL). 

DEFENSE RELATED ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT

The Committee recommendation includes $93,258,000, the same 

as the budget request, to provide administrative support for programs funded in the atomic energy defense activities accounts. This 

will fund Departmental activities performed by offices such as the 

Secretary, Deputy Secretary and Under Secretary, the General 

Counsel, Chief Financial Officer, Human Resources, Congressional 

Affairs, and Public Affairs, which support the organizations and activities funded in the atomic energy defense activities accounts. 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

The Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) is responsible for all 

of the Department’s adjudicatory processes, other than those administered by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. The 

Committee recommendation is $4,422,000, the same as the budget 

request. 

FUNDING ADJUSTMENTS

The Committee recommendation for funding adjustments includes an offset of $3,003,000 for the safeguards and security 

charge for reimbursable work, the same as the budget request. 

DEFENSE NUCLEAR WASTE DISPOSAL

Appropriation, 2006 ............................................................................ $346,500,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ....................................................................... 388,080,000 

Recommended, 2007 ........................................................................... 388,080,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2006 .................................................................... +41,580,000 

Budget Estimate, 2007 ............................................................... – – –

DEFENSE NUCLEAR WASTE DISPOSAL

The Committee recommendation is $388,080,000, the same as 

the budget request. Combined with the funding recommended for 

the Nuclear Waste Disposal, this will provide a total of 

$574,500,000 for nuclear waste disposal activities in fiscal year 

2007. 

POWER MARKETING ADMINISTRATIONS

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. 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
130 

The Committee rejects the administration proposal to recover expenses related to operations and maintenance activities and program direction expenditures using offsetting collections and the 

proposal to increase the power marketing administration rates to 

reflect market based rates. 

All power marketing administrations except the Bonneville 

Power Administration are funded annually with appropriated 

funds. Revenues collected from power sales and transmission services are deposited in the treasury to offset expenditures. The Committee recommendation for fiscal year 2005 does not support the 

Administration proposal to continue the phase-out of Federal financing of the customers’ purchase power and wheeling expenses 

for the Southeastern Power Administration, the Southwestern 

Power Administration, and the Western Area Power Administration. Also, the Committee recommendation does not at this time incorporate the administration proposal for the power marketing administrations to fund directly from revenues the costs of operation 

and maintenance of federal hydropower facilities at Corps of Engineers dams. 

Operations of the Bonneville Power Administration are self-financed under the authority of the Federal Columbia River Transmission System Act (P.L. 93–454). Under this Act, the Bonneville 

Power Administration is authorized to use its revenues to finance 

the costs of its operations, maintenance, and capital construction, 

and to sell bonds to the Treasury if necessary to finance any additional capital program requirements. 

BONNEVILLE POWER ADMINISTRATION

The Bonneville Power Administration is the Department of Energy’s marketing agency for electric power in the Pacific Northwest. 

Bonneville provides electricity to a 300,000 square mile service 

area in the Columbia River drainage basin. Bonneville markets the 

power from Federal hydropower projects in the Northwest, as well 

as power from non-Federal generating facilities in the region, and 

exchanges and markets surplus power with Canada and California. 

The Committee recommendation provides no new borrowing authority during fiscal year 2007. 

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, SOUTHEASTERN POWER

ADMINISTRATION

Appropriation, 2006 ............................................................................ $5,544,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ....................................................................... 5,723,000 

Recommended, 2007 ........................................................................... 5,723,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2006 .................................................................... +179,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ................................................................ – – –

The Southeastern Power Administration markets the hydroelectric power produced at 23 Corps of Engineers Projects in eleven 

states in the southeast. Southeastern does not own or operate any 

transmission facilities, so it contracts to ‘‘wheel’’ its power using 

the existing transmission facilities of area utilities. 

The Committee recommendation for the Southeastern Power Administration is $5,723,000, the same as the budget request. The 

total program level for Southeastern in fiscal year 2007 is 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
131 

$53,726,000, with $48,003,000 for purchase power and wheeling 

and $5,723,000 for program direction. The purchase power and 

wheeling costs will be offset by collections of $48,003,000 provided 

in this Act. 

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, SOUTHWESTERN POWER

ADMINISTRATION

Appropriation, 2006 ............................................................................ $29,864,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ....................................................................... 31,539,000 

Recommended, 2007 ........................................................................... 31,539,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2006 .................................................................... +1,675,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ................................................................ ............................

The Southwestern Power Administration markets the hydroelectric power produced at 24 Corps of Engineers projects in the 

six-state area of Arkansas, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Oklahoma 

and Texas. Southwestern operates and maintains 1,380 miles of 

transmission lines, with the supporting substations and communications sites. Southwestern gives preference in the sale of its 

power to publicly and cooperatively owned utilities. 

The Committee recommendation for the Southwestern Power Administration is $31,539,000, the same as the budget request. The 

total program level for Southwestern in fiscal year 2007 is 

$45,139,000, including $7,145,000 for operating expenses, 

$13,600,000 for purchase power and wheeling, $20,782,000 for program direction, and $3,612,000 for construction. The offsetting collections total of $13,600,000 from collections for purchase power 

and wheeling yields a net appropriation of $31,539,000. 

