45–734 

110TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 2d Session 110–921 

ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS 

BILL, 2009 

DECEMBER 10, 2008.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State 

of the Union and ordered to be printed 

Mr. VISCLOSKY, from the Committee on Appropriations, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

together with 

ADDITIONAL VIEW 

[To accompany H.R. 7324] 

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, 2009, and for other purposes. 

INDEX TO BILL AND REPORT 

Page number 

Bill Report 

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

I. Department of Defense—Civil: 

Corps of Engineers—Civil: 

Introduction .................................................................................. 2 9 

Investigations ............................................................................... 2 16 

Construction ................................................................................. 3 23 

Mississippi River and Tributaries .............................................. 4 35 

Operation and Maintenance ....................................................... 5 37 

Regulatory Program ..................................................................... 6 53 

Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies .................................... 6 54 

Expenses ....................................................................................... 7 54 

Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) 7 55 

General Provisions ....................................................................... 8 55 

II. Department of the Interior: 

Central Utah Project Completion Account ........................................ 8 55 

Bureau of Reclamation: 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
2 

Page number 

Bill Report 

Fiscal Year 2009 Budget Overview ............................................ 9 56 

Water and Related Resources ..................................................... 9 57 

Central Valley Project Restoration Fund ................................... 11 64 

California Bay-Delta Restoration ............................................... 12 65 

Policy and Administration .......................................................... 13 66 

General Provisions ....................................................................... 14 67 

III. Department of Energy: 

Introduction ......................................................................................... ........ 67 

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy ........................................ 15 77 

Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability ...................................... 16 90 

Nuclear Energy ................................................................................... 16 92 

Legacy Management ........................................................................... ........ 97 

Clean Coal Technology ....................................................................... 18 97 

Fossil Energy Research and Development ........................................ 18 97 

Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves ......................................... 21 103 

Strategic Petroleum Reserve .............................................................. 21 103 

Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve ............................................... 21 104 

Energy Information Administration .................................................. 22 104 

Non-Defense Environmental Management ....................................... ........ 104 

Non-Defense Environmental Cleanup ............................................... 22 105 

Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning 

Fund ................................................................................................. 23 109 

Science ................................................................................................. 23 109 

Nuclear Waste Disposal ...................................................................... 24 120 

Innovative Technology Loan Guarantee Program ............................ 27 120 

Departmental Administration ............................................................ 29 121 

Office of Inspector General ................................................................. 30 122 

Atomic Energy Defense Activities: 

National Nuclear Security Administration ....................................... 30 123 

Weapons Activities ....................................................................... 30 124 

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation .............................................. 31 132 

Naval Reactors ............................................................................. 31 139 

Office of the Administrator ......................................................... 32 139 

Defense Environmental Management ............................................... ........ 142 

Defense Environmental Cleanup ....................................................... 32 145 

Other Defense Activities ..................................................................... 33 149 

Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal ....................................................... 34 150 

Power Marketing Administrations: 

Bonneville Power Administration ............................................... 34 150 

Southeastern Power Administration .......................................... 34 151 

Southwestern Power Administration ......................................... 35 151 

Western Power Administration .................................................. 36 152 

Falcon and Amistad Operating and Maintenance Fund .......... 37 152 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ........................................... 37 153 

Committee Recommendation .............................................................. ........ 153 

General Provisions .............................................................................. 38 171 

IV. Independent Agencies: 

Appalachian Regional Commission ................................................... 43 172 

Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board ........................................... 44 173 

Delta Regional Commission ............................................................... 44 173 

Denali Commission ............................................................................. 44 174 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission ....................................................... 44 174 

Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board ........................................... 46 177 

Federal Coordinator for Alaska Natural Gas Transportation 

Projects ............................................................................................. 46 177 

Tennessee Valley Authority ............................................................... ........ 178 

V. General Provisions: 

House of Representatives Report Requirements .............................. 46 179 

Additional Views ........................................................................................ ........ 322 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
3 

SUMMARY OF ESTIMATES AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee has considered budget estimates, which are contained in the Budget of the United States Government, 2009. The 

following table summarizes appropriations for fiscal year 2008, the 

budget estimates, and amounts recommended in the bill for fiscal 

year 2009. 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
4 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 01 here HR921.081
5 

INTRODUCTION

The Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill for fiscal 

year 2009 totals $33,265,000,000, $2,078,300,000 above the President’s budget request and $2,377,000,000 above the amount appropriated in fiscal year 2008. 

Title I of the bill provides $5,332,900,000 for the programs of the 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, $591,900,000 over the budget request and $258,975,000 below the fiscal year 2008 enacted level 

(excluding emergency spending). The fiscal year 2009 budget request for the Corps of Engineers totals $4,741,000,000 which is 

composed entirely of new budget authority. 

The budget request also included $5,761,000,000 in emergency 

appropriations for the provision of 100-year storm protection for 

the greater New Orleans, Louisiana area. The Committee has included this funding in a fiscal year 2008 emergency supplemental 

appropriations Act. 

Title II provides $957,479,000 for the Department of Interior and 

the Bureau of Reclamation, $163,680,000 over the budget request, 

and $193,434,000 below the fiscal year 2008 enacted level. The 

Committee recommends $42,000,000 for the Central Utah Project, 

including $987,000,000 for deposit into the Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Account, both the same as the budget request. The Committee recommends $915,479,000 for the Bureau of 

Reclamation, $163,680,000 above the budget request and 

$192,434,000 below the fiscal year 2008 enacted level. The Committee recommendation includes a rescission of $120,000,000 in unobligated balances, rather than the $175,000,000 rescission requested by the Administration. 

Title III provides $27,204,820,000 for the Department of Energy, 

$1,286,932,000 over the budget request, and $2,715,718,000 above 

the fiscal year 2008 enacted level (excluding emergency spending). 

The Committee recommends funding for renewable energy and energy efficiency programs at $2,519,152,000, an increase of 

$1,263,759,000 above the request; electricity delivery and energy 

reliability programs at $149,250,000, an increase of $15,250,000 

above the request; nuclear energy programs including the Mixed 

Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility at $1,238,852,000, a decrease of 

$101,800,000 below the request; fossil energy research and development programs at $853,978,000, an increase of $99,948,000 above 

the request. The Committee recommends $4,861,669,000 for the Office of Science an increase of $139,700,000 above the budget request and $843,958,000 above the current year. 

Environmental management activities—non-defense environmental cleanup, uranium enrichment decontamination and decommissioning, legacy management, and defense environmental cleanup are funded at $6,397,475,000, an increase of $88,764,000 above 

the fiscal year 2008 enacted level and an increase of $220,494,000 

above the budget request. 

The Committee recommends a total of $494,742,000 for the 

Yucca Mountain repository. This includes $247,371,000 for Nuclear 

Waste Disposal, the same as the request, and $247,371,000 for Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal, the same as the request. 

Funding for the National Nuclear Security Administration 

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


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
6 

nonproliferation, naval reactors, and the Office of the NNSA Administrator, is $8,823,243,000, a decrease of $274,019,000 below 

the request, and an increase of $12,958,000 above fiscal year 2008. 

The Committee recommendation includes $1,530,048,000 for Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation, an increase of $194,052,000 above 

the current year and $283,000,000 above the budget request. Funding for the Power Marketing Administration is provided at the requested levels. 

Title IV provides $305,701,000 for several Independent Agencies, 

an increase of $37,688,000 above the budget request, and 

$24,405,000 above the fiscal year 2008 enacted level. The requested 

funding is provided for the Appalachian Regional Commission, the 

Delta Regional Authority, the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety 

Board, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Inspector General, the 

Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board, the Denali Commission, 

and the Office of the Federal Coordinator for Alaska Natural Gas 

Transportation Projects. The request for the Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission is increased by $37,682,000 and no funds are provided 

for the Office of Inspector General for the Tennessee Valley Authority. 

THE ENERGY CRISIS

Across the Nation, families already stung by an economic downturn have seen their energy bills skyrocket over the last year and 

their homes and lives endangered by floods, tornados, and hurricanes. With the price of gasoline now exceeding $4.00 a gallon, and 

the potential costs of adverse consequences of global warming, such 

as an increase in frequency of severe weather, becoming painfully 

clear, the urgency to address energy and climate change has never 

been greater and the consequences of inaction more dire. Unfortunately, there are no easy or quick solutions to these problems. For 

example, from an economic perspective we cannot promise that we 

will lower the price of gasoline at the pump tomorrow, but we will 

do everything possible to help increase vehicle gas mileage. From 

a national security perspective we will work hard to enhance the 

use of biofuels to reduce our dependency on foreign sources of oil, 

but their use will not in and of themselves solve our global warming problem. Environmentally, we will work diligently to move our 

country away from a carbon based economy to reduce global warming, but our success will unfortunately not be measured in days 

and months. 

Funding provided in this bill supports a substantial expansion of 

research, development, demonstration, and deployment programs 

focused on efficiently utilizing our domestic natural resources to 

fulfill our energy needs while addressing global climate change. 

The bill supports water infrastructure investments which represent 

the Nation’s front-line defenses for protecting our homes and families from some of the possible impacts of global climate change. In 

addition, the bill recommends funding to reduce fuel consumption 

through infrastructure investments which will increase the efficiency of our marine transportation system. These expanded activities alone cannot immediately reduce our energy bills or greenhouse gas emissions substantially, but they are a critical first step 

to addressing these issues sustainably in the long-term. 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
7 

ADDRESSING HIGH GASOLINE PRICES

The Energy and Water Development appropriation includes 

$901,438,000 for research, development, demonstration, and deployment of improved vehicle technology and production of biofuels, 

$400,215,000 above the fiscal year enacted funding level and 

$326,414,000 more than requested by the President. This substantial increase includes funding for many new initiatives to address 

the impacts of high gas prices authorized in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, including new research and development programs for advancing battery technologies for electric and 

plug-in hybrid vehicles; Renewable Fuel Infrastructure grants to 

deploy more renewable fuel blends and make them more widely 

available; and Advanced Vehicles Manufacturing Facility grants as 

well as $1,000,000,000 in direct loans for assistance for automakers 

and suppliers to more readily convert domestic manufacturing capabilities for the manufacture of new vehicles which are less dependent on fossil fuels. Over the next five to ten years, the results 

of these activities should address high gas prices by reducing demand for gasoline derived from oil and increasing supplies of alternative fuels. 

ADVANCING ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

For fiscal year 2009, the Energy and Water Development appropriation includes $3,636,716,000 for research, development, and 

demonstration of advanced energy technologies, $877,203,000 above 

the fiscal year 2008 enacted funding level and $219,252,000 more 

than requested by the President. The Nation is engulfed in an energy crisis which, unlike the crisis of the 1970s, appears to be driven by fundamental, long-term economic, scientific, political and 

technological challenges. The steep increase in energy demand associated with the emergence of hundreds of millions of people from 

poverty internationally along with the significant barriers to increasing conventional energy supplies suggest the need for a fundamental transformation of our energy system. Such a radical transformation might be possible with the technologies we have today, 

but likely at significant cost. Investments in energy research, development and demonstration programs are designed to reduce 

these costs by expanding the range of options available to transform our energy system. 

The energy technology research funded at the Department of Energy ranges from basic work to map the genomes of microorganisms that digest cellulose to applied work to increase the efficiency of turbines. The Department supports research and development of renewable energy generation technologies including advanced biofuels as well as solar, wind, geothermal, ocean, tidal, and 

hydropower. Work on conservation aims at development of zero energy houses by 2020, improved energy efficiency for U.S. industry, 

technology to further increase the fuel efficiency of vehicles, improved batteries for electric and plug-in hybrid cars, and hydrogen 

storage for future vehicles. Nuclear energy currently provides 20 

percent of the electricity generation capacity of the United States. 

Sustaining this level of energy production is supported with research, subsidies for first applicants to the Nuclear Regulatory 

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


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
8 

gas-cooled next generation nuclear power plants. Fossil energy 

spending is devoted to carbon capture and sequestration so that 

coal can be used to generate energy without greenhouse gas emissions and to improving the energy efficiency of current coal-fired 

power plants. Long-term energy science research is focused on 

breakthrough ideas like fusion energy, which aims to harness the 

same source of power that enables the sun to shine to generate 

electricity here on earth. 

The Department of Energy is encouraged to pursue all the technologies that can help abate the current energy crisis while reducing greenhouse gas emissions and other adverse environmental, 

economic, and security impacts, and to do so in creative and innovative ways. The Department must maintain a careful eye toward 

what can be used in the private and public sectors in the coming 

five to fifteen years while simultaneously funding the visionary research that will be needed to realize a sustainable energy system 

over the long-term. 

FUNDING TO ADDRESS CLIMATE CHANGE

For fiscal year 2009, the Energy and Water Development appro- priation includes $6,010,124,000 to address climate change, 

$1,327,377,000 above the fiscal year 2008 enacted funding level 

and $1,930,274,000 more than requested by the President. This 

substantial increase includes $500,000,000 to support new initiatives authorized by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 

2007 (Public Law 110–140). 

Funding is provided for research, development, demonstration, 

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

gases. Support for utilization of available conservation technology 

is provided through a major new energy efficiency block grant program, the weatherization grants, state energy grants, and federal 

energy management programs. In addition, an increase in budget 

authority is provided to cover the risk of providing an additional 

$8,500,000,000 in loan guarantees to companies investing in innovative renewable and/or energy efficient technologies as well distributed energy generation, transmission, and distribution. 

Increased renewable energy production is supported through 

major refurbishment by the Army Corps of Engineers and Bureau 

of Reclamation of existing hydropower dams. Funding is also provided for research to understand and predict climate change, including climate modeling using DOE’s state-of-the-art super computers, atmospheric radiation monitoring, and long-term experiments on the response of forests and other ecosystems to increased 

atmospheric carbon dioxide. 

INTEGRATING CLIMATE CHANGE INTO LOCAL AND REGIONAL WATER

RESOURCES PLANNING

Existing water resources projects were generally planned, designed, and built on the assumption that the future would look 

pretty much like the past. A review of the historical record revealed the water levels that have been reached in historical storms, 

and the agencies use that information to design projects that protect against a certain frequency event (e.g., the 100-year storm, the 

standard project flood, etc.). There are some exceptions, such as 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
9 

where upstream development is changing runoff or where subsidence is changing the ground elevation, but generally our water resources agencies have assumed a steady-state climate. 

There is now increasing physical evidence, supported by increasing scientific consensus, that the global climate is warming, which 

will cause substantial changes to global sea level and to regional 

precipitation patterns. These changes will, in turn, affect key design parameters for water projects, such as levee heights, reservoir 

capacities, and channel depths. Global climate modeling is now sophisticated enough to be able to predict these changes on the regional scale, where they may have a significant impact over the 

typical project lifetime of Federal water resources projects. While 

not all climate models agree, especially at the regional scale, the 

Committee expects the water resources agencies under its jurisdiction, namely the Army Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation, to use the latest available climate models and forecasts 

to inform the planning and design of future water projects. 

TITLE I 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE—CIVIL 

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—CIVIL

INTRODUCTION

The Energy and Water Development Act funds the Civil Works 

component of the Army Corps of Engineers, which encompasses approximately 23,000 civilians and 190 military personnel. Army involvement in works of civil nature dates back to the origins of the 

nation. Over the years, the Corps Civil Works mission has adapted 

to accommodate changing societal needs and values. A brief legislative history and the major mission areas of the Corps have been 

included in past Energy and Water Development reports. 

INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT IN THE UNITED STATES

The Administration’s request constitutes an abject failure to 

meet the infrastructure needs of our country. Last year, this Committee characterized the budget request for the Corps as woefully 

inadequate; this year, the budget request borders on irresponsible. 

This Administration has clearly not learned the lessons of the Gulf 

Coast Hurricanes and the Minnesota highway bridge collapse. That 

lesson was a simple one—investment today can eliminate the need 

for costly emergency response tomorrow. More importantly, adequate investment today can save lives tomorrow. The budget request does nothing to meet the needs of tomorrow, is inadequate 

to meet existing requirements, and fails to provide sufficient funding to provide an economic stimulus through job creation, long term 

savings through operational efficiency of existing projects or transportation savings through optimal operation of the nation’s harbors 

and channels. Beyond economic stimulus and transportation efficiency, infrastructure investment is necessary for the safety of our 

citizens. The consequences of under-investment in flood control and 

transportation projects are too significant to remain unaddressed. 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
10 

In light of the need for increased investment in public infrastructure, the Committee recommends a significant increase to the 

Corps of Engineers budget for fiscal year 2009 to address additional priorities. While insufficient to meet all requirements, this 

funding will make progress toward adequate investment levels. The 

Committee remains adamant that the Corps of Engineers continue 

the reforms made in the last several years regarding project management and execution and out-year planning. The Committee’s expectation, regardless of the amount of the annual appropriation, is 

that the Corps will ensure its funding is expended efficiently and 

in good faith to achieve the best interests of the public. 

FISCAL YEAR 2009 BUDGET OVERVIEW

The Committee recommends a total of $5,332,900,000 for the 

Corps of Engineers, an increase of $591,900,000 above the request 

and a decrease of $258,975,000 from fiscal year 2008 enacted levels. In addition, the Committee recommends a rescission of 

$1,900,000 from funds appropriated in the fiscal year 2008 Act. 

The fiscal year 2009 budget request for the Corps of Engineers totals $4,741,000,000, $850,875,000 below the funding level enacted 

in fiscal year 2008. The bulk of this reduction was requested in the 

Construction account and would have significantly undermined the 

provision of new water resource infrastructure. Additionally, the 

budget request for the Operation and Maintenance account represents a reduction from the fiscal year 2008 enacted level, after 

adjusting for the proposal to move projects between the accounts, 

while the requirements to maintain aging existing infrastructure 

continue to increase. 

The budget request for the Investigations account reflects a severe reduction from fiscal year 2008 levels. The Administration 

proposes only $41,000,000 for studies to address water resource 

issues in cooperation with local sponsors, $20,000,000 of that 

amount is for one study, leaving a small level of funding for the 

rest of the nation. 

The requested fiscal year 2009 Construction program is 

$1,477,807,000, including $75,807,000 in the Mississippi Rivers and 

Tributaries account. The Construction request proposes six performance-based guidelines to guide the allocation of funding construction projects. Flood and storm damage reduction, navigation 

and hydropower projects are ranked by their Benefit-to-Cost Ratio 

(BCR). Aquatic ecosystem restoration projects are ranked based on 

how cost-effective they are in helping restore a regionally or nationally significant ecosystem that has become degraded as a result of 

a Civil Works project or a restoration effort that requires the 

Corps’ unique expertise in modifying an aquatic regime. Two other 

key performance guidelines give priority to projects that address a 

significant risk to human safety or provide dam safety assurance, 

seepage control, or static instability correction. Finally, the budget 

proposes funding to complete 12 projects, a new category seemingly 

designed to allow funding for one project to be included. 

The 79 construction projects requested for funding consist of 50 

Flood and Coastal Storm Damage Reduction projects (five budgeted 

for completion), 19 Navigation projects (seven budgeted for completion), five Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration projects, and five Hydropower replacement projects. 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
11 

The budget request is based on an unrealistically optimistic assumption that a proposed change to the structure of the inland waterways system revenue stream is adopted and enacted. The Administration proposes to collect lockage-based user fees for commercial barges on the inland waterways to address the declining balance in the Inland Waterways Trust Fund (IWTF), and to phase 

out the existing diesel fuel tax for these waterways. To date, the 

legislation is pending. Without enactment, the Inland Waterways 

Trust Fund will be depleted by the end of calendar year 2008. The 

Committee recommendation on this issue is discussed at length in 

the section titled Inland Waterways Trust Fund. 

The fiscal year 2009 budget request is the first to present information for Operation and Maintenance activities by 54 areas based 

on United States Geological Survey sub-watersheds. This presentation is similar to that proposed in the preceding two fiscal years. 

The Administration requests $130,000,000 for the Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program, a reduction of $10,000,000 

from current year levels. The request for the remaining accounts, 

Regulatory, Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies, Expenses and 

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

at fiscal year 2008 levels. 

The budget request includes $5,761,000,000 in a fiscal year 2009 

emergency request for the additional federal funds needed for the 

following purposes: to reduce the risk to the Greater New Orleans, 

Louisiana, area from storm surges that have a one-percent annual 

chance of occurring; to improve internal drainage; to restore and 

complete construction of hurricane and storm damage reduction 

features in surrounding areas to previously authorized levels of 

protection; and to incorporate certain non-federal levees into the 

federal system. The Committee has included this funding in a fiscal 

year 2008 emergency supplemental appropriations bill. This 

amount brings the total cost of reconstruction and the provision of 

100-year protection to the Greater New Orleans area to approximately $14,000,000,000, roughly double the original cost estimate. 

Pre-Katrina, storm damage reduction was provided through separately authorized projects, which were designed to different standards, subject to different requirements for non-federal cost sharing, 

and managed by different local entities. The budget request proposes to authorize the works in Greater New Orleans as a single 

project, to be constructed with the State of Louisiana as the costsharing partner, and subsequently maintained and operated by the 

State. The proposal is now obsolete, due to the consolidation of the 

levee boards in the greater New Orleans area at the urging of Congress. The Committee did accept the proposal to cost share the provision of 100-year protection 65 percent federal/35 percent non-federal and included it in the emergency supplemental bill. Additionally, the budget request proposes to defer by one year the state’s 

obligation to pay its $1,500,000,000 cost share. This language is not 

included in the supplemental appropriations bill as it is simply a 

restatement of existing law. 

A table summarizing the fiscal year 2008 enacted appropriation, 

the fiscal year 2009 budget request, and the Committee recommended levels is provided below. 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
12 

[Dollars in 1,000s] 

Account FY 2008 enacted FY 2009 request Committee recommended 

Investigations ........................................................................... $167,161 $91,000 $143,100 

Rescission ................................................................................ (¥100 ) — (¥1,900 ) 

Construction ............................................................................. 2,294,029 1,402,000 2,069,800 

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

Emergency appropriations 1 ..................................................... — 5,761,000 — 

Mississippi River and tributaries ............................................ 387,402 240,000 278,000 

Operation and Maintenance .................................................... 2,243,637 2,475,000 2,300,000 

Regulatory program ................................................................. 180,000 180,000 180,000 

FUSRAP ..................................................................................... 140,000 130,000 140,000 

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

Expenses .................................................................................. 175,046 177,000 177,000 

Office of Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) ......... 4,500 6,000 5,000 

Total, Corps of Engineers ............................................... 5,587,087 10,502,000 5,331,000 

Appropriations ................................................................. 5,591,875 (4,741,000 ) (5,332,900 ) 

Emergency appropriations 1 ............................................ — (5,761,000 ) (— ) 

Rescissions ..................................................................... (¥4,788 ) — (¥1,900 ) 

1 Emergency appropriations recommended in the FY 2008 Supplemental Appropriations Act. 

INLAND WATERWAYS TRUST FUND

The Committee’s recommendation includes funding for projects 

cost-shared from Inland Waterways Trust Fund largely as requested. However, to achieve this level of funding the Committee 

has suspended withdrawal of funds from the Trust Fund for several major rehabilitation projects that have been funded out of the 

Trust Fund for decades but are not legally required to do so. This 

change in policy is necessary due to the Administration’s failure to 

address declining revenues. 

The Committee is disappointed with the Administration’s lack of 

timely action on revising the structure of the revenues generated 

for this purpose. The Administration has been aware for years that 

the Trust Fund would become the limiting factor in appropriations 

for this purpose, yet little or no action has been taken. The Administration testified on March 13, 2007, in part that, ‘‘the Administration is developing and will propose legislation . . . [that] will address the decline in the balance in the Inland Waterways Trust 

Fund . . . The legislation will be offered this spring for consideration by Congress.’’ The legislation was eventually submitted to 

Congress on April 4, 2008, more than a year after it was promised 

and years after the bankruptcy of this Trust Fund was projected. 

The Committee insists that the Administration work with the appropriate authorizing committees to reach agreement on restructuring the revenue stream. The Committee will oppose any proposal which includes a change to the non-federal cost share required for inland navigation projects. 

The Committee’s recommendation in no way changes its position 

that capital improvements to the inland waterway system must be 

cost shared from the Trust Fund. All investment decisions must be 

made in light of national priorities and all projects must compete 

against each other for the limited funding. The Committee expects 

that once the revenue stream to the Trust Fund is restored, the 

total cost of these major rehabilitation projects will once again be 

cost shared at fifty percent. Due to existing obligations which acVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:06 Dec 11, 2008 Jkt 045734 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR921.XXX HR921

yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
13 

count for the vast majority of the current revenue stream, language 

is carried prohibiting the Corps from awarding any additional continuing contracts for projects funded from the Trust Fund. 

FISCAL YEAR 2009 BUDGET PRESENTATION

For the third year in a row, the Corps of Engineers has proposed 

several changes to the manner that the Civil Works program is 

presented and appropriated. The most significant change appears 

in the Operation and Maintenance account, into which four categories of projects are moved from Construction. These categories 

are: the rehabilitation of infrastructure; Endangered Species Act 

compliance; the construction of facilities, projects or features (including islands and wetlands) using materials dredged during Federal navigation operation and maintenance activities; and the mitigation of impacts on shorelines resulting from Federal navigation 

operation and maintenance activities. Additionally, the budget request aggregates operation and maintenance projects into geographical regions and provides a single appropriation for all 

projects contained within each of the 54 regions. The approach proposed by the Administration is simply a project-by-project budget 

which has been regionally aggregated to give the appearance of a 

regional or systems-level approach. The Committee supports a regional or systems approach to Operation and Maintenance budgeting, but it must be based on substantive regional analysis and 

decision-making, not merely aggregation for the sake of appearance. 

The Congress offered to consider the regional approach in budgeting operation and maintenance projects once the Corps proved 

that it was budgeting on the basis of systems-level needs rather 

than by individual project needs; the Corps has not yet accomplished this task. The fiscal year 2008 appropriation included the 

conditions under which the Congress would consider a regional appropriation of the Operations and Maintenance account and the 

movement of projects from the Construction account. To reiterate, 

the Corps is directed to prepare four systemized, integrated budgets for four different areas of the nation, the Ohio River, the Great 

Lakes, the Texas coast, and the California coast, to demonstrate 

the value of system or watershed planning and budgeting. Further, 

the Corps is directed to develop a comprehensive capital expense 

policy to distinguish clearly between activities that should be considered routine maintenance and those that should be considered 

a capital expense consistent with industry practices. Capital improvements are properly budgeted in the Construction account; 

routine activities associated with the upkeep of existing projects 

are properly budgeted in Operations and Maintenance account. 

The regionalization of the Operation and Maintenance account 

was initially proposed by the Administration to avoid congressional 

reprogramming limitations. Regrettably the Office of Management 

and Budget has politicized this account by declaring each project 

in the fiscal year 2008 program a congressional earmark, despite 

the fact that the program was appropriated largely as requested by 

the Administration. 

Additionally, the budget documents for the Corps of Engineers 

included no detailed information for this $2,475,000,000 Operation 

and Maintenance account. The documents contained no information 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
14 

on how the Administration arrived at the final funding levels for 

the 54 regional systems or information that would allow comparison to past years. The Administration further directed the Corps 

of Engineers not to release this information beyond the executive 

branch; it required a letter from this Committee in order for Congress and the public to have access to the underlying data which 

supported the regional funding level. The Administration’s problematic steps have been counterproductive. 

The Committee recognizes the Operation and Maintenance account can require a higher degree of flexibility than the Construction or Investigations accounts. As the Corps has reformed its fiscal 

management, this Committee has supported higher levels of reprogramming authority for this account without the need to seek 

approval from the Congress. The Committee has also been willing 

to consider reprogrammings necessary for the greater good, even 

when these reprogrammings are politically unpopular. It is the Administration’s own policies that have resulted in the Corps’ inability to reprogram funds necessary to meet national or regional 

needs. 

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

waterways and understands the dynamic nature of the project 

needs under this account. However, the Corps must first comply 

with the conditions necessary for the Committee to support the Administration’s budget structure. The appropriation recommendations included herein reject the Administration’s proposal and are 

consistent with the fiscal year 2008 structure. 

The following table provides a comparison of the Operation and 

Maintenance and Construction accounts for fiscal years 2006–2009: 

[Dollars in 1,000s] 

Account FY 2006 enacted FY 2007 enacted FY 2008 enacted FY 2009 request Committee recommended 

Operations and Maintenance .......... $1,969,000 $1,973,347 $2,243,637 $2,475,000 2,300,000 

[2,200,000 ] 

Construction ..................................... 2,348,000 2,336,368 2,294,029 1,402,000 2,069,800 

[1,677,000 ] 

1 Bracketed figures reflect account totals following the structure used in fiscal year 2006–2008. 

PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND EXECUTION

This Committee has repeatedly emphasized that sound infrastructure investment is not just a matter of money, but also requires continued improvements in project management and execution. The Committee recognizes and appreciates the Corps’ efforts 

in this area, but more can be achieved. 

Five-year comprehensive budget planning.—The Committee has 

not yet received the Corps’ updated five-year plan, despite repeated 

assurances that its delivery was imminent. This lack of responsiveness is disappointing. This Committee has used the Corps as an example of an agency that has consistently improved with each submission of this critical planning tool. The Committee is left to conclude that, once again, the Administration is unwilling to provide 

transparency in its own budgeting even as it exhorts the Congress 

to do so. 

Emphasis on expenditures.—Recent changes to the Corps’ budgeting and contracting policies have resulted in the carryover of sigVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:06 Dec 11, 2008 Jkt 045734 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR921.XXX HR921

yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
15 

nificant levels of funding from year to year. The Committee fully 

expected obligated balances to increase. However, the Corps is directed to minimize unobligated carryover to the extent practicable. 

This direction should not be viewed as an excuse to reprogram 

funds liberally between projects or activities, but rather an admonition to the Corps to estimate capabilities accurately and execute 

projects within baseline scope and schedules. 

Continuing contracts.—In recent years, Congress has placed restrictions on the Corps’ use of continuing contracts, a unique authority which allows the Corps to obligate the federal government 

in advance of appropriations. In response to concerns surrounding 

the reforms made to the Corps’ contracting, the fiscal year 2008 appropriation included direction to the Corps and to GAO to provide 

reports describing the overall effects, both positive and negative, of 

this new policy in relation to the Corps’ ability to execute the Civil 

Works mission, including any recommendations for changes or improvements to this policy if necessary and appropriate. 

Neither the Corps nor GAO have completed the requested reports. Accordingly, the Committee recommendation includes a provision that prohibits the use of funds to execute any new continuing contract, or modifications to an existing contract, that commits an amount for a project in excess of the amounts appropriated 

for such project or otherwise available through carryover. 

While the Committee is willing in the future to revisit its position on continuing contacts, the Corps must be mindful to only use 

continuing contracts where justified. Once issued, these contracts 

should be managed to existing and realistically expected future 

year appropriations. Under no circumstance should the contractor 

be allowed to dictate the pace of expenditures; the Corps as the 

contracting agent holds this responsibility. The Committee restates 

its direction that the Corps develop criteria and standards for the 

use of continuing contracts as well as examine alternatives to this 

contracting. 

Reprogrammings.—To ensure that the expenditure of funds in 

fiscal year 2009 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. 

Emergency Operation and Maintenance Reprogrammings.—Fiscal 

year 2008 brought significant flooding to the Midwest, resulting in 

increased sedimentation that threatened to close the lower Mississippi River to deep draft navigation. The Corps initially informed the Senate and House Committees on Appropriations that 

there was no alternative to reprogramming funds from existing Operation and Maintenance projects, despite the fact the Corps had 

approximately $10,000,000 in unobligated emergency funds that 

may be used to restore navigation projects to authorized depths 

when the sediment accumulation is the result of natural disasters. 

The situation required both Committees to intervene in the reprogramming so as not to adversely impact projects appropriated 

through the regular appropriations process. Subsequent to the initial reprogramming, less than $10,000,000 in additional funding 

was needed to maintain Mississippi River navigation. The Corps 

Headquarters requested assistance from all field offices, yet they 

were unable or unwilling to provide even minimal funding to assist. 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
16 

This response is unacceptable when the Operation and Maintenance account is $2,300,000,000. Accordingly, the Committee has 

reduced the budget request for each Operation and Maintenance 

project and funded an emergency line item, which will be used to 

respond to unforeseen requirements in this account. The Corps 

Headquarters will manage the fund, with any allocation subject to 

the consultation and approval of the House and Senate Committees 

on Appropriations. 

New Starts.—The Committee recommendation includes a limited 

number of new start studies and construction projects. The Committee recommends no new start environmental infrastructure 

projects; all new starts are limited to the traditional missions of the 

Corps of Engineers. 

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

reviews funding for the Federal government; reforms which the 

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

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

example, the Construction, Investigations and Mississippi River 

and Tributaries accounts in the budget request are almost entirely 

made of individual earmarked projects. The Administration, in selecting these projects, goes through a process that is the functional 

equivalent of earmarking. When the Committee reviews the budget 

request, it goes through a process of rigorous review and may alter 

or modify this list to reflect additional priorities. The Administration has proposed the Operation and Maintenance account on a regional basis to avoid the appearance of an earmarked account; however, the regional requests are simply aggregated individual 

projects. The method used by the Administration simply obfuscates 

the details of the budget request so that it is difficult to compare 

the information to past requests and appropriations for the projects 

owned and operated by the Corps of Engineers. 

INVESTIGATIONS

(INCLUDING RESCISSION OF FUNDS)

Appropriation, 2008 ............................................................................ $167,261,000 

Budget estimate, 2009 ....................................................................... 91,000,000 

Recommended, 2009 ........................................................................... 143,100,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2008 .................................................................... ¥24,161,000 

Budget estimate, 2009 ................................................................ +52,100,000 

This appropriation funds studies to determine the need for, the 

engineering and economic feasibility of, and the environmental and 

social suitability of solutions to water and related land resource 

problems; funds preconstruction engineering and design; data collection; interagency coordination; and research. 

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $143,100,000, a 

decrease of $24,161,000 from the fiscal year 2008 enacted level and 

an increase of $52,100,000 over the budget request. The Committee 

recommendation includes a rescission of $1,900,000 appropriated in 

Public Law 110–161. 

The budget request for this account and the approved Committee 

allowance are shown on the following table: 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
17 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 02 HR921.080
18 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 03 HR921.047
19 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 04 HR921.048
20 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 05 HR921.049
21 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 06 HR921.050
22 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 07 HR921.051
23 

Los Angeles River Ecosystem Restoration, California.—Funding is 

included to continue the existing study. This funding shall not be 

applied to the new authorization for the Los Angeles River which 

the Committee considers a new start. 

CONSTRUCTION 

Appropriation, 2008 ............................................................................ $2,289,341,000 

Budget estimate, 2009 ....................................................................... 1 1,402,000,000 

Recommended, 2009 ........................................................................... 2,069,800,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2008 .................................................................... ¥224,229,000 

Budget estimate, 2009 ................................................................ +667,800,000 1 Excludes emergency supplemental appropriations request of $5,761,000,000. 

This appropriation funds construction, major rehabilitation, and 

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

reduction, or aquatic ecosystem restoration benefits to the nation. 

Portions of this account are funded from the Harbor Maintenance 

Trust and the Inland Waterways Trust funds. 

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $2,069,800,000, 

$224,229,000 below the fiscal year 2008 enacted appropriation and 

$667,800,000 over the budget request. The Committee recommendation does not include the proposal to move funding in the 

amount of $275,000,000 for four categories of projects from the 

Construction account to the Operation and Maintenance account. 

The budget request for this account and the approved Committee 

allowance are shown on the following table: 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
24 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 07 here HR921.052
25 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 08 here HR921.053
26 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 09 here HR921.054
27 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 010 here HR921.055
28 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 011 here HR921.056
29 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 012 here HR921.057
30 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 013 here HR921.058
31 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 014 here HR921.059
32 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 015 here HR921.060
33 

Kaweah River, California.—Within the funds provided for the 

Terminus Dam, Kaweah River project, the Secretary is directed to 

reimburse the non-federal sponsor for a portion or all of the reimbursable worked carried out on the project and to ensure that the 

non-federal sponsor is fully reimbursed not later than March 1, 

2010. 

Everglades Restoration, Florida.—The Committee recommendation includes no funding for the Modified Waters element of the Everglades Restoration within the Energy and Water Development 

Appropriation. The funding for this project is contained within the 

Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies 

Appropriations Act. 

Upper Mississippi River Restoration, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, 

Missouri & Wisconsin.—The Committee directs the Corps to complete a plan to transition this project to the Navigation and Ecosystem Sustainability Program (NESP) for the Upper Mississippi 

River System. The Committee has not provided funding for this 

new project and will consider the new start when an adequate plan 

to complete ongoing projects and transition future projects to the 

new authority is received by the House and Senate Committees on 

Appropriations. In order to facilitate this transition the Corps is directed not to initiate any new projects under this authority. Funding should be focused on completion of all existing work to facilitate 

the initiation of the new authority. 

Muddy River, Boston and Brookline, Massachusetts.—Funding is 

included to continue project design and construction, including ecosystem restoration features. 

Columbia River Channel Improvements, Oregon and Washington.—The Committee has recommended the full request for this 

project, despite the fact that the Corps of Engineers has failed to 

respond to repeated requests for information that verifies that this 

level of funding would complete the project as claimed by the Administration. 

Central City, Fort Worth, Texas.—The Committee is pleased that 

the Modified Central City project, which includes efficiencies and 

additional benefits resulting from the project’s reformulation, has 

been found by the Secretary to be technically sound and environmentally acceptable. Further, the Committee notes that the Secretary signed a Record of Decision on May 21, 2008 finding the 

project to be in the public interest. The Committee directs the 

Corps to use funds provided for this project, along with any previously provided funds, to proceed expeditiously with construction 

of the modified project. 

Houston-Galveston Navigation Channels Project, Texas.—Any 

amount remaining unobligated at the end of fiscal year 2009 shall 

be used to complete outstanding work items of the Houston-Galveston Navigation Channels Project. 

Continuing Authorities Program.—The fiscal year 2008 omnibus 

appropriation directed the Corps to reevaluate the management 

and backlog of the Continuing Authorities Program (CAP). The review recently provided to the Committees on Appropriations shows 

nearly $1,000,000,000 is required to complete all existing, active 

projects. For a program that receives approximately $120,000,000 

annually, this review reaffirms the Committee’s belief that the proVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:06 Dec 11, 2008 Jkt 045734 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR921.XXX HR921

yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
34 

gram is over subscribed. A summary of the review, by CAP authority section, is included in the table below. 

CAP section Project Federal cost 

($) 

Project allocations 

thru FY 07 ($) 

FY 08 total allocations planned ($) Balance to complete 

($) 

14 ........................................................... 69,548,012 38,328,057 9,707,357 21,512,598 

103 ......................................................... 48,386,819 15,522,875 4,451,555 28,322,389 

107 ......................................................... 118,598,140 38,181,184 7,232,400 73,184,556 

111 ......................................................... 50,283,000 3,574,645 1,919,000 44,789,355 

204 ......................................................... 35,317,018 7,398,318 1,373,000 26,545,700 

205 ......................................................... 548,772,450 162,448,027 42,370,804 343,953,619 

206 ......................................................... 457,038,102 120,987,115 29,149,778 306,901,210 

208 ......................................................... 1,349,900 713,899 — 636,001 

1135 ....................................................... 267,193,752 117,611,141 29,174,000 120,408,611 

Totals ................................... 1,596,487,193 504,765,261 125,467,894 966,254,038 

In fiscal year 2009 the Committee recommendation lists projects 

for CAP Sections 103, 107, 111, 204, 205, 206, 208 and 1135, but 

only specifies funding for three of the listed projects in recognition 

of the dynamic nature of the projects within the program. No 

projects, whether requested by the Administration or Members of 

Congress, are listed for the Section 14 program. This funding is 

only for emergency streambank protection of public facilities and, 

as such, shall be distributed on the basis of urgency. 

The preceding table titled ‘‘Construction’’ includes the list of 

projects designated by Congress for fiscal year 2009 funding. The 

Corps may allocate funds to other, active projects after the funding 

for named projects is addressed. Under no circumstances shall the 

Corps initiate new projects in Section 205, 206 or 1135. New 

projects may be initiated in the remaining sections after an assessment is made that such projects can be funded over time based on 

historical averages of the appropriation for that section and approval by the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations. 

The Corps shall prioritize the projects based on the following criteria: 

Priorities for Design and Implementation (D&I) Phase: 

1. D&I work for continuing projects that have executed 

Project Cooperation Agreements (PCAs). 

2. D&I funding for projects approved by Corps Headquarters 

to execute a PCA. 

3. D&I work which does not require executed agreements 

(e.g. continuing or pre-PCA design) for ongoing projects. 

4. D&I funding for projects with approved Feasibility Reports moving into D&I. 

Priorities for Feasibility Phase: 

1. Feasibility phase funding for projects with executed Feasibility Cost Sharing Agreements (FCSAs). 

2. Feasibility phase funding for projects approved by Corps 

Headquarters to execute a FCSA. 

3. Feasibility phase work which does not require a FCSA for 

ongoing projects. 

4. Feasibility phase funding for initiations or restarts. 

Within the last-funded priority level within the D&I and Feasibility phases, if the projects qualifying for funding exceed the available funding, funds shall be allocated based on project outputs and 

the non-federal sponsor’s ability to meet local obligations. 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
35 

Remaining funds, if any, may be allocated to additional projects 

in accordance with the aforementioned priorities, except that all 

funds for Section 14 projects shall be allocated to the most urgently 

needed projects. 

The Corps is directed to maintain a split of approximately 80– 

20 percent between the Design and Implementation (D&I) phase 

and the Feasibility phase within each authority. This split should 

be considered a guideline only, as there may be specific circumstances that require a slightly different weighting. 

MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES

Appropriation, 2008 ............................................................................ $387,402,000 

Budget estimate, 2009 ....................................................................... 240,000,000 

Recommended, 2009 ........................................................................... 278,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2008 .................................................................... ¥109,402,000 

Budget estimate, 2009 ................................................................ +38,000,000 

This appropriation funds planning, construction, and operation 

and maintenance activities associated with projects to reduce flood 

damage in the lower Mississippi River alluvial valley below Cape 

Girardeau, Missouri. 

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $278,000,000, a 

decrease of $109,402,000 from the fiscal year 2008 enacted appropriation and an increase of $38,000,000 over the budget request. 

The budget request for this account and the approved Committee 

allowance are shown on the following table: 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
36 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 016 here HR921.061
37 

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

Appropriation, 2008 ............................................................................ $2,243,637,000 

Budget estimate, 2009 ....................................................................... 2,475,000,000 

Recommended, 2009 ........................................................................... 2,300,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2008 .................................................................... +56,363,000 

Budget estimate, 2009 ................................................................ ¥175,000,000 

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

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

Resources Development Acts. Related activities include aquatic 

plant control, monitoring of completed projects, removal of sunken 

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

Maintenance Trust Fund. 

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $2,300,000,000, $56,363,000 above the fiscal year 2008 enacted level and 

$175,000,000 below the budget request. The Committee rejects the 

Administration’s proposal to move $275,000,000 for four categories 

of projects from the Construction account to the Operation and 

Maintenance account. After accounting for this change, the Committee’s recommendation is $100,000,000 over the budget request. 

The budget request for this account and the approved Committee 

allowance are shown on the following table: 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
38 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 017 here HR921.062
39 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 018 here HR921.063
40 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 019 here HR921.064
41 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 020 here HR921.065
42 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 021 here HR921.066
43 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 022 here HR921.067
44 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 023 here HR921.068
45 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 024 here HR921.069
46 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 025 here HR921.070
47 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 026 here HR921.071
48 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 027 here HR921.072
49 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 028 here HR921.073
50 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 029 here HR921.074
51 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 030 here HR921.075
52 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 031 here HR921.076
53 

Arkansas Lakes (Blakely Mountain Dam, Lake Ouachita, Degray 

Lake, Narrows Dam, Lake Greeson), Arkansas.—In addition to 

budgeted activities at these Corps facilities, $964,600 is included to 

provide adequate levels of service at public facilities. 

Burns Waterway Harbor, Indiana.—The Committee has recommended $2,530,000 for this project. Dredging activities should 

place priority on the Bailly intake pipe area. 

Moriches Inlet, New York.—It is the Committee’s understanding 

that the dredging of this project will be completed in conjunction 

with a FEMA effort to place sand at Smith Point Park and 

Cupsogue Beaches. The Committee will revisit this project to ensure adequate funding is in place in the event that the project is 

not completed in this manner. 

Regional Sediment Management.—Using funds previously appropriated for Southwest Washington Littoral Drift Restoration (Benson Beach) Washington Regional Sediment Management, the Secretary shall conduct a test project by placing dredged material in 

the surf zone located on or near Benson Beach at the mouth of the 

Columbia River and monitor sediment movement and environmental impacts. This project shall be designed in concurrence with 

the existing recommendation of the bi-state working group of local, 

state, and federal entities. Additional costs beyond the previously 

appropriated funds shall be borne by non-Federal interests. 

REGULATORY PROGRAM

Appropriation, 2008 ............................................................................ $180,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2009 ....................................................................... 180,000,000 

Recommended, 2009 ........................................................................... 180,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2008 .................................................................... — 

Budget estimate, 2009 ................................................................ — 

This appropriation provides funds to administer laws pertaining 

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

in accordance with the Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act of 

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

and Sanctuaries Act of 1972. Appropriated funds are used to review and process permit applications, ensure compliance on permitted sites, protect important aquatic resources, and support watershed planning efforts in sensitive environmental areas in cooperation with States and local communities. 

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

which is the same as the budget request and the fiscal year 2008 

enacted level. 

FORMERLY UTILIZED SITES REMEDIAL ACTION PROGRAM (FUSRAP) 

Appropriation, 2008 ............................................................................ $140,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2009 ....................................................................... 130,000,000 

Recommended, 2009 ........................................................................... 140,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2008 .................................................................... — 

Budget estimate, 2009 ................................................................ +10,000,000 

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

weapons. 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
54 

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. The Committee recommends an appropriation of $140,000,000, the same as the fiscal year 2008 enacted level and $10,000,000 

above budget request. The Committee reaffirms report language 

carried in previous years directing the prioritization of sites, especially those that are nearing completion. 

FLOOD CONTROL AND COASTAL EMERGENCIES

Appropriation, 2008 ............................................................................ $— 

Budget estimate, 2009 ....................................................................... 40,000,000 

Recommended, 2009 ........................................................................... 40,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2008 .................................................................... +40,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2009 ................................................................ — 

This appropriation funds the planning, training, exercises, and 

other measures that ensure the readiness of the Corps to respond 

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

emergency operations in response to such natural disasters, including advance measures, flood fighting, emergency operations, the 

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

of certain flood and storm damage reduction projects. The requested amount is the base funding necessary for preparedness activities. 

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $40,000,000, the same level as the budget request and $40,000,000 above the fiscal 

year 2008 enacted level. 

EXPENSES

Appropriation, 2008 ............................................................................ $175,046,000 

Budget estimate, 2009 ....................................................................... 177,000,000 

Recommended, 2009 ........................................................................... 177,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2008 .................................................................... +1,954,000 

Budget estimate, 2009 ................................................................ — 

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

and certain research and statistical functions of the Corps of Engineers. 

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $177,000,000, $1,954,000 above the fiscal year 2008 enacted level and the same 

as the budget request. 

The Committee is concerned that the Corps is not filling open 

senior positions in a timely manner. The Corps of Engineers is receiving increasing appropriations on both the military and civil 

sides of its program. In addition, the Corps has a program nearly 

three times that of its annual national appropriation in the New 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
55 

Orleans area and is providing assistance for the reconstruction of 

Iraq and Afghanistan. It is critical for the success of these important missions that leadership positions are recruited for and filled 

in a timely manner. 

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

Appropriation, 2008 ............................................................................ $4,500,000 

Budget estimate, 2009 ....................................................................... 6,000,000 

Recommended, 2009 ........................................................................... 5,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2008 .................................................................... +500,000 

Budget estimate, 2009 ................................................................ ¥1,000,000 

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

Works budget and policy whereas the Corps’ executive direction 

and management of the Civil Works program are funded from the 

Expenses account. The Committee recommends an appropriation of $5,000,000, $500,000 above the fiscal year 2008 enacted level and $1,000,000 

below the budget request. 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISION

The bill includes an administrative provision limiting representational expenses and allowing for the purchase or hire of passenger 

motor vehicles. 

GENERAL PROVISIONS

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—CIVIL

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

Act to carry out any contract that commits an amount for a project 

in excess of the amount appropriated for such project that remains 

unobligated. 

The bill includes a provision prohibiting the award of continuing 

contracts for any project for which funds are derived from the Inland Waterways Trust Fund. 

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

A–76 or HPO study. 

TITLE II 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

CENTRAL UTAH PROJECT

CENTRAL UTAH PROJECT COMPLETION ACCOUNT

Appropriation, 2008 ............................................................................ $43,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2009 ....................................................................... 42,000,000 

Recommended, 2009 ........................................................................... 42,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2008 .................................................................... ¥1,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2009 ................................................................ — 

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 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
56 

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 2009 to carry out the Central Utah Project is $42,000,000, the same as the budget request, and $1,000,000 below the fiscal year 2008 enacted level. 

Within the $42,000,000 provided by the Committee, the following 

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

Utah Lake drainage basin delivery system ...................................... $28,900,000 

Water conservation measures ........................................................... 4,000,000 

Uinta Basin replacement project ...................................................... 3,400,000 

Other Title II programs ..................................................................... 2,000,000 

Total, Central Utah water conservation district ...................... 38,300,000 

The Committee recommendation includes the requested amount 

of $987,000 for deposit into the Utah Reclamation Mitigation and 

Conservation Account for use by the Utah Reclamation Mitigation 

and Conservation Commission. These funds, as proposed in the 

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

recreation mitigation and conservation projects authorized in Title 

III of Public Law 102–575; and to complete mitigation measures 

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

Provo River/Utah Lake fish and wildlife .......................................... $300,000 

Diamond Fork Fish and Wildlife ....................................................... 5,000 

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

CRSP/Statewide fish, wildlife and recreation .................................. 152,000 

Section 201(a)(1) mitigation measures ............................................. 500,000 

Total, Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Commission ............................................................................................. 987,000 

For program oversight and administration, the Committee has 

provided $1,640,000, the same level as the budget request and 

$20,000 above the fiscal year 2008 enacted level. For fish and wildlife conservation programs, the Committee has provided 

$1,073,000, the same level as the budget request and $284,000 

above the fiscal year 2008 enacted level. 

BUREAU OF RECLAMATION

FISCAL YEAR 2009 BUDGET OVERVIEW

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

and protect water and related resources in an environmentally and 

economically sound manner in the interest of the American public. 

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

the Bureau of Reclamation has developed water supply facilities 

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

agricultural, tribal, urban, and industrial needs. The Bureau conVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:06 Dec 11, 2008 Jkt 045734 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR921.XXX HR921

yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
57 

tinues to develop authorized facilities to store and convey new 

water supplies and is the largest supplier and manager of water in 

the 17 western states. The Bureau maintains 472 dams and 348 

reservoirs with the capacity to store 245 million acre-feet of water. 

These facilities deliver water to one of every five western farmers 

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

people for municipal, rural, and industrial uses. The Bureau is also 

the Nation’s second largest producer of hydroelectric power, generating 42 billion kilowatt hours of energy each year from 58 power 

plants. In addition, its facilities provide substantial flood control, 

recreation, and fish and wildlife benefits. 

Despite the significant achievements of the past, the Committee 

is concerned that Bureau of Reclamation has become a caretaker 

agency and is no longer exerting a leadership role in the provision 

of water supply or maintenance of the West’s existing water supply 

infrastructure. Current projections of increasing needs and changing hydrology necessitate a Bureau that is a leader in the provision 

of water supply in the West. The investments made in the past are 

reaching their design life; municipal needs are growing and agriculture production must be protected. Balancing these competing 

priorities will be challenging and requires active participation and 

leadership on the part of the Bureau and its technical staff. To 

meet this challenge the Secretary of Interior and the Commissioner 

of Reclamation must reinvigorate the structure and culture of the 

Bureau of Reclamation. 

The fiscal year 2009 budget request for the Bureau of Reclamation totals $751,799,000. The Committee recommendation totals 

$915,479,000 for the Bureau of Reclamation, $163,680,000 above 

the budget request and $192,434,000 below the fiscal year 2008 enacted level. 

A table summarizing the fiscal year 2008 enacted appropriation, 

the fiscal year 2009 budget request, and the Committee recommendation is provided below. 

[Dollars in 1,000s] 

Account Fiscal year 2008 enacted 

Fiscal year 2009 

request 

Committee recommendation 

Water and related resources ...................................................................... $949,882 $779,320 $888,000 

Rescission .......................................................................................... 0 ¥175,000 ¥120,000 

Central Valley project restoration fund ...................................................... 59,122 56,079 56,079 

California Bay-Delta restoration ................................................................. 40,098 32,000 37,000 

Policy and administration ........................................................................... 58,811 59,400 54,400 

Total, Bureau of Reclamation ....................................................... 1,107,913 751,799 915,479 

WATER AND RELATED RESOURCES

(INCLUDING RESCISSION AND TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

Appropriation, 2008 ............................................................................ $949,882,000 

Budget estimate, 2009 ....................................................................... 779,320,000 

Recommended, 2009 ........................................................................... 888,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2008 .................................................................... ¥61,882,000 

Budget estimate, 2009 ................................................................ +108,680,000 

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

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


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
58 

operating and maintaining existing facilities to obtain the greatest 

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

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

resources. 

For fiscal year 2009, the Committee recommends $888,000,000, $108,680,000 above the budget request and $61,882,000 below the 

fiscal year 2008 enacted level. The recommendation includes a rescission of $120,000,000, reallocating funds to higher priority 

projects. 

Reprogramming.—To ensure that the expenditure of funds in fiscal year 2009 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 

accompanying report. 

Rural Water.—The Committee recommendation includes 

$71,000,000 for Rural Water, an increase of $47,000,000 from the 

budget request. Due to competing priorities the Committee was 

only able to restore half of the cuts from fiscal year 2008 enacted 

levels. This does not lessen the importance of the program but once 

again illustrates the critical need for infrastructure investment. 

Title XVI, Water Reclamation and Reuse Program.—The Committee provides $50,000,000 for Title XVI, an increase of 

$43,000,000 over the budget request. The program supports the 

construction of facilities to develop and expand the use of recycled 

water to augment surface water supplies, helping to preserve overdrawn river and groundwater supplies, protect the environment, 

and improve the overall security and reliability of water supplies. 

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

reviews funding for the Federal government; reforms which the 

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

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

example, the Water and Related Resources account in the budget 

request are almost entirely made of individual earmarked projects. 

The Administration, in selecting these projects, goes through a 

process that is the functional equivalent of earmarking. When the 

Committee reviews the budget request, it goes through a process 

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


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
59 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 033 HR921.001
60 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 034 HR921.002
61 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 035 HR921.003
62 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 036 HR921.004
63 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 037 HR921.079
64 

Bay Area Regional Water Recycling Projects, California.—The 

Committee commends the regional willingness to work together in 

pursuing needed water recycling projects, and has recommended 

$9,000,000 for the effort. 

St. Mary’s Project, Glacier County, Montana.—The Committee 

has included $500,000 for the St. Mary’s Project, Glacier County, 

MT, in Water and Related Resources. Although funding for this 

project was authorized for the Corps of Engineers in section 5103 

of the 2007 Water Resources Development Act, this project was 

originally constructed by the Bureau of Reclamation and its rehabilitation should take place under the Bureau’s auspices. The Committee strongly encourages the Project’s sponsors to pursue the 

necessary authority for the Bureau to undertake this work. 

Jicarilla Apache Reservation Rural Water System, New Mexico.— Within funds provided, the Bureau is directed to proceed with construction of the project in a manner that comports and complements the existing work performed by the Tribe. The funds may 

also be used to reimburse the Tribe for work performed on authorized components of the project. 

CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT RESTORATION FUND

Appropriation, 2008 ............................................................................ $59,122,000 

Budget estimate, 2009 ....................................................................... 56,079,000 

Recommended, 2009 ........................................................................... 56,079,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2008 .................................................................... ¥3,043,000 

Budget estimate, 2009 ................................................................ — 

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 2009, the Committee recommends $56,079,000, 

the same level as the budget request and $3,043,000 below the fiscal year 2008 enacted level. Authorizing legislation for the San Joaquin River Restoration Fund has not been enacted by Congress; 

therefore, the Bureau of Reclamation is directed to expend the 

$7,500,000 in assumed transferred receipts within the anadromous 

fish screen program. 

Reprogramming.—To ensure that the expenditure of funds in fiscal year 2009 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 

accompanying report. 

The funds provided are intended to support the activities delineated below: 

Anadromous fish restoration program ................................................. $5,436,000 

Instream flow ......................................................................................... 300,000 

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

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

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

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


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
65 

Central Valley comprehensive assessment/monitoring program ....... 500,000 

Anadromous fish screen program ......................................................... 6,000,000 

Sacramento fish screens ........................................................................ 4,000,000 

Refugee wheeling conveyance ............................................................... 8,900,000 

Refuge water supply, facility construction .......................................... 4,694,000 

Ecosystem/water systems operations model ........................................ 7,709,000 

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

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

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

Clear Creek restoration ......................................................................... 700,000 

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

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

Total, Central Valley project restoration fund ............................. 56,079,000 

CALIFORNIA BAY-DELTA RESTORATION

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriation, 2008 ............................................................................ $40,098,000 

Budget estimate, 2009 ....................................................................... 32,000,000 

Recommended, 2009 ........................................................................... 37,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2008 .................................................................... ¥3,098,000 

Budget estimate, 2009 ................................................................ +5,000,000 

The California Bay-Delta Restoration account funds the Federal 

share of water supply and reliability improvements, ecosystem improvements and other activities being developed for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and associated watersheds by a State 

and Federal partnership (CALFED). Federal participation in this 

program was initially authorized in the California Bay-Delta Environmental and Water Security Act enacted in 1996. 

For fiscal year 2009, the Committee recommends $37,000,000, 

$5,000,000 above the budget request and $3,098,000 below the fiscal year 2008 enacted level. 

Reprogramming.—To ensure that the expenditure of funds in fiscal year 2009 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 

accompanying report. 

The funds provided are intended to support the activities delineated below: 

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

Water quality ......................................................................................... 6,000,000 

San Joaquin River salinity management ..................................... (5,000,000) 

Storage .................................................................................................... 6,450,000 

Shasta enlargement study ............................................................. (2,750,000) 

Los Vaqueros Expansion ................................................................ (200,000) 

Sites Reservoir ................................................................................ (200,000) 

San Joaquin River Basin Study .................................................... (3,300,000) 

Conveyance ............................................................................................. 9,050,000 

DMC Intertie w/California Aqueduct ............................................ (2,000,000) 

San Luis lowpoint feasibility ......................................................... (1,400,000) 

Frank’s tract feasibility study ....................................................... (2,700,000) 

DMC recirculation feasibility study .............................................. (750,000) 

South Delta improvements program ............................................. (200,000) 

Ecosystem restoration ........................................................................... 3,500,000 

Sacramento River small diversion fish screens ........................... (2,000,000) 

Bay Delta conservation plan .......................................................... (1,500,000) 

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

Planning and management activities ................................................... 2,000,000 

Total, California Bay-Delta ............................................................ 37,000,000 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
66 

POLICY AND ADMINISTRATION

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriation, 2008 ............................................................................ $58,811,000 

Budget estimate, 2009 ....................................................................... 59,400,000 

Recommended, 2009 ........................................................................... 54,400,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2008 .................................................................... ¥4,411,000 

Budget estimate, 2009 ................................................................ ¥5,000,000 

The Policy and Administration account provides for the executive 

direction and management of all Reclamation activities, as performed by the Commissioner’s offices in Washington, DC, and Denver, Colorado, and in five regional offices. The Denver and regional 

offices charge individual projects or activities for direct beneficial 

services and related administrative and technical costs. These 

charges are covered under other appropriations. For fiscal year 

2009, the Committee recommends $54,400,000, $5,000,000 below 

the budget request and $4,411,000 below the fiscal year 2008 enacted level. 

The Bureau’s five-year plan as submitted in 2008 was inadequate 

to meet the Committee’s needs. The Bureau provided a plan which 

contained only a list of projects along with, in the Administration’s 

words, ‘‘mechanistic, computer generated account data’’ for out-year 

costs. It seems that the Administration’s plan ignores actual programmatic needs and is instead built on an arbitrary funding level. 

This five-year plan is useless as a planning document and appears 

simply to be an effort to avoid the transfer of $10,000,000 from the 

Policy and Administration account to the Water and Related Resources Account. The Bureau is aware of the Committee’s dissatisfaction with the product provided and has taken no action to 

remedy the situation. Therefore, in addition to the transfer provision that was included in the fiscal year 2008 appropriation due to 

the Committee’s frustration with the Bureau’s inaction on this critical planning tool, the Committee recommendation includes a reduction to the Policy and Administration account. 

The Bureau is well aware of the Committee’s intent for a fiveyear plan—a rational, reality-based assessment of investment 

needs, by project, outlining the expected and necessary expenses 

associated with the inventory of the existing projects and the new 

investments necessary to meet Reclamation’s mission for a planning horizon of five years. The original direction for the Bureau’s 

five-year plan was contained in the Committee’s fiscal year 2006 

report, adequate time for a meaningful plan to be assembled. 

