The FY2008 Energy and Water Development bill was enacted as Division C of the Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY2008 ( P.L. 110-161 ). The omnibus funding measure was passed by Congress December 19, 2007, and signed by the President December 26, 2007. The act provides $31.4659 billion for Energy and Water programs, about $1 billion below the FY2007 appropriation and about $500 million above the Administration's request. The Bush Administration's FY2008 budget request was released in February 2007. The House Appropriations Committee reported out its FY2008 Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill, H.R. 2641 , on June 6, 2007. The bill as reported did not contain indications of funding for specific projects. On June 20 the bill was debated on the House floor, but was not voted on pending submission by the Appropriations Committee of a supplement specifying funding for individual projects. That supplement was voted out by the committee July 12, and the House approved the bill July 17, 2007. The Senate Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development Appropriations approved its version of the bill, S. 1751 , on June 26, and the full Senate Appropriations Committee approved it June 28. Energy and Water Development programs were funded for FY2007 in the Revised Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2007 ( H.J.Res. 20 , P.L. 110-5 ). On March 16, 2007, the Department of Energy (DOE) submitted its "operating plan" to Congress, detailing funding for individual programs not specifically identified in P.L. 110-5 . The Energy and Water Development bill includes funding for civil works projects of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), the Department of the Interior's Central Utah Project (CUP) and Bureau of Reclamation (BOR), the Department of Energy (DOE), and a number of independent agencies, including the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and the Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC). Table 2 includes budget totals for energy and water development appropriations enacted for FY2001 to FY2008. Table 3 lists totals for each of the bill's four titles. It also lists several "scorekeeping" adjustments of accounts within the four titles, reflecting various expenditures or sources of revenue besides appropriated funds. These adjustments affect the total amount appropriated in the bill but are not included in the totals of the individual titles. Amounts listed in this report are derived from the Administration's FY2008 Congressional Budget Requests, from H.Rept. 110-185 , to accompany H.R. 2641 , from the S.Rept. 110-127 , to accompany S. 1751 , and from the explanatory statement for the FY2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act ( H.R. 2764 , P.L. 110-161 ). Tables 4 through 16 provide budget details for Title I (Corps of Engineers), Title II (Department of the Interior), Title III (Department of Energy), and Title IV (independent agencies) for FY2005-FY2006. P.L. 110-161 provided $5.587 billion for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; it was an increase over the Administration's budget request of $4.871 billion and 5% above the FY2007 appropriations (not including supplemental funds) of $5.340 billion. The omnibus funding measure rescinded a total of $4.9 million of prior appropriations for the Corps. Funding for the Corps' civil works program is often a contentious issue between the Administration and Congress, with final appropriations typically providing more funding than requested, regardless of which political party controls the White House and Congress. Generally around 85% of the appropriations for the agency is directed to specific projects. Often Congress will direct funding to projects not included in the Administration's request. The policy debate on how to structure the Corps' budget and priorities is ongoing. The Corps civil works program has been criticized by some observers as an agglomeration of projects with no underlying design. These observers see the Corps' backlog of authorized activities as an example of this lack of focus. Prior to enactment of the $23 billion authorization bill for the agency known as the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) in November 2007, estimates of the backlog's size had varied from $11 billion to more than $60 billion, depending on which projects are included. Although some observers view the backlog as nothing more than a Corps "to do" list, others are concerned that projects face construction delays and related cost overruns as available appropriations are spread across an increasing portfolio of projects. The Corps' backlog of authorized projects and concerns about the fiscal planning and management of the agency's portfolio contribute to support for performance-based criteria for structuring the agency's budget and for concentrated appropriations on a small set of priority projects. Others also express concerns about the agency's fiscal planning and management, yet reject both the use of performance-based criteria that have been proposed and the focus on 6 to 10 priority projects. These critics argue that the criteria used are too simplistic and that basing the Corps' budget on performance criteria does not produce an integrated multiyear program for the agency. They also argue that the focus on priority projects has resulted in a disproportionate amount of the agency's budget being concentrated on a few projects, resulting in less investment in other authorized, cost-beneficial projects and in those regions of the country that do not have priority projects. One way recent Administration requests have tried to address the backlog of Corps projects has been the application of a performance-based budgeting approach for determining which projects to include in its requests for construction and maintenance funds; the performance measures were based on their economic and environmental returns and protection of human safety. The construction projects selected for funding were chosen largely on their having either a high ratio of benefits to costs, or, for environmental projects, a high cost-effectiveness. The FY2008 budget request continued the Administration's movement toward presenting the agency's budget according to "business lines" (e.g., navigation, flood control, recreation, hydropower). For example, of the $4.871 billion budget request, $2.009 billion (41%) is for commercial navigation, $1.384 billion (28%) is for flood and coastal storm damage reduction, and $274 million (6%) and $110 million (2%) are for the agency's relatively new roles in aquatic ecosystem restoration and environmental stewardship, respectively. The agency's regulatory responsibilities represent $180 million, 4% of the agency's budget. Although little of the debate about performance-based budgeting is reflected in the omnibus report language, the earlier House and Senate reports illustrated differing opinions about how best to manage the Corps' budget. H.Rept. 110-185 generally supported the Administration performance-based budgeting approach; it states: "While the Committee agrees in large part with the prioritization of projects, it does not believe the level of funding provided by the Administration is sufficient to meet the needs of the Nation." In contrast, the Senate Appropriations Committee report stated: "From the Committee's perspective, the Corps' budget seems to be developed exactly in the opposite manner that it should be." It then echoes the House by stating "the country needs to invest more heavily in its water resources." The Senate Appropriations Committee report criticized the Administration's focus on a small number of projects, and its lack of support for projects at the different stages of development (e.g., planning). It also questioned the effect that focusing on a few projects would have on the ability and interest in partnering with the Corps of the local project sponsors for the Corps' other authorized, but unbudgeted, projects and studies. To address the backlog of authorized Corps activities, the Administration's request limited the number of new activities started to only two planning activities and one maintenance assessment. The President's request would fund construction projects that could be completed in FY2008 and six projects considered by the Administration to be priorities, similar to the President's FY2007, FY2006, and FY2005 requests. Although little of the debate about new starts is reflected in the omnibus report language, the earlier House and Senate reports illustrated differing opinions about how best to manage the Corps' budget. H.Rept. 110-185 expressed general support for the Administration's no new start policy as applied to the FY2008 budget for the Corps. The exception noted by the Committee is that it "will consider funding for the major rehabilitation" at specific locks on the Ohio and Mississippi River systems because it "does not view the rehabilitation of existing infrastructure as a new construction start ... but rather a necessity." The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended a limited number of new construction starts. Numerous construction projects that were not included in the President's request were included among the projects funded in the omnibus report language. Unlike previous budget requests, the FY2007 and FY2008 requests did not specify the amount that individual Corps projects would receive for O&M. Instead, the Administration's recent requests divide the country into 21 regions and specify O&M funding for each region for six different categories of activities—commercial navigation, flood and coastal storm damage reduction, environment, hydropower, recreation, and water supply. The Corps has provided estimates of how much individual projects are expected to receive; however, these estimates are not part of the agency's formal budget request and budget justification package. This budgeting approach appears to allow the agency flexibility to move money across projects within the region as O&M needs arise, without being subject to many of the reprogramming restrictions put into place with the agency's FY2006 appropriations. Some project stakeholders are likely to be uncomfortable as a result of the decreased certainty in the O&M funding available for particular projects under this regional O&M budgeting approach.