CONSTRUCTION, REHABILITATION, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, 

WESTERN AREA POWER ADMINISTRATION

Appropriation, 2006 ............................................................................ $231,652,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ....................................................................... 212,213,000 

Recommended, 2007 ........................................................................... 212,213,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2006 .................................................................... ¥19,439,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ................................................................ ............................

The Western Area Power Administration is responsible for marketing the electric power generated by the Bureau of Reclamation, 

the Corps of Engineers, and the International Boundary and Water 

Commission. Western also operates and maintains a system of 

transmission lines nearly 17,000 miles long. Western provides electricity to 15 Central and Western states over a service area of 1.3 

million square miles. 

The Committee recommendation for the Western Area Power Administration is $212,213,000, the same as the budget request. The 

total program level for Western in fiscal year 2007 is $688,511,000, 

which includes $60,205,000 for construction and rehabilitation, 

$45,734,000 for system operation and maintenance, $427,931,000 

for purchase power and wheeling, and $147,748,000 for program direction. The Committee recommendation includes $6,893,000 for 

the Utah Mitigation and Conservation Fund. 

Offsetting collections total $472,593,000; with the use of 

$3,705,000 of offsetting collections from the Colorado River Dam 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
132 

Fund (as authorized in P.L. 98–381), this requires a net appropria- tion of $212,213,000. 

Within available funds, the Committee recommendation includes 

$6,000,000 to upgrade the Topock-Davis-Mead line including the 

interconnection and extension to Needles, CA, to provide additional 

transmission capacity by using aluminum matrix composite conductor technology. Within available funds, the Committee recommendation includes $500,000 for Dynamic Engineering Studies 

on the TOT–3 and Wyoming West Transmission projects. 

FALCON AND AMISTAD OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE FUND

Appropriation, 2006 ............................................................................ $2,665,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ....................................................................... 2,500,000 

Recommended, 2007 ........................................................................... 2,500,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2006 .................................................................... ¥165,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ................................................................ ............................

Falcon Dam and Amistad Dam are two international water 

projects located on the Rio Grande River between Texas and Mexico. Power generated by hydroelectric facilities at these two dams 

is sold to public utilities through the Western Area Power Administration. The Foreign Relations Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 

1994 and 1995 created the Falcon and Amistad Operating and 

Maintenance Fund to defray the costs of operation, maintenance, 

and emergency activities. The Fund is administered by the Western 

Area Power Administration for use by the Commissioner of the 

U.S. Section of the International Boundary and Water Commission. 

The Committee recommendation is $2,500,000, the same as the 

budget request. 

FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation, 2006 ............................................................................ $218,196,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ....................................................................... 230,800,000 

Recommended, 2007 ........................................................................... 230,800,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2006 .................................................................... +12,604,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ................................................................ ............................

REVENUES APPLIED

Appropriation, 2006 ............................................................................ ¥$218,196,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ....................................................................... ¥230,800,000 

Recommended, 2007 ........................................................................... ¥230,800,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2006 .................................................................... ¥12,604,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ................................................................ ............................

The Committee recommendation for the Federal Energy Regu- latory Commission (FERC) is $230,800,000, the same as the budget 

request. Revenues for FERC are established at a rate equal to the 

budget authority, resulting in a net appropriation of $0. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee’s detailed funding recommendations for programs 

in Title III are contained in the following table. 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
133 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 028 HR474.028
134 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 029 HR474.029
135 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 030 HR474.030
136 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 031 HR474.031
137 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 032 HR474.032
138 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 033 HR474.033
139 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 034 HR474.034
140 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 035 HR474.035
141 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 036 HR474.036
142 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 037 HR474.037
143 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 038 HR474.038
144 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 039 HR474.039
145 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 040 HR474.040
146 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 041 HR474.041
147 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 042 HR474.042
148 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 043 HR474.043
149 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 044 HR474.044
150 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 045 HR474.045
151 

GENERAL PROVISIONS 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Contract Competition.—Section 301 modifies language carried in 

the conference report for the Energy and Water Development Act, 

2004 (P.L. 108–137), requiring the competition of the management 

and operating contracts for Ames, Argonne, and Lawrence Livermore. The Committee renews the statutory requirement to compete 

these contracts to be sure the Department follows through on the 

commitments made by the present Secretary. 

Section 301 also reiterates language from previous Energy and 

Water Development Acts requiring notification of Congress if the 

Secretary awards a management and operating contract in excess 

of $100 million in annual funding at a current or former management and operating contract site or facility, or awards a significant 

extension or expansion to an existing management and operating 

contract, or other contract covered by this section, unless such contract is awarded using competitive procedures, or the Secretary of 

Energy grants, on a case-by-case basis, a waiver to allow for such 

a deviation. At least 90 days before granting such a waiver, the 

Secretary of Energy must submit to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations a report notifying the Committees of the 

waiver and setting forth, in specificity, the reasons for the waiver. 

Section 301 does not preclude extensions of a contract awarded 

using competitive procedures, but does establish a presumption of 

competition unless the Secretary invokes the waiver option. The 

waiver for non-competitive awards or extensions should be invoked 

only in truly exceptional circumstances or in the case of exceptional 

performance, not as a matter of routine. A non-competitive award 

or extension may be in the taxpayers’ interest, but the burden of 

proof is on the Department to make that case in the waiver request. 