The Committee’s expectation for the fiscal year 2010 budget submission is as follows: (1) the five-year plan shall include two funding scenarios: one which reflects the Administration’s expenditure 

ceilings and a second which reflects an expenditure level consistent 

with the fiscal year 2008 appropriation, including inflation for the 

out-years; (2) a list of active projects, as defined by a project receiving funding in the previous three years, for which funding is not 

proposed in the plan; (3) a full accounting of all rural water and 

title XVI projects which are currently authorized, the total authorization, the balance to complete, and total appropriations to date; 

and (4) an explanation of the methodology used in determining the 

project allocations, together with the direction provided to field offices in the preparation of the five-year plan. 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
67 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISION

The bill includes an administrative provision allowing for the 

purchase of passenger motor vehicles. 

GENERAL PROVISIONS

DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR

The bill includes a provision regarding the San Luis Unit and 

Kesterson Reservoir in California. 

TITLE III 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

INTRODUCTION

Funds recommended in Title III provide for all Department of 

Energy (DOE) programs, including Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, Nuclear 

Energy, Fossil Energy Research and Development, Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves, the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, the 

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

Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund, Science, 

Nuclear Waste Disposal, Innovative Technology Loan Guarantee 

Program, Departmental Administration, Office of the Inspector 

General, the National Nuclear Security Administration (Weapons 

Activities, Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation, Naval Reactors, and 

the Office of the Administrator), Defense Environmental Management, Other Defense Activities, Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal, 

the Power Marketing Administrations, and the Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Department of Energy (DOE) has requested a total budget of $25,917,888,000 in fiscal year 2009 to fund programs in its five 

primary mission areas: science, energy, environment, nuclear nonproliferation and national security. The overall DOE budget request is increased 5.8 percent compared to the fiscal year 2008 enacted level, but the five mission areas fare quite differently under 

the Department’s budget proposal. Science research would increase 

by over 17.5 percent while the budget for Nuclear Nonproliferation 

decreases by 6.7 percent. The total environmental management 

budget request proposes a reduction of 2.1 percent compared to fiscal year 2008. 

Compared to fiscal year 2008, the fiscal year 2009 budget request 

for energy conservation and renewable energy is actually down by 

27.1 percent in the midst of an on-going energy crisis with increased, volatile costs for petroleum and natural gas, over-reliance 

on imported oil, and growing emissions of greenhouse gases. The 

complexity and importance of these interwoven issues suggests that 

a robust national strategy to tackle them will require significantly 

increased support of a broad range of energy technology options. 

However, the Administration has chosen to focus largely on expanding its energy technology efforts relevant to just one such technology, with a proposed 39.4 percent increase for nuclear energy. 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
68 

Moreover, this increase is primarily driven by the proposed funding 

for studies of potential nuclear fuel recycling facilities and fast reactors that comprise most of the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership proposal. 

The Committee recommends a number of significant changes to 

the fiscal year 2009 budget request to reflect specific Congressional 

priorities that better address our national interests. The Committee recommendation provides additional funds over the request 

for the Office of Science and supports the projected doubling of this 

area of research and development funding over the decade from 

2006 to 2016. Significant adjustments to funding for nuclear nonproliferation, environmental cleanup, and weapons programs are 

recommended. With the passage of the Energy Independence Security Act of 2007 (Public Law 110–140), many new programs were 

authorized that expand alternative energy research and development, and deploy renewable energy technologies to communities, 

states and industry. Including funding for some of these programs, 

the Committee provides over one billion dollars in new spending 

authority over the request for applied renewable energy and energy 

conservation research, development, demonstration, and deployment. The total funding recommended for the Department of Energy is $27,204,820,000, an increase of $2,715,718,000 over fiscal 

year 2008 and $1,286,932,000 over the budget request. 

COMMITTEE INITIATIVES

ENERGY RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, DEMONSTRATION, AND

DEPLOYMENT

The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA) mandated new fuel efficiency standards for automobiles, increasing 

them for the first time since 1978. Along with these new vehicle 

efficiency standards, Congress also authorized new research, development and deployment programs for renewable energy and energy 

conservation measures. The Congressional commitment to wean 

the U.S. economy off fossil fuels is also evident in the provision of 

additional funds for these newly authorized programs. The Committee recommends over one billion dollars in new spending authority to fund many of the new initiatives in EISA, including Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grants to help deploy renewable energy initiatives and conservation measures in states and 

local communities; Renewable Fuel Infrastructure grants to deploy 

more renewable fuel blends and make them more available for the 

public; and Advanced Vehicles Manufacturing Facility grants and 

loans for assistance for automakers and suppliers to convert U.S. 

manufacturing capabilities for the manufacture of new vehicles 

less-dependent on fossil fuels. These incentives for the deployment 

of new technologies are important, but the U.S. must also maintain 

its research base to ensure that a broad array of technology options 

is pursued to displace fossil fuel consumption. As such, the Committee recommends significant increases in applied energy research 

technologies, such as solar, wind, biomass, geothermal, and water 

power, to continue the work necessary to refine their power generation capability, making it more affordable and cost competitive with 

fossil fuels. The U.S. must maintain a robust research effort in alternative energy, balanced with effective deployment strategies. 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
69 

RESEARCH PRIORITIES AND COORDINATION

Starting from the time of the Manhattan Project and the Atomic 

Energy Commission, the Department of Energy and its predecessors have a long history of excellence in supporting innovative 

basic and applied research. One of the important legacies of this 

storied history is the Department’s strength in the physical 

sciences, where it remains the largest source of research funding 

in the federal government. The major increase in funding for the 

Office of Science authorized by the America COMPETES Act (Public Law 110–69) is intended to begin to remedy years of neglect in 

support for these research areas and to address the recommendations in the report by the National Academies, Rising Above the 

Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future. The Committee substantially supports this increase, which will directly fund an additional 2,600 individuals engaged in research sponsored by DOE’s Science account. 

In general, the Department performs its basic science research 

and applied energy research missions quite well for the level of 

support provided. The Committee notes that the Department sponsors energy research and development through the Office of Science 

as well as the four applied energy programs—Energy Efficiency 

and Renewable Energy, Fossil Energy, Nuclear Energy, and Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability. One of the issues that this 

Committee raised repeatedly in recent years is the lack of coordination among these programs to ensure that mission-critical science 

needs and opportunities that span multiple programs are being appropriately addressed. The Committee is pleased to note that the 

Department has taken some encouraging steps in this direction, including the completion of twenty planning workshops arranged by 

the Office of Science in consultation with the applied technology 

programs in order to address the scientific barriers to progress in 

applied technology missions; integrated budget documentation for 

six key research and development areas of significant interest to 

the missions of multiple programs; and the proposal to fund over 

two dozen Energy Frontier Research Centers (EFRC) to tackle 

many of the of these critical science needs. The Committee directs 

the Department to continue to support and expand these efforts 

and take the steps needed to ensure that R&D integration is implemented at all levels across the Department in planning, budgeting, 

and execution. The Department is directed to provide the Committee with a report detailing progress on these efforts no later 

than March 1, 2009. 

However, successful research integration requires strong programs across the Department spanning both the basic and applied 

sciences. Unfortunately, the budget request woefully underfunds 

many critical applied energy research and development activities in 

the applied energy technology programs, particularly Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. This Committee strongly rejects this 

unbalanced approach by providing robust funding for applied research and development to complement increases in basic science. 

Even with this increased funding, the Committee still remains concerned by the lack of support in the Department for long-term applied research focused on advancing innovative ideas which fall between basic science research and the short-term technology develVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:06 Dec 11, 2008 Jkt 045734 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR921.XXX HR921

yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
70 

opment and demonstration efforts which are the focus of the applied technology programs. The Committee directs the Office of 

Science to work with the energy technology programs to identify 

priority, long-term applied science efforts that should be considered 

for enhanced investment by the applied technology programs, jointly with the Office of Science as appropriate. The Department is directed to provide the Committee with a report detailing progress on 

these efforts no later than March 1, 2009. 

MAJOR COMMITTEE CONCERNS

CONGRESSIONAL DIRECTION

Article I, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution states ‘‘No money 

shall be drawn from the Treasury but in consequence of Appropriations made by law’’. The Committee has reminded the Department 

of this Constitutional provision during budget hearings because of 

the repeated disregard of Congressional direction in the execution 

of appropriations law by the Department. The Department on several occasions has circumvented the clear intent of Congress, seeking to satisfy Administration desires rather than Congressional 

mandates. In the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Congress appropriated funds for the construction and management of 

the Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility in the Nuclear Energy 

appropriations account. Subsequent to this Act being signed into 

law by the President, the Department determined that its preference is to manage the project as DOE always has, within the Office of Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation, disregarding the most recently passed Congressional statutory language. The Committee 

has provided additional statutory direction in fiscal year 2009 to reinforce the Committee’s intent. The Department should execute 

this project as it is appropriated under the Office of Nuclear Energy. 

The report accompanying the fiscal year 2008 appropriations bill 

also directed the Office of Nuclear Energy to compete 50 percent 

of the research funds provided for the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP). The Department did not agree with this direction 

and so it continued to obligate funds in a non-competitive manner, 

until it became impossible to comply with the Congressional direction. The Committee has eliminated all funding for the Administration’s GNEP initiative for fiscal year 2009 and redirected a smaller 

amount to the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative. 

CONTRACT AND PROJECT MANAGEMENT

Project management is the Committee’s number one organizational concern at the Department of Energy. The Department of 

Energy is the largest civilian contracting agency in the federal government and spends over 90 percent of its annual budget on contracts to operate its laboratories, production facilities, and environmental restoration sites. In 1990, the Government Accountability 

Office (GAO) began an annual assessment resulting in a list of programs that are at high risk for fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement. DOE project management, as well as its contract 

management, have been on this list since its inception. The Office 

of Engineering and Construction Management (OECM) has been 

helpful in instilling project management discipline within the DeVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:06 Dec 11, 2008 Jkt 045734 PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR921.XXX HR921

yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
71 

partment. The Committee supports the work of this Office, and in 

particular supports the ‘‘root-cause analysis’’ that OECM has initiated to identify and correct the reasons why the Department repeatedly remains on the GAO high-risk list. The Committee looks 

forward to the corrective action plan that OECM is preparing based 

on the root-cause analysis. 

In the fiscal year 2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act, the Congress provided funds for the Department to contract with the National Academy of Public Administration for a review of procurement and contracting processes at the Department, among other 

administrative functions. While the legislation was signed in December 2007, the Department was not able to award the contract 

until May of 2008, five months later. The Committee looks forward 

to the recommendations of the Academy and hopes the next Administration will consider the Academy’s recommendations as it fills its 

senior management positions and establishes priorities for DOE. 

With the passage of eighteen years on the GAO high risk list, the 

DOE should have a sense of urgency to improve. 

SPENT FUEL MANAGEMENT

The Committee continues to be frustrated and disappointed in 

the lack of an integrated approach from the Department to managing spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste. Responsibilities for spent fuel and radioactive waste are divided among 

multiple program offices, primarily the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management (for the Yucca Mountain repository), the 

Office of Environmental Management (for site cleanup and stewardship of the Department’s spent fuel and high level waste), the 

Office of Naval Reactors (for Navy spent fuel), and the Office of Nuclear Energy (for researching options to recycle spent fuel). 

Each of those program offices is making varying degrees of 

progress on its respective spent fuel and high-level waste responsibilities. In particular, the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste 

Management has done an exceptional job submitting the license 

application for Yucca Mountain in early June 2008. However, what 

is commendable focus from the perspective of individual program 

offices can in fact become tunnel vision when viewed from a broader outlook. The Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management 

has been lukewarm about interim storage or beginning work on the 

second repository, in that it views these alternatives as ‘‘distractions’’ from its primary focus on Yucca Mountain. The Office of Environmental Management is focused on cleaning up radioactive 

waste at sites such as Hanford and Savannah River. Unfortunately, that focus on making progress at the site level ignores the 

fact that Yucca Mountain, as presently authorized, does not have 

the capacity to handle all of the high-level waste and spent fuel 

from the entire DOE complex. The cleanup schedules assume, 

somewhat naively, that an expanded Yucca Mountain repository 

will be available to dispose of all high-level waste beginning around 

2020. 

The Office of Nuclear Energy has become so enamored of advanced recycling technologies, and proselytizing its GNEP vision 

around the world, that it has lost sight of its responsibilities to address the domestic spent fuel backlog. The long-range recycling vision, which would not touch domestic spent fuel in any significant 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
72 

quantities until approximately two decades from now, might make 

sense if the Department has any near-term solution to spent fuel, 

such as interim storage. But it does not. 

Meanwhile, the financial liability against the Federal govern- ment, which may well exceed $7,000,000,000, mounts daily. This liability might be a strong motivator for the Administration and 

Congress to move aggressively to address spent fuel disposition. 

However, when DOE fails to reflect that liability anywhere in its 

budget, or show that liability elsewhere in the federal budget, it 

loses the leverage that this liability might provide. As DOE indicates a willingness to enter into modified standard contracts for 

new reactors, it only compounds the liability facing the federal government. 

Yucca Mountain is the linchpin for the Department’s entire spent 

fuel strategy. If Yucca does not open on schedule, if its capacity 

cannot be expanded, or if a reliable source of financing is not secured, then the other elements of DOE’s spent fuel strategy will 

collapse. While advanced recycling might, in theory, reduce the 

need for additional Yucca Mountain-sized repositories in the distant future, there is still a need for that first repository to accommodate spent fuel that cannot be recycled, the very substantial 

high-level waste products from any recycling process, and the highlevel waste from DOE cleanup sites. Again, without Yucca, the Department has no spent fuel strategy. 

The Department lacks a robust, integrated strategy that will deal 

with our existing and projected quantities of spent fuel and highlevel waste over the next several decades, in a manner that is financially responsible, technically sound, and politically feasible. 

The Department hinges all of its planning on Yucca Mountain and 

the hope that the repository will be operational by the end of the 

next decade. It also hopes that it will succeed in removing the statutory cap on the capacity of the repository, and will succeed in creating an off-budget financing mechanism for the repository program. These are nothing more than wishful thinking at this point; 

no rational observer would conclude that DOE has a chance of enacting these legislative changes in the near future. 

The Committee is hopeful that the next Administration will take 

a more comprehensive and responsible approach to the management of spent fuel and high-level radioactive waste. 

The Committee directs the Department to submit to the House 

and Senate Committees on Appropriations, not later than March 1, 

2009, a comprehensive report detailing all current and anticipated 

spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste, the current locations, quantities, and types of these materials, the destination for 

permanent disposal, and the planned shipment date to the disposal 

site. This comprehensive report should include all spent reactor 

fuel from any source (i.e., commercial power reactors, Navy reactors, domestic research reactors, and U.S.-origin fuel for foreign research reactors) and all domestic high-level radioactive waste that 

will require permanent disposal in the U.S. by the year 2050. 

These requirements may stem from statutory requirements, contractual requirements, agreements with regulators and affected 

States, court-ordered agreements, or agreements with foreign governments. The estimated amounts and shipment dates of spent fuel 

and high-level waste must be consistent with current DOE cleanup 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
73 

plans and existing regulatory and court-ordered agreements. The 

forecast of anticipated spent fuel from future reactors should be 

consistent with current forecasts for U.S. nuclear energy by the Energy Information Administration. If the forecasts exceed the presently-authorized capacity at Yucca Mountain, then the Department 

must identify, with specificity, its plans for disposing of 100% of 

these materials. 

ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT

Of all the programs within the Department of Energy, the Environmental Management (EM) program is most vulnerable to a complete breakdown in operations. A combination of factors—lack of 

transparency in operations, inability to communicate the progress 

or disruption of programs, poor contract management, severe cost 

overruns on projects, poor contractor oversight, and commitment to 

legal milestones knowing they will never be met—contributes to 

this state of affairs in the EM organization. Recent GAO findings 

documenting many of these factors have only strengthened the 

Committee’s conviction that EM project management is dangerously flawed. 

The fiscal year 2009 budget was submitted by the Administration 

with the full acknowledgment that all legal milestones were not 

being met. With GAO documentation of unreliable cost estimates 

and lack of project management rigor in mind, this acknowledgment is likely one of the few Departmental claims that the Committee can believe. Some compliance milestones will surely be 

missed, though it is doubtful whether the EM program is best utilizing all its resources—over six billion dollars annually—to the 

greatest effect. The underlying data necessary for integrity of information are absent in the EM program. The tragedy of the situation 

is that the stakes are so high at several of the EM sites. For example, millions of gallons of high-level liquid radioactive waste from 

five decades ago remain in single shell tanks at Hanford, threatening the Columbia River Valley and its downstream population. A 

forthcoming GAO report notes little has been achieved in the last 

15 years to remedy the situation, while billions of dollars have been 

expended. The EM program needs to present a credible and coherent system for planning, budgeting, and executing its program as 

well as tracking its progress and reporting that progress to Congress. It may be that operations are working well at many of the 

smaller EM sites, but unfortunately the high-profile failures at 

sites like Hanford and Savannah River call the entire EM program 

into question. 

NUCLEAR WEAPONS ACTIVITIES

The Committee is concerned that NNSA’s nuclear weapons programs have lost their direction. The United States has the most destructive nuclear arsenal in the world, far more effective than those 

of all other nations combined. However, U.S. nuclear weapons, and 

the complex that supports them, were built to Cold War legacy requirements. Nuclear yields are too high while margins and surety 

are too low. The weapons complex is far larger and more costly 

than present or future needs require. Yet the Departments of Energy and Defense have not produced a strategy specifying the purpose of the nuclear stockpile in the post Cold War world. In the abVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:06 Dec 11, 2008 Jkt 045734 PO 00000 Frm 00073 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR921.XXX HR921

yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
74 

sence of a strategy, it is impossible to make rational decisions on 

the size and composition of the stockpile and the complex that supports it. 

The Committee commends NNSA for its excellent and innovative 

work on Stockpile Stewardship which has, without nuclear testing, 

produced a far more secure basis for confidence in the nuclear 

stockpile than could ever be attained by nuclear testing alone. The 

Committee also commends NNSA for its progress in safely dismantling excess nuclear weapons. Nevertheless, the Committee is highly averse to spending the taxpayers’ money when no long-term 

strategy underlies the expenditure. Accordingly, the Committee has 

made numerous reductions to the Nuclear Weapons Activities requests, and in most cases has refused to fund new starts. 

The Committee recognizes that the national weapons laboratories—Los Alamos, Lawrence Livermore, and Sandia—have highly 

trained personnel and specialized facilities which have potential 

applications in addition to national security missions. With steady 

or decreasing funding in the weapons accounts, these laboratories 

are searching for a broader mandate, with a multiplicity of on-site 

agency clients and programs. Like the non-weapons laboratories, 

the weapons labs must compete on the basis of cost and performance, and on a level playing field. No lab is entitled to any portion 

of non-NNSA programs at the Department. 

At the same time, the weapons laboratories enjoy protections and 

authorities derived from the National Nuclear Security Administration Act (NNSA Act) which other laboratories do not. Often, these 

authorities lead to illogical conclusions which erode accountability 

of taxpayer funds. Without top-level planning and guidance, the activities of our weapons laboratories are likely to continue to diversify, perhaps even to the detriment of the DOE mission. The Committee strongly encourages the Department to work with the laboratories to develop 10-year plans which ensure that any work occurring on weapons laboratories using non-NNSA funding has a 

clear, accountable, legally-enforceable line of authority to the appropriate program office outside of NNSA. This probably will necessitate amending the NNSA Act, which prohibits the accountability 

of the weapons laboratories to non-NNSA officials in DOE. The 

plans should also ensure that all laboratories competing for nonNNSA funding do so on a level playing field. The Administration 

should prepare and submit a legislative proposal if necessary to 

achieve these objectives. 

NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION

The Committee regards nuclear nonproliferation to be of highest 

priority. If nuclear nonproliferation fails, the adverse impact on 

human civilization could be immense. Nuclear nonproliferation presents a massive challenge, both because it requires overcoming a 

combination of technical and political hurdles and because it is required to undo past misjudgments. These misjudgments were made 

when the world was less complex and nuclear nonproliferation 

needs seemed largely confined to gaining national ratifications of 

the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. At that time, nuclear weapons appeared clearly and securely confined to a small number of 

states which understood that their national safety lay in avoiding 

the use of such weapons. Today, civilization faces the prospect that 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
75 

nuclear weapons or materials may fall into the wrong hands and 

be used not for national purposes which can be negotiated or deterred, but to cause death and destruction for its own sake. An additional challenge is the fact that while the technical requirements 

for making a nuclear device are not becoming more difficult, the 

technical knowledge needed to make the device is becoming more 

readily obtainable. DOE Nuclear Nonproliferation programs seek to 

counter these adverse trends by reducing the amount of nuclear 

material in the world, bringing it under better control and concentrating it in fewer and more secure locations, gaining the support 

of more governments in this effort of mutual self-interest, and improving civilization’s ability to detect and/or counter potential terrorist nuclear devices. While much progress has been made, much 

remains to be done. The Committee regards DOE’s requests, with 

the exception of the counterproductive Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP), to be generally well conceived and well executed, 

but insufficient. The Committee has added unrequested funding in 

several key areas, but the Committee encourages NNSA to take a 

more farsighted and comprehensive view of its nuclear nonproliferation responsibilities in the future. 

FEDERAL STAFFING

Like many other Federal agencies, the Department of Energy is 

facing a human resources challenge as a large fraction of its federal 

workforce approaches retirement age. Recruiting and retaining talented younger individuals is critical to the future success of the Department. The Department of Energy is uniquely dependent on its 

contractors for executing almost the entirety of its energy, science, 

environmental and national security missions. Many of these DOE 

contractors offer better compensation packages than the Federal 

government, and promising young Federal employees are often 

lured away. While many technical tasks can be delegated to contractors, essential program management and other inherently governmental functions (e.g., budget formulation, contract administration, etc.) cannot. Fortunately, there are a number of intangible 

satisfactions that continue to make service in the public sector appealing and rewarding. 

For DOE to be effective in the future, and for DOE to stay in 

control of its contractors, it is essential that DOE maintain a 

skilled, motivated, and well-compensated Federal workforce to execute governmental functions. The Committee fully supports efforts 

to strengthen and revitalize the Federal workforce at DOE. 

REIMBURSABLE WORK

It has come to the attention of the Committee that almost one 

in six dollars spent by the Department is for work for others. Some 

of this work is complementary to the Department’s work, and some 

of it is judicious use of assets through the Economy Act to avoid 

costs to other agencies. However, the fact that such a large portion 

of the Department’s workforce and assets are employed in the service of others leaves the Department potentially vulnerable to unanticipated shifts in funding over which it has little or no control. Unfortunately, the current system of accounting does not make it 

transparent where those vulnerabilities might exist, and deprives 

the Department’s management, the Administration, and the ConVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:06 Dec 11, 2008 Jkt 045734 PO 00000 Frm 00075 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR921.XXX HR921

yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
76 

gress of valuable information that might help plan for and manage 

reimbursable work. In an effort to promote additional transparency 

and oversight, language is provided that requires DOE to account 

for its reimbursable activities in the accounts that are most closely 

related in mission to the work being carried out. In the event that 

the activity is not related to DOE’s mission, the Department must 

report these activities in the account that would normally fund the 

resources being used in reimbursable work, or owns the assets 

being used in reimbursable work. 

Reporting Requirement.—It has also come to the attention of the 

Committee that some enormous carryover balances exist in the national laboratories in the work for others reimbursable accounts. 

This leads the Committee to believe that more work scope is being 

accepted than can reasonably be executed. The Committee directs 

the Department to report to the Committees on Appropriations on 

a quarterly basis on the status of work for others activities in each 

of the national laboratories and DOE programs. 

FINANCIAL REPORT

The Committee renews the direction provided in previous fiscal 

years requiring the Secretary to submit to the Committees on Appropriations a quarterly report on the status of all projects, reports, 

fund transfers, and other actions directed in this House bill and report. Any reports, transfers, or other actions directed in prior fiscal 

years that have not been completed as of the date of enactment of 

this Act should also be included in this quarterly report. 

REPROGRAMMING GUIDELINES

The Committee requires the Department to inform the Committee promptly and fully when a change in program execution and 

funding is required during the fiscal year. To assist the Department in this effort, the following guidance is provided for programs 

and activities funded in the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act. The Committee directs the Department to follow this 

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

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 requested 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 conVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:06 Dec 11, 2008 Jkt 045734 PO 00000 Frm 00076 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR921.XXX HR921

yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
77 

ditions 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 2009, unless specifically identified in the House report for particular programs, projects, or activities. Any reallocation of new or prior year budget authority or 

prior year deobligations must be submitted to the Committees in 

writing and may not be implemented prior to approval by the Committees on Appropriations. 

CONGRESSIONALLY DIRECTED PROJECTS

To ensure that the expenditure of funds in fiscal year 2009 is 

consistent with Congressional direction, the bill incorporates by reference the Congressionally directed projects identified in the report 

accompanying this Act into statute. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee’s recommendations for Department of Energy 

programs in fiscal year 2009 are described in the following sections. 

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

ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY

Appropriation, 2008 ............................................................................ $1,722,407,000 

Budget estimate, 2009 ....................................................................... 1,255,393,000 

Recommended, 2009 ........................................................................... 2,519,152,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2008 .................................................................... +796,745,000 

Budget estimate, 2009 ................................................................ +1,263,759,000 

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

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

and biorefinery systems, geothermal technology, hydrogen technology, water power, solar energy, and wind energy technologies. 

Energy conservation activities include improving the efficiency of 

vehicle, building, fuel cell, and industrial technologies, and the Federal Energy Management Program. Federal energy assistance programs include weatherization assistance, state energy programs, 

international renewable energy program, tribal energy activities, 

and the renewable energy production incentive. The Committee 

recommendation includes funding for new federal assistance programs authorized in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 

2007, including energy efficiency block grants, advanced technology 

vehicles manufacturing incentives, domestic manufacturing conversion grants, and renewable fuel infrastructure grants. 

The total Committee recommendation for Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy (EERE) programs is $2,519,152,000, an increase 

of $1,263,759,000 over the budget request, and an increase of 

$796,745,000 over fiscal year 2008 enacted levels. The Committee 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
78 

recommendation provides an increase of $381,489,000 for renewable energy and conservation research and development activities; 

an increase of $259,500,000 for existing federal energy assistance 

programs, including $250,000,000 for Weatherization Assistance 

funding; and $500,000,000 for new federal assistance programs authorized in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 over 

the budget request. 

Reporting Requirements.—The Committee directs the Department to quantify and track the progress and impact of the substantial investments the Committee has made in the Energy Efficiency 

and Renewable Energy portfolio. The Department shall report to 

the Committee on an annual basis on the return on investment for 

each of the accounts. 

Cross-Technology Projects.—As local governments implement renewable energy and energy conservation measures in their communities, some approaches may involve a variety of technologies at 

once. Therefore the Department needs to provide appropriate flexibility in its funding opportunities for grants and deployment efforts 

that can accommodate multiple technologies (e.g. geothermal and 

solar). In accordance with the Energy Independence and Security 

Act 2007, the Department is directed to make available up to 

$20,000,000 of EERE research, development, demonstration and 

deployment funds for projects at the local level capable of reducing 

electricity demand with multiple technologies and involving public 

and private partnerships. The Department shall give priority to 

projects with substantial local cost-share match, that are replicable 

in the future under market conditions after demonstration of cost/ 

benefit advantages, and that meet goals of greenhouse gas and 

water use reductions. 

Minority outreach programs.—The Committee directs DOE to implement an aggressive program to take advantage of the Historically Black Colleges and Universities and Hispanic Serving Institutions across the country in order to deepen the recruiting pool of 

diverse scientific and technical staff available to support the growing renewable energy marketplace. 

RENEWABLE ENERGY AND ENERGY CONSERVATION RESEARCH, 

DEVELOPMENT, DEMONSTRATION, AND DEPLOYMENT

The Committee recommends $1,579,120,000 for renewable energy 

and energy conservation research, development, demonstration, 

and deployment programs, an increase of $381,489,000 over the 

budget request. 

Hydrogen Technology.—The Hydrogen Technology program seeks 

to research, develop and evaluate hydrogen fuel cell, delivery, and 

storage technologies. This program supports the use of hydrogen 

from diverse domestic resources in a clean, safe, reliable, and affordable manner in fuel cell vehicles and stationary power applications. The Committee recommendation is $170,000,000, an increase 

of $23,787,000 over the budget request, of which $15,787,000 is to 

establish a Market Transformation program to assist other agencies in purchasing portable, stationary, and transportation fuel cell 

systems, $3,000,000 is to restore funding for fuel processor R&D 

and $5,000,000 is to restore manufacturing R&D funding to prior 

year levels. The Committee does not provide funding for hydrogen 

production in the EERE account, as proposed in the budget reVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:06 Dec 11, 2008 Jkt 045734 PO 00000 Frm 00078 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR921.XXX HR921

yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
79 

quest. Instead, the Committee recommends $15,000,000 in the Office of Science for basic research on renewable energy hydrogen 

production. The Committee recommendation of $170,000,000 in 

EERE includes $59,200,000 for hydrogen storage R&D, the same as 

the budget request and an increase of $15,699,000 over fiscal year 

2008 enacted levels; $62,700,000 for fuel cell stack and component 

R&D, the same as the budget request and an increase of 

$19,100,000 over fiscal year 2008 enacted levels; and $6,600,000 for 

transportation fuel cell systems, $10,000,000 for distributed energy 

fuel cell systems, and $7,713,000 for systems analysis, each the 

same as the budget request. These efforts are complemented by 

$75,400,000 provided for basic research relevant to hydrogen production, storage, and utilization in the Office of Science for a total 

of $245,400,000 for hydrogen RDD&D. The Committee supports the 

budget request to transfer technology validation, education and 

safety, codes and standards activities to the vehicle technology program beginning in fiscal year 2009. 

Biomass and Biorefinery Systems R&D.—Biomass and Biorefinery Systems R&D conducts research, development and technology validation on advanced technologies that will enable future 

biorefineries to convert cellulosic biomass to fuels, chemicals, heat 

and power. The program focuses on reducing processing energy requirements and production costs in biomass processing plants and 

future integrated industrial biorefineries. The Committee supports 

efforts to develop cellulosic feedstocks that are not used as food 

sources. 

The Committee recommendation for integrated research and de- velopment on biomass and biorefinery systems is $250,000,000, an 

increase of $25,000,000 over the budget request, of which no less 

than $25,000,000 is for grants for the production of advanced 

biofuels as authorized under Section 207 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (Public Law 110–140). This funding 

is complemented by $95,000,000 provided for bioenergy basic research in the Office of Science for a total of $345,000,000 for bioenergy RDD&D. 

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 recommends $220,000,000 for solar energy programs, an increase of $63,880,000 over the budget request. The increase is for 

research and development activities as authorized under Sections 

602, 603, 604, 605, and 606 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (Public Law 110–140), which support thermal energy storage, concentrating solar power, workforce training, daylight systems, and solar air conditioning. These efforts are complemented by $69,089,000 provided for basic research relevant to 

solar energy utilization in the Office of Science for a total of 

$289,089,000 for solar energy RDD&D. The Committee directs the 

Department to provide an implementation plan within 90 days of 

enactment describing how they intend to spend the funds provided, 

including coordination with work in the Office of Science. 

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 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
80 

of offshore wind systems further from shore, particularly beyond 

the viewshed of coastal communities. The Committee recommends 

$53,000,000 for wind energy systems, an increase of $500,000 over 

the budget request, for wind turbine technology. 

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 Committee recommendation provides $50,000,000, 

an increase of $20,000,000 over the budget request for technology 

development and application strategies for enhanced geothermal 

systems, to be competitively awarded to industry, universities and 

national laboratories for exploration, drilling and conversion technologies. 

Water Power R&D.—The Committee recommends $40,000,000 for 

water power research and development, an increase of $37,000,000 

over the budget request. The Committee directs $30,000,000 for 

basic and applied technology research and development for ocean/ 

marine renewable technologies, including demonstration programs, 

and $10,000,000 for conventional hydropower research, development and deployment. 

Vehicle Technologies.—The Vehicle Technologies program seeks 

technology breakthroughs that will greatly reduce petroleum use 

by automobiles and trucks of all sizes, these technologies include 

R&D on lightweight materials, electronic power control, high power 

storage, and hybrid electric drive motors. The Committee recommends $317,500,000, an increase of $96,414,000 over the budget 

request. 

The fiscal year 2009 budget request for vehicle technologies includes funding for programs historically requested and appropriated in the hydrogen technology account. The Committee supports the transfer of technology validation, safety codes and standards, and education activities to the Vehicles Technologies account. The Committee recommends $172,974,000 for Hybrid Electric Systems, an increase of $69,613,000 over the budget request, to include $30,000,000 for technology validation, an increase of 

$15,211,000 over the budget request to restore funding to fiscal 

year 2008 levels; and $76,663,000 for energy storage R&D as authorized under Section 641(g) of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA, Public Law 110–140), an increase of 

$27,206,000 over the budget request, of which $5,000,000 is for secondary applications and disposal of electric drive vehicle batteries 

authorized under Section 641(k) of EISA. When combined with 

$33,938,000 provided to the Office of Science for basic science relevant to electrical energy storage and $13,403,000 for energy storage for utility scale applications, the recommendation includes 

$124,004,000 for electrical energy storage RDD&D, one of six integrated areas highlighted in the budget request. The Committee recommends $28,322,000 for Vehicle and Systems Simulation and 

Testing, an increase of $7,196,000 over the budget request to restore funding to fiscal year 2008 levels. The Committee recommends $20,000,000, not included in the budget request, for demonstrations of light-duty and heavy-duty plug-in vehicles as authorized in EISA section 131(b). 

The Committee recommends $38,600,000 for Advanced Combustion Engine R&D, to include $8,500,000 for heavy truck engine 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
81 

projects, an increase of $5,000,000 over the request for new heavy 

truck engine initiatives to achieve greater systems thermal efficiency. The Committee recommends $40,903,000 for Materials 

Technology to include $23,458,000 for light weight materials technology an increase of $4,000,000 over the request for research activities authorized in EISA Section 651. The Committee supports 

the lightweight materials research and development on advanced 

high-strength steels to reduce the weight of commercial and passenger vehicles. The Committee recommends $16,122,000 for Fuels 

Technology, the same as the budget request. The Committee recommends $48,901,000 for Technology Integra- tion, an increase of $17,801,000 over the request to include 

$25,000,000 for Clean Cities, an increase of $14,904,000 over the 

budget request; $15,000,000 for safety codes and standards, an increase of $2,762,000 over the budget request; and $4,000,000 for 

education, an increase of $135,000 over the budget request. 

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 $168,000,000, an increase of 

$44,235,000 over the budget request, for Building Technologies. 

The Committee recommends $26,900,000 for Residential Buildings 

Integration, the same as the budget request, and $33,000,000 for 

Commercial Buildings Integration, an increase of $20,000,000 over 

the budget request for the Zero Net Energy Commercial Buildings 

Initiative as authorized in Section 422 of EISA. This initiative is 

designed to develop and disseminate technologies, practices, and 

policies that will facilitate establishment of zero net energy commercial buildings by 2030. The Committee recommends $45,352,000 for Emerging Tech- nologies, to include $25,000,000 for solid state lighting, an increase 

of $5,887,000 over the budget request to maintain the current level 

of funding for research, development and deployment activities. 

The Committee recommends $37,748,000 for Technology Validation 

and Market Introduction, an increase of $13,343,000 over the request, to include $10,000,000 for Energy Star, an increase of 

$2,000,000 over the request and $19,348,000 for building energy 

codes, an increase of $11,348,000 over the budget request for DOE 

assistance to states to implement compliance plans and training. 

The Committee recommends $25,000,000, an increase of $5,000,000 

over the budget request for Equipment Standards and Analysis, for 

DOE to address accelerate the backlog of standards that are lagging behind schedule. 

Industrial Technologies.—The Industrial Technologies program 

funds cost shared research in critical technology areas identified in 

partnership with industry in order to realize significant energy 

benefits. The Committee recommends $100,000,000, an increase of 

$37,881,000 over the budget request. The Committee recommends 

$18,521,000 for Industries of the Future, (Specific), an increase of 

$7,129,000 over the budget request to include $5,000,000 for the 

steel industry for improvements in production, an increase of 

$2,744,000 over the request; $1,200,000 for the glass industry for 

the next generation melting system, an increase of $1,200,000 over 

the request; and $2,973,000 for the metal casting industry, an increase of $2,000,000 over the budget request for energy efficiency 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
82 

improvements. The budget request significantly reduced funding 

for these industry programs below fiscal year 2008 enacted levels. 

The Committee recommends $1,185,000 over the budget request to 

restore funding for the Inventions and Innovations program. The Committee recommends $81,479,000 for Industries of the 

Future, (Cross-cutting), an increase of $30,752,000 over the budget 

request. The Committee recommends $4,783,000, an increase of 

$4,200,000 for Combustion activities to continue research and development of the natural gas steam boiler, and $17,896,000 for Energy-Intensive Process program, an increase of $3,050,000 for high 

temperature heat recovery. The Committee recommends 

$25,000,000 for Distributed Energy, an increase of $23,502,000 

over the request for distributed generation and combined-heat and 

power activities, and the advanced reciprocating engines system 

program, restoring the program to fiscal year 2007 levels. 

Federal Energy Management Program.—The Federal Energy 

Management Program (FEMP) reduces 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 the Federal Energy Management 

Program is $30,000,000, an increase of $8,000,000 over the budget 

request to support additional investment in more projects. 

Facilities and Infrastructure.—The Committee recommendation 

for renewable energy Facilities and Infrastructure is $33,000,000, 

an increase of $19,018,000 over the budget request. The Committee 

recommendation provides $23,000,000 to accelerate the design and 

construction of the Energy Systems Integration Facility at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), an increase of 

$19,000,000 over the budget request. 

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 $20,000,000 the same as the budget request. 

Program Direction.—Program Direction funds for the Federal 

staffing resources and associated costs for the management and 

oversight of EERE programs. The Committee recommendation for 

Program Direction is $127,620,000, an increase of $5,774,000 over 

the budget request, to provide additional federal support in the 

management and oversight of added program resources provided by 

the Committee. 

FEDERAL ENERGY ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS

The Committee recommends a total of $318,000,000 for federal 

energy assistance programs, an increase of $259,500,000 over the 

budget request. These programs are described in detail in the following sections. 

Weatherization Assistance.—The Committee recommends 

$250,000,000 for weatherization assistance program grants, an increase of $250,000,000 over the budget request, to include 

$5,000,000 for training and technical assistance. The Committee 

recommendation is an increase of $22,778,000 over fiscal year 2008 

enacted levels. The Committee is concerned that the Department 

has not requested funding for this program, which almost immeVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:06 Dec 11, 2008 Jkt 045734 PO 00000 Frm 00082 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR921.XXX HR921

yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
83 

diately results in significant and immediate energy savings in 

American homes. 

State Energy Program.—The Committee recommends 

$50,000,000 for the State Energy Program, the same as the budget 

request, to include $25,000,000 for competitive projects. 

International Renewable Energy Program.—The Committee recommends $7,000,000 for the International Renewable Energy Program, an increase of $7,000,000 over the budget request, of which 

$2,000,000 is to fund the U.S.-Israel cooperative agreement on renewable and sustainable energy, $2,000,000 is to fund the Western 

Hemisphere Energy Cooperation initiative, as authorized in Section 

985 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, and $3,000,000 is to fund 

other international renewable energy activities. The recommendation provides no funds for the Administration’s Asia Pacific initiative, a reduction of $7,500,000 below the budget request. 

Tribal Energy Activities.—The Committee recommends 

$6,000,000, an increase of $5,000,000 over the budget request, for 

tribal energy projects. 

Renewable Energy Production Incentive.—The Committee recommends $5,000,000 for the Renewable Energy Production Incentive, an increase of $5,000,000 over the budget request. 

ENERGY INDEPENDENCE AND SECURITY ACT OF 2007 (EISA) FEDERAL

ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS

The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (Public Law 

110–140) authorizes several new grant, loan and aid programs to 

stimulate the transformation of local communities, states, and industries adopting and adapting to renewable energy and energy 

conservation programs. For fiscal year 2009, the Committee supports several of these programs with new funding. However, recognizing that many of these programs involve thousands of recipients, time is necessary to ensure the programs are formulated and 

executed in a responsible and efficient manner. As such, the Committee recognizes that some initial implementation time will be required to fulfill the program mandates, and has adjusted the funding levels to reflect an initial program investment. The Committee 

recommends $500,000,000 in new spending authority for these 

newly authorized programs in EISA, $500,000,000 above the budget request. The Committee directs the Department to provide the 

Committees on Appropriations a detailed implementation plan for 

these assistance programs within 90 days of enactment of this Act. 

Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant Program.—The 

Committee recommends $295,000,000 to implement Subtitle E of 

EISA for the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant Program, an increase of $295,000,000 over the budget request. 

Renewable Fuel Infrastructure Grants.—The Committee recommends $25,000,000 to implement Section 244 of EISA, for Renewable Fuel Infrastructure Grants, an increase of $25,000,000 

over the budget request. 

Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Grants.—The Committee recommends $30,000,000 to implement Section 136(b) of 

EISA, the Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Grant program, $30,000,000 over the budget request. 

Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Incentive Program.—The Committee provides language recommending 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
84 

$1,000,000,000 in direct loan obligational authority to be made 

available under Section 136 of EISA, the Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Incentive program. The Committee recommends $150,000,000 in budget authority to cover the loan subsidy costs as charged to the Committee by the Congressional Budget Office. Direct loan authority for this program was not included 

in the budget request. 

Use of prior-year balances.—The Committee recommends the use 

of prior year balances in the amount of $13,238,000 from completed 

or cancelled projects and activities. 

Congressionally Directed Projects.—The Committee recommendation includes $135,270,000 for the following House-directed projects 

and activities. The Department should remind recipients that statutory cost-sharing requirements may apply to these projects. 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
85 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 045 HR921.005
86 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 046 HR921.006
87 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 047 HR921.007
88 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 048 HR921.008
89 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 049 HR921.046
90 

ELECTRICITY DELIVERY AND ENERGY RELIABILITY

Appropriation, 2008 ............................................................................ $138,556,000 

Budget estimate, 2009 ....................................................................... 134,000,000 

Recommended, 2009 ........................................................................... 149,250,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2008 ........................................................................ +10,694,000 

Budget estimate, 2009 .................................................................... +15,250,000 

The mission of the Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability is to lead national efforts to modernize the electric grid, enhance security and reliability of the energy infrastructure, and facilitate recovery from disruptions to the energy supply. The Committee recommendation for Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability is $149,250,000, an increase of $15,250,000 over the budget 

request. The Committee recommends $38,306,000 for Renewable 

and Distributed Systems Integration, an increase of $5,000,000 

over the budget request for additional research and development to 

improve the ability to integrate renewable energy technologies into 

distribution and transmission systems. The Committee recommends $19,122,000 for Operations and Analysis, an increase of 

$5,000,000 over the budget request for implementation of EISA 

Section 1305, Smart Grid Interoperability Framework, for the National Institute of Standards and Technology to develop a framework for information management to achieve interoperability of 

smart grid devices and systems. The Committee provides 

$13,403,000 for Energy Storage and Power Electronics, utility scale 

activities relevant to Electrical Energy Systems, one of six integrated research and development areas highlighted in the request. 

The Committee continues to support the research and development 

activities for distributed energy power generation within the Office 

of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, and sees the research 

role of the Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability as 

ensuring the connectivity of renewable energy sources to distribution and transmission systems, such as the national grid system. 

Congressionally Directed Projects.—The Committee recommendation includes $5,250,000 for the following House-directed projects 

and activities. The Department should remind recipients that statutory cost-sharing requirements may apply to these projects. 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
91 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 050 HR921.009
92 

NUCLEAR ENERGY

Appropriation, 2008 ............................................................................ $961,665,000 

Budget estimate, 2009 ....................................................................... 1 1,340,652,000 

Recommended, 2009 ........................................................................... 1,238,852,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2008 ........................................................................ +277,187,000 

Budget estimate, 2009 .................................................................... 1¥101,800,000 1The budget request for the Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility was included in the request for Other Defense Activities at $487,008,000, and is appropriated in the Nuclear Energy account by the Committee. 

The Committee recommendation for the Nuclear Energy appro- priation is $1,238,852,000, a decrease of $101,800,000 below the 

budget request. This net decrease reflects the Committee’s recommendation to provide no funds for the Global Nuclear Energy 

Partnership (GNEP) program and instead fund the Advanced Fuel 

Cycle Initiative at $90,000,000, $211,500,000 below the budget request for GNEP; the Nuclear Power 2010 program at $157,300,000, 

the same as the Nuclear Energy projected program planning level 

as proposed in their fiscal year 2008 request and $84,300,000 less 

than the budget request; and the Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility at $487,008,000, the same as the budget request, and an increase of $208,219,000 over fiscal year 2008 enacted levels. In fiscal 

year 2008, the Committee transferred the Mixed Oxide (MOX) Fuel 

Fabrication Facility program from the Office of Defense Nuclear 

Nonproliferation to the Office of Nuclear Energy and in fiscal year 

2009 continues to fund the MOX program in the Nuclear Energy 

account. The Committee recommends increased funding for nuclear 

energy facility infrastructure, and for the deployment of a reactor 

from the Generation IV nuclear energy systems initiative. The 

Committee recommends no funds for the university education assistance program at DOE, the same as the budget request. However, the Committee has provided additional funding for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to implement an education assistance 

program, and continues to fund DOE support for university research reactors. 

Of the total funding of $1,317,663,000 provided for Nuclear En- ergy programs and facilities, $78,811,000 represents costs allocated 

to the 050 budget function, (i.e. defense activities) for Idaho Sitewide and Security activities. 

NUCLEAR ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

Generation IV nuclear energy systems.—The Committee supports 

the Department’s collaborative efforts on the research and development of a Generation IV (Gen IV) reactor design that will be safer, 

more cost effective, and more proliferation resistant than current 

designs. The Committee recommends a total of $200,000,000 for 

Generation IV nuclear energy systems, an increase of $130,000,000 

over the budget request. Of this amount, $4,000,000 is provided to 

support Generation IV research and development activities for advanced reactor concepts, a decrease of $5,750,000 below the budget 

request, and an increase of $4,000,000 over fiscal year 2008 enacted levels, and $196,000,000 to accelerate work on the Next Generation Nuclear Plant (NGNP), an increase of $133,500,000 over 

the budget request. The NGNP Project will provide the basis for 

the commercialization of a new generation of advanced nuclear 

plants that use high temperature gas-cooled reactor technology. 

The Committee directs NGNP funds for continued research and deVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:06 Dec 11, 2008 Jkt 045734 PO 00000 Frm 00092 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR921.XXX HR921

yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
93 

velopment on fuel and graphite testing and qualification, high temperature materials development, methods and high temperature instrumentation development and reactor conceptual design, licensing preparations, and design of the component test facility at INL. 

Of the $196,000,000 provided for NGNP, $9,000,000 is included to 

continue work with Russia on gas reactors and $8,500,000 is included for deep burn research. 

Nuclear Hydrogen Initiative.—The Committee recommends 

$16,600,000 for the nuclear hydrogen initiative, the same as the 

budget. 

NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE

The Nuclear Fuel Cycle activities include the Advanced Fuel 

Cycle Initiative (AFCI) and the Mixed Oxide (MOX) Fuel Fabrication Facility, requested in Other Defense Activities Appropriation 

in the Administration’s budget. 

Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative.—The Committee recommends 

$90,000,000 for the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative, $211,500,000 

below the Administration’s request of $301,500,000 for the Global 

Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP). The Committee supports continued research on advanced fuel cycles, including the development 

of technologies for recycling spent nuclear fuel. Combined with 

$30,000,000 of research funds provided by the Committee in the 

Science appropriation, the Committee recommends a total of 

$120,000,000 for nuclear fuel recycling research. No funds are provided for ‘‘grid-appropriate reactors’’ or small reactor program. No 

funds are provided for the design or construction of spent fuel recycling facilities or spent fuel research facilities, including fast neutron test capability, advanced fuel cycle facility, consolidated fuel 

treatment center and advanced burner reactors. No funds are provided for any continued work on GNEP, including the Department’s efforts to solicit developing partner countries in the GNEP 

program. The Department should continue to coordinate its Advanced Fuel Cycle research with those countries having advanced 

fuel cycle capabilities (e.g., United Kingdom, France, and Japan), 

but the Committee does not support efforts to involve countries aspiring to have nuclear capabilities in the GNEP effort. 

The Department should focus its limited AFCI resources in fiscal 

year 2009 on research activities at the Idaho National Laboratory, 

the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, and the Argonne National 

Laboratory, with support from university and private sector researchers as appropriate. The success of AFCI will be judged on the 

quality of the research it produces, not on the number of national 

laboratories that it supports. 

The Committee does not support the Department’s rushed, poorly-defined, expansive, and expensive Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) proposal. The Department has squandered funds 

provided by the Committee and followed little of the Committee’s 

direction regarding the use of these funds, including the requirement to ‘‘make available 50 percent of the AFCI funds for research 

and development in an agency-wide solicitation for universities, national laboratories and commercial entities’’, as directed in the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008. Instead, the Department distributed funds among 10 national laboratories, under the direction 

of a former national laboratory employee. The Department has also 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
94 

failed to seek input from industry on building engineering-scale facilities. The April 2008 Government Accountability Office report on 

GNEP notes that ‘‘DOE’s approach to building engineering-scale facilities lacked industry participation, potentially reducing the prospects for eventual commercialization of the technologies.’’ Also, the 

report found ‘‘DOE’s schedule called for building one of the recycling facilities (i.e., a reprocessing plant) before conducting R&D on 

recycled fuel that would help determine the plant’s design requirements. This schedule unnecessarily increased the risk that the 

spent fuel would be separated in a form that cannot be recycled.’’ 

The GNEP program directors made claims they could not fulfill, 

and did not listen to the guidance of Congress and industry along 

the way. As such, the Committee does not support the GNEP program, and instead directs the AFCI research funds to be focused 

on the reduction of waste streams generated by reprocessing spent 

fuel, the design of safeguard measures for reprocessing facilities, 

and research on reducing the proliferation risk of reprocessing 

spent nuclear fuel. The Committee believes that these goals may 

be best accomplished via an integrated program of basic and applied research coordinated with the Office of Science consistent 

with the activities outlined in two of the six integrated research 

and development areas highlighted in the request, Characterization 

of Radioactive Waste and Advanced Mathematics for Optimization 

of Complex Systems, Control Theory, and Risk Management. The 

Department is directed to provide a report to the Committee within 

three months of enactment of this Act, which details the research 

activities and corresponding funding for the Advanced Fuel Cycle 

Initiative program as well as the integration of these activities with 

relevant activities in the Office of Science. 

Fuel Fabrication Facilities.—The Committee recommends 

$487,008,000 for Fuel Fabrication Facilities, which includes 

$467,808,000 for construction of the Mixed Oxide (MOX) Fuel Fabrication Facility at the Savannah River Site, and $19,200,000 for 

other project costs related to the MOX facility, the same as the 

budget request. The MOX project was transferred from the Defense 

Nuclear Nonproliferation account in fiscal year 2008 because the 

project ceased to be a nonproliferation project once it was de-linked 

from the companion Russian fissile material disposition project. 

The Administration’s fiscal year 2009 budget requested funding for 

the MOX facility in the Other Defense Activities appropriation. The 

Committee, again, recommends funding for the MOX facility in the 

Nuclear Energy account. 

The control point is at the Nuclear Fuel Cycle level, so that funds 

may be reprogrammed within and between the AFCI and Fuel Fabrication Facilities accounts without the need for prior Congressional approval. 

MOX Federal Management.—Statutory language has been provided that directs the Office of Nuclear Energy to manage the MOX 

project. The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008 transferred 

the MOX prior year balances and current year project funding from 

the National Nuclear Security Administration to the Nuclear Energy program account. The intent of Congress was for the Assistant 

Secretary of Nuclear Energy to be the lead DOE Program Secretarial Officer (PSO) for the management of the MOX facility. The 

DOE Office of General Counsel subsequently provided a draft legal 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
95 

opinion interpreting the law and Congressional intent to justify the 

Department’s retention of the management of MOX within the 

NNSA. As such, the Committee provides additional language in fiscal year 2009 to clarify for the Department the Committee’s direction to manage the MOX project in the Office of Nuclear Energy. 

Project management.—The Committee is very concerned about 

the past and present management of the MOX fuel fabrication facility. The Congress directed the Government Accountability Office 

(GAO) in the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008 to monitor 

the construction and management of the MOX facility and report 

to the Committee on a quarterly basis on the progress of the fuel 

fabrication facility, regarding scope, cost and schedule changes and 

performance. Preliminary observations by the GAO in June 2008 

indicate that DOE is not following its own construction project 

guidance, Order 413.3, as mandated in law by Congress in the fiscal year 2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act. Since December 

2008, when the law was passed, DOE has received a notice of violation on accepting delivery of over 3,000 tons of reinforcement bar 

that did not meet industry standards for nuclear facilities. This infraction indicates problems with DOE’s implementation of an adequate quality assurance program, a key component of the Department’s project management guidance. In March 2005, the Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission issued a construction authorization for the 

MOX facility, even though concerns about the potential for an explosive reaction between chemicals used to purify plutonium oxide 

in the MOX facility, also known as a ‘‘red oil runaway reaction,’’ 

were identified as far back as 2003 in the construction authorization review and had not been fully resolved. Between 2005 and 

2007, NRC tasked its Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards 

and an Ad Hoc Panel to review red oil safety risks, and contracted 

for an independent assessment by the Center from Nuclear Waste 

Regulatory Analyses. In 2007, NRC concluded that ‘‘significant 

technical questions remain unanswered.’’ While the NRC will not 

issue an operating license until these chemical safety concerns 

have been resolved, it is a concern of the Committee that DOE continues with the construction of the MOX facility while this design 

issue has not been resolved with the NRC, and that the Department is not following its own construction management guidance 

by proceeding with construction prior to resolving significant safety 

issues. Finally, an external independent review of the MOX cost 

and schedule baseline produced savings of over $100 million and 

several months. While the Committee commends the Office of Engineering and Construction Management, these findings raise questions about NNSA’s management of the project baseline. These 

findings convince the Committee more than ever that NNSA is not 

equipped to manage the MOX project, and the Committee has provided additional statutory language that directs the oversight and 

accountability of the MOX project reside in the Office of Nuclear 

Energy. 

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 acVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:06 Dec 11, 2008 Jkt 045734 PO 00000 Frm 00095 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR921.XXX HR921

yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
96 

tivities on a reimbursable basis. The Committee provides 

$62,400,000, an increase of $23,700,000 over the budget request. 

Space and defense infrastructure.—The Committee recommendation is $40,000,000, an increase of $5,000,000 over the budget request. This includes the requested amounts to operate radioisotope 

power systems at the Idaho National Laboratory (INL), and an increase of $5,000,000 to reconstitute a program for Pu–238 production capability at Los Alamos National Laboratory. The Committee 

directs that DOE, along with NASA, shall support the Director of 

the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) in the development of a plan for restarting and sustaining U.S. domestic production of radioisotope thermoelectric generator material for NASA’s 

future science and exploration missions and the nation’s space and 

defense needs. This plan shall be transmitted to the House and 

Senate Appropriations Subcommittees on Commerce, Justice and 

Science, and Energy and Water Development. A funding request 

for DOE restart of production, and for NASA for marginal costs of 

production, should be included with the President’s budget request 

for fiscal year 2010. 

The Committee recommends the requested amounts to maintain 

iridium capabilities at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, and the 

base Pu–238 mission at Los Alamos National Laboratory. 

Medical isotopes infrastructure.—The Committee recommends no 

funding for medical isotope infrastructure, the same as the budget 

request. The funding for this activity is requested and provided in 

the Office of Science account beginning in fiscal year 2009. 

Research reactor infrastructure.—The Committee recommendation includes $6,000,000, an increase of $2,300,000 over the budget 

request, for fresh reactor fuel and disposal of spent fuel for university reactors. 

Oak Ridge nuclear infrastructure.—The Committee recommends 

$16,400,000 for Oak Ridge radiological facilities management, an 

increase of $16,400,000 over the budget request, for hot cells at the 

Radiochemical Engineering Development Center. 

IDAHO FACILITIES MANAGEMENT

This program funds the operations and construction activities at 

the Idaho National Laboratory (INL), including the former ANL 

West and the Test Reactor Area. 

INL operations and infrastructure.—The Committee recommendation includes $150,000,000, an increase of $45,300,000 

over the budget request, for INL operations and infrastructure. The 

Committee recommends $140,000,000 for Idaho facility management operations, maintenance and repair, Advanced Test Reactor 

(ATR) operations and life-extension program, environmental compliance, facility and infrastructure revitalization, and capital equipment. The Committee recommends $10,000,000 for ATR safety 

margin improvement and remote-handled low-level waste. The 

Next Generation Nuclear Plant is a high priority program for the 

Committee, and significant infrastructure investment is necessary 

to support this effort. The National Research Council’s 2008 review 

of DOE’s Nuclear Energy Research and Development Program emphasizes that ‘‘the high level of deferred maintenance at INL would 

seem to require significant investments to achieve parity with 

other DOE assets’’. The Committee recognizes the need to fund the 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
97 

backlog of maintenance necessary at INL, especially now in anticipation of the NGNP mission. The Committee recognizes the good 

work of the INL in preparing a credible 10-year infrastructure 

plan. 

Idaho Site-Wide Safeguards and Security.— Consistent with the 

budget request, this activity is funded at the requested level of 

$78,811,000 as a 050 Defense Activity under the Other Defense Activities account. 

Program Direction.— The Committee recommends a total funding level for program direction of $80,544,000, the same as the 

budget request. 

Report on Uranium Tails.—With the rising price of uranium, the 

Committee recognizes that there now may be economic value in reenriching uranium tails inventoried as waste at DOE. The Committee directs DOE to submit, not later than 60 days after enactment, an analysis on the economic feasibility of re-enriching domestic uranium tails. 

Funding Adjustments.—The Committee directs the use of 

$5,000,000 of unused prior year balances of funds of which 

$984,000 is to be taken from the fiscal year 2008 Congressionally 

directed project ‘‘CVD Single Crystal Diamond Optical Switch.’’ 

OFFICE OF LEGACY MANAGEMENT

Appropriation, 2008 ............................................................................ $33,872,000 

Budget estimate, 2009 ....................................................................... — 

Recommended, 2009 ........................................................................... — 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2008 .................................................................... ¥33,872,000 

Budget estimate, 2009 ................................................................ — 

The Office of Legacy Management (non-defense) manages the Department’s post-closure responsibilities, including long-term surveillance and maintenance, pension and benefit continuity for 

former contractor retirees, and archives management for non-defense sites. Beginning in fiscal year 2009, the Committee recommends funding these activities in the Other Defense Activities 

appropriation, the same as the budget request. 

CLEAN COAL TECHNOLOGY

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008 (Public Law 110– 

161), deferred $149,000,000 in unobligated Clean Coal Technology 

balances to fiscal year 2009. The Committee recommends the 

transfer of this balance to the Carbon Capture Demonstration Initiative program, rather than to the FutureGen Program as requested. 

FOSSIL ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriation, 2008 ............................................................................ $742,838,000 

Budget estimate, 2009 ....................................................................... 754,030,000 

Recommended, 2009 ........................................................................... 853,978,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2008 .................................................................... +111,140,000 

Budget estimate, 2009 ................................................................ +99,948,000 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
98 

Funds provided for fossil energy research and development are 

intended for research, development, and demonstration programs 

that help protect the environment by reducing carbon dioxide and 

pollutant emissions into the atmosphere, increase efficiency for 

power generation, and improve compliance and stewardship operations of fossil energy activities. The threat of global warming 

poses substantial challenges to the continued utilization of coal and 

other fossil fuels for power generation, and will require the development of low-cost carbon capture and sequestration technologies 

as well as significant further improvements in plant efficiency. The 

research funded under this account has the difficult goal of developing virtually pollution-free power plants, while increasing plant 

efficiency in order to compete with other forms of electricity generation. 

The Committee recommendation is $853,978,000, an increase of 

$99,948,000 over the budget request and an increase of 

$111,140,000 from fiscal year 2008 enacted levels. 

Carbon Capture Demonstration Initiative (CCDI).—Given the direction provided by Congress in the Consolidated Appropriations 

Act, 2008 (Public Law 110–161) regarding the requirement that 

Clean Coal Power Initiative (CCPI) projects must feature a carbon 

capture and sequestration component, and the subsequent cancellation of the FutureGen project, and program restructuring announced by the Department in January 2008, the distinction between these programs has largely disappeared. The Committee directs the Department to merge these programs, combining the proposed solicitations for Round III of the Clean Coal Power Initiative 

(CCPI), and the restructured FutureGen program, into a single solicitation for a Carbon Capture Demonstration Initiative (CCDI) focused on capture and storage of carbon dioxide emissions from coal 

power plants. Merging these programs will maximize funding available to accelerate the demonstration and widespread deployment of 

carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) at the earliest possible 

date. Language is provided that creates the Carbon Capture Demonstration Initiative as a new appropriations control level, pursuant to Title VII of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 

2007, combining the activities of the FutureGen and CCPI programs. 

