Order Code RL32852
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Energy and Water Development:
FY2006 Appropriations
Updated July 12, 2005
Coordinated by Carl E. Behrens
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
Congressional Research Service { The Library of Congress

The annual consideration of appropriations bills (regular, continuing, and supplemental) by
Congress is part of a complex set of budget processes that also encompasses the
consideration of budget resolutions, revenue and debt-limit legislation, other spending
measures, and reconciliation bills. In addition, the operation of programs and the spending
of appropriated funds are subject to constraints established in authorizing statutes.
Congressional action on the budget for a fiscal year usually begins following the submission
of the President’s budget at the beginning of the session. Congressional practices governing
the consideration of appropriations and other budgetary measures are rooted in the
Constitution, the standing rules of the House and Senate, and statutes, such as the
Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974.
This report is a guide to the regular appropriations bills that Congress considers each year.
It is designed to supplement the information provided by the House and Senate
Appropriations Subcommittees on Energy and Water Development. It summarizes the status
of the bill, its scope, major issues, funding levels, and related congressional activity, and is
updated as events warrant. The report lists the key CRS staff relevant to the issues covered
and related CRS products.
NOTE: A Web version of this document with active links is
available to congressional staff at
[http://www.crs.gov/products/appropriations/apppage.shtml].


Energy and Water Development:
FY2006 Appropriations
Summary
The Energy and Water Development appropriations bill in the past included
funding for civil works projects of the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), the
Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Reclamation (BOR), most of the Department
of Energy (DOE), and a number of independent agencies.
After the budget request was submitted, both the House and the Senate
Appropriations Committees reorganized their subcommittee structure and with it the
content of the various FY2006 appropriations bills to be introduced. In the case of
Energy and Water Development, the only changes were the consolidation of DOE
programs that had previously been funded by the Interior and Related Agencies bill.
When these programs are included, the requested amount for FY2006 Energy and
Water Development totals $29.75 billion. For FY2005, $29.83 billion was
appropriated for comparable programs.
On May 18, the House Appropriations Committee reported out H.R. 2419
(H.Rept. 109-86), with a total appropriation of $29.75 billion, including the programs
formerly funded in the Interior and Related Agencies bill. The House passed the bill
May 24.
The Senate Appropriations Committee reported out its version of H.R. 2419 on
June 16 (S.Rept. 109-84), and the Senate passed it June 30. The bill totals $31.245
billion.
Key budgetary issues involving these programs include:
— use of performance-based budgeting to determine Corps project
funding, and a House provision limiting redirecting funds from one
project to another (Title I);
— funding and progress of major water/ecosystem restoration initiatives
such as Florida Everglades and California “Bay-Delta” (CALFED)
(Title II);
— funding for the proposed national nuclear waste repository at Yucca
Mountain, Nevada (Title III: Nuclear Waste Disposal);
— funding for developing nuclear warheads, in light of congressional
action last year to cut funding for the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator
and for a “Modern Pit Facility” to build nuclear weapons components
(Title III: Nuclear Weapons Stockpile Stewardship); and
— plans to reduce the time necessary to prepare the Nevada Test Site to
resume nuclear weapons testing (Title III: Nuclear Weapons
Stockpile Stewardship).
This report will be updated as events warrant.

Key Policy Staff
Area of Expertise
Name
CRS
Telephone
Division
General
Carl Behrens
RSI
7-8303
Carol Glover
RSI
7-7353
Corps of Engineers
Nicole Carter
RSI
7-0854
Steve Hughes
RSI
7-7268
Bureau of Reclamation
Betsy Cody
RSI
7-7229
Kyna Powers
RSI
7-6881
Solar and Renewable Energy
Fred Sissine
RSI
7-7039
Nuclear Energy
Mark Holt
RSI
7-1704
Science Programs
Daniel Morgan
RSI
7-5849
Nuclear Weapons Stewardship
Jonathan Medalia
FDT
7-7632
Nonproliferation and Terrorism
Carl Behrens
RSI
7-8303
DOE Environmental Management
David Bearden
RSI
7-2390
Power Marketing Administrations
Kyna Powers
RSI
7-6881
Bonneville Power Administration
Kyna Powers
RSI
7-6881
Fossil Energy Research
Marc Humphries
RSI
7-7264
Naval/Strategic Petroleum Reserve
Robert Bamberger
RSI
7-7240
Energy Conservation
Fred Sissine
RSI
7-7039
Budget Data and Report Preparation
Carol Glover
RSI
7-7353
Division abbreviations: RSI = Resources, Science, and Industry; FDT= Foreign Affairs, Defense, and
Trade.

Contents
Most Recent Developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Title I: Corps of Engineers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Key Policy Issues — Corps of Engineers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Financial Management: Reprogramming and Contracting . . . . . . . . . . 5
Corps Budget and the Agency’s Backlog of Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Title II: Department of the Interior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Central Utah Project and Bureau of Reclamation: Budget In Brief . . . . . . . 10
Key Policy Issues — Bureau of Reclamation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
CALFED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Title III: Department of Energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Key Policy Issues — Department of Energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Nuclear Energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Fossil Energy Research, Development, and Demonstration . . . . . . . . 19
Strategic Petroleum Reserve . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Science . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Nuclear Waste Disposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Nuclear Weapons Stockpile Stewardship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Nonproliferation and National Security Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Environmental Management and Cleanup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Power Marketing Administrations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Title IV: Independent Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Key Policy Issues — Independent Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Nuclear Regulatory Commission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Denali Commission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
For Additional Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
CRS Issue Briefs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
CRS Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

List of Tables
Table 1. Status of Energy and Water Development Appropriations, FY2006 . . . 1
Table 2. Energy and Water Development Appropriations, FY1999 to FY2006 . . 2
Table 3. Energy and Water Development Appropriations Summary . . . . . . . . . . 2
Table 4. Energy and Water Development Appropriations
Title I: Corps of Engineers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Table 5. Energy and Water Development Appropriations
Title II: Central Utah Project Completion Account . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Table 6. Energy and Water Development Appropriations
Title II: Bureau of Reclamation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Table 7. Energy and Water Development Appropriations
Title III: Department of Energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Table 8. Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Table 9. FutureGen Funding Profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Table 10. Funding for Weapons Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Table 11. NNSA Future Years Nuclear Security Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Table 12. DOE Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Table 13 . Energy and Water Development Appropriations
Title IV: Independent Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Energy and Water Development:
FY2006 Appropriations
Most Recent Developments
The Bush Administration’s FY2006 budget request was released in February
2005. After the budget was submitted, both the House and the Senate Appropriations
Committees voted to reorganize the subcommittee structure, and with it the programs
included in specific appropriations bills. Under the reorganization, the Energy and
Water Development appropriations bill acquired Department of Energy (DOE)
programs that previously had been included in the appropriations bill for Interior and
Related Agencies. Including these programs, the requested amount for FY2006
Energy and Water Development totals $29.75 billion. For FY2005, $29.83 billion
was appropriated for comparable programs.
The House Appropriations Energy and Water Development Subcommittee
marked up its bill on May 11, and the full committee reported out H.R. 2419 on May
18 (H.Rept. 109-86). The House passed the bill May 24. H.R. 2419 would
appropriate $29.75 billion for FY2006 for energy and water development programs,
including those formerly included in the Interior and Related Agencies bill.
The Senate Appropriations Committee reported out its version of H.R. 2419 on
June 16 (S.Rept. 109-84). The bill totals $31.245 billion. The Senate approved the
bill June 30 by a vote of 92-3.
Status
Table 1. Status of Energy and Water Development Appropriations, FY2006
Subcommittee
Conference Report
Markup
House
House
Senate
Senate
Conf.
Approval
Public Law
Report Passage
Report
Passage
Report
House
Senate
House
Senate
5/11/05
6/14/05
109-86
5/24/05
109-84
6/30/05
Overview
The Energy and Water Development bill has historically included funding for
civil works projects of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), the Department
of the Interior’s Bureau of Reclamation (BOR), most of DOE, and a number of
independent agencies, including the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and the

CRS-2
Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC). With the reorganization of the
appropriations subcommittees, DOE programs that had been funded in the Interior
and Related Agencies bill have been transferred to the Energy and Water
Development bill. The Bush Administration’s request was $29.747 billion for all of
the programs now included in the Energy and Water bill for FY2006, compared with
$29.832 billion appropriated for FY2005.
The House bill, H.R. 2419, as reported out by the House Appropriations
Committee May 18 and passed by the House May 24, would appropriate $29.746
billion for energy and water development programs for FY2006. The Senate version
of H.R. 2419, as reported out by the Senate Appropriations Committee June 16 and
passed by the Senate June 30, would appropriate $31.245 billion for these programs.
Table 2 includes budget totals for energy and water development appropriations
enacted for FY1999 to FY2005 and the Administration’s request for FY2006.
Table 2. Energy and Water Development Appropriations,
FY1999 to FY2006
(budget authority in billions of current dollars)
FY99
FY00
FY01
FY02
FY03
FY04
FY05
FY06
(Req.)
21.2
21.2
23.9
25.2
26.1
26.7
29.8a
29.7a
Note: These figures represent current dollars, exclude permanent budget authorities, and reflect
rescissions.
a. Includes DOE programs transferred from Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations bill.
Table 3 lists totals for each of the four titles. The table also lists several
“scorekeeping” adjustments of accounts within the four titles, reflecting various
expenditures or sources of revenue besides appropriated funds. These adjustments
affect the total amount appropriated in the bill but are not included in the totals of the
individual titles. All amounts listed in this report are derived from the reports
accompanying H.R. 2419, H.Rept. 109-86 and S.Rept. 109-84.
Table 3. Energy and Water Development Appropriations Summary
($ billions)
FY2006
House
Senate
Title
FY2005
Conf.
Request
H.R. 2419 H.R. 2419
Title I: Corps of Engineers
5,039.9
4,332.0
4,746.0
5,298.0
Title II: CUP & BOR
1,017.5
951.1
1,011.5
1,081.1
Title III: Department of Energy
24,419.2
24,213.3
24,317.9
25,077.3
Title IV: Independent Agencies
289.3
234.2
207.3
306.7
E&W Subtotal
30,766.0
29,730.6
30,282.6
31,763.0
Scorekeeping Adjustments
Plant Replacement reduction (Title I)


(18.6)


CRS-3
FY2006
House
Senate
Title
FY2005
Conf.
Request
H.R. 2419 H.R. 2419
Central Valley (Title II)
(46.4)
(44.0)
(44.0)
(44.0)
Colorado River Basins, WAPA (Title III)
(23.0)
(23.0)
(23.0)
(23.0)
Uranium Fund (Title III)
(463.0)
(451.0)
(451.0)
(451.0)
Reclassification of PMA receipts (Title
III)

433.0


NRC Revenue Adjustment (Title IV)

358.1


Fossil Energy Advance Approp. (Title III)

(257.0)


Other
(401.7)



E&W Total
29,832.3
29,746.7
29,746.0
31,245.0
Source: House Report 109-86; Senate Report 109-84.
Details may not add to totals due to rounding.
For the Corps in FY2006, the Administration requested $4.32 billion, a decrease
of $708 million from the enacted appropriation for FY2005. It asked for $951
million for FY2006 for the Department of the Interior (DOI) programs included in
the Energy and Water Development bill: the Bureau of Reclamation and the Central
Utah Project. This would be a decrease of $66 million from the FY2005 funding
level. The House bill would fund the Corps at $4.746 billion, and the DOI programs
at $1.011 billion. The Senate bill would appropriate $5.298 billion for the Corps and
$1.081 billion for the Interior programs.
The FY2006 request for DOE programs was $24.213 billion, about $200 million
less than the previous year (not including adjustments). The House bill would
appropriate $24.318 billion, and the Senate bill $25.077 billion. The major activities
in the DOE budget are energy research and development, general science,
environmental cleanup, and nuclear weapons programs. Also included in the DOE
total is funding of DOE’s programs for fossil fuels, energy efficiency, and energy
statistics, which had historically been included in the Interior and Related Agencies
appropriations bill.
The FY2006 request for funding the independent agencies in Title IV of the bill
was $234 million, compared with $289 million appropriated for FY2005. The House
bill amount is $207 million. The Senate bill would appropriate $307 million.
Tables 4 through 13 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.