Workforce Restructuring.—Section 302 provides that none of the 

funds in this Act may be used to prepare or implement workforce 

restructuring plans or provide enhanced severance payments and 

other benefits and community assistance grants for Federal employees of the Department of Energy under section 3161 of the National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 1993, Public Law 

102–484. The Committee has provided no funds to implement 

workforce restructuring plans which would provide benefits to Federal employees of the Department of Energy which are not available to other Federal employees of the United States Government. 

A similar provision was included in the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, 2005. 

Section 3161 Assistance.—Section 303 provides that none of the 

funds in this Act may be used for enhanced severance payments to 

contractors and other benefits and community assistance grants 

authorized under the provisions of section 3161 of the National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 1993, Public Law 102–484. 

Unfunded Requests for Proposals.—Section 304 provides that 

none of the funds in this Act may be used to initiate requests for 

proposals or other solicitations or expressions of interest for new 

programs which have not yet been presented to Congress in the annual budget submission, and which have not yet been approved 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
152 

and funded by Congress. A similar provision was included in the 

Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, 2005. 

Unexpended Balances.—Section 305 permits the transfer and 

merger of unexpended balances of prior appropriations with appropriation accounts established in this bill. A similar provision was 

included in the Energy and Water Development Appropriations 

Act, 2005. 

Bonneville Power Administration Service Territory.—Section 306 

provides that none of the funds in this or any other Act may be 

used by the Administrator of the Bonneville Power Administration 

to perform energy efficiency services outside the legally defined 

Bonneville service territory unless the Administrator certifies in 

advance that such services are not available from private sector 

businesses. A similar provision was included in the Energy and 

Water Development Appropriations Act, 2005. 

User Facilities.—Section 307 establishes certain notice and competition requirements with respect to the involvement of universities in Department of Energy user facilities. A similar provision 

was included in the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, 2005. The detailed guidance on the application of this 

provision was provided in House Report 107–681 and continues to 

apply. 

Intelligence Activities.—Section 308 authorizes intelligence activities of the Department of Energy for purposes of section 504 of the 

National Security Act of 1947 during fiscal year 2006 until the enactment of the Intelligence Authorization Act for fiscal year 2005. 

Laboratory Directed Research and Development.—Section 309 

provides for authorization of Laboratory Directed Research and Development (LDRD), Site Directed Research and Development, and 

Plant Directed Research and Development (PDRD) activities. 

Technology Commercialization Fund.—Section 310 includes a 

funding limitation on the Technology Commercialization Fund. 

Contractor Pension Benefits.—Sec. 311 includes language prohibiting funding to implement Department of Energy Order N 351.1 

modifying contractor employee pension and medical benefits policy 

from defined benefit plans to a defined contribution plan. 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
(153) 

TITLE IV 

INDEPENDENT AGENCIES 

APPALACHIAN REGIONAL COMMISSION

Appropriation, 2006 ............................................................................ $64,817,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ....................................................................... 65,472,000 

Recommended, 2007 ........................................................................... 35,472,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2006 .................................................................... ¥29,345,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ................................................................ ¥30,000,000 

The Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC) is a regional economic development agency established in 1965. It is comprised of 

the Governors of the thirteen Appalachian States and has a Federal co chairman, who is appointed by the President. For fiscal year 

2007, the budget includes $65,472,000, of which $54,079,000 is for 

program development; $5,301,000 is local development districts and 

technical assistance; and $5,437,000 is for salaries and expenses. 

The ARC budget justification indicates that it targets fifty percent of its funds to distressed counties or distressed areas in the 

Appalachian region. In times of budget austerity, the Committee 

believes this should be the primary focus of the ARC. The Committee recommendation for ARC is $35,472,000, $30,000,000 less 

than the fiscal year 2005 enacted level and the budget estimate. 

The reduction is to be taken from the area development activities 

that serve other than distressed counties and distressed areas. 

Within the funds provided, the Committee has included the following activities: 

Portsmouth, OH, Shawnee State University Motion Capture Facility ........................................................................................................ $1,050,000 

North Carolina WNC Center for Entrepreneurial Growth ................ 1,000,000 

North Carolina Blue Ridge Food Ventures .......................................... 500,000 

Kentucky Bluegrass Pride Wastewater ............................................... 1,000,000 

Mahoning County, OH, Petersburg Water Project ............................. 500,000 

Perry County, OH, Clover Hill-Saltillo Waterline Extension ............ 290,000 

Perry County, OH, Village of Corning Wastewater Project ............... 1,000,000 

Perry County, OH, New Lexington water treatment facility ............. 432,000 

Ross County, OH, Chillicothe Veteran’s Memorial Stadium .............. 315,000 

Guernsey County, OH, Sewer Project .................................................. 750,000 

Ross County, OH, Richmond Dale Sewer Project ............................... 500,000 

Vinton County, OH, Water Project ....................................................... 250,000 

Carroll County, OH, Village of Leesville Sewer Project ..................... 500,000 

Morgan County, OH, Tri-County Rural Water Project ....................... 250,000 

Central West Virginia Environmental Infra ....................................... 1,000,000 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
154 

DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation, 2006 ............................................................................ $21,812,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ....................................................................... 22,260,000 

Recommended, 2007 ........................................................................... 22,260,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2006 .................................................................... +448,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ................................................................ ............................

The Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (DNFSB) was created by the Fiscal Year 1989 National Defense Authorization Act. 

The Board, composed of five members appointed by the President, 

provides advice and recommendations to the Secretary of Energy 

regarding public health and safety issues at the Department’s defense nuclear facilities. The Board is responsible for reviewing and 

evaluating the content and implementation of the standards relating to the design, construction, operation, and decommissioning of 

defense nuclear facilities of the Department of Energy. The Committee recommendation for fiscal year 2007 is $22,260,000, the 

same as the budget request. 

The Committee is disappointed in the Board’s oversight of the 

Hanford Waste Treatment and Immobilization project (WTP). This 

is not a criticism of the professionals who performed the role, rather an acknowledgement that the mission, mandate and resources 

of the Board do not provide the rigor of oversight necessary in the 

construction of a first-of-a-kind nuclear facility with an environmental mission. As such, the Committee directs the Board to close 

out its oversight activities with the WTP, coinciding with the beginning of the oversight activities of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). The Committee directs the Board to work with the Department and the NRC on this transition plan, and report to the 

Committee within 30 days of enactment of this bill on the plan. 

Funds proposed for fiscal year 2007 that otherwise would be used 

for Board oversight of WTP may be distributed to other high priority projects within the Board’s mission. 

DELTA REGIONAL COMMISSION

Appropriation, 2006 ............................................................................ $11,880,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ....................................................................... 5,940,000 

Recommended, 2007 ........................................................................... 5,940,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2006 .................................................................... ¥5,940,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ................................................................ ............................

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 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
155 

earmarked for transportation and basic infrastructure improvements. For fiscal year 2007, the Committee recommends 

$5,940,000, the same as the enacted level and the budget estimate. 

DENALI COMMISSION

Appropriation, 2006 ............................................................................ $49,500,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ....................................................................... 2,536,000 

Recommended, 2007 ........................................................................... 7,536,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2006 .................................................................... ¥41,964,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ................................................................ +5,000,000 

Introduced by Congress in 1998, the Denali Commission is a federal-state partnership designed to provide critical utilities, infrastructure, and economic support throughout Alaska. For fiscal year 

2007, the Committee recommends $7,536,000 for the costs of the 

Commission’s operations, an increase of $5,000,000 over the budget estimate. The Committee provides the $5,000,000 increase for 

Phase 2 of the coal to synthetic gas Blue Sky Project project located 

in Kenai, Alaska. 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation, 2006 ............................................................................ $727,032,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ....................................................................... 768,410,000 

Recommended, 2007 ........................................................................... 808,410,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2006 .................................................................... +81,378,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ................................................................ +40,000,000 

REVENUES

Appropriation, 2006 ............................................................................ ¥611,010,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ....................................................................... ¥628,328,000 

Recommended, 2007 ........................................................................... ¥656,328,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2006 .................................................................... ¥45,318,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ................................................................ ¥36,000,000 

NET APPROPRIATION

Appropriation, 2006 ............................................................................ 116,022,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ....................................................................... 148,896,000 

Recommended, 2007 ........................................................................... 152,082,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2006 .................................................................... +36,060,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ................................................................ +4,000,000 

The Committee recommendation for the Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) salaries and expenses for fiscal year 2007 is 

$808,410,000, an increase of $40,000,000 over the budget request. 

The Committee provides an additional $40,000,000 of budget authority to prepare for the anticipated growth in new reactor licensing. The additional funds are available to hire, relocate, and train 

additional staff, support pre-application activities not chargeable to 

a specific licensee, and build out, equip, and rent additional office 

space. The total amount of budget authority is offset by estimated 

revenues of $656,328,000, resulting in a net appropriation of 

$152,082,000. The recommendation includes the requested amount 

of $40,981,840 to be derived from the Nuclear Waste Fund to supVerDate Aug 31 2005 05:42 May 20, 2006 Jkt 027628 PO 00000 Frm 00155 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR474.007 HR474

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
156 

port the Department of Energy’s effort to develop a permanent geologic repository at Yucca Mountain for spent nuclear fuel and highlevel waste. 

Fee Recovery.—The Committee recommendation assumes that 

the NRC will recover 90 percent of its budget authority from user 

fees and annual charges, as authorized in Section 637 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109–58), less the appropriation derived from the Nuclear Waste Fund, the amount necessary to implement Section 3116 of the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (P.L. 108–375), and the 

amount necessary for homeland security activities of the Commission. Of the $808,410,000 gross appropriation for fiscal year 2007, 

$40,981,840 is drawn from the Nuclear Waste Fund, $2,867,000 is 

drawn from the General Fund of the Treasury to execute NRC’s responsibilities to provide oversight of certain Department of Energy 

activities under Section 3116 of Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (P.L 108–375), and 

$35,308,000 is drawn from the General Fund of the Treasury to 

execute NRC’s homeland security responsibilities. Ninety percent of the balance of $729,253,160 (i.e., $656,328,000) is funded by fees 

collected from NRC licensees, and the remaining 10 percent (i.e., 

$72,925,000) is funded from the General Fund of the Treasury. 

NRC Oversight of Hanford Waste Treatment Plant.—The NRC 

had significant involvement in the Waste Treatment Plant (WTP) 

at Hanford during 1997–2000. When the Department of Energy 

(DOE) was pursuing its privatization strategy for the WTP, the 

NRC would have been responsible for licensing the private facility. 