The Committee recommends $241,000,000 for CCDI, the same as 

the sum of the budget requests for the CCPI, $85,000,000 and the 

restructured FutureGen program, $156,000,000. The Committee 

further directs the Department to combine all unobligated balances 

available in the CCPI and FutureGen accounts with the CCDI appropriation, totaling approximately $513,800,000, and make these 

funds available for a CCDI solicitation with initial awards by no 

later than 90 days after the enactment of this Act. The Committee 

believes that, in the interest of proceeding as rapidly as possible, 

the Department should encourage applicants to consider utilizing 

the sites proposed as part of the Regional Carbon Sequestration 

Partnerships program as well as those that were previously considered for the FutureGen project. The aggregate dollar contribution 

by the Department to the selected project(s) will be limited to the 

maximum funds available at the time of selection—which, as indicated above, is expected to be approximately $513,800,000 for 

awards made in fiscal year 2009—and the total contribution to the 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
99 

selected project(s) shall be fully appropriated at the time of selection. The Committee directs the Department to adopt emissions requirements for the CCDI solicitation at least as rigorous as those 

proposed for its restructured FutureGen project. If the power plant 

has multiple trains, the Department is instructed to only share the 

cost of one train equipped with CCS. 

The Department is instructed to require at least 50 percent nonFederal cost-sharing in each budget period of a carbon capture 

demonstration project. The Department is further instructed to 

consider the proposed cost share agreement and the leverage of the 

Government’s contribution thereby achieved as an important criterion in evaluating potential projects. In particular, the Committee recommends that the Department limit its share of the 

project cost so that it will not exceed the lower of: (1) the incremental cost of implementing a facility with CCS as compared to a 

state of the art facility without such technology, or (2) 50% of the 

total allowable costs for each project. The Committee instructs the 

Department not to enter into any agreement which entails an obligation to share any cost overruns (i.e., costs incurred during the 

demonstration project that are more than those estimated at the 

date of award), and the Department is instructed not to plan to set 

aside funds for overruns. 

Carbon Sequestration.—The Committee recommends 

$220,000,000 for a carbon sequestration research, development, 

and demonstration program, an increase of $70,868,000 above the 

request, and establishes it as a stand-alone line item, outside of the 

Fuels and Power Systems subaccount, as funded in previous years. 

These funds, along with $31,265,000 provided in the Office of 

Science for a total of $251,265,000, are for fundamental science and 

engineering research, geologic sequestration tests, and large-scale 

sequestration tests for geologic containment of carbon dioxide as 

authorized by Section 702 of the Energy Independence and Security 

Act of 2007 (Public Law 110–140). Together, these funds constitute 

an increase of $72,368,000 over the request for an integrated Carbon Capture and Storage research and development program, one 

of six integrated research areas highlighted in the request. The 

Committee believes that carbon sequestration, and in particular, 

the underground storage of carbon dioxide, is critical to the future 

of coal power and may be more generally important as a climate 

change mitigation technology. Carbon sequestration may be utilized to store carbon dioxide emissions not only from coal power 

plants, but also from natural gas power plants as well as other industrial sources such as ethanol and cement plants. 

In order to reflect the importance and broad scope of the carbon 

sequestration research program and ensure that management of 

this program is given the priority and leadership in the Department that will be required to meet the challenge of large-scale deployment of this critical technology, the Committee directs the Department to establish a new Office of Carbon Sequestration within 

the Office of Fossil Energy under the leadership of a Deputy Assistant Secretary for Carbon Sequestration. The Committee directs the 

Department to manage all carbon sequestration activities funded 

under this account and provided through previous appropriations 

through the Office of Carbon Sequestration, and to ensure that all 

sequestration activities undertaken by the Office of Fossil Energy, 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
100 

including the sequestration part of the CCDI, are coordinated with 

the Office of Carbon Sequestration. The Committee directs the Office of Carbon Sequestration to utilize existing expertise in the Office of Oil and Natural Gas and coordinate closely with the Office 

of Coal to ensure that any opportunities to utilize a large-scale sequestration test by a CCDI demonstration are pursued. Further, 

the Committee directs the Office of Carbon Sequestration to coordinate with the Office of Science to address the basic science needs 

for carbon sequestration, and with the Office of Energy Efficiency 

and Renewable Energy to address opportunities for sequestration 

arising from ethanol, biomass, and industrial processes and waste. 

The Committee believes that the research, development, and 

demonstration program needed to enable the safe storage of carbon 

dioxide emissions underground in geological formations would benefit from Federal management as a climate change mitigation technology rather than primarily as an enabling technology for clean 

coal power. At present, the Department’s management of this program has not satisfied this Committee. The Department is directed 

to provide a report to the Committee within six months of enactment of this legislation describing the progress it has made in addressing the management issues outlined above along with an integrated strategy and program plan for its research, development, 

and demonstration efforts relevant to the management of greenhouse gas emissions. 

Fuels and power systems.—The Committee recommends a total of 

$220,600,000 for fuels and power systems, a decrease of 

$13,000,000 below the budget request excluding carbon sequestration. The Committee provides $40,000,000 for innovations at existing plants, the same as the budget request. The Committee is 

pleased that the Department is following Congressional leadership 

in this area and investing in a rigorous research program on the 

potential for retrofitting existing coal plants for carbon dioxide capture and sequestration. The Committee directs the Department to 

continue to focus these R&D efforts on carbon dioxide capture technology for existing pulverized coal (PC) combustion plants, to include efforts on high-strength materials for heat intensive operations, plant efficiency, and oxy-fuel combustion PC retrofit technology. The recommendation provides $60,000,000 for advanced Integrated Gas Combined Cycle (IGCC), $9,000,000 below the request, and $24,000,000 for advanced turbines, a decrease of 

$4,000,000 below the request. The Committee believes that the key 

barriers to the adoption of these technologies are not at the laboratory scale but at the commercial plant scale. The Committee recommends $10,000,000 for fuels and $60,000,000 for fuel cells, the 

same as the budget request. The Committee provides $26,600,000 

for advanced research, the same as the budget request. 

Petroleum-oil technologies.—The Committee recommends 

$3,000,000 for petroleum-oil programs, an increase of $3,000,000 

over the budget request, to include $1,000,000 for the stripper well 

consortium and $2,000,000 for the Risk Based Data Management 

System. The Committee views this database as an integral component to the progress of carbon sequestration demonstrations, and 

urges the Administration to include funding for this activity in future requests. 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
101 

Natural gas technologies.—The Committee recommends 

$25,000,000 for methane gas hydrates research and development, 

an increase of $25,000,000 over the budget request and a 

$5,182,000 increase over fiscal year 2008 enacted levels. The study 

of methane hydrates contributes to understanding of our global climate change processes, and provides information on the potential 

use of methane hydrates as an energy source while minimizing environmental impacts. The Committee appreciates the valuable reporting contained in Fire in the Ice. Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Report.—To ensure that the technical issues raised by the Government Accountability Office regarding the consequences of a terrorist attack on a liquefied natural gas 

(LNG) tanker are properly assessed, the Office of Fossil Energy is 

directed to convene peer review panels with appropriate expertise 

and a diversity of views and perspectives to review the adequacy 

and effectiveness of DOE’s test plans, including those which evaluate cascading failures and heat effects from large pool fires. 

Program direction.—The Committee recommends $126,252,000 

for program direction, the same as the budget request. 

Other.—The Committee recommendation includes $656,000 for 

special recruitment programs, $5,000,000 for plant and capital 

equipment, and $9,700,000 for fossil energy environmental restoration, the same as the budget request. 

Use of prior-year balances.—The Committee supports the use of prior year balances in the amount of $11,310,000 from completed 

or cancelled construction projects, the same as the budget request. 

Congressionally Directed Projects.—The Committee recommendation includes $14,080,000 for the following House directed projects 

and activities for the purposes of research, development, and demonstration of coal and other fossil energy related technologies or 

programs. The Department should remind recipients that statutory 

cost-sharing requirements may apply to these projects. 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
102 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 044 HR921.010
103 

NAVAL PETROLEUM AND OIL SHALE RESERVES

Appropriation, 2008 ............................................................................ $20,272,000 

Budget estimate, 2009 ....................................................................... 19,099,000 

Recommended, 2009 ........................................................................... 19,099,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2008 .................................................................... ¥1,173,000 

Budget estimate, 2009 ................................................................ — 

The Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves no longer serve the 

national defense purpose envisioned in the early 1900s, and consequently the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 

1996 required the sale of the Government’s interest in the Naval 

Petroleum Reserve 1 (NPR–1). To comply with this requirement, 

the Elk Hills field in California was sold to Occidental Petroleum 

Corporation in 1998. Following the sale of Elk Hills, the transfer 

of the oil shale reserves, and transfer of administrative jurisdiction 

and environmental remediation of the Naval Petroleum Reserve 2 

(NPR–2) to the Department of the Interior, DOE retains one Naval 

Petroleum Reserve property, the Naval Petroleum Reserve 3 (NPR– 

3) in Wyoming (Teapot Dome field). This is a stripper well oil field 

that the Department is maintaining until it reaches its economic 

production limit. The DOE continues to be responsible for routine 

operations and maintenance of NPR–3, and management of the 

Rocky Mountain Oilfield Testing Center at NPR–3, and continuing 

environmental and remediation work at Elk Hills. 

The Committee recommendation for the operation of the naval 

petroleum and oil shale reserves is $19,099,000, the same as the 

budget request. 

STRATEGIC PETROLEUM RESERVE

Appropriation, 2008 ............................................................................ $186,757,000 

Budget estimate, 2009 ....................................................................... 344,000,000 

Recommended, 2009 ........................................................................... 172,600,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2008 .................................................................... ¥14,157,000 

Budget estimate, 2009 ................................................................ ¥171,400,000 

The mission of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) is to store 

petroleum to reduce the adverse economic impact of a major petroleum supply interruption to the U.S. and to carry out obligations 

under the international energy program. The reserve’s inventory at 

the end of December 2007 was 696.9 million barrels providing 58 

days of net import protection. 

The Committee recommends $172,600,000, a decrease of 

$171,400,000 below the budget request, including the use of 

$2,923,000 of prior year balances as proposed in the budget request. The Committee provides for the operation of the Strategic 

Petroleum Reserve (SPR), but does not support the expansion of 

the reserve to 1.5 billion barrels. With the price of a barrel of oil 

nearing $140, current cost estimates and schedule for the expansion are $10 billion for new facilities, $105 billion for the cost of 

the oil fill, and a completion date of 2027. The Committee does not 

believe that the benefits of doubling the capacity of the Strategic 

Petroleum Reserve are commensurate with this enormous cost. 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
104 

NORTHEAST HOME HEATING OIL RESERVE

Appropriation, 2008 ............................................................................ $12,335,000 

Budget estimate, 2009 ....................................................................... 9,800,000 

Recommended, 2009 ........................................................................... 9,800,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2008 .................................................................... ¥2,535,000 

Budget estimate, 2009 ................................................................ — 

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 Northeastern States during times of very low inventories 

and significant threats to the immediate supply of heating oil. The 

Northeast Heating Oil Reserve was established as a separate entity 

from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve on March 6, 2001. The 

2,000,000 barrel reserve is stored in commercial facilities in New 

York Harbor, New Haven, Connecticut, and the Providence, Rhode 

Island area. 

The Committee recommendation for the Northeast Home Heating Oil reserve is $9,800,000, the same as the budget request. 

ENERGY INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION

Appropriation, 2008 ............................................................................ $95,460,000 

Budget estimate, 2009 ....................................................................... 110,595,000 

Recommended, 2009 ........................................................................... 120,595,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2008 .................................................................... +25,135,000 

Budget estimate, 2009 ................................................................ +10,000,000 

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 anaylses prepared by the EIA 

are widely disseminated and the agency is recognized as an unbiased source of energy information and projections by government 

organizations, industry, professional statistical organizations, and 

the public. 

The Committee recommendation for the Energy Information Administration is $120,595,000, an increase of $10,000,000 over the 

budget request, and an increase of $25,135,000 over the fiscal year 

2008 enacted levels. Of the increase provided, the Committee directs $1,000,000 to collect and compile data on the impacts of capital flows into regulated and unregulated futures, options and 

swaps markets; $1,200,000 for gasoline import data quality issues, 

ethanol data collections and climate change data; $250,000 to implement Section 804 of the Energy Independence and Security Act 

(EISA) regarding refinery data and impacts of refinery outages; 

and, $7,550,000 for more timely State-level energy data, as authorized by Section 805 of EISA. 

NON-DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT

The Non-Defense Environmental Management program includes 

funds to manage and clean up sites used for civilian, energy research, and non-defense related activities. These past activities reVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:06 Dec 11, 2008 Jkt 045734 PO 00000 Frm 00104 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR921.XXX HR921

yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
105 

sulted in radioactive, hazardous, and mixed waste contamination 

that requires remediation, stabilization, or some other action. Language has been included that provides for the remediation of a 

Tuba City, Arizona, radiation-contaminated property in the vicinity 

of a uranium mill tailings site. 

Reprogramming authority.—The Committee continues to support 

the need for flexibility to meet changing funding requirements at 

sites. In fiscal year 2009, the Department may transfer up to 

$2,000,000 between projects and programs within the Non-Defense 

Environmental Cleanup 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 during the fiscal year. The 

account control points for reprogramming are the Fast Flux Test 

Reactor Facility, West Valley Demonstration Project, Gaseous Diffusion Plants, Small Sites, and construction line-items. This reprogramming authority may not be used to initiate new programs 

or programs specifically denied, limited, or increased by Congress 

in the Act or report. The Committees on Appropriations 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, 2008 ............................................................................ $182,263,000 

Budget estimate, 2009 ....................................................................... 213,411,000 

Recommended, 2009 ........................................................................... 257,019,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2008 .................................................................... 74,756,000 

Budget estimate, 2009 ................................................................ 43,608,000 

The Committee recommendation for Non-Defense Environmental 

Cleanup is $257,019,000, an increase of $43,608,000 over the budget request. The recommendation provides $57,600,000 for solid 

waste stabilization and disposition, and nuclear facility decontamination and decommissioning (D&D), at the West Valley Demonstration Project, the same as the budget request. The Committee 

recommends $81,296,000 for D&D of the gaseous diffusion plants, 

the same as the budget request. The recommendation provides 

$10,755,000 for the Fast Flux Test Reactor facility, the same as the 

budget request. 

Small Sites.—The Committee is concerned that funds for Small 

Sites have been maintained level for years, which extends the 

cleanup activities and contributes to the overall total cost of the 

program because cleanup takes longer. Therefore, the Committee 

recommends $15,433,000 for Brookhaven National Laboratory, an 

increase of $7,000,000 over the budget request, to accelerate the 

D&D of the graphite reactor. 

The Committee recommends $10,000,000 for Argonne National 

Laboratory (Argonne), an increase of $9,541,000 over the budget request to address the radioactive contamination and material legacy 

that exists at the site for facilities that are no longer used and require remediation. Argonne is a multi-purpose and multi-program 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
106 

research institution with over 60 years of operation with many 

DOE sponsor programs that funded work that led to contamination 

and waste at the site. In House report 110–185, the Committee 

tasked DOE to submit, by November 30, 2007, an inventory of legacy contamination at Argonne. Over six months later, DOE has 

still failed to submit this required report to Congress. The Committee is frustrated with the bureaucratic delay at DOE in determining the cost-share among the programs needed to address the 

contamination that resides at this site. As such, the Committee 

also provides $10,000,000 in the Office of Science and $10,000,000 

in the National Nuclear Security Administration for a total of 

$30,000,000 to address legacy remediation needs at Argonne. The 

Committee directs the Environmental Management program to coordinate with the DOE program offices that contributed to the contamination at Argonne, and present to the Committee a plan on 

the out-year remediation efforts and funding needs to address the 

legacy contamination within 90 days of enactment of this legislation. 

The Committee recommends $14,000,000, an increase of 

$9,600,000 over the budget request, to address the excess contaminated facilities at Idaho National Laboratory. The Committee directs the Secretary of Energy to transfer radioactive cleanup liabilities at the Idaho National Laboratory, which are currently the responsibility of the Office of Nuclear Energy, to the Environmental 

Management program for remediation. The transfer of these liabilities shall have no negative impact on funding the Office of Nuclear 

Energy. The budget request for fiscal year 2010 should reflect this 

transfer of cleanup responsibilities. The Committee recommends $5,000,000, an increase of 

$5,000,000 over the budget request, to carry out remedial actions 

at a dump site immediately adjacent to the north-northwest section 

of a former uranium mill tailings processing site, on the north side 

of Highway 160, in the vicinity of Tuba City, Arizona. The remediation of this vicinity property is necessary to address residual radioactive materials that were not determined to be present at the 

time of the original remediation. 

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 

recommends $1,100,000, the same as the budget request, for the 

administration of completed sites. The Committee recommendation 

provides $7,883,000 for the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center, an 

increase of $3,000,000 over the budget request, to maintain baseline completion in 2010; and $20,000,000 for nuclear facility decontamination and decommissioning at the Energy Technology Engineering Center, an increase of $7,467,000 over the budget request, 

for conducting a radiological characterization survey per Environmental Protection Agency requirements. The Committee recommends $1,905,000 for decontamination and decommissioning of 

the Tritium System Test Assembly Facility at Los Alamos National 

Laboratory, the same as the budget request. The Committee recommends $187,000 for cleanup work at various sites in California, 

and $30,513,000 for soil and water remediation measures at the 

former Atlas uranium mill tailings site at Moab, Utah, the same 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
107 

as the budget request. The Committee directs the Department to 

provide a report within 120 days of enactment of this Act on the 

annual funding requirements needed to complete remediation of 

the Moab uranium mill tailings site and removal of the tailings to 

the Crescent Junction site in Utah no later than the year 2019. 

Use of prior-year balances.—The Committee recommends the use 

of $653,000 of prior year balances, the same as the budget request. 

Congressionally Directed Project.—The Committee recommendation includes $2,000,000 for the following House-directed project. 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
108 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 014 HR921.011
109 

URANIUM ENRICHMENT DECONTAMINATION AND DECOMMISSIONING

FUND

Appropriation, 2008 ............................................................................ $ 622,162,000 

Budget estimate, 2009 ....................................................................... 480,333,000 

Recommended, 2009 ........................................................................... 529,273,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2008 .................................................................... ¥92,889,000 

Budget estimate, 2009 ................................................................ +48,940,000 

The Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund was established by the Energy Policy Act of 1992 

(P.L. 102–486) to carry out environmental remediation at the nation’s three gaseous diffusion plants, at the East Tennessee Technology Park in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, at Portsmouth, Ohio, and at 

Paducah, Kentucky. Title X of the 1992 Act also authorized use of 

a portion of the fund to reimburse private licensees for the federal 

government’s share of the cost of cleaning up uranium and thorium 

processing sites. 

The Committee recommends $529,273,000 for activities funded 

from the Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund, an increase of $48,940,000 over the budget request. 

This amount includes $514,273,000 for decontamination and decommissioning activities at the gaseous diffusion plants and 

$15,000,000 for Title X uranium and thorium reimbursements. The 

increase of $48,940,000 includes $33,940,000 for the accelerated 

D&D of Oak Ridge East Tennessee Technology Park nuclear facilities, and $15,000,000 for Title X uranium and thorium reimbursements. 

SCIENCE

Appropriation, 2008 ............................................................................ $4,017,711,000 

Budget estimate, 2009 ....................................................................... 4,721,969,000 

Recommended, 2009 ........................................................................... 4,861,669,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2008 .................................................................... +843,958,000 

Budget estimate, 2009 ................................................................ +139,700,000 

The Science account funds the Department’s work on high energy 

physics, nuclear physics, biological and environmental research, 

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 2009. The requested 17.5 percent increase is the major incremental increase 

planned within the overall 10-year doubling of funding for these activities in DOE authorized by the America COMPETES Act (Public 

Law 110–69). A critical element of this increase is the support it 

would provide for 2,600 more research personnel, including graduate students. This addresses a major concern for the future of the 

United States economy, namely the availability of highly educated 

scientists and engineers to support the technical innovations that 

drive economic growth. 

The fiscal year 2009 request would fully fund operating time at 

most existing DOE user facilities and equal or increased operating 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
110 

time at several others. The request supports investments in major 

new research facilities such as the International Thermonuclear 

Experimental Reactor, the Linac Coherent Light Source, the 12 

GeV upgrade to the Continuous Electron Beam Accelerator Facility, and the National Synchrotron Light Source II. U.S. scientific 

and technical leadership is also supported through the availability 

of advanced scientific computing facilities. 

The Committee has some concerns regarding management practices at the Office of Science which must be resolved in order to ensure that the proposed increase is spent wisely. While the Office 

has recently shown its capacity to manage projects effectively, 

building the Spallation Neutron Source generally on budget, and on 

schedule, the Committee was disappointed to learn of the substantial cost overruns and schedule slippage that eventually forced the 

recent termination of the construction of the National Compact 

Stellarator Experiment (NCSX), after an investment of over 

$100,000,000. The Committee commends the efforts by the Department to re-assess the scientific merit and technical viability of the 

project once they became aware of the cost and schedule issues, 

and supports the decision by the Department to terminate the 

project. However, the Committee is concerned by the lack of oversight that allowed the project to proceed as far as it did without 

the kind of detailed, independent technical design and costing validation that has recently been undertaken, an issue that seems to 

arise over and over again across the Department. It is essential 

that adequate support is provided up front to establish the reliability of new technologies that will be used, and that complete 

end-to-end system engineering and design is performed before proceeding to construction. Further, the Committee has been made 

aware of a recent report issued by the Department’s Inspector General which has documented significant lapses of oversight in conference management at Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), 

such as the use of registration fees from non-Department sources 

to pay for alcohol, entertainment and gifts, and the lack of adequate reporting of conference information. The Department is instructed to follow the recommendations of the report and ensure 

that the more than $38,000,000 spent across the Department on 

conferences is spent wisely. Finally, a key element of the Department’s isotope production capability as well as the Manuel Lujan, 

Jr. Neutron Scattering Center are located at the Los Alamos Neutron Science Center (LANSCE). Unfortunately, a provision in the 

NNSA Act (Public Law 106–65) would preclude the employees and 

contractors of LANSCE from being subject to the authority, direction, and control of the Director of Science, even when LANSCE is 

conducting work tasked by and funded by the Office of Science. The 

Committee includes bill language eliminating this restriction, but 

only with respect to LANSCE research and operations for the isotope production mission transferred to the Office of Science. 

The Committee is pleased with the efforts made by the Department to improve energy research and development integration 

across the Office of Science and with the applied energy programs. 

These efforts include cooperation in planning, through a series of 

twenty workshops undertaken by the Office of Science in order to 

identify critical science barriers to progress in several key energy 

technologies, as well as in budgeting, via the inclusion of integrated 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
111 

budgets across the department for six key areas of importance to 

several of the Department’s missions: Advanced Mathematics for 

Optimization of Complex Systems, Control Theory, and Risk Assessment; Electrical Energy Storage; Carbon Dioxide Capture and 

Storage; Characterization of Radioactive Waste; Predicting High 

Level Waste System Performance over Extreme Time Horizons; 

and High Energy Density Laboratory Plasmas. The request also 

contains funding for the first steps in the execution of these plans, 

including a proposal for $100,000,000 for approximately two dozen 

Energy Frontier Research Centers (EFRCs) focused on addressing 

critical research needs identified by the recent workshops. The 

Committee is concerned, however, that the integration efforts have 

been either top-down, being undertaken at the level of Under Secretaries, or unique events such as workshop series and EFRCs. The 

Department should take the next step in this process and institutionalize mechanisms for coordination to ensure that these efforts 

are no longer the exception but the rule, and integrate such coordination with the Department’s processes for planning, budgeting, 

and execution. With these additional steps, the Committee believes 

that the Department will make substantial progress in bridging the 

divide between basic science and applied technology, one of the 

main motivations underlying proposals for the creation of a new 

Advanced Research Projects Agency—Energy (ARPA–E). 

The Committee recommendation is $4,861,669,000, an increase of 

$139,700,000 from the budget request and $843,958,000 over the 

fiscal year 2008 enacted level. 

HIGH ENERGY PHYSICS

The Committee recommends a total of $804,960,000 for high energy physics, the same as the budget request and an increase of 

$116,643,000 over the fiscal year 2008 enacted level. Funding is 

provided for the NOvA activity as well as for International Linear 

Collider (ILC) R&D and Superconducting Radiofrequency R&D activities. The Committee commends the Department for its efforts to 

engage the high energy physics scientific community to provide a 

bold vision for the future of the Nation’s efforts in this area that 

is both realistic and scientifically compelling, particularly given the 

difficult budget constraints faced by the field in fiscal year 2008. 

Given the hefty estimated price tag and elongated timeframe presently envisioned for the ILC, the Committee believes that a balanced effort that addresses opportunities at the energy, luminosity, 

and cosmic frontiers by leveraging existing physical capital and facilities to the maximum extent possible and by engaging in international scientific cooperation is critical for the future of this field. 

To this end, the Committee directs the Department to work with 

the National Science Foundation (NSF) to pursue opportunities to 

couple facilities at Fermilab with facilities and experiments at the 

proposed Deep Underground Science and Engineering Laboratory 

(DUSEL) which may substantially enhance the scientific reach of 

both projects. 

Over the past few years, the Committee has consistently supported the DOE/NASA Joint Dark Energy Mission (JDEM), a space 

probe which may provide a better understanding of the nature of 

the ‘‘dark energy’’ that constitutes the majority of the universe. 

This approach has been strengthened by the recommendation of 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
112 

the National Research Council in September of 2007 that JDEM be 

the first of the Beyond Einstein space missions to proceed. The 

Committee is pleased with the efforts made by the Office of Science 

to work with NASA to establish a path forward for this mission 

which leverages the strengths of both agencies to unlock the secrets 

of dark energy, and encourages the organizations to formalize the 

agreement with a Memorandum of Understanding as soon as possible. 

The control level is at the High Energy Physics level. 

NUCLEAR PHYSICS

The Committee recommendation for nuclear physics is $517,080,000, an increase of $7,000,000 over the budget request, 

and $84,354,000 above the fiscal year 2008 enacted level. The requested funding will support operations of the Thomas Jefferson 

National Accelerator Facility and the Relativistic Heavy Ion 

Collider. The requested funding will continue construction of the 

Electron Beam Ion Source at Brookhaven National Laboratory 

(project 07–SC–02). An additional $7,000,000 above the budget request is provided to initiate and accelerate construction of the 12 

GeV upgrade to the Continuous Electron Beam Accelerator Facility 

at the Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility (project 06– 

SC–01). The Committee encourages the Department to complete 

PED for this upgrade and move expeditiously into the construction 

phase; any remaining PED funds should be applied to construction 

activities. The funding provided includes $6,603,000 for nuclear 

physics activities relevant to the Characterization of Radioactive 

Waste, one of six integrated research and development areas highlighted in the request. 

The request also includes funding for the isotope production program, which has been transferred to the Nuclear Physics account 

from the Nuclear Energy program. The Committee is encouraged to 

note that the request includes $3,090,000 for research isotope development and production, an area identified by the National Academies as vital for the future of this program, and one of the motivations for the transfer of this program. 

The control level is at the Nuclear Physics level. 

BIOLOGICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH

The Committee recommendation for Biological and Environ- mental Research is $578,540,000, an increase of $10,000,000 over 

the budget request. This area of the Office of Science encompasses 

two distinct research efforts whose funding is provided in separate 

subaccounts: using biology to address energy production and environmental remediation and a combination of climate and ecosystem 

modeling, field research, and radiation monitoring as part of the 

Climate Change Research Program. The Committee recommends 

that these programs be managed as independent subaccounts and 

component activities of the Office of Science. The control level is at 

the Biological Research and Climate Change Research levels. 

Biological Research.—The Committee recommendation for Biological Research is $418,613,000, an increase of $5,000,000 over the 

budget request, and $11,083,000 above the fiscal year 2008 enacted 

level. The increase of $5,000,000 above the budget request is provided for the Life Sciences component of Biological Research and is 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
113 

to be used to restore support for research efforts in radiochemistry 

and instrumentation that seek to capitalize on the Department’s 

unique capabilities cutting across several scientific disciplines to 

stimulate advances in biological imaging. The funding provided 

also includes the requested $1,500,000 for biological research activities relevant to the Characterization of Radioactive Waste and 

$12,627,000 for biological research activities relevant to Carbon 

Capture and Storage, two of the six integrated research and development areas highlighted in the request. 

Climate Change Research.—The Committee recommendation for 

Climate Change Research is $159,927,000, an increase of 

$5,000,000 above the budget request and $23,060,000 above the fiscal year 2008 enacted level. The Committee is pleased that the Department, following Congressional direction, has finally begun to 

make climate change more of a priority with a request for a substantial increase in funding for climate modeling activities, an area 

in which the Department’s considerable computational resources 

give it the potential to play a leading role. However, given the increasing likelihood that international action may be required to address global climate change, the Committee believes that it is critical that the Department also develop better tools for understanding, in an integrated fashion, the broader economic, environmental, and societal implications of climate change. An additional 

$2,500,000 is provided to enhance integrated assessment activities, 

which utilize the results of climate models to assess mitigation and 

adaptation policies and technologies and their broader implications. 

Finally, as models are only as good as the science that supports 

them, a further increase of $2,500,000 is provided to enhance climate forcing research activities, which address important scientific 

questions relevant to improving climate modeling such as the impact of aerosols and clouds on local and global temperatures. 

Capabilities in climate change research are spread across multiple agencies: long-term, ground-based monitoring of the environment is generally the province of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), while the long-term ecological research sites are supported through the National Science Foundation (NSF). Climate modeling at DOE benefits from the Department’s preeminence in scientific computing, but climate modeling 

is also done by groups sponsored by NSF, NOAA, and NASA. As 

the Department increases its efforts in climate modeling, the Committee would like to see the Department take the initiative in coordinating these activities with the efforts supported by those agencies. 

The funding provided also includes $4,747,000 for climate change 

research activities relevant to Carbon Capture and Storage, one of 

six integrated research and development areas highlighted in the 

request. 

BASIC ENERGY SCIENCES

The Committee recommendation for Basic Energy Sciences is 

$1,599,660,000, an increase of $31,500,000 over the budget request 

and an increase of $329,758,000 over the current fiscal year. For 

purposes of reprogramming during fiscal year 2009, the Department may allocate funding among all operating accounts within 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
114 

Basic Energy Sciences, consistent with the reprogramming guidelines outlined earlier in this report. 

Research.—The Committee recommendation includes 

$1,142,579,000 for materials sciences and engineering, and 

$297,113,000 for chemical sciences, geosciences, and energy biosciences. The Committee recommendation funds operations of the 

five Nanoscale Science Research Centers, operations of the Advanced Light Source, the Advanced Photon Source, the National 

Synchrotron Light Source, the Stanford Synchrotron Radiation 

Laboratory, the Manuel Lujan, Jr. Neutron Scattering Center, the 

High Flux Isotope Reactor, the Linac Coherent Light Source 

(LCLS) linac at SLAC, and the Spallation Neutron Source (SNS) at 

their full optimal numbers of hours, as well as additional instrumentation for the SNS and LCLS. An additional $17,000,000 is 

provided to accelerate the completion of the LCLS Ultrafast Science 

Instruments project and for LCLS operations to enable substantially more science to be done in the early stages of the operation 

of LCLS while it is the only x-ray free electron laser in the world. 

The recommendation includes $8,240,000 for the Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR), the same as 

the budget request. This funding includes $100,000,000 for the Energy Frontier Research Center (EFRC) activities focused on addressing critical energy research needs identified by a series of ten Basic Research 

Needs workshops over the last several years. This Committee has 

long advocated the greater utilization of open competition for research funding that features head-to-head competition between national labs and universities to ensure that the best proposals will 

be funded regardless of the affiliation of the researchers involved, 

and supports the Department’s decision to broadly compete the 

EFRCs in this manner. The Committee encourages the Department 

to update and expand upon its Basic Research Needs workshop series in order to ensure that any new science opportunities and challenges relevant to DOE’s mission needs can be identified and addressed as they arise. Funding is provided in the Basic Energy 

Sciences for four integrated research and development areas: 

$33,938,000 for Electrical Energy Storage, $10,915,000 for Carbon 

Dioxide Capture and Storage, $8,492,000 for Characterization of 

Radioactive Waste, and $8,492,000 for Predicting High Level Waste 

System Performance over Extreme Time Horizons. 

Construction.—The Committee recommendation includes 

$159,968,000 for Basic Energy Sciences construction projects, an 

increase of $14,500,000 over the budget request and $66,703,000 

above the fiscal year 2008 enacted level. The Committee recommendation provides the requested funding of $11,500,000 for 

construction of the Advanced Light Source User Support Building 

(08–SC–01) at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory; $3,728,000 

for renovation of the Photon Ultrafast Laser Science and Engineering Building Renovation (08–SC–11) at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center; $107,773,000, $14,500,000 above the budget request, 

for continued project engineering and design as well as to initiate 

construction of the National Synchrotron Light Source II (07–SC– 

06) at Brookhaven National Laboratory; and $36,967,000 to continue construction of the Linac Coherent Light Source (05–R–320) 

at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center. 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
115 

ADVANCED SCIENTIFIC COMPUTING RESEARCH

The Committee recommendation is $378,820,000, an increase of 

$10,000,000 over the budget request and $27,647,000 over the current fiscal year. The increase includes $5,000,000 above the budget 

request to expand its Innovative and Novel Computational Impact 

on Theory and Experiment (INCITE) activities, which leverage the 

Department’s leadership computational facilities and expertise by 

pairing them with scientists and engineers in other fields from universities, national laboratories, and industry to address critical scientific and technological questions. A further $5,000,000 is provided to enhance advanced scientific computing research activities 

relevant to two of the six integrated research and development 

areas identified in the request. Including these additional funds, 

$5,000,000 is provided for Advanced Mathematics for Optimization 

of Complex Systems, Control Theory, and Risk Assessment, and 

$2,969,000 is provided for Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage. 

These increases reflect the Committee’s view of the importance of 

scientific computation not only in revolutionizing the way science 

is done, but also for applying these techniques to a wide range of 

modeling efforts relevant to the broader missions of the department. 

FUSION ENERGY SCIENCES

The Committee recommendation for fusion energy sciences is 

$499,050,000, an increase of $6,000,000 over the budget request, 

and $212,502,000 above the fiscal year 2008 enacted level. The 

Committee provides $214,500,000 for the U.S. contribution to 

ITER, as requested. The Committee recommendation includes 

$24,636,000 for fusion energy sciences activities relevant to High 

Energy Density Laboratory Plasmas, one of six integrated research 

and development areas highlighted in the request. The Committee 

supports the decision by the Department to terminate the National 

Compact Stellarator Experiment (NCSX) and provides $9,000,000 

to ensure orderly closeout of the project. The additional $6,000,000 

above the request, as well as the funding which had been requested 

for NCSX and is not required for closeout, are to be utilized by the 

Department to help revitalize the domestic fusion energy sciences 

program. Given the tremendous potential of fusion energy to provide a long-term solution to our energy needs, this Committee believes it is essential that the U.S. continue to play a leadership role 

in this area. To this end, the Department is directed to provide the 

Committee with a report no later than March 1, 2009 which describes a bold, credible plan for a world-leading U.S. fusion program as this area becomes an increasingly international endeavor. 

SCIENCE LABORATORIES INFRASTRUCTURE

The Committee recommendation provides a total of $145,760,000 

for Science Laboratories Infrastructure, $35,500,000 above the 

budget request. The Committee directs the Department to continue 

payments in lieu of taxes at the fiscal year 2008 level. 

With the most recent estimate of the projected cost for disposal 

of excess facilities exceeding $400,000,000, it is encouraging to see 

the Department, once again following Congressional direction, has 

increased its request for removal and cleanup efforts at its national 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
116 

laboratories which reduce long-term liabilities and provide needed 

space for new activities. The Committee provides $36,723,000, 

$21,879,000 above the budget request, for excess facilities disposition activities. Of this amount, the Committee provides 

$26,723,000, $11,879,000 above the budget request, to demolish the 

Bevatron accelerator and Building 51 at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, thereby freeing up 15 acres of buildable land for 

future activities. Last year, the Committee requested the Department to provide a detailed inventory of legacy radioactive contamination at Argonne National Laboratory (ANL) and a determination 

of the parent programs responsible for such contamination so that 

the Department could fairly apportion remediation. This report due 

on November 30, 2007 has yet to be submitted to the Committee, 

and in the absence of such information, the Committee directs the 

Office of Science to transfer $10,000,000 from funds provided for 

excess facilities disposition to the Non-Defense Environmental 

Cleanup account for cleanup efforts at ANL. 

This Committee has consistently voiced its concern over the inadequacy of the Department’s requests for resources to address the 

aging infrastructure at its laboratories which often can no longer 

meet the requirements for the performance of world-class scientific 

research. With the maintenance backlog estimated to exceed 

$518,000,000, the Committee is pleased to see the Department 

begin to address these issues with a ten-year Infrastructure Modernization Initiative. In order to accelerate these efforts, the Committee provides $25,103,000 for modernization of laboratory facilities at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, $11,000,000 above the 

budget request, and $10,740,000 for Phase I of the Interdisciplinary 

Science Building project at Brookhaven National Laboratory, 

$2,500,000 above the request, to expedite the initiation of construction of this project. 

SAFEGUARDS AND SECURITY

The Committee recommends $80,603,000, the same as the budget 

request, to meet safeguards and security requirements at Office of 

Science facilities. 

SCIENCE PROGRAM DIRECTION

The Committee recommendation is $203,913,000 for Science program direction, the same as the budget request. This amount includes: $112,151,000 for program direction at DOE field offices, 

$82,846,000 for program direction at DOE headquarters, and 

$8,916,000 for the Office of Scientific and Technical Information 

(OSTI). The control level for fiscal year 2009 is at the program account level of Science Program Direction. This funding includes 

$1,000,000 to support increased energy research analysis and studies relevant to DOE’s energy and science missions. The Committee 

supports efforts by the department to improve its analytical capacity to assess its impacts on the energy system as well as innovation 

more broadly. 

SCIENCE WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT

The Committee provides $13,583,000 for workforce development 

for teachers and scientists in fiscal year 2009, the same as the reVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:06 Dec 11, 2008 Jkt 045734 PO 00000 Frm 00116 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR921.XXX HR921

yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
117 

quested amount. The Committee concurs with the proposed expansion of the Department’s professional development program for 

science teachers. By utilizing the Department’s intellectual and 

physical assets to provide teachers with the opportunity to become 

teacher-scientists rather than teachers who happen to teach 

science, this program can significantly enhance the ability of teachers to involve their students in doing science rather than just reading about and reproducing well-established principles. 

ADVANCED RESEARCH PROJECTS AGENCY—ENERGY (ARPA-E)

The Committee recommendation includes $15,000,000 in order to 

establish the Advanced Research Projects Agency—Energy within 

the Department to overcome the long-term and high-risk technological barriers in the development of energy technologies, as authorized by section 5012 of the America COMPETES Act (Public 

Law 110–69). 

USE OF PRIOR YEAR BALANCES

The Committee recommendation includes the use of $15,000,000 

in prior-year balances. 

CONGRESSIONALLY DIRECTED PROJECTS

The Committee recommendation includes $39,700,000 for the following House-directed projects and activities. 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
118 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 053 here HR921.012
119 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 054 here HR921.013
120 

NUCLEAR WASTE DISPOSAL

Appropriation, 2008 ............................................................................ $187,269,000 

Budget estimate, 2009 ....................................................................... 247,371,000 

Recommended, 2009 ........................................................................... 247,371,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2008 .................................................................... +60,102,000 

Budget estimate, 2009 ................................................................ — 

The Department of Energy requested a total of $494,742,000 for 

work on the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository in fiscal year 

2009, of which $247,371,000 was requested for Nuclear Waste Disposal and $247,371,000 for Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal. 

For Nuclear Waste Disposal in fiscal year 2009, the Committee 

recommends $247,371,000, the same as the budget request. The 

Committee also fully funds the request of $247,371,000 for Defense 

Nuclear Waste Disposal, supporting the full request for the nuclear 

waste repository in fiscal year 2009. 

The Department submitted the license application to the Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission on June 3, 2008. The Committee recommends funding for fiscal year 2009 to defend the license application; advance the design of the repository and preliminary design 

of the Nevada Rail System; continue stakeholder interactions; and 

further develop the national transportation planning process. 

The fiscal year 2008 House Report 110–185 directed the Department to provide a plan for taking custody of the spent fuel at the 

closed reactors. DOE has not delivered that plan yet, another example of DOE ignoring Congressional guidance. 

The Committee supports the statutory language in the budget request that funds local units of government at levels proportional to 

program funding. 

INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY LOAN GUARANTEE PROGRAM 

ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES

GROSS APPROPRIATION

Appropriation, 2008 ............................................................................ $5,459,000 

Budget estimate, 2009 ....................................................................... 19,880,000 

Recommended, 2009 ........................................................................... 19,880,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2008 .................................................................... +14,421,000 

Budget estimate, 2009 ................................................................ — 

OFFSETTING RECEIPTS

Appropriation, 2008 ............................................................................ ¥$1,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2009 ....................................................................... ¥19,880,000 

Recommended, 2009 ........................................................................... ¥19,880,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2008 .................................................................... ¥18,880,000 

Budget estimate, 2009 ................................................................ — 

NET APPROPRIATION

Appropriation, 2008 ............................................................................ $4,459,000 

Budget estimate, 2009 ....................................................................... — 

Recommended, 2009 ........................................................................... — 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2008 .................................................................... ¥4,459,000 

Budget estimate, 2009 ................................................................ — 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
121 

In the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Congress authorized the Department to issue loan guarantees under Title XVII of 

the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT) until September 30, 2009. 

The budget request seeks to extend authorization for 

$20,000,000,000 for eligible projects other than nuclear power facilities through fiscal year 2010 and $18,500,000,000 for eligible 

nuclear power facilities through fiscal year 2011. 

The Committee recommends loan guarantee authority under 

Title XVII of EPACT be made available through fiscal year 2011 

for eligible projects other than nuclear power facilities in the 

amount of $28,500,000,000 to be allocated as follows; 

$6,000,000,000 for coal based power generation and industrial gasification activities at retrofitted and new facilities that incorporate 

carbon capture and sequestration or other beneficial uses of carbon; 

$2,000,000,000 for advanced coal gasification; $2,000,000,000 for 

advanced nuclear facilities for the ‘‘front-end’’ of the nuclear fuel 

cycle; and $18,500,000,000 for renewable and/or energy efficient 

systems and manufacturing, and distributed energy generation, 

transmission and distribution, an increase of loan authority in the 

amount of $8,500,000,000 over the request. The Committee also 

recommends $18,500,000,000 in loan authority for eligible nuclear 

power facilities to be made available through fiscal year 2011. 

The Committee supports language in the budget request allowing 

the collection of fees to offset the administrative expenses of the 

loan guarantee program, in the amount of $19,880,000. 

The Committee continues language, not proposed by the Administration, that limits the use of funds until a loan guarantee implementation plan has been approved by the Committees on Appropriations. 

While the EPACT assumes the Title XVII loan program to be 

self-financed, the Congressional Budget Office assumes there is a 

credit subsidy cost to the government. As such, the Committee 

makes available $440,000,000 of budget authority to cover the cost 

of this risk, in addition to $25,000,000 of advanced authority from 

the fiscal year 2008 enacted appropriation, for an overall scoring 

adjustment of $465,000,000, shown in the Comparative Statement 

of New Budget Authority (CSBA) in the back of the report. 

DEPARTMENTAL ADMINISTRATION 

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

GROSS APPROPRIATION

Appropriation, 2008 ............................................................................ $309,662,000 

Budget estimate, 2009 ....................................................................... 272,144,000 

Recommended, 2009 ........................................................................... 272,144,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2008 .................................................................... ¥37,518,000 

Budget estimate, 2009 ................................................................ — 

REVENUES

Appropriation, 2008 ............................................................................ ¥$161,247,000 

Budget estimate, 2009 ....................................................................... ¥117,317,000 

Recommended, 2009 ........................................................................... ¥117,317,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2008 .................................................................... +43,930,000 

Budget estimate, 2009 ................................................................ — 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
122 

NET APPROPRIATION

Appropriation, 2008 ............................................................................ $148,415,000 

Budget estimate, 2009 ....................................................................... 154,827,000 

Recommended, 2009 ........................................................................... 154,827,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2008 .................................................................... +6,412,000 

Budget estimate, 2009 ................................................................ — 

The Committee recommendation for Departmental Administration is $272,144,000, the same as the budget request. The recommendation for revenues is $117,317,000, consistent with the 

budget request, resulting in a net appropriation of $154,827,000. 

The Congressional Budget Office concurs with this estimate for revenues in fiscal year 2009. 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. 

Departmental Offices.—The Committee recommends $65,500,000 

for the Management account, a decrease of $1,500,000 below the 

budget request; $43,548,000 for the Chief Financial Officer, a decrease of $1,500,000 below the budget request; and, $17,969,000 for 

the Office of Policy and International Affairs, a decrease of 

$1,500,000 below the budget request. These accounts received significant increases in fiscal year 2008 over fiscal year 2007 levels, 

and the Committee does not support additional increases again in 

fiscal year 2009. 

Office of Indian Energy Policy and Programs.—The Committee 

recommends $4,500,000 within the Departmental Administration 

account to establish an Office of Indian Energy Policy and Programs, as authorized in Section 502 of the Energy Policy Act of 

2005, an increase of $4,500,000 over the budget request. Consistent 

with the authorization, the Office will coordinate and implement 

DOE energy management, conservation, education, and delivery 

systems for native Americans. 

Transfer from Other Defense Activities.—For fiscal year 2009, the 

Department requested $108,190,000 as the defense contribution to 

the Departmental Administration account. The Committee recommends 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, 2008 ............................................................................ $46,057,000 

Budget estimate, 2009 ....................................................................... 51,927,000 

Recommended, 2009 ........................................................................... 51,927,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2008 .................................................................... +5,870,000 

Budget estimate, 2009 ................................................................ — 

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 indeVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:06 Dec 11, 2008 Jkt 045734 PO 00000 Frm 00122 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR921.XXX HR921

yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
123 

pendent 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 $51,927,000, the same as the budget 

request. 

ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES

The Atomic Energy Defense Activities programs of the Department of Energy in the National Nuclear Security Administration 

(NNSA) consist of Weapons Activities, Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation, Naval Reactors, and the Office of the Administrator; 

outside of the NNSA, these include Defense Environmental Management; Other Defense Activities; and Defense Nuclear Waste 

Disposal. Descriptions of each of these accounts are provided below. 

NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

The Department of Energy is responsible for enhancing U.S. national security through the military application of nuclear technology and reducing the global danger from the proliferation of 

weapons of mass destruction. The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), a semi-autonomous agency within the Department, carries out these responsibilities. Established in March 

2000 pursuant to Title 32 of the National Defense Authorization 

Act for fiscal year 2000 (Public Law 106–65), the NNSA is responsible for the management and operation of the Nation’s nuclear 

weapons complex, naval reactors, and nuclear nonproliferation activities. Three offices within the NNSA carry out the Department’s 

national security mission: the Office of Defense Programs, the Office of Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation, and the Office of Naval 

Reactors. The Office of the NNSA Administrator oversees all NNSA 

programs. 

NNSA’s request for the Weapons Activities and Defense Nuclear 

Nonproliferation accounts is, in the view of the Committee, disproportionate and divergent. The request for Weapons Activities is 

approximately five times that of the Nuclear Nonproliferation request. The two are diverging with near symmetry as the Weapons 

Activities request is more than five percent above that of the previous year, while the Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation request is 

more than six percent under that of the previous year. 

The Committee takes a dim view of these priorities. The quantity, destructive power, and variety of the U.S. weapons stockpile 

far exceeds any requirement for deterrence of any deterrable adversary in the post Cold War world. The U.S. nuclear stockpile is remarkably diverse, resilient, and hypersufficient, and can provide 

much more than a valid deterrent despite any conceivable singlepoint failure. In contrast, a single failure of nuclear nonproliferation could have an impact on U.S. national security that would be 

almost immeasurably large. The Committee urges DOE to take a 

more focused approach to this grave challenge in the future. 

The Committee recommends $8,823,243,000 for the NNSA, a reduction of $274,019,000 below the budget request and a reduction 

of $12,958,000 below the fiscal year 2008 level. 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
124 

WEAPONS ACTIVITIES

(INCLUDING RESCISSION OF FUNDS)

Appropriation, 2008 ............................................................................ $6,297,466,000 

Budget estimate, 2009 ....................................................................... 6,618,079,000 

Recommended, 2009 ........................................................................... 6,201,860,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2008 .................................................................... ¥95,606,000 

Budget estimate, 2009 ................................................................ ¥416,219,000 

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 $6,201,860,000 

for Weapons Activities, a reduction of $416,219,000 below the budget request and a reduction of $95,606,000 below the fiscal year 

2008 level. 

Within this amount, the Committee recommends the rescission of 

$165,300,000 in prior year balances. 

U.S. Strategic Nuclear Weapons Strategy for the 21st century and 

the Future Nuclear Weapons Stockpile.—In fiscal year 2008 the 

Congress rejected funding of the proposed Reliable Replacement 

Warhead (RRW). The President’s budget request for fiscal year 

2009 nonetheless included $10,000,000 for RRW. The Committee 

once again denies this funding. 

The Committee is aware of the advantages of a modern warhead 

design and strongly supports improved surety. The Committee also 

understands that high margin provides protection against failure 

due to compound unknowns. The Committee supports trading off 

Cold War high yield for improved reliability, in order to move to 

a smaller stockpile requiring a smaller and cheaper weapons complex with no need for nuclear testing. 

That said, the Committee remains to be convinced that a new 

warhead design will lead to these benefits. The Committee will not 

spend the taxpayers’ money for a new generation of warheads promoted as leading to nuclear reductions absent a specified glide 

path to a specified, much smaller force of nuclear weapons. Similarly, the Committee finds no logic in spending the taxpayers’ 

money on a new generation of warheads promoted as avoiding the 

need for nuclear testing, while the Secretary of State insists that 

‘‘the Administration does not support the Comprehensive Test Ban 

Treaty.’’ 

The Committee also finds no validity in arguments that we 

should (1) first build a new nuclear weapons complex and later decide what to do with it, (2) produce a new nuclear warhead and 

later contemplate how to arrive at a contemporary, coherent, and 

durable strategy for it, or (3) design a new high-margin warhead 

first and consider the question of nuclear testing afterward. 

Before the Committee will consider funding for most new programs, substantial changes to the existing nuclear weapons complex, or funding for the RRW, the Committee insists that the following sequence be completed: 

(1) replacement of Cold War strategies with a 21st Century 

nuclear deterrent strategy sharply focused on today’s and tomorrow’s threats, and capable of serving the national security 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
125 

needs of future Administrations and future Congresses without 

need for nuclear testing; 

(2) determination of the size and nature of the nuclear stockpile sufficient to serve that strategy; 

(3) determination of the size and nature of the nuclear weapons complex needed to support that future stockpile. 

While all three plans can be explored in parallel, the Committee 

will not support a program that skips any of these essential steps 

or seeks to execute them out of sequence. Plans to execute these 

three steps were specified in the report accompanying the fiscal 

year 2008 Omnibus Appropriations Act as requirements for further 

consideration of RRW. While the Committee has received preliminary papers on strategy and on the nuclear complex, none of the 

required plans have been submitted. The Committee fully affirms 

its fiscal year 2008 position, and in most cases will not approve 

new starts in Weapons Activities until this deficiency has been corrected. 

The Committee urges augmented integration between the Departments of Defense and Energy in developing nuclear weapons 

policy. The Department of Energy builds and maintains the nuclear 

stockpile, but stockpile size and composition are determined by the 

Department of Defense and various interagency bodies. The Committee was dismayed at a recent hearing to find that the Deputy 

Secretary of Defense was unaware that the cost of the nuclear 

stockpile is the responsibility of the Department of Energy. 

Annual report.—The Secretary of Energy shall, not later than 

December 1 of each year, submit a report to Congress specifying, 

for the due date of the report and projected for 5, 10, 15, and 20 

years after that date, (1) the number of nuclear weapons of each 

type in the active and reserve stockpiles, (2) the strategic rationale 

for each type, and (3) the past and projected future total direct 

lifecycle cost of each type. 

Reprogramming authority.—The Committee provides limited reprogramming authority within the Weapons Activities account 

without submission of a reprogramming request to be approved in 

advance by the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations. 

The reprogramming control levels will be as follows: subprograms 

within Directed Stockpile Work, Life Extension Programs, Stockpile Systems, Warhead Dismantlement, Stockpile Services, Science 

Campaigns, Engineering Campaigns, Advanced Simulation and 

Computing, Pit Manufacturing and Certification, and Readiness 

Campaigns. This will provide the flexibility needed to manage 

these programs. Because the NNSA has ignored House funding direction in the past, the Committee provides no reprogramming authority between site allocations for Readiness in Technical Base 

and Facilities. 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, or to gain 

cost savings; and funds may not be used for an item for which Congress has specifically denied funds or for a new program or project. 

The Department must notify Congress within 15 days of the use 

of this reprogramming authority. Transfers during the fiscal year 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
126 

which would result in increases or decreases which would exceed 

the limitations outlined in the previous paragraph require prior notification of and approval by the House and Senate Committees on 

Appropriations. 

DIRECTED STOCKPILE WORK

The Committee recommendation provides $1,398,651,000 for Di- rected Stockpile Work (DSW), a reduction of $277,064,000 below 

the budget request. Directed Stockpile Work includes all activities 

that directly support weapons in the nuclear stockpile, including 

maintenance, research, development, engineering, certification, dismantlement, and disposal activities. The DSW account provides all 

the direct funding for the Department’s life extension activities, 

which are designed to extend the service life of the existing nuclear 

weapons stockpile by providing new subsystems and components 

for each warhead as needed. 

Life Extension Programs.—The Committee recommends 

$211,385,000 for the DSW Life Extension Programs, the same as 

the request. 

Stockpile Systems.—The Committee recommends $338,682,000 

for the DSW stockpile systems activities, the same as the request. 

Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW).—The Committee recommendation provides no funding for the reliable replacement warhead (RRW) and includes bill language prohibiting the expenditure 

of funds on this activity, for reasons described above. The Committee does not intend the fiscal year 2009 Appropriations Bill prohibition on expenditures for RRW to restrict non-RRW expenditures in other programs, including Enhanced Surety and Advanced 

Certification. 

Weapons Dismantlement and Disposition.—The Committee recommendation provides $189,711,000 for the warhead dismantlement program, an increase of $5,999,000 over the budget request. 

Within these funds, the Committee directs $5,000,000 for the dismantlement initiative at the Device Assembly Facility at the Nevada Test Site, in order to examine a capability to dismantle small 

numbers of troublesome individual warheads without interfering 

with the large-scale entire-type dismantlements at Pantex. 

Stockpile Services.—The Committee recommendation provides $658,873,000 for the DSW Stockpile Services activities, a decrease 

of $273,063,000 from the request. The Committee recommends 

$250,000,000 for Production Support which is a decrease of 

$52,126,000 from the request; $33,329,000 for Research and Development Support which is a decrease of $2,902,000 from the request; 

$161,984,000 for Research and Development Certification and Safety which is a decrease of $31,391,000 from the request; 

$160,000,000 for Management, Technology, and Production which 

is a decrease of $41,375,000 from the request. All recommendations 

in this paragraph are the same as the House-passed recommendations in fiscal year 2008; the Committee recommends confining 

spending to that level in light of competing priorities. 

The Committee commends NNSA for developing and certifying a 

new pit that does not require testing. But the W88 warhead, with 

its very high yield and yield/weight ratio, serves obsolete Cold War 

concepts rather than current or future needs, and manufacture of 

additional pits in order to avoid reducing the W88 force is not warVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:06 Dec 11, 2008 Jkt 045734 PO 00000 Frm 00126 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR921.XXX HR921

yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
127 

ranted. Therefore the Committee recommends no funding for Pit 

Manufacturing. In order to maintain future options, the Committee 

recommends $53,560,000, the same as the request, for Pit Manufacturing Capability. 

CAMPAIGNS

Campaigns are focused on efforts involving the three weapons 

laboratories, the Nevada Test Site, the weapons production plants, 

and selected external organizations to address critical capabilities 

needed to achieve program objectives. For Campaigns the Committee recommends $1,658,301,000, which is $26,468,000 above the 

request and $215,533,000 below the fiscal year 2008 appropriation. 

From within funds provided for the various campaigns, the Com- mittee recommends $4,237,000, $2,137,000 above the budget request and the same as the fiscal year 2008 funding, for the university research program in robotics (URPR) for the development of 

advanced robotic technologies for strategic national applications. 

Science Campaign.—The Committee recommends $307,662,000, 

which is $15,408,000 less than the request. The Committee recommends $20,000,000 for Advanced Certification Non-RRW, the 

same as the request for Advanced Certification, which Advanced 

Certification Non-RRW replaces, while specifying that no funding 

herein provided is available for RRW. The Committee recommends 

$74,413,000 for Primary Assessment Technologies, the same as the 

request. The Committee recommends $23,734,000 for Dynamic Plutonium Experiments, the same as the request. The Committee recommends $79,292,000 for Secondary Assessment Technologies, the 

same as the request. The Committee recommends $80,805,000 for 

Dynamic Materials Properties, which is $5,000,000 below the request. 

The Committee commends NNSA for its outstanding Stockpile 

Stewardship program, which has performed better than expected 

and has created a technically superior alternative to nuclear testing. Stockpile Stewardship has enabled us to observe nuclear weapons phenomena more directly, in far more detail, and using statistically more significant samples, than could ever be possible with 

nuclear testing. Because of current progress in Stockpile Stewardship, in particular the recent results from the Dual-Axis Radiographic Hydrodynamic Test Facility (DAHRT), the Committee finds 

no evidence that nuclear testing would add a useful increment to 

the immense and expanding body of weapons knowledge arising 

from Stockpile Stewardship. This is doubly fortuitous in that nuclear testing has become a non-executable mission, because of probable diplomatic and nuclear proliferation reactions as well as probable local opposition to nuclear testing. For all these reasons, the 

Committee recommends no funding for nuclear test readiness, a decrease of $10,048,000 below the request. 

Engineering Campaign.—For Engineering Campaign, the Com- mittee recommends $163,992,000, an increase of $21,250,000 over 

the request. The Committee recommends $70,000,000 for Enhanced 

Surety Non-RRW, an increase of $34,359,000 over the request for 

Enhanced Surety, which Enhanced Surety Non-RRW replaces. 

However, the Committee directs that none of the funds herein provided are available for RRW. The Committee directs that priority 

for Enhanced Surety Non-RRW go to those weapon types at greatVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:06 Dec 11, 2008 Jkt 045734 PO 00000 Frm 00127 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR921.XXX HR921

yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
128 

est long-term risk. The Committee recommends $8,644,000 for Nuclear Survivability, which is $13,109,000 below the request and the 

same as the fiscal year 2008 appropriation; the Committee has significant doubts regarding the basic thrust of this program. 

Inertial Confinement Fusion and High Yield Campaign.—The 

Committee recommendation provides $508,062,000 for the Inertial 

Confinement Fusion and High Yield Campaign, an increase of 

$86,820,000 over the budget request. Within the funds provided for 

Inertial Confinement Fusion and High Yield Campaign, the Committee recommends $68,300,000, which is $10,000,000 above the request, for the Laboratory for Laser Energetics. The Committee recommends increases of $8,000,000 over the request for Ignition, 

$14,600,000 for NIF Diagnostics, Cryogenics, and Experimental 

Support; $200,000 for Pulsed Power Inertial Confinement Fusion; 

$20,820,000 for Facility Operations and Target Production; 

$25,600,000 for Inertial Fusion Technology (HAPL), $15,000,000 for 

the Naval Research Laboratory, and $2,600,000 for NIF Assembly 

and Installation. The Committee recommends $3,147,000, the same 

as the request, for the Joint Program in High Energy Density Laboratory Plasmas. 

Advanced Simulation and Computing Campaign.—The Committee recommends for the Advanced Simulation and Computing 

Campaign $495,548,000, which is $66,194,000 below the request. 

Readiness Campaigns.—The Committee recommends for the 

Readiness Campaigns $183,037,000, the same as the request. 

READINESS IN TECHNICAL BASE AND FACILITIES (RTBF)

The Committee recommends $1,510,968,000 for Readiness in 

Technical Base and Facilities, a decrease of $209,555,000 from the 

request. 