CRS-4
Title I: Corps of Engineers
The Energy and Water Development appropriations bill approved by the House,
H.R. 2419, includes $4.746 billion for the Corps’ FY2006 budget, which is $414
million more than requested1 and $294 million less than the $5.040 billion enacted
for these programs for FY2005. In its version of H.R. 2419, the Senate
Appropriations Committee included $552 million more than was included in the
House version (see Table 4).
Table 4. Energy and Water Development Appropriations
Title I: Corps of Engineers
($ millions)
House
Senate
Program
FY2005a
FY2006
Conf.
Request
H.R. 2419
H.R. 2419
Investigations and Planning
143.7
95.0
100.0
180.0
Construction
1,844.3
1,637.0
1,900.0
2,086.7
Flood Control, Mississippi River
327.9
270.0
290.0
433.3
Operation and Maintenance
2,088.8
1,979.0
2,000.0
2,100.0
Regulatory
143.8
160.0
160.0
150.0
General Expenses
165.7
162.0
152.0
165.0
FUSRAPb
163.7
140.0
140.0
140.0
Flood Control and Coastal
Emergencies
148.0
70.0

43.0
Office of the Asst. Secretary
of the Army
4.0

4.0

Storm damage — emergency
10.0



Subtotal, Title I
5,039.9
4,513.0
4,746.0
5,298.0
Reclassification of PMA receipts

(181.0)


Total Title I
5,040.4
4,332.0
4,746.0
5,298.0
Source: House Report 109-86; Senate Report 109-84.
a. Amounts include $372.4 million, from P.L.108-324, in storm damage-related emergency funding — $0.4 million for
investigations; $62.6 million for construction; $6.0 million for flood control, Mississippi River; $145.4 for
operation and maintenance; $148.0 million for flood control and coastal emergencies; and $10 million for storm
damage.
b. “Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program.”
1 The Administration in the FY2006 budget request proposed that electricity receipts from
the Power Marketing Administrations (PMAs) reimburse the Corps directly for its operation
and maintenance (O&M) activities at selected hydropower facilities (approximately $181.0
million for FY2006) by reclassifying the receipts from mandatory to offsetting collections.
Neither the House’s nor the Senate’s current version of H.R. 2419 adopted the
Administration’s proposals.

CRS-5
Key Policy Issues — Corps of Engineers
Financial Management: Reprogramming and Contracting. In report
language for recent Energy and Water Development appropriations bills, the House
and Senate Appropriations Committees have expressed different levels of
dissatisfaction with the Corps’ financial management, particularly in the areas of
reprogramming of funds across projects and the use of multi-year continuing
contracts for projects. In addition to expressions of dissatisfaction on these topics in
H.Rept. 109-86, language in H.R. 2419 would change the Corps’ ability to reprogram
and to use continuing contracts.2
In contrast, the Senate Appropriations Committee in S.Rept. 109-84 restated
earlier guidance to the agency on reprogramming. On continuing contracts, the
Senate report saw progress by the agency in resolving financial issues, emphasized
a need for the agency to maintain contracting flexibility, and recommended that the
agency develop guidance on implementation of continuing contracts.
Corps Budget and the Agency’s Backlog of Projects. 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 one example of this lack of focus. Estimates of the backlog’s size vary
from $11 billion to more than $50 billion depending on which projects are included.
Although some observers view the backlog as nothing more than a “to do” list for the
Corps, others are concerned that projects are facing construction delays and related
cost overruns due to available appropriations being spread across an increasing
portfolio of projects.
Many Corps policy proposals in the President’s FY2006 budget request were
aimed at reducing the construction backlog, while making progress on Corps projects
within current fiscal constraints and national priorities. The request attempted this
largely by starting no new projects and distributing funds across projects based on
performance measures. Although the House bill adopted some of the changes
proposed by the Administration, the House Appropriations Committee expressed a
view of how to structure the Corps portfolio that would go beyond the changes
proposed by the Administration. H.Rept. 109-86 stated, “the Civil Works program
needs to be managed as a program and not as a collection of individual projects” to
respond to what the committee sees as “little or no systematic approach to the
Nation’s water and coastal infrastructure underlying the selection of which projects
2 For example, it would restrict the Corps’ ability to increase or decrease the funding for a
project to no more than $2 million or 10% of that year’s appropriation, whichever is less.
Another change in the approach to Corps appropriations in H.Rept. 109-86 is the decision
not to use the savings and slippage convention. In previous years, since not all Corps
activities are accomplished as planned, appropriations for the principal Corps accounts
included a reduction for savings and slippage to account for the slip of spending (e.g., due
to delays caused by weather, non-federal sponsor financing, or a decision not to proceed)
and the savings from a project costing less than estimated. Application of the S&S
contributed to the quantity of the reprogramming being performed by the Corps. The House
stopped applying a S&S for FY2006.

CRS-6
received funding.” The House Appropriations Committee reiterated in its report the
value of a five-year plan and strategic vision to guide budget requests.
The report by the Senate Appropriations Committee approached the Corps’
budget from a perspective distinct from that of the House and the Administration.
The Senate report referred to the benefits of the previous “big tent” budgeting
approach where all aspects of water resources were jointly developed and discussed.
The Senate report, however, was critical of the “lack of leadership” at the agency.
Performance-Based Budgeting. The FY2006 request tackled the Corps
construction backlog on a number of fronts. One way the FY2006 request tried to
address the Corps backlog of projects was to develop the budget request using a
performance-based budgeting approach for determining which projects to fund for
construction (and to a lesser extent maintenance); the performance measures were
based on their economic and environmental returns. The construction projects
selected for funding were chosen largely on their having either a high ratio of
remaining benefits to remaining costs, or, for environmental projects, a high cost-
effectiveness. The House Appropriations Committee noted in its report that it
“supports the concept of focusing limited resources on completing high-value
projects already under construction, and the Committee recommendation is based in
large part on the Administration’s performance-based approach.”
In its report, the Senate Appropriations Committee, in contrast, largely rejected
the Administration’s performance-based budgeting and suggested that the agency
seriously reexamine its budget model. The report argues that the approach used in
the FY2006 budget request “promotes discord among various water resources
interests,” “led to a skewed set of results with a few strong winners and many losers,”
and is “very unbalanced among planning, construction, and maintenance.” The
Senate report includes funds for numerous projects funded in neither the House bill
nor the Administration’s requests.
Priorities and New Starts. To address the budget backlog, the
Administration’s request limited the number of new activities started to only one
construction project and three planning activities. The President’s request would
fund construction projects that could be completed in FY2006 and projects
considered by the Administration to be priorities, similar to the President’s FY2005
request. The nine national priority projects for FY2006 included the New York and
New Jersey Harbor Deepening project, restoration projects in the Florida Everglades
and the Upper Mississippi River system, and projects to meet environmental
requirements in the Columbia River Basin and the Missouri River basin. H.Rept.
109-86 for the most part adopts the “no new starts” of the President’s request;
however, not all of the President’s priority projects receive the full amount requested
and some appropriations were added to some ongoing construction projects. S.Rept.
109-84 rejected the “decimated” planning program, commented on the importance
of planning for the agency, and would fund a much larger set of projects than the
Administration’s request and the House-passed bill. The Senate report did not
comment on new construction starts.
Project Suspensions. Using the performance-based budgeting criteria, the
Administration identified 35 active construction projects to be studied for possible

CRS-7
suspension (i.e., to buy out current construction contracts, rather than to complete
them). The FY2006 request would provide an $80 million fund with which to cancel
contacts for these projects. Most of the projects proposed for suspension were
included in the FY2005 request and have local project sponsors that have made
investments and raised funds for their share of construction costs. The House chose
not to restore funding for about half of the projects on the suspension list; rather than
funding a suspension account, the Committee is requesting more information on the
cost of suspending these projects. The Senate bill would restore funding for more
than two-thirds of the projects proposed for suspension.
Ecosystem Restoration. A significant addition to the Corps’ mission in
recent years is a role in large environmental restoration programs, raising concerns
that funding for these programs could displace funding for other traditional water
resources activities. Many large-scale ecosystem restorations are in the planning
phases or are awaiting congressional authorization; these will require additional
funds as they move into the more cost-intensive construction and implementation
phases. Other restoration activities are taking place in the context of addressing the
environmental and species impacts of previously constructed projects. The FY2006
request would provide $510 million for aquatic ecosystem restoration. (See CRS
Issue Brief IB10120, Army Corps of Engineers Civil Works Program: Issues for the
109th Congress,
by Nicole T. Carter and Pervaze A. Sheikh, for more information on
the growing role of the Corps in ecosystem restoration.)
Everglades. The Corps plays a significant coordination role in the restoration
of the Central and Southern Florida ecosystem. The President’s request for FY2006
includes $137 million for the Corps’ construction projects in the region, up from
$130 million in the FY2005 request and $121.25 in the enacted FY2004
appropriations in P.L. 108-447. The FY2006 budget request supports the state of
Florida’s efforts to accelerate work on certain projects. The House Appropriations
Committee has provided $137 million for the South Florida Ecosystem Everglades
Restoration program.
The $137 million would fund Everglades activities that were previously
budgeted separately — the Central and Southern Florida Project, the Kissimmee
River Restoration Project, and the Everglades and South Florida Restoration Projects
— and the Modified Water Deliveries Project ($35 million in Corps appropriations
for FY2006). The addition of the Modified Water Deliveries Project followed the
President’s request for changing the appropriations for the project to no longer be
paid solely through Department of Interior appropriations.3 The request called for the
Corps to broaden its role in the project, by having the agency jointly fund it with the
Department of the Interior, which previously had solely funded the project. The
Administration’s position is that the Corps pay for $124 million of the remaining
$191 million required to complete the project during FY2006 through FY2009. This
proposal has raised a question: Is the Corps authorized to receive appropriations to
work on the project? According to the H.Rept. 109-86 the Corps has sufficient
3
For more information on the Modified Waters Deliveries Project, see CRS Report
RS21331, Everglades Restoration: Modified Water Deliveries Project, by Pervaze A.
Sheikh.

CRS-8
authority to receive and expend funds to proceed with project construction.
According to S.Rept. 109-84, the Senate Appropriations Committee did not fund the
Modified Waters Project because it “does not believe sufficient current authorization
exists for the Corps to fund the work.”
The Senate bill also rejects the consolidation of the Everglades projects together
in one line-item; instead, it provides $77 million for the Central and Southern Florida
project, $13 million for the Kissimmee River project, and $12 million for the
Everglades and South Florida project. It also provides $3 million for a Florida Keys
Water Quality Improvement project. These projects total $105 million.
In addition to funding for Corps activities through Energy and Water
Development appropriations, federal activities in the Everglades are funded through
Department of the Interior appropriations bills. For more information on Everglades
funding for Interior agencies, see CRS Report RL32893, Appropriations for FY2006:
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies
, coordinated by Carol Hardy-Vincent
and Susan Boren.

CRS-9
Title II: Department of the Interior
For the Department of the Interior, the Energy and Water Development bill
provides funding for the Central Utah Project Completion Account and the Bureau
of Reclamation (BOR).
Table 5. Energy and Water Development Appropriations
Title II: Central Utah Project Completion Account
($ millions)
FY2006
House
Senate
Program
FY2005
Conf.
Request
H.R. 2419
H.R. 2419
Central Utah Project Construction
30.6
31.7
31.7
31.7
Mitigation and Conservation Activities
15.3
1.0
1.0
1.0
Oversight & Administration
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
Total, Central Utah Project
47.6
34.4
34.4
34.4
Source: House Report 109-86; Senate Report 109-84.
Table 6. Energy and Water Development Appropriations
Title II: Bureau of Reclamation
($ millions)
FY2006
House
Senate
Program
FY2005
Conf.
Request
H.R. 2419
H.R. 2419
Water and Related Resourcesa
852.6
801.6
832.0
899.6
Hydropower Direct Financing Offset

(30.0)


Policy & Administration
57.7
57.9
57.9
57.9
CVP Restoration Fund (CVPRF)
54.6
52.2
52.2
52.2
Calif. Bay-Delta (CALFED)

35.0
35.0
37.0
Drought Conditions, NV (emergency)
5.0



Gross Current Authority
969.9
916.7
977.1
1,046.7
CVP Collectionsb
(46.4)
(43.9)
Indian Water Rights




Net Current Authority
923.6
872.8b
NAb
NAb
Total, Title II
1,017.6
951.1b
1,011.5
1,081.1
Source: House Report 109-86; Senate Report 109-84.
a. Does not include supplemental appropriations of $5M for the Southern Nevada Water Authority authorized by P.L.
108-324.
b. In its request, the Bureau lists CVPRF Collections as an “offset;” the House Appropriation Committee does not.