When DOE terminated the privatization approach in 2000, the 

NRC role at Hanford was also terminated, as DOE intended to selfregulate itself and its contractor for the new non-privatized WTP. 

As detailed elsewhere in this report, there are major cost overruns 

and schedule delays for the WTP. In addition, there are technical 

and management problems with this project that have very significant nuclear safety implications. Because of these concerns, because of the NRC’s past involvement with the privatized precursor 

to WTP, and because of the NRC’s current role at Idaho and Savannah River with respect to Waste Incidental to Reprocessing, the 

Committee directs the NRC to provide nuclear safety oversight of 

the WTP. Elsewhere in this report, the Committee directs the DOE 

to transfer $10,000,000 to the NRC and to conclude a Memorandum of Understanding with the NRC to define the scope of 

these oversight responsibilities. The Committee does not intend by 

this action to give the NRC the authority to license or otherwise 

regulate the WTP. 

Reports.—The Committee directs the Commission to continue to 

provide quarterly reports on the status of its licensing and other 

regulatory activities. In addition, the Committee directs the NRC 

to submit a report to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations, not later than February 28, 2007, that provides Congress 

and interested parties with a comprehensive roadmap on the actions and tasks that must be completed prior to and during the 

new plant application process. The roadmap should allow for the 

early identification of issues requiring management intervention to 

maintain established licensing schedules. The Committee has been 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
157 

very supportive of the Commission in recent years by providing 

substantial additional resources to meet an anticipated round of 

new plant licensing activities. The Committee believes the NRC 

should use these additional resources, both from taxpayer funds 

and from licensees, to conduct an efficient, understandable, and 

predictable licensing process. Further, this roadmap report should 

include, at a minimum: detailed schedules for the completion of the 

revised Standard Review Plan, Early Site Permit (ESP) applications, design certification applications, Combined Operating License (COL) applications, the Part 52 rulemaking, and all related 

guidance documents; details on current and future activities to improve the 21-month goal for completing the FSAR and FEIS for 

ESP applications, and the 42-month goal of completing action on 

COL applications. Thereafter, the Committee expects to be notified 

promptly of any changes or additions to the schedules and plans 

listed in the initial report, the reasons for the change, and efforts 

underway to ameliorate or eliminate delays. Included in these 

monthly reports should be an update on the number of new hires, 

including the organizational location of permanent assignments for 

each. 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

GROSS APPROPRIATION

Appropriation, 2006 ............................................................................ $8,233,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ....................................................................... 8,144,000 

Recommended, 2007 ........................................................................... 8,144,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2006 .................................................................... ¥89,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ................................................................ ............................

REVENUES

Appropriation, 2006 ............................................................................ ¥$7,410,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ....................................................................... ¥7,330,000 

Recommended, 2007 ........................................................................... ¥7,330,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2006 .................................................................... +80,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ................................................................ ............................

NET APPROPRIATION

Appropriation, 2006 ............................................................................ $823,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ....................................................................... 814,000 

Recommended, 2007 ........................................................................... 814,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2006 .................................................................... ¥9,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ................................................................ ............................

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $8,144,000, the 

same as the budget request. Given the formula for fee recovery, the 

revenue estimate is $7,330,000, resulting in a net appropriation for 

the NRC Inspector General of $814,000. 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
158 

NUCLEAR WASTE TECHNICAL REVIEW BOARD

Appropriation, 2006 ............................................................................ $3,572,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ....................................................................... 3,670,000 

Recommended, 2007 ........................................................................... 3,670,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2006 .................................................................... +98,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ................................................................ ............................

The Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board was established by 

the 1987 amendments to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 to 

provide independent technical oversight of the Department of Energy’s nuclear waste disposal program. The Committee sees the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board as having a continuing independent oversight role, as is specified in Section 503 of the Nuclear 

Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended, as the Department begins 

to focus on the packaging and transportation of high-level radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel. The Committee recommends an appropriation of $3,670,000 for 

the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board in fiscal year 2007, the 

same as the budget request and an increase of $98,000 over fiscal 

year 2006 funding. 

TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

GROSS APPROPRIATION

Appropriation, 2006 ............................................................................ ............................

Budget estimate, 2007 ....................................................................... $15,100,000 

Recommended, 2007 ........................................................................... ............................

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2006 .................................................................... ............................

Budget estimate, 2007 ................................................................ ¥15,100,000 

OFFSET FROM TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY FUND

Appropriation, 2006 ............................................................................ ............................

Budget estimate, 2007 ....................................................................... ¥15,100,000 

Recommended, 2007 ........................................................................... ............................

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2006 .................................................................... ............................

Budget estimate, 2007 ................................................................ +15,100,00 

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. 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
(159) 

TITLE V 

GENERAL PROVISIONS 

The Committee recommendation includes several general provisions pertaining to specific programs and activities funded in the 

Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act. 

Prohibition on lobbying.—The bill includes a provision that none 

of the funds appropriated in this Act may be used in any way, directly or indirectly, to influence congressional action on any legislation or appropriation matters pending before Congress, other than 

to communicate to Members of Congress as described in section 

1913 of Title 18, United States Code. 