Operation of facilities.—The Committee recommends $20,000,000 

above the request for Pantex, to be used to improve physical security and fire-suppression capability. The Committee recommends $32,092,000 above the request in 

order for Livermore Laboratory to strengthen security and continue 

preparations for the safe removal of plutonium. The Committee directs the Secretary of Energy to ensure that Livermore Laboratory 

has, no later than 60 days of enactment of this Act, sufficient protective capability in place, as confirmed by the Office of Independent Oversight, to successfully defend Superblock against the 

2005 Design Basis Threat. The Committee directs the Secretary to 

report to Congress, within 90 days of enactment of this Act, on all 

Category I Special Nuclear Material at Superblock that can be 

readily transferred to the Device Assembly Facility at the Nevada 

Test Site and/or Pantex for interim storage. The Committee directs 

NNSA to provide Congress, within 120 days of enactment of this 

Act, with a report that contains a schedule and budget for the 

movement of the identified material for interim storage. 

The Committee recommends $76,353,000 which is the same as 

the fiscal year 2008 House-passed bill, for Kansas City Plant; 

$292,595,000 which is $5,517,000 below the request and $7,570,000 

above the fiscal year 2008 appropriation, for Los Alamos National 

Laboratory; $61,127,000, $3,736,000 below the request for the Nevada Test Site; $127,287,000, the same as the request, for Sandia 

National Laboratories, including $1,500,000 for the Advanced EngiVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:06 Dec 11, 2008 Jkt 045734 PO 00000 Frm 00128 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR921.XXX HR921

yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
129 

neering Environment; for Savannah River Site $77,410,000, the 

same as the fiscal year 2008 House-passed bill; for Y–12, 

$216,904,000 which is the same as the request; and for Institutional Site Support, $57,837,000 which is the same as the request. The Committee recommends $73,841,000 for Program Readiness, $72,509,000 for Material Recycle and Recovery, $23,898,000 for 

Containers, and $29,846,000 for Storage. All recommendations in 

this paragraph are the same as the request. 

RTBF Construction.—The Committee recommends no funding for 

the Radioactive Liquid Waste Treatment Facility or for the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Facility Replacement (CMRR). In 

the absence of critical decisions on the nature and size of the stockpile, which in turn generate requirements for the nature and capacity of the nuclear weapons complex, it is impossible to determine the capacity required of either of these facilities. It would be 

imprudent to design and construct on the basis of a guess at their 

required capacity. The Committee reiterates that significant funding for complex transformation, or for new weapons program starts, 

will not be provided until the steps outlined in the Explanatory 

Statement accompanying the Fiscal Year 2008 Omnibus Appropriations Act, and under the heading ‘‘Weapons Activities’’ above, have 

been completed. 

The Committee recommends no funding for 09–D–404, Test Capabilities Revitalization II or for 08–D–806, Ion Beam Laboratory 

Refurbishment, both at Sandia National Laboratory. Each is a new 

start in the absence of a strategy defining the requirements for the 

facility. The Committee recommends $15,008,000, which is $13,225,000 

below the request and the same as the fiscal year 2008 appropriation, for 08–D–802 High Explosives Pressing Facility, Pantex. The 

Committee recommends $5,885,000, which is $2,015,000 below the 

request and the same as the fiscal year 2008 appropriation, for 08– 

D–804, TA–55 Reinvestment Project, Los Alamos National Laboratory. 

The Committee recommends funding for all other RTBF Construction projects at the requested level. 

FACILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE RECAPITALIZATION PROGRAM (FIRP)

The FIRP program was begun in fiscal year 2002 to work off the 

deferred maintenance requirements that were allowed to build up 

at all the nuclear weapons complex sites. The Committee recommendation for Facilities and Infrastructure Recapitalization Program is $169,549,000, the same as the budget request. 

TRANSFORMATION DISPOSITION

The objective of this program is to develop and apply an integrated and prioritized inventory of excess facilities and infrastructure projects, focusing on disposition by funding the minor decontamination, dismantlement, removal and disposal through transfer 

or sale of excess facilities. The Committee continues to encourage 

efforts to reduce the overall facility footprint of the complex. The 

Committee recommends $77,391,000, the same as the request, for 

Transformation Disposition, notwithstanding that it is a new start 

in the absence of the required overall strategy, because it is a strategy-independent commendable step toward reducing the cost of opVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:06 Dec 11, 2008 Jkt 045734 PO 00000 Frm 00129 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR921.XXX HR921

yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
130 

erating the complex. The Committee continues to expect that services for decontamination, decommissioning, and demolition of excess facilities services be procured through open competition where 

such actions provide the best return on investment for the federal 

government. 

SAFEGUARDS AND SECURITY

Secure Transportation Asset.—The Secure Transportation Asset 

program provides for the safe, secure movement of nuclear weapons, special nuclear materials, and non-nuclear weapon components 

between military locations and nuclear weapons complex facilities 

within the United States. The Committee recommends 

$221,072,000, the same as the request, for the Secure Transportation Asset. 

Cyber Security.—The Committee recommends funding Cyber Security at $122,511,000, the same as the request. 

Defense Nuclear Security.—The Committee recommends 

$713,649,000 for Defense Nuclear Security Operations and Maintenance, which is $23,432,000 above the request in order for Pantex 

to meet the 2005 Design Basis Threat. The Committee recommends 

$47,111,000, the same as the request, for Defense Nuclear Security 

construction. 

NUCLEAR WEAPONS INCIDENT RESPONSE

The Nuclear Weapons Incident Response (NWIR) program responds to and mitigates nuclear and radiological incidents worldwide. The Committee recommends $221,936,000, the same as the 

request, for Nuclear Weapons Incident Response. 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS AND OPERATIONS

The Committee recommends $40,587,000, the same as the request, for Environmental Projects and Operations. 

FUNDING ADJUSTMENTS

The Committee recommends the use of $366,000 of prior year 

balances as requested. In addition, the Committee rescinds 

$165,300,000 in prior year balances and directs their use to meet 

fiscal year 2009 needs as described above. 

Congressionally Directed Projects.—The Committee recommendation includes $20,500,000 for the following House-directed projects 

and activities. 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
131 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 057 here HR921.014
132 

DEFENSE NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION

Appropriation, 2008 ............................................................................ $1,657,996,000 

Budget estimate, 2009 ....................................................................... 1,247,048,000 

Recommended, 2009 ........................................................................... 1,530,048,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2008 .................................................................... ¥127,948,000 

Budget estimate, 2009 ................................................................ +283,000,000 

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; U.S. Uranium Disposition (formerly Fissile 

Materials Disposition); and the Global Threat Reduction Initiative. 

The Committee’s recommendation for Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation is $1,530,048,000, which is an increase of 

$283,000,000 above the budget and a decrease of $127,948,000 

below the appropriation provided in fiscal year 2008. 

The Committee provides funding direction for a total program 

level for Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation activities in fiscal year 

2009 of $1,541,466,000, $293,500,000 above the fiscal year 2009 

budget request and $116,530,000 below the appropriation provided 

in fiscal year 2008. The Committee directs the use of $11,418,000 

of prior year balances in fiscal year 2009 to accelerate high priority 

nuclear nonproliferation activities. This amount is significantly less 

than was available in fiscal year 2008 and accounts for the vast 

majority of the decrease from current year levels. In no sense does 

the decrease from fiscal year 2008 indicate a decrease in Committee support for Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation. 

NATIONAL SECURITY VALUE ADDED

The Committee views NNSA’s nuclear nonproliferation mission 

as a vital component of national security. The Committee expects 

NNSA to lead the U.S. Government’s nuclear nonproliferation effort through strategic investment planning across all foreign and 

domestic stakeholders as well as the expansion of cooperative border detection opportunities around the world. The Committee directs NNSA to expand and intensify its efforts to further constrict 

avenues for illicit transport of nuclear and radiological material. 

This effort should include an appropriate allocation of resources to 

support proactive, intelligence-driven security operations as well as 

to strengthen the current and planned global nuclear detection architecture. 

The Committee’s increase above the request reflects recognition 

that nuclear nonproliferation is the front line in the global war on 

terror protecting the U.S. against terrorist use of a nuclear device 

or material on U.S. or allied soil. The consequences, domestically 

and internationally, of such an act are difficult to quantify or imagine; the large inventories of special nuclear material in vulnerable 

locations worldwide and the well-known hostile intent of terrorist 

movements to inflict the maximum devastation on human civilization make this threat very real. Although past financial commitVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:06 Dec 11, 2008 Jkt 045734 PO 00000 Frm 00132 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR921.XXX HR921

yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
133 

ments by the Committee to address the terrorist threat of a nuclear 

detonation in a U.S. city were significant, the urgency increases 

each year large inventories of nuclear material continue to exist in 

inadequately secured locations. The financial commitment in the 

Committee recommendation is clear Congressional direction to the 

Administration to shift nuclear nonproliferation issues from a marginally supported security program to one of the highest national 

security priorities. 

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 recommends $276,009,000 for Nonproliferation and Verification Research and Development, $918,000 above the 

budget request, and directs that the increase be used for Proliferation Detection. The Committee directs that contracts for nuclear 

detection be awarded on basis of merit, and not be limited to the 

national laboratories. 

NONPROLIFERATION AND INTERNATIONAL SECURITY

The Committee recommendation provides $165,295,000 for Non- proliferation and International Security, $24,828,000 above the 

budget request and $15,302,000 above the fiscal year 2008 appropriation. 

All funding for, or to support, the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) activities within the Office of Nonproliferation and 

International Security is explicitly denied. The Committee finds the 

nuclear nonproliferation arguments for the GNEP reprocessing initiative, which actually advocates the spread of weapons grade special nuclear materials and reprocessing technologies, to be 

unpersuasive and contradictory. 

Warhead Dismantlement and Fissile Materials Transparency.— The Committee recommends $13,791,000 for Warhead Dismantlement and Fissile Materials Transparency, which is $250,000 below 

the request and $1,000 above the fiscal year 2008 appropriation, 

thus deleting funding for, or to support, this component of GNEP. 

International Nuclear Safeguards and Engagement Program.— 

The Committee recommends $26,036,000 for the International Nuclear Safeguards and Engagement Program, which is $15,000,000 

above the request and $16,892,000 above the fiscal year 2008 appropriation. The Committee directs that the additional funding be 

used for professional recruitment programs and international cooperation programs to deploy next-generation nuclear safeguards, 

with priority to upgrading existing safeguarded facilities. 

Global Initiatives for Proliferation Prevention (IPP) Program.— 

The Committee is gravely concerned about pervasive and profound 

problems within the Global Initiatives for Proliferation Prevention 

(IPP) Program. The Committee fully supports the laudable goal of 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
134 

this program, which is to transition former Soviet weapons of mass 

destruction (WMD) scientists and engineers into non-WMD jobs 

and remove economic incentives for those individuals to market 

their abilities to terrorist groups and/or nations. Unfortunately, the 

program’s excellent theory has been, in many respects, not consonant with its practice. The Committee is concerned that in some 

cases IPP funds are being used to support scientists who do not 

have WMD experience, and to bring in new WMD scientists rather 

than providing incumbent scientists with a path out. Claims of the 

number of successful non-WMD job placements of former WMD scientists are not independently verified. Given the significantly improved state of the Russian economy, the risk of brain drain to terrorists, and thus the fundamental need for this program, is called 

into doubt. Because of a sluggish and overly complex system for accounting for payments, large excess balances have been carried in 

this program. Of most grave concern is the fact that IPP funds 

have been given to Russian institutes conducting work on Iran’s 

Bushehr reactor, with concomitant risk of contributing to an Iranian nuclear weapons program. The Committee recommends 

$11,157,000, which is $12,687,000 below the request and 

$19,801,000 below the fiscal year 2008 appropriation. None of these 

funds may be obligated or expended for, or in support of, GNEP, 

or for Russian institutes conducting work on or with Iranian nuclear technology or facilities. 

The Committee directs the Secretary of Energy to prepare an 

exit strategy for IPP from Russia, with milestones leading to terminating the program in Russia no later than January 1, 2012, and 

to submit a report on this strategy to all authorizing and appropriating committees of jurisdiction no later than 90 days after enactment of this Act. The report is to include an independently 

verifiable plan for confining the program to Soviet-era WMD scientists from states of the former Soviet Union and to scientists in 

any other state who began his or her specialized training before the 

inception of IPP in that country. 

Nuclear Safeguards Program.—The Committee recommends 

$26,286,000 for the Nuclear Safeguards Program, which is 

$15,000,000 above the request and $7,029,000 above the fiscal year 

2008 appropriation. This additional funding is to reinvigorate international safeguards technology development, and to develop innovative concepts and techniques for nuclear safeguards. None of 

these funds may be obligated or expended for, or in support of, 

GNEP. 

International Nuclear Security.—The International Nuclear Security program conducts valuable physical protection assessments to 

verify that foreign sites holding nuclear materials are adequately 

protected. The Committee recommends $19,584,000, which is 

$15,000,000 above the request and $14,680,000 above the fiscal 

year 2008 appropriation. None of these funds may be obligated or 

expended for, or in support of, GNEP. 

Treaties and Agreements.—The Committee recommends 

$15,215,000, which is $545,000 below the request and $11,336,000 

above the fiscal year 2008 appropriation, thus deleting all funds 

for, or in support of, this component of GNEP. 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
135 

INTERNATIONAL NUCLEAR MATERIALS PROTECTION AND COOPERATION

The International Nuclear Materials Protection and Cooperation 

(MPC&A) program is designed to work cooperatively with Russia 

and the border states of the former Soviet Union to secure weapons 

and weapons-usable nuclear material. The focus is to improve the 

physical security at facilities that possess or process significant 

quantities of nuclear weapons-usable materials that are of proliferation concern. Programmatic activities include installing monitoring equipment, inventorying nuclear material, improving the 

Russian security culture, and establishing a security infrastructure. 

The Committee recommends $509,448,000 for MPC&A activities, 

an increase of $79,754,000 over the request and, because of decreased resources as explained above, $115,034,000 below the fiscal 

year 2008 appropriation. 

Civilian Nuclear Sites.—The Committee recommends 

$54,469,000 for protection of civilian nuclear sites, an increase of 

$20,000,000 above the request and $281,000 above the fiscal year 

2008 appropriation. 

Second Line of Defense (SLD) core program.—The Committee recommends $88,553,000, an increase of $10,000,000 above the request and a decrease of $47,482,000 below the fiscal year 2008 appropriation. 

MegaPorts.—The Committee recommends $183,845,000 for 

MegaPorts, an increase of $49,754,000 above the request and 

$53,000,000 above the fiscal year 2008 appropriation. 

ELIMINATION OF WEAPONS-GRADE PLUTONIUM PRODUCTION

The Committee recommendation for the Elimination of WeaponsGrade Plutonium Production Program (EWGPP) is $141,299,000, 

the same as the budget request and $38,641,000 below the fiscal 

year 2008 appropriation. EWGPP is a cooperative effort with the 

Federation of Russia to halt plutonium production at the only three 

nuclear plutonium power-generation reactors still in operation, two 

located at Seversk and one at Zheleznogorsk. The three reactors 

had approximately 15 years of remaining service life and could 

have generated an additional 25 metric tons of weapons-grade plutonium. They also would have provided heat and electricity required for the surrounding communities. The program approach is 

to shut down these three reactors by providing two alternative fossil-fueled energy plants to supply heat and electricity to the surrounding communities currently being supplied by the plutonium 

plants. The funding reduction from fiscal year 2008 to the Committee’s present recommendation reflects the pending conclusion of 

this program, as the two plants at Seversk will be shut down by 

the end of 2008 and the plant at Zhelenogorsk will be shut down 

by 2010. 

FISSILE MATERIALS DISPOSITION

The Committee recommendation provides $41,774,000 for fissile 

materials disposition activities, the same as the budget request and 

$24,461,000 below fiscal year 2008. No funding for Mixed Oxide 

Fuel Fabrication (MOX) is requested or recommended here, since 

funding for that program has been moved to Nuclear Energy. 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
136 

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 places very high priority on this initiative, and recommends $406,641,000 for GTRI activities, an increase 

of $187,000,000 over the budget request and $213,416,000 over the 

fiscal year 2008 appropriation. The additional funds are provided 

to accelerate securing of these materials around the world. 

Within this initiative, the Committee recommends: 

Highly Enriched Uranium Reactor Conversion.—The Committee 

recommends $99,300,000 for Highly Enriched Uranium Reactor 

Conversion, which is $50,000,000 above the request and 

$65,481,000 above the fiscal year 2008 appropriation. This essential program will accelerate conversion of uranium reactors from 

Highly Enriched Uranium (HEU) to Low-Enriched Uranium (LEU) 

which is an order of magnitude less suited for use in an improvised 

nuclear weapon. The Committee commends NNSA for its work on 

new technologies that should enable conversion to LEU to become 

more commercially attractive for peaceful uses. 

Russian-origin Nuclear Material Removal.—The Committee recommends $49,200,000 for Russian-origin Nuclear Material Removal, which is $10,000,000 above the request and $49,200,000 

above the fiscal year 2008 appropriation. 

U.S.-origin Nuclear Material Removal.—The Committee recommends $14,300,000 for U.S.-origin Nuclear Material Removal, 

which is $10,000,000 above the request and $14,300,000 above the 

fiscal year 2008 appropriation. 

Gap Nuclear Material Removal.—The Committee recommends 

$60,721,000 for Gap Nuclear Material Removal, which is 

$20,000,000 above the request and $60,721,000 above the fiscal 

year 2008 appropriation. 

Emerging Threats Nuclear Material Removal.—The Committee 

recommends $12,000,000 for Emerging Threats Nuclear Material 

Removal, which is $10,000,000 above the request and $12,000,000 

above the fiscal year 2008 appropriation. 

International Radiological Material Removal.—The Committee 

recommends $23,000,000 for International Radiological Material 

Removal, which is $7,000,000 above the request and $23,000,000 

above the fiscal year 2008 appropriation. 

Domestic Nuclear Material Removal.—The Committee recommends $29,400,000 for Domestic Nuclear Material Removal, 

which is $15,000,000 above the request and $29,400,000 above the 

fiscal year 2008 appropriation. The Committee directs NNSA to 

work with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to develop and implement a cooperative plan to secure and/or remove domestic radiological sources. To the extent practicable, this plan should improve 

incentives for holders of radiological material to ensure its proper 

disposal. This plan shall be transmitted to the Committee not later 

than 180 days following enactment of this Act. 

International Material Protection.—The Committee recommends 

$23,420,000 for International Material Protection, $15,000,000 

above the request and $23,420,000 above the fiscal year 2008 appropriation. 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
137 

Domestic Material Protection.—The Committee recommends 

$75,500,000 for Domestic Material Protection, which is $50,000,000 

above the request and $75,500,000 above the fiscal year 2008 appropriation. 

INTERNATIONAL NUCLEAR FUEL BANK

In fiscal year 2008, an unrequested $49,545,000 was appropriated under Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation as the United 

States Government’s contribution to the implementation of an 

International Nuclear Fuel Bank to establish a nuclear fuel supply 

for peaceful means under the auspices of the International Atomic 

Energy Agency (IAEA). The International Nuclear Fuel Bank is intended to provide a nuclear fuel stockpile to be available as a fuel 

supply reserve for nations that have made the sovereign choice to 

develop their civilian nuclear energy industry based on foreign 

sources of nuclear fuel and therefore have no requirement to develop an indigenous nuclear fuel enrichment capability. 

No additional funds are recommended for fiscal year 2009. The 

Committee’s support for the International Fuel Bank as a multinational program remains strong, and the Committee hopes to see 

contributions from other nations to this important initiative. But 

while it awaits multinational support, the Committee does not view 

further U.S. contributions from fiscal year 2009 funds to be warranted, and therefore recommends no additional funding, but intends to revisit this promising program in future years. The Committee directs NNSA to be prepared to report on the progress of the 

International Fuel Bank, including U.S. expenditures and foreign 

contributions. 

FUNDING ADJUSTMENTS

As stated above, the Committee direction for funding adjustments in Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation includes $11,418,000 

use of prior year balances. 

Congressionally Directed Projects.—The Committee recommendation includes $1,000,000 for the following House-directed project. 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
138 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 019 here HR921.015
139 

NAVAL REACTORS

Appropriation, 2008 ............................................................................ $774,686,000 

Budget estimate, 2009 ....................................................................... 828,054,000 

Recommended, 2008 ........................................................................... 828,054,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2008 .................................................................... +53,368,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ................................................................ — 

The Naval Reactors program is responsible for all aspects of 

naval nuclear propulsion from technology development through reactor operations to ultimate reactor plant disposal. The program 

provides for the design, development, testing, and evaluation of improved naval nuclear propulsion plants and reactor cores. These efforts are critical to ensuring the safety and reliability of 102 operating Naval reactor plants and to developing the next generation 

reactor. The Committee recommendation provides $828,054,000, 

the same as the request, for Naval Reactors activities. 

OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR

Appropriation, 2008 ............................................................................ $402,137,000 

Budget estimate, 2009 ....................................................................... 404,081,000 

Recommended, 2008 ........................................................................... 428,581,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2008 .................................................................... 26,444,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ................................................................ 24,500,000 

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 

$428,581,000, which is 26,444,000 above the fiscal year enacted 

level and $24,500,000 above the request. The Committee recommendation provides $12,000, the same as 

the request, for official reception and representation expenses for 

the NNSA. 

Program Direction for Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation.—The 

Administrator is directed to support the increase in Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation activities with sufficient resources for expanded nuclear nonproliferation activities. 

Support to Minority Colleges and Universities.—The Committee 

commends NNSA for its aggressive program to take advantage of 

the Historically Black Colleges and Universities (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 President’s budget request included 

up to $13,600,000 for its contribution to this important program. 

The Committee recommends $31,000,000 including $3,300,000 for 

the Dr. Samuel P. Massie Chairs of Excellence, as the NNSA contribution to the Department’s support for the HBCUs. The Committee expects the Department to provide financial support in 

rough parity to both HBCUs and the Hispanic Serving Institutions 

(HSI). 

Educational Advancement Alliance HBCU Graduate program.— 

The Committee further recommends $5,000,000 to support the 

Educational Advancement Alliance HBCU Graduate program. The 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
140 

Committee directs these funds to be used for scholarships to HBCU 

graduates pursuing a graduate program leading to a degree in the 

sciences within five years of graduation from the HBCU. The program will include a National Conference for Potential Scholars and 

an endowment. 

Defense Environmental Management Program for Argonne National Laboratories.—The Committee directs $10,000,000 to be 

transferred from the Office of the Administrator to the Defense Environmental Management Program for Argonne National Laboratories to address the radioactive contamination and material legacy 

that exists at the site for facilities that are no longer used and require remediation. 

Congressionally Directed Projects.—The Committee recommendation includes $24,500,000 for the following House-directed projects 

and activities. 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
141 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 058 here HR921.016
142 

DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT

The Defense Environmental Management (EM) program is responsible for identifying and reducing risks and managing waste at 

sites where the Department carried out defense-related nuclear research and production activities that resulted in radioactive, hazardous, and mixed waste contamination requiring remediation, stabilization, or some other cleanup action. 

The Committee continues to be dismayed with the management 

and accountability of the Environmental Management program. Because the Department has failed to respond thoroughly and 

promptly to Committee inquiries, the Committee has come to rely 

on the work of the Government Accountability Office to ascertain 

the current status of EM operations, often leaving the impression 

that the EM organization is in a constant state of disarray. The 

Committee takes its oversight responsibilities seriously, to ensure 

that taxpayers get good value for their money. However, the Committee is less and less confident in the ability of the Department 

to manage these cleanup projects and be financially accountable. 

Operating Projects.—The Office of Environmental Management 

(EM) oversees scores of projects, worth billions of dollars, to clean 

up nuclear waste resulting from nuclear weapons production. EM 

manages work in the EM project management system according to 

construction projects, and operating projects. Construction projects 

are facilities that are designed and built; operating projects tend to 

be ‘‘level of effort’’ activities, such as stabilizing and disposing of 

waste, nuclear facility decontamination and decommissioning, and 

soil and water remediation. EM manages approximately 82 operating projects, 10 of which exceed $1,000,000,000 over the nearterm project schedule (typically five years). The Government Accountability Office (GAO) and others have consistently cited ongoing EM management and contractor oversight problems that have 

resulted in significant cost increases and schedule delays. Because 

these reviews generally focused on construction projects, the Committee recently asked the GAO to evaluate the management of 

EM’s operating projects, given the significant dollar value of these 

activities. Specifically, the Committee asked GAO to determine the 

extent to which scope, cost and schedule have changed; identify 

major factors contributing to cost, scope and schedule changes, and 

identify obstacles to effectively managing operating projects and 

contracts. GAO’s preliminary results indicate that cost increases 

and schedule delays for EM operating projects are not reflected in 

near-term baselines; instead, work scope is moved from the nearterm to out-years, generally extending schedules and increasing 

overall costs. GAO found that DOE established scope, cost and 

schedule baselines using optimistic and accelerated schedule assumptions. In one case, the DOE independent validation process 

approved a baseline knowing the accelerated assumptions were unrealistic, but rather than revising the assumptions, agreed to have 

EM increase its unfunded contingency. Other GAO findings note 

that key policies for baseline management and cost estimating are 

spread across guidance documents, and are unclear in some cases; 

management protocols are constantly changing; performance reporting systems are inadequate and inaccurate; and baseline validations provide questionable assurance that project baseline comVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:06 Dec 11, 2008 Jkt 045734 PO 00000 Frm 00142 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR921.XXX HR921

yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
143 

mitments can be met. The Committee sees the lack of management 

by the EM program in containing costs to be directly related to the 

lapse in oversight of program activities and projects. In light of 

these preliminary GAO findings, the Committee directs the EM 

program to develop a strict discipline in project change control for 

all its projects—construction and operating—and report to the 

Committee on its implementation within 30 days of enactment of 

this legislation. 

Savannah River Waste Management.—When the Under Secretary 

of Energy unilaterally approved a decision memorandum in the fall 

of 2006 to extend H-canyon operations another decade, and 

changed the course of Environmental Impact Statements executed 

in previous years by adding tons of material to canyon operations 

for reprocessing, the Committee asked the Department to provide 

the analyses that supported this decision. Because the Department 

was unable to provide sufficient life-cycle options analyses to support this decision, the Committee asked GAO to review the impact 

of waste management operations as the result of the Under Secretary’s decision. GAO’s preliminary findings indicate it will cost 

approximately $4,300,000,000 to $4,600,000,000 through 2019 to 

process the material, according to DOE estimates. This estimate 

does not include the additional cost of storing and treating approximately 300,000 gallons of liquid radioactive wastes expected to be 

generated by H-canyon operations annually. GAO findings indicate 

DOE lacks a comprehensive lifecycle cost estimate for operating the 

canyon that includes all costs associated with waste processing, 

and continued operation of H-canyon will result in additional radioactive waste which may strain SRS’s liquid waste management system. SRS waste storage tanks are nearing capacity, making efficient waste processing critical for continued H-canyon operation. 

GAO notes there are delays in preparing the necessary safety documentation to operate the canyons, and additional environmental 

analyses are required before processing additional material using 

H-canyon. As such, the Committee has reduced funding for these 

activities until the Department produces a comprehensive plan for 

dealing with the secondary consequences of reprocessing material 

in the H-canyon for another decade, and the Department has addressed all of GAO’s concerns to the satisfaction of the Committee. 

Hanford Tanks.—The Hanford site receives more than 

$1,000,000,000 per year for its tank waste cleanup efforts. Under 

the Tri-Party Agreement between DOE, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the State of Washington Department of Ecology, 

DOE is required to complete the treatment of Hanford’s tank waste 

by 2028. Given the risks and costs associated with maintaining the 

waste in aging tanks, the Committee directed GAO to examine the 

condition, contents and long-term stability of Hanford’s underground tanks; DOE’s strategy for managing the tanks and the 

waste they contain; and, the extent to which DOE has weighed the 

risks and benefits of its tank management strategy against the 

growing costs of that strategy. GAO’s preliminary findings indicate 

that DOE tank management officials are uncertain about the structural integrity of the single-shell tanks with potentially significant 

effects on DOE’s tank management strategy; DOE does not know 

the specific contents in each tank; and many tanks have exceeded 

their life spans, raising questions about continued viability. Of speVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:06 Dec 11, 2008 Jkt 045734 PO 00000 Frm 00143 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR921.XXX HR921

yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
144 

cific concern, DOE’s tank management strategy assumes a waste 

retrieval pace averaging three tanks per year, however, since 1998, 

DOE has started retrieval on 10 tanks—only 7 of which have been 

emptied (4 of which were smaller tanks)—a retrieval rate of about 

one tank per year. 

Committee expectations.—At this point in the Administration, the 

Committee cannot hope to see any change in the behavior of the 

Department in terms of laying out the reality of the Environmental 

Management program. For years, project management decisions, 

cost baselines and legally-binding agreements have been built on 

unrealistic assumptions and poor cost estimates. The ‘‘house of 

cards’’ that underlies the EM operations puts the Department, and 

the people that work and live at these sites, at risk because of the 

failure to truthfully relate the impact and consequences of program 

plans in terms of cost, or impact to human health or the environment. As the next Administration takes hold of the EM program 

in fiscal year 2009, the Committee expects that these findings from 

the Committee and the GAO will be taken into consideration in organizing priorities at the Department of Energy. 

Reprogramming authority.—The Committee continues to support 

the need for flexibility to meet changing funding requirements at 

sites. In fiscal year 2009, the Department may transfer up to 

$5,000,000 within accounts, and between accounts, as noted in the 

table below, without prior Congressional approval, to reduce health 

or safety risks or to gain cost savings as long as no program or 

project is increased or decreased by more than $5,000,000 in total 

during the fiscal year. This reprogramming authority may not be 

used to initiate new programs or to change funding for programs 

specifically denied, limited, or increased by Congress in the Act or 

report. The Committees on Appropriations in the House and Senate 

must be notified within thirty days of the use of this reprogramming authority. 

Account Control Points: 

• Closure Sites 

• Savannah River site, nuclear material stabilization and 

disposition 

• Savannah River site, 2012 accelerations 

• Savannah River site, 2035 accelerations 

• Savannah River Tank Farm 

• Waste Isolation Pilot Plant 

• Idaho National Laboratory 

• Oak Ridge Reservation 

• Hanford site 2012 accelerated completions 

• 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 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
145 

Details of the recommended funding levels follow for the Defense 

Environmental Cleanup account. 

DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP

Appropriation, 2008 ................................................................ 1 $5,349,325,000 

Budget estimate, 2009 ........................................................... 5,297,256,000 

Recommended, 2009 ............................................................... 5,425,202,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2008 ........................................................ +75,877,000 

Budget estimate, 2009 .................................................... +127,946,000 1 Excludes emergency supplemental appropriations. 

The Committee’s recommendation for Defense Environmental 

Cleanup totals $5,425,202,000, an increase of $127,946,000 over the 

budget request of $5,297,256,000. Within the amounts provided, 

the Department is directed to fund hazardous waste worker training at $10,000,000. 

Closure Sites.—The Committee recommendation provides $45,883,000, the same as the budget request. The recommendation 

provides $13,209,000 for Closure Sites Administration, $30,574,000 

for Miamisburg, Ohio, and $2,100,000 for Fernald, Ohio. 

Savannah River Site.—The Committee recommendation provides $1,180,001,000 for cleanup at the Savannah River Site, a decrease 

of $26,424,000 below the budget request. The Committee recommends $12,500,000 for community and regulatory support, 

$24,108,000 for spent nuclear fuel stabilization and disposition, 

$53,559,000 for solid waste stabilization and disposition, 

$67,121,000 for soil and water remediation, and, $2,052,000 for nuclear facility decontamination and decommissioning (D&D), the 

same as the budget request. The Committee recommends 

$578,218,000 for tank farm activities, and $127,524,000 for the Salt 

Waste Processing Facility, the same as the budget request. The 

Committee recommends $314,919,000 for nuclear material stabilization and disposition, a decrease of $24,392,000 below the 

budget request, and the same as fiscal year 2008 enacted levels. 

The Committee remains concerned with the Department’s decision 

to proceed full speed ahead with H-canyon operations without evaluating all options for material disposition, considering the impact 

of waste generation on the ability of the tank farms to accommodate the addition volumes, and the impact reprocessing aluminum 

clad spent fuel will have on the final waste forms from the Defense 

Waste Processing Facility. DOE needs to develop a comprehensive 

lifecycle cost estimate for continuing to operate H-canyon that includes all waste disposal costs and contingency costs for additional 

nuclear materials that will be included in DOE’s H-canyon processing plans. DOE needs to ensure all safety analyses are complete 

before proceeding with H-canyon operations. Until such time that 

the Department has completed these assessments, the Committee 

cannot support increased funding for this activity. The Committee 

recommends no funds for project 04–D–414, Project Engineering 

and Design, a reduction of $2,032,000 below the request, as the Department has determined the need for this project no longer exists, 

and over $10,000,000 in prior year balances remain unspent. 

Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP).—The Committee recommendation provides $231,661,000 for the Waste Isolation Pilot 

Project, an increase of $20,137,000 over the budget request. The 

recommendation includes $137,425,000, an increase of $11,000,000 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
146 

above the budget request for WIPP operations, and $38,206,000 for 

the central characterization project, an increase of $9,137,000 

above the budget request for continued certification and receipt 

rates at fiscal year 2007 levels. 

Idaho National Laboratory.—The Committee recommendation 

provides $472,124,000, an increase of $40,000,000 over the budget 

request, for cleanup activities at the Idaho National Laboratory. 

The Committee recommends $100,268,000 for soil and water remediation, an increase of $30,000,000 over the budget request, for additional buried transuranic waste removal, and $34,133,000 for nuclear facility decontamination and decommissioning (D&D), an increase of $10,000,000 over the budget request, for the D&D of 

INTEC to reduce out-year mortgage costs. 

Oak Ridge Reservation.—The Committee recommendation provides $262,670,000, an increase of $25,000,000 over the budget request. The recommendation includes $63,160,000 for nuclear facility decontamination and decommissioning at Oak Ridge National 

Laboratory (ORNL), an increase of $5,000,000 over the budget request for the acceleration of cleanup activities at the ORNL Central 

Campus to meet enforceable regulatory milestones. The Committee 

recommends $48,392,000 for nuclear facility decontamination and 

decommissioning at Y–12, an increase of $16,000,000 over the 

budget request, for expansion of the solid waste disposal facility, 

and to address mercury mitigation and remediation at East Fork 

Poplar Creek Watershed. The Committee also provides an additional $4,000,000 for solid waste stabilization and disposition at 

Oak Ridge. 

Hanford Site.—The Committee recommendation provides 

$875,787,000 for the Hanford Site, an increase of $24,000,000 over 

the budget request. The Committee recommendation provides 

$180,248,000 for river corridor nuclear facility decontamination and 

decommissioning, an increase of $15,000,000 over the budget request to accelerate D&D of facilities to allow access to contaminated soil and groundwater. The Committee recommends 

$122,483,000 for nuclear material stabilization and disposition at 

the Plutonium Finishing Plant (PFP), an increase of $9,000,000 

over the budget request for D&D of high risk PFP areas. 

Office of River Protection.—The Committee recommendation provides $978,443,000 for the Office of River Protection, the same as 

the budget request. 

Program direction.—The Committee recommendation provides 

$308,765,000, the same as the budget request for program direction. 

Program support.—The Committee recommendation provides 

$33,930,000 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 $463,000,000 for the 

Federal contribution to the Uranium Enrichment Decontamination 

and Decommissioning Fund as authorized in Public Law 102–486. 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
147 

Technology development and deployment.—The Committee recommendation provides $32,389,000 for technology development and 

deployment, the same as the budget request. None of the funds 

may be used to support the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership. 

NNSA Sites.—The Committee recommendation provides $282,617,000, an increase of $37,533,000 over budget request, to include $200,000,000 for Los Alamos National Laboratory. The 

$37,533,000 increase at Los Alamos is for retrieval of buried transuranic waste per the Consent Order agreement and for decontamination and decommissioning for Test Areas 21 and 54. 

Safeguards and security.—The Committee recommendation pro- vides $251,341,000, the same as the budget request. 

Use of prior year funds.—The Committee supports the use of $1,109,000 of prior year funds, as proposed in the budget request. 

Congressionally Directed Projects.—The Committee recommendation includes $7,700,000 for the following House-directed projects 

and activities. 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
148 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 045 here HR921.017
149 

OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES

Appropriation, 2008 ............................................................................ $754,359,000 

Budget estimate, 2009 ....................................................................... 1,313,461,000 

Recommended, 2009 ........................................................................... 826,453,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2008 .................................................................... +72,094,000 

Budget estimate, 2009 ................................................................ ¥487,008,000 

This account provides funding for the Office of Security and Performance Assurance; Intelligence; Counterintelligence; Health, 

Safety and Security; Office of Legacy Management; Funding for Defense Activities in Idaho; Defense Related Administrative Support; 

and the Office of Hearings and Appeals. 

The Committee recommendation for Other Defense Activities totals $826,453,000, a decrease of $487,008,000 below the budget request and $72,094,000 below fiscal year 2008 enacted levels. The 

decrease to the overall request is the result of the Committee’s recommendation that the Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility be 

funded in the Nuclear Energy account at the budget request. 

HEALTH, SAFETY, AND SECURITY

The Office of Health, Safety, and Security 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 $446,868,000, the same as the 

request. Within that, the Committee recommendation provides 

$17,500,000 for the Former Worker Health Screening program, the 

same as the request. It also recommends $1,000,000 for the Former 

Workers Medical Surveillance Program. 

OFFICE OF LEGACY MANAGEMENT

The Office of Legacy Management provides long-term stewardship following site closure. The Committee recommends 

$185,981,000 for Legacy Management, combining the Defense and 

Non-defense Legacy Management activities within Other Defense 

Activities, the same as the budget request. 

DEFENSE-RELATED ACTIVITIES AT IDAHO NATIONAL LABORATORY

The Committee recommendation includes $78,811,000 to fully 

fund defense-related (050 budget function) activities at Idaho National Laboratory at the requested level. 

DEFENSE-RELATED ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT

The Committee recommendation includes $108,190,000, 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 including the 

Secretary, Deputy Secretary and Under Secretaries, the General 

Counsel, Chief Financial Officer, Human Resources, Congressional 

Affairs, and Public Affairs, which support the organizations and activities funded in the atomic energy defense activities accounts. 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

The Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) is responsible for all 

of the Department’s adjudicatory processes, other than those adVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:06 Dec 11, 2008 Jkt 045734 PO 00000 Frm 00149 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR921.XXX HR921

yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
150 

ministered by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. The 

Committee recommendation is $6,603,000, the same as the budget 

request. 

DEFENSE NUCLEAR WASTE DISPOSAL

Appropriation, 2008 ............................................................................ $199,171,000 

Budget estimate, 2009 ....................................................................... 247,371,000 

Recommended, 2009 ........................................................................... 247,371,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2008 .................................................................... +48,200,000 

Budget estimate, 2009 ................................................................ — 

The Committee recommendation is $247,371,000, the same as 

the budget request. Combined with the funding recommended for 

the Nuclear Waste Disposal, this will provide a total of 

$494,742,000 for nuclear waste disposal activities in fiscal year 

2009. 

POWER MARKETING ADMINISTRATIONS

Management of the Federal power marketing functions was 

transferred from the Department of Interior to the Department of 

Energy by the Department of Energy Organization Act (P.L. 95– 

91). These functions include the power marketing activities authorized under section 5 of the Flood Control Act of 1944 and all other 

functions of the Bonneville Power Administration, the Southeastern Power Administration, the Southwestern Power Administration, and the power marketing functions of the Bureau of Reclamation that have been transferred to the Western Area Power 

Administration. 

All power marketing administrations except the Bonneville 

Power Administration are funded annually with appropriated 

funds. Revenues collected from power sales and transmission services are deposited in the treasury to offset expenditures. 

Operations of the Bonneville Power Administration are self-financed under the authority of the Federal Columbia River Transmission System Act (P.L. 93–454). Under this Act, the Bonneville 

Power Administration is authorized to use its revenues to finance 

the costs of its operations, maintenance, and capital construction, 

and to sell bonds to the Treasury if necessary to finance any additional capital program requirements. 

The Committee rejects the Administration’s proposal to recover 

expenses related to operations and maintenance activities and program direction expenditures using offsetting collections. 

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 2009. 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
151 

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, SOUTHEASTERN POWER

ADMINISTRATION

Appropriation, 2008 ............................................................................ $6,404,000 

Budget estimate, 2009 ....................................................................... 7,420,000 

Recommended, 2009 ........................................................................... 7,420,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2008 .................................................................... +1,016,000 

Budget estimate, 2009 ................................................................ - - - 

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 $7,420,000, the same as the budget request. The 

total program level for Southeastern in fiscal year 2009 is 

$70,942,000, with $63,522,000 for purchase power and wheeling 

and $7,420,000 for program direction. The purchase power and 

wheeling costs will be offset by collections of $49,520,000 provided 

in this Act. Additionally, Southeastern has identified $14,002,000 

in alternative financing for purchase power and wheeling that is 

not reflected in these totals. 

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, SOUTHWESTERN POWER

ADMINISTRATION

Appropriation, 2008 ............................................................................ $30,165,000 

Budget estimate, 2009 ....................................................................... 28,414,000 

Recommended, 2009 ........................................................................... 28,414,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2008 .................................................................... ¥1,751,000 

Budget estimate, 2009 ................................................................ — 

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 $28,414,000, the same as the budget request. The 

total program level for Southwestern in fiscal year 2009 is 

$63,414,000, including $3,484,000 for operation and maintenance 

expenses, $35,000,000 for purchase power and wheeling, 

$22,130,000 for program direction, and $2,800,000 for construction. 

The offsetting collections total of $35,000,000 from collections for 

purchase power and wheeling yields a net appropriation of 

$28,414,000. Additionally, Southwestern has identified $25,772,000 

in alternative financing for program direction, operations and 

maintenance, construction, and purchase power and wheeling that 

is not reflected in these totals. 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
152 

CONSTRUCTION, REHABILITATION, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, 

WESTERN AREA POWER ADMINISTRATION

Appropriation, 2008 ............................................................................ $228,907,000 

Budget estimate, 2009 ....................................................................... 193,346,000 

Recommended, 2009 ........................................................................... 193,346,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2008 .................................................................... ¥35,561,000 

Budget estimate, 2009 ................................................................ — 

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 $193,346,000, the same as the budget request. The 

total program level for Western in fiscal year 2009 is $524,830,000, 

which includes $1,881,000 for construction and rehabilitation, 

$36,866,000 for system operation and maintenance, $328,118,000 

for purchase power and wheeling, and $150,623,000 for program direction. The Committee recommendation includes $7,342,000 for 

the Utah Mitigation and Conservation Fund. 

Offsetting collections total $328,118,000; with the use of 

$3,366,000 of offsetting collections from the Colorado River Dam 

Fund (as authorized in P.L. 98–381), this requires a net appropriation of $193,346,000. Additionally, Western has identified 

$301,804,000 in alternative financing for program direction, operations and maintenance, construction and rehabilitation, and purchase power and wheeling that is not reflected in these totals. 

FALCON AND AMISTAD OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE FUND

Appropriation, 2008 ............................................................................ $2,477,000 

Budget estimate, 2009 ....................................................................... 2,959,000 

Recommended, 2009 ........................................................................... 2,959,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2008 .................................................................... +482,000 

Budget estimate, 2009 ................................................................ — 

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 $2,959,000, the same as the 

budget request. 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
153 

FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation, 2008 ............................................................................ $260,425,000 

Budget estimate, 2009 ....................................................................... 273,400,000 

Recommended, 2009 ........................................................................... 273,400,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2008 .................................................................... +12,975,000 

Budget estimate, 2009 ................................................................ ––– 

REVENUES

Appropriation, 2008 ............................................................................ ¥260,425,000 

Budget estimate, 2009 ....................................................................... ¥273,400,000 

Recommended, 2009 ........................................................................... ¥273,400,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2008 .................................................................... ¥12,975,000 

Budget estimate, 2009 ................................................................ — 

The Committee recommendation for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) is $273,400,000, the same as the budget 

request. Revenues for FERC are established at a rate equal to the 

budget authority, resulting in a net appropriation of $0. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee’s detailed funding recommendations for programs 

in Title III are contained in the following table. 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
154 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert Graphic folio 046 here HR921.018
155 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert Graphic folio 047 here HR921.019
156 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert Graphic folio 048 here HR921.020
157 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert Graphic folio 049 here HR921.021
158 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert Graphic folio 050 here HR921.022
159 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert Graphic folio 051 here HR921.023
160 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert Graphic folio 052 here HR921.024
161 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert Graphic folio 053 here HR921.025
162 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert Graphic folio 054 here HR921.026
163 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert Graphic folio 055 here HR921.027
164 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert Graphic folio 056 here HR921.028
165 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert Graphic folio 057 here HR921.029
166 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert Graphic folio 058 here HR921.030
167 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert Graphic folio 059 here HR921.031
168 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert Graphic folio 060 here HR921.032
169 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert Graphic folio 061 here HR921.033
170 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert Graphic folio 062 here HR921.034
171 

GENERAL PROVISIONS 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Contract Competition.—Section 301 provides that none of the 

funds in this Act may be used to award a management and operating contract, or a contract for environmental remediation or 

waste management, in excess of $100 million in annual funding at 

a current or former management and operating contract site of facility, or award a significant extension or expansion to an existing 

management and operating contract, or other contract covered by 

this section, unless such contract is awarded using competitive procedures, or the Secretary of Energy grants, on a case-by-case basis, 

a waiver to allow for such a deviation. Within 30 days of formally 

notifying an incumbent contractor of the intent to grant such a 

waiver, the Secretary of Energy must submit to the House and 

Senate Committees on Appropriations a report notifying the Committees of the waiver and setting forth, in specificity, the reasons 

for the waiver. Section 301 does not preclude extensions of a contract awarded using competitive procedures, but does establish a 

presumption of competition unless the Secretary invokes the waiver option. 

The Committee’s concern is to establish clearly that competition 

is the norm for the Department of Energy. The waiver for non-competitive awards or extensions should be invoked only in truly exceptional circumstances, not as a matter of routine. A non-competitive award or extensions may be in the taxpayers’ interest, but the 

burden of proof is on the Department to make that case in the 

waiver notice. 

Unfunded Requests for Proposals.—Section 302 provides that 

none of the funds in this Act may be used to initiate requests for 

proposals or other solicitations or expressions of interest for new 

programs that have not yet been presented to Congress in the annual budget submission, and that have not yet been approved and 

funded by Congress. 

Section 3161 Assistance.—Section 303 prohibits the use of funds 

for workforce restructuring or enhanced severance payments under 

the worker and community transition program under section 3161 

of Public Law 102–484. 

Unexpended Balances.—Section 304 permits the transfer and 

merger of unexpended balances of prior appropriations with appropriation accounts established in this bill. 

Bonneville Power Administration Service Territory.—Section 305 

provides that none of the funds in this or any other Act may be 

used by the Administrator of the Bonneville Power Administration 

to perform energy efficiency services outside the legally defined 

Bonneville service territory unless the Administrator certifies in 

advance that such services are not available from private sector 

businesses. 

User Facilities.—Section 306 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. 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
172 

Intelligence Activities.—Section 307 authorizes intelligence activities of the Department of Energy for purposes of section 504 of the 

National Security Act of 1947 during fiscal year 2009. 

Laboratory Directed Research and Development.—Section 308 

provides for authorization of Laboratory Directed Research and Development (LDRD), Site Directed Research and Development, and 

Plant Directed Research and Development (PDRD) activities. 

Reimbursable Work.—Section 309 requires that DOE accounts for 

its reimbursable activities in the accounts that are most closely related in mission to the work being carried out. In the event that 

the activity is not related to DOE’s mission, the Department must 

report these activities in the account that would normally supply 

the preponderance of the funding of the resources being used in reimbursable work, or owns the assets being used in reimbursable 

work. 

Reliable Replacement Warhead.—Section 310 prohibits the use of 

funds for the Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW). 

Global Nuclear Energy Partnership.—Section 311 prohibits the 

use of funds for the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP). 

General Plant Projects.—Section 312 sets the limit on the use of 

funds for General Plant Projects (GPP) at $10,000,000. The Committee directs the Department to apply this new dollar threshold 

to all projects and activities of the Department, consistent with 

past practice.’’ 

Energy Production—Section 313 directs the Secretary of Energy 

to provide a report inventorying the energy development potential 

on all lands currently managed by the Department of Energy. 

TITLE IV 

INDEPENDENT AGENCIES 

APPALACHIAN REGIONAL COMMISSION

Appropriation, 2008 ............................................................................ $73,032,000 

Budget estimate, 2009 ....................................................................... 65,000,000 

Recommended, 2009 ........................................................................... 65,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2008 .................................................................... ¥8,032,000 

Budget estimate, 2009 ................................................................ — 

The Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC) is a regional economic development agency established in 1965. It is composed of 

the Governors of the thirteen Appalachian States and has a Federal co-chairman, who is appointed by the President. For fiscal year 

2009, the budget request includes $65,000,000, of which 

$53,957,000 is for area development; $5,316,000 is local development districts and technical assistance; and $5,727,000 is for salaries and expenses. 

The ARC budget justification indicates that it targets fifty percent of its funds to distressed counties or distressed areas in the 

Appalachian region. In times of budget austerity, the Committee 

believes this should be the primary, and in fact the sole focus of 

the ARC. The Committee recommendation for ARC is $65,000,000, 

the same as the budget request. 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
173 

DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD

Appropriation, 2008 ............................................................................ $21,909,000 

Budget estimate, 2009 ....................................................................... 25,499,000 

Recommended, 2009 ........................................................................... 25,499,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2008 .................................................................... +3,590,000 

Budget estimate, 2009 ................................................................ — 

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 2009 is 

$25,499,000, the same as the budget request. 

DELTA REGIONAL AUTHORITY

Appropriation, 2008 ............................................................................ $11,685,000 

Budget estimate, 2009 ....................................................................... 6,000,000 

Recommended, 2009 ........................................................................... 6,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2008 .................................................................... ¥5,685,000 

Budget estimate, 2009 ................................................................ — 

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, with 50 percent of the funds earmarked for transportation and basic infrastructure improvements. 

It has come to the Committee’s attention that the DRA has failed 

to provide assistance in several counties within its jurisdiction that 

are among the most economically distressed. In the view of this 

Committee, this lapse is unacceptable, given the Authority’s primary mission is to assist the counties where the most need exists. 

The DRA is instructed to provide a report outlining the assistance 

provided in its territory, by county, ranked in order of rates of poverty and economic distress as defined by the Census Bureau. The 

DRA is also directed to review the process by which assistance is 

provided to ensure an equitable distribution of the resources is provided to the counties within its jurisdiction according to need. 

Since 2002, the DRA has distributed nearly $56,000,000 through 

its grant program. The Committee is concerned the Authority lacks 

a monitoring program to ensure grantee compliance with program 

requirements and statutory goals. The Committee directs the Authority to develop and implement improved grant auditing proceVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:06 Dec 11, 2008 Jkt 045734 PO 00000 Frm 00173 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR921.XXX HR921

yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
174 

dures, in order to (1) certify the impact of individual initiatives 

funded through the grant program; and (2) document and verify 

grantee compliance with statutory program requirements. The 

Committee directs the Federal Co-Chairman to provide to the 

House and Senate Committees on Appropriations a report comprehensively addressing the development of annual and long-term 

measures for ensuring the performance and accountability of the 

Authority and its grantees within 90 days of the enactment of this 

legislation. For fiscal year 2009, the Committee recommends $6,000,000, the 

same as the budget request. 

DENALI COMMISSION

Appropriation, 2008 ............................................................................ $21,800,000 

Budget estimate, 2009 ....................................................................... 1,800,000 

Recommended, 2009 ........................................................................... 1,800,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2008 .................................................................... ¥20,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2009 ................................................................ — 

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 

2009, the Committee recommends $1,800,000 for the costs of the 

Commission’s operations, the same as the budget request. 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

GROSS APPROPRIATION

Appropriation, 2008 ............................................................................ $917,334,000 

Budget estimate, 2009 ....................................................................... 1,007,956,000 

Recommended, 2009 ........................................................................... 1,058,956,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2008 .................................................................... +141,622,000 

Budget estimate, 2009 ................................................................ +51,000,000 

REVENUES

Appropriation, 2008 ............................................................................ ¥$771,220,000 

Budget estimate, 2009 ....................................................................... ¥847,357,000 

Recommended, 2009 ........................................................................... ¥860,857,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2008 .................................................................... ¥89,637,000 

Budget estimate, 2009 ................................................................ ¥13,500,000 

NET APPROPRIATION

Appropriation, 2008 ............................................................................ $146,114,000 

Budget estimate, 2009 ....................................................................... 160,599,000 

Recommended, 2009 ........................................................................... 198,099,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2008 .................................................................... +51,985,000 

Budget estimate, 2009 ................................................................ +37,500,000 

The Committee recommendation for the Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) salaries and expenses for fiscal year 2009 is 

$1,058,956,000, an increase of $51,000,000 over the budget request 

of $1,007,956,000. The total amount of budget authority is offset by 

estimated revenues of $860,857,000, resulting in a net appropriation of $198,099,000. The recommendation includes $73,300,000 to 

be derived from the Nuclear Waste Fund to support the NRC’s review of the Department of Energy’s licensing application to conVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:06 Dec 11, 2008 Jkt 045734 PO 00000 Frm 00174 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR921.XXX HR921

yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
175 

struct and operate a permanent geologic repository at Yucca Mountain for spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste. The Committee 

also recommends an additional $15,000,000 to continue the academic scholarships and fellowships program. These funds are to be 

used for college scholarships and graduate fellowships in nuclear 

science, engineering, and health physics, and for faculty development grants supporting faculty in these academic areas for the first 

six years of their careers. The education supported by this funding 

is intended to broadly benefit all sectors using nuclear technology 

and radioactive materials (i.e., federal agencies, industry, medicine, 

and academia) rather than solely to benefit the Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission. Accordingly, notwithstanding the requirements of Section 243 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which makes employment at the Commission a condition of receiving educational assistance, the Commission is directed to make generous use of the waiver or suspension provisions available in Section 243(c)(2). 

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). Of the 

$1,058,900,000 gross appropriation for fiscal year 2009, 

$73,300,000 is drawn from the Nuclear Waste Fund, $2,000,000 is 

drawn from the General Fund of the Treasury to execute NRC’s responsibilities to provide oversight of certain Department of Energy 

activities under Section 3116 of Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (P.L. 108–375), and 

$27,148,000 is drawn from the General Fund of the Treasury to 

execute NRC’s homeland security responsibilities. Ninety percent of 

the balance of $956,508,000 (i.e., $860,857,000) is funded by fees 

collected from NRC licensees, and the remaining 10 percent (i.e., 

$95,651,000) is funded from the General Fund of the Treasury. 

Fire Protection.—The Committee is concerned with the conclusions of the NRC’s Inspector General’s Office report regarding 

NRC’s oversight of fire protection barriers. The report states that 

the NRC ignored repeated evidence that the fire safety insulation 

used by some nuclear power plants did not meet NRC fire safety 

standards. The Committee’s concern is compounded by the preliminary findings of a Government Accountability Office investigation 

on fire safety at nuclear power plants that indicate the NRC has 

allowed many exceptions to existing fire safety requirements. The 

Committee is aware that the NRC is currently piloting an alternative, risk-based approach to fire safety that is likely to reduce 

fire safety requirements in certain ‘‘low risk’’ areas of nuclear 

power plants. As the NRC continues to work on these pilots, it 

must ensure that its methodology for assessing risk is fully validated by independent third parties and is transparent to the public. With regard to the current fire safety regime or any future riskbased regime, the NRC must require licensees to come into full 

compliance with regulatory requirements on an expedited basis. 

The Committee directs the NRC to provide a report to the Committees on Appropriations within 30 days of enactment of this legislaVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:06 Dec 11, 2008 Jkt 045734 PO 00000 Frm 00175 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR921.XXX HR921

yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
176 

tion providing the status of the fire safety pilot projects and the 

timeline for licensees to comply with regulatory requirements. 

Next Generation Nuclear Plant Licensing.—The licensing process 

that the Commission uses for nuclear facilities places all of the risk 

on the applicant for implementing corrective measures to satisfy 

Commission safety requirements. With a two-step process, first licensing a facility for construction and then later licensing for facility operation, some technical issues may not be resolved until relatively late in the licensing process. In the case of federal nuclear 

facilities, this introduces a significant financial risk for the federal 

government if changes required to satisfy NRC requirements necessitate costly design and construction changes. The Committee encourages the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to engage early and 

often with the Department of Energy on the Next Generation Nuclear Plant, so that technical issues involved in licensing this new 

nuclear reactor will be identified and resolved as early as possible 

in the design process, before significant federal funds are expended 

on facility construction. 

Reports.—The Committee directs the Commission to continue to 

provide quarterly reports on the status of its licensing and other 

regulatory activities. The Committee has been very supportive of 

the Commission in recent years by providing substantial additional 

resources to meet an anticipated round of new plant licensing activities. The Committee believes the NRC should use these additional resources, both from taxpayer funds and from licensees, to 

conduct an efficient, understandable, and predictable licensing 

process. 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

GROSS APPROPRIATION

Appropriation, 2008 ............................................................................ $8,744,000 

Budget estimate, 2009 ....................................................................... 9,044,000 

Recommended, 2009 ........................................................................... 10,860,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2008 .................................................................... +2,116,000 

Budget estimate, 2009 ................................................................ +1,816,000 

REVENUES

Appropriation, 2008 ............................................................................ ¥$7,870,000 

Budget estimate, 2009 ....................................................................... ¥8,140,000 

Recommended, 2009 ........................................................................... ¥9,774,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2008 .................................................................... ¥1,904,000 

Budget estimate, 2009 ................................................................ ¥1,634,000 

NET APPROPRIATION

Appropriation, 2008 ............................................................................ $874,000 

Budget estimate, 2009 ....................................................................... 904,000 

Recommended, 2009 ........................................................................... 1,086,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2008 .................................................................... +212,000 

Budget estimate, 2009 ................................................................ +182,000 

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $10,860,000, an 

increase of $1,816,000 over the budget request. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s gross appropriation increased twelve percent 

in fiscal year 2009 over fiscal year 2008 levels, and the Committee 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
177 

recommendation for fiscal year 2009 is nearly a 30 percent increase 

since fiscal year 2008. As such, the Committee recommendation for 

the Office of the Inspector General reflects a commensurate increase of 30 percent since fiscal year 2008, to be proportionate with 

the growth of NRC activities. Given the formula for fee recovery, 

the revenue estimate is $9,774,000, resulting in a net appropriation 

for the NRC Inspector General of $1,086,000. 

NUCLEAR WASTE TECHNICAL REVIEW BOARD

Appropriation, 2008 ............................................................................ $3,621,000 

Budget estimate, 2009 ....................................................................... 3,811,000 

Recommended, 2009 ........................................................................... 3,817,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2008 .................................................................... +196,000 

Budget estimate, 2009 ................................................................ +6,000 

The Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board was established by 

the 1987 amendments to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 to 

provide independent technical oversight of the Department of Energy’s nuclear waste disposal program. The Committee sees the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board as having a continuing independent oversight role, as is specified in Section 503 of the Nuclear 

Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended, as the Department begins 

to focus on the packaging and transportation of high-level radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel. 

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $3,817,000 for 

the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board in fiscal year 2009, an 

increase of $6,000 over the budget request and an increase of 

$196,000 over fiscal year 2008 funding. 

OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL COORDINATOR FOR ALASKA NATURAL GAS

TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS

Appropriation, 2008 ............................................................................ $2,261,000 

Budget estimate, 2009 ....................................................................... 4,400,000 

Recommended, 2009 ........................................................................... 4,400,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2008 .................................................................... +2,139,000 

Budget estimate, 2009 ................................................................ — 

The Office of the Federal Coordinator for Alaska Natural Gas 

Transportation Projects was established as an independent agency 

in the Executive Branch on December 13, 2006, pursuant to the 

Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline Act of 2004. The Federal Coordinator 

is responsible for coordinating all Federal activities for an Alaska 

natural gas transportation project, including joint surveillance and 

monitoring with the State of Alaska of construction of a project. An 

Alaska natural gas transportation project could deliver significant 

natural gas supply to the U.S. lower 48 states. Action by the State 

of Alaska in reaching agreement with potential project owners as 

to fiscal terms is necessary before project development can move 

forward. 

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $4,400,000 to 

support the activities of this office in fiscal year 2009, the same as 

the budget request. 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
178 

TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

GROSS APPROPRIATION

Appropriation, 2008 ............................................................................ — 

Budget estimate, 2009 ....................................................................... $17,000,000 

Recommended, 2009 ........................................................................... — 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2008 .................................................................... — 

Budget estimate, 2009 ................................................................ ¥17,000,000 

OFFSETS FROM TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY FUND

Appropriation, 2008 ............................................................................ — 

Budget estimate, 2009 ....................................................................... $17,000,000 

Recommended, 2009 ........................................................................... — 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2008 .................................................................... — 

Budget estimate, 2009 ................................................................ ¥17,000,000 

The Committee recommendation does not include the Administration proposal to establish a Congressionally funded Office of Inspector General to oversee the Tennessee Valley Authority. In recent years, the TVA has funded the requests of the TVA–IG office 

out of power revenues and receipts. This process has worked well 

and the Committee sees no compelling reason to change that mechanism for financing the TVA–IG. 