CRS-10
Central Utah Project and Bureau of Reclamation:
Budget In Brief

The Administration has requested $34.4 million for the Central Utah Project
(CUP) Completion Account for FY2006, a decrease of $13.6 million (28%) from the
FY2005 request and appropriation of roughly $48.0 million. The FY2006 request for
the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) totals $946.7 million in gross current budget
authority. This amount is $23.2 million less than enacted for FY2005. The FY2006
request includes a $43.9 million “offset” for the Central Valley Project (CVP)
Restoration Fund, and a Hydropower Direct Financing offset of $30.0 million
(transferred from the Western Area Power Administration (WAPA) account in Title
III), yielding a “net” current authority of $872.8 million for BOR — $51.2 million
less than enacted for FY2005.
The House and Senate bills provide $34.4 million for the CUP Completion
Account, the same amount requested. The House bill provides a total of $977.14
million in gross current budget authority for FY2006 for BOR. This amount is $7.22
million more than enacted (gross current budget authority) for FY2005, and $60.4
million more than requested (assuming the $43.9 million is not treated as an offset,
as is done by the House). The Senate bill provides a total of $1,046.7 million in
gross current budget authority for FY2006 for BOR.
BOR’s single largest account, Water and Related Resources, encompasses the
agency’s traditional programs and projects, including construction, operations and
maintenance, the Dam Safety Program, Water and Energy Management
Development, and Fish and Wildlife Management and Development, among others.
The Administration requested $801.6 million for the Water and Related Resources
Account for FY2006. This amount is $51 million (nearly 6%) less than enacted for
FY2005. The decreases appear to be fairly evenly spread among smaller projects,
with more significant decreases for some larger projects, such as the Central Arizona
Project and the Miscellaneous Project Programs of the Central Valley Project. The
House provided $832 million for the Water and Related Resources Account; the
Senate $899.1 million. The Senate bill provides more funding for certain rural water
supply projects, the Title 16 program, and several projects in southwestern states.
Key Policy Issues — Bureau of Reclamation
Background. Most of the large dams and water diversion structures in the
West were built by, or with the assistance of, the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR).
Whereas the Army Corps of Engineers built hundreds of flood control and navigation
projects, BOR’s mission was to develop water supplies, primarily for irrigation to
reclaim arid lands in the West. Today, BOR manages hundreds of dams and
diversion projects, including more than 300 storage reservoirs in 17 western states.
These projects provide water to approximately 10 million acres of farmland and 31
million people. BOR is the largest wholesale supplier of water in the 17 western
states and the second-largest hydroelectric power producer in the nation. BOR
facilities also provide substantial flood control, recreation, and fish and wildlife
benefits. At the same time, operations of BOR facilities are often controversial,

CRS-11
particularly for their effect on sensitive fish and wildlife species and conflicts among
competing water users.
CALFED. The Administration requested $35 million for the California Bay-
Delta Restoration Account (Bay-Delta, or CALFED) for FY2006. According to
BOR, the requested funds will be used for implementation of Stage 1 activities,
including the Environmental Water Account, water use efficiency, conveyance,
ecosystem restoration, storage studies, and program administration. The House
approved $35 million for the CALFED Account and included a breakdown of project
funding within the accompanying House Report (H.Rept. 109-86). The Senate bill
included $37 million for the CALFED Account; however, the Senate Appropriations
Committee Report (S.Rept. 109-84) did not include a breakdown of CALFED project
funding. (For more information on CALFED, see CRS Report RL31975, CALFED
Bay-Delta Program: Overview of Institutional and Water Use Issues
, by Betsy A.
Cody and Pervaze Sheikh.)
Security. The Administration requested $50 million for site security for
FY2006. This amount is roughly $18 million more than enacted for FY2005. The
bulk of the request is for facility operations/security. Funding covers such activities
as administration of the security program (e.g. surveillance and law enforcement),
anti-terrorism activities, and physical emergency security upgrades. (For more
information, see CRS Report RL32189, Terrorism and Security Issues Facing the
Water Infrastructure Sector
, by Claudia Copeland and Betsy A. Cody.)
Beginning in FY2005 and continuing for FY2006, BOR has planned to assign
a portion of site security costs to water users for repayment based on existing project
cost allocations for operations and maintenance activities. However, conferees on
the FY2005 appropriation noted concern over the plan and directed BOR to submit
a report by May 1, 2005, on reimbursable and non-reimbursable security costs before
implementation of the change, and stated that there should be no implementation of
the change “until the Congress provides direct instruction to do so.” The House
Appropriations Committee for FY2006 has acknowledged the long-held practice of
assigning annual O&M costs to project beneficiaries and has estimated the collection
of $10 million in site security reimbursement payments. It provided an additional
$40 million for site security, together with the $10 million in expected collections
equal the Administration’s budget request for site security for FY2006. The Senate
Appropriations Committee provided $50 million for site security, but directed BOR
to provide a report to the committee by May 2007 detailing planned reimbursable and
non-reimbursable costs, and further directed the Commissioner not to begin the
reimbursement process until Congress directs him to do so.

CRS-12
Title III: Department of Energy
Until this year, the Energy and Water Development bill has included funding for
most of DOE’s programs; some other DOE programs were funded in the Interior and
Related Agencies bill. Major DOE activities historically funded by the Energy and
Water bill include research and development on renewable energy and nuclear power,
general science, environmental cleanup, and nuclear weapons programs.
The subcommittee reorganization of the appropriations committees transferred
DOE’s programs for fossil fuels, energy efficiency, the Strategic Petroleum Reserve,
and energy statistics, formerly included in the Interior and Related Agencies
appropriations bill, to the Energy and Water Development bill. Including the
transferred programs, the total request for Title III for FY2006 was $24.213 billion,
compared to $24.419 billion appropriated for FY2005 (excluding the adjustments
noted in Table 3). The House Appropriations Committee recommended $24.318
billion, and the House approved that amount in passing H.R. 2419. The Senate
version of H.R. 2419 would appropriate $25.077 billion.
In reporting out H.R. 2419, the House Appropriations Committee listed the
transferred programs in Title III so as to integrate them with the existing programs.
In particular, the energy efficiency programs transferred from the Interior bill were
combined with the renewable energy programs in the Energy and Water bill into a
single account, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Supply R&D. In Table 7
below, the Title III programs are listed in the order presented in the House report.
Table 7. Energy and Water Development Appropriations
Title III: Department of Energy
($ millions)
FY2006
House
Senate
Program
FY2005
Conf.
Request
H.R. 2419
H.R. 2419
Energy Supply & Conservation
Energy Efficiency & Renewables
1,248.9
1,200.4
1,235.8
1,253.8
Electricity Transmission &
Distribution
120.2
95.6
99.9
178.1
Nuclear
Energy
385.6
389.9
377.7
449.9
Environment, Safety, Health
27.8
30.0
26.0
30.0
Other
(6.4)


33.5
Adjustments
30.9
33.5
23.5

Total, Energy Supply & Cons.
1,806.9
1,749.5
1,762.9
1,945.3
Fossil Energy R&D
571.9
748.5
502.5
641.7
Clean Coal Technology (Deferral)
(257.0)



Naval Petrol. & Oil Shale Reserves
17.8
18.5
18.5
21.5
Elk Hills School Lands Funds
72.0
84.0
84.0
84.0
Strategic Petroleum Reserve
169.7
166.0
166.0
166.0
Northeast Home Heating Oil Rsrv.
4.9



Energy Information Administration
83.8
85.9
86.4
85.9

CRS-13
FY2006
House
Senate
Program
FY2005
Conf.
Request
H.R. 2419
H.R. 2419
Non-Defense Environmental
439.8
349.9
319.9
353.2
Cleanup
Uranium Decontamination and
495.0
591.5
591.5
561.5
Decommissioning Fund
Science
High Energy Physics
736.4
713.9
735.9
716.9
Nuclear Physics
404.8
370.7
408.3
419.7
Basic Energy Sciences
1,104.6
1,146.0
1,173.1
1,241.0
Bio. & Env. R&D
581.9
455.7
525.7
503.7
Fusion
273.9
290.6
296.2
290.6
Advanced Scientific Computing
232.5
207.1
246.1
207.1
Other
276.4
284.4
286.3
329.3
Adjustments
(10.7)
(5.6)
(5.6)
(5.6)
Total, Science
3,599.9
3,462.7
3,666.1
3,702.7
Nuclear Waste Disposal
343.2
300.0
310.0
300.0
Departmental Admin. (net)
117.5
157.0
130.9
158.0
Office of Inspector General
41.2
43.0
43.0
43.0
National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)
Weapons
6,331.6
6,630.1
6,181.1
6,554.0
Nuclear Nonproliferation
1,493.0
1,637.2
1,501.0
1,729.0
Naval Reactors
801.4
786.0
799.5
799.5
Office of Administrator
353.4
343.9
366.9
343.9
Total, NNSA
8,979.4
9,397.2
8,848.4
9,426.5
Defense Environmental Cleanup
6,808.3
6,015.0
6,468.3
6,366.8
Other Defense Activities
687.1
636.0
702.5
665.0
Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal
229.2
351.5
351.5
277.0
Total, Defense Activities
16,704.0
16,399.7
16,370.7
16,735.2
Power Marketing Administrations (PMAs) a
Southeastern
5.2

5.6
5.6
Southwestern
29.1
3.2
30.2
30.2
Western
171.7
54.0
227.0
240.8
Falcon & Armistad O&M
2.8

2.7
2.7
Total, PMAs
208.8
57.1
265.5
279.2
FERC
210.0
220.4
220.4
220.4
(revenues)
(210.0)
(220.4)
(220.4)
(220.4)
Total, Title III
24,419.2
24,213.3
24,317.9
25,077.3
Source: House Report 109-86; Senate Report 109-84.
a The FY2006 request proposes that PMAs use their electricity receipts to pay for PMA program direction and O&M
activities, rather than having their receipts placed into the Treasury and appropriations made for these activities.
H.R. 2419 does not have this feature.

CRS-14
Key Policy Issues — Department of Energy
DOE is the home of a wide variety of programs with different functions and
missions. In the following pages, the programs are described, and major issues
identified, in approximately the order in which they appear in the budget tables as
listed in Table 7.
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. The FY2006 budget request
notes that the “Administration’s energy efficiency and renewable energy programs
have the potential to produce substantial benefits for the nation — both now and in
the future — in terms of economic growth, increased energy security and a cleaner
environment.” In particular, the request aims to “accelerate” the development of
hydrogen-powered fuel cell vehicles. The Hydrogen program aims to facilitate
industry commercialization of infrastructure for those vehicles by 2015. Goals for
other energy end-use and production technologies generally seek to improve energy
efficiency and performance while reducing costs.
The Administration’s FY2006 request seeks $1,200.4 million for DOE’s Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) programs, which is $48.5 million, or 4%,
less than the FY2005 appropriation. The main increases are for Fuel Cells ($8.7
million), Hydrogen ($5.1 million), and Facilities ($4.9 million). The main cuts are
for Industrial programs (-$18.3 million), Biomass (-$16.0 million), Advanced
Combustion Vehicles (-$8.6 million), Buildings (-$7.5 million), Small Hydro (-$4.4
million), Clean Cities (-$4.1 million), International Renewables (-$3.4 million), State
Energy Program (-$3.2 million), and Tribal Energy (-$1.5 million). Further, at least
$75.9 million in congressional earmarks would be reprogrammed or eliminated,
including Hydrogen (-$37.6 million), Biomass (-$35.3), and Intergovernmental (-$3.0
million). See Table 8 below.
For FY2006, the House approved $1,236.8 million for EERE programs. This is
$36.4 million, or 3%, more than the FY2006 request. Subsequently, the Senate bill
includes $1,253.8 million, which is $17.0 million more than the House. This
includes increases of $32 million for Vehicle Technologies, $6 million for Biomass,
and $5 million for Weatherization. Also, it includes decreases of $15 million for
Program Direction, $10 million for Wind, $2.4 million for Industrial Technologies,
and $1 million for International Renewables. Compared with the FY2005
appropriation, the Senate approved $4.9 million, or 0.4%, more for EERE programs.
This includes $7.5 million, or 0.8%, less for R&D and $12.5 million more for grants.
Both the House and Senate reports show about $57 million in earmarks for EERE
projects.
Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability. The request includes $95.6
million for the Office of Electricity Transmission and Distribution (OETD) and the
House approved $99.8 million, which is $4.2 million more than the request.
Meanwhile, the new Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliabilty (OEDER)
was formed by merging the former OETD and the Office of Energy Assurance. For
OEDER, the Senate bill would appropriate $178.1 million, which includes funding
for the Distributed Energy Program, which is transferred from EERE to OEDER.