Transfers.—The bill includes language regarding the transfer of 

funds made available in this Act to other departments or agencies 

of the Federal government. 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES REPORT REQUIREMENTS 

The following items are included in accordance with various requirements of the Rules of the House of Representatives. 

CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY

Clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives states that: 

Each report of a committee on a public bill or public 

Joint resolution shall contain the following: (1) A statement citing the specific powers granted to Congress in the 

Constitution to enact the law proposed by the bill or joint 

resolution. 

The Committee on Appropriations bases its authority to report 

this legislation from Clause 7 of Section 9 of Article I of the Constitution of the United States of America which states: 

No money shall be drawn from the Treasury but in consequence of Appropriations made by law. 

Appropriations contained in this Act are made pursuant to this 

specific power granted by the Constitution. 

COMPARISON WITH BUDGET RESOLUTION

Clause 3(c)2 of ru1e XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives requires an explanation of compliance with section 

308(a)(1)(A) of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control 

Act of 1974 (Public Law 93–344), as amended, which requires that 

the report accompanying a bill providing new budget authority contain a statement detailing how that authority compares with the 

reports submitted under section 302 of the Act for the most reVerDate Aug 31 2005 05:42 May 20, 2006 Jkt 027628 PO 00000 Frm 00159 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR474.007 HR474

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
160 

cently agreed to concurrent resolution on the budget for the fiscal 

year from the Committee’s section 302(a) allocation. This information follows: 

[in millions of dollars] 

302(b) Allocation This bill 

Budget authority Outlays Budget authority Outlays 

Discretionary .................................................................................. 30,017 31,414 30,017 31,411 

Mandatory ...................................................................................... .................... 5 .................... 5 

STATEMENT OF GENERAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

Pursuant to clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, the following is a statement of general performance goals and objectives for which this measure authorizes funding: 

The Committee on Appropriations considers program performance, including a program’s success in developing and attaining outcome-related goals and objectives, in developing 

funding recommendations. 

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

Outlays: 

2007 .............................................................................................. 18,787 

2008 .............................................................................................. 9,005 

2009 .............................................................................................. 2,022 

2010 .............................................................................................. 151 

2011 and beyond .......................................................................... 65 

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 ................................................................................ $45 

Fiscal year 2006 outlays resulting therefrom .................................. 7 

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 and Related Resources: 

• of which $57,298,000 shall be available or transfer to 

the Upper Colorado River Basin Fund $26,952,000 and 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
161 

shall be available for transfer to the Lower Colorado River 

Basin Development Fund; of which such amounts as may 

be necessary may be advanced to the Colorado River Dam 

Fund; * * * • Provided further, That such transfers may be increased or decreased within the overall appropriations 

under this heading: * * * 

Under Title III, General Provisions: 

Sec. 305.—The unexpended balances of prior appropriations provided for activities in this Act may be transferred 

to appropriation accounts for such activities established 

pursuant to this title. Balances so transferred may be 

merged with funds in the applicable established accounts 

and thereafter may be accounted for as one fund for the 

same time period as originally enacted. 

CHANGES IN THE APPLICATION OF EXISTING LAW

Pursuant to clause 3(f)(1)(A) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the following statements are submitted 

describing the effect of provisions in the accompanying bill which 

directly or indirectly change the application of existing law. 

TITLE I—CORPS OF ENGINEERS

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, 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
162 

and maintenance activities at outdoor recreation areas; and allowing use of funds to cover the cost of operation and maintenance of 

dredged material disposal facilities for which fees have been collected. 

Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, Operations and Maintenance, providing that amounts made available 

under this paragraph shall be provided in accordance with the 

terms and conditions specified in the report accompanying this Act. 

Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, General 

Expenses, regarding support of the Humphreys Engineer Support 

Center Activity, the Institute for Water Resources, the United 

States Army Corps of Engineers Research and Development Center, and headquarters support functions at the United States Army 

Corps of Engineers Finance Center. 

Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, General 

Expenses, prohibiting the use of funds other funds in this Act for 

the Office of the Chief of Engineers and the division offices. 

Language has been included to provide for funding for the Office 

of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works). 

Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, Administrative Provisions, providing that funds are available for official reception and representation expenses, and for purchase and hire of 

motor vehicles. 

Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, General 

Provisions, pertaining to the reprogramming of funds contained in 

title I of this Act. 

Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, General 

Provisions, pertaining to the oversight and execution of continuing 

contracts. 

Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, General 

Provisions, prohibiting the execution of any continuing contract 

that reserves an amount for a project in excess of the amount appropriated for such project in this Act. 

Language has been included prohibiting the use of funds in this 

Act to carry out the construction of the Port Jersey element of the 

New York and New Jersey Harbor or reimbursement to the local 

sponsor for the construction of the Port Jersey element until commitments for construction of container handling facilities are obtained from the non-Federal sponsor for a second user along the 

Port Jersey element. 

Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, General 

Provisions, prohibiting the expenditure of funds for operation or 

maritime related maintenance of the hopper dredge McFarland. 

Language has been included prohibiting the expenditure of funds 

to prevent or limit any reprogramming of funds for a project to be 

carried out by the Crops of Engineers. 

Language has been included relating to the repayment of the Department of Treasury’s Judgment Fund. 

Language has been included relating to the funding of A–76 

studies. 

Language has been included relating to Elk Creek Dam, Oregon. 