Reports.—The Committee directs the Inspector General to forward copies of all audit and inspection reports to the Committee 

immediately after they are issued, and immediately make the Committee aware of any review that recommends cancellation of, or 

modification to, any major acquisition project or grant, or which 

recommends significant budgetary savings. The Inspector General 

is also directed to withhold from public distribution for a period of 

15 days any final audit or investigation report that was requested 

by the House Committee on Appropriations. 

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. 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
(179) 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES REPORT REQUIREMENTS 

The following items are included in accordance with various requirements of the Rules of the House of Representatives. 

CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY

Clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives states that: 

Each report of a committee on a public bill or public 

joint resolution shall contain the following: (1) A statement 

citing the specific powers granted to Congress in the Constitution to enact the law proposed by the bill or joint resolution. 

The Committee on Appropriations bases its authority to report 

this legislation from Clause 7 of Section 9 of Article I of the Constitution of the United States of America which states: 

No money shall be drawn from the Treasury but in consequence of Appropriations made by law. 

Appropriations contained in this Act are made pursuant to this 

specific power granted by the Constitution. 

STATEMENT OF GENERAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

Pursuant to clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, the following is a statement of general performance goals and objectives for which this measure authorizes funding: 

The Committee on Appropriations considers program performance, including a program’s success in developing and attaining 

outcome-related goals and objectives, in developing funding recommendations. 

TRANSFER OF FUNDS

Pursuant to clause 3(f)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, the following is submitted describing the transfer of funds provided in the accompanying bill. 

TITLE II—BUREAU OF RECLAMATION

Under ‘‘Water and Related Resources’’, $57,615,000 is available 

for transfer to the Upper Colorado River Basin Fund and 

$26,825,000 is available for transfer to the Lower Colorado River 

Basin Development Fund. Such funds as may be necessary may be 

advanced to the Colorado River Dam Fund. The amounts of transfers may be increased or decreased within the overall appropriation 

under the heading. 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
180 

TITLE III—DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Under ‘‘Fossil Energy Research and Development’’, $149,000,000 

is transferred from ‘‘Clean Coal Technology’’. 

Under ‘‘Other Defense Activities’’, $4,900,000 of funds provided 

under Public Law 109–103, is transferred to ‘‘Weapons Activities’’ 

for planning activities associated with special nuclear material consolidation. 

Under Section 305, ‘‘General Provision—Department of Energy’’, 

unexpended balances of prior appropriations provided for activities 

in this Act may be transferred to appropriation accounts for such 

activities established pursuant to this title. Balances so transferred 

may be merged with funds in the applicable established accounts 

and thereafter may be accounted for as one fund for the same time 

period as originally enacted. 

CHANGES IN THE APPLICATION OF EXISTING LAW

Pursuant to clause 3(f)(1)(A) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the following statements are submitted 

describing the effect of provisions in the accompanying bill which 

directly or indirectly change the application of existing law. 

TITLE I—CORPS OF ENGINEERS

Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, Investigations, providing for detailed studies and plans and specifications of projects prior to construction. 

Language has been included under the Corps of Engineers, Investigations, rescinding funds provided under the Investigations 

heading of Public Law 110–161. 

Language has been included under the Corps of Engineers, Construction, providing for detailed studies and plans and specifications to be conducted for projects authorized or made eligible for selection by law. 

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 the Corps of Engineers, Mississippi River and Tributaries, permitting the use of funds from the 

Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund. 

Language has been included under the Corps of Engineers, Operation and Maintenance, stating that funds can be used for: the operation, maintenance, and care of existing river and harbor, flood 

and storm damage reduction, aquatic ecosystem restoration, and 

related authorized projects; providing security for infrastructure 

owned or operated by the Corps, including administrative buildings 

and laboratories; maintaining authorized harbor channels provided 

by a State, municipality, or other public agency that serve essential 

navigation needs of general commerce; surveying and charting 

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 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
181 

a special account for resource protection, research, interpretation, 

and maintenance activities at outdoor recreation areas; and allowing use of funds to cover the cost of operation and maintenance of 

dredged material disposal facilities for which fees have been collected. 

Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, Expenses, regarding support of the Humphreys Engineer Support 

Center Activity, the Institute for Water Resources, the Engineer 

Research and Development Center, and headquarters support functions at the Finance Center. 

Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, Expenses, prohibiting the use of other funds in this Act for the Office 

of the Chief of Engineers and the division offices. 

Language has been included to provide for funding for the Office 

of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works). 

Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, Administrative Provisions, providing that funds are available for official reception and representation expenses, and for purchase and hire of 

motor vehicles. 

Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, General 

Provisions, Section 101, prohibiting the execution of any continuing 

contract that reserves an amount for a project in excess of the 

amount appropriated for such project in this Act. 

Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, General 

Provisions, Section 102, prohibiting the award of a continuing contract for any project funded out of the Inland Waterway Trust 

Fund. 

Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, General 

Provisions, Section 103, prohibiting the use of funds provided 

under this Act or previous Acts for implementation of A–76 studies. 

TITLE II—DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Language has been included under the Central Utah Project that 

requires the deposit of funds into the Utah Reclamation Mitigation 

and Conservation Account; and allows the use of up to $1,500,000 

for administrative expenses. 

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. 

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 mainVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:06 Dec 11, 2008 Jkt 045734 PO 00000 Frm 00181 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR921.XXX HR921

yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
182 

tenance of reclamation facilities are to be credited to the Water and 

Related Resources account. 

Language has been included under the Bureau of Reclamation, 

Water and Related Resources requiring funds to be deposited in the 

San Gabriel Basin Restoration Fund established by section 110 of 

Title I of appendix D of Public Law 106–554. 

Language has been included under Bureau of Reclamation, 

Water and Related Resources rescinding funds provided for Desert 

Terminal Lakes under section 2507 of the Farm Security and Rural 

Investment Act of 2002, as amended by section 2807 of the Food, 

Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008. 

Language has been included under Bureau of Reclamation, Central Valley Project Restoration Fund directing the Bureau of Reclamation to assess and collect the full amount of additional mitigation and restoration payments authorized by section 3407(d) of 

Public Law 102–575. 

Language has been included under Bureau of Reclamation, Central Valley Project Restoration Fund providing that none of the 

funds under the heading may be used for the acquisition or lease 

of water for in-stream purposes if the water is already committed 

to in-stream purposes by a court order adopted by consent or decree. 

Language has been included under Bureau of Reclamation, California Bay-Delta Restoration permitting the transfer of funds to appropriate accounts of other participating Federal agencies to carry 

out authorized programs; providing that funds made available 

under this heading may be used for the Federal share of the costs 

of the CALFED Program management; providing that use of any 

funds provided to the California Bay-Delta Authority for programwide management and oversight activities shall be subject to the 

approval of the Secretary of the Interior; providing that CALFED 

implementation shall be carried out with clear performance measures demonstrating concurrent progress in achieving the goals and 

objectives of the program. 

Language has been included under Bureau of Reclamation, Policy and Administration providing that funds may be derived from 

the Reclamation Fund and providing that no part of any other appropriation in the Act shall be available for activities budgeted as 

policy and administration. 

Language has been included under Bureau of Reclamation, Policy and Administration providing for the transfer of $10,000,000 

from this account to Water and Related Resources, if a five-year 

budget plan is not received from the Secretary of the Interior within the 90-day period following the date of enactment. 

Language has been included under Bureau of Reclamation, Administrative Provisions providing for the purchase of motor vehicles. 

Language has been included under Title II, General Provisions, 

regarding the San Luis Unit and the Kesterson Reservoir in California. This language has been carried in prior appropriations Acts. 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
183 

TITLE III—DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Language has been included under Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy for the purchase, construction, and acquisition of plant 

and capital equipment; and for the purchase of passenger vehicles. 

Language has been included under Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy that makes funds available for the cost of direct loans 

under subsection (d) of section 136 of the Energy Independence and 

Security Act of 2007; and limits commitments for direct loans. 

Language has been included under Electricity Distribution and 

Energy Reliability for the purchase, construction, and acquisition of 

plant and capital equipment. 

Language has been included under Nuclear Energy for the purchase, construction, and acquisition of plant and capital equipment; 

for the purchase of motor vehicles; and for the appropriation of 

funds for Project 99–D–143 Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility, 

adherence to DOE Order 413.3A for that project, and the management and execution of that project by the Office of Nuclear Energy. 

Language has been included under Fossil Energy Research and 

Development on Clean Coal Technology and Carbon Capture Demonstration Initiative that provides for funds to be derived by transfer from ‘‘Clean Coal Technology’’; provides funds for the carbon 

capture demonstration solicitation under title VII of the Energy 

Independence and Security Act of 2007; allows the use of funds appropriated under the Clean Coal Technology Program, Power Plant 

Improvement Initiative, the Clean Coal Power Initiative, and 

FutureGen to be utilized for the carbon capture demonstration solicitations under the EISA in accordance with the requirements of 

EISA; prohibits selection of a carbon capture demonstration project 

if full funding is not available; places limitations on the time period 

for negotiations on carbon capture demonstration applications and 

on carbon capture financial demonstration financial assistance; requires 50 percent non-federal cost-sharing of carbon capture demonstration projects; requires funds to be expended in accordance 

with Clean Coal Technology provisions of 42 U.S.C. 5903d and 

prior appropriation acts; and provides for designation of any technology selected under the carbon capture demonstration solicitation 

as Clean Coal Technology and projects under the programs as 

Clean Coal Technology Projects. 

Language has been included under Fossil Energy Research and 

Development providing for a limitation on the use of funds made 

available to National Energy Technology Laboratory; and prohibiting the field-testing of nuclear explosives for the recovery of oil 

and gas. 

Language has been included under the Naval Petroleum and Oil 

Shale Reserves, permitting the use of unobligated balances and the 

hire of passenger vehicles. 

Language has been included under Non-Defense Environmental 

Cleanup for the purchase, construction, and acquisition of plant 

and capital equipment; and to make funds available for remedial 

actions carried out at a dump site in the vicinity of the Tuba City 

processing site. 

Language is included under the Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund that makes $15,000,000 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
184 

available in accordance with title X, subtitle A, of the Energy Policy Act of 1992. 

Language has been included under Science providing for the purchase, construction, and acquisition of plant and capital equipment; 

and for the purchase of motor vehicles. 

Language has been included under Science that makes work for 

the Office of Science at Los Alamos subject to the direction and 

control of the Director of the Office of Science. 

Language has been included under Nuclear Waste Disposal limiting the provision of funds to state, local and tribal entities for 

oversight and licensing activities; providing and limiting the funds 

that may be provided as payment equal to taxes under section 

116(c)(3) of NWPA to Nye County, Nevada; requiring funds for the 

State of Nevada to be paid by direct payment to the Nevada Division of Emergency Management and units of local government; requiring certification from the Nevada Division of Emergency Management, Governor of the State of Nevada and affected units of 

local government that funds expended from payments were expended for activities authorized by NWPA and this Act and making 

further funds contingent upon such certification; prohibiting the 

use of funds for influencing legislative action, litigation expenses, 

or support of coalition building activities inconsistent with this Act; 

and providing that all proceeds and recoveries realized in carrying 

out activities under NWPA are available without further appropriation and remain available until expended. 

Language has been included under Innovative Technology Loan 

Guarantee Program limiting commitments to guarantee loans 

under Title XVII of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 during fiscal 

years 2008 through 2011 for eligible projects other than nuclear 

power facilities and for eligible nuclear power facilities. 

Language has been included under Innovative Technology Loan 

Guarantee Program requiring sums derived from borrowers pursuant to section 1702(b)(2) of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 under 

this Program to be collected in accordance with section 502(7) of 

the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. 

Language has been included under Innovative Technology Loan 

Guarantee Program that prohibits the use of the funds provided in 

this Act for a new guaranteed loans solicitation until 45 days after 

the Department of Energy submits a loan guarantee implementation plan to the Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives and Senate; and prohibits the Department from deviating from the submitted plan without 45 days notice to the Committees on Appropriations. 

Language has been included under Innovative Technology Loan 

Guarantee Program that prohibits the use of funds provided in this 

Act to pay subsidy costs of guarantees. 

Language has been included under Innovative Technology Loan 

Guarantee Program making $19,880,000 available for administrative expenses required to carry out the Loan Guarantee Program; 

requiring those funds to be offset by fees collected pursuant to section 1702(h) of the Energy Policy Act of 2005; and prohibiting the 

use of fees collected under section 1702(h) in excess of the amount 

appropriated for administrative expenses until appropriated. 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
185 

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 

that fees collected for loan guarantee administrative expenses are 

credited as offsetting collections to this account. 

Language has been included under Departmental Administration 

providing not to exceed $30,000 for hire of passenger vehicles and 

for official reception and representation expenses. 

Language has been included under Weapons Activities rescinding 

funds appropriated in prior years and providing for the purchase 

of motor vehicles. 

Language has been provided under Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation for the purchase of one motor vehicle. 

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; and for the purchase of motor vehicles. 

Language has been included under Defense Environmental 

Cleanup requiring the transfer of funds to the Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund. 

Language has been included under Other Defense Activities providing for the purchase of motor vehicles. 

Language has been included under Bonneville Power Administration Fund providing not to exceed $1,500 for official reception and 

representation expenses, and precluding any new direct loan obligations. 

Language has been included under Southeastern Power Administration providing that, not withstanding the provisions of 31 U.S.C. 

3302, amounts collected to recover purchase power and wheeling 

expenses shall be credited to the account as offsetting collections 

and remain available until expended for the sole purpose of making 

purchase power and wheeling expenditures. 

Language has been included under Southwestern Power Administration providing that, not withstanding the provisions of 31 

U.S.C. 3302, amounts collected to recover purchase power and 

wheeling expenses shall be credited to the account as offsetting collections and remain available until expended for the sole purpose 

of making purchase power and wheeling expenditures, and to provide not to exceed $1,500 for official reception and representation 

expenses. 

Language has been included under Construction, Rehabilitation, 

Operation and Maintenance, Western Area Power Administration, 

providing not to exceed $1,500 for official reception and representation expenses. 

Language has been included under Construction, Rehabilitation, 

Operation and Maintenance, Western Area Power Administration 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
186 

that requires the deposit of $7,342,000 into the Utah Reclamation 

mitigation and Conservation account. 

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 provide, not to exceed $3,000 for the hire of passenger motor vehicles and the provision of official reception and 

representation expenses; and to permit the use of revenues collected to reduce the appropriation as revenues are received. 

Language has been included under Department of Energy, General Provisions, Section 301, providing that none of the funds may 

be used to make payments for a noncompetitive management and 

operating contract unless certain conditions are met. 

Language has been included under Department of Energy, General Provisions, Section 302, prohibiting the use of funds to prepare 

or initiate requests for proposals for programs that have not yet 

been funded by Congress. 

Language has been included under Department of Energy, General Provisions, Section 303, regarding Section 4604 of the Atomic 

Energy Defense Act (50 U.S.C. 2704), that prohibits the use of 

funds appropriated by this Act to augment funds made available 

for severance payments and other benefits and assistance grants 

under that Section without prior submission of a reprogramming 

request to the appropriate congressional committees; and the provision of enhanced severance payments or other benefits under that 

Section. 

Language has been included under Department of Energy, General Provisions, Section 304, 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 305, 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 306, 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 307, 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 

2009 until enactment of the Intelligence Authorization Act for fiscal 

year 2009. 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
187 

Language has been included under Department of Energy, General Provisions, Section 308, regarding the laboratory directed research and development activities. 

Language has been included under Department of Energy, General Provisions, Section 309, that requires reimbursable work to be 

accounted for in the account that owns the assets used for the 

work. 

Language has been included under Department of Energy, General Provisions, Section 310, prohibiting the use of funds provided 

in the Act for the Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW). 

Language has been included under Department of Energy, General Provisions, Section 311, prohibiting the use of funds provided 

in the Act for the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP). 

Language has been included under Department of Energy, General Provisions, Section 312, that identifies what is considered, for 

purposes of this Act and subsequent appropriations acts, a plant 

projects for which the approved total estimated cost does not exceed the minor construction threshold under section 4703 of Public 

Law 107–314 and a construction project with a current estimated 

cost of less than a minor construction under section 4704 of Public 

Law 107–314. 

Language has been included under Department of Energy, General Provisions, Section 313, that directs the Secretary of Energy 

to provide funds to the National Academy of Sciences for an inventory of the energy development potential on lands currently managed by the Department of Energy and a report, to be submitted 

no later than July 1, 2009, that includes a detailed analysis of all 

such resources including oil, gas, coal, solar, wind, geothermal, and 

other renewable sources; delineates the resources presently available for development and potentially available for future development; and provides analysis of the environmental impacts associated with future development and the actions necessary to mitigate 

for negative impacts. 

TITLE IV—INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

Language has been included under Appalachian Regional Commission providing for the hire of passenger vehicles. 

TITLE V—GENERAL PROVISIONS

Language has been included under General Provisions, prohibiting the use of funds in this Act to influence congressional action 

on any legislation or appropriation matters pending before Congress. 

Language has been included under General Provisions, prohibiting the transfer of funds in this Act except pursuant to a transfer 

made by, or transfer authority provided in, this Act or any other 

appropriation Act. 

COMPLIANCE WITH RULE XIII, CL. 3(e) (RAMSEYER RULE) 

In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the Committee notes that the accompanying bill does not propose to repeal or amend a statute or part 

thereof. 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
188 

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: 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
189 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 056 HR921.036
190 

RESCISSIONS

Pursuant to clause 3(f)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, the following table is submitted describing the 

rescissions recommended in the accompanying bill: 

Department or Activity Amount 

Corps of Engineers: Investigations ....................................................... $1,900,000 

Department of Energy: Weapons Activities ......................................... 165,300,000 

COMPARISON WITH THE BUDGET RESOLUTION

Pursuant to clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives and section 308(a)(1)(A) of the Congressional 

Budget Act of 1974, the following table compares the levels of new 

budget authority provided in the bill with the appropriate allocation under section 302(b) of the Budget Act. 

[In millions of dollars] 

302(b) Allocation This Bill 

Budget 

Authority Outlays Budget Authority Outlays 

General purpose discretionary ............................................................................... 33,265 32,825 33,265 1 32,127 

Mandatory ............................................................................................................... 0 0 0 0

1 Includes outlays from prior-year budget authority. 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
191 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 049 HR921.081
192 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 050 HR921.082
193 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 052 HR921.083
194 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 053 HR921.084
195 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 054 HR921.085
196 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 055 HR921.086
197 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 056 HR921.087
198 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 056 HR921.088
199 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 056 HR921.088
200 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 056 HR921.089
201 

FIVE-YEAR OUTLAY PROJECTIONS

Pursuant to section 308(a)(1)(B) of the Congressional Budget Act 

of 1974, the following table contains five-year projections prepared 

by the Congressional Budget Office of outlays associated with the 

budget authority provided in the accompanying bill: 

[In millions of dollars] 

Budget Authority ................................................................................ $33,265 

Outlays: 

2009 .............................................................................................. 1 19,141 

2010 .............................................................................................. 9,046 

2011 .............................................................................................. 2,998 

2012 .............................................................................................. 770 

2013 and future years ................................................................. 1,027 1 Excludes outlays from prior-year budget authority. 

ASSISTANCE TO STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS

Pursuant to section 308(a)(1)(C) of the Congressional Budget Act 

of 1974, the amount of financial assistance to State and local governments is as follows: 

Millions 

Budget Authority ................................................................................... 67 

Fiscal Year 2008 outlays resulting therefrom ..................................... 13 

FULL COMMITTEE VOTES

CONGRESSIONAL EARMARKS

The following table is submitted in compliance with clause 9 of 

Rule XXI, and lists the congressional earmarks (as defined in paragraph (d) of clause 9) contained in the bill or in this report. Neither 

the bill nor the report contain any limited tax benefits or limited 

tariff benefits as defined in paragraphs (e) or (f) of clause 9 of Rule 

XXI. 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT 

Agency Account Project Amount Requester(s) 

Corps of Engineers Investigations ABILENE, TX (BRAZOS RIVER BASIN-ELM CREEK) $200,000 Neugebauer, Randy Corps of Engineers Investigations ALA WAI CANAL, OAHU, HI $300,000 Abercrombie, Neil, The President Corps of Engineers Investigations ALASKA REGIONAL PORTS, AK $550,000 Young, Don Corps of Engineers Investigations ALISO CREEK MAINSTEM, CA $390,000 Calvert, Ken; Sanchez, Loretta Corps of Engineers Investigations ANACOSTIA RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, 

MD 

$847,000 Hoyer, Steny H.; Van Hollen, Chris 

Corps of Engineers Investigations ANCHORAGE HARBOR DEEPENING, AK $100,000 The President Corps of Engineers Investigations ARROYO SECO WATERSHED, CA $200,000 Becerra, Xavier; Roybal-Allard, Lucille; Schiff, AdCorps of Engineers Investigations AUGUSTA, GA $278,000 The President Corps of Engineers Investigations BALLONA CREEK ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, CA $500,000 Harman, Jane; Roybal-Allard, Lucille Corps of Engineers Investigations BALTIMORE METRO WATER RESOURCES—PATAPSCO URBAN 

RIVER RESTORATION (PURRI), MD 

$100,000 Ruppersberger, C. A. Dutch; Sarbanes, John P. 

Corps of Engineers Investigations BARROW COASTAL STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION, AK $400,000 The President Corps of Engineers Investigations BAYOU SORREL LOCK, LA $1,599,000 Alexander, Rodney, The President Corps of Engineers Investigations BISCAYNE BAY, FL $500,000 Diaz-Balart, Lincoln Corps of Engineers Investigations BLACKSTONE RIVER WATERSHED RESTORATION, MA & RI $307,000 McGovern, James P.; Olver, John W. Corps of Engineers Investigations BOSTON HARBOR (45-FOOT CHANNEL), MA $2,300,000 The President Corps of Engineers Investigations BRAZOS ISLAND HARBOR, BROWNSVILLE CHANNEL, TX $600,000 Ortiz, Solomon P., The President Corps of Engineers Investigations BRONX RIVER BASIN, NY $700,000 Crowley, Joseph; Lowey, Nita M.; Serrano, Jose ́; S


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
Corps of Engineers Investigations BUFFALO BAYOU AND TRIBUTARIES, TX (MAIN STEM) $100,000 Culberson, John Abney Corps of Engineers Investigations BUFFALO BAYOU AND TRIBUTARIES, WHITE OAK BAYOU, TX $100,000 Culberson, John Abney Corps of Engineers Investigations BUFFALO RIVER ENVIRONMENTAL DREDGING, NY $100,000 Higgins, Brian, The President Corps of Engineers Investigations CALCASIEU LOCK, LA $600,000 Boustany, Jr., Charles W., The President Corps of Engineers Investigations CALCASIEU RIVER BASIN, LA $67,000 Boustany, Jr., Charles W., The President Corps of Engineers Investigations CALIFORNIA COASTAL SEDIMENT MASTER PLAN, CA $900,000 Rohrabacher, Dana, The President Corps of Engineers Investigations CEDAR RIVER TIME CHECK AREA, CEDAR RAPIDS, IA $300,000 Loebsack, David Corps of Engineers Investigations CENTRAL WABASH RIVER, IN $100,000 Buyer, Steve Corps of Engineers Investigations CENTRALIA, WA $500,000 Baird, Brian; Dicks, Norman D. Corps of Engineers Investigations CHATFIELD, CHERRY CREEK AND BEAR CREEK RESERVOIRS, CO $54,000 DeGette, Diana; Perlmutter, Ed; Tancredo, ThomaCorps of Engineers Investigations CHEHALIS RIVER BASIN, WA $250,000 Baird, Brian; Dicks, Norman D. Corps of Engineers Investigations CITY OF NORWALK, CA $250,000 Napolitano, Grace F. Corps of Engineers Investigations CITY OF PADUCAH, KY $368,000 Whitfield, Ed Corps of Engineers Investigations CLINTON RIVER, MI $100,000 Knollenberg, Joe Corps of Engineers Investigations COASTAL FIELD DATA COLLECTION: SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA 

BEACH PROCESSES STUDY, CA 

$1,000,000 Bilbray, Brian P. 

Corps of Engineers Investigations CONNECTICUT RIVER ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, CT, MA, NH & 

VT 

$450,000 Courtney, Joe; DeLauro, Rosa L.; Hodes, Paul W

Christopher S.; Olver, John W. 

Corps of Engineers Investigations CORPUS CHRISTI SHIP CHANNEL, TX $150,000 Edwards, Chet; Ortiz, Solomon P., The President Corps of Engineers Investigations COYOTE AND BERRYESSA CREEKS, CA $1,600,000 Honda, Michael M.; Lofgren, Zoe, The President Corps of Engineers Investigations CROSS LAKE, LA $250,000 McCrery, Jim 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT—Continued 

Agency Account Project Amount Requester(s) 

Corps of Engineers Investigations CURRITUCK SOUND, NC $150,000 The President Corps of Engineers Investigations DELAWARE RIVER COMPREHENSIVE, NJ $290,000 Saxton, Jim; Smith, Christopher H., The PresidenCorps of Engineers Investigations DELAWARE RIVER COMPREHENSIVE, NY, NJ, PA, DE (WATERSHED FLOOD MANAGEMENT PLAN) $5,000 Brady, Robert A.; Castle, Michael N.; Dent, C

Hall, John J.; Hinchey, Maurice D.; Holt, Rush 

Corps of Engineers Investigations DELAWARE RIVER WATERFRONT, PA $100,000 Schwartz, Allyson Y. Corps of Engineers Investigations DES PLAINES RIVER, IL (PHASE II) $500,000 The President Corps of Engineers Investigations DESERT HOT SPRINGS, CA $500,000 Lewis, Jerry Corps of Engineers Investigations DUTCHESS COUNTY WATERSHEDS, NY $250,000 Hall, John J. Corps of Engineers Investigations EASTERN SHORE, MID-CHESAPEAKE BAY ISLAND, MD $200,000 Cummings, Elijah E.; Ruppersberger, C. A. D

banes, John P. 

Corps of Engineers Investigations EDISTO ISLAND, SC $218,000 The President Corps of Engineers Investigations EGMONT KEY, FL $500,000 Young, C. W. Bill Corps of Engineers Investigations ELIZABETH RIVER, HAMPTON ROADS, VA $97,000 Drake, Thelma D.; Forbes, J. Randy, The PresidenCorps of Engineers Investigations ELLIOTT BAY SEAWALL, WA $250,000 Dicks, Norman D.; Larsen, Rick; McDermott, Jim Corps of Engineers Investigations ESOPUS/RONDOUT WATERSHED STUDY, NY $250,000 Hinchey, Maurice D. Corps of Engineers Investigations ESTUDILLO CANAL, CA $200,000 Stark, Fortney Pete Corps of Engineers Investigations FLAGLER COUNTY, FL $300,000 Mica, John L. Corps of Engineers Investigations FOUR MILE RUN, VA $400,000 Moran, James P. Corps of Engineers Investigations FREEPORT HARBOR, TX $400,000 Edwards, Chet; Paul, Ron, The President 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
Corps of Engineers Investigations GIWW, HIGH ISLAND TO BRAZOS RIVER REALIGNMENTS, TX $200,000 The President Corps of Engineers Investigations GIWW, HIGH ISLAND TO BRAZOS RIVER, TX $150,000 The President Corps of Engineers Investigations GIWW, PORT O’CONNOR TO CORPUS CHRISTI BAY, TX $350,000 The President Corps of Engineers Investigations GRAYSON AND MURDERER’S CREEKS, WALNUT CREEK BASIN, 

CA 

$600,000 Tauscher, Ellen O. 

Corps of Engineers Investigations GRAYVILLE DAM, IL $100,000 Johnson, Timothy V. Corps of Engineers Investigations GREAT LAKES NAV SYST STUDY, MI, IL, IN, MN, NY, OH, PA & 

WI 

$200,000 The President 

Corps of Engineers Investigations GREAT LAKES REMEDIAL ACTION PLANS (RAP), MI $1,500,000 Bean, Melissa L.; Conyers, Jr., John; Dingell

Ehlers, Vernon J.; English, Phil; Higgins, BrStephanie Tubbs; Kaptur, Marcy; Kildee, Dale Sander M.; Moore, Gwen; Petri, Thomas E.; Wa

Corps of Engineers Investigations GREAT LAKES REMEDIAL ACTION PLANS (RAP): MAUMEE RIVER 

AREA OF CONCERN, OH 

$60,000 Sutton, Betty 

Corps of Engineers Investigations GREAT LAKES REMEDIAL ACTION PLANS (RAP): NIAGARA RIVER 

AREA OF CONCERN 

$150,000 Slaughter, Louise McIntosh 

Corps of Engineers Investigations GREENUP LOCK EXTENSION, KY & OH $500,000 Davis, Geoff; Wilson, Charles A. Corps of Engineers Investigations GUADALUPE AND SAN ANTONIO RIVER BASINS, TX $523,000 Cuellar, Henry; Gonzalez, Charles A.; Rodrigue

Smith, Lamar, The President 

Corps of Engineers Investigations HAGA ̊TN ̃ A RIVER FLOOD CONTROL, GUAM $350,000 Bordallo, Madeleine Z., The President Corps of Engineers Investigations HAMILTON CITY, CA $1,000,000 Herger, Wally Corps of Engineers Investigations HOCKING RIVER BASIN, MONDAY CREEK, OH $400,000 Space, Zachary T. Corps of Engineers Investigations HUDSON-RARITAN ESTUARY, GOWANUS CANAL, NY $500,000 Sires, Albio; Vela ́zquez, Nydia M. Corps of Engineers Investigations HUDSON-RARITAN ESTUARY, HACKENSACK MEADOWLANDS, NJ $204,000 Rothman, Steven R.; Sires, Albio, The President 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT—Continued 

Agency Account Project Amount Requester(s) 

Corps of Engineers Investigations HUDSON-RARITAN ESTUARY, LOWER PASSAIC RIVER, NJ $750,000 Frelinghuysen, Rodney P.; Pascrell, Jr., Bill; S

The President 

Corps of Engineers Investigations HUDSON-RARITAN ESTUARY, NY & NJ $1,000,000 Crowley, Joseph; Israel, Steve; Meeks, Gregory W

Jose ́; Sires, Albio; Weiner, Anthony D., The Pre

Corps of Engineers Investigations HUMBOLDT BAY LONG TERM SHOAL MANAGEMENT, CA $150,000 Thompson, Mike Corps of Engineers Investigations ILLINOIS RIVER BASIN RESTORATION, IL $400,000 LaHood, Ray, The President Corps of Engineers Investigations INDIANA HARBOR, IN $800,000 Visclosky, Peter J., The President Corps of Engineers Investigations JAMAICA BAY, NY $300,000 Sires, Albio; Weiner, Anthony D. Corps of Engineers Investigations JOHN H KERR DAM AND RESERVOIR, VA & NC (SECTION 216) $300,000 Goode, Jr., Virgil H., The President Corps of Engineers Investigations KANSAS CITYS, MO & KS $1,262,000 Cleaver, Emanuel; Graves, Sam; Moore, Dennis, 

dent 

Corps of Engineers Investigations KEITH CREEK, ROCKFORD, IL $500,000 Manzullo, Donald A. Corps of Engineers Investigations LAGUNA CREEK WATERSHED, CA $500,000 Stark, Fortney Pete Corps of Engineers Investigations LIDO KEY SARASOTA, FL $157,000 Buchanan, Vern Corps of Engineers Investigations LITTLE COLORADO RIVER WATERSHED, AZ $250,000 Renzi, Rick Corps of Engineers Investigations LITTLE RIVER, TN $100,000 Duncan, Jr., John J. Corps of Engineers Investigations LIAGAS CREEK, CA $200,000 Honda, Michael M.; Lofgren, Zoe; McHenrey, Jerry Corps of Engineers Investigations LONG ISLAND, MARSH AND JOHNS CREEKS, GA $150,000 The President Corps of Engineers Investigations LOS ANGELES RIVER ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, CA $500,000 Becerra, Xavier; Berman, Howard L.; Harman, Ja

Allard, Lucille; Sherman, Brad; Solis, Hilda L. 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
Corps of Engineers Investigations LOS ANGELES RIVER WATERCOURSE, HEADWORKS AREA, CA $433,000 Roybal-Allard, Lucille; Schiff, Adam B. Corps of Engineers Investigations LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, LA $10,000,000 Boustany, Jr., Charles W., The President Corps of Engineers Investigations LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN, TX $425,000 Conaway, K. Michael; Edwards, Chet; Paul, R

Lamar, The President 

Corps of Engineers Investigations LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN, WHARTON/ONION , TX $1,322,000 Doggett, Lloyd; Edwards, Chet; Paul, Ron; SmithCorps of Engineers Investigations LOWER COLUMBIA RIVER ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, WA & OR $100,000 The President Corps of Engineers Investigations LOWER MISSION CREEK, CA $250,000 Capps, Lois Corps of Engineers Investigations LOWER POTOMAC ESTUARY WATERSHED, ST. MARY’S, MD $200,000 Hoyer, Steny H. Corps of Engineers Investigations LOWER SADDLE RIVER, BERGEN COUNTY, NJ $750,000 Garrett, Scott; Rothman, Steven R. Corps of Engineers Investigations LYNNHAVEN RIVER BASIN, VA $175,000 Drake, Thelma D., The President Corps of Engineers Investigations MAALAEA HARBOR, MAUI, HI $200,000 The President Corps of Engineers Investigations MERRIMACK RIVER WATERSHED STUDY, NH & MA $200,000 The President Corps of Engineers Investigations MID-ATLANTIC RIVER BASIN COMMISSIONS $2,365,000 Holden, Tim; Schwartz, Allyson Y.; Moran, James Corps of Engineers Investigations MID-ATLANTIC RIVER BASIN COMMISSIONS: DELAWARE RIVER 

BASIN COMMISSION 

$715,000 Brady, Robert A.; Castle, Michael N.; Dent, C

Gerlach, Jim; Gilchrest, Wayne T.; Hall, John Maurice D.; Holt, Rush D. 

Corps of Engineers Investigations MID-ATLANTIC RIVER BASIN COMMISSIONS: INTERSTATE COMMISSION ON THE POTOMAC RIVER BASIN $650,000 Gerlach, Jim; Gilchrest, Wayne T.; Hoyer, Steny HCorps of Engineers Investigations MID-ATLANTIC RIVER BASIN COMMISSIONS: SUSQUEHANNA 

RIVER BASIN COMMISSION FUNDING 

$1,000,000 Gerlach, Jim; Gilchrest, Wayne T.; Holden, Tim 

Corps of Engineers Investigations MIDDLE CREEK, CA $200,000 Thompson, Mike Corps of Engineers Investigations MIDDLE POTOMAC COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, MD, VA, PA, WV & 

DC 

$200,000 Moran, James P.; Van Hollen, Chris 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT—Continued 

Agency Account Project Amount Requester(s) 

Corps of Engineers Investigations MIDDLE POTOMAC RIVER—CAMERON RUN/HOLMES RUN, VA $400,000 Moran, James P. Corps of Engineers Investigations MIDDLE POTOMAC WATERSHED, GREAT SENECA CREEK AND 

MUDDY BRANCH, MD 

$600,000 Van Hollen, Chris 

Corps of Engineers Investigations MILE POINT, FL $200,000 Crenshaw, Ander, The President Corps of Engineers Investigations MILL CREEK WATERSHED, DAVIDSON COUNTY, TN $100,000 The President Corps of Engineers Investigations MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED, MN $500,000 Ellison, Keith Corps of Engineers Investigations MISSOURI RIVER DEGRADATION, MO & KS $88,000 Cleaver, Emanuel; Graves, Sam; Moore, Dennis, 

dent 

Corps of Engineers Investigations MISSOURI RIVER LEVEE SYSTEM, UNITS L-455 & R 460-471, 

MO & KS 

$600,000 Graves, Sam 

Corps of Engineers Investigations NEUSE RIVER BASIN, NC $200,000 The President Corps of Engineers Investigations NIAGARA RIVER WATERSHED, NY $100,000 Slaughter, Louise McIntosh Corps of Engineers Investigations NORTH SHORE OF LONG ISLAND, ASHAROKEN, NY $300,000 Israel, Steve Corps of Engineers Investigations NORTH SHORE OF LONG ISLAND, BAYVILLE, NY $300,000 King, Peter T. Corps of Engineers Investigations NORTHERN KENTUCKY RIVERFRONT COMMONS, KY $100,000 Davis, Geoff Corps of Engineers Investigations NUECES RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, TX $250,000 Gonzalez, Charles A.; Hinojosa, Rube ́n; Rodrigu

The President 

Corps of Engineers Investigations ONONDAGA LAKE, NY $500,000 Walsh, James T. Corps of Engineers Investigations PAJARO RIVER, CA $800,000 Farr, Sam Corps of Engineers Investigations PASCUA YAQUI, AZ $100,000 Grijalva, Rau ́ l M. 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
Corps of Engineers Investigations PECKMAN RIVER BASIN, NJ $750,000 Pascrell, Jr., Bill Corps of Engineers Investigations PEORIA RIVERFRONT DEVELOPMENT, IL $50,000 LaHood, Ray Corps of Engineers Investigations PHILPOTT LAKE, VA $200,000 Goode, Jr., Virgil H. Corps of Engineers Investigations PILGRIM LAKE, TRURO & PROVINCETOWN, MA $96,000 The President Corps of Engineers Investigations PIMA COUNTY (TRES RIOS DEL NORTE), AZ $275,000 Giffords, Gabrielle, The President Corps of Engineers Investigations PINE MOUNTAIN LAKE, AR $500,000 Boozman, John Corps of Engineers Investigations PORT EVERGLADES HARBOR, FL $650,000 Wasserman Schultz, Debbie, The President Corps of Engineers Investigations PORTSMOUTH HARBOR AND PISCATAQUA RIVER, NH & ME $82,000 Shea-Porter, Carol Corps of Engineers Investigations PRAIRIE DUPONT LEVEE AND SANITARY DISTRICT AND FISH 

LAKE DRAINAGE AND LEVEE DISTRICT, IL 

$450,000 Costello, Jerry F.; Shimkus, John 

Corps of Engineers Investigations PUGET SOUND NEARSHORE MARINE HABITAT RESTORATION, WA $600,000 Baird, Brian; Dicks, Norman D.; Inslee, Jay; La

McDermott, Jim; Smith, Adam, The President 

Corps of Engineers Investigations PUYALLUP RIVER, WA $250,000 Smith, Adam Corps of Engineers Investigations RARITAN BAY AND SANDY HOOK BAY, HIGHLANDS, NJ $100,000 Pallone, Jr., Frank Corps of Engineers Investigations RARITAN BAY AND SANDY HOOK BAY, KEYPORT, NJ $25,000 Pallone, Jr., Frank Corps of Engineers Investigations RAYMOND, SIX, CHINO, & SAN GABRIEL BASINS, CA $100,000 Dreier, David; Schiff, Adam B. Corps of Engineers Investigations RAYMONDVILLE DRAIN, TX $550,000 Edwards, Chet; Hinojosa, Rube ́n; Ortiz, Solomon Corps of Engineers Investigations RIO GRANDE BASIN, TX $100,000 The President Corps of Engineers Investigations RIO SALADO OESTE, SALT RIVER, AZ $1,500,000 Mitchell, Harry E.; Pastor, Ed Corps of Engineers Investigations RIVER DES PERES, MO $150,000 Carnahan, Russ Corps of Engineers Investigations RIVERSIDE COUNTY SPECIAL AREA MANAGEMENT PLAN, CA $355,000 Calvert, Ken; Issa, Darrell E. 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT—Continued 

Agency Account Project Amount Requester(s) 

Corps of Engineers Investigations SABINE-NECHES WATERWAY, TX $500,000 Poe, Ted Corps of Engineers Investigations SACRAMENTO—SAN JOAQUIN COMPREHENSIVE, CA $750,000 Costa, Jim; McNerney, Jerry; Radanovich, George Corps of Engineers Investigations SAC-SAN JOAQUIN DELTA ISLANDS AND LEVEES, CA $469,000 The President Corps of Engineers Investigations SAN CLEMENTE SHORELINE, CA $400,000 Calvert, Ken Corps of Engineers Investigations SAN FRANCISQUITO CREEK, CA $700,000 Eshoo, Anna G.; Honda, Michael M. Corps of Engineers Investigations SAN JOAQUIN RIVER BASIN, LOWER SAN JOAQUIN RIVER, CA $400,000 Cardoza, Dennis A.; McNerney, Jerry Corps of Engineers Investigations SAN JOAQUIN RIVER BASIN, WEST STANISLAUS COUNTY, 

ORESTIMBA CREEK, CA 

$360,000 Cardoza, Dennis A. 

Corps of Engineers Investigations SAN JUAN CREEK, SOUTH ORANGE COUNTY, CA $750,000 Calvert, Ken Corps of Engineers Investigations SANTA ANA RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, CA $280,000 Lewis, Jerry Corps of Engineers Investigations SANTA CLARA RIVER WATERSHED, CA $500,000 Capps, Lois; Gallegly, Elton; McKeon, Howard P. Corps of Engineers Investigations SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION, GA $700,000 The President Corps of Engineers Investigations SAW MILL RIVER WATERSHED, NY $500,000 Lowey, Nita M. Corps of Engineers Investigations SEARSPORT HARBOR, ME $157,000 Michaud, Michael H. Corps of Engineers Investigations SHREWSBURY RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, NJ $150,000 Pallone, Jr., Frank Corps of Engineers Investigations SKAGIT RIVER, WA $250,000 Dicks, Norman D.; Larsen, Rick Corps of Engineers Investigations SKOKOMISH RIVER BASIN, WA $766,000 Dicks, Norman D. Corps of Engineers Investigations SOLANA-ENCINITAS SHORELINE, CA $375,000 Bilbray, Brian P., The President 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
Corps of Engineers Investigations SOUTH FORK, SOUTH BRANCH, CHICAGO RIVER (BUBBLY 

CREEK), IL 

$500,000 Lipinski, Daniel 

Corps of Engineers Investigations SOUTH RIVER, RARITAN RIVER BASIN, NJ $200,000 Pallone, Jr., Frank Corps of Engineers Investigations SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO SHORELINE, CA $2,800,000 Honda, Michael M.; Lofgren, Zoe; McNerney, Je

Nancy 

Corps of Engineers Investigations SOUTHEAST OKLAHOMA WATER RESOURCE STUDY, OK $200,000 Cole, Tom; Fallin, Mary Corps of Engineers Investigations SOUTHWEST COASTAL LOUISIANA HURRICANE PROTECTION, LA $500,000 Boustany, Jr., Charles W. Corps of Engineers Investigations SPARKS ARROYO COLONIA, EL PASO COUNTY, TX $150,000 Reyes, Silvestre Corps of Engineers Investigations SPRINGFIELD, MO $500,000 Blunt, Roy Corps of Engineers Investigations ST. CHARLES PARISH URBAN FLOOD CONTROL, LA $500,000 The President Corps of Engineers Investigations ST. CLAIR RIVER AND LAKE ST. CLAIR MANAGEMENT PLAN, MI $200,000 Levin, Sander M.; Miller, Candice S. Corps of Engineers Investigations ST. CROIX RIVER BASIN, MN & WI $130,000 Obey, David R. Corps of Engineers Investigations ST. CROIX RIVER RELOCATION OF ENDANGERED MUSSEL CONSERVATION, MN & WI $350,000 Obey, David R. Corps of Engineers Investigations ST. JOHNS COUNTY, FL $300,000 Mica, John L. Corps of Engineers Investigations ST. LUCIE COUNTY INLET, FL $500,000 Hastings, Alcee L.; Mahoney, Tim Corps of Engineers Investigations SUN VALLEY WATERSHED, CA $200,000 Berman, Howard L.; Roybal-Allard, Lucille; ShermCorps of Engineers Investigations SURF CITY AND NORTH TOPSAIL BEACH, NC $368,000 McIntyre, Mike Corps of Engineers Investigations SUTTER COUNTY, CA $1,000,000 Herger, Wally, The President Corps of Engineers Investigations SWOPE PARK INDUSTRIAL AREA, KANSAS CITY, MO $138,000 The President Corps of Engineers Investigations TEN MILE RIVER WATERSHED, DUTCHESS COUNTY, NY AND 

LITCHFIELD COUNTY, CT 

$250,000 Hall, John J. 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT—Continued 

Agency Account Project Amount Requester(s) 

Corps of Engineers Investigations TOPEKA, KS $100,000 Boyda, Nancy E., The President Corps of Engineers Investigations TRUCKEE MEADOWS, NV $1,000,000 Heller, Dean Corps of Engineers Investigations TWIN VALLEY, WILD RICE RIVER, MN $300,000 Oberstar, James L.; Peterson, Collin C. Corps of Engineers Investigations TYBEE ISLAND, GA $250,000 The President Corps of Engineers Investigations UPPER DELAWARE RIVER WATERSHED, NY $600,000 Hall, John J.; Hinchey, Maurice D. Corps of Engineers Investigations UPPER GUYANDOTTE RIVER, WV $200,000 Rahall, II, Nick J. Corps of Engineers Investigations UPPER MISS RIVER—ILLINOIS WW SYSTEM, IL, IA, MN, MO & 

WI 

$3,000,000 Akin, W. Todd; Boswell, Leonard L.; Braley, 

Carnahan, Russ; Clay, Wm. Lacy; Ellison, KPhil; Hulshof, Kenny C.; Jackson, Jr., Jesse LTimothy V.; LaHood, Ray; Loebsack, David; Betty; Oberstar, James L.; Shimkus, John; WaJ.; Weller, Jerry 

Corps of Engineers Investigations UPPER OHIO NAVIGATION STUDY, PA $2,000,000 Altmire, Jason; Doyle, Michael F.; Murphy, Tim Corps of Engineers Investigations UPPER PENITENCIA CREEK, CA $262,000 Honda, Michael M.; Lofgren, Zoe, The President Corps of Engineers Investigations UPPER TRINITY RIVER BASIN, TX $393,000 Burgess, Michael C.; Granger, Kay, The PresidenCorps of Engineers Investigations UPPER TRINITY RIVER BASIN, DALLAS FLOODWAY, TX $207,000 Edwards, Chet; Johnson, Eddie Bernice; The PresCorps of Engineers Investigations VA SHLY’AY AKIMEL SALT RIVER RESTORATION, AZ $658,000 Mitchell, Harry E.; Pastor, Ed, The President Corps of Engineers Investigations VICINITY AND WILLOUGHBY SPIT, VA $400,000 Drake, Thelma D. Corps of Engineers Investigations WALILUPE STREAM, OAHU, HI $300,000 Abercrombie, Neil Corps of Engineers Investigations WATERTOWN AND VICINITY, SD $200,000 Herseth Sandlin, Stephanie 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
Corps of Engineers Investigations WELLS LOCK AND DAM, LITTLE KANAWHA RIVER, WV $300,000 Capito, Shelley Moore Corps of Engineers Investigations WESTERN PA FLOOD STUDY, PA $100,000 Altmire, Jason Corps of Engineers Investigations WESTMINSTER (EAST GARDEN GROVE) WATERSHED, CA $900,000 Rohrabacher, Dana; Sanchez, Loretta Corps of Engineers Investigations WHITE RIVER NAVIGATION TO NEWPORT, AR $250,000 Berry, Marion Corps of Engineers Investigations WILD RICE RIVER, RED RIVER OF THE NORTH BASIN, MN $271,000 The President Corps of Engineers Investigations WILLAMETTE RIVER FLOODPLAIN RESTORATION, OR $240,000 DeFazio, Peter A.; Hooley, Darlene, The President Corps of Engineers Investigations YAKUTAT HARBOR, AK $700,000 The President Corps of Engineers Investigations YELLOWSTONE RIVER CORRIDOR, MT $200,000 Rehberg, Dennis R., The President Corps of Engineers Investigations—PAS PAS: ASHEVILLE, NC $50,000 Shuler, Heath Corps of Engineers Investigations—PAS PAS: BAD RIVER BAND OF THE LAKE SUPERIOR CHIPPEWA, WI $60,000 Obey, David R. Corps of Engineers Investigations—PAS PAS: BARDSTOWN, KY $12,000 Lewis, Ron Corps of Engineers Investigations—PAS PAS: CEDAR LAKE WATER QUALITY STUDY, WI $70,000 Obey, David R. Corps of Engineers Investigations—PAS PAS: EAST BATON ROUGE, LA $400,000 Alexander, Rodney; Cazayoux, Donald J. Corps of Engineers Investigations—PAS PAS: GALLATIN, TN $85,000 Gordon, Bart Corps of Engineers Investigations—PAS PAS: HARRIS RIVERFRONT, WV $75,000 Rahall, II, Nick J. Corps of Engineers Investigations—PAS PAS: HUMBOLDT, IA $152,000 Latham, Tom Corps of Engineers Investigations—PAS PAS: LINE CREEK WATERSHED, MO $100,000 Cleaver, Emanuel; Graves, Sam Corps of Engineers Investigations—PAS PAS: MOLOKAI WATER RESOURCES, HI $200,000 Hirono, Mazie K. Corps of Engineers Investigations—PAS PAS: OKLAHOMA COMPREHENSIVE WATER PLAN, OK $100,000 Fallin, Mary Corps of Engineers Investigations—PAS PAS: STAFFORD COUNTY, VA $150,000 Wittman, Robert J. 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT—Continued 

Agency Account Project Amount Requester(s) 

Corps of Engineers Investigations—PAS PAS: STATE OF HAWAII AND PACIFIC TERRITORIES, HI $200,000 Abercrombie, Neil; Hirono, Mazie K. Corps of Engineers Investigations—FPMS FPMS: BELLE VIEW AND NEW ALEXANDRIA, VA $200,000 Moran, James P. Corps of Engineers Investigations—FPMS FPMS: SIDNEY COMPREHENSIVE FLOOD REDUCTION STUDY $300,000 Gillibrand, Kirsten E. Corps of Engineers Investigations—FPMS FPMS: BUCKS COUNTY, PA $250,000 Murphy, Patrick J. Corps of Engineers Investigations—FPMS FPMS: LEOMINSTER, MA $100,000 Olver, John W. Corps of Engineers Investigations—FPMS FPMS: SPRING VALLEY, KROUTS CREEK, WV $60,000 Rahall, II, Nick J. Corps of Engineers Construction ABANDONED MINE RESTORATION: MT. DIABLO $400,000 McNerney, Jerry; Miller, George; Tauscher, Ellen OCorps of Engineers Construction ACEQUIAS IRRIGATION SYSTEM, NM $1,100,000 Udall, Tom; Wilson, Heather Corps of Engineers Construction ALAMOGORDO, NM $4,200,000 The President Corps of Engineers Construction ALTON TO GALE ORGANIZED LEVEE DISTRICT, IL & MO (DEF 

CORR) 

$300,000 Costello, Jerry F. 

Corps of Engineers Construction AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED (COMMON FEATURES), CA $15,000,000 Lungren, Daniel E.; Matsui, Doris O., The PresideCorps of Engineers Construction AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED (FOLSOM DAM MODIFICATIONS), 

CA 

$9,000,000 Lungren, Daniel E.; Matsui, Doris O., The Preside

Corps of Engineers Construction AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED (FOLSOM DAM RAISE), CA $1,000,000 Lungren, Daniel E.; Matsui, Doris O.Corps of Engineers Construction AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED (NEW BRIDGE BELOW FOLSOM 

DAM), CA 

$1,000,000 Lungren, Daniel E. 

Corps of Engineers Construction ANACOSTIA RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, MD AND DC $30,000 Van Hollen, Chris Corps of Engineers Construction ANTELOPE CREEK, NE $4,828,000 Fortenberry, Jeff, The President 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
Corps of Engineers Construction ASPINWALL BOROUGH, PA $1,000,000 Altmire, Jason Corps of Engineers Construction ASSATEAGUE ISLAND, MD $500,000 Gilchrest, Wayne T., The President Corps of Engineers Construction ATLANTA ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE, GA $2,000,000 Bishop, Jr., Sanford D.; Gingrey, Phil; Johnson, J

‘‘Hank’’; Kingston, Jack; Lewis, John; Scott, D

Corps of Engineers Construction ATLANTIC COAST OF NYC, ROCKAWAY INLET TO NORTON POINT, 

NY 

$4,800,000 Nadler, Jerrold, The President 

Corps of Engineers Construction BALTIMORE METRO RESOURCES, GWYNNS FALLS, MD $500,000 Cummings, Elijah E.; Sarbanes, John P. Corps of Engineers Construction BARNEGAT INLET TO LITTLE EGG HARBOR INLET, NJ $11,700,000 Frelinghuysen, Rodney P.; Saxton, Jim, The PresiCorps of Engineers Construction BLUE RIVER BASIN, KANSAS CITY, MO $4,120,000 Cleaver, Emanuel Corps of Engineers Construction BLUE RIVER CHANNEL, KANSAS CITY, MO $1,700,000 Cleaver, Emanuel, The President Corps of Engineers Construction BLUESTONE LAKE, WV $12,000,000 The President Corps of Engineers Construction BOIS BRULE DRAINAGE AND LEVEE DISTRICT, MO $2,130,000 Emerson, Jo Ann Corps of Engineers Construction BRAYS BAYOU, HOUSTON, TX $5,382,000 Culberson, John Abney, The President Corps of Engineers Construction BRECKENRIDGE, MN $2,877,000 Peterson, Collin C.; Pomeroy, Earl Corps of Engineers Construction BREVARD COUNTY, FL $500,000 Weldon, Dave Corps of Engineers Construction BRIGANTINE INLET TO GREAT EGG HARBOR INLET (ABSECON ISLAND), NJ $400,000 LoBiondo, Frank A. Corps of Engineers Construction BROWARD COUNTY, FL (REIMBURSABLE), SEGMENT I $174,000 Klein, Ron; Wexler, Robert Corps of Engineers Construction BROWARD COUNTY, FL (REIMBURSABLE), SEGMENT III $2,000,000 Klein, Ron Corps of Engineers Construction BRUNSWICK COUNTY BEACHES, NC $550,000 McIntyre, Mike Corps of Engineers Construction CALFED LEVEE STABILITY PROGRAM, CA $5,000,000 McNerney, Jerry Corps of Engineers Construction CALUMET REGION, IN $4,000,000 Visclosky, Peter J. 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT—Continued 

Agency Account Project Amount Requester(s) 

Corps of Engineers Construction CANTON LAKE, OK (DAM SAFETY) $21,200,000 The President Corps of Engineers Construction CAPE GIRARDEAU (FLOODWALL), MO $2,575,000 Emerson, Jo Ann Corps of Engineers Construction CAPE MAY INLET TO LOWER TOWNSHIP, NJ $2,500,000 LoBiondo, Frank A., The President Corps of Engineers Construction CEDAR HAMMOCK, WARES CREEK, FL $7,600,000 Buchanan, Vern, The President Corps of Engineers Construction CENTER HILL DAM (SEEPAGE CONTROL), TN $53,400,000 The President Corps of Engineers Construction CENTRAL CITY, FORT WORTH, UPPER TRINITY RIVER BASIN, TX $6,000,000 Burgess, Michael C.; Edwards, Chet; Granger, KaCorps of Engineers Construction CENTRAL WEST VIRGINIA, WV $3,000,000 Capito, Shelley Moore Corps of Engineers Construction CHAIN OF ROCKS CANAL, MISSISSIPPI RIVER, IL (DEF CORR) $2,500,000 Costello, Jerry F.; Shimkus, John, The President Corps of Engineers Construction CHESAPEAKE BAY OYSTER RECOVERY, MD & VA $2,000,000 Bartlett, Roscoe G.; Davis, Tom; Drake, T

Gilchrest, Wayne T.; Hoyer, Steny H.; Moran, Norton, Eleanor Holmes; Ruppersberger, C. Sarbanes, John P.; Scott, Robert C. ‘‘BoHollen, Chris; Wittman, Robert J. 

Corps of Engineers Construction CHESTERFIELD, MO $4,500,000 Akin, W. Todd Corps of Engineers Construction CHICAGO SANITARY AND SHIP CANAL, DISPERSAL BARRIER, IL $5,750,000 Bean, Melissa L.; Conyers, Jr., John; Dingell

Ehlers, Vernon J.; English, Phil; Higgins, BrStephanie Tubbs; Kildee, Dale E.; Levin, Moore, Gwen; Petri, Thomas E.; Roskam, Walberg, Tim, The President 

Corps of Engineers Construction CHICAGO SANITARY AND SHIP CANAL, SECOND BARRIER, IL $500,000 Bean, Melissa L.; Conyers, Jr., John; Dingell

Ehlers, Vernon J.; English, Phil; Higgins, BrStephanie Tubbs; Kildee, Dale E.; Levin, Moore, Gwen; Petri, Thomas E.; Roskam, Walberg, Tim, The President 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
Corps of Engineers Construction CHICAGO SHORELINE, IL $1,000,000 Jackson, Jr., Jesse L., The President Corps of Engineers Construction CHICKAMAUGA LOCK, TENNESSEE RIVER, TN $42,000,000 Wamp, Zach, The President Corps of Engineers Construction CHIEF JOSEPH DAM GAS ABATEMENT, WA $6,500,000 The President Corps of Engineers Construction CITY OF INGLEWOOD, CA $300,000 Waters, Maxine Corps of Engineers Construction CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CA $2,385,000 McKeon, Howard P. ‘‘Buck’’ Corps of Engineers Construction CLEAR CREEK, TX $1,000,000 Edwards, Chet; Lampson, Nick; Paul, Ron Corps of Engineers Construction CLEARWATER LAKE, MO (SEEPAGE CONTROL) $25,000,000 Emerson, Jo Ann, The President Corps of Engineers Construction COLONIAS-LOWER RIO GRANDE BASIN, TX $500,000 Hinojosa, Rube ́n Corps of Engineers Construction COLUMBIA RIVER CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS, OR & WA $36,000,000 Baird, Brian; Blumenauer, Earl; DeFazio, Peter 

Norman D.; Hastings, Doc; Hooley, Darlene; LaSali, Bill; Walden, Greg; Wu, David, The Presi

Corps of Engineers Construction COLUMBIA RIVER FISH MITIGATION, WA, OR & ID $88,000,000 The President Corps of Engineers Construction COLUMBIA RIVER TREATY FISHING ACCESS SITES, OR & WA $2,455,000 Walden, Greg, The President Corps of Engineers Construction COMITE RIVER, LA $10,000,000 Alexander, Rodney; Cazayouz, Donald J. Corps of Engineers Construction COOK COUNTY, IL $250,000 Jackson, Jr., Jesse L.; Lipinski, Daniel Corps of Engineers Construction CORTE MADERA CREEK, CA $300,000 Woolsey, Lynn C. Corps of Engineers Construction CROOKSTON, MN $300,000 The President Corps of Engineers Construction CUMBERLAND COUNTY WATER SUPPLY, TN $650,000 Davis, Lincoln Corps of Engineers Construction DALLAS FLOODWAY EXTENSION, TRINITY RIVER PROJECT, TX $6,000,000 Edwards, Chet; Johnson, Eddie Bernice; SessionsCorps of Engineers Construction DELAWARE BAY COASTLINE, ROOSEVELT INLET TO LEWES 

BEACH, DE 

$350,000 The President 

Corps of Engineers Construction DES MOINES RECREATIONAL RIVER AND GREENBELT, IA $4,000,000 Boswell, Leonard L.; Latham, Tom 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT—Continued 

Agency Account Project Amount Requester(s) 

Corps of Engineers Construction DES PLAINES RIVER, IL $5,620,000 Roskam, Peter J., The President Corps of Engineers Construction DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL FACILITIES PROGRAM: CHARLESTON HARBOR, SC $2,580,000 Brown, Jr., Henry E., The President Corps of Engineers Construction DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL FACILITIES PROGRAM: GREEN 

BAY HARBOR, WI 

$950,000 Kagen, Steve, The President 

Corps of Engineers Construction DUWAMISH AND GREEN RIVER BASIN, WA $1,000,000 Dicks, Norman D.; McDermott, Jim; Smith, Adam Corps of Engineers Construction EAST ROCKAWAY INLET TO ROCKAWAY INLET AND JAMAICA BAY, 

NY 

$750,000 Meeks, Gregory W.; Weiner, Anthony D. 