CRS-15
Table 8. Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Programs
($ in millions)
Program
FY2005a
FY2006
House
Senate
Conf.
Request
H.R. 2419
H.R. 2419
Hydrogen Technologies
94.6
99.1
99.1
99.1
Fuel Cell Technologies
74.9
83.6
83.6
83.6
Biomass & Biorefinery Systems
89.1
72.2
86.2
92.2
Solar Energy
85.8
84.0
84.0
84.0
Wind Energy
41.3
44.2
44.2
34.2
Geothermal Technology
25.6
23.3
23.3
23.3
Small Hydropower
5.0
0.5
0.5
0.5
Vehicle Technologies
166.9
165.9
167.9
199.9
Building Technologies
67.1
58.0
65.0
67.0
Industrial Technologies
75.3
56.5
58.9
56.5
Distrib. Energy Resources*
60.6
56.6
56.6
—— —
Federal Energy Management
20.1
19.2
19.2
19.2
Facilities & Infrastructure
11.4
16.3
16.3
16.3
Intergovernmental
326.5
310.1
321.1
325.1
— Weatherization Grants
224.7
225.4
235.4
240.4
Program Management
110.0
110.0
111.0
153.0
R&D Subtotal
980.0
934.0
960.4
972.4
Grants Subtotal
268.9
266.4
276.4
281.4
Use of Prior Year Balances
(5.3)
—— —
—— —
—— —
Total Appropriation, EE &RE
1,248.9
1,200.4
1,236.8
1,253.8
Office of Electricity Delivery &
Energy Reliability (OEDER)*
120.2
95.6
99.8
178.1
Source: House Report 109-86; Senate Report 109-84.
*The Senate Committee recommendation moves the Distributed Energy Program from EERE to OEDER.
The FY2006 House Appropriations Committee’s report noted that DOE
“delayed in meeting legal deadlines for issuing approximately twenty new and
updated” appliance efficiency standards. Thus the Committee “strongly urges the
Secretary to expedit the process, and requests that the Secretary report to the
Committee by December 1, 2005, on plans to accelerate standards rulemakings,
including:
! A timeline for work on issuing the three highest priority standards,
with an explanation for the additional delays announced in
December 2004;
! A plan for addressing the backlog of standards rulemakings that
have missed legal or internal deadlines, including a list of the
affected products and deadlines, timelines for action on each
product, and funding requirements to complete each rulemaking; and

CRS-16
! A description of how the Department will meet the time-frame goals
of the ‘Process Improvement’ rule,4 or of how the process should be
changed so that the Department can meet the goals.”
Additionally, the FY2006 Senate Appropriations Committee’s report gives four
administrative directions. First, the committee notes its support for the National
Academy of Science’s recommendations for hydrogen programs and “requests that
the Department integrate their recommendations into the program.” Second, the
committee “recommends that the Department not expend any funds to support
offshore wind energy research until the Federal rules and permitting requirements are
implemented through legislation.” Third, the committee directs that the Energy
Secretary “consider transferrring” certain demand-side management activities from
the Building Technologies program to the Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy
Reliability (OEDER). At minimum, the committee calls for a report to show that
activities under the two programs do not duplicate each other. Fourth, the committee
“directs that the six Regional Offices be consolidated into two locations, the Golden
Field Office and the National Energy Technology Laboratory,” by June 1, 2006.
(For more information, see CRS Issue Brief IB10020, Energy Efficiency:
Budget, Oil Conservation, and Electricity Conservation Issues; and CRS Issue Brief
IB10041, Renewable Energy: Tax Credit, Budget, and Electricity Production Issues.)
See also the DOE website at [http://www.eere.energy.gov/].
Nuclear Energy. For nuclear energy research and development — including
advanced reactors, fuel cycle technology, nuclear hydrogen production, and
infrastructure support — the Administration requested $513.8 million for FY2006,
$3.8 million above the FY2005 appropriation. Of that funding, $123.9 million would
come from the Other Defense Activities appropriations account, reducing the nuclear
energy program’s net request in the Energy Supply and Conservation account to
$389.9 million.
The House raised the Administration’s total request slightly to $515.1 million,
$5.2 million above the FY2005 appropriation. An additional reimbursement of $13.5
million from the Naval Reactors account would leave a net appropriation of $377.7
million under Energy Supply and Conservation. Much of the defense and naval
reactors reimbursement covers defense-related management and security at the Idaho
National Laboratory (INL), which has been transferred to the nuclear energy program
from DOE’s environmental management program. The nuclear energy program is
run by DOE’s Office of Nuclear Energy, Science, and Technology.
The House shifted an $18.7 million uranium disposal program from the nuclear
energy office to the National Nuclear Security Administration and applied most of
the funding to other nuclear energy programs. An amendment adopted at the House
4 This rule appears in 61 FR 36974. In it, DOE sets a self-imposed goal to complete
rulemakings within three years, including 18 months from Advanced Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking to issuance of a final rule.

CRS-17
Appropriations Committee markup transferred $10 million from the “Nuclear Power
2010” program (discussed below) to the “weatherization” assistance program.
“The benefits of nuclear power as an emissions free, reliable, and affordable
source of energy are an essential element in the Nation’s energy and environmental
future,” according to DOE’s budget justification. However, opponents have
criticized DOE’s nuclear research program as providing wasteful subsidies to an
industry that they believe should be phased out as unacceptably hazardous and
economically uncompetitive.
The Senate bill included a $60 million boost from the Administration request,
to a total of $573.8 million. The panel approved the proposed $123.9 million under
Other Defense Activities, leaving $449.9 million for Nuclear Energy under Energy
Supply and Conservation.
Nuclear Power 2010. President Bush’s specific mention of “safe, clean
nuclear energy” in his 2005 State of the Union Address indicates the
Administration’s interest in encouraging construction of new commercial reactors —
for which there have been no U.S. orders since 1978. DOE’s efforts to restart the
nuclear construction pipeline are focused on the Nuclear Power 2010 Program, which
will pay up to half of the nuclear industry’s costs of seeking regulatory approval for
new reactor sites, applying for new reactor licenses, and preparing detailed plant
designs. The program is intended to provide assistance for advanced versions of
existing commercial nuclear plants that could be ordered within the next few years.
The Nuclear Power 2010 Program is helping three utilities seek NRC approval
for potential nuclear reactor sites in Illinois, Mississippi, and Virginia. In addition,
three industry consortia in 2004 applied for a total of $650 million over the next
several years to design and license new nuclear power plants and conduct a feasibility
study. DOE awarded an initial $13 million to the consortia in 2004. The FY2006
budget request included $56.0 million for the program, a 12.9% boost over FY2005.
After the $10 million transfer adopted during Committee markup, the House
approved $46.0 million for Nuclear Power 2010. The Senate bill includes a $20
million increase from the budget request, to $76.0 million.
The nuclear license applications under the Nuclear Power 2010 program would
test the “one step” licensing process established by the Energy Policy Act of 1992
(P.L. 102-486). Even if the licenses are granted by the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC), the industry consortia funded by DOE have not committed to
building new reactors. Loan guarantees and tax credits to encourage construction of
new reactors are included in the Senate version of the omnibus energy bill, H.R. 6.
Generation IV. Advanced commercial reactor technologies that are not yet
close to deployment are the focus of DOE’s Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems
Initiative, for which $45.0 million was requested for FY2006, about 12.5% above
FY2005. The House approved the same amount, and the Senate bill includes a $15.0
million increase from the request, to $60 million.
The Generation IV program is focusing on six advanced designs that could be
commercially available around 2020-2030: two gas-cooled, one water-cooled, two

CRS-18
liquid-metal-cooled, and one molten-salt concept. Some of these reactors would use
plutonium recovered through reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel. The
Administration’s May 2001 National Energy Policy report contends that plutonium
recovery could reduce the long-term environmental impact of nuclear waste disposal
and increase domestic energy supplies. However, opponents contend that the
separation of plutonium from spent fuel poses unacceptable environmental risks and,
because of plutonium’s potential use in nuclear bombs, undermines U.S. policy on
nuclear weapons proliferation.
Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative. The development of plutonium-fueled
reactors in the Generation IV program is closely related to the nuclear energy
program’s Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative (AFCI), for which the Administration
requested $70.0 million — 3.8% above the FY2005 level. According to the budget
justification, AFCI will develop and demonstrate nuclear fuel cycles that could
reduce the long-term hazard of spent nuclear fuel and recover additional energy.
Such technologies would involve separation of plutonium, uranium, and other long-
lived radioactive materials from spent fuel for re-use in a nuclear reactor or for
transmutation in a particle accelerator. The program includes longstanding DOE
work on electrometallurgical treatment of spent fuel from the Experimental Breeder
Reactor II (EBR-II) at INL.
The House added $5.5 million to the AFCI budget request “to accelerate the
development and selection of a separations technology no later than the end of
FY2007 that can address the current inventories of commercial spent nuclear fuel,
and prepare an integrated spent nuclear fuel recycling plan,” according to the
Appropriations Committee report.
The Senate voted to add $15 million to the budget request, with $10 million for
design of an Engineering Scale Demonstration of Uranium Extraction Technology
(UREX) being developed by DOE’s Savannah River Technology Center.
Nuclear Hydrogen Initiative. In support of President Bush’s program to
develop hydrogen-fueled vehicles, DOE requested $20.0 million in FY2006 for the
Nuclear Hydrogen Initiative, an increase of 124% from the FY2005 level. The House
approved the same amount, and the Senate Appropriations Committee recommended
$30.0 million. According to DOE’s FY2005 budget justification, “preliminary
estimates . . . indicate that hydrogen produced using nuclear-driven thermochemical
or high-temperature electrolysis processes would be only slightly more expensive
than gasoline” and result in far less air pollution.
An advanced reactor that would demonstrate co-production of hydrogen and
electricity — the Next Generation Nuclear Plant (NGNP) — was allocated $25.0
million from DOE’s Generation IV program by the FY2005 omnibus appropriations
conference report. The Senate bill directs that $40 million of its FY2006 Generation
IV allocation be used for the NGNP program. In particular, the Senate
Appropriations Committee urged that DOE complete a design competition for the
NGNP by the end of FY2006 so that the reactor could begin operating at INL by
2017.