Language has been included relating to the master control plans 

and master manuals of the Corps of Engineers for the Alabama, 

Coosa, Tallapoosa River basin in Alabama and Georgia or the ApaVerDate Aug 31 2005 05:42 May 20, 2006 Jkt 027628 PO 00000 Frm 00162 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR474.007 HR474

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
163 

lachicola, Chattahoochee, Flint River Basin in Alabama, Georgia, 

and Florida. 

TITLE II—DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Language has been included under Bureau of Reclamation, 

Water and Related Resources providing that funds are available for 

fulfilling Federal responsibilities to Native Americans and for 

grants to and cooperative agreements with State and local governments and Indian tribes. 

Language has been included under Bureau of Reclamation, 

Water and Related Resources allowing fund transfers within the 

overall appropriation to the Upper Colorado River Basin Fund and 

the Lower Colorado River Basin Development Fund; providing that 

such sums as necessary may be advanced to the Colorado River 

Dam Fund; providing that funds may be used for work carried out 

by the Youth Conservation Corps; and providing that transfers may 

be increased or decreased within the overall appropriation. 

Language has been included under Bureau of Reclamation, 

Water and Related Resources providing that funds may be derived 

from the Reclamation Fund or the special fee account established 

by 16 U.S.C. 4601–6a(i); that funds contributed under 43 U.S.C. 

395 by non-Federal entities shall be available for expenditure; and 

that funds advanced under 43 U.S.C. 397a for operation and maintenance of reclamation facilities are to be credited to the Water and 

Related Resources account. Language has been included under Bureau of Reclamation, Water and Related Resources permitting the 

use of funds available for the Departmental Irrigation Drainage 

Program for site remediation on a non-reimbursable basis. 

Language has been included under Bureau of Reclamation, Central Valley Project Restoration Fund directing the Bureau of Reclamation to assess and collect the full amount of additional mitigation and restoration payments authorized by section 3407(d) of 

Public Law 102–575. 

Language has been included under Bureau of Reclamation, Central Valley Project Restoration Fund providing that none of the 

funds under the heading may be used for the acquisition or lease 

of water for in-stream purposes if the water is already committed 

to in-stream purposes by a court order adopted by consent or decree. 

Language has been included under Bureau of Reclamation, California Bay-Delta Restoration permitting the transfer of funds to appropriate accounts of other participating Federal agencies to carry 

out authorized programs; providing that funds made available 

under this heading may be used for the Federal share of the costs 

of the CALFED Program management; providing that use of any 

funds provided to the California Bay-Delta Authority for 

programwide management and oversight activities shall be subject 

to the approval of the Secretary of the Interior; providing that 

CALFED implementation shall be carried out with clear performance measures demonstrating concurrent progress in achieving the 

goals and objectives of the program. 

Language has been included under Bureau of Reclamation, Policy and Administration providing that funds may be derived from 

the Reclamation Fund and providing that no part of any other apVerDate Aug 31 2005 05:42 May 20, 2006 Jkt 027628 PO 00000 Frm 00163 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR474.007 HR474

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
164 

propriation in the Act shall be available for activities budgeted as 

policy and administration. 

Language has been included under Bureau of Reclamation, Administrative Provisions providing for the purchase of motor vehicles. 

Language has been included under Title II, General Provisions, 

regarding the San Luis Unit and the Kesterson Reservoir in California. This language has been carried in prior appropriations Acts. 

Language has been included under Title II, General Provisions, 

prohibiting the use of funds for any water acquisition or lease in 

the Middle Rio Grande or Carlsbad Projects in New Mexico unless 

the acquisition is in compliance with existing state law and administered under state priority allocation. 

TITLE III—DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Language has been included under Clean Coal Technology rescinding prior year balances. 

Language has been included under Fossil Energy Research and 

Development providing for vehicle and guard services, and uniform 

allowances; providing funding and limitations for the FutureGen 

program; specifying certain conditions for the Clean Coal Power 

Initiative; and, prohibiting the field-testing of nuclear explosives 

for the recovery of oil and gas. 

Language has been included under the Naval Petroleum and Oil 

Shale Reserves, permitting the use of unobligated balances, and 

the hire of passenger vehicles. 

Language has been included under the Strategic Petroleum Reserve providing for vehicle, aircraft, and guard services, and uniform allowances. 

Language has been included under Non-Defense Environmental 

Cleanup providing for the purchase of motor vehicles. 

Language has been included under Science providing for the purchase of motor vehicles. 

Language has been included under Nuclear Waste Disposal limiting the use of external oversight funds. 

Language has been included under Departmental Administration, notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, and consistent with the authorization in Public Law 95–238, to permit the Department of Energy to use revenues to offset appropriations. The appropriations 

language for this account reflects the total estimated program 

funding to be reduced as revenues are received. This language has 

been carried in prior appropriations Acts. 

Language has been included under Departmental Administration 

providing, notwithstanding the provisions of the Anti-Deficiency 

Act, such additional amounts as necessary to cover increases in the 

estimated amount of cost of work for others, as long as such increases are offset by revenue increases of the same or greater 

amounts. This language has been carried in prior appropriations 

Acts. 

Language has been included under Departmental Administration 

providing not to exceed $35,000 for official reception and representation expenses. 