Corps of Engineers Construction EAST ST. LOUIS, IL $200,000 Costello, Jerry F.; Shimkus, John, The President Corps of Engineers Construction ECORSE CREEK, MI $100,000 Conyers, Jr., John; Dingell, John D.; Kilpatrick, CaCorps of Engineers Construction ELK CREEK LAKE, OR $3,120,000 The President Corps of Engineers Construction EMSWORTH LOCKS & DAM, OHIO RIVER, PA (STATIC INSTABILITY CORRECTION) $25,800,000 Altmire, Jason; Doyle, Michael F.; Murtha, Jo

President 

Corps of Engineers Construction FARMINGTON RECHARGE, CA $800,000 McNerney, Jerry Corps of Engineers Construction FIRE ISLAND INLET TO JONES INLET, NY $500,000 King, Peter T., The President Corps of Engineers Construction FIRE ISLAND INLET TO MONTAUK POINT, NY $2,150,000 Bishop, Timothy H.; Israel, Steve; King, Peter T., 

dent 

Corps of Engineers Construction FLORIDA KEYS WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENTS, FL $2,500,000 Ros-Lehtinen, Ileana Corps of Engineers Construction FOLLY BEACH, SC $35,000 The President Corps of Engineers Construction FORT PECK CABIN CONVEYANCE, MT $1,500,000 Rehberg, Dennis R. 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
Corps of Engineers Construction FOURCHE BAYOU BASIN, LITTLE ROCK, AR $2,300,000 Snyder, Vic Corps of Engineers Construction GARRISON DAM AND POWER PLANT, ND (REPLACEMENT) $3,500,000 Pomeroy, Earl, The President Corps of Engineers Construction GENESEE COUNTY, MI $700,000 Kildee, Dale E. Corps of Engineers Construction GRAND FORKS, ND—EAST GRAND FORKS, MN $800,000 Peterson, Collin C. Corps of Engineers Construction GRAYS LANDING LOCK AND DAM, MONONGAHELA RIVER, PA $600,000 Murtha, John P., The President Corps of Engineers Construction GREAT EGG HARBOR INLET AND PECK BEACH, NJ $3,500,000 LoBiondo, Frank A. Corps of Engineers Construction GREAT LAKES FISHERY AND ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, MI $2,145,000 Bean, Melissa L.; Conyers, Jr., John; Dingell

Ehlers, Vernon J.; English, Phil; Higgins, BrStephanie Tubbs; Kildee, Dale E.; Levin, Moore, Gwen; Walberg, Tim 

Corps of Engineers Construction GREENBRIER RIVER BASIN, WV $1,500,000 Rahall, II, Nick J. Corps of Engineers Construction GUADALUPE RIVER, CA $500,000 Honda, Michael M.; Lofgren, Zoe Corps of Engineers Construction HAMILTON AIRFIELD WETLANDS RESTORATION, CA $14,000,000 Pelosi, Nancy; Woolsey, Lynn C., The President Corps of Engineers Construction HAMILTON DAM, FLINT RIVER, FLINT, MI $100,000 Kildee, Dale E. Corps of Engineers Construction HARBOR/SOUTH BAY WATER RECYCLING PROJECT, LOS ANGELES, CA $1,750,000 Harman, Jane; Richardson, Laura; Roybal-Alla

Waters, Maxine 

Corps of Engineers Construction HERBERT HOOVER DIKE, FL (SEEPAGE CONTROL) $77,400,000 Castor, Kathy; Diaz-Balart, Mario; Hastings, Alce

Ron; Mahoney, Tim; Meek, Kendrick B.; Schultz, Debbie; Wexler, Robert, The President 

Corps of Engineers Construction HOLES CREEK, WEST CARROLLTON, OH $2,600,000 Turner, Michael R. Corps of Engineers Construction HOUSTON SHIP CHANNEL, TX $500,000 Culberson, John Abney; Edwards, Chet; Green, 

Gene; Jackson-Lee, Sheila; Lampson, Nick; The President 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT—Continued 

Agency Account Project Amount Requester(s) 

Corps of Engineers Construction HOUSTON-GALVESTON NAVIGATION CHANNELS, TX $21,700,000 Culberson, John Abney; Edwards, Chet; Paul, 

President 

Corps of Engineers Construction HOWARD HANSON DAM, WA $15,000,000 Dicks, Norman D., The President Corps of Engineers Construction ILLINOIS WATERWAY, LOCKPORT LOCK AND DAM, IL (REPLACEMENT) $28,600,000 The President Corps of Engineers Construction INDIANA HARBOR, CONFINED DISPOSAL FACILITY, IN $8,400,000 Visclosky, Peter J., The President Corps of Engineers Construction INDIANA SHORELINE EROSION, IN $1,600,000 Visclosky, Peter J. Corps of Engineers Construction INDIANAPOLIS, WHITE RIVER (NORTH), IN $5,300,000 Carson, Andre ́Corps of Engineers Construction J. BENNETT JOHNSTON WATERWAY, LA $1,500,000 Alexander, Rodney; McCrery, Jim, The President Corps of Engineers Construction JACKSONVILLE HARBOR, FL $9,000,000 Brown, Corrine; Crenshaw, Ander; Stearns, Cliff Corps of Engineers Construction JOHN H. KERR DAM AND RESERVOIR, VA & NC (REPLACEMENT) $14,000,000 Goode, Jr., Virgil H., The President Corps of Engineers Construction JOHNSON CREEK, UPPER TRINITY BASIN, ARLINGTON, TX $2,000,000 Barton, Joe; Edwards, Chet Corps of Engineers Construction JOSEPH G. MINISH WATERFRONT, NJ $1,000,000 Payne, Donald M. Corps of Engineers Construction KAWEAH RIVER, CA $1,000,000 Costa, Jim, The President Corps of Engineers Construction KENTUCKY LOCK AND DAM, TENNESSEE RIVER, KY $22,330,000 Whitfield, Ed, The President Corps of Engineers Construction LACKAWANNA RIVER, SCRANTON, PA $4,782,000 Kanjorski, Paul E. Corps of Engineers Construction LAKE MICHIGAN WATERFRONT, IN $2,000,000 Visclosky, Peter J. Corps of Engineers Construction LAKE WORTH SAND TRANSFER PLANT, FL $500,000 Klein, Ron Corps of Engineers Construction LAKES MARION AND MOULTRIE, SC $10,000,000 Clyburn, James E. 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
Corps of Engineers Construction LEE COUNTY, FL (REIMBURSEMENT) $250,000 Mack, Connie Corps of Engineers Construction LEVISA AND TUG FORKS AND UPPER CUMBERLAND RIVER, WV, 

VA & KY (VA) 

$2,000,000 Boucher, Rick 

Corps of Engineers Construction LEVISA AND TUG FORKS AND UPPER CUMBERLAND RIVER, WV, 

VA & KY (KY) 

$7,000,000 Rogers, Harold 

Corps of Engineers Construction LITTLE CALUMET RIVER, IN $14,000,000 Visclosky, Peter J., The President Corps of Engineers Construction LOCK & DAM 11, MISSISSIPPI RIVER, IA (MAJOR REHAB) $2,750,000 Braley, Bruce L., The President Corps of Engineers Construction LOCK AND DAM 27, MISSISSIPPI RIVER, IL (MAJOR REHAB) $2,598,000 The President Corps of Engineers Construction LOCKS AND DAMS 2, 3 AND 4 MONONGAHELA RIVER, PA $40,806,000 Doyle, Michael F.; Murphy, Tim; Murtha, John P., 

dent 

Corps of Engineers Construction LOS ANGELES COUNTY DRAINAGE AREA, CA $5,700,000 The President Corps of Engineers Construction LOWER CAPE MAY MEADOWS, CAPE MAY POINT, NJ $150,000 LoBiondo, Frank A., The President Corps of Engineers Construction LOWER COLUMBIA RIVER ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, OR & WA $1,500,000 Baird, Brian; Blumenauer, Earl, The President Corps of Engineers Construction LOWER MONUMENT LOCK & DAM, WA $3,123,000 The President Corps of Engineers Construction LOWER SNAKE RIVER FISH AND WILDLIFE COMPENSATION, WA, 

OR & ID 

$1,500,000 The President 

Corps of Engineers Construction LOWER WALNUT CREEK, CA $300,000 Tauscher, Ellen O. Corps of Engineers Construction MADISON AND ST. CLAIR COUNTIES, IL $500,000 Costello, Jerry F.; Shimkus, John Corps of Engineers Construction MARKLAND LOCKS AND DAM, KY (MAJOR REHAB) $10,600,000 Davis, Geoff, The President Corps of Engineers Construction MARMET LOCK, KANAWHA RIVER, WV $9,000,000 The President Corps of Engineers Construction MCALPINE LOCKS AND DAM, OHIO RIVER, KY & IN $6,270,000 Yarmuth, John A., The President 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT—Continued 

Agency Account Project Amount Requester(s) 

Corps of Engineers Construction MCCLELLAN-KERR ARKANSAS RIVER NAVIGATION SYSTEM,12 FT. 

NAVIGATION CHANNEL, AR & OK 

$100,000 Berry, Marion; Boozman, John; Snyder, Vic; Sulliv

Corps of Engineers Construction MCCOOK AND THORNTON RESERVOIRS, IL $30,000,000 Bean, Melissa L.; Davis, Danny K.; Jackson, Jr

Roskam, Peter J.; Rush, Bobby L.; SchakowD., The President 

Corps of Engineers Construction METROPOLITAN REGION OF CINCINNATI, DUCK CREEK, OH $4,000,000 Schmidt, Jean, The President Corps of Engineers Construction MIAMI HARBOR, FL $2,700,000 Diaz-Balart, Lincoln; Diaz-Balart, Mario; Ro

Ileana 

Corps of Engineers Construction MID-VALLEY AREA LEVEE RECONSTRUCTION, CA $2,250,000 Herger, Wally Corps of Engineers Construction MILLE LACS REGIONAL WASTEWATER, MN (GARRISON/KATHIO 

TOWNSHIP) 

$1,000,000 Oberstar, James L. 

Corps of Engineers Construction MILLINGPORT SCHOOL PROJECT, STANLY COUNTY, NC $400,000 Hayes, Robin Corps of Engineers Construction MISS RIVER BTWN THE OHIO AND MO RIVERS (REG WORKS), 

MO & IL 

$5,011,000 The President 

Corps of Engineers Construction MISSOURI RIVER FISH AND WILDLIFE RECOVERY, IA, KS, MO, 

MT, NE, ND & SD 

$60,000,000 The President 

Corps of Engineers Construction MOBILE HARBOR TURNING BASIN, AL $15,300,000 Aderholt, Robert B.; Bachus, Spencer; Bonner, 

Jr., Robert E. (Bud); Davis, Artur 

Corps of Engineers Construction MT. ST. HELENS SEDIMENT CONTROL, WA $1,410,000 Baird, Brian, The President Corps of Engineers Construction MT. ZION MILL POND DAM, FULTON COUNTY, IN $250,000 Donnelly, Joe Corps of Engineers Construction MUD MOUNTAIN DAM, WA (FISH PASSAGE) $1,000,000 Smith, Adam, The President Corps of Engineers Construction MUDDY RIVER, MA $6,000,000 Frank, Barney, The President 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
Corps of Engineers Construction MURRIETA CREEK, CA $2,000,000 Bono Mack, Mary; Calvert, Ken; Issa, Darrell E. Corps of Engineers Construction NAPA RIVER, CA $11,000,000 Thompson, Mike, The President Corps of Engineers Construction NEGAUNEE, MI $500,000 Stupak, Bart Corps of Engineers Construction NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY HARBOR, NY & NJ $90,000,000 Frelinghuysen, Rodney P.; Rothman, Steven R.; S

The President 

Corps of Engineers Construction NOGALES WASH, AZ $2,000,000 Grijalva, Rau ́ l M.; Pastor, Ed Corps of Engineers Construction NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS (DEEPENING), VA $500,000 Drake, Thelma D. Corps of Engineers Construction NORTHEAST PENNSYLVANIA ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE 

PROGRAM, PA 

$300,000 Carney, Christopher P.; Kanjorski, Paul E. 

Corps of Engineers Construction NORTHEASTERN MINNESOTA, MN $2,000,000 Oberstar, James L. Corps of Engineers Construction NORTHERN WISCONSIN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSISTANCE, WI $5,560,000 Obey, David R. Corps of Engineers Construction OAKLAND HARBOR (50 FOOT PROJECT), CA $26,092,000 Lee, Barbara; Pelosi, Nancy, The President Corps of Engineers Construction OHIO ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE, SECTION 594: 

AUSTINBURG TOWNSHIP, OH 

$700,000 LaTourette, Steven C. 

Corps of Engineers Construction OHIO ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE, SECTION 594: 

BRUNSWICK, OH 

$1,000,000 Sutton, Betty 

Corps of Engineers Construction OHIO ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE, SECTION 594: CAMPBELL BROWNFIELD, OH $700,000 Ryan, Tim Corps of Engineers Construction OHIO ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE, SECTION 594: CITY 

OF HILLSBORO, OH 

$1,000,000 Turner, Michael R. 

Corps of Engineers Construction OHIO ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE, SECTION 594: CLARK 

STATE COMMUNITY COLLEGE, SPRINGFIELD, OH 

$1,000,000 Hobson, David L. 

Corps of Engineers Construction OHIO ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE, SECTION 594: CULPEPPER, OH $600,000 Hobson, David L. 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT—Continued 

Agency Account Project Amount Requester(s) 

Corps of Engineers Construction OHIO ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE, SECTION 594: CUYAHOGA RIVER, OH $1,250,000 Kucinich, Dennis J. Corps of Engineers Construction OHIO ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE, SECTION 594: DAYTON, OH $500,000 Turner, Michael R. Corps of Engineers Construction OHIO ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE, SECTION 594: EAST 

BANKS, OH 

$750,000 Jones, Stephanie Tubbs 

Corps of Engineers Construction OHIO ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE, SECTION 594: FAIRVIEW COMMONS, DAYTON, OH $300,000 Turner, Michael R. Corps of Engineers Construction OHIO ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE, SECTION 594: FREMONT, OH $500,000 Latta, Robert E. Corps of Engineers Construction OHIO ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE, SECTION 594: LITTLE 

SQUAW CREEK, OH 

$675,000 Ryan, Tim 

Corps of Engineers Construction OHIO ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE, SECTION 594: MARLBORO, OH $2,000,000 Regula, Ralph Corps of Engineers Construction OHIO ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE, SECTION 594: 

MARYSVILLE, OH 

$1,000,000 Pryce, Deborah 

Corps of Engineers Construction OHIO ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE, SECTION 594: 

MCMACKIN ROAD, MADISON, OH 

$200,000 LaTourette, Steven C. 

Corps of Engineers Construction OHIO ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE, SECTION 594: RICHMOND DALE, OH $400,000 Space, Zachary T. Corps of Engineers Construction OHIO ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE, SECTION 594: ROUTE 

41, PRIME, OH 

$1,000,000 Hobson, David L. 

Corps of Engineers Construction OHIO ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE, SECTION 594: 

SPRINGFIELD HOSPITAL, OH 

$2,000,000 Hobson, David L. 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
Corps of Engineers Construction OHIO ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE, SECTION 594: 

STREETSBORO, PORTAGE COUNTY, OH 

$1,600,000 Ryan, Tim 

Corps of Engineers Construction OHIO ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE, SECTION 594: SUMMIT ROAD, CITY OF BARBERTON, OH $500,000 Sutton, Betty Corps of Engineers Construction OHIO ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE, SECTION 594: 

THOMPSON SEWERAGE PROJECT, OH 

$300,000 LaTourette, Steven C. 

Corps of Engineers Construction OHIO ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE, SECTION 594: TOLEDO, OH $1,275,000 Kaptur, Marcy Corps of Engineers Construction OHIO ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE, SECTION 594: UPPER 

HOCKING, OH 

$500,000 Hobson, David L. 

Corps of Engineers Construction OHIO ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE, SECTION 594: VILLAGE OF ST. MARTIN, OH $200,000 Schmidt, Jean Corps of Engineers Construction OHIO ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE, SECTION 594: 

WILLOWCREST, OH 

$500,000 Hobson, David L. 

Corps of Engineers Construction OHIO ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE, SECTION 594: 

YOUNGSTOWN, WICK DISTRICT, OH 

$550,000 Ryan, Tim 

Corps of Engineers Construction OHIO RIVER GREENWAY PUBLIC ACCESS, IN $2,100,000 Hill, Baron P. Corps of Engineers Construction OHIO RIVERFRONT, CINCINNATI, OH $6,000,000 Chabot, Steve; Schmidt, Jean Corps of Engineers Construction OLMSTED LOCKS AND DAM, OHIO RIVER, IL & KY $114,000,000 Whitfield, Ed, The President Corps of Engineers Construction ONONDAGA LAKE, NY $2,000,000 Walsh, James T. Corps of Engineers Construction ORCHARD BEACH, BRONX, NY $3,200,000 Crowley, Joseph; Serrano, Jose ́Corps of Engineers Construction OZARK—JETA TAYLOR POWERHOUSE, AR (MAJOR REHAB) $17,300,000 Berry, Marion; Boozman, John, The President Corps of Engineers Construction PASSAIC RIVER BASIN FLOOD MANAGEMENT, NJ $1,000,000 Frelinghuysen, Rodney P.; Pascrell, Jr., Bill 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT—Continued 

Agency Account Project Amount Requester(s) 

Corps of Engineers Construction PASSAIC RIVER PRESERVATION OF NATURAL STORAGE AREAS, 

NJ 

$4,806,000 Frelinghuysen, Rodney P. 

Corps of Engineers Construction PETALUMA RIVER, CA $300,000 Woolsey, Lynn C. Corps of Engineers Construction PIER 36 REMOVAL $100,000 Pelosi, Nancy Corps of Engineers Construction PINELLAS COUNTY, FL $7,000,000 Young, C. W. Bill Corps of Engineers Construction PINHOOK CREEK, HUNTSVILLE, AL $500,000 Cramer, Jr., Robert E. (Bud) Corps of Engineers Construction PLACER COUNTY, CA $1,000,000 Doolittle, John T. Corps of Engineers Construction POINT MARION, LOCK AND DAM 8, MONONGAHELA RIVER, PA & 

WV 

$150,000 The President 

Corps of Engineers Construction PONCE DE LEON INLET, FL $2,400,000 Feeney, Tom Corps of Engineers Construction POPLAR ISLAND, MD $9,185,000 Cummings, Elijah E.; Ruppersberger, C. A. D

banes, John P., The President 

Corps of Engineers Construction PORT EVERGLADES, FL $3,000,000 Wexler, Robert Corps of Engineers Construction PORT OF LOS ANGELES HARBOR MAIN CHANNEL DEEPENING, 

CA 

$885,000 Richardson, Laura; Roybal-Allard, Lucille 

Corps of Engineers Construction PORTUGUES AND BUCANA RIVERS, PR $45,000,000 Fortun ̃o, Luis G., The President Corps of Engineers Construction PRESQUE ISLE PENINSULA, PA (PERMANENT) $1,000,000 English, Phil Corps of Engineers Construction PUGET SOUND AND ADJACENT WATERS RESTORATION, WA $300,000 Baird, Brian; Dicks, Norman D.; Inslee, Jay; La

Smith, Adam 

Corps of Engineers Construction RAMAPO RIVER AT MAHWAH AND SUFFERN, NJ $500,000 Engel, Eliot L. 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
Corps of Engineers Construction RARITAN BAY AND SANDY HOOK BAY, NJ $191,000 Holt, Rush D.; Pallone, Jr., Frank Corps of Engineers Construction RARITAN RIVER BASIN, GREEN BROOK SUB-BASIN, NJ $10,000,000 Ferguson, Mike; Frelinghuysen, Rodney P., The PCorps of Engineers Construction RED RIVER BASIN CHLORIDE CONTROL, TX & OK $3,240,000 Hall, Ralph M.; Lucas, Frank D.; McCrery, Jim Corps of Engineers Construction RED RIVER BELOW DENISON DAM, LA, AR & TX $2,000,000 McCrery, Jim; Ross, Mike Corps of Engineers Construction RICHARD B RUSSELL DAM AND LAKE, GA & SC $1,450,000 The President Corps of Engineers Construction RICHMOND, VA (COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW) $300,000 Scott, Robert C. ‘‘Bobby’’ Corps of Engineers Construction RIO DE FLAG, FLAGSTAFF, AZ $100,000 Pastor, Ed; Renzi, Rick Corps of Engineers Construction RIO GRANDE FLOODWAY, SAN ACACIA TO BOSQUE DEL APACHE, 

NM 

$800,000 The President 

Corps of Engineers Construction RIO PUERTO NUEVO, PR $12,000,000 Fortun ̃o, Luis G., The President Corps of Engineers Construction ROANOKE RIVER UPPER BASIN, HEADWATERS AREA, VA $1,500,000 Goodlatte, Bob, The President Corps of Engineers Construction ROBERT C BYRD LOCKS AND DAM, OHIO RIVER, WV & OH $1,000,000 The President Corps of Engineers Construction ROSEAU RIVER, ROSEAU, MN $1,000,000 Peterson, Collin C. Corps of Engineers Construction RURAL IDAHO, ID $5,000,000 Simpson, Michael K. Corps of Engineers Construction SACRAMENTO DEEPWATER SHIP CHANNEL, CA $1,100,000 Thompson, Mike, The President Corps of Engineers Construction SACRAMENTO RIVER BANK PROTECTION PROJECT, CA $23,968,000 Herger, Wally; Lungren, Daniel E.; Matsui, Do

President 

Corps of Engineers Construction SACRAMENTO RIVER, GLENN-COLUSA IRRIGATION DISTRICT, CA $1,000,000 Herger, Wally Corps of Engineers Construction SAN ANTONIO CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT, TX $1,400,000 Edwards, Chet; Gonzalez, Charles A.; Rodrigue

Smith, Lamar 

Corps of Engineers Construction SAN FRANCISCO BAY TO STOCKTON, CA $1,800,000 McNerney, Jerry; Tauscher, Ellen O. Corps of Engineers Construction SAN LORENZO RIVER, CA $400,000 Farr, Sam 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT—Continued 

Agency Account Project Amount Requester(s) 

Corps of Engineers Construction SAND CREEK WATERSHED, SAUNDERS COUNTY, NE $2,400,000 Fortenberry, Jeff Corps of Engineers Construction SANTA ANA RIVER MAINSTEM, CA $14,000,000 Calvert, Ken; Miller, Gary G.; Rohrabacher, Dan

Loretta, The President 

Corps of Engineers Construction SANTA ANA RIVER MAINSTEM, CA: SEVEN OAKS DAM WATER 

CONSERVATION STUDY 

$1,500,000 Lewis, Jerry 

Corps of Engineers Construction SANTA MARIA RIVER LEVEES, CA $8,500,000 Capps, Lois; Gallegly, Elton Corps of Engineers Construction SANTA PAULA CREEK, CA $4,000,000 Gallegly, Elton Corps of Engineers Construction SAULT STE. MARIE (REPLACEMENT LOCK), MI $17,000,000 Obey, David R.; Stupak, Bart Corps of Engineers Construction SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION, GA $700,000 Barrow, John; Bishop, Jr., Sanford D.; Kingston

President 

Corps of Engineers Construction SAW MILL RUN, PITTSBURGH, PA $800,000 Doyle, Michael F. Corps of Engineers Construction SIMS BAYOU, HOUSTON, TX $23,465,000 Green, Al, The President Corps of Engineers Construction SITKA HARBOR BREAKWATER UPGRADE, AK $1,000,000 Young, Don Corps of Engineers Construction SMITH ISLAND BREAKWATERS, SOMERSET COUNTY, MD $100,000 Gilchrest, Wayne T. Corps of Engineers Construction SOUTH CENTRAL PA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPROVEMENT, PA $4,500,000 Shuster, Bill Corps of Engineers Construction SOUTH CENTRAL PA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPROVEMENT, PA $8,000,000 Murtha, John P. Corps of Engineers Construction SOUTH FLORIDA EVERGLADES ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, FL $135,000,000 Castor, Kathy; Diaz-Balart, Mario; Hastings, Alce

Ron; Meek, Kendrick B.; Wasserman SchulWexler, Robert, The President 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
Corps of Engineers Construction SOUTH FLORIDA EVERGLADES ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, FL: 

COMPREHENSIVE EVERGLADES RESTORATION PLAN: INDIAN RIVER LAGOON SOUTH, FL 

$4,500,000 Mahoney, Tim, The President 

Corps of Engineers Construction SOUTH FLORIDA EVERGLADES ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, FL: 

EVERGLADES AND SOUTH FLORIDA ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, FL 

$3,797,000 Mahoney, Tim, The President 

Corps of Engineers Construction SOUTH FLORIDA EVERGLADES ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, FL: 

KISSIMMEE RIVER PROJECT, FL 

$31,015,000 Mahoney, Tim, The President 

Corps of Engineers Construction SOUTH PERRIS, CA $989,000 Bono Mack, Mary; Calvert, Ken; Issa, Darrell E. Corps of Engineers Construction SOUTH SACRAMENTO COUNTY STREAMS, CA $14,000,000 Lungren, Daniel E.; Matsui, Doris O., The PresideCorps of Engineers Construction SOUTHEASTERN PA ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE, PA $250,000 Sestak, Joe Corps of Engineers Construction SOUTHEASTERN PA ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE, PA: 

COBBS CREEK HABITAT, PA 

$500,000 Brady, Robert A. 

Corps of Engineers Construction SOUTHEASTERN PA ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE, PA: 

TACONY CREEK, PA 

$1,000,000 Schwartz, Allyson Y. 

Corps of Engineers Construction SOUTHERN AND EASTERN KENTUCKY, KY $2,000,000 Rogers, Harold Corps of Engineers Construction SOUTHERN WEST VIRGINIA ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE 

PROGRAM, WV 

$1,500,000 Rahall, II, Nick J. 

Corps of Engineers Construction ST. CROIX FALLS, WI $4,207,000 Obey, David R. Corps of Engineers Construction ST. LOUIS FLOOD PROTECTION, MO $2,690,000 Carnahan, Russ, The President Corps of Engineers Construction ST. LUCIE INLET, FL $4,000,000 Hastings, Alcee L.; Mahoney, Tim, The President Corps of Engineers Construction STE. GENEVIEVE, MO $500,000 Carnahan, Russ Corps of Engineers Construction STONEWALL JACKSON LAKE, WV $900,000 The President Corps of Engineers Construction SUCCESS DAM, TULE RIVER, CA (DAM SAFETY) $8,000,000 Costa, Jim, The President 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT—Continued 

Agency Account Project Amount Requester(s) 

Corps of Engineers Construction SURFSIDE—SUNSET—NEWPORT BEACH, CA $800,000 Rohrabacher, Dana; Sanchez, Loretta Corps of Engineers Construction TAMPA HARBOR, FL $600,000 Buchanan, Vern; Castor, Kathy; Young, C. W. BilCorps of Engineers Construction TRES RIOS, AZ $10,000,000 Mitchell, Harry E.; Pastor, Ed Corps of Engineers Construction TUCSON DRAINAGE AREA, AZ $5,000,000 Giffords, Gabrielle; Grijalva, Rau ́ l M.; Pastor, Ed Corps of Engineers Construction TURKEY CREEK BASIN, KS & MO $10,000,000 Cleaver, Emanuel; Moore, Dennis, The President Corps of Engineers Construction TUTTLE CREEK LAKE, KS (DAM SAFETY) $23,800,000 Boyda, Nancy E., The President Corps of Engineers Construction UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER RESTORATION, IL, IA, MN, MO & WI $20,000,000 Akin, W. Todd; Boswell, Leonard L.; Braley, 

Carnahan, Russ; Clay, Wm. Lacy; Ellison, KPhil; Hulshof, Kenny C.; Johnson, Timothy VRay; Loebsack, David; McCollum, Betty; ShimWalz, Timothy J.; Weller, Jerry, The President 

Corps of Engineers Construction UPPER NEWPORT BAY, CA $2,000,000 Calvert, Ken; Royce, Edward R.; Sanchez, Loretta Corps of Engineers Construction WEST SACRAMENTO, CA $4,250,000 Thompson, Mike Corps of Engineers Construction WEST VIRGINIA AND PENNSYLVANIA FLOOD CONTROL, PA & WV $2,000,000 Mollohan, Alan B.; Murtha, John P. Corps of Engineers Construction WHITE RIVER MINIMUM FLOWS, AR $5,000,000 Berry, Marion; Boozman, John Corps of Engineers Construction WILLAMETTE RIVER TEMPERATURE CONTROL, OR $3,331,000 The President Corps of Engineers Construction WILMINGTON HARBOR, NC $2,075,000 McIntyre, Mike; Price, David E. Corps of Engineers Construction WOLF CREEK DAM, LAKE CUMBERLAND, KY (SEEPAGE CONTROL) $57,000,000 Rogers, Harold; Whitfield, Ed, The President Corps of Engineers Construction WOOD RIVER LEVEE, IL $1,984,000 Costello, Jerry F.; Shimkus, John, The President 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
Corps of Engineers Construction YUBA RIVER BASIN, CA $6,000,000 Herger, Wally Corps of Engineers Section 107 BUCKS HARBOR, ME ...................... The President Corps of Engineers Section 107 CHARLESTOWN BREACHWAY AND INLET, RI ...................... The President Corps of Engineers Section 107 CLARKSVILLE, TN $100,000 Tanner, John S. Corps of Engineers Section 107 COOLEY CANAL, OH ...................... Kaptur Corps of Engineers Section 107 DELAWARE RIVER, FAIRLESS TURNING BASIN, PA ...................... Murphy Corps of Engineers Section 107 HAMPTON HARBOR, NH ...................... Shea-Porter Corps of Engineers Section 107 KAHOOLAWE HARBOR, KAHOOLAWE, HI ...................... Hirono, The President Corps of Engineers Section 107 MACKINAC ISLE, HARBOR BREAKWALL, MI ...................... The President Corps of Engineers Section 107 NASSAWADOX, VA ...................... The President Corps of Engineers Section 107 NORTHWEST TENNESSEE REGIONAL HARBOR, TN ...................... Tanner Corps of Engineers Section 107 NORTHWESTERN MICHIGAN, TRAVERSE CITY, MI ...................... Stupak Corps of Engineers Section 107 RHODES POINT, SOMERSET CO, MD ...................... The President Corps of Engineers Section 107 SAVOONGA HARBOR, AK ...................... The President Corps of Engineers Section 107 ST. JEROME’S CREEK, ST. MARY’S COUNTY, MD ...................... Hoyer Corps of Engineers Section 107 TWO HARBORS, MN ...................... Oberstar Corps of Engineers Section 107 WOODS HOLE, GREAT HARBOR, WOODS HOLE, MA ...................... The President Corps of Engineers Section 103 ATHOL SPRINGS, LAKE ERIE, NY ...................... Higgins, The President Corps of Engineers Section 103 BAY FARM ISLAND, CA ...................... Stark Corps of Engineers Section 103 CHESAPEAKE BAY SHORELINE, HAMPTON VA ...................... The President 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT—Continued 

Agency Account Project Amount Requester(s) 

Corps of Engineers Section 103 FT SAN GERONIMO, PR ...................... The President Corps of Engineers Section 103 LAKE ERIE AT PAINESVILLE, OH ...................... The President Corps of Engineers Section 103 LASALLE PARK, BUFFALO, NY ...................... The President Corps of Engineers Section 103 LINCOLN PARK BEACH SEATTLE, WA ...................... The President Corps of Engineers Section 103 MARSHFIELD, MA ...................... The President Corps of Engineers Section 103 NANTASKET BEACH, MA ...................... The President Corps of Engineers Section 103 OLD LAKESHORE ROAD, NY ...................... The President Corps of Engineers Section 103 PHILADELPHIA SHIPYARD, PA ...................... The President Corps of Engineers Section 103 UNALAKLEET STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION, UNALAKLEET, AK ...................... The President Corps of Engineers Section 103 VETERAN’S DRIVE SHORELINE, ST. THOMAS, VI ...................... The President Corps of Engineers Section 111 MOBILE PASS, AL ...................... The President Corps of Engineers Section 111 CAMP ELLIS, SACO, ME ...................... Allen, The President Corps of Engineers Section 111 FAIRPORT HARBOR, OH ...................... The President Corps of Engineers Section 111 MATTITUCK HARBOR, NY ...................... Bishop, The President Corps of Engineers Section 111 TYBEE ISLAND CHANNEL IMPACTS, GA ...................... The President Corps of Engineers Section 111 VERMILLION, OH ...................... The President Corps of Engineers Section 204 21ST AVE WEST CHAN., DULUTH, MN ...................... The President Corps of Engineers Section 204 BLACKHAWK BOTTOMS, IA ...................... The President 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
Corps of Engineers Section 204 CALC RV, MI 5-14 KS, LA ...................... Boustany, The President Corps of Engineers Section 204 ISLE AUX HERBES, AL ...................... The President Corps of Engineers Section 204 MAUMEE BAY RESTORATION, OH ...................... Kaptur, The President Corps of Engineers Section 204 NJIWW BENEFICIAL USE, NJ ...................... The President Corps of Engineers Section 204 RESTORATION OF CAT ISLANDS, WI ...................... Kagen, The President Corps of Engineers Section 204 WANCHESE MARSH CREATION, NC ...................... The President Corps of Engineers Section 204 WYNN ROAD CDF, OH ...................... Kaptur, The President Corps of Engineers Section 205 ASSUNPINK CREEK, HAMILTON TOWNSHIP, MERCER COUNTY, NJ ...................... Smith Corps of Engineers Section 205 BEAVER CREEK & TRIBS, BRISTOL, TN ...................... The President Corps of Engineers Section 205 BEAVER CREEK BRISTOL TN AND BRISTOL, VA ...................... Boucher; Davis, David Corps of Engineers Section 205 BLACKSNAKE CREEK, ST. JOSEPH, MO ...................... Graves, The President Corps of Engineers Section 205 BLACKWATER RIVER, SALISBURY, MA ...................... Tierney, The President Corps of Engineers Section 205 BORREGO SPRINGS, CA $100,000 Hunter, Duncan Corps of Engineers Section 205 CONCORDIA, KS ...................... Moran Corps of Engineers Section 205 CROSSCREEK, ROSSVILLE, KS ...................... Boyda Corps of Engineers Section 205 CUYAHOGA RIVER, OH ...................... Kucinich Corps of Engineers Section 205 DUCK CREEK FLOOD WARNING SYSTEM, OH ...................... The President Corps of Engineers Section 205 ESTATE LA GRANGE, VI ...................... Christensen Corps of Engineers Section 205 FARMERS BRANCH, TARRANT COUNTY, TX ...................... Granger, The President Corps of Engineers Section 205 FESTUS CRYSTAL CITY, MO ...................... Carnahan 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT—Continued 

Agency Account Project Amount Requester(s) 

Corps of Engineers Section 205 FINDLAY, OH ...................... Jordan Corps of Engineers Section 205 GRANITE FALLS, MN ...................... Peterson Corps of Engineers Section 205 HOPKINSVILLE DRY-DAM, KY ...................... Whitfield Corps of Engineers Section 205 JACKSON BROOK, NJ ...................... Frelinghuysen Corps of Engineers Section 205 KEOPU-HIENALOLI STREAM, HI ...................... Hirono, The President Corps of Engineers Section 205 LAS GALLINAS CREEK/SANTA VENETIA LEVEE, CA ...................... Woosley Corps of Engineers Section 205 LIMESTONE CREEK, FAYETTEVILLE, NY ...................... Walsh Corps of Engineers Section 205 LITTLE MILL CREEK, NEW CASTLE COUNTY, DE ...................... Castle Corps of Engineers Section 205 LITTLE RIVER DIVERSION, DUTCHTOWN, MO ...................... Emerson, The President Corps of Engineers Section 205 MAD CREEK, MUSCATINE, IA ...................... Loebsack, The President Corps of Engineers Section 205 MEREDOSIA, IL ...................... LaHood Corps of Engineers Section 205 NORTH RIVER, PEABODY, MA ...................... Tierney Corps of Engineers Section 205 OTTAWA, OH ...................... Latta Corps of Engineers Section 205 PECAN CREEK, GAINESVILLE, TX ...................... The President Corps of Engineers Section 205 PLATTE RIVER, FREMONT, NE ...................... Fortenberry, The President Corps of Engineers Section 205 PLATTE RIVER, SCHUYLER, NE ...................... Fortenberry Corps of Engineers Section 205 POPLAR BROOK, DEAL AND OCEAN TOWNSHIP, NJ ...................... Pallone, The President Corps of Engineers Section 205 RIO DESCALABRADO, PR ...................... The President 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
Corps of Engineers Section 205 RIO GUAMANI-GUAYA, PR ...................... The President Corps of Engineers Section 205 SALISBURY PLAIN RIVER, BROCKTON, MA. $100,000 Lynch, Stephen F. Corps of Engineers Section 205 STEEL CREEK, NY ...................... The President Corps of Engineers Section 205 TOWN OF CARENCRO, LAFAYETTE PARISH, LA ...................... Boustany Corps of Engineers Section 205 TURKEY CREEK, BEN HILL COUNTY, GA ...................... The President Corps of Engineers Section 205 UPPER PASSAIC RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, LONG HILL TOWNSHIP, NJ ...................... Frelinghuysen Corps of Engineers Section 205 WAHPETON, ND ...................... Pomeroy Corps of Engineers Section 205 WAILELE STREAM, OAHU, HI ...................... The President Corps of Engineers Section 205 WHITE SLOUGH, CA ...................... The President Corps of Engineers Section 205 WINNEBAGO RIVER, MASON CITY, IA ...................... Latham Corps of Engineers Section 205 WV STATEWIDE FLOOD WARNING SYSTEM, WV ...................... The President Corps of Engineers Section 205 WYNNE, AR ...................... Berry, The President Corps of Engineers Section 206 ARKANSAS RIVERS FISH HABITAT, KS ...................... Tiahrt, The President Corps of Engineers Section 206 ARROWHEAD CREEK, OR ...................... Hooley Corps of Engineers Section 206 ASHEVILLE, BUNCOMBE COUNTY, NC ...................... Shuler Corps of Engineers Section 206 BROWNSVILLE BRANCH, AR ...................... Berry Corps of Engineers Section 206 CANONSBURG LAKE ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, PA ...................... Murphy Corps of Engineers Section 206 CARPENTER CREEK, WA ...................... The President Corps of Engineers Section 206 CHATTAHOOCHEE FALL LINE ECOSYSTEM, AL ...................... Bishop, Rogers Corps of Engineers Section 206 CHRISTINE/HICKSON DAMS, ND ...................... The President 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT—Continued 

Agency Account Project Amount Requester(s) 

Corps of Engineers Section 206 CONCORD STREAMS RESTORATION, NC ...................... Hayes, The President Corps of Engineers Section 206 DENTS RUN, PA ...................... The President Corps of Engineers Section 206 DRAYTON DAM, ND ...................... The President Corps of Engineers Section 206 EMIQUON PRESERVE, IL ...................... Hare, LaHood Corps of Engineers Section 206 EUGENE DELTA PONDS, OR ...................... DeFazio, The President Corps of Engineers Section 206 EUGENE FIELD, IL ...................... The President Corps of Engineers Section 206 FRANKLIN POINT, MD ...................... Hoyer Corps of Engineers Section 206 GOOSE CREEK, CO ...................... The President Corps of Engineers Section 206 HOFMANN DAM, IL ...................... The President Corps of Engineers Section 206 JACKSON CREEK, GA ...................... The President Corps of Engineers Section 206 JONESBORUGH WATERSHED, TN ...................... Davis, David Corps of Engineers Section 206 MALDEN RIVER ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, MA ...................... The President Corps of Engineers Section 206 MERIDIAN, WWTP, TX ...................... Edwards Corps of Engineers Section 206 MILFORD POND RESTORATION, MILFORD, MA ...................... Neal, Olver Corps of Engineers Section 206 MILL POND RESTORATION, LITTLETON, MA ...................... Tsongas Corps of Engineers Section 206 MILL RIVER RESTORATION, STAMFORD, CT ...................... Shays Corps of Engineers Section 206 NORTH BEACH, MD ...................... Hoyer Corps of Engineers Section 206 NORTHWEST BRANCH, ANACOSTIA RIVER, MD ...................... Van Hollen, The President 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
Corps of Engineers Section 206 ORLAND PARK, IL ...................... The President Corps of Engineers Section 206 OSGOOD POND, MILFORD, NH ...................... Hodes Corps of Engineers Section 206 PING TOM, IL ...................... Davis Corps of Engineers Section 206 PISTOL CREEK, MARYVILLE, TN ...................... Duncan, John Corps of Engineers Section 206 POCOTALIGO RIVER & SWAMP RESTORATION, SC ...................... Clyburn, Spratt Corps of Engineers Section 206 RANCOCAS CREEK FISH PASSAGE, NJ ...................... Saxton Corps of Engineers Section 206 ROSE BAY, VOLUISIA CO, FL ...................... The President Corps of Engineers Section 206 SOUNDVIEW PARK, BRONX, NY ...................... Crowley, Serrano Corps of Engineers Section 206 SPRING LAKE, SAN MARCOS, TX ...................... Doggett, Edwards Corps of Engineers Section 206 SPRINGFIELD MILLRACE, OR ...................... DeFazio Corps of Engineers Section 206 ST. HELENA-NAPA RIVER PROJECT, CA ...................... The President Corps of Engineers Section 206 STEPHENVILLE WWTP, TX ...................... The President Corps of Engineers Section 206 STORM LAKE, IA ...................... King, The President Corps of Engineers Section 206 SWEET ARROW LAKE, PA ...................... Holden Corps of Engineers Section 206 TAMARISK ERADICATION, CO ...................... Salazar Corps of Engineers Section 206 UPPER YORK CREEK DAM REMOVAL, CA ...................... Thompson Corps of Engineers Section 206 VENTURA MARSH HABITAT, CLEAR LAKE, IA ...................... Latham, The President Corps of Engineers Section 206 WESTERN CARY STREAM RESTORATION, CARY, NC ...................... Price Corps of Engineers Section 206 WILSON BAY RESTORATION, NC ...................... The President Corps of Engineers Section 1135 ASSUNPINK CREEK, TRENTON, NJ ...................... Holt, Smith 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT—Continued 

Agency Account Project Amount Requester(s) 

Corps of Engineers Section 1135 BLOOMINGTON STATE PARK, MO ...................... The President Corps of Engineers Section 1135 BLUE VALLEY WETLANDS, JACKSON, MO ...................... The President Corps of Engineers Section 1135 BRAIDED REACH, WA ...................... The President Corps of Engineers Section 1135 DUCK CREEK, MO ...................... The President Corps of Engineers Section 1135 EAGLELAND ECOSYSTEM, TX ...................... The President Corps of Engineers Section 1135 GERRITSEN CREEK, NY ...................... The President Corps of Engineers Section 1135 GREEN RVR DAM, MOD, KY ...................... The President Corps of Engineers Section 1135 INDIAN RIDGE MARSH, CHICAGO, IL ...................... Jackson, Jr., The President Corps of Engineers Section 1135 KANAHA POND, MAUI, HI ...................... The President Corps of Engineers Section 1135 KAUNAKAKAI STR, MOLOKAI, HI ...................... Hirono, The President Corps of Engineers Section 1135 LEWISVILLE LAKE, TX ...................... Burgess Corps of Engineers Section 1135 LOWER CACHE RESTORATION, AR ...................... Berry Corps of Engineers Section 1135 LOWER COLUMBIA SLOUGH, OR ...................... Blumenauer, The President Corps of Engineers Section 1135 LOWER KINGMAN ISLAND, DC ...................... The President Corps of Engineers Section 1135 PRISON FARM, ND ...................... Pomeroy, The President Corps of Engineers Section 1135 PUEBLO OF SANTA ANA, AQUATIC HABITAT RESTORATION, NM ...................... Udall, The PresidentCorps of Engineers Section 1135 RATHBUN LAKE HABITAT RESTORATION, IA ...................... Boswell, Loebsack Corps of Engineers Section 1135 ROUTE 66 ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, ALBUQUERQUE, NM ...................... Wilson 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
Corps of Engineers Section 1135 SAND HILL RIVER, MN ...................... The President Corps of Engineers Section 1135 SHORTY’S ISLAND, WA ...................... The President Corps of Engineers Section 1135 SPRING CREEK, NY ...................... Meeks, Weiner Corps of Engineers Section 1135 SPUNKY BOTTOMS, IL ...................... LaHood Corps of Engineers Section 1135 TAPPAN LAKE, OH ...................... Space, The President Corps of Engineers Section 1135 TUJUNGA WASH ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, CA ...................... Berman, Roybal-Allard Corps of Engineers MRT—Investigations ALEXANDRIA TO THE GULF, LA $790,000 Alexander, Rodney, The President Corps of Engineers MRT—Investigations ATCHAFALAYA BASIN FLOODWAY SYSTEM LAND STUDY, LA $100,000 The President Corps of Engineers MRT—Investigations COLDWATER RIVER BASIN BELOW ARKABUTLA LAKE, MS $125,000 The President Corps of Engineers MRT—Investigations COLLECTION AND STUDY OF BASIC DATA $400,000 The President Corps of Engineers MRT—Investigations MEMPHIS METRO AREA, STORM WATER MGMT STUDY, TN & MS $34,000 The President Corps of Engineers MRT—Construction ATCHAFALAYA BASIN FLOODWAY SYSTEM, LA $2,025,000 Melancon, Charlie, The President Corps of Engineers MRT—Construction ATCHAFALAYA BASIN, LA $6,300,000 Melancon, Charlie, The President Corps of Engineers MRT—Construction BAYOU METO BASIN, AR $2,600,000 Berry, Marion Corps of Engineers MRT—Construction CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT, DIKES, AR, IL, KY, LA, MS, MO & TN $12,134,000 Berry, Marion, The President Corps of Engineers MRT—Construction CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT, REVETMENT OPERATIONS, AR, IL,KY, 

LA, MS, MO & TN 

$40,741,000 Berry, Marion, The President 

Corps of Engineers MRT—Construction MISSISSIPPI DELTA REGION, LA $2,259,000 The President Corps of Engineers MRT—Construction MISSISSIPPI RIVER LEVEES, AR, IL, KY, LA, MS, MO & TN $35,000,000 Alexander, Rodney; Berry, Marion; The President Corps of Engineers MRT—Construction MISSISSIPPI RIVER LEVEES, AR, IL, KY, LA, MS, MO & TN: NEW 

MADRID LEVEE CLOSURE AND MO PED ACTIVITIES 

$3,800,000 Emerson, Jo Ann 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT—Continued 

Agency Account Project Amount Requester(s) 

Corps of Engineers MRT—Construction ST. FRANCIS BASIN, AR & MO $3,300,000 Berry, Marion Corps of Engineers MRT—Construction ST. JOHNS BAYOU & NEW MADRID FLOODWAY, MO $200,000 Emerson, Jo Ann Corps of Engineers MRT—Construction WEST TENNESSEE TRIBUTARIES, TN $500,000 Tanner, John S. Corps of Engineers MRT—Operations and Maintenance ATCHAFALAYA BASIN, FLOODWAY SYSTEM, LA $2,117,000 The President Corps of Engineers MRT—Operations and Maintenance ATCHAFALAYA BASIN, LA $8,619,000 Melancon, Charlie, The President Corps of Engineers MRT—Operations and Maintenance BATON ROUGE HARBOR, DEVIL SWAMP, LA $162,000 Alexander, Rodney, The PresidentCorps of Engineers MRT—Operations and Maintenance BAYOU COCODRIE AND TRIBUTARIES, LA $42,000 The President Corps of Engineers MRT—Operations and Maintenance BONNET CARRE, LA $2,346,000 The President Corps of Engineers MRT—Operations and Maintenance DIKES, AR, IL, KY, LA, MS, MO & TN $1,290,000 The President Corps of Engineers MRT—Operations and Maintenance DREDGING, AR, IL, KY, LA, MS, MO & TN $16,869,000 The President Corps of Engineers MRT—Operations and Maintenance GREENVILLE HARBOR, MS $436,000 The President Corps of Engineers MRT—Operations and Maintenance HELENA HARBOR, PHILLIPS COUNTY, AR $128,000 Berry, Marion, The President Corps of Engineers MRT—Operations and Maintenance INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, AR $249,000 The President Corps of Engineers MRT—Operations and Maintenance INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, IL $135,000 The President Corps of Engineers MRT—Operations and Maintenance INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, KY $93,000 The President Corps of Engineers MRT—Operations and Maintenance INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, LA $1,727,000 The President Corps of Engineers MRT—Operations and Maintenance INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MO $185,000 The President Corps of Engineers MRT—Operations and Maintenance INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MS $101,000 The President 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
Corps of Engineers MRT—Operations and Maintenance INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, TN $81,000 The President Corps of Engineers MRT—Operations and Maintenance LOWER ARKANSAS RIVER, NORTH BANK, AR $256,000 The President Corps of Engineers MRT—Operations and Maintenance LOWER ARKANSAS RIVER, SOUTH BANK, AR $161,000 The President Corps of Engineers MRT—Operations and Maintenance LOWER RED RIVER, SOUTH BANK LEVEES, LA $53,000 The President Corps of Engineers MRT—Operations and Maintenance MEMPHIS HARBOR, MCKELLAR LAKE, TN $3,283,000 The President Corps of Engineers MRT—Operations and Maintenance MISSISSIPPI DELTA REGION, CAERNARVON, LA $578,000 The President Corps of Engineers MRT—Operations and Maintenance MISSISSIPPI RIVER LEVEES, AR, IL, KY, LA, MS, MO & TN $15,873,000 Berry, Marion, The President Corps of Engineers MRT—Operations and Maintenance OLD RIVER, LA $13,882,000 The President Corps of Engineers MRT—Operations and Maintenance REVETMENTS, AR, IL, KY, LA, MS, MO & TN $47,052,000 The President Corps of Engineers MRT—Operations and Maintenance ST. FRANCIS BASIN, AR & MO $4,445,000 Berry, Marion; Emerson, Jo Ann, The President Corps of Engineers MRT—Operations and Maintenance TENSAS BASIN, BOEUF AND TENSAS RIVERS, AR & LA $1,880,000 Alexander, Rodney, The President Corps of Engineers MRT—Operations and Maintenance TENSAS BASIN, RED RIVER BACKWATER, LA $2,501,000 Alexander, Rodney, The President Corps of Engineers MRT—Operations and Maintenance VICKSBURG HARBOR, MS $424,000 The President Corps of Engineers MRT—Operations and Maintenance WAPPAPELLO LAKE, MO $9,567,000 Emerson, Jo Ann, The President Corps of Engineers MRT—Operations and Maintenance WHITE RIVER BACKWATER, AR $1,039,000 The President Corps of Engineers MRT—Operations and Maintenance YAZOO BASIN, ARKABUTLA LAKE, MS $6,228,000 The President Corps of Engineers MRT—Operations and Maintenance YAZOO BASIN, BIG SUNFLOWER RIVER, MS $171,000 The President Corps of Engineers MRT—Operations and Maintenance YAZOO BASIN, ENID LAKE, MS $6,388,000 The President Corps of Engineers MRT—Operations and Maintenance YAZOO BASIN, GREENWOOD, MS $1,650,000 The President Corps of Engineers MRT—Operations and Maintenance YAZOO BASIN, GRENADA LAKE, MS $6,201,000 The President 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT—Continued 

Agency Account Project Amount Requester(s) 

Corps of Engineers MRT—Operations and Maintenance YAZOO BASIN, MAIN STEM, MS $1,128,000 The President Corps of Engineers MRT—Operations and Maintenance YAZOO BASIN, SARDIS LAKE, MS $6,971,000 The President Corps of Engineers MRT—Operations and Maintenance YAZOO BASIN, TRIBUTARIES, MS $694,000 The President Corps of Engineers MRT—Operations and Maintenance YAZOO BASIN, WILL M WHITTINGTON AUX CHAN, MS $272,000 The President Corps of Engineers MRT—Operations and Maintenance YAZOO BASIN, YAZOO BACKWATER AREA, MS $393,000 The President Corps of Engineers MRT—Operations and Maintenance YAZOO BASIN, YAZOO CITY, MS $534,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M ABIQUIU DAM, NM $2,109,000 Udall, Tom, The President Corps of Engineers O&M ALABAMA—COOSA COMPREHENSIVE WATER STUDY, AL $356,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M ALABAMA RIVER LAKES, AL $18,600,000 Bonner, Jo; Davis, Artur; Everett, Terry, The PresiCorps of Engineers O&M ALAMO LAKE, AZ $1,506,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M ALBENI FALLS DAM, ID $1,462,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M ALLATOONA LAKE, GA $7,325,000 Gingrey, Phil, The President Corps of Engineers O&M ALLEGHENY RIVER, PA $6,249,000 English, Phil, The President Corps of Engineers O&M ALMOND LAKE, NY $403,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M ALUM CREEK LAKE, OH $1,367,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M ALVIN R BUSH DAM, PA $561,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M ANCHORAGE HARBOR, AK $16,721,000 Young, Don, The President Corps of Engineers O&M ANDALUSIA HARBOR, IL $143,000 Hare, Phil 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
Corps of Engineers O&M APALACHICOLA, CHATTAHOOCHEE AND FLINT RIVERS GA, AL & 

FL 

$3,247,000 Gingrey, Phil, The President 

Corps of Engineers O&M APPLEGATE LAKE, OR $859,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M APPOMATTOX RIVER, VA $605,000 Forbes, J. Randy; Scott, Robert C. ‘‘Bobby’’ Corps of Engineers O&M AQUILLA LAKE, TX $1,286,000 Edwards, Chet, The President Corps of Engineers O&M ARCADIA HARBOR, MI $156,000 Hoekstra, Peter Corps of Engineers O&M ARCADIA LAKE, OK $448,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M ARECIBO HARBOR, PR $95,000 Fortun ̃o, Luis G., The President Corps of Engineers O&M ARKANSAS LAKES (BLAKELY MOUNTAIN DAM, LAKE OUACHITA, 

DEGRAY LAKE, NARROWS DAM, LAKE GREESON), AR 

$19,181,000 Ross, Mike, The President 

Corps of Engineers O&M ARKANSAS RIVER SYSTEM $45,332,000 Snyder, Vic, The President Corps of Engineers O&M ARKANSAS-RED RIVER BASINS CHLORIDE CONTROL-AREA VIII, 

TX 

$1,344,000 The President 

Corps of Engineers O&M ARKPORT DAM, NY $214,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M ASHTABULA HARBOR, OH $1,758,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M ATCHAFALAYA RIVER AND BAYOUS CHENE, BOEUF & BLACK, LA $8,543,000 Alexander, Rodney; Melancon, Charlie, The PresidCorps of Engineers O&M ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY—ACC, VA $1,732,000 Forbes, J. Randy, The President Corps of Engineers O&M ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY—DSC, VA $919,000 Butterfield, G. K.; Forbes, J. Randy, The PresidenCorps of Engineers O&M ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, GA $244,000 Kingston, Jack, The President Corps of Engineers O&M ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, NC $855,000 McIntyre, Mike; Price, David E., The President Corps of Engineers O&M ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, SC $688,000 Brown, Jr., Henry E., The President Corps of Engineers O&M AUNT LYDIA’S COVE, CHATHAM, MA $380,000 Delahunt, William D. 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT—Continued 

Agency Account Project Amount Requester(s) 

Corps of Engineers O&M AYLESWORTH CREEK LAKE, PA $204,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M B EVERETT JORDAN DAM AND LAKE, NC $1,551,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M BALL MOUNTAIN, VT $683,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M BALTIMORE HARBOR AND CHANNELS (50 FOOT), MD $17,283,000 Cummings, Elijah E.; Ruppersberger, C. A. D

banes, John P., The President 

Corps of Engineers O&M BALTIMORE HARBOR, MD (DRIFT REMOVAL) $321,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M BARATARIA BAY WATERWAY, LA $880,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M BARBERS POINT HARBOR, HI $190,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M BARBOUR TERMINAL CHANNEL, TX $1,346,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M BARDWELL LAKE, TX $2,054,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M BARKLEY DAM AND LAKE, BARKLEY, KY & TN $9,742,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M BARNEGAT INLET, NJ $665,000 Saxton, Jim, The President Corps of Engineers O&M BARRE FALLS DAM, MA $551,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M BARREN RIVER LAKE, KY $3,771,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M BAYOU BODCAU RESERVOIR, LA $769,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M BAYOU LAFOURCHE AND LAFOURCHE JUMP WATERWAY, LA $688,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M BAYOU PIERRE, LA $17,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M BAYOU SEGNETTE WATERWAY, LA $296,000 The President 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
Corps of Engineers O&M BAYOU TECHE & VERMILION RIVER, LA $13,000 Boustany, Jr., Charles W., The President Corps of Engineers O&M BAYOU TECHE, LA $199,000 Boustany, Jr., Charles W., The President Corps of Engineers O&M BAYPORT SHIP CHANNEL, TX $2,966,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M BEAR CREEK LAKE, CO $315,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M BEAVER LAKE, AR $5,007,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M BEECH FORK LAKE, WV $1,399,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M BELTON LAKE, TX $3,389,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M BELTZVILLE LAKE, PA $1,245,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M BENBROOK LAKE, TX $2,187,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M BERLIN LAKE, OH $4,624,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M BIG BEND DAM, LAKE SHARPE, SD $6,691,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M BIG SANDY HARBOR, KY $1,188,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M BIGSTONE LAKE—WHETSTONE RIVER, MN & SD $163,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M BIRCH HILL DAM, MA $545,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M BIRCH LAKE, OK $616,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M BLACK BUTTE LAKE, CA $1,856,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M BLACK ROCK CHANNEL AND TONAWANDA HARBOR, NY $1,173,000 Higgins, Brian, The President Corps of Engineers O&M BLACK ROCK LAKE, CT $395,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M BLACK WARRIOR AND TOMBIGBEE RIVERS, AL $21,081,000 Aderholt, Robert B., The President Corps of Engineers O&M BLACKWATER DAM, NH $539,000 The President 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT—Continued 

Agency Account Project Amount Requester(s) 

Corps of Engineers O&M BLAKELY MT DAM, LAKE OUACHITA, AR $8,265,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M BLOCK ISLAND HARBOR OF REFUGE, RI $342,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M BLUE MARSH LAKE, PA $2,599,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M BLUE MOUNTAIN LAKE, AR $1,356,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M BLUE RIVER LAKE, OR $406,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M BLUESTONE LAKE, WV $1,433,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M BONNEVILLE LOCK & DAM, OR & WA $9,206,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M BOSTON HARBOR, MA $5,700,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M BOWMAN HALEY, ND $145,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M BRAZOS ISLAND HARBOR, TX $8,075,000 Edwards, Chet; Ortiz, Solomon P., The President Corps of Engineers O&M BROKEN BOW LAKE, OK $1,808,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M BRONX RIVER, NY $238,000 Crowley, Joseph, The President Corps of Engineers O&M BROOKVILLE LAKE, IN $1,567,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M BRUNSWICK HARBOR, GA $5,268,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M BUCHANAN DAM, HV EASTMAN LAKE, CA $1,729,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M BUCKHORN LAKE, KY $2,311,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M BUFFALO BAYOU & TRIBUTARIES, TX $1,637,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M BUFFALO HARBOR, NY $48,000 Higgins, Brian, The President 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
Corps of Engineers O&M BUFFUMVILLE LAKE, MA $489,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M BUFORD DAM AND LAKE SIDNEY LANIER, GA $7,549,000 Gingrey, Phil, The President Corps of Engineers O&M BULL SHOALS LAKE, AR $6,999,000 Berry, Marion, The President Corps of Engineers O&M BURNS WATERWAY HARBOR, IN $2,404,000 Visclosky, Peter J., The President Corps of Engineers O&M BURNS WATERWAY SMALL BOAT HARBOR, IN $950,000 Visclosky, Peter J. Corps of Engineers O&M BURNSVILLE LAKE, WV $1,874,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M BUTTERMILK CHANNEL, NY $209,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M CADDO LAKE, LA $172,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M CAESAR CREEK LAKE, OH $2,042,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M CAGLES MILL LAKE, IN $1,950,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M CALCASIEU RIVER AND PASS, LA $14,220,000 Boustany, Jr., Charles W., The President Corps of Engineers O&M CALUMET HARBOR AND RIVER, IL & IN $4,541,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M CANAVERAL HARBOR, FL $5,700,000 Weldon, Dave, The President Corps of Engineers O&M CANTON LAKE, OK $1,622,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M CANYON LAKE, TX $3,502,000 Smith, Lamar, The President Corps of Engineers O&M CAPE COD CANAL, MA $10,969,000 Delahunt, William D., The President Corps of Engineers O&M CAPE FEAR RIVER ABOVE WILMINGTON, NC $682,000 McIntyre, Mike, The President Corps of Engineers O&M CARLYLE LAKE, IL $3,947,000 Shimkus, John, The President Corps of Engineers O&M CARR CREEK LAKE, KY $1,707,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M CARTERS DAM AND LAKE, GA $7,318,000 Gingrey, Phil, The President 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT—Continued 

Agency Account Project Amount Requester(s) 