CRS-19
Other Reactor Research. DOE again requested no new funding specifically
for the Nuclear Energy Research Initiative (NERI), which provides grants for
research on innovative nuclear energy technologies. According to the DOE budget
justification, NERI projects will instead be pursued at the discretion of individual
nuclear R&D programs. NERI received an appropriation of $2.5 million for FY2005.
New funding also was not requested for the Nuclear Energy Plant Optimization
program (NEPO), which received $2.5 million in FY2005. NEPO supports cost-
shared research by the nuclear power industry on ways to improve the productivity
of existing nuclear plants. The House agreed to eliminate the funding for both
programs. The Senate bill also provided no separate funding for NERI and NEPO,
but it allocated specific funding for NERI projects within other nuclear energy
programs.
Fossil Energy Research, Development, and Demonstration. The
Bush Administration’s FY2006 budget request of $491.5 million for fossil energy
research and development is 14.1% less than the amount enacted for FY2005 ($571.9
million) and 25.4% less than the enacted amount for FY2004 ($659 million). Major
funding categories and amounts include Coal and Other Power Systems ($351.0
million), Natural Gas Technologies ($10.0 million), Oil Technology ($10.0 million),
and Program Direction and Management Support ($98.0 million). The House would
fund fossil energy research and development programs at $502.5 million, including
the use of $20 million in prior-year balances. The Senate bill, however, would fund
the Fossil Energy budget at $641.6 million for FY2006 (including $20 million in
prior-year balances), which is 28% greater than the House-passed version and 30%
higher than the budget request.
DOE is proposing to terminate both the Natural Gas and Oil Technology
programs based on a Program Assessment Rating Tool review which rated both
programs ineffective. Congressional support of Natural Gas and Oil Technology
programs has been significantly higher than the Bush Administration’s request in
previous years. The House would direct the Administration to report to the House
and Senate appropriation committees on a strategic plan that will better articulate its
investment strategy and the successes of the natural gas and petroleum technology
programs. The House approved $33 million for natural gas technologies ($12 million
of which would go towards methane hydrates research) and $29 million for
petroleum-oil technologies. The House does not support the termination of either
program. The Senate bill supports less than the House for Natural Gas Programs ($27
million) and more for Petroleum — Oil Technologies ($32 million).
The Administration requests $68 million for its Clean Coal Power Initiative
(CCPI), including $18 million for FutureGen, a project to demonstrate co-production
of electricity and hydrogen from coal with no emissions. According to DOE’s budget
justification, CCPI is a “cost-shared program between the government and industry
to rapidly demonstrate emerging technologies in coal-based power generation and to
accelerate their commercialization.” Nearly $400 million has been appropriated since
FY2002. CCPI is along the lines of the Clean Coal Technology Program (CCTP),
which began in the late 1980s. It has completed most of its projects and has been
subject to rescissions and deferrals since the mid-1990s. The CCTP eventually is to
be phased out.

CRS-20
The House supports funding both the CCPI and FutureGen at the levels
requested by the Administration. However, while both agree that there is an unused
previously appropriated balance of $257 million from the Clean Coal Technology
Program, the Administration requests rescinding the money and incorporating the
funds into the fossil fuel account for FutureGen activities as an advanced
appropriation to be used in FY2007 and beyond. The House approved, instead,
deferring the $257 million, while acknowledging that the funds will be used for the
FutureGen program in fiscal years 2007 and beyond (see FutureGen funding schedule
in Table below). The Senate bill also would defer the $257 million of CCTP funds
but supports $100 million for CCPI Programs in FY2006, $50 million more than the
Administration’s request and the amount approved by the House.
Coal R&D other than CCPI and FutureGen would rise by 5.9% to $218 million,
while nearly all other fossil fuel programs would be cut. Within the Coal R&D, the
Administration’s request for gasification research increased from $34.5 million in
FY2005 to $56.4 million in FY2006. The FY2005 enacted level was $45.8 million.
This level of increase is an indication of more commitment by the Administration
and Congress to the integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) technology aimed
at commercialization. There is sustained investment in IGCC because of its potential
benefits from reduced NOx, SOx, mercury, and fine particulate matter emissions.
Moreover, lower CO2 emissions through greater plant efficiencies and/or potential
sequestration could be substantial. Under the Administration’s request, funding for
DOE’s Carbon Sequestration program would increase significantly — from $45.4
million in FY2005 to $67.2 million in FY2006.
The House supports funding at the levels requested within the coal R&D
programs except for carbon sequestration. The House would fund the Carbon
Sequestration program at $50 million (an increase of $4.6 million over the FY2005
appropriation), while the Senate bill supports funding the Carbon Sequestration
Program at $74 million. The Senate bill includes higher levels of funding than the
House and the Administration for Fuels, Fuel Cells, and Advanced Research. Also
included is spending for Plant and Equipment ($23 million, primarily for
infrastructure improvements at the National Energy Technology Lab) and
Congressionally Directed Projects ($25.1 million), neither included in the House-
passed bill or the Administration request.
In its report on the FY2005 funding bill, the House Appropriations Committee
expressed disappointment with the emphasis of the Administration’s request on
funding new, long-term energy research efforts, such as FutureGen, at the expense
of ongoing energy programs that could yield energy savings and emissions reductions
over the next decade. The Committee recommended restoring many of the proposed
reductions for research to improve fossil energy technologies, contending that it
would be “fiscally irresponsible” to discontinue research in which major investments
have been made before that research is concluded.

CRS-21
Table 9. FutureGen Funding Profile
($ millions)
FY
DOE Direct
Other Cash Flows
Total
2004-05
27
2
11
2006
18
7
25
2007
50
25
75
2008
100
44
144
2009
89
75
164
2010
57
66
123
2011-18
159
224
383
Total
500
450
950
Source: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Fossil Energy, FutureGen, Integrated Hydrogen,
Electric Power Production and Carbon Sequestration Research Initiative, March 2004.
Strategic Petroleum Reserve. The Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR),
authorized by the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (P.L. 94-163) in late 1975,
consists of caverns formed out of naturally occurring salt domes in Louisiana and
Texas in which more than 680 million barrels of crude oil are stored. The purpose
of the SPR is to provide an emergency source of crude oil which may be tapped in
the event of a presidential finding that an interruption in oil supply, or an interruption
threatening adverse economic effects, warrants a drawdown from the reserve. A
Northeast Heating Oil Reserve (NHOR) was established during the Clinton
Administration, housing 2 million barrels of home heating oil in above-ground
facilities in Connecticut, New Jersey, and Rhode Island.
In mid-November 2001, President Bush ordered that the SPR be filled to
capacity (700 million barrels) using royalty-in-kind (RIK) oil. This is oil turned over
to the federal government as payment for production from federal leases. Acquiring
oil for the SPR by RIK avoids the necessity for Congress to make outlays to finance
direct purchase of oil; however, it also means a loss of revenues to the Treasury in
so far as the royalties are paid in wet barrels rather than in cash. Deliveries of RIK
oil began in the spring of 2002 and are currently scheduled to continue through
August 2005 when the capacity of the SPR should be filled. Some policymakers have
objected to RIK fill, arguing that this oil should instead be released to tight markets.
The Administration has argued that the volumes involved, varying between 65,000-
200,000 barrels per day of deliveries to the SPR, are too small to have any discernible
effect on crude and product prices.
The current program costs for the SPR are almost exclusively dedicated to
maintaining SPR facilities and keeping the SPR in readiness should it be needed.
The costs of transporting RIK oil to SPR sites are borne by the contractors, so no new
money was requested for the SPR petroleum account beginning with FY2004.

CRS-22
Congress agreed to a funding level of $174.6 million for the program in
FY2005, including $4.9 million for the NHOR. The Administration request for
FY2006 for the SPR itself is $166.0 million, a reduction from the FY2005
appropriation of slightly more than $4 million. No new money is requested for the
NHOR in FY2006, owing to the use of prior-year balances of $5.3 million. Both the
House and Senate bills would fund the SPR at the requested level.
For more information, see CRS Issue Brief IB87050, The Strategic Petroleum
Reserve, by Robert Bamberger.
Science. For FY2006, DOE has requested $3.463 billion for Science, a
decrease of 4% from the FY2005 appropriation of $3.600 billion. The Office of
Science conducts basic research in six program areas: basic energy sciences, high-
energy physics, biological and environmental research, nuclear physics, fusion energy
sciences, and advanced scientific computing research. Through these programs,
DOE is the third-largest federal supporter of basic research and the largest federal
supporter of research in the physical sciences.5 The House provided funding of
$3.666 billion, $203 million more than the request and a 2% increase from FY2005.
The Senate bill includes $3.703 billion, $240 million more than the request and a 3%
increase from FY2005.
The requested funding for the largest program, basic energy sciences, is $1.146
billion, a 4% increase above FY2005. Construction of the Spallation Neutron Source
is expected to be completed in the third quarter of FY2006, so the request for this
facility includes less funding for construction but for the first time includes the cost
of operations. Operations will also begin at four of the five new Nanoscale Science
Research Centers. (The fifth is still under construction and is expected to begin
operations in FY2008.) Some have expressed concern that operations funding for
these facilities will result in reduced grant funding for other research in the basic
energy sciences program. The House provided an increase of $27 million over the
request. The Senate bill has an increase of $95 million.
The request for fusion energy sciences is $291 million, a 6% increase. In 2003,
the United States rejoined negotiations on construction of the International
Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER), a fusion facility whose other
participants include China, the European Union, Japan, Russia, and South Korea.
The requested FY2006 budget for fusion energy sciences includes $50 million related
to ITER and estimates that the total U.S. share of the project will be $1.1 billion
through FY2013. When the FY2006 budget was released, the international partners
remained split on where ITER should be located, a decision that was originally
expected in November 2003. Agreement on a site in France was officially announced
on June 28, 2005, which was after the House passed H.R. 2419 and after the Senate
committee reported it, but three days before the bill was passed by the Senate. The
House provided an increase of $6 million over the request, and directed that this $6
million plus $29 million of the funding requested for ITER should be devoted to
5 Based on 2004 data from Tables C-29 and C-22 of National Science Foundation, Division
of Science Resources Statistics, Federal Funds for Research and Development: Fiscal Years
2002, 2003, and 2004
, NSF 05-307 (February 2005).

CRS-23
U.S.-based fusion research. As in previous years, the House report directed DOE to
fund ITER out of additional resources, not through reductions in the domestic
program, and expressed its preparedness to eliminate future U.S. funding for ITER
if this is not done. The Senate bill included the requested amount for fusion energy
sciences, but reduced ITER funding by $28 million to pay for increased facility
operating time (see below).
The other four Office of Science programs would all be reduced in the FY2006
request. High-energy physics would receive $714 million, down 3%. Biological and
environmental research would receive $456 million, down 22%. Nuclear physics
would receive $371 million, down 8%. Advanced scientific computing research
would receive $207 million, down 11%. Most of the decrease for biological and
environmental research corresponds to the completion of congressionally directed
one-time projects. The House restored high-energy physics to its FY2005 level of
$736 million; increased biological and environmental research by $70 million,
including $35 million for “congressionally directed university and hospital
earmarks”; restored nuclear physics to $408 million, slightly above the FY2005 level;
and increased funding for advanced scientific computing research by $39 million to
support development of a leadership-class supercomputer. The Senate bill increased
high-energy physics and nuclear physics by $3 million and $49 million respectively
to increase facility operating time (see below); increased biological and
environmental research by $48 million, mostly to accelerate the Genomes to Life
program (a total of $51 million for 48 congressionally directed projects would come
from within available funds); and provided the requested amount for advanced
scientific computing research.
The FY2005 appropriations conference report (H.Rept. 108-792) encouraged
DOE “to request sufficient funds for the Office of Science in fiscal year 2006 to
operate user facilities for as much time as possible.” For the facilities funded by four
of the six Science programs, the FY2006 budget request includes “a reduction in
operating hours due to funding limitations.” The major facilities of the basic energy
sciences program will be capable of operating for users for a total of 32,200 hours in
FY2006, but only a total of 28,800 hours are scheduled. The Tevatron complex at
Fermilab, funded by the high-energy physics program, will be capable of operating
for 4,800 hours, but is scheduled for only 4,560. The four facilities of the nuclear
physics program will be capable of operating for a total of 22,765 hours, but are
scheduled for only a total of 14,695. The three fusion energy sciences facilities will
be capable of operating for a total of 3,000 hours, but are scheduled for only 680. In
each of these cases, the difference between optimal hours and scheduled hours was
less in FY2005 than is requested in FY2006. The House increases for basic energy
sciences, fusion energy sciences, and nuclear physics include $20 million, $14
million, and $32 million respectively for maintaining facility operating time at
FY2005 levels. The Senate bill provided a total of $100 million to restore operating
time to optimal levels: $20 million in basic energy sciences, $28 million in fusion
energy sciences, $49 million in nuclear physics, and $3 million in high-energy
physics.
Nuclear Waste Disposal. DOE’s Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste
Management (OCRWM) is responsible for developing a nuclear waste repository at
Yucca Mountain, Nevada, for disposal of nuclear reactor spent fuel and defense-