Language has been included under Weapons Activities providing 

for the purchase of motor vehicles. 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
165 

Language has been included under the Office of the Administrator providing not to exceed $12,000 for official reception and representation expenses. 

Language has been included under Defense Environmental 

Cleanup for the purchase, construction, and acquisition of plant 

and capital equipment. Language has also been included requiring 

the completion of a memorandum of understanding between the 

Department of Energy and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Language has been included under Other Defense Activities providing for the purchase of motor vehicles. 

Language has been included under Bonneville Power Administration Fund providing not to exceed $1,500 for official reception and 

representation expenses, and precluding any new direct loan obligations. Language has also been included providing for expenditure 

of funds on specific fish recovery projects. 

Language has been included under Southwestern Power Administration providing that, not withstanding the provisions of 31 

U.S.C. 3302, amounts collected to recover purchase power and 

wheeling expenses shall be credited to the account as offsetting collections and remain available until expended for the sole purpose 

of making purchase power and wheeling expenditures, and to provide not to exceed $1,500 for official reception and representation 

expenses. 

Language has been included under Construction, Rehabilitation, 

Operation and Maintenance, Western Area Power Administration, 

providing not to exceed $1,500 for official reception and representation expenses. 

Language has been included under Construction, Rehabilitation, 

Operation and Maintenance, Western Area Power Administration, 

providing that, not withstanding the provisions of 31 U.S.C. 3302, 

amounts collected to recover purchase power and wheeling expenses shall be credited to the account as offsetting collections and 

remain available until expended for the sole purpose of making 

purchase power and wheeling expenditures. 

Language has been included under Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission to permit the hire of passenger motor vehicles, to provide official reception and representation expenses, and to permit 

the use of revenues collected to reduce the appropriation as revenues are received. This language has been included in prior appropriation Acts. 

Language has been included under Department of Energy, General Provisions, Section 301, providing that none of the funds may 

be used to make payments for a noncompetitive management and 

operating contract unless certain conditions are met. 

Language has been included under Department of Energy, General Provisions, Section 302, prohibiting the use of funds to prepare 

workforce restructuring plans or to provide enhanced severance 

payments and other benefits for Department of Energy employees 

under section 3161 of Public Law 102–484. 

Language has been included under Department of Energy, General Provisions, Section 303, prohibiting the use of funds to augment the funding provided for section 3161 of Public Law 102–484 

unless a reprogramming is submitted to the Committee. 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
166 

Language has been included under Department of Energy, General Provisions, Section 304, prohibiting the use of funds to prepare 

or initiate requests for proposals or other solicitations for programs 

that have not yet been funded by Congress. 

Language has been included under Department of Energy, General Provisions, Section 305, providing that unexpended balances of 

prior appropriations may be transferred and merged with new appropriation accounts established in this Act. 

Language has been included under Department of Energy, General Provisions, Section 306, prohibiting the Administrator of the 

Bonneville Power Administration to enter into any agreement to 

perform energy efficiency services outside the legally defined Bonneville service territory. 

Language has been included under Department of Energy, General Provisions, Section 307, requiring the Department of Energy 

to ensure broad public notice when it makes a user facility available to universities and other potential users or seeks input regarding significant characteristics or equipment in a user facility or a 

proposed user facility, and requiring competition when the Department partners with a university or other entity for the establishment or operation of a user facility. 

Language has been included under Department of Energy, General Provisions, Section 308, providing that funds for intelligence 

activities are deemed to be specifically authorized for purposes of 

section 504 of the National Security Act of 1947 during fiscal year 

2007 until enactment of the Intelligence Authorization Act for fiscal 

year 2007. 

Language has been included under Department of Energy, General Provisions, Section 309, regarding the laboratory directed research and development activities. 

Language has been included under Department of Energy, General Provisions, Section 310, prohibiting a tax on research and development activities to fund the Technology Commercialization 

Fund. 

Language has been included under Department of Energy, General Provisions, Section 311, prohibiting funding to implement Department of Energy Order N 351.1 modifying contractor employee 

pension and medical benefits policy. 

TITLE V—GENERAL PROVISIONS

Language has been included under General Provisions, prohibiting the use of funds in this Act to influence congressional action 

on any legislation or appropriation matters pending before Congress. 

Language has been included under General Provisions, prohibiting the transfer of funds in this Act except pursuant to a transfer 

made by, or transfer authority provided in, this Act or any other 

appropriation Act. 

COMPLIANCE WITH CLAUSE 3 OF RULE XIII (RAMSEYER RULE) 

In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, there are no changes in existing law 

made by the bill. 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
167 

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: 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
168 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 046 HR474.046
169 

RESCISSIONS

Pursuant to clause 3(f)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, the following table is submitted describing the 

rescissions recommended in the accompanying bill: 

RESCISSIONS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL

Department or Activity Amount 

Bureau of Reclamation: At Risk Desert Terminal Lakes Program ... $88,000,000 

Corps of Engineers: Construction ......................................................... 56,046,000 

Department of Energy: Clean Coal Technology .................................. 257,000,000 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
170 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 047 HR474.047
171 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 048 HR474.048
172 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 049 HR474.049
173 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 050 HR474.050
174 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 051 HR474.051
175 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 052 HR474.052
176 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 053 HR474.053
177 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 054 HR474.054
178 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 055 HR474.055