Corps of Engineers O&M CARUTHERSVILLE HARBOR, MO $10,300 Emerson, Jo Ann, The President Corps of Engineers O&M CAVE RUN LAKE, KY $1,043,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M CECIL M. HARDEN LAKE, IN $1,165,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M CENTER HILL LAKE, TN $6,670,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M CENTRAL & SOUTHERN FLORIDA, FL $12,572,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M CHANNEL ISLANDS HARBOR, CA $5,092,000 Capps, Lois, The President Corps of Engineers O&M CHANNEL TO PORT BOLIVAR, TX $331,000 Paul, Ron, The President Corps of Engineers O&M CHANNELS IN LAKE ST. CLAIR, MI $148,000 Miller, Candice S., The President Corps of Engineers O&M CHARLES RIVER NATURAL VALLEY STORAGE AREA, MA $276,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M CHARLESTON HARBOR, SC $9,450,000 Brown, Jr., Henry E., The President Corps of Engineers O&M CHARLEVOIX HARBOR, MI $187,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M CHATFIELD LAKE, CO $1,117,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M CHEATHAM LOCK AND DAM, TN $6,488,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M CHENA RIVER LAKES, AK $2,114,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M CHERRY CREEK LAKE, CO $827,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M CHETCO RIVER, OR $545,000 DeFazio, Peter A., The President Corps of Engineers O&M CHICAGO HARBOR, IL $2,000,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M CHICAGO RIVER, IL $451,000 The President 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
Corps of Engineers O&M CHICKAMAUGA LOCK, TENNESSEE RIVER, TN $1,140,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M CHIEF JOSEPH DAM, WA $746,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M CHINCOTEAGUE HARBOR OF REFUGE, VA $253,000 Drake, Thelma D., The President Corps of Engineers O&M CHINCOTEAGUE INLET, VA $197,000 Drake, Thelma D., The President Corps of Engineers O&M CLAIRBORNE COUNTY PORT, MS $1,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M CLARENCE CANNON DAM AND MARK TWAIN LAKE, MO $6,127,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M CLARENCE J BROWN DAM, OH $2,394,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M CLEARWATER LAKE, MO $2,684,000 Emerson, Jo Ann, The President Corps of Engineers O&M CLEVELAND HARBOR, OH $6,375,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M CLINTON LAKE, KS $1,940,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M CLINTON RIVER, MI $950,000 Miller, Candice S. Corps of Engineers O&M COCHITI LAKE, NM $2,272,000 Udall, Tom, The President Corps of Engineers O&M COLD BROOK LAKE, SD $288,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M COLD SPRING INLET, NJ $231,000 LoBiondo, Frank A., The President Corps of Engineers O&M COLEBROOK RIVER LAKE, CT $520,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M COLUMBIA & LWR WILLAMETTE R BLW VANCOUVER, WA AND 

PORTLAND, OR 

$23,164,000 Baird, Brian, The President 

Corps of Engineers O&M COLUMBIA & LWR WILLAMETTE R BLW VANCOUVER, WA AND 

PORTLAND, OR, WESTPORT SLOUGH 

$770,000 Wu, David 

Corps of Engineers O&M COLUMBIA RIVER AT BAKER BAY, WA & OR $3,000 Baird, Brian, The President Corps of Engineers O&M COLUMBIA RIVER AT THE MOUTH, OR & WA $14,369,000 Baird, Brian, The President 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT—Continued 

Agency Account Project Amount Requester(s) 

Corps of Engineers O&M COLUMBIA RIVER AT THE MOUTH, OR & WA, BENEFICIAL USE 

OF DREDGE MATERIAL AT MCR 

$380,000 Wu, David 

Corps of Engineers O&M COLUMBIA RIVER BETWEEN CHINOOK AND SAND ISLAND, WA $6,000 Baird, Brian, The President Corps of Engineers O&M COLUMBIA RIVER BETWEEN VANCOUVER, WA & THE DALLES, 

OR 

$608,000 The President 

Corps of Engineers O&M CONANT BROOK LAKE, MA $220,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M CONCHAS LAKE, NM $1,150,000 Udall, Tom, The President Corps of Engineers O&M CONEMAUGH RIVER LAKE, PA $1,647,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M CONNEAUT HARBOR, OH $333,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M COOPER RIVER, CHARLESTON HARBOR, SC $4,451,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M COOS BAY, OR $4,939,000 DeFazio, Peter A., The President Corps of Engineers O&M COPAN LAKE, OK $890,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M COQUILLE RIVER, OR $292,000 DeFazio, Peter A., The President Corps of Engineers O&M CORALVILLE LAKE, IA $2,743,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M CORDELL HULL DAM AND RESERVOIR, TN $6,067,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M CORPUS CHRISTI SHIP CHANNEL, TX $3,228,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M COTTAGE GROVE LAKE, OR $941,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M COTTONWOOD SPRINGS LAKE, SD $212,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M COUGAR LAKE, OR $1,472,000 The President 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
Corps of Engineers O&M COUNCIL GRAVE LAKE, KS $1,262,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M COWANESQUE LAKE, PA $1,997,000 Peterson, John E., The President Corps of Engineers O&M COYOTE VALLEY DAM, LAKE MENDOCINO, CA $3,215,000 Thompson, Mike, The President Corps of Engineers O&M CRESCENT CITY HARBOR, CA $1,663,000 Thompson, Mike Corps of Engineers O&M CROOKED CREEK LAKE, PA $2,404,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M CUMBERLAND, MD AND RIDGELEY, WV $93,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M CURWENSVILLE LAKE, PA $594,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M DALE HOLLOW LAKE, TN $5,949,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M DARDANELLE LOCK & DAM, AR $8,066,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M DEER CREEK LAKE, OH $1,291,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M DEGRAY LAKE, AR $6,270,000 Ross, Mike, The President Corps of Engineers O&M DELAWARE LAKE, OH $1,373,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M DELAWARE RIVER AT CAMDEN, NJ $14,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M DELAWARE RIVER, PHILADELPHIA TO THE SEA, NJ, PA & DE $17,839,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M DELAWARE RIVER, PHILADELPHIA, PA TO TRENTON, NJ $713,000 Murphy, Patrick J., The President Corps of Engineers O&M DENISON DAM, LAKE TEXOMA, TX & OK $6,073,000 Cole, Tom, The President Corps of Engineers O&M DENISON DAM, LAKE TEXOMA, TX & OK, SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PLAN $475,000 Hall, Ralph M. Corps of Engineers O&M DEPOE BAY, OR $3,000 Hooley, Darlene, The President Corps of Engineers O&M DEQUEEN LAKE, AR $1,222,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M DETROIT LAKE, OR $1,011,000 The President 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT—Continued 

Agency Account Project Amount Requester(s) 

Corps of Engineers O&M DETROIT RIVER, MI $5,061,000 Dingell, John D., The President Corps of Engineers O&M DEWEY LAKE, KY $1,680,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M DIERKS LAKE, AR $1,286,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M DILLINGHAM HARBOR, AK $798,000 Young, Don, The President Corps of Engineers O&M DILLON LAKE, OHIO $1,381,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M DISPOSAL AREA MONITORING, ME $1,140,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M DORENA LAKE, OR $789,000 DeFazio, Peter A., The President Corps of Engineers O&M DRY CREEK (WARM SPRINGS) LAKE & CHANNEL, CA $4,814,000 Thompson, Mike; Woolsey, Lynn C., The President Corps of Engineers O&M DULUTH-SUPERIOR HARBOR, MN & WI $4,683,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M DUNKIRK HARBOR, NY $779,000 Higgins, Brian Corps of Engineers O&M DWORKSHAK DAM AND RESERVOIR, ID $2,284,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M EAST BRANCH CLARION RIVER LAKE, PA $2,165,000 Peterson, John E., The President Corps of Engineers O&M EAST BRIMFIELD LAKE, MA $378,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M EAST FORK, TOMBIGBEE RIVER, MS $128,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M EAST LYNN LAKE, WV $1,942,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M EAST RIVER, NY $475,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M EAST ROCKAWAY INLET, NY $4,009,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M EAST SIDNEY LAKE, NY $449,000 The President 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
Corps of Engineers O&M EASTCHESTER CREEK, NY $171,000 Crowley, Joseph, The President Corps of Engineers O&M EAU GALLE RIVER LAKE, WI $580,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M EDIZ HOOK, WA $60,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M EDWARD MACDOWELL LAKE, NH $488,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M EL DORADO LAKE, KS $607,000 Tiahrt, Todd, The President Corps of Engineers O&M ELK CITY LAKE, KS $697,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M ELKINS, WV $13,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M ELVIS STAHR (HICKMAN) HARBOR, KY $24,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M ESCAMBIA AND CONECUH RIVERS, FL $24,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M ESTELLINE SPRINGS EXPERIMENTAL PROJECT, TX $36,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M EUFAULA LAKE, OK $5,081,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M EVERETT HARBOR AND SNOHOMISH RIVER, WA $1,228,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M EVERGLADES AND SOUTH FLORIDA ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, 

FL 

$618,000 Wasserman Schultz, Debbie, The President 

Corps of Engineers O&M FAIRPORT HARBOR, OH $1,925,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M FALL CREEK LAKE, OR $872,000 DeFazio, Peter A., The President Corps of Engineers O&M FALL RIVER LAKE, KS $1,220,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M FALLS LAKE, NC $1,599,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M FARM CREEK RESERVOIRS, IL $193,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M FARMINGTON DAM, CA $421,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M FERN RIDGE LAKE, OR $1,361,000 DeFazio, Peter A., The President 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT—Continued 

Agency Account Project Amount Requester(s) 

Corps of Engineers O&M FERNANDINA HARBOR, FL $1,924,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M FERRELLS BRIDGE DAM, LAKE O’ THE PINES, TX $3,970,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M FISHTRAP LAKE, KY $1,739,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M FLUSHING BAY AND CREEK, NY $504,000 Crowley, Joseph, The President Corps of Engineers O&M FORT GIBSON LAKE, OK $9,707,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M FORT RANDALL DAM, LAKE FRANCIS CASE, SD $8,224,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M FORT SUPPLY LAKE, OK $705,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M FOSTER JOSEPH SAYERS DAM, PA $601,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M FOX RIVER LOCKS RESTORATION, WI $475,000 Kagen, Steve Corps of Engineers O&M FOX RIVER, WI $1,686,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M FRANCIS E WALTER DAM, PA $735,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M FRANKFORT HARBOR, MI $570,000 Hoekstra, Peter Corps of Engineers O&M FRANKLIN FALLS DAM, NH $588,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M FREEPORT HARBOR, TX $6,669,000 Paul, Ron, The President Corps of Engineers O&M FRESHWATER BAYOU, LA $1,756,000 Boustany, Jr., Charles W., The President Corps of Engineers O&M FT PECK DAM AND LAKE, MT $4,222,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M GALISTEO DAM, NM $402,000 Udall, Tom, The President Corps of Engineers O&M GALVESTON HARBOR AND CHANNEL, TX $5,721,000 Lampson, Nick; Paul, Ron, The President 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
Corps of Engineers O&M GARRISON DAM, LAKE SAKAKAWEA, ND $9,015,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M GATHRIGHT DAM AND LAKE MOOMAW, VA $1,921,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M GAVINS POINT DAM, LEWIS AND CLARK LAKE, NE AND SD $6,192,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M GENERAL EDGAR JADWIN DAM AND RESERVOIR, PA $217,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M GEORGETOWN HARBOR, SC $2,660,000 Brown, Jr., Henry E., The President Corps of Engineers O&M GILLHAM LAKE, AR $1,098,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M GIWW, CHANNEL TO VICTORIA, TX $2,571,000 Paul, Ron, The President Corps of Engineers O&M GIWW, CHOCOLATE BAYOU, TX $2,780,000 Paul, Ron, The President Corps of Engineers O&M GRAND HAVEN HARBOR, MI $1,246,000 Hoekstra, Peter, The President Corps of Engineers O&M GRANGER DAM AND LAKE, TX $2,114,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M GRAPEVINE LAKE, TX $2,755,000 Burgess, Michael C., The President Corps of Engineers O&M GRAYS HARBOR AND CHEHALIS RIVER, WA $8,721,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M GRAYS HARBOR AND CHEHALIS RIVER, WA, LONG TERM MANAGEMENT STUDY $356,000 Dicks, Norman D. Corps of Engineers O&M GRAYS REEF PASSAGE, MI $171,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M GRAYSON LAKE, KY $1,373,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M GREAT LAKES SEDIMENT TRANSPORT MODEL, CORNUCOPIA 

HARBOR, WI 

$95,000 Obey, David R. 

Corps of Engineers O&M GREAT SALT PLAINS LAKE, OK $243,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M GREAT SOUTH BAY, NY $76,000 Bishop, Timothy H., The President Corps of Engineers O&M GREEN AND BARREN RIVERS, KY $2,563,000 The President 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT—Continued 

Agency Account Project Amount Requester(s) 

Corps of Engineers O&M GREEN BAY HARBOR, WI $3,998,000 Kagen, Steve, The President Corps of Engineers O&M GREEN PETER—FOSTER LAKES, OR $1,732,000 DeFazio, Peter A., The President Corps of Engineers O&M GREEN RIVER LAKE, KY $4,695,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M GREENS BAYOU, TX $808,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M GREENVILLE HARBOR, MS $414,000 Thompson, Bennie G. Corps of Engineers O&M GREENWICH HARBOR, CT $48,000 Shays, Christopher Corps of Engineers O&M GREERS FERRY LAKE, AR $6,518,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M GULF INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, TX $30,280,000 Edwards, Chet; Ortiz, Solomon P.; Paul, Ron; Po

President 

Corps of Engineers O&M GULF INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, AL $6,869,000 Taylor, Gene, The President Corps of Engineers O&M GULF INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, AL $16,881 The President Corps of Engineers O&M GULFPORT HARBOR, MS $3,529,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M HAMPTON HARBOR, HAMPTON, NH $124,000 Shea-Porter, Carol Corps of Engineers O&M HAMPTON ROADS, NORFOLK & NEWPORT NEWS HARBOR, VA 

(DRIFT REMOVAL) 

$1,053,000 Drake, Thelma D., The President 

Corps of Engineers O&M HANCOCK BROOK LAKE, CT $321,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M HARLAN COUNTY LAKE, NE $1,697,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M HARRY S TRUMAN DAM AND RESERVOIR, MO $9,275,000 The President 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
Corps of Engineers O&M HARRY S. TRUMAN DAM AND RESERVOIR, MO, STILLING BASIN 

REPAIRS 

$1,900,000 Skelton, Ike, The President 

Corps of Engineers O&M HARTWELL LAKE, GA & SC $11,579,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M HELENA HARBOR, AR $86,000 Berry, Marion, The President Corps of Engineers O&M HERRING BAY, ROCKHOLD CREEK, MD $475,000 Hoyer, Steny H. Corps of Engineers O&M HEYBURN LAKE, OK $527,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M HIDDEN DAM, HENSLEY LAKE, CA $1,697,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M HILLS CREEK LAKE, OR $752,000 DeFazio, Peter A., The President Corps of Engineers O&M HILLSDALE LAKE, KS $726,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M HODGES VILLAGE DAM, MA $478,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M HOLLAND HARBOR, MI $559,000 Hoekstra, Peter, The President Corps of Engineers O&M HOMER HARBOR, AK $589,000 Young, Don, The President Corps of Engineers O&M HOMME LAKE, ND $143,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M HOP BROOK LAKE, CT $873,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M HOPKINTON-EVERETT LAKES, NH $1,027,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M HORDS CREEK LAKE, TX $1,405,000 Conaway, K. Michael, The President Corps of Engineers O&M HOUMA NAVIGATION CANAL, LA $1,425,000 Melancon, Charlie, The President Corps of Engineers O&M HOUSTON SHIP CHANNEL, TX $14,111,000 Culberson, John Abney; Edwards, Chet; Green, 

Gene; Jackson-Lee, Sheila; Lampson, Nick; The President 

Corps of Engineers O&M HOWARD HANSON DAM, WA $2,496,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M HUDSON RIVER CHANNEL, NY $475,000 The President 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT—Continued 

Agency Account Project Amount Requester(s) 

Corps of Engineers O&M HUDSON RIVER, NY (MAINT) $1,069,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M HUDSON RIVER, NY (O & C) $1,449,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M HUGO LAKE, OK $1,418,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M HULAH LAKE, OK $452,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M HUMBOLDT HARBOR AND BAY, CA $4,887,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M HURON HARBOR, OH $1,454,000 Kaptur, Marcy, The President Corps of Engineers O&M ICE HARBOR LOCK & DAM, WA $4,733,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M ILLINOIS WATERWAY, IL & IN $36,215,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M ILLINOIS WATERWAY, IL & IN, GRAFTON, IL TO LAGRANGE LOCK 

& DAM 

$2,438,000 Hare, Phil; LaHood, Ray, The President 

Corps of Engineers O&M INDIANA HARBOR, IN $2,981,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M INSPECTION OF COMPLETED ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS, OR $31,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M INSPECTION OF COMPLETED ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS, WA $67,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M INSPECTION OF COMPLETED ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS, GA $60,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M INSPECTION OF COMPLETED ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS, IL $62,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, AK $1,005,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, AL $57,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, AR $483,000 The President 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
Corps of Engineers O&M INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, AZ $93,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, CA $3,631,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, CO $434,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, CT $300,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, DC $59,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, FL $285,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, GA $135,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, HI $626,000 Hirono, Mazie K., The President Corps of Engineers O&M INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, IA $1,124,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, ID $317,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, IL $2,225,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, IN $603,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, KS $168,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, KY $526,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, LA $1,723,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MA $362,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MD $85,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, ME $28,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MI $219,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MN $592,000 The President 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT—Continued 

Agency Account Project Amount Requester(s) 

Corps of Engineers O&M INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MO $1,604,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MS $212,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MT $51,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NC $238,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, ND $342,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NE $483,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NH $35,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NJ $240,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NM $770,000 Udall, Tom, The President Corps of Engineers O&M INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NV $121,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NY $979,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, OH $429,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, OK $168,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, OR $392,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, PA $562,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, RI $41,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, SC $62,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, SD $47,000 The President 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
Corps of Engineers O&M INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, TN $81,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, TX $1,839,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, UT $71,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, VA $215,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, VT $67,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, WA $592,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, WI $119,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, WV $242,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, WY $32,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY CALOOSAHATCHEE R TO ANCLOTE R, 

FL 

$3,325,000 Buchanan, Vern; Mack, Connie; Young, C. W. Bil

Corps of Engineers O&M INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, DELAWARE RIVER TO CHESAPEAKE 

BAY, DE & MD 

$14,716,000 Castle, Michael N.; Cummings, Elijah E., The Pre

Corps of Engineers O&M INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, JACKSONVILLE TO MIAMI, FL $5,890,000 Brown, Corrine; Crenshaw, Ander; Diaz-Balar

Feeney, Tom; Hastings, Alcee L.; Mahoney, John L.; Ros-Lehtinen, Ileana; WassermaDebbie, The President 

Corps of Engineers O&M INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, REHOBOTH BAY TO DELAWARE BAY, 

DE 

$38,000 The President 

Corps of Engineers O&M ISABELLA LAKE, CA $1,334,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M J EDWARD ROUSH LAKE, IN $2,700,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M J PERCY PRIEST DAM AND RESERVOIR, TN $4,372,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M J STORM THURMOND LAKE, GA & SC $10,513,000 The President 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT—Continued 

Agency Account Project Amount Requester(s) 

Corps of Engineers O&M J. BENNETT JOHNSTON WATERWAY, LA $10,027,000 Alexander, Rodney; McCrery, Jim, The President Corps of Engineers O&M J. PERCY PRIEST GREENWAY, TN $95,000 Gordon, Bart Corps of Engineers O&M JACKSON HOLE LEVEES, WY $310,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M JACKSONVILLE HARBOR, FL $5,866,000 Brown, Corrine; Crenshaw, Ander; The President Corps of Engineers O&M JAMAICA BAY, NY $238,000 Meeks, Gregory W., The President Corps of Engineers O&M JAMES RIVER CHANNEL, VA $3,484,000 Scott, Robert C. ‘‘Bobby’’, The President Corps of Engineers O&M JEMEZ CANYON DAM, NM $650,000 Udall, Tom, The President Corps of Engineers O&M JENNINGS RANDOLPH LAKE, MD & WV $1,627,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M JIM CHAPMAN LAKE, TX $1,901,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M JIM WOODRUFF LOCK AND DAM, LAKE SEMINOLE, FL, AL & GA $10,274,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M JIM WOODRUFF LOCK AND DAM, LAKE SEMINOLE, FL, AL & GA, 

HYDRILLA CONTROL 

$855,000 Bishop, Jr., Sanford D. 

Corps of Engineers O&M JIM WOODRUFF LOCK AND DAM, LAKE SEMINOLE, FL, AL & GA, 

WOODRUFF BRIDGE REPAIRS 

$713,000 Everett, Terry 

Corps of Engineers O&M JOE POOL LAKE, TX $1,682,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M JOHN DAY LOCK AND DAM, OR & WA $6,697,000 Baird, Brian, The President Corps of Engineers O&M JOHN H. KERR LAKE, VA & NC $10,992,000 Goode, Jr., Virgil H., The President Corps of Engineers O&M JOHN MARTIN RESERVOIR, CO $2,297,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M JOHN REDMOND DAM AND RESERVOIR, KS $2,481,000 Boyda, Nancy E., The President 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
Corps of Engineers O&M JOHN W FLANNAGAN DAM AND RESERVOIR, VA $1,841,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M JOHNSTOWN, PA $2,142,000 Murtha, John P., The President Corps of Engineers O&M JONES INLET, NY $333,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M KANAWHA RIVER LOCKS & DAM, WV $8,911,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M KANOPOLIS LAKE, KS $1,347,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M KASKASKIA RIVER NAVIGATION, IL $1,808,000 Costello, Jerry F., The President Corps of Engineers O&M KAW LAKE, OK $2,445,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M KENTUCKY RIVER, KY $10,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M KEWEENAW WATERWAY, MI $82,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M KEYSTONE LAKE, OK $5,769,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M KINZUA DAM AND ALLEGHANY RESERVOIR, PA $2,368,000 Peterson, John E., The President Corps of Engineers O&M KNIGHTVILLE DAM, MA $500,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M LAC QUI PARLE LAKES, MINNESOTA RIVER, MN $409,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M LAKE ASHTABULA AND BALDHILL DAM, ND $966,000 Pomeroy, Earl, The President Corps of Engineers O&M LAKE CUMBERLAND, KY $314,000 Rogers, Harold Corps of Engineers O&M LAKE KEMP, TX $203,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M LAKE MICHIGAN DIVERSION, IL $817,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M LAKE MONTAUK HARBOR, NY $665,000 Bishop, Timothy H., The President Corps of Engineers O&M LAKE PROVIDENCE HARBOR, LA $808,000 Alexander, Rodney, The President Corps of Engineers O&M LAKE SHELBYVILLE, IL $4,523,000 Shimkus, John, The President 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT—Continued 

Agency Account Project Amount Requester(s) 

Corps of Engineers O&M LAKE TRAVERSE, SD & MN $383,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M LAKE WASHINGTON SHIP CANAL, WA $7,176,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M LAUREL RIVER LAKE, KY $1,661,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M LAVON LAKE, TX $2,912,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M LEWISVILLE DAM, TX $3,905,000 Burgess, Michael C., The President Corps of Engineers O&M LIBBY DAM, MT $1,626,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M LITTLE BLUE RIVER LAKES, MO $888,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M LITTLE GOOSE LOCK & DAM, WA $2,242,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M LITTLE SODUS BAY HARBOR, NY $627,000 Walsh, James T., The President Corps of Engineers O&M LITTLE WICOMICO RIVER, VA $855,000 Wittman, Robert J. Corps of Engineers O&M LITTLEVILLE LAKE, MA $465,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M LOCKWOODS FOLLY RIVER, NC $1,302,000 McIntyre, Mike Corps of Engineers O&M LONG BRANCH LAKE, MO $1,045,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M LONG ISLAND INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, NY $190,000 Bishop, Timothy H., The President Corps of Engineers O&M LONG ISLAND SOUND, DDMP, CT $4,275,000 Courtney, Joe; DeLauro, Rosa L.; Shays, Christ

President 

Corps of Engineers O&M LOOKOUT POINT LAKE, OR $2,623,000 DeFazio, Peter A., The President Corps of Engineers O&M LORAIN HARBOR, OH $2,302,000 Sutton, Betty, The President 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
Corps of Engineers O&M LOS ANGELES COUNTY DRAINAGE AREA, CA $3,796,000 Sherman, Brad, The President Corps of Engineers O&M LOST CREEK LAKE, OR $3,382,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M LOWER GRANITE LOCK & DAM, WA $5,580,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M LOWER MONUMENT LOCK & DAM, WA $4,431 The President Corps of Engineers O&M LOWER TRINITY RIVER, TX $2,057,000 Poe, Ted Corps of Engineers O&M LOYALHANNA LAKE, PA $2,736,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M LUCKY PEAK LAKE, ID $1,711,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M LUDINGTON HARBOR, MI $420,000 Hoekstra, Peter, The President Corps of Engineers O&M LYNNHAVEN INLET, VA $1,005,000 Drake, Thelma D., The President Corps of Engineers O&M MADISON PARISH PORT, LA $81,000 Alexander, Rodney, The President Corps of Engineers O&M MAHONING CREEK LAKE, PA $1,732,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M MANASQUAN RIVER, NJ $542,000 Smith, Christopher H., The President Corps of Engineers O&M MANATEE HARBOR, FL $2,541,000 Buchanan, Vern; Castor, Kathy, The President Corps of Engineers O&M MANSFIELD HOLLOW LAKE, CT $468,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M MANTEO (SHALLOWBAG) BAY, NC $5,700,000 Price, David E., The President Corps of Engineers O&M MARINA DEL REY, CA $2,374,000 Harman, Jane, The President Corps of Engineers O&M MARION LAKE, KS $1,429,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M MARTINS FORK LAKE, KY $1,009,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M MARTIS CREEK LAKE, CA & NV $700,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M MASONBORO INLET AND CONNECTING CHANNELS, NC $347,000 McIntyre, Mike, The President 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT—Continued 

Agency Account Project Amount Requester(s) 

Corps of Engineers O&M MASSILLON LOCAL PROTECTION PROJECT, OH $23,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M MATAGORDA SHIP CHANNEL, TX $5,864,000 Paul, Ron, The President Corps of Engineers O&M MATTITUCK HARBOR, NY $19,000 Bishop, Timothy H., The President Corps of Engineers O&M MCCLELLAN-KERR ARKANSAS RIVER NAVIGATION SYSTEM, AR $28,875,000 Berry, Marion, The President Corps of Engineers O&M MCCLELLAN-KERR ARKANSAS RIVER NAVIGATION SYSTEM, OK $5,528,000 Boren, Dan, The President Corps of Engineers O&M MCNARY LOCK & DAM, OR & WA $4,924,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M MELVERN LAKE, KS $2,005,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M MERCED COUNTY STREAMS, CA $227,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M MERMENTAU RIVER, LA $1,871,000 Boustany, Jr., Charles W., The President Corps of Engineers O&M MIAMI RIVER, FL $10,279,000 Diaz-Balart, Mario; Ros-Lehtinen, Ileana, The PreCorps of Engineers O&M MICHAEL J KIRWAN DAM AND RESERVOIR, OH $1,922,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M MIDDLESBORO CUMBERLAND RIVER BASIN, KY $97,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M MILFORD LAKE, KS $2,026,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M MILL CREEK LAKE, WA $2,315,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M MILLERS FERRY LOCK AND DAM, WILLIAM ‘‘BILL’’ DANNELLY 

LAKE, AL 

$5,320,000 Davis, Artur, The President 

Corps of Engineers O&M MILLWOOD LAKE, AR $1,970,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M MILWAUKEE HARBOR, WI $618,000 The President 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
Corps of Engineers O&M MINNESOTA RIVER, MN $190,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M MISPILLION RIVER, DE $29,000 Castle, Michael N., The President Corps of Engineers O&M MISSISSINEWA LAKE, IN $998,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M MISSISSIPPI RIVER BETWEEN MISSOURI RIVER AND MINNEAPOLIS (MVP PORTION), MN $42,658,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M MISSISSIPPI RIVER BETWEEN MISSOURI RIVER AND MINNEAPOLIS (MVR PORTION), IL $60,047,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M MISSISSIPPI RIVER BETWEEN MISSOURI RIVER AND MINNEAPOLIS (MVS PORTION), IL $19,954,000 Akin, W. Todd; Hare, Phil, The President Corps of Engineers O&M MISSISSIPPI RIVER BTWN THE OHIO AND MISSOURI RIVERS 

(REG WORKS), MO & IL 

$24,091,000 The President 

Corps of Engineers O&M MISSISSIPPI RIVER OUTLETS AT VENICE, LA $2,979,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M MISSISSIPPI RIVER, BATON ROUGE TO THE GULF OF MEXICO, LA $52,559,000 Alexander, Rodney, The President Corps of Engineers O&M MISSOURI RIVER—KENSLERS BEND, NE TO SIOUX CITY, IA $158,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M MISSOURI RIVER—SIOUX CITY TO THE MOUTH, IA, KS, MO & 

NE 

$2,432,000 The President 

Corps of Engineers O&M MISSOURI RIVER, RULO TO MOUTH, IA, NE, KS & MO $5,700,000 Cleaver, Emanuel; Hulshof, Kenny C., The PresidCorps of Engineers O&M MOBILE HARBOR, AL $20,484,000 Bonner, Jo, The President Corps of Engineers O&M MOJAVE RIVER DAM, CA $271,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M MONONGAHELA RIVER, PA $16,522,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M MONROE HARBOR, MI $967,000 Dingell, John D., The President Corps of Engineers O&M MONROE LAKE, IN $1,260,000 The President 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT—Continued 

Agency Account Project Amount Requester(s) 

Corps of Engineers O&M MOREHEAD CITY HARBOR, NC $4,750,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M MORICHES INLET, NY $1,000 Bishop, Timothy H., The President Corps of Engineers O&M MORRO BAY HARBOR, CA $1,549,000 Capps, Lois, The President Corps of Engineers O&M MOSQUITO CREEK LAKE, OH $1,314,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M MOSS LANDING HARBOR, CA $713,000 Farr, Sam Corps of Engineers O&M MOUNT MORRIS DAM, NY $4,597,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M MOUTH OF YAZOO RIVER, MS $29,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M MT. ST. HELENS SEDIMENT CONTROL, WA $244,000 Baird, Brian, The President Corps of Engineers O&M MUD MOUNTAIN DAM, WA $3,107,000 Smith, Adam, The President Corps of Engineers O&M MURDERKILL RIVER, DE $29,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M MUSKEGON HARBOR, MI $333,000 Hoekstra, Peter, The President Corps of Engineers O&M MUSKINGUM RIVER LAKES, OH $7,861,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M NAPLES TO BIG MARCO PASS, FL $1,235,000 Mack, Connie Corps of Engineers O&M NARROWS DAM, LAKE GREESON, AR $4,646,000 Ross, Mike, The President Corps of Engineers O&M NARROWS OF LAKE CHAMPLAIN, VT & NY $76,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M NATIONAL COASTAL MAPPING PROGRAM (LIDAR BATHYMETER 

SHOALS) 

$6,650,000 Bonner, Jo, The President 

Corps of Engineers O&M NAVARRO MILLS LAKE, TX $3,365,000 The President 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
Corps of Engineers O&M NEAH BAY, WA $2,185,000 Dicks, Norman D., The President Corps of Engineers O&M NEW BEDFORD AND FAIRHAVEN HARBOR, MA $475,000 Frank, Barney Corps of Engineers O&M NEW BEDFORD FAIRHAVEN AND ACUSHNET HURRICANE BARRIER, MA $258,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M NEW HOGAN LAKE, CA $2,009,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M NEW JERSEY INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, NJ $1,596,000 LoBiondo, Frank A.; Saxton, Jim; Smith, Christop

President 

Corps of Engineers O&M NEW MADRID HARBOR, MO $144,000 Emerson, Jo Ann, The President Corps of Engineers O&M NEW MELONES LAKE, DOWNSTREAM CHANNEL, CA $1,644,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M NEW RIVER INLET, NC $760,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY CHANNELS, NY $6,413,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M NEW YORK HARBOR, NY $3,800,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M NEW YORK HARBOR, NY & NJ (DRIFT REMOVAL) $5,985,000 Pallone, Jr., Frank; Weiner, Anthony D., The PresiCorps of Engineers O&M NEW YORK HARBOR, NY (PREVENTION OF OBSTRUCTIVE DEPOSITS) $903,000 Pallone, Jr., Frank; Weiner, Anthony D., The PresiCorps of Engineers O&M NEWARK BAY, HACKENSACK AND PASSAIC RIVERS, NJ $2,375,000 Payne, Donald M.; Rothman, Steven R., The PresCorps of Engineers O&M NEWBURYPORT HARBOR, MA $760,000 Tierney, John F. Corps of Engineers O&M NEWBURYPORT HARBOR, MA (SOUTH JETTY) $95,000 Tierney, John F. Corps of Engineers O&M NEWTOWN CREEK, NY $209,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M NIMROD LAKE, AR $1,529,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M NINILCHIK HARBOR, AK $333,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M NOLIN LAKE, KY $3,170,000 The President 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT—Continued 

Agency Account Project Amount Requester(s) 

Corps of Engineers O&M NOME HARBOR, AK $741,000 Young, Don, The President Corps of Engineers O&M NORFOLK HARBOR, VA $10,518,000 Drake, Thelma D.; Scott, Robert C. ‘‘Bobby’’, The Corps of Engineers O&M NORFORK LAKE, AR $3,724,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M NORTH BRANCH KOKOSING RIVER LAKE, OH $563,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M NORTH FORK OF POUND RIVER LAKE, VA $623,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M NORTH HARTLAND LAKE, VT $603,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M NORTH SAN GABRIEL DAM AND LAKE GEORGETOWN, TX $1,963,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M NORTH SPRINGFIELD LAKE, VT $710,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M NORTHFIELD BROOK LAKE, CT $366,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M NORWALK HARBOR, CT $3,040,000 Shays, Christopher Corps of Engineers O&M O.C. FISHER DAM AND LAKE, TX $862,000 Conaway, K. Michael, The President Corps of Engineers O&M OAHE DAM, LAKE OAHE, SD & ND $8,902,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M OAKLAND HARBOR, CA $7,073,000 Lee, Barbara, The President Corps of Engineers O&M OCEAN CITY HARBOR AND INLET AND SINEPUXENT BAY, MD $428,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M OCEANSIDE HARBOR, CA $1,539,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M OHIO RIVER LOCKS AND DAMS, KY, IL, IN & OH $37,448,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M OHIO RIVER LOCKS AND DAMS, PA, OH & WV $23,556,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M OHIO RIVER LOCKS AND DAMS, WV, KY & OH $28,777,000 The President 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
Corps of Engineers O&M OHIO RIVER LOCKS AND DAMS, WV, KY, & OH (PARKERSBURG/ 

VIENNA, WV) 

$1,425,000 Mollohan, Alan B. 

Corps of Engineers O&M OHIO RIVER OPEN CHANNEL WORK, KY, IL, IN & OH $4,261,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M OHIO RIVER OPEN CHANNEL WORK, PA, OH & WV $484,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M OHIO RIVER OPEN CHANNEL WORK, WV, KY & OH $2,565,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M OHIO-MISSISSIPPI FLOOD CONTROL, OH $1,035,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M OKATIBBEE LAKE, MS $1,441,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M OKEECHOBEE WATERWAY, FL $4,304,000 Hastings, Alcee L.; Mahoney, Tim, The President Corps of Engineers O&M OLD HICKORY LOCK AND DAM, TN $9,353,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M ONTONAGON HARBOR, MI $1,185,000 Stupak, Bart, The President Corps of Engineers O&M OOLOGAH LAKE, OK $1,827,000 Boren, Dan, The President Corps of Engineers O&M OPTIMA LAKE, OK $156,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M ORWELL LAKE, MN $243,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M OSCEOLA HARBOR, AR $1,796,000 Berry, Marion, The President Corps of Engineers O&M OTTER BROOK LAKE, NH $568,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M OUACHITA AND BLACK RIVERS, AR AND LA $8,084,000 Alexander, Rodney; Ross, Mike, The President Corps of Engineers O&M OZARK-JETA TAYLOR LOCK & DAM, AR $5,023,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M PAINT CREEK LAKE, OH $1,242,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M PAINTED ROCK DAM, AZ $1,146,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M PAINTSVILLE LAKE, KY $906,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M PALM BEACH HARBOR, FL $2,266,000 Klein, Ron, The President 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT—Continued 

Agency Account Project Amount Requester(s) 

Corps of Engineers O&M PANAMA CITY HARBOR, FL $1,952,000 Boyd, Allen, The President Corps of Engineers O&M PAPILLION CREEK, NE $504,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M PARISH CREEK, MD $950,000 Hoyer, Steny H. Corps of Engineers O&M PASCAGOULA HARBOR, MS $3,924,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M PASSAIC RIVER FLOOD WARNING SYSTEM, NJ $241,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M PAT MAYSE LAKE, TX $955,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M PATCHOGUE RIVER, WESTBROOK, CT $1,425,000 Courtney, Joe Corps of Engineers O&M PATOKA LAKE, IN $1,093,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M PEARL RIVER, MS & LA $183,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M PEARSON-SKUBITZ BIG HILL LAKE, KS $996,000 Boyda, Nancy E., The President Corps of Engineers O&M PENSACOLA HARBOR, FL $64,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M PENSACOLA RESERVOIR, LAKE OF THE CHEROKEES, OK $113,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M PENTWATER HARBOR, MI $169,000 Hoekstra, Peter Corps of Engineers O&M PERRY LAKE, KS $2,390,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M PHILPOTT LAKE, VA & NC $6,613,000 Goode, Jr., Virgil H., The President Corps of Engineers O&M PINE AND MATHEWS CANYONS LAKES, NV $194,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M PINE CREEK LAKE, OK $1,044,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M PINE FLAT LAKE, CA $2,711,000 The President 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
Corps of Engineers O&M PIPESTEM LAKE, ND $543,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M POINT JUDITH HARBOR OF REUGE, RI $1,188,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M POMME DE TERRE LAKE, MO $2,003,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M POMONA LAKE, KS $1,871,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M PORT AUSTIN HARBOR, MI $433,000 Miller, Candice S. Corps of Engineers O&M PORT HUENEME, CA $3,828,000 Capps, Lois, The President Corps of Engineers O&M PORT ORFORD, OR $795,000 DeFazio, Peter A., The President Corps of Engineers O&M PORTCHESTER HARBOR, NY $143,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M PORTLAND HARBOR, ME $95,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M POTOMAC AND ANACOSTIA RIVER, DC (DRIFT REMOVAL) $765,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M PRESQUE ISLE HARBOR, MI $296,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M PROCTOR LAKE, TX $2,047,000 Conaway, K. Michael, The President Corps of Engineers O&M PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, AK $523,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, AL $95,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, AR $8,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, CA $2,301,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, CT $1,045,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, DC $27,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, DE $140,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, FL $1,202,000 The President 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT—Continued 

Agency Account Project Amount Requester(s) 

Corps of Engineers O&M PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, GA $154,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, HI $510,000 Hirono, Mazie K., The President Corps of Engineers O&M PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, IL $105,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, IN $176,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, KY $7,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MA $1,140,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MD $357,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, ME $713,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MI $262,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MN $90,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MO $13,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MS $78,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, NC $641,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, NH $285,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, NJ $1,295,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, NY $1,739,000 Weiner, Anthony D., The President Corps of Engineers O&M PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, OH $280,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, OR $209,000 The President 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
Corps of Engineers O&M PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, PA $67,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, RI $380,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, SC $593,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, TN $9,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, TX $289,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, VA $827,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, WA $321,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, WI $152,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M PROMPTON LAKE, PA $480,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M PROVIDENCE HARBOR SHIPPING CHANNEL, RI $285,000 Langevin, James R. Corps of Engineers O&M PUGET SOUND AND TRIBUTARY WATERS, WA $947,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M PUNXSUTAWNEY, PA $19,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M QUILLAYUTE RIVER, WA $1,493,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M R D BAILEY LAKE, WV $2,694,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M RARITAN AND SANDY HOOKS BAYS, LEONARD, NJ $38,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M RARITAN RIVER TO ARTHUR KILL CUT-OFF, NJ $190,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M RARITAN RIVER, NJ $209,000 Pallone, Jr., Frank, The President Corps of Engineers O&M RATHBUN LAKE, IA $2,163,000 Loebsack, David, The President Corps of Engineers O&M RAY ROBERTS LAKE, TX $1,383,000 Burgess, Michael C., The President Corps of Engineers O&M RAYSTOWN LAKE, PA $3,146,000 The President 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT—Continued 

Agency Account Project Amount Requester(s) 

Corps of Engineers O&M RED LAKE RESERVOIR, MN $80,000 Peterson, Collin C., The President Corps of Engineers O&M RED ROCK DAM AND LAKE, RED ROCK, IA $3,114,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M REDWOOD CITY HARBOR, CA $570,000 Eshoo, Anna G. Corps of Engineers O&M REGIONAL SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM, 

CHESAPEAKE BAY, NEWPOINT COMFORT, MATHEWS COUNTY VA 

$238,000 Wittman, Robert J. 

Corps of Engineers O&M REGIONAL SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM, 

LONG ISLAND COASTAL PLANNING, NY 

$950,000 Israel, Steve 

Corps of Engineers O&M REMOVAL OF AQUATIC GROWTH, LA $1,425,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M REMOVAL OF AQUATIC GROWTH, FL $4,199,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M REND LAKE, IL $4,342,000 Costello, Jerry F.; Shimkus, John, The President Corps of Engineers O&M RESERVOIRS AT HEADWATERS OF MISSISSIPPI RIVER, MN $3,012,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M RICHARD B RUSSEL DAM & LAKE, GA & SC $7,967,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M RICHMOND HARBOR, CA $6,603,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M ROBERT F. HENRY LOCK AND DAM, AL $5,510,000 Davis, Artur, The President Corps of Engineers O&M ROBERT S. KEER LOCK AND DAM AND RESERVOIR, OK $6,269,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M ROCHESTER HARBOR, NY $1,525,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M ROGUE RIVER AT GOLD BEACH, OR $558,000 DeFazio, Peter A., The President Corps of Engineers O&M ROLLINSON CHANNEL, NC $143,000 The President 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
Corps of Engineers O&M ROSEDALE HARBOR, MS $562,000 Thompson, Bennie G., The President Corps of Engineers O&M ROSEVILLE LOCAL PROTECTION PROJECT, OH $33,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M ROUGH RIVER LAKE, KY $2,690,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M ROUGH RIVER, MI $1,103,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M ROUSH RIVER MAJOR REHAB PROJECT, IN $285,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M RUDEE INLET, VA $352,000 Drake, Thelma D., The President Corps of Engineers O&M SABINE-NECHES WATERWAY, TX $8,381,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M SACRAMENTO RIVER (30 FOOT PROJECT), CA $5,303,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M SACRAMENTO RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES (DEBRIS CONTROL), CA $1,488,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M SACRAMENTO RIVER SHALLOW DRAFT CHANNEL, CA $166,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M SAGINAW RIVER, MI $3,608,000 Kildee, Dale E., The President Corps of Engineers O&M SALAMONIE LAKE, IN $1,165,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M SALEM RIVER, NJ $67,000 LoBiondo, Frank A., The President Corps of Engineers O&M SALT CREEK AND TRIBUTARIES, NE $667,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M SAM RAYBURN DAM AND RESERVOIR, TX $7,144,000 Brady, Kevin, The President Corps of Engineers O&M SAN FRANCISCO BAY LONG TERM MANAGEMENT STRATEGY, CA $3,040,000 Pelosi, Nancy Corps of Engineers O&M SAN FRANCISCO BAY, DELTA MODEL STRUCTURE, CA $1,051,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M SAN FRANCISCO HARBOR AND BAY, CA (DRIFT REMOVAL) $3,848,000 Pelosi, Nancy, The President Corps of Engineers O&M SAN FRANCISCO HARBOR, CA $2,964,000 Pelosi, Nancy, The President Corps of Engineers O&M SAN JOAQUIN RIVER, PORT OF STOCKTON, CA $5,140,000 Cardoza, Dennis A.; McNerney, Jerry, The Preside


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT—Continued 

Agency Account Project Amount Requester(s) 

Corps of Engineers O&M SAN PABLO BAY AND MARE ISLAND STRAIT, CA $1,083,000 Tauscher, Ellen O., The President Corps of Engineers O&M SAN RAFAEL CREEK, CA $3,088,000 Woolsey, Lynn C. Corps of Engineers O&M SANTA ANA RIVER BASIN, CA $2,991,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M SANTA BARBARA HARBOR, CA $1,986,000 Capps, Lois, The President Corps of Engineers O&M SANTA ROSA DAM AND LAKE, NM $893,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M SARDIS LAKE, OK $866,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M SAVANNAH HARBOR, GA $13,200,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M SAVANNAH RIVER BELOW AUGUSTA, GA $174,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M SAXON HARBOR, WI $295,000 Obey, David R. Corps of Engineers O&M SAYLORVILLE LAKE, IA $3,713,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, AL $89,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, AZ $37,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, CA $1,557,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, CO $684,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, FL $29,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, ID $446,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, KS $29,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, PA $44,000 The President 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
Corps of Engineers O&M SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, MD $61,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, MO $311,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, MT $84,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, ND $113,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, NM $477,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, OK $494,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, OR $78,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, SD $49,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, TX $96,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, UT $568,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, WA $481,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, WY $83,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M SCHUYLKILL RIVER, PA $1,900,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M SEATTLE HARBOR, WA $867,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M SEBEWAING RIVER, MI $71,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M SHARK RIVER, NJ $736,000 Pallone, Jr., Frank, The President Corps of Engineers O&M SHENANGO RIVER LAKE, PA $2,248,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M SHINNECOCK INLET, NY $6,460,000 Bishop, Timothy H., The President Corps of Engineers O&M SHOAL HARBOR AND COMPTON CREEK, NJ $285,000 Pallone, Jr., Frank, The President Corps of Engineers O&M SHREWSBURY RIVER, MAIN CHANNEL, NJ $114,000 Pallone, Jr., Frank, The President 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT—Continued 

Agency Account Project Amount Requester(s) 

Corps of Engineers O&M SILVER LAKE HARBOR, NC $380,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M SIUSLAW RIVER, OR $658,000 DeFazio, Peter A., The President Corps of Engineers O&M SKIATOOK LAKE, OK $1,252,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M SKIPANON CHANNEL, OR $5,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M SMITHVILLE LAKE, MO $1,143,000 Graves, Sam, The President Corps of Engineers O&M SOMERVILLE LAKE, TX $2,999,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M SOURIS RIVER, ND $266,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M SOUTH FLORIDA EVERGLADES ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, FL $339,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M SOUTHEAST MISSOURI PORT, MISSISSIPPI RIVER, MO $8,000 Emerson, Jo Ann, The President Corps of Engineers O&M SOUTHERN NEW YORK FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS, NY $797,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M ST. CLAIR RIVER, MI $1,701,000 Miller, Candice S., The President Corps of Engineers O&M ST. JOSEPH HARBOR, MI $1,064,000 Upton, Fred, The President Corps of Engineers O&M ST. MARYS RIVER, MI $29,465,000 Obey, David R., The President Corps of Engineers O&M STAMFORD HURRICANE BARRIER, CT $355,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M STILLAGUAMISH RIVER, WA $236,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M STILLHOUSE HOLLOW DAM, TX $2,850,000 Carter, John R., The President Corps of Engineers O&M STILLWATER LAKE, PA $314,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M STOCKTON LAKE, MO $5,069,000 Skelton, Ike, The President 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
Corps of Engineers O&M STONEWALL JACKSON LAKE, WV $987,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M STURGEON BAY HARBOR AND LAKE MICHIGAN SHIP CANAL, WI $15,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M SUCCESS LAKE, CA $1,701,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M SUISUN BAY CHANNEL, CA $2,833,000 Tauscher, Ellen O., The President Corps of Engineers O&M SUMMERSVILLE LAKE, WV $1,942,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M SURRY MOUNTAIN LAKE, NH $566,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, IL $537,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, IN $86,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, ME $16,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, MI $2,322,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, MN $307,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, ND $23,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, NY $523,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, OH $212,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, OR $9,880,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, PA $88,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, WA $50,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, WI $473,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M SUTTON LAKE, WV $2,100,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M SWINOMISH CHANNEL, WA $380,000 Larsen, Rick 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT—Continued 

Agency Account Project Amount Requester(s) 

Corps of Engineers O&M TABLE ROCK LAKE, MO & AR $6,334,000 Blunt, Roy, The President Corps of Engineers O&M TACOMA, PUYALLUP RIVER, WA $114,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M TAMPA HARBOR, FL $4,323,000 Bilirakis, Gus M.; Castor, Kathy; Putnam, Ada

President 

Corps of Engineers O&M TAYLORSVILLE LAKE, KY $1,246,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M TENKILLER FERRY LAKE, OK $3,604,000 Boren, Dan, The President Corps of Engineers O&M TENNESSEE RIVER, TN $19,208,000 Cramer, Jr., Robert E. (Bud), The President Corps of Engineers O&M TENNESSEE TOMBIGBEE WATERWAY WILDLIFE MITIGATION, AL & 

MS 

$2,233,000 Aderholt, Robert B.; Cramer, Jr., Robert E. (Bud)

dent 

Corps of Engineers O&M TENNESSEE-TOMBIGBEE WATERWAY, AL & MS $21,850,000 Aderholt, Robert B.; Cramer, Jr., Robert E. (B

Artur, The President 

Corps of Engineers O&M TERMINUS DAM, LAKE KAWEAH, CA $1,816,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M TEXAS CITY SHIP CHANNEL, TX $1,408,000 Paul, Ron, The President Corps of Engineers O&M TEXAS WATER ALLOCATION ASSESSMENT, TX $95,000 Edwards, Chet, The President Corps of Engineers O&M THE DALLES LOCK & DAM, WA & OR $7,311,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M THOMASTON DAM, CT $584,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M TILLAMOOK BAY AND BAR, OR $33,000 Hooley, Darlene, The President Corps of Engineers O&M TIOGA HAMMOND LAKES, PA $2,340,000 Peterson, John E., The President Corps of Engineers O&M TIONESTA LAKE, PA $3,240,000 Peterson, John E., The President 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
Corps of Engineers O&M TOLEDO HARBOR, OH $5,700,000 Kaptur, Marcy, The President Corps of Engineers O&M TOM JENKINS DAM, OH $751,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M TORONTO LAKE, KS $508,000 Boyda, Nancy E., The President Corps of Engineers O&M TOWN BLUFF DAM, B A STEINHAGEN LAKE, TX $2,598,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M TOWNSHEND LAKE, VT $647,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M TRINIDAD LAKE, CO $2,043,000 Salazar, John T., The President Corps of Engineers O&M TULLY LAKE, MA $516,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M TUTTLE CREEK LAKE, KS $2,028,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M TWITCH COVE AND BIG THOROFARE RIVER, MD $128,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M TWO HARBORS, MN $285,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M TWO RIVER HARBOR, WI $760,000 Petri, Thomas E. Corps of Engineers O&M TWO RIVERS DAM, NM $429,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M TYGART LAKE, WV $1,445,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M UMPQUA RIVER, OR $1,723,000 DeFazio, Peter A., The President Corps of Engineers O&M UNION CITY LAKE, PA $966,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M UNION LAKE, MO $10,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M UNION VILLAGE DAM, VT $549,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M UPPER RIO GRANDE WATER OPERATIONS MODEL STUDY, NM $1,141,000 Udall, Tom, The President Corps of Engineers O&M VENTURA HARBOR, CA $2,940,000 Capps, Lois, The President Corps of Engineers O&M W KERR SCOTT DAM AND RESERVOIR, NC $2,828,000 The President 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT—Continued 

Agency Account Project Amount Requester(s) 

Corps of Engineers O&M WACO LAKE, TX $4,551,000 Edwards, Chet, The President Corps of Engineers O&M WALLACE LAKE, LA $190,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M WALLISVILLE LAKE, TX $1,660,000 Paul, Ron, The President Corps of Engineers O&M WALTER F. GEORGE LOCK AND DAM, AL & GA $8,550,000 Everett, Terry, The President Corps of Engineers O&M WASHINGTON HARBOR, DC $24,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M WATER/ENVIRONMENTAL CERTIFICATION, AL $114,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M WATER/ENVIRONMENTAL CERTIFICATION, FL $385,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M WATER/ENVIRONMENTAL CERTIFICATION, MS $29,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M WATER/ENVIRONMENTAL CERTIFICATION, VA $51,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M WATERWAY FROM EMPIRE TO THE GULF, LA $30,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M WATERWAY FROM INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY TO BAYOU DULAC, 

LA 

$227,000 The President 

Corps of Engineers O&M WATERWAY ON THE COAST OF VIRGINIA, VA $247,000 Drake, Thelma D., The President Corps of Engineers O&M WAUKEGAN HARBOR, IL $1,044,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M WAURIKA LAKE, OK $1,038,000 Cole, Tom, The President Corps of Engineers O&M WEBBERS FALLS LOCK & DAM, OK $4,460,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M WEST FORK OF MILL CREEK LAKE, OH $822,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M WEST HILL DAM, MA $640,000 The President 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
Corps of Engineers O&M WEST POINT DAM AND LAKE, GA AND AL $7,074,000 Gingrey, Phil, The President Corps of Engineers O&M WEST THOMPSON LAKE, CT $540,000 Courtney, Joe, The President Corps of Engineers O&M WESTCHESTER CREEK, NY $238,000 Crowley, Joseph, The President Corps of Engineers O&M WESTVILLE LAKE, MA $472,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M WHITE RIVER, AR $49,000 Berry, Marion, The President Corps of Engineers O&M WHITLOW RANCH DAM, AZ $162,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M WHITNEY LAKE, TX $9,271,000 Edwards, Chet, The President Corps of Engineers O&M WHITNEY POINT LAKE, NY $525,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M WICOMICO RIVER, MD $1,330,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M WILLAMETTE RIVER AT WILLAMETTE FALLS, OR $200,000 Hooley, Darlene, The President Corps of Engineers O&M WILLAMETTE RIVER BANK PROTECTION, OR $59,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M WILLAPA RIVER AND HARBOR, WA $32,000 Baird, Brian, The President Corps of Engineers O&M WILLIAM H HARSHA LAKE, OH $1,745,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M WILLOW CREEK LAKE, OR $580,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M WILMINGTON HARBOR, DE $2,613,000 Castle, Michael N., The President Corps of Engineers O&M WILMINGTON HARBOR, NC $12,350,000 McIntyre, Mike; The President Corps of Engineers O&M WILSON LAKE, KS $1,537,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M WISTER LAKE, OK $644,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M WOLF CREEK DAM, LAKE CUMBERLAND, KY $7,442,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M WOLF RIVER HARBOR, TN $722,000 Cohen, Steve, The President 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT—Continued 

Agency Account Project Amount Requester(s) 

Corps of Engineers O&M WOODCOCK CREEK LAKE, PA $981,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M WRIGHT PATMAN DAM AND LAKE, TX $4,305,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M YAQUINA BAY AND HARBOR, OR $1,408,000 Hooley, Darlene, The President Corps of Engineers O&M YATESVILLE LAKE, KY $1,121,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M YAZOO RIVER, MS $25,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M YELLOW BEND PORT, AR $3,000 Ross, Mike, The President Corps of Engineers O&M YORK INDIAN ROCK DAM, PA $447,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M YORK RIVER, VA $238,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M YOUGHIOGHENY RIVER LAKE, PA & MD $2,763,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M YUBA RIVER, CA $123,000 The President Bureau of Reclamation California Bay Delta Ecosystem 

Restoration Project 

LOS VAQUEROS EXPANSION $200,000 McNerney, Jerry; Miller, George; Tauscher, Ell

President 

Bureau of Reclamation California Bay Delta Ecosystem 

Restoration Project 

SACRAMENTO RIVER SMALL DIVERSION FISH SCREENS $2,000,000 Herger, Wally, The President 

Bureau of Reclamation California Bay Delta Ecosystem 

Restoration Project 

SAN JOAQUIN RIVER BASIN STUDY $3,300,000 Costa, Jim, The President 

Bureau of Reclamation California Bay Delta Ecosystem 

Restoration Project 

SAN JOAQUIN RIVER SALINITY MANAGEMENT $5,000,000 Cardoza, Dennis A., The President 

Bureau of Reclamation California Bay Delta Ecosystem 

Restoration Project 

SAN LUIS RESERVOIR LOWPOINT FEASIBILITY $1,400,000 Honda, Michael M., The President 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources AK CHIN WATER RIGHTS SETTLEMENT ACT PROJECT $9,900,000 The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources ANIMAS-LA PLATA PROJECT $50,000,000 Udall, Tom, The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources ARBUCKLE PROJECT $289,000 The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources BALMORHEA PROJECT $58,000 The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources BAY AREA REGIONAL WATER RECYCLING PROGRAM $9,000,000 Eshoo, Anna G.; Miller, George; Tauscher, Ellen OBureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources BOISE AREA PROJECTS $5,284,000 The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources CACHUMA PROJECT $1,718,000 The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources CALIFORNIA INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM $352,000 The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources CALLEGUAS MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT RECYCLING PLANT $1,200,000 Capps, Lois; Gallegly, Elton, The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources CANADIAN RIVER PROJECT $145,000 The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources CARLSBAD PROJECT $3,784,000 The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources CHEYENNE RIVER SIOUX RESERVATION, PERKINS & MEADE 

COUNTIES, SD 

$100,000 Herseth Sandlin, Stephanie 

Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources CITY OF NORTH LAS VEGAS $3,000,000 Berkley, Shelley Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources COLLBRAN PROJECT $1,556,000 The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources COLORADO INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM $204,000 The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources COLORADO RIVER BASIN, CENTRAL ARIZONA PROJECT $26,850,000 The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources COLORADO RIVER BASIN, CENTRAL ARIZONA, PIMA-MARICOPA 

IRRIGATION PROJECT 

$11,696,000 Grijalva, Rau ́l M., The President 

Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources COLORADO RIVER FRONT WORK AND LEVEE SYSTEM $2,350,000 The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources COLORADO RIVER FRONT WORK AND LEVEE SYSTEM: ALL 

AMERICAN CANAL DROP 2 STORAGE RESERVOIR 

$619,000 Filner, Bob, The President 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT—Continued 

Agency Account Project Amount Requester(s) 

Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources COLORADO-BIG THOMPSON PROJECT $13,292,000 The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources COLUMBIA AND SNAKE RIVER SALMON RECOVERY PROJECT 

FCRPS ESA IMP 

$18,000,000 The President 

Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources COLUMBIA BASIN PROJECT $10,548,000 Hastings, Doc, The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources CROOKED RIVER PROJECT $851,000 The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources CVP, AMERICAN RIVER DIVISION, EL DORADO TEMPERATURE 

CONTROL DEVICE 

$1,600,000 Doolittle, John T. 

Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources CVP, AMERICAN RIVER DIVISION $9,480,000 The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources CVP, AUBURN-FOLSOM SOUTH UNIT $2,088,000 The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources CVP, DELTA DIVISION $20,737,000 The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources CVP, EAST SIDE DIVISION $4,534,000 The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources CVP, FRIANT DIVISION $5,721,000 The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources CVP, FRIANT DIVISION, SEMITROPIC PHASE II GROUNDWATER 

BANKING 

$1,000,000 Costa, Jim 

Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources CVP, MISCELLANEOUS PROJECT PROGRAMS $13,151,000 The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources CVP, REPLACEMENTS, ADDITIONS, AND EXTRAORDINARY MAINT $24,091,000 The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources CVP, SACRAMENTO RIVER DIVISION $2,930,000 The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources CVP, SACRAMENTO RIVER DIVISION, HAMILTON CITY PUMPING 

PLANT, GLENN-COLUSA IRRIGATION DISTRICT 

$58,000 Herger, Wally, The President 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources CVP, SACRAMENTO RIVER DIVISION, RED BLUFF DIVERSION 

DAM FISH PASSAGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 

$1,000,000 Herger, Wally; Thompson, Mike, The President 

Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources CVP, SAN FELIPE DIVISION $775,000 The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources CVP, SAN JOAQUIN DIVISION $391,000 The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources CVP, SHASTA DIVISION $7,914,000 The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources CVP, TRINITY RIVER DIVISION $10,317,000 The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources CVP, WATER AND POWER OPERATIONS $9,451,000 The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources CVP, WEST SAN JOAQUIN DIVISION, SAN LUIS UNIT $8,919,000 The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources CVP, YIELD FEASIBILITY INVESTIGATION $303,000 The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources DESCHUTES PROJECT $416,000 The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources EASTERN OREGON PROJECTS $828,000 The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources ESPANOLA VALLEY REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM $1,000,000 Udall, Tom Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources FORT PECK DRY PRAIRIE RURAL WATER SYSTEM $4,000,000 Rehberg, Dennis R. Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources FRUITGROWERS DAM PROJECT $229,000 The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources FRYINGPAN-ARKANSAS PROJECT $8,295,000 The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources GRAND VALLEY UNIT, CRBSCP, TITLE II $1,445,000 The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources HALFWAY WASH PROJECT STUDY $200,000 The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources HI-DESERT WASTEWATER COLLECTION & REUSE $1,000,000 Lewis, Jerry Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources HUNGRY HORSE PROJECT $653,000 The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources HUNTLEY PROJECT $160,000 The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources HYRUM PROJECT $178,000 The President 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT—Continued 

Agency Account Project Amount Requester(s) 

Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources IDAHO INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM $179,000 The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources INLAND EMPIRE REGIONAL WATER RECYCLING PROJECT $5,000,000 Baca, Joe; Calvert, Ken; Dreier, David Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources IRRIGATION CANAL INFRASTRUCTURE RESTORATION AND WATER 

CONSERVATION 

$251,000 Conaway, K. Michael 

Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources JICARILLA APACHE RESERVATION RURAL WATER SYSTEM $3,000,000 Udall, Tom Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources KANSAS INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM $73,000 The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources KENDRICK PROJECT $3,333,000 The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources KLAMATH PROJECT $25,000,000 The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources LAHONTAN BASIN PROJECT $7,705,000 The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources LAKE MEAD/LAS VEGAS WASH PROGRAM $900,000 Berkley, Shelley, The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources LAKE TAHOE REGIONAL WETLANDS $100,000 The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources LEADVILLE/ARKANSAS RIVER RECOVERY $3,095,000 The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources LEWIS AND CLARK REGIONAL WATER SYSTEM $25,000,000 Herseth Sandlin, Stephanie; King, Steve; Walz, TBureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources LEWISTON ORCHARDS PROJECTS $578,000 The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources LONG BEACH AREA WATER RECLAMATION AND REUSE PROJECT $692,000 Richardson, Laura; Rohrabacher, Dana, The PresBureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources LONG BEACH DESALINATION RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT $1,325,000 Richardson, Laura; Rohrabacher, Dana Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources LOWER COLORADO RIVER INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM $243,000 The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources LOWER RIO GRANDE VALLEY WATER RESOURCES CONSERVATION PROGRAM $1,000,000 Edwards, Chet; Hinojosa, Rube ́n; Rodriguez, C

President 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources LOWER YELLOWSTONE PROJECT $46,000 The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources MANCOS PROJECT $146,000 The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources MCGEE CREEK PROJECT $676,000 The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources MID-DAKOTA RURAL WATER PROJECT $15,000 The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources MIDDLE RIO GRANDE PROJECT $22,700,000 The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources MILK RIVER PROJECT $1,648,000 The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources MINIDOKA AREA PROJECTS $5,558,000 The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources MIRAGE FLATS PROJECT $170,000 The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources MNI WICONI PROJECT $28,240,000 Herseth Sandlin, Stephanie, The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources MOKELUMNE RIVER REGIONAL WATER STORAGE & CONJUNCTIVE USE $500,000 McNerney, Jerry Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources MONTANA INVESTIGATIONS $134,000 The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources MOON LAKE PROJECT $76,000 The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources MOUNTAIN PARK PROJECT $523,000 The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources NATIVE AMERICAN AFFAIRS PROGRAM, SID YATES SCHOLARSHIP 

PROGRAM 

$210,000 Pastor, Ed 

Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources NAVAJO NATION INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM $77,000 The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources NAVAJO-GALLUP WATER SUPPLY, NM, UT & CO $500,000 Udall, Tom Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources NEBRASKA INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM $64,000 The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources NEWTON PROJECT $42,000 The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources NORMAN PROJECT $473,000 The President 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT—Continued 

Agency Account Project Amount Requester(s) 

Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources NORTH BAY WATER REUSE PROJECT $500,000 Thompson, Mike; Woolsey, Lynn C. Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources NORTH PLATTE PROJECT $1,880,000 The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources NORTHERN ARIZONA INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM $320,000 The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources NORTHERN UTAH INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM $156,000 The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources NUECES RIVER PROJECT $558,000 The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources ODESSA SUBAREA SPECIAL STUDY $1,000,000 Hastings, Doc, The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources OGDEN RIVER PROJECT $368,000 The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources OKLAHOMA INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM $278,000 The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources OKLAHOMA INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM, OKLAHOMA COMPREHENSIVE WATER PLAN $150,000 Cole, Tom; Fallin, Mary Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources ORANGE COUNTY REGIONAL WATER RECLAMATION PROJECT $558,000 Calvert, Ken; Miller, Gary G.; Rohrabacher, Dan

Loretta, The President 

Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources OREGON INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM $294,000 The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources OREGON INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM, UMATILLA BASIN WATER 

SUPPLY STUDY 

$100,000 Walden, Greg, The President 

Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources ORLAND PROJECT $703,000 The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources PARADOX VALLEY UNIT, CRBSCP, TITLE II $2,416,000 The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources PECOS RIVER BASIN WATER SALVAGE PROJECT $203,000 The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources PERKINS COUNTY RURAL WATER SYSTEM $3,000,000 Herseth Sandlin, Stephanie 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources PHOENIX METROPOLITAN WATER REUSE PROJECT $250,000 Pastor, Ed, The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources PICK-SLOAN MISSOURI BASIN—GARRISON DIVERSION $24,106,000 Pomeroy, Earl, The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources PINE RIVER PROJECT $335,000 The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources POTHOLES RESERVOIR SUPPLEMENTAL FEED ROUTE $1,000,000 Hastings, Doc Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources PROVO RIVER PROJECT $1,366,000 The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT $50,000 Bono Mack, Mary; Issa, Darrell E. Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources RAPID VALLEY PROJECT $86,000 The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources RIO GRANDE PROJECT $4,342,000 The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources RIVERSIDE CANAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT $1,250,000 Reyes, Silvestre; Rodriguez, Ciro D. Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources RIVERSIDE—CORONA FEEDER $100,000 Calvert, Ken Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources ROCKY BOYS/NORTH CENTRAL MONTANA RURAL WATER SYSTEM $5,000,000 Rehberg, Dennis R. Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources ROGUE RIVER BASIN PROJECT, TALENT DIVISION $902,000 The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources SACRAMENTO VALLEY INTEGRATED REGIONAL WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN $500,000 Herger, Wally Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources SALT CEDAR AND RUSSIAN OLIVE CONTROL, ARKANSAS RIVER 

BASIN 

$500,000 Salazar, John T. 

Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources SALT RIVER PROJECT $600,000 The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources SALTON SEA RESEARCH PROJECT $700,000 Filner, Bob; The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources SALTON SEA RESEARCH PROJECT, NEW AND ALAMO RIVERS $1,000,000 Hunter, Duncan Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources SAN ANGELO PROJECT $402,000 The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources SAN ANGELO PROJECT, TWIN BUTTES RESTORATION PROJECT $500,000 Conaway, K. Michael 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT—Continued 

Agency Account Project Amount Requester(s) 

Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources SAN CARLOS APACHE TRIBE WATER SETTLEMENT ACT $325,000 The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources SAN DIEGO AREA WATER RECLAMATION PROGRAM $7,000,000 Filner, Bob, The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources SAN GABRIEL BASIN PROJECT $700,000 The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources SAN GABRIEL BASIN RESTORATION FUND $4,000,000 Dreier, David; Napolitano, Grace F.; Roybal-Alla

Schiff, Adam B.; Solis, Hilda L. 

Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources SAN JOSE AREA WATER RECLAMATION AND REUSE PROGRAM $8,000,000 Honda, Michael M.; Lofgren, Zoe, The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources SAN JUAN BASIN WOOD INVASIVE INITIATIVE $250,000 Salazar, John T. Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources SAN JUAN RIVER BASIN INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM $59,000 The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources SAN LUIS VALLEY PROJECT $4,637,000 The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources SANTA MARGARITA RIVER CONJUNCTIVE USE $500,000 Issa, Darrell E. Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources SAVAGE RAPIDS DAM REMOVAL $3,000,000 DeFazio, Peter A.; Walden, Greg, The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources SCOFIELD PROJECT $133,000 The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources SHOSHONE PROJECT $749,000 The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources SOLANO PROJECT $4,489,000 The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources SOUTH/CENTRAL ARIZONA INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM $718,000 The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources SOUTH/CENTRAL ARIZONA INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM, CASA 

GRANDE WATER RECYCLING PROJECT, AZ 

$125,000 Giffords, Gabrielle; Pastor, Ed 

Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources SOUTHERN ARIZONA WATER RIGHTS SETTLEMENT ACT PROJECT $2,969,000 The PresidentBureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM $260,000 The President 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources SOUTHERN NEW MEXICO / WEST TEXAS INV. PROGRAM $57,000 The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources SOUTHERN UTAH INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM $121,000 The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources ST. MARY, GLACIER COUNTY, MT $500,000 Rehberg, Dennis R. Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources STRAWBERRY VALLEY PROJECT $223,000 The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources SUMMIT COUNTY WATER IMPORTATION PROJECT $500,000 Bishop, Rob Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources SUN RIVER PROJECT $350,000 The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources TEXAS INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM $146,000 The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources TUALATIN PROJECT $381,000 The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources TUALATIN PROJECT TITLE TRANSFER $106,000 Wu, David Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources TUCUMCARI PROJECT $58,000 The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources UMATILLA PROJECT $3,932,000 The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources UNCOMPAHGRE PROJECT $264,000 The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources UPPER COLORADO RIVER OPERATIONS PROGRAM $250,000 The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources UPPER RIO GRANDE BASIN INVESTIGATIONS $29,000 The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources VENTURA RIVER PROJECT $420,000 The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources W.C. AUSTIN PROJECT $481,000 The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources WASHINGTON AREA PROJECTS $95,000 The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources WASHINGTON INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM $57,000 Hastings, Doc, The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources WASHITA BASIN PROJECT $1,426,000 The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources WATSONVILLE AREA WATER RECYCLING PROJECT $4,000,000 Farr, Sam 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT—Continued 

Agency Account Project Amount Requester(s) 

Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources WEBER BASIN PROJECT $1,748,000 The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources WEBER RIVER PROJECT $137,000 The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources WICHITA PROJECT-CHENEY DIVISION $385,000 The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources WICHITA PROJECT-EQUUS BEDS DIVISION $2,000,000 Tiahrt, Todd, The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources WILLIAMSON COUNTY WATER RECYCLING PROJECT $1,000,000 Carter, John R. Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources WYOMING INVESTIGATIONS $26,000 The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources YAKIMA PROJECT $7,766,000 Hastings, Doc, The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources YAKIMA RIVER BASIN WATER ENHANCEMENT PROJECT $8,503,000 Hastings, Doc, The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources YAKIMA RIVER BASIN WATER SUPPLY STUDY $500,000 Hastings, Doc Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources YUMA AREA PROJECTS $21,863,000 The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources YUMA EAST WETLANDS $1,500,000 Grijalva, Rau ́ l M.; Pastor, Ed Bureau of Reclamation Central Valley Restoration Fund SACRAMENTO FISH SCREENS $4,000,000 Herger, Wally Bureau of Reclamation Central Valley Restoration Fund SAN JOAQUIN RIVER RESTORATION FUND $9,800,000 Costa, Jim, The President Department of Energy EERE ADAPTIVE LIQUID CRYSTAL WINDOWS (OH) $1,000,000 Ryan, Tim Department of Energy EERE ADVANCED ENGINEERED RAPIDLY DEPLOYABLE MANUFACTURING METHODS AND MATERIALS FOR ENVIRONMENTALLYBENIGN AND ENERGY EFFICIENT HOUSING (VA) $500,000 Goode, Jr., Virgil H. Department of Energy EERE ADVANCED POWER BATTERIES FOR RENEWABLE ENERGY APPLICATIONS (PA) $369,000 Dent, Charles W.; Holden, Tim 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
Department of Energy EERE ALTERNATIVE CROPS AND BIOFUEL PRODUCTION (OK) $300,000 Lucas, Frank D. Department of Energy EERE ALTERNATIVE ENERGIES WORKFORCE APPLICATIONS EDUCATION 

AND TRAINING PROGRAM (OH) 

$1,000,000 Jones, Stephanie Tubbs; Kucinich, Dennis J.; Sut

Department of Energy EERE ALTERNATIVE ENERGY ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGY (VA) $100,000 Moran, James P. Department of Energy EERE ANAEROBIC DIGESTER AND COMBINED HEAT POWER PROJECT 

(MD) 

$600,000 Van Hollen, Chris 

Department of Energy EERE ANCHORAGE REGIONAL LANDFILL (AK) $750,000 Young, Don Department of Energy EERE ANN ARBOR WIND GENERATOR FOR WATER TREATMENT PLANT 

(MI) 

$1,000,000 Dingell, John D. 

Department of Energy EERE ANTI-IDLING LITHIUM ION BATTERY PROGRAM, CALIFORNIA (CA) $1,000,000 Sherman, Brad Department of Energy EERE ATLANTA INTERNATIONAL TERMINAL LEED CERTIFICATION (GA) $500,000 Johnson, Jr., Henry C. ‘‘Hank’’ Department of Energy EERE AUBURN UNIVERSITY BIOENERGY AND BIOPRODUCTS LABORATORY (AL) $1,000,000 Bonner, Jo; Rogers (AL), Mike Department of Energy EERE BEXAR COUNTY PHOTOVOLTAIC PANELS (TX) $500,000 Gonzalez, Charles A.; Rodriguez, Ciro D.; Smith, Department of Energy EERE BIO-DIESEL CELLULOSIC ETHANOL RESEARCH FACILITY (FL) $1,000,000 Hastings, Alcee L.; Mahoney, Tim Department of Energy EERE BIOECONOMY INITIATIVE AT MBI INTERNATIONAL (MI) $250,000 Rogers (MI), Mike Department of Energy EERE BIOFUELS DEVELOPMENT AT TEXAS A&M (TX) $1,000,000 Edwards, Chet Department of Energy EERE BIOFUELS RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT INFRASTUCTURE (WA) $500,000 McDermott, Jim; Smith, Adam Department of Energy EERE BIOMASS ENERGY GENERATION PROJECT (IA) $300,000 Braley, Bruce L. Department of Energy EERE BIOMASS FUEL CELL SYSTEMS (CO) $1,750,000 Perlmutter, Ed Department of Energy EERE BIOREFINERY DEMONSTRATION PROJECT, UGA, ATHENS (GA) $1,250,000 Kingston, Jack 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT—Continued 

Agency Account Project Amount Requester(s) 

Department of Energy EERE BIOREFINING FOR ENERGY SECURITY PROJECT, OU-LANCASTER 

(OH) 

$1,000,000 Hobson, David L. 

Department of Energy EERE BIPOLAR WAFER-CELL PLUG-IN HYBRID ELECTRIC VEHICLE 

BATTERIES (CT) 

$1,000,000 Murphy, Christopher S. 

Department of Energy EERE BOISE CITY GEOTHERMAL SYSTEM EXPANSION (ID) $1,250,000 Simpson, Michael K. Department of Energy EERE CARBON NEUTRAL GREEN CAMPUS (NV) $400,000 Porter, Jon C. Department of Energy EERE CAYUGA COUNTY REGIONAL DIGESTER FACILITY (NY) $500,000 Arcuri, Michael A. Department of Energy EERE CENTER FOR CLEAN FUELS AND POWER GENERATION AT THE 

UNIVERSITY OF HOUSTON (TX) 

$500,000 Jackson-Lee, Sheila; Poe, Ted 

Department of Energy EERE CENTER FOR EFFICIENCY IN RENEWABLE ENERGY SYSTEMS 

(CERES) (OH) 

$2,000,000 Ryan, Tim 

Department of Energy EERE CENTER FOR INTEGRATED BIOMASS RESEARCH (NC) $1,270,000 Etheridge, Bob; Miller, Brad; Price, David E. Department of Energy EERE CENTER FOR INTERNATIONAL INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION 

RESEARCH (TX) 

$550,000 Reyes, Silvestre 

Department of Energy EERE CENTER FOR RENEWABLE ENERGY, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 

(TX) 

$2,250,000 Barton, Joe 

Department of Energy EERE CENTER OF EXCELLENCE IN OCEAN ENERGY RESEARCH AND 

DEVELOPMENT, FLORIDA ATLANTIC UNIVERSITY (FL) 

$1,250,000 Klein, Ron; Wasserman Schultz, Debbie; Wexler, 

Department of Energy EERE CITY OF GRAND RAPIDS BUILDING GREEN ROOF DEMONSTRATION (MI) $150,000 Ehlers, Vernon J. Department of Energy EERE CITY OF LAS VEGAS PLUG-IN HYBRID VEHICLE DEMONSTRATION 

PROGRAM (NV) 

$150,000 Porter, Jon C.; Berkley, Shelley 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
Department of Energy EERE CITY OF LOUISVILLE ENERGY CONSERVATION INITIATIVE (KY) $150,000 Yarmuth, John A. Department of Energy EERE CITY OF MARKHAM COMMUNITY CENTER (IL) $250,000 Rush, Bobby L. Department of Energy EERE CITY OF TALLAHASSEE INNOVATIVE ENERGY INITIATIVES (FL) $600,000 Boyd, Allen; Crenshaw, Ander Department of Energy EERE CLEAN AND EFFICIENT DIESEL ENGINE (PA) $1,250,000 English, Phil Department of Energy EERE CLEAN TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION PROGRAM (MA) $500,000 Capuano, Michael E. Department of Energy EERE CLEARY UNIVERSITY GEOTHERMAL ENERGY RETROFIT (MI) $500,000 Rogers (MI), Mike Department of Energy EERE CLEMSON UNIVERSITY CELLULOSIC BIOFUEL PILOT PLANT IN 

CHARLESTON (SC) 

$1,500,000 Barrett, J. Gresham; Inglis, Bob 

Department of Energy EERE CLOSED LOOP WOODY BIOMASS PROJECT (NY) $250,000 Arcuri, Michael A.; Gillibrand, Kirsten E.; Higg

McHugh, John M. 

Department of Energy EERE COASTAL WIND OHIO (OH) $500,000 Kaptur, Marcy; Latta, Robert E. Department of Energy EERE COLUMBIA GORGE COMMUNITY COLLEGE WIND ENERGY WORKFORCE TRAINING NACELLE (OR) $250,000 Walden, Greg Department of Energy EERE CONSORTIUM FOR PLANT BIOTECHNOLOGY RESEARCH (NC, GA, 

KY, NY, MI, HI, SD, FL) 

$4,000,000 Abercrombie, Neil; Boyd, Allen; Conyers, 

Etheridge, Bob; Herseth Sandlin, Stephanie; LMiller, Brad; Price, David E.; Rogers (MI), MiHarold; Stupak, Bart; Towns, Edolphus 

Department of Energy EERE CONTROLLED ENVIRONMENTAL AGRICULTURE AND ENERGY 

PROJECT (NY) 

$500,000 McHugh, John M. 

Department of Energy EERE DEVELOPING NEW ALTERNATIVE ENERGY IN VIRGINIA: BIO-DIESEL FROM ALGAE (VA) $750,000 Drake, Thelma D. Department of Energy EERE DEVELOPMENT OF HIGH YIELD FEEDSTOCK AND BIOMASS CONVERSION TECHNOLOGY FOR RENEWABLE ENERGY PRODUCTION AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (HI) $400,000 Abercrombie, Neil; Hirono, Mazie K. 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT—Continued 

Agency Account Project Amount Requester(s) 

Department of Energy EERE DOWNTOWN DETROIT ENERGY EFFICIENCY STREET LIGHTING 

(MI) 

$1,000,000 Kilpatrick, Carolyn C. 

Department of Energy EERE ECOLOGICALLY SUSTAINABLE CAMPUS—NEW ENGLAND COLLEGE (NH) $315,000 Hodes, Paul W. Department of Energy EERE ENERGY EFFICIENCY/SUSTAINABLE ENERGY PROJECT (NC) $1,000,000 Watt, Melvin L. Department of Energy EERE ENERGY EFFICIENT BUILDINGS, SALT LAKE COUNTY, UTAH (UT) $650,000 Bishop, Rob; Matheson, Jim Department of Energy EERE ENERGY EFFICIENT ELECTRONICS COOLING PROJECT (IN) $1,000,000 Souder, Mark E. Department of Energy EERE ENERGY EFFICIENT LIGHTING PROJECT (KY) $200,000 Yarmuth, John A. Department of Energy EERE ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEM CENTER AT SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY 

(NY) 

$750,000 Walsh, James T. 

Department of Energy EERE ETHANOL FROM AGRICULTURE FOR ARKANSAS AND AMERICA 

(AR) 

$750,000 Berry, Marion 

Department of Energy EERE ETHANOL PILOT PLANT (MA, CT) $2,800,000 Courtney, Joe; DeLauro, Rosa L.; Neal, Richard 

John W. 

Department of Energy EERE FLEXIBLE THIN-FILM SILICON SOLAR CELLS (OH) $1,000,000 Kaptur, Marcy Department of Energy EERE FLORIDA RENEWABLE ENERGY PROGRAM (FL) $750,000 Putnam, Adam H. Department of Energy EERE FROSTBURG STATE UNIVERSITY SUSTAINABLE ENERGY RESEARCH FACILITY EQUIPMENT AND STAFFING (MD) $750,000 Bartlett, Roscoe G. Department of Energy EERE FUEL CELL OPTIMIZATION AND SCALE-UP (PA) $369,000 Dent, Charles W. Department of Energy EERE GEOTHERMAL ENERGY PROJECT AT ROBERTS WESLEYAN COLLEGE (NY) $500,000 Kuhl, Jr., John R. ‘‘Randy’’ 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
Department of Energy EERE GEOTHERMAL POWER GENERATION PLANT, OREGON INSTITUTE 

OF TECHNOLOGY (OR) 

$1,000,000 Hooley, Darlene; Walden, Greg; Wu, David 

Department of Energy EERE GREAT LAKES INSTITUTE FOR ENERGY INNOVATION (OH) $1,000,000 Jones, Stephanie Tubbs Department of Energy EERE GREAT PLAINS WIND POWER TEST FACILITY (TX) $1,000,000 Neugebauer, Randy Department of Energy EERE GREEN BUILDING TECHNOLOGIES—LAKEVIEW MUSEUM (IL) $250,000 LaHood, Ray Department of Energy EERE GREEN BUILIDNG TECHNOLOGIES—BRADLEY UNIVERSITY (IL) $500,000 LaHood, Ray Department of Energy EERE GREEN COLLAR AND RENEWABLE ENERGY TRAINING PROGRAM, 

AB TECHNICAL COMMUNITY COLLEGE (NC) 

$650,000 Shuler, Heath 

Department of Energy EERE GREEN ENERGY JOB TRAINING INITIATIVE (CA) $250,000 Lee, Barbara; Stark, Fortney Pete Department of Energy EERE GREEN POWER INITIATIVE (IA) $1,000,000 Loebsack, David Department of Energy EERE GREEN ROOF PROJECT—GREENE COUNTY (MO) $500,000 Blunt, Roy Department of Energy EERE GREEN VEHICLE DEPOT (NY) $300,000 Ackerman, Gary L.; McCarthy, Carolyn Department of Energy EERE HARLEM UNITED SUPPORTIVE HOUSING FUND WIND POWER 

PROJECT (NY) 

$50,000 Rangel, Charles B. 

Department of Energy EERE HIDALGO COUNTY WASTE TO ENERGY PROJECT (TX) $125,000 Hinojosa, Rube ́n Department of Energy EERE HIGH CARBON FLY ASH USE FOR THE US CEMENT INDUSTRY 

(UT) 

$1,000,000 Matheson, Jim 

Department of Energy EERE HIGH PERFORMANCE, LOW COST HYDROGEN GENERATION FROM 

RENEWABLE ENERGY (CT) 

$1,000,000 DeLauro, Rosa L. 

Department of Energy EERE HULL MUNCIPAL LIGHT PLANT OFFSHORE WIND PROJECT (MA) $1,000,000 Delahunt, William D.; Olver, John W. Department of Energy EERE HYDROGEN OPTICAL FIBER SENSORS (CA) $1,000,000 Harman, Jane Department of Energy EERE HYDROGEN STORAGE SYSTEM FOR VEHICULAR PROPULSION 

(DE) 

$250,000 Castle, Michael N. 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT—Continued 

Agency Account Project Amount Requester(s) 

Department of Energy EERE HYDROPOWER FROM WASTEWATER ADVANCED ENERGY 

PROJECT (NY) 

$500,000 Gillibrand, Kirsten E. 

Department of Energy EERE HYPERCAST R&D FUNDING FOR VEHICLE ENERGY EFFICIENCY 

THROUGH CAST METAL AUTO-COMBUSTION SYNTHESIS (MA) 

$1,500,000 McGovern, James P. 

Department of Energy EERE ILLINOIS STATE UNIVERSITY—BIOMASS RESEARCH PROJECT (IL) $500,000 Weller, Jerry Department of Energy EERE INDIAN RIVER COMMUNITY COLLEGE FOR THE RENEWABLE ENERGIES CENTER (FL) $950,000 Mahoney, Tim Department of Energy EERE INTEGRATED POWER FOR MICROSYSTEMS AT ROCHESTER INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY (NY) $1,400,000 Kuhl, Jr., John R. ‘‘Randy’’ Department of Energy EERE INTELLIGENT CONTROLS FOR NET-ZERO ENERGY BUILDINGS 

(NE) 

$500,000 Fortenberry, Jeff 

Department of Energy EERE INTELLIGENT FACADES FOR HIGH PERFORMANCE GREEN BUILDINGS (NY) $750,000 Gillibrand, Kirsten E.; McNulty, Michael R. Department of Energy EERE IOWA CENTRAL COMMUNITY COLLEGE RENEWABLE FUELS LAB 

(IA) 

$500,000 Latham, Tom 

Department of Energy EERE IOWA LAKES COMMUNITY COLLEGE SUSTAINABLE ENERGY EDU. 

CENTER (IA) 

$500,000 Latham, Tom 

Department of Energy EERE ISLES, INC., SOLAR AND GREEN RETROFITS (NJ) $250,000 Smith, Christopher H. Department of Energy EERE JUNIATA HYBRID LOCOMOTIVE (PA) $750,000 Shuster, Bill Department of Energy EERE KANSAS STATE UNIVERSITY CENTER FOR SUSTAINABLE ENERGY 

(KS) 

$750,000 Moran, Jerry 

Department of Energy EERE KANSAS WIND ENERGY CONSORTIUM (KS) $750,000 Boyda, Nancy E.; Moran, Jerry 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
Department of Energy EERE KINGSPORT WORKFORCE AND HIGHER EDUCATION CENTER (TN) $400,000 Davis, David Department of Energy EERE LAKE LAND COLLEGE ENERGY EFFICIENT BUILDINGS (IL) $1,400,000 Johnson, Timothy V. Department of Energy EERE LEHIGH VALLEY HOSPITAL PHOTOVOLTAIC PANEL INSTALLATION 

(PA) 

$1,000,000 Dent, Charles W. 

Department of Energy EERE LOW COST THIN FILMED SILICON BASED PHOTOVOLTAICS (NY) $500,000 Hinchey, Maurice D. Department of Energy EERE MACOMB COMMUNITY COLLEGE TRANSPORTATION AND ENERGY 

TECHNOLOGY (MI) 

$500,000 Levin, Sander M. 

Department of Energy EERE MAINE TIDAL POWER INITIATIVE (ME) $1,000,000 Michaud, Michael H. Department of Energy EERE MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT FOR THE HYDROGEN ECONOMY (MI) $800,000 Knollenberg, Joe Department of Energy EERE MARET CENTER (MO) $1,000,000 Blunt, Roy Department of Energy EERE MARINE RENEWABLE ENERGY CENTER (MA) $1,000,000 Delahunt, William D.; Frank, Barney; McGovern

Olver, John W. 

Department of Energy EERE MARQUETTE UNIVERSITY ANAEROBIC BIOTECHNOLOGY (WI) $500,000 Moore, Gwen Department of Energy EERE MARTIN COUNTY HYDROGEN FUEL CELL PROJECT (NC) $1,500,000 Butterfield, G. K. Department of Energy EERE MIAMI SCIENCE MUSEUM RENEWABLE ENERGY RESEARCH 

PROJECT (FL) 

$750,000 Ros-Lehtinen, Ileana 

Department of Energy EERE MICHIGAN ALTERNATIVE AND RENEWABLE ENERGY CENTER 

OFFSHORE WIND DEMONSTRATION PROJECT (MI) 

$1,500,000 Hoekstra, Peter 

Department of Energy EERE MIDDLESEX COMMUNITY COLLEGE’S GEOTHERMAL PROJECT 

(MA) 

$250,000 Tierney, John F. 

Department of Energy EERE MIDSOUTH/SOUTHEAST BIOENERGY CONSORTIUM (AR, GA) $2,000,000 Berry, Marion; Boozman, John; Marshall, Jim Department of Energy EERE MINNESOTA CENTER FOR RENEWABLE ENERGY (MN) $500,000 Peterson, Collin C.; Walz, Timothy J. 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT—Continued 

Agency Account Project Amount Requester(s) 

Department of Energy EERE MODULAR ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEM FOR HYDROGEN FUEL 

CELL (MI) 

$1,250,000 Knollenberg, Joe 

Department of Energy EERE MUNSTER--WASTE TO ENERGY COGENERATION PROJECT (IN) $1,000,000 Visclosky, Peter J. Department of Energy EERE NANOSTRUCTURED MATERIALS FOR ENERGY (NC) $1,000,000 Miller, Brad Department of Energy EERE NANOSTRUCTURED SOLAR CELLS FOR INCREASED EFFICIENCY 

AND LOWER COST (AR) 

$1,250,000 Snyder, Vic 

Department of Energy EERE NASI AND NA-SG POWDER HYDROGEN FUEL CELLS (NY, NJ) $1,000,000 Holt, Rush D.; Maloney, Carolyn B. Department of Energy EERE NATIONAL CENTER FOR MANUFACTURING SCIENCES LIGHTWEIGHT VEHICLE MATERIALS (MI) $2,000,000 Dingell, John D. Department of Energy EERE NATIONAL WIND ENERGY CENTER (TX) $2,500,000 Green, Al; Green, Gene; Jackson-Lee, Sheila Department of Energy EERE NIAGARA RIVER HYDROPOWER (NY) $100,000 Slaughter, Louise McIntosh Department of Energy EERE NOTRE DAME/NISOURCE GEOTHERMAL IONIC LIQUIDS RESEARCH COLLABORATIVE (IN) $1,000,000 Visclosky, Peter J. Department of Energy EERE OMEGA OPTICAL SOLAR POWER GENERATION DEVELOPMENT 

(VT) 

$1,500,000 Welch, Peter 

Department of Energy EERE ONE KILOWATT BIOGAS FUELED SOLID OXIDE FUEL CELL STACK 

(NY) 

$1,000,000 Higgins, Brian 

Department of Energy EERE OU CENTER FOR BIOFUELS REFINING ENGINEERING (OK) $250,000 Cole, Tom Department of Energy EERE PHOTOVOLTAIC SYSTEM AT TOWN LANDFILL IN ISLIP (NY) $500,000 Israel, Steve Department of Energy EERE PINELLAS COUNTY REGIONAL URBAN SUSTAINABILITY DEMONSTRATION AND EDUCATION FACILITY (FL) $500,000 Young, C. W. Bill 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
Department of Energy EERE PITTSBURGH GREEN INNOVATIONS SYNERGY CENTER (PA) $600,000 Doyle, Michael F. Department of Energy EERE PLACER COUNTY BIOMASS UTILIZATION PILOT PROJECT (CA) $250,000 Doolittle, John T. Department of Energy EERE PLUG-IN HYBRID AND ETHANOL RESEARCH PLATFORMS (NC) $850,000 Etheridge, Bob Department of Energy EERE PURDUE HYDROGEN TECHNOLOGIES PROGRAM (IN) $1,000,000 Visclosky, Peter J. Department of Energy EERE RECAP (MN) $1,000,000 Oberstar, James L. Department of Energy EERE RENEWABLE ENERGY CENTER (NV) $500,000 Heller, Dean; Porter, Jon C. Department of Energy EERE RENEWABLE/ALTERNATIVE ENERGY CENTER (FL) $1,000,000 Buchanan, Vern Department of Energy EERE RHODE ISLAND OCEAN SPECIAL AREA MANAGEMENT PLAN (RI) $300,000 Langevin, James R. Department of Energy EERE SAN FRANCISCO BIOFUELS PROGRAM (CA) $1,000,000 Pelosi, Nancy Department of Energy EERE SAPPHIRE ALGAE TO FUEL DEMONSTRATION PROJECT, 

PORTALES (NM) 

$1,000,000 Udall, Tom 

Department of Energy EERE SENIOR HOUSING PROJECT GREEN BUILDING, CERRITOS (CA) $400,000 Sa ́ nchez, Linda T. Department of Energy EERE SNOHOMISH COUNTY PUD NO. 1 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY STUDY 

(WA) 

$500,000 Inslee, Jay 

Department of Energy EERE SOLAR DEMONSTRATION AND RESEARCH FACILITY (FL) $250,000 Brown, Corrine Department of Energy EERE SOLAR ELECTRIC POWER SYSTEM (NY) $70,000 Hall, John J. Department of Energy EERE SOLAR ENERGY WINDOWS AND SMART IR SWITCHABLE BUILDING TECHNOLOGIES (PA) $1,250,000 Altmire, Jason; Doyle, Michael F. Department of Energy EERE SOLAR LIGHTING DEMONSTRATION PROJECT (NV) $800,000 Berkley, Shelley; Porter, Jon C. Department of Energy EERE SOLAR PANELS FOR THE HAVERHILL CITIZENS ENERGY EFFICIENCY (MA) $250,000 Tsongas, Niki Department of Energy EERE SPRINGFIELD HOSPITAL GREEN BUILDING (OH) $4,000,000 Hobson, David L. 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT—Continued 

Agency Account Project Amount Requester(s) 

Department of Energy EERE ST. CLAIR COMMUNITY COLLEGE (MI) $200,000 Miller, Candice S. Department of Energy EERE ST. PETERSBURG SOLAR PILOT PROJECT (FL) $1,500,000 Young, C. W. Bill Department of Energy EERE STAMFORD WASTE TO ENERGY PROJECT (CT) $2,000,000 Shays, Christopher Department of Energy EERE STORAGE TANKS AND DISPENSERS FOR E85 AND BIO-DIESEL 

(IL) 

$220,000 LaHood, Ray; Roskam, Peter J. 

Department of Energy EERE SUSTAINABLE ENERGY RESEARCH CENTER (MS) $1,000,000 Pickering, Charles W. ‘‘Chip’’ Department of Energy EERE SUSTAINABLE HYDROGEN FUELING STATION, CALIFORNIA STATE 

UNIVERSITY LOS ANGELES (CA) 

$500,000 Solis, Hilda L. 

Department of Energy EERE THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY—OHIO AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH 

AND DEVELOPMENT CENTER (OH) 

$400,000 Regula, Ralph 

Department of Energy EERE TOWN OF MEXICO GEOTHERMAL PROJECT (NY) $150,000 McHugh, John M. Department of Energy EERE TRANSPO BUS OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE CENTER, SOUTH 

BEND (IN) 

$1,000,000 Donnelly, Joe 

Department of Energy EERE TRENTON FUEL WORKS CELLULOSIC DIESEL BIOREFINERY (NJ) $500,000 Rothman, Steven R.; Holt, Rush D. Department of Energy EERE TSEC PHOTOVOLTAIC INNOVATION (NY) $2,000,000 Hall, John J.; Hinchey, Maurice D. Department of Energy EERE UNALASKA GEOTHERMAL ENERGY (AK) $1,000,000 Young, Don Department of Energy EERE UNICOI COUNTY SCHOOL GEOTHERMAL HEATING (TN) $400,000 Davis, David Department of Energy EERE UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY BIO-FUELS RESEARCH LABORATORY 

(KY) 

$450,000 Lewis, Ron 

Department of Energy EERE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH ALABAMA GREEN CAMPUS INITIATIVE 

(AL) 

$500,000 Aderholt, Robert B.; Cramer, Jr., Robert E. (Bud) 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
Department of Energy EERE UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN INDIANA ADVANCED MANUFACTURING AND ENGINEERING EQUIPMENT PROJECT (IN) $1,000,000 Ellsworth, Brad Department of Energy EERE URBAN WOOD-BASED BIO-ENERGY SYSTEM IN SEATTLE (WA) $500,000 Inslee, Jay; McDermott, Jim Department of Energy EERE WATER-TO-WATER HEAT PUMP CHILLERS, PHOENIX CHILDREN 

(AZ) 

$2,000,000 Pastor, Ed 

Department of Energy EERE WAVE ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEMONSTRATION CENTER (OR) $2,450,000 Blumenauer, Earl; DeFazio, Peter A.; Hooley, Da

den, Greg; Wu, David 

Department of Energy EERE WESTERN MASSACHUSETTS COLLABORATIVE WIND PROJECT 

(MA) 

$1,250,000 Olver, John W. 

Department of Energy EERE WIND TURBINE ELECTRIC HIGH-SPEED SHAFT BRAKE PROJECT 

(OH) 

$500,000 Sutton, Betty 

Department of Energy EERE WINOOSKI COMMUNITY GREENING PROJECT (VT) $120,000 Welch, Peter Department of Energy EERE WISDOM WAY SOLAR VILLAGE (MA) $600,000 Olver, John W. Department of Energy EERE WOODY BIOMASS PROJECT AT SUNY-ESF (NY) $650,000 Walsh, James T. Department of Energy Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability DEVELOPMENT OF TOROIDAL CORE TRANSFORMERS (NY) $1,000,000 Towns, Edolphus Department of Energy Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES RESEARCH AND EDUCATION INITIATIVE (NM) $1,000,000 Pearce, Stevan Department of Energy Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability FEASIBILITY STUDY OF CONNECTING THE ST. THOMAS-ST. JOHN AND ST. CROIX ELECTRICITY GRIDS (VI) $500,000 Christensen, Donna M. Department of Energy Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability HIGH VOLTAGE TRANSMISSION LINES—PHASE II (TN) $500,000 Gordon, Bart Department of Energy Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability LONG ISLAND SMART METERING PILOT PROJECT (NY) $750,000 Israel, Steve 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT—Continued 

Agency Account Project Amount Requester(s) 

Department of Energy Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability MICROGRIDS FOR COLONIAS (TX) $500,000 Cuellar, Henry Department of Energy Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability NATIONAL CENTER FOR RELIABLE ELECTRIC POWER TRANS- MISSION (NCREPT) (AR) $500,000 Boozman, John Department of Energy Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability POWER GRID RELIABILITY AND SECURITY (WA) $500,000 Smith, Adam Department of Energy Non-Defense Environmental Cleanup WESTERN ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY OFFICE (MT) $2,000,000 Rehberg, Dennis R. Department of Energy Science ADVANCED ARTIFICIAL SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING RESEARCH 

INFRASTRUCTURE (TX) 

$400,000 Hall, Ralph M. 

Department of Energy Science ALVERNIA COLLEGE SCIENTIFIC INSTRUMENTATION INITIATIVE 

(PA) 

$600,000 Gerlach, Jim 

Department of Energy Science BARRY UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE FOR COLLABORATIVE SCIENCES 

RESEARCH (FL) 

$800,000 Diaz-Balart, Lincoln; Diaz-Balart, Mario 

Department of Energy Science BIOTECHNOLOGY/FORENSICS LABORATORY (UT) $500,000 Cannon, Chris Department of Energy Science BRONX COMMUNITY COLLEGE CENTER FOR SUSTAINABLE ENERGY (NY) $500,000 Serrano, Jose ́Department of Energy Science BROWN UNIVERSITY, BROWN ENERGY INITIATIVE (RI) $1,000,000 Kennedy, Patrick J. Department of Energy Science CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, SAN BERNARDINO TWIN TOWER 

PROJECT (CA) 

$600,000 Baca, Joe 

Department of Energy Science CENTER FOR ADVANCED SCIENTIFIC COMPUTING AND MODELING (TX) $600,000 Burgess, Michael C. 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
Department of Energy Science CENTER FOR CATALYSIS AND SURFACE SCIENCE AT NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY (IL) $1,000,000 Lipinski, Daniel Department of Energy Science CHEMISTRY BUILDING RENOVATION (MI) $500,000 Conyers, Jr., John; Kilpatrick, Carolyn C. Department of Energy Science CLEMSON UNIVERSITY CYBERINSTITUTE (SC) $1,500,000 Inglis, Bob; Spratt, Jr., John M. Department of Energy Science CLINTON JUNIOR COLLEGE SCIENCE PROGRAM (SC) $400,000 Spratt, Jr., John M. Department of Energy Science COLLABORATIVE INITIATIVE IN BIOMEDICAL IMAGING (NC) $1,500,000 Hayes, Robin; Price, David E. Department of Energy Science CURRICULUM AND INFRASTRUCTURE ENHANCEMENT IN STEM 

(PA) 

$500,000 Sestak, Joe 

Department of Energy Science DECISION SUPPORT TOOLS FOR COMPLEX ANALYSIS (DSTCA) 

(OH) 

$1,500,000 Hobson, David L. 

Department of Energy Science EASTERN KENTUCKY UNIVERSITY EQUIPMENT FOR NEW 

SCIENCE BUILDING (KY) 

$1,000,000 Chandler, Ben 

Department of Energy Science FUSION ENERGY SPHEROMAK TURBULENT PLASMA EXPERIMENT 

(FL) 

$1,000,000 Meek, Kendrick B. 

Department of Energy Science GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY—NATIONAL CENTER FOR BIODEFENSE AND INFECTIOUS DISEASE (VA) $1,500,000 Davis, Tom; Moran, James P. Department of Energy Science HOFSTRA UNIVERSITY CENTER FOR CLIMATE STUDY (NY) $500,000 McCarthy, Carolyn Department of Energy Science IDAHO ACCELERATOR CENTER PRODUCTION OF MEDICAL ISOTOPES (ID) $1,000,000 Simpson, Michael K. Department of Energy Science IDAHO NATIONAL LABORATORY CENTER FOR ADVANCED ENERGY 

STUDIES (ID) 

$1,000,000 Simpson, Michael K. 

Department of Energy Science INSTITUTE FOR INTEGRATED SCIENCES AT BOSTON COLLEGE 

(MA) 

$2,500,000 Markey, Edward J.; Olver, John W. 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT—Continued 

Agency Account Project Amount Requester(s) 

Department of Energy Science INSTRUMENTATION AND CONSTRUCTION COSTS FOR THREE 

STUDENT INDEPENDENT RESEARCH LABS DEDICATED TO BIOLOGY, CHEMISTRY AND BIOCHEMISTRY, AND PHYSICS AT ALBRIGHT COLLEGE IN READING (PA) 

$400,000 Gerlach, Jim 

Department of Energy Science LARGE SCALE APPLICATION OF SINGLE-WALLED CARBON 

NANOTUBES (OK) 

$750,000 Cole, Tom 

Department of Energy Science LUTHER COLLEGE SCIENCE BLDG. RENOVATION PROJECT (IA) $750,000 Latham, Tom Department of Energy Science MARYGROVE COLLEGE MATTERS (MI) $200,000 Conyers, Jr., John Department of Energy Science MICHIGAN GEOLOGICAL CARBON SEQUESTRATION RESEARCH 

AND EDUCATION PROGRAM (MI) 

$650,000 Upton, Fred 

Department of Energy Science NATIONAL BIOREPOSITORY-NATIONWIDE CHILDREN’S HOSPITAL 

(OH) 

$750,000 Pryce, Deborah 

Department of Energy Science NEXT GENERATION NEUROIMAGING AT CLEVELAND CLINIC (OH) $500,000 Hobson, David L.; Jones, Stephanie Tubbs Department of Energy Science PROFESSIONAL SCIENCE MASTER’S ADVANCED ENERGY AND 

FUELS MANAGEMENT PROGRAM (IL) 

$450,000 Costello, Jerry F. 

Department of Energy Science PURDUE CALUMET INLAND WATER INSTITUTE (IN) $1,000,000 Visclosky, Peter J. Department of Energy Science RAPID DETECTION OF CONTAMINANTS IN WATER SUPPLIES 

USING MAGNETIC RESONANCE AND NANOPARTICLES (MA) 

$1,500,000 Capuano, Michael E. 

Department of Energy Science RNAI RESEARCH, UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS MEDICAL 

SCHOOL, WORCESTER (MA) 

$1,000,000 McGovern, James P.; Olver, John W. 

Department of Energy Science SCANNING NEAR-FIELD ULTRASOUND HOLOGRAPHY (SNFUH) INSTRUMENTATION FOR NON-INVASIVE AND NON-DESTRUCTIVE 

IMAGING OF NANOPARTICLE INTERACTION WITH CELLS (IL) 

$1,000,000 Lipinski, Daniel 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
Department of Energy Science SCIENCE EDUCATION FACILITY RENOVATIONS, OCU (OH) $1,000,000 Hobson, David L. Department of Energy Science SCIENCE, MATH, AND TECHNOLOGY EDUCATION INITIATIVE, 

COLLEGE OF ST. ELIZABETH (NJ) 

$500,000 Frelinghuysen, Rodney P. 

Department of Energy Science SOUTHERN METHODIST UNIVERSITY ADVANCED PARALLEL 

PROCESSING CENTER (TX) 

$1,000,000 Sessions, Pete 

Department of Energy Science SPECT IMAGING INSTRUMENTATION RESEARCH INITIATIVE (IL) $1,000,000 Davis, Danny K. Department of Energy Science ST. THOMAS UNIVERSITY U-CORTE (FL) $600,000 Diaz-Balart, Lincoln Department of Energy Science THE NATIONAL ENERGY POLICY INSTITUTE, UNIVERSITY OF 

TULSA (OK) 

$750,000 Sullivan, John 

Department of Energy Science ULTRA-DENSE PORPHYRIM-BASED CAPACITIVE MOLECULAR 

MEMORY FOR SUPERCOMPUTING (CO) 

$1,000,000 Tancredo, Thomas G. 

Department of Energy Science UMASS INTEGRATIVE SCIENCE BUILDING (MA) $2,000,000 Olver, John W. Department of Energy Science UNIVERSITY OF THE CUMBERLANDS SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY 

COMPLEX (KY) 

$1,000,000 Rogers, Harold 

Department of Energy Science URI CYBERINFRASTRUCTURE (RI) $1,000,000 Langevin, James R. Department of Energy Science WHITTIER COLLEGE SCIENCE AND MATHEMATICS INITIATIVE (CA) $500,000 Sa ́ nchez, Linda T. Department of Energy Fossil Energy R&D CENTER FOR ZERO EMISSIONS RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY 

(MT) 

$1,730,000 Rehberg, Dennis R. 

Department of Energy Fossil Energy R&D DIRECT METHANOL FUEL CELL (IN) $1,000,000 Visclosky, Peter J. Department of Energy Fossil Energy R&D FUEL CELL TECH FOR CLEAN COAL POWER PLANTS (OH) $1,500,000 Ryan, Tim; Sutton, Betty Department of Energy Fossil Energy R&D GULF OF MEXICO HYDRATES RESEARCH CONSORTIUM (LA) $1,200,000 Childers, Travis Department of Energy Fossil Energy R&D ITM REACTION-DRIVEN CERAMIC MEMBRANE SYSTEMS (PA) $1,000,000 Dent, Charles W. Department of Energy Fossil Energy R&D METHANOL ECONOMY (CA) $2,000,000 Watson, Diane E. 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT—Continued 

Agency Account Project Amount Requester(s) 

Department of Energy Fossil Energy R&D MULTI-POLLUTANT REMOVAL AND ADVANCED MULTI-POLLUTANT 

REMOVAL AND ADVANCED CARBON CAPTURE AND STORAGE PROJECTS USING ECO TECHNOLOGY (OH) 

$1,000,000 Wilson, Charles A. 

Department of Energy Fossil Energy R&D PILOT ENERGY COST CONTROL EVALUATION (PECCE) PROJECT 

(WVA, PA & IN) 

$2,476,000 Visclosky, Peter J. 

Department of Energy Fossil Energy R&D ROLLS ROYCE SOLID OXIDE FUEL CELL SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT 

(OH) 

$1,350,000 Regula, Ralph 

Department of Energy Fossil Energy R&D UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY STRATEGIC LIQUID TRANSPORTATION 

FUELS DERIVED FROM COAL (KY) 

$1,000,000 Davis, Geoff; Rogers, Harold 

Department of Energy Fossil Energy R&D VERSAILLES BOROUGH STRAY GAS MITIGATION (PA) $400,000 Doyle, Michael E. Department of Energy Fossil Energy R&D WYOMING CO2 SEQUESTRATION TESTING PROGRAM (WY) $900,000 Cubin, Barbara Department of Energy NNSA-Weapons Activities ADVANCED ENGINEERING ENVIRONMENT FOR SANDIA NATIONAL 

LAB (MA) 

$1,500,000 Lynch, Stephen F. 

Department of Energy NNSA-Weapons Activities CENTER FOR COMPUTATIONAL SIMULATION AND VISUALIZATION 

(IN) 

$5,000,000 Visclosky, Peter J. 

Department of Energy NNSA-Weapons Activities CYBER SECURITY—CIMTRAK—IN (IN) $1,000,000 Visclosky, Peter J. Department of Energy NNSA-Weapons Activities DISTRIBUTED DATA DRIVEN TEST ENVIRONMENT (OH) $3,500,000 Hobson, David L. Department of Energy NNSA-Weapons Activities LABORATORY FOR ADVANCED LASER-TARGET INTERACTIONS 

(OH) 

$2,500,000 Hobson, David L. 

Department of Energy NNSA-Weapons Activities MATTER-RADIATION INTERACTIONS IN EXTREMES (MARIE) (NM) $1,000,000 Udall, Tom Department of Energy NNSA-Weapons Activities MULTI-DISCIPLINED INTEGRATED COLLABORATIVE ENVIRONMENT 

(MDICE) (MO) 

$1,000,000 Cleaver, Emanuel 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
Department of Energy NNSA-Weapons Activities SECURE ADVANCED SUPERCOMPUTING PLATFORM AT NEXTEDGE 

(OH) 

$4,000,000 Hobson, David L. 

Department of Energy NNSA-Weapons Activities TECHNICAL PRODUCT DATA INITIATIVE (OH) $1,000,000 Hobson, David L. Department of Energy NNSA-Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation NUCLEAR SECURITY SCIENCE AND POLICY INSTITUTE (TX) $1,000,000 Edwards, Chet Department of Energy NNSA-Office of the Administrator ACE PROGRAM AT MARICOPA COUNTY COMMUNITY COLLEGES 

(AZ) 

$1,000,000 Pastor, Ed 

Department of Energy NNSA-Office of the Administrator CENTRAL STATE UNIVERSITY (OH) $1,500,000 Hobson, David L. Department of Energy NNSA-Office of the Administrator EAA HBCU GRADUATE PROGRAM (PA) $5,000,000 Fattah, Chaka Department of Energy NNSA-Office of the Administrator HISTORICALLY BLACK COLLEGE AND UNIVERSITIES SCIENCE ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM (SC) $10,500,000 Clyburn, James E. Department of Energy NNSA-Office of the Administrator MARSHALL FUND, MINORITY ENERGY SCIENCE INITIATIVE (NC, 

NY, TX, MD) 

$3,000,000 Butterfield, G. K.; Cummings, Elijah E.; Hoyer

Jackson-Lee, Sheila; Johnson, Eddie BerniEdolphus 

Department of Energy NNSA-Office of the Administrator MOREHOUSE COLLEGE MINORITY ENERGY SCIENCE RESEARCH 

AND EDUCATION INITIATIVE (GA) 

$2,000,000 Bishop, Jr., Sanford D.; Johnson, Jr., Henry C

Lewis, John; Marshall, Jim; Scott, David 

Department of Energy NNSA-Office of the Administrator WILBERFORCE UNIVERSITY (OH) $1,500,000 Hobson, David L. Department of Energy Defense Environmental Cleanup MIAMISBURG MOUND, OU-1 (OH) $5,000,000 Turner, Michael R. Department of Energy Defense Environmental Cleanup TESTING OF POLYMERIC HYDROGELS FOR RADIATION DECONTAMINATION (HI) $1,700,000 Abercrombie, Neil; Hirono, Mazie K. Department of Energy Defense Environmental Cleanup THE INTERNATIONAL ALTERNATIVE CLEAN-UP TECHNOLOGY 

AGREEMENT (PA) 

$1,000,000 Doyle, Michael F. 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
314 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 068 HR921.082
315 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 069 HR921.083
316 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 070 HR921.084
317 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 071 HR921.085
318 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 072 HR921.086
319 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 073 HR921.087
320 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 074 HR921.088
321 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 075 HR921.089
(322) 

ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF JERRY LEWIS 

The fiscal year 2009 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Bill continues the bipartisan tradition that has been the hallmark of this Committee. Chairman Visclosky has once again listened to the minority’s concerns and accommodated them as much 

as possible. While this bill will not address fuel prices in the short 

term, it does fund important research and development to reduce 

our dependence on foreign oil and increase the efficiency of our energy usage, and reduce our impact on the global environment. I am 

pleased to support this bill. 

302(b) ALLOCATION

The 302(b) discretionary allocation for the fiscal year 2009 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Bill is $33.265 billion, 

an increase of $2.078 billion (6.7 percent) above the President’s request and $2.377 billion (7.7 percent) above the amount provided 

in fiscal year 2008. Much of this increase in discretionary funding 

is justified to address chronic underfunding of water resources infrastructure. Approximately $500 million of the increase is to provide direct assistance to localities and the private sector. While I 

support the bill’s attempts to support greater energy efficiency and 

energy independence, I do not believe direct financial assistance 

from the Department of Energy will be the most effective, or efficient, approach. Instead, this additional funding should be used to 

improve baseload energy supply in preparation for a restructured 

transportation sector. 

PRIORITIES IN THE BILL

The Energy and Water Development Appropriations Bill has always balanced issues of critical importance to the security, economic development, and infrastructure of the United States. Within the amounts provided every year, difficult decisions must be 

made among strengthening our nation’s water transportation and 

flood control systems, developing energy independence through new 

energy sources and greater efficiencies, and protecting our country’s security through managing our nuclear weapons stockpile and 

fighting the spread of fissile material internationally. I fully support the increased spending proposed for water resources infrastructure, and are pleased the Chairman has sustained the continuing contracts and financial management reforms for the Army 

Civil Works program. 

I am similarly pleased that the bill continues the tradition of a 

systemic approach to water infrastructure investment. I recognize, 

however, that significant work remains to be done to ensure that 

our flood prevention infrastructure and policies are managed as a 

system which combines federal, state, local, and private resources. 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
323 

I strongly encourage the Administration to develop an integrated 

plan to assess all of our nation’s water infrastructure, including 

that built by non-federal entities. Moving to a more integrated system will take significant financial resources, as well as concerted 

leadership from Congress and the Administration. However, it 

would be simply irresponsible to continue the piecemeal approach 

of the past, authorizing an ever-larger set of individual projects in 

Water Resources Development Acts and being able to fund only a 

fraction of those projects in annual appropriations bills. The measure of success for our nation’s water resources infrastructure cannot simply be how much I spend or how many projects I authorize, 

but rather it must be how the integrated system performs its intended mission. 

I also note that this bill does not fix the insolvency of the Inland 

Waterways Trust Fund, nor is this the proper bill to make such a 

change. I strongly encourage this Administration and the next Administration to develop and propose viable solutions to these ongoing problems. I agree with the majority that proposals to change 

the federal/non-federal cost share are not viable solutions to the Inland Waterways Trust Fund shortfall. 

I generally agree with the majority’s priorities within the Department of Energy. It is essential that we develop advanced energy 

technologies that further our energy security by reducing greenhouse gas emissions and reducing our dependence on foreign oil. 

However, I am concerned that there seems to be a growing trend 

toward using the Department of Energy to administer grant and 

loan programs. The Department has not demonstrated a track 

record of responsibly managing such programs. Additionally, I feel 

that market pressures have already begun to restructure and reform our country’s economy toward greater efficiency and toward 

increased reliance on domestic sources of energy. Market-distorting 

practices, such as subsidized loans and grants, will only hinder this 

process unless they are very carefully crafted and, more importantly, well-managed. I would caution against funding more energy 

assistance programs simply because they are authorized. 

MIXED OXIDE (MOX) FUEL FABRICATION FACILITY

Once again, this bill directs the Department of Energy to manage 

the MOX program under the Nuclear Energy office rather under 

the National Nuclear Security Administration, despite the Department’s apparent desire to continue the program under the management, or more accurately, mismanagement, of NNSA. 

NUCLEAR WEAPONS COMPLEX TRANSFORMATION

I am discouraged that the clear direction this Committee provided to the Department of Energy in fiscal year 2008 regarding 

prerequisites for complex transformation and the Reliable Replacement Warhead have not been fulfilled. As a result, this bill limits 

projects in support of complex transformation. I concur that the 

transformation process must be delayed until the Administration 

articulates a nuclear weapons strategy which meets the challenges 

of today and the future, and a complex that supports that strategy. 

This is the only reasonable approach in order to avoid the gross 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
324 

misappropriation of taxpayer funds. However, we do not view this 

delay as questioning the need for complex transformation, which is 

critical to improve the safety, efficiency, and security of our national weapons complex. 

FUTURE OF THE NUCLEAR WEAPONS LABORATORIES

As nuclear weapons funding continues to decrease as a percentage of the work of the Department of Energy, our specialized weapons laboratories are looking to chart a new path forward. These facilities and personnel are among the best in the world and must 

be supported. However, I am concerned that the current protections 

that the weapons laboratories enjoy, especially through the National Nuclear Security Administration Act, preclude a level playing field among the weapons laboratories, non-weapons laboratories, academia, and the private sector. We strongly believe that 

no laboratory is entitled to the non-weapons dollars appropriated 

to the Department of Energy. All must compete equally based on 

price and performance, and be equally accountable. 

NUCLEAR ENERGY

The future energy supply of the United States will include a larger role for nuclear energy, and we strongly support this bill’s assistance for the nuclear energy industry. There is no other energy 

source that will be able to reduce our reliance on foreign sources 

of energy while simultaneously reducing carbon emissions in the 

short and medium term. I am encouraged that this Committee’s 

past actions have supported a growing number of potential new nuclear power plants and safer, more efficient advanced designs. As 

of early June 2008, applications for 12 new units have been received by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and applications for 

24 more new units are expected by the end of 2010. 

I am pleased that this bill fully funds the request for Yucca 

Mountain, but recognize that interim storage solutions must also 

be pursued. We strongly encourage the nuclear power industry to 

work closely with Congress and the Administration to overcome the 

ongoing political challenges to developing constructive approaches 

to dealing with spent fuel. We cannot continue to let the objections 

of one State prevent the Congress from doing the right thing for 

the entire country. 

SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

The future economic competitiveness of this country will be built 

on our leadership in science and technology. I am pleased that this 

bill increases the funding for DOE’s Office of Science by $160 million over the request, as well as providing an increase of roughly 

$1.5 billion for the various applied energy research accounts. This 

Committee has been strongly supportive of the Department of Energy’s efforts to rebuild our leadership in the basic and applied 

sciences, and is especially proud of the results achieved in the field 

of high performance computing. Strong Departmental leadership 

coupled with bipartisan Congressional support have led to advanced computing achievements that were considered unattainable 

only a few short years ago. We hope the increased funding for 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
325 

science and technology provided in this bill will continue in future 

years, and will be the foundation for many future achievements by 

the Department. 

FIVE-YEAR BUDGET PLANNING

This Committee has consistently encouraged the agencies under 

our jurisdiction to prepare credible five-year budget plans that can 

be used by both Congress and the Administration to chart a stable 

long-term course for agency programs and projects. We continue to 

be frustrated by the resistance to this concept, both from within 

the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and within the agencies. The Corps of Engineers has done the best job of developing 

useful five-year budget plans, although the top-line funding 

amount for the Corps is always artificially constrained by OMB. To 

be truly useful to Congress, a five-year budget plan must either 

identify what worthwhile work can be accomplished with additional 

resources, or must identify what worthwhile work is not being accomplished at a constrained budget level. Unfortunately, the Corps 

is not allowed to present either variation in the five-year plans it 

has produced to date. 

The Bureau of Reclamation is still very much on the front end 

of the learning curve in its long-range budget planning. While some 

five-year budget plan for Reclamation is better than none, the 

formulaic approach to future budgets, the lack of true out-year 

planning, and the lack of project-level details all limit the usefulness of these plans. 

The Department of Energy is in many ways the most frustrating 

of our Energy and Water agencies when it comes to long-range 

planning. We know that the capability to conduct such planning exists within the Department, and we know that certain program offices already develop useful five-year budget plans. However, the 

Department has consistently refused to produce an integrated plan 

for the entire Department that illuminates the budget choices 

made by the Administration and helps Congress make its own appropriations decisions. This failure can be laid squarely at the feet 

of the Secretary of Energy, who testified at his budget hearing this 

year that he made a conscious decision not to produce the five-year 

plans directed by this Committee. Such lack of foresight will only 

harm the Department of Energy in the future, and will make it 

harder for DOE to compete effectively for limited resources. It is 

essential that DOE demonstrate sound planning that looks beyond 

a single fiscal year, or a single Congress, or even beyond a single 

Administration. The extensive investments that the Administration 

and Congress are making now in basic science, applied energy technologies, environmental cleanup and national security programs 

cannot be sustained if I am forced to reinvent the wheel every 

budget cycle. 

PATH FORWARD

This Committee has been able to achieve important reforms and 

initiatives over the last several years largely because of the bi-partisan working relationships that its Members have enjoyed. I am 

pleased that the Energy and Water Development Subcommittee 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
326 

has continued this tradition. This bill contains issues of national 

significance, including support for advanced science and technology, 

maintenance of our nuclear weapons stockpile, and development of 

our water infrastructure, which requires setting aside most partisan differences for a national perspective. We hope that this tradition is carried into the future, and that the Subcommittee can follow regular order to fulfill its responsibilities in an efficient and bipartisan manner. 

JERRY LEWIS. 

Æ 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with HEARING