CRS-24
related high-level radioactive waste. OCRWM’s funding comes from two
appropriations accounts: the Nuclear Waste Disposal account, for which DOE
requested $300 million, and Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal, with a request of
$351.4 million. Appropriations under the Nuclear Waste Disposal account come
from the Nuclear Waste Fund, which holds disposal fees paid by nuclear utilities.
OCRWM’s total budget request of $651.4 million is about 14% above the
FY2005 level but only about half the amount that the FY2005 budget justification
said would have been needed to open the Yucca Mountain repository by DOE’s
previous goal of 2010. Upon releasing the budget request, program officials
announced that the repository’s opening would be delayed at least two years and that
a Yucca Mountain license application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)
would be delayed as well.
Because of those delays, the House raised the waste program’s funding by $10
million, to $661.4 million, so that OCRWM could begin moving spent fuel from
nuclear reactor sites to “centralized interim storage at one or more DOE sites within
FY2006,” according to the House Appropriations Committee report. Possible sites
named by the committee include Hanford, WA; Idaho National Laboratory; and
Savannah River, SC.
Members from states named as potential nuclear waste storage sites raised
concerns about the report language during the floor debate. Representative Hobson,
chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, assured
Representative Otter that the report language would not affect a DOE agreement with
the State of Idaho prohibiting commercial spent fuel storage at Idaho National
Laboratory. The Chairman also entered into a colloquy with Representative Spratt
to clarify that the report language would not modify provisions in the Nuclear Waste
Policy Act that limit DOE interim storage facilities.
The Senate bill provides $300 million under Nuclear Waste Disposal and $277
million under Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal, for a total of $577 million — nearly
the same as the previous two fiscal years. The Senate panel’s report does not include
any language on interim storage of spent fuel, and several Senators reportedly
criticized the House report language during committee markup.6
For FY2005, the Administration’s budget request for the nuclear waste program
had assumed that Congress would enact legislation to offset most of the program’s
spending with revenue from the waste fees paid by nuclear power plants. As a result,
the FY2005 net appropriation request was only $131 million, significantly less than
the previous year’s appropriation. However, Congress did not approve the funding
offset proposal, and congressional appropriators then had to work to find additional
appropriations for the nuclear waste program to prevent a large budget cut. For
FY2006, the Administration has again proposed that nuclear waste funding be offset
by fees, but the budget request does not assume the proposal will be enacted and
therefore includes full funding through appropriations.
6 Hiruo, Elaine. “Senate FY-06 Bill Report Takes Technical View of Waste Management.”
NuclearFuel. June 20, 2005. p. 1.

CRS-25
One of the largest proposed increases in the civilian waste disposal budget
request in FY2006 is for transportation, which would rise from $30.7 million in
FY2005 to $85.4 million. The 178% increase is needed for developing a new branch
rail line to Yucca Mountain and for preparing a national waste transportation system,
according to the budget justification. Funding for waste disposal packages would
triple under the budget request, to $14.5 million, and funding to develop a nuclear
waste handling facility at Yucca Mountain would rise 45% to $30 million.
The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (NWPA, P.L. 97-425), as amended,
names Yucca Mountain as the sole candidate site for a national geologic repository.
Congress passed an approval resolution in July 2000 (H.J.Res. 87, P.L. 107-200) that
authorized the Yucca Mountain project to proceed to the licensing phase.
The new 2012 target for opening a permanent repository is nearly 15 years later
than the Nuclear Waste Policy Act deadline of January 31, 1998, for DOE to begin
taking waste from nuclear plant sites. Nuclear utilities and state utility regulators,
upset over DOE’s failure to meet the 1998 disposal deadline, have won two federal
court decisions upholding the department’s obligation to meet the deadline and to
compensate utilities for any resulting damages. Utilities have also won several cases
in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. The nation’s largest nuclear utility, Exelon
Corporation, reached a breach-of-contract settlement with the federal government in
August 2004 that may total $600 million if DOE does not begin taking spent fuel
before 2015.
Further delays in the Yucca Mountain program could result from a July 2004
court decision that overturned a key aspect of the Environmental Protection Agency’s
(EPA’s) regulations for the repository. A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled that EPA’s 10,000-year
compliance period was too short, but it rejected several other challenges to the
standards.
More controversy erupted in March 2005 with the release of e-mail messages
from Yucca Mountain scientists that indicated that some of their data and
documentation may have been fabricated. The House Appropriations Committee
report cited all those problems as reasons for establishing a DOE interim storage
program.
(For more information, see CRS Issue Brief IB92059, Civilian Nuclear Waste
Disposal, by Mark Holt.)
Nuclear Weapons Stockpile Stewardship. Congress established the
Stockpile Stewardship Program in the FY1994 National Defense Authorization Act
(P.L. 103-160) “to ensure the preservation of the core intellectual and technical
competencies of the United States in nuclear weapons.” The program is operated by
the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), a semiautonomous agency
within DOE that Congress established in the FY2000 National Defense
Authorization Act (P.L. 106-65, Title XXXII). It seeks to maintain the safety and
reliability of the U.S. nuclear stockpile.

CRS-26
Stockpile stewardship consists of all activities in NNSA’s Weapons Activities
account. The three main elements of stockpile stewardship, described next, are
Directed Stockpile Work (DSW), Campaigns, and Readiness in Technical Base and
Facilities (RTBF). Table 10 presents funding for these elements. NNSA manages
two programs outside of Weapons Activities: Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation,
discussed later in this report, and Naval Reactors.
Most stewardship activities take place at the nuclear weapons complex, which
consists of three laboratories (Los Alamos National Laboratory, NM; Lawrence
Livermore National Laboratory, CA; and Sandia National Laboratories, NM and
CA), four production sites (Kansas City Plant, MO; Pantex Plant, TX; Savannah
River Site, SC; and Y-12 Plant, TN), and the Nevada Test Site. NNSA manages and
sets policy for the complex; contractors to NNSA operate the eight sites.
Table 10. Funding for Weapons Activities
($ millions)
FY2006
House
Senate
Program
FY2005
Conf.
Request
H.R. 2419
H.R. 2419
DSW
1,346.1
1,421.0
1,283.7
1,458.8
Campaigns
2,304.8
2,080.4
1,911.7
2,098.0
RTBF
1,657.1
1,631.4
1,610.9
1,696.3
Othera
1,028.6
1,497.3
1,374.9
1,301.2
Total
6,331.6
6,630.1
6,181.1
6,554.4
Source: House Report 109-86; Senate Report 109-84.
Details may not add to totals due to rounding.
a. Includes Secure Transportation Asset, Nuclear Weapons Incident Response, Facilities and
Infrastructure Recapitalization Program, Environmental Projects and Operations, Safeguards
and Security, and several adjustments.
The FY2006 request includes data from NNSA’s Future Years Nuclear Security
Program (FYNSP), which projects the budget and components through FY2010 (see
Table 11).
Table 11. NNSA Future Years Nuclear Security Program
($ millions)
FY2006
FY2007
FY2008
FY2009
FY2010
DSW
1,421.0
1,459.3
1,487.5
1,516.2
1,545.4
Campaigns
2,080.4
2,034.7
2,043.9
2,027.7
2,027.7
RTBF
1,631.4
1,745.5
1,817.1
1,915.8
2,000.1
Othera
1,497.3
1,540.8
1,573.0
1,617.6
1,688.4
Total
6,630.1
6,780.4
6,921.4
7,077.2
7,261.6
Source: House Report 109-86; Senate Report 109-84.
Details may not add to totals because of rounding.
a. Includes Secure Transportation Asset, Nuclear Weapons Incident Response, Facilities and
Infrastructure Recapitalization Program, Environmental Projects and Operations, Safeguards
and Security, and several adjustments.

CRS-27
Directed Stockpile Work (DSW). This program involves work directly on
nuclear weapons in the stockpile, such as monitoring their condition; maintaining
them through repairs, refurbishment, life extension, and modifications; R&D in
support of specific warheads; and dismantlement. The FY2006 DSW request would
support life extension programs for three nuclear warheads: B61 (gravity bomb),
W76 (for Trident I and II submarine-launched ballistic missiles), and W80 (for cruise
missiles). It would fund surveillance and maintenance for nine warhead types, some
work on retired warheads, and some management and technology work not linked to
a specific warhead.
The FY2005 Consolidated Appropriations Act reduced DSW to $1,346.1
million, from $1,406.4 million requested. Probably the most noticed provisions were
elimination of the $27.6 million request for the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator
(RNEP), and transfer of the $9.0 million request for the Advanced Concepts Initiative
(ACI) to a new program, Reliable Replacement Warhead. Congress debated RNEP
and ACI in the FY2004 and FY2005 budget cycles; in addition, the Senate debated
RNEP in the FY2006 budget cycle.
RNEP is a study of the cost and feasibility of modifying existing nuclear bombs
to enable them to penetrate into the ground before detonating, thereby magnifying
their effect on a buried target. (See CRS Report RL32130, Nuclear Weapon
Initiatives: Low-Yield R&D, Advanced Concepts, Earth Penetrators, Test Readiness,
and CRS Report RL32347, Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator Budget Request and
Plan, FY2005-FY2009
.) RNEP’s supporters argue that it is needed to attack hard and
deeply buried targets (such as leadership bunkers or chemical weapons production
facilities) in countries of concern, thereby deterring or defeating such nations; critics
reply that RNEP would lower the threshold for use of nuclear weapons and prompt
other nations to develop nuclear weapons to deter U.S. attack.
Congressional concern about RNEP arose in part because the FY2005 NNSA
request projected $484.7 million for the program for FY2005-FY2009. While RNEP
was a study, this figure was provided in response to a congressional requirement that
five-year costs be included in the budget request. The figure represented a projection
based on experience with other programs, DOE indicated. It was not possible to
provide a more precise number until the cost and feasibility study was completed.
Further, the figure projected the cost based as if the program were to progress beyond
a study into development, although moving the program beyond the study stage
would have required an Administration decision and congressional approval.
For FY2006, NNSA requests $4.0 million for the RNEP study, projects another
$14.0 million for FY2007, and then projects no further funds. (The Department of
Defense (DOD) budget includes an additional $4.5 million for RNEP for FY2006.)
NNSA funds would be used to complete the study. H.R. 2419 as passed by the
House deleted all NNSA funds for RNEP. The bill as reported by the Senate
Appropriations Committee recommends $4.0 million. On June 30, the Senate
rejected an amendment by Senator Feinstein to delete all RNEP funds from the
Energy and Water bill, 43-53, and subsequently passed the bill, 92-3. As the Energy
and Water bill does not deal with DOD programs, it does not address DOD’s RNEP
request.

CRS-28
ACI was also controversial in the FY2005 budget cycle. Critics claimed that its
purpose was to develop a low-yield “mini-nuke” that would make nuclear weapons
more usable; supporters responded that NNSA was not working on a mini-nuke and
that ACI would help develop and maintain weapons design expertise. The
Administration requested $9.0 million for ACI for FY2005. The omnibus bill
provided no funds for ACI; instead, the conference report stated that “the same
amount is made available for the Reliable Replacement Warhead [RRW] program
to improve the reliability, longevity, and certifiability of existing weapons and their
components.” The Administration requests no funds for ACI for FY2006.
NNSA requests $9.4 million for RRW for FY2006. It states that the program
“is to demonstrate the feasibility of developing reliable replacement components that
are producible and certifiable for the existing stockpile” and to initially provide
replacement pits (first-stage cores) “that can be certified without Underground
Tests.” It projects these amounts: FY2007, $14.8 million; FY2008, $14.4 million;
FY2009, $29.6 million; and FY2010, $29.0 million. Note that the out-year figures
simply transfer the funds planned for ACI to RRW; the short time between enactment
of the FY2005 Consolidated Appropriations Act and the submission of the FY2006
budget request did not allow preparation of a detailed five-year budget for RRW.
H.R. 2419 as passed by the House provides $25.0 million for RRW; the bill as passed
by the Senate provides $25.4 million. (See CRS Report RL32929, Nuclear Weapons:
Reliable Replacement Warhead Program.
)
While RRW is a small program in relation to the total NNSA budget, the House
Appropriations Committee, in its report, views it as enabling many large changes:
transitioning the nuclear weapons complex “from a large, expensive Cold War relic
into a smaller, more efficient modern complex;” allowing “long-term savings by
phasing out the multiple redundant Cold War warhead designs that require
maintaining multiple obsolete production technologies;” “obviat[ing] any reason to
move to a provocative 18-month test readiness posture” by increasing warhead
reliability and reducing the need to test; permitting a reduction in Advanced
Simulation and Computing funds by redirecting them to current warhead
maintenance programs pending initiation of RRW; and supporting other changes and
budget decisions as well. The Senate Appropriations Committee’s report (S.Rept.
109-84) states that the recommended funding increase for RRW is “to accelerate the
planning, development and design for a comprehensive RRW strategy that improves
the reliability, longevity and certifiability of existing weapons and their components.”
In other actions on DSW, H.R. 2419 as passed by the House includes a
Sustainable Stockpile Initiative that would include an RRW implementation plan,
nuclear weapons complex reconfiguration, consolidation of fissile material that might
be used in weapons, and accelerated warhead dismantlement. The bill raises funding
for dismantlement by $75.0 million, to $110.3 million. The bill as passed by the
Senate provides $15.0 million for dismantlement.
Campaigns. These are “multi-year, multi-functional efforts” that “provide
specialized scientific knowledge and technical support to the directed stockpile work
on the nuclear weapons stockpile.” For FY2006, there are six campaigns, each of
which has multiple components: Science; Engineering; Inertial Confinement Fusion

CRS-29
and High Yield; Advanced Simulation and Computing; Pit Manufacturing and
Certification; and Readiness.
The FY2005 omnibus bill contained $2,304.8 million for campaigns, vs.
$2,393.8 million requested. Conferees expressed concern over a slip in the target
date, from 2010 to 2014, for achieving ignition with the National Ignition Facility
(NIF; see below), and directed several studies on this topic. Conferees also focused
on the Pit Manufacturing and Certification Campaign, which is working to produce
“pits” (the fissile core of the primary stage of nuclear weapons) and to certify them
for use in the stockpile. Congress provided $130.9 million, vs. $132.0 million
requested, for W88 pit manufacturing. Congress reduced funds for the Modern Pit
Facility (MPF), a proposed manufacturing facility to become operational around
2021, from $29.8 million requested to $6.9 million, and barred use of funds to select
a construction site for MPF in FY2005.
For FY2006, NNSA requests $2,080.4 million for campaigns, vs. $2,304.8
million appropriated for FY2005. Many items within campaigns have significance
for policy decisions. As one example, the Science Campaign’s goals include
improving the ability to assess warhead performance without nuclear testing,
improving readiness to conduct tests should the need arise, and maintaining the
scientific infrastructure of the nuclear weapons laboratories. H.R. 2419 as passed by
the House reduces funds for various campaigns; the bill as passed by the Senate
provides a slight net increase.
H.R. 2419 as passed by the House eliminates MPF funds until “capacity
requirements tied to the long-term stockpile size are determined” and “until the long-
term strategy for the physical infrastructure of the weapons complex has incorporated
the Reliable Replacement Warhead strategy.” The bill as passed by the Senate
provides the amount requested for MPF, $7.7 million.
The test readiness posture — the time between a presidential order to resume
testing and the conduct of the test — has been controversial. In FY2004, the defense
authorization conference report called for a posture of at most 18 months, while the
energy and water conference report called for NNSA “to focus on restoring a rigorous
test readiness program that is capable of meeting the current 24-month requirement
before requesting significant additional funds to pursue a more aggressive goal of an
18-month readiness posture.” The FY2005 omnibus conference report did not
address the topic, and for FY2006 NNSA requested $25.0 million for Test Readiness,
part of the Science Campaign, “to continue improving the state of readiness to reach
an 18-month test-readiness posture in FY2006.” H.R. 2419 as passed by the House
reduces Test Readiness from $25.0 million to $15.0 million. The committee
continues to oppose the 18-month readiness posture and added RRW to its rationale
for that position. The bill as passed by the Senate provides $25.0 million for test
readiness.
The Engineering Campaign includes the Enhanced Surveillance Program (ESP),
for which NNSA requests $96.2 million for FY2006. This program seeks to develop
“predictive capabilities for early identification and assessment of stockpile aging
concerns ... to give NNSA a firm basis for determining when systems must be
refurbished.” It is of interest to Congress because it is conducting experiments to

CRS-30
determine the service life of pits based on plutonium aging characteristics; the result
will bear on a decision to build MPF. H.R. 2419 as passed by the House reduces ESP
to $76.0 million. The bill as passed by the Senate provides $111.2 million for ESP.
“Funding increases will enable the development and implementation of these new
[surveillance] techniques, and improving their readiness for RRW and the sustainable
stockpile.”
According to NNSA, the Inertial Confinement Fusion and High Yield Campaign
“is to develop laboratory capabilities to create and measure extreme conditions ...
approaching those in a nuclear explosion, and conduct weapons-related research in
these environments.” A key part of this campaign is the National Ignition Facility
(NIF), a partly completed facility at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory that
is already the world’s most powerful laser. For FY2006, NNSA requests $141.9
million for NIF construction, and H.R. 2419 as passed by the House contains that
sum. The Senate Appropriations Committee notes that the planned five-year budget
projection for Weapons Activities in the FY2006 request is reduced by $3.0 billion
compared to the FY2005 request, and directs that no funds be expended on NIF
construction “in order to focus on supporting a comprehensive stewardship program.”
The Senate, in passing H.R. 2419, did not change this provision on NIF.
Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities (RTBF). This program
provides infrastructure and operations at the nuclear weapons complex sites. The
FY2005 omnibus bill provided $1,657.1 million for RTBF, vs. $1,474.5 million
requested. RTBF has six subprograms. By far the largest is Operations of Facilities
($1,112.6 million appropriated for FY2005, $1,160.8 million requested for FY2006).
Others include Program Readiness, which supports activities occurring at multiple
sites or in multiple programs ($105.4 million appropriated for FY2005, $105.7
million requested for FY2006), and Material Recycle and Recovery, which recovers
plutonium, enriched uranium, and tritium from weapons production and disassembly
($86.3 million appropriated for FY2005, $72.7 million requested for FY2006).
Construction is a separate category within RTBF; the FY2005 appropriation was
$275.1 million, and the FY2006 request is $243.0 million.
H.R. 2419 as passed by the House reduces RTBF to $1,610.9 million from an
FY2006 request of $1,631.4 million. It increases Operations of Facilities by $44.0
million, adding funds to maintain the Y-12 and Pantex Plants. The bill funds most
other RTBF elements at the level requested. A notable exception was eliminating
$55.0 million requested for a Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Facility
Replacement (CMRR) at Los Alamos to delay construction until DOE “determines
the long-term plan for developing the responsive infrastructure required to maintain
the nation’s existing nuclear stockpile and support replacement production
anticipated for the RRW initiative.” The bill as passed by the Senate provides
$1,696.3 million for RTBF. The largest change is an increase of $39.7 million in
Operations of Facilities. The Senate bill provides $65.0 million for CMRR.
Other Programs. Weapons Activities includes four smaller programs in
addition to DSW, Campaigns, and RTBF.
! Secure Transportation Asset provides for the transport of nuclear
weapons, components, and materials safely and securely. It includes

CRS-31
special vehicles used for this purpose, communications and other
supporting infrastructure, and threat response. The FY2005
appropriation was $199.7 million, and the FY2006 request is $212.1
million. H.R. 2419 as passed by the House and by the Senate
provides the amount requested.
! Nuclear Weapons Incident Response provides for use of DOE assets
to manage and respond to a nuclear or radiological emergency within
DOE, in the United States, or abroad. The FY2005 appropriation
was $98.4 million, and the FY2006 request is $118.8 million. H.R.
2419 as passed by the House and by the Senate provides the amount
requested.
! Facilities and Infrastructure Recapitalization Program provides for
deferred maintenance and infrastructure improvements for the
nuclear weapons complex. In contrast, RTBF “ensure[s] that
facilities necessary for immediate programmatic workload activities
are maintained sufficiently,” according to NNSA. The FY2005
appropriation was $313.7 million, and the FY2006 request is $283.5
million. H.R. 2419 as passed by the House provides $250.5 million.
The bill as passed by the Senate provides $261.8 million.
! Safeguards and Security provides operations and maintenance funds
for physical and cyber security, and related construction, to protect
NNSA personnel and assets from terrorist and other threats. The
FY2005 appropriation was $751.6 million, the FY2006 request is
$740.5 million, and H.R. 2419 as passed by the House provides
$825.5 million. The bill as passed by the Senate provides the
requested amount. Safeguards and Security is a major concern for
NNSA. Ambassador Linton Brooks, Administrator of NNSA, stated
to the Senate Armed Services Committee on April 4, 2005, “We
must now consider the distinct possibility of well-armed and
competent terrorist suicide teams seeking to gain access to a
warhead in order to detonate it in place. This has driven our site
security posture from one of ‘containment and recovery’ of stolen
warheads to one of ‘denial of any access’ to warheads. This change
has dramatically increased security costs for ‘gates, guns, guards’ at
our nuclear weapons sites.” The House Appropriations Committee,
commenting on the large increase, stated, “additional manpower is
only a stopgap solution to address security concerns throughout the
weapons complex,” and “strongly encourages the NNSA to review
these growing costs and seek smarter and more efficient ways to
meet necessary security improvements.”
Nonproliferation and National Security Programs. DOE’s
nonproliferation and national security programs provide technical capabilities to
support U.S. efforts to prevent, detect, and counter the spread of nuclear weapons
worldwide. These nonproliferation and national security programs are included in
the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA).

CRS-32
Funding for these programs in FY2005 was $1.422 billion. For FY2006, the
Administration requested $1.637 billion. H.R. 2419 as passed by the House contains
$1.501 billion. The Senate of H.R. 2419 would appropriate $1.729 billion.
Table 12. DOE Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation Programs
($ millions)
FY2006
House
Senate
Program
FY2005
Conf.
Request
H.R. 2419 H.R. 2419
Nonproliferation & Verification R&D
224.0
272.2
335.2
310.2
Nonproliferation & International
91.3
80.2
75.8
90.0
Securityb
International Materials Protection,
294.7
343.4
428.4
343.4
Control and Accounting (MPC&A)b
Russian Transition Initiativesa
40.7
37.9
30.3
50.9
Elimination of Weapons-Grade
44.0
132.0
197.0
152.0
Plutonium Production
HEU Transparency Implementation
20.8
20.5
20.5
20.5
Fissile Materials Disposition
613.1
653.1
301.7
653.1
Global Threat Reduction Initiativeb
93.8
98.0
112.0
109.0
Total
1,422.1
1,637.2
1,501.0
1,729.1
Source: House Report 109-86; Senate Report 109-84.

a. DOE proposed changing the program name to Global Initiatives for Proliferation Prevention. The House
Appropriations Committee did not agree to the change, but the Senate Appropriations Committee did.
b. GTRI funding redirected from other programs, primarily Nonproliferation and International Security and MPC&A.
In May 2004 DOE consolidated a number of programs, aimed at repatriating
fresh and spent fuel containing highly enriched uranium (HEU) from research
reactors around the world supplied by the United States and Russia, and converting
reactors that use HEU fuel to operate on low-enriched uranium, into a single Global
Threat Reduction Initiative (GTRI) within the Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation
Program. Most of the funding for GTRI was redirected from Nonproliferation
programs, but some came from Defense Environmental Management programs.
DOE said that the target for completion of the program was 2010, and that it would
be funded at about $450 million. Funding for GTRI in FY2005 was calculated by
DOE at $93.8 million. The request for FY2006 is $98.0 million. H.R. 2419 as
passed by the House would fund the program at $112.0 million. The Senate bill
would appropriate $109.0 million.
The Nonproliferation and Verification R&D program, which received $224
million for FY2005, would be funded at $272.2 million in the Administration’s
FY2006 request. The House-passed H.R. 2419 raised the level to $335.2 million.
The Senate bill includes $310.2 million. Nonproliferation and International Security
programs would receive $80.2 million in the request, compared with $91.3 million
in FY2005. The House bill includes $75.8 million, the Senate bill $90.0 million.
These programs include international safeguards, export controls, and treaties and
agreements. A major part of funding for the new GTRI came from the
Nonproliferation and International Security programs.

CRS-33
International Materials Protection, Control and Accounting (MPC&A), which
is concerned with reducing the threat posed by unsecured Russian weapons and
weapons-usable material, would receive $343.4 million under the President’s request,
compared to $294.7 million appropriated for FY2005. H.R. 2419 as passed by the
House includes $428.4 million. The Senate bill would appropriate $343.4 million.
Two programs in the former Soviet Union, Initiatives for Proliferation
Prevention (IPP) and the Nuclear Cities Initiatives (NCI), were combined for FY2005
into a single program called “Russian Transition Initiative,” aimed at finding non-
weapons employment for roughly 35,000 underemployed nuclear scientists from the
former Soviet weapons complex. The FY2005 appropriation for the program was
$40.7 million. For FY2006, $37.9 million was requested; DOE renamed the program
“Global Initiatives for Proliferation Prevention,” to reflect expansion of the work to
include retraining and redirection of scientists and technicians from other than the
former Soviet Union. The House Appropriations Committee did not agree with the
name change and reduced funding to $30.3 million. The Senate Appropriations
Committee went along with the name change, raised funding to $50.9 million, and
urged DOE to continue the program in Russia and expand it beyond the former
Soviet Union.
Requested funding for the Fissile Materials Disposition program for FY2006
was $653.1 million, compared with $613.1 million in appropriated for FY2005. The
program’s goal is disposal of U.S. surplus weapons plutonium by converting it into
fuel for commercial power reactors, including construction of a facility to convert the
plutonium to reactor fuel at Savannah River, SC, and a similar program in Russia.
The House Appropriations Committee cut funding for the Savannah River facility
sharply, citing delays in agreement with Russia over the program. Total funding for
fissile materials disposition in H.R. 2419 as passed by the House would be $301.7
million. The Senate version of the bill would fund the program at the requested
$653.1 million level.
Environmental Management and Cleanup. The Environmental
Management program is the largest single function within DOE in terms of funding,
representing approximately one-third of the Department’s total budget. The primary
purpose of the program is to manage radioactive and hazardous wastes, and to
remediate contamination from such wastes, at former nuclear weapons sites across
the country. The program also addresses waste management and remediation at sites
where the federal government conducted civilian nuclear energy research. As such,
DOE’s Environmental Management program is the largest waste management and
environmental cleanup program throughout the federal government, with an annual
budget of around $7 billion in recent years. In comparison, annual funding for the
cleanup of contamination at Department of Defense sites has been less than $2 billion
in recent years, and annual funding for the Environmental Protection Agency’s
cleanup of the nation’s most hazardous private sector sites under the Superfund
program has been around $1.25 billion.
As passed by the House, H.R. 2419 would provide a total of $6.93 billion for
DOE’s Environmental Management program in FY2006. As passed by the Senate,
H.R. 2419 would provide $6.83 billion for this program. The Administration had
requested $6.51 billion, and Congress appropriated $7.28 billion for FY2005. Both

CRS-34
versions of H.R. 2419 also would merge certain accounts that fund the
Environmental Management program. The accounts for Defense Site Acceleration
Completion and Defense Environmental Services would be merged into one Defense
Environmental Cleanup Account to provide a single source of funding for cleanup
at former nuclear weapons sites. The accounts for Non-defense Site Acceleration
Completion and Non-defense Environmental Services would be merged into one
Non-defense Environmental Cleanup Account to provide a single source of funding
for the cleanup of civilian nuclear energy research sites. As in past years, each bill
would maintain a separate account for the Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and
Decommissioning Fund, which supports the cleanup of uranium enrichment plants
and uranium and thorium processing sites. The Administration had requested
funding for FY2006 under the existing account structure, and did not propose any
accounting changes similar to that in either version of H.R. 2419.
Defense sites have traditionally received most of the funding within the
Environmental Management program. Of the amount passed by the House, $6.47
billion would be allocated to the new Defense Environmental Cleanup Account, $320
million to the new Non-defense Environmental Cleanup Account, and $591 million
to the Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund. Although
the total appropriation for these three accounts would be $7.38 billion, this amount
would be offset by $451 million from the Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and
Decommissioning Fund, yielding a total FY2006 program appropriation of $6.93
billion.
Of the amount in the Senate bill, $6.37 billion would be allocated to the new
Defense Environmental Cleanup Account, $353 million to the new Non-defense
Environmental Cleanup Account, and $561 million to the Uranium Enrichment
Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund. Although the total appropriation for
these three accounts would be $7.28 billion, this amount would be offset by $451
million from the Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund,
as in the House bill, yielding a total FY2006 program appropriation of $6.83 billion.
The Administration’s proposed funding decrease for FY2006 had received
attention among states and environmental organizations concerned that reduced
funding might result in slower and less stringent cleanup. However, the
Administration asserted that its proposed cut would not have resulted in a weaker
cleanup effort. Rather, the Administration indicated that its proposed funding
reflected:
! completion of certain cleanup activities;
! changes in scheduling of activities at some sites, such as
purposefully slowing engineering and construction at the Hanford
site in Washington State because of uncertain design variables
arising from considerations of seismic activity at that location;
! scaling back technology development as a federally funded
programmatic activity, and instead allowing market forces to drive
the development of more cost-effective technologies by contractors
seeking to maximize profits;
! safeguard and security cost savings from reduced infrastructure at
some sites, such as the Idaho National Laboratory; and

CRS-35
! the transfer of cleanup responsibilities at seven sites from the
Environmental Management program to the National Nuclear
Security Administration (NNSA) within the Department.7
Neither the House bill nor the Senate bill approved DOE’s proposed transfer of
seven sites within the Environmental Management program to the NNSA. The
retention of these sites within the Environmental Management program accounts for
over $200 million of the increase in both bills above the Administration’s request.
The House approved the Administration’s requested decreases for technology
development and safeguard and security activities, whereas the Senate only approved
the decrease for safeguard and security activities and increased funding for
technology development by $35 million to $56 million in FY2006. Both the House
bill and the Senate bill would provide more funding than requested for the Hanford
site. However, the increase in the Senate bill would only be for the Office of River
Protection at Hanford, which is responsible for managing high-level radioactive and
chemical wastes stored in underground tanks near the Columbia River.
Cleanup Status. Historically, there have been many longstanding issues
associated with DOE’s Environmental Management program. Much attention has
focused on the amount of time and money needed to clean up environmental
contamination, and to manage and dispose of radioactive and other hazardous wastes.
To date, there are 114 geographic sites within the Environmental Management
program (including the 7 sites that DOE proposed for transfer to the NNSA), which
were contaminated from nuclear weapons production or civilian nuclear energy
research. According to DOE, all response actions were complete at 76 of these sites
as of the end of FY2003. Congress had appropriated approximately $70 billion
through FY2003 for cleanup and site closure since the Environmental Management
program was established in FY1989. DOE expects cleanup to be complete at 3
additional sites by the end of FY2005, and at 7 additional sites by the end of
CY2006, yielding a total of 86 of the 114 sites with cleanup complete.
Efforts to Accelerate Cleanup. Although cleanup is projected to be
complete at many of the remaining sites within a decade, cleanup at the most
contaminated sites is not expected to be complete until 2035. DOE’s most recent
estimate of future costs to complete its planned waste disposal and cleanup activities
is $95 billion from FY2004 through final site closure in 2035. This is a substantially
lower estimate than in past years, as a result of cost and time savings DOE expects
from its cleanup reform initiative. DOE launched this initiative in FY2003 and
signed letters of intent with the Environmental Protection Agency and the states to
accelerate cleanup at its major sites. DOE also prepared Performance Management
Plans for many of its sites, which outlined how cleanup would be accelerated and
costs reduced.
7 These sites include (1) Nevada Test Site, (2) Sandia National Laboratory, (3) Separation
Process Research Unit, (4) Kansas City Plant, (5) Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Livermore Site, (6) Lawrence Livermore Laboratory Site 300, and (7) Pantex. In addition,
operation of the low-level waste disposal site at the Nevada Test Site and newly generated
waste management at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and the Y-12 site were also
proposed for transfer from the Environmental Management program to the National Nuclear
Security Administration within DOE.

CRS-36
In developing its plans to accelerate cleanup, DOE established baselines for the
completion of its planned waste disposal and remedial actions, reflecting defined
scope, costs, and schedules. According to DOE, its goals of faster and less costly
cleanup are being accomplished through awarding competitive contracts,
renegotiating existing contracts with performance-based incentives, working with
regulators on more efficient technical and regulatory approaches, deploying
innovative technologies, and coordinating with stakeholders and regulators to better
define “end states” (i.e., the intended condition or use of each site once cleanup is
complete).
Although there has been widespread concern about the amount of time and
money needed to clean up nuclear waste sites, questions have been raised as to how
DOE would accomplish its goals of faster and less costly cleanup without weakening
environmental protection. Some have contended that more contamination may be
left on site rather than removed. Because of the substantial amount of time required
for certain types of radioactivity to decay, arguments have been raised that
contamination left in place may migrate in unexpected ways over the long-term, and
result in pathways of exposure that could not have been predicted when the remedy
was originally selected. Others counter that completely removing radioactive
contamination from all sites to permit unrestricted future land use, and eliminate all
future pathways of exposure, would not be economically feasible, and in some cases
would be beyond the capabilities of current cleanup technologies.
Both the House and Senate Appropriations Committees included language in
their respective reports on H.R. 2419 commenting on DOE’s cleanup acceleration
efforts. The House Appropriations Committee indicated that it remains interested in
whether DOE is meeting its cleanup goals at sites scheduled for completion in 2006,
2012, and 2035 respectively. The committee requested that DOE begin submitting
quarterly reports for each of these sites beginning December 31, 2005, which track
accelerated clean-up “milestones,” determine whether they are being met, and include
annual budget estimates and total life-cycle costs of completing the cleanup at each
site.
The Senate Appropriations Committee commented that DOE has “succeeded
in making significant progress” by reducing the total life-cycle costs of completing
cleanup by $50 billion and by reducing the time frame for cleanup by 35 years. The
committee indicated its support of these efforts and encouraged DOE “to continue
[to] keep the remaining sites on track.” However, these reductions in costs and time
frames are estimates, based on DOE’s cleanup acceleration plans. Actual costs and
time frames could differ depending on numerous factors, such as the regulatory
approval of actions that DOE wishes to take in the future and the adequacy of these
actions to protect human health and the environment over the long-term.
Disposal of Tank Wastes. One of the more controversial issues regarding
DOE’s cleanup acceleration initiative has been how to dispose of radioactive and
chemical wastes stored in underground tanks at the Hanford site in Washington State,
the Savannah River site in South Carolina, and the Idaho National Laboratory. For
FY2005, DOE proposed a new account to fund the classification of some of the tank
wastes as “incidental to reprocessing,” and to dispose of it as low-level waste or
transuranic waste. The most contentious element of DOE’s proposal was to leave

CRS-37
some of the waste in the tanks, and to dispose of it as low-level waste by mixing and
immobilizing it with a cement-like “grout” to seal it in place on closure of the tank.
Some Members of Congress, states, environmental organizations, and
communities opposed DOE’s proposal, arguing that none of the tank wastes should
be allowed to remain in place. Among the chief concerns was the possibility that the
grout might not mix thoroughly with the residual waste to contain it safely and
prevent leaks. However, others asserted that there would be limited environmental
and public health risk benefit to be gained by removing all of the waste from the
tanks. There also were concerns that removal of all of the waste would be technically
difficult, pose a significant health and safety risk to the workers, and be very costly.
After considerable debate, the 108th Congress included authority in the Ronald
W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for FY2005 (P.L. 108-375) for DOE
to classify some of the tank wastes at the Savannah River site and the Idaho National
Laboratory as other than high-level waste, and to dispose of some of the tank waste
by grouting it in place if certain conditions are met. However, the authority was not
extended to Washington State, where most of the tank waste is located at the Hanford
site. (For further discussion, see CRS Report RS21988, Radioactive Tank Wastes:
Disposal Authority in the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for
FY2005
, coordinated by David Bearden.)
The Administration’s FY2006 request for the Environmental Management
program included funding for the closing of one tank at the Idaho National
Laboratory. Safely closing a tank involves numerous steps, such as removing and
processing removed waste for disposal elsewhere, flushing of pipes, and sealing a
tank in such a manner to ensure its structural integrity to prevent collapse. DOE’s
budget justification did not indicate the amount of waste in the tank slated for closure
in Idaho that may be classified as other than high-level pursuant to the authority in
P.L. 108-375 and grouted in place upon tank closure. The FY2006 request also
included funding for the construction of waste treatment facilities at the Idaho
National Laboratory and the Savannah River site that would be necessary for DOE
to process the waste removed from the tanks prior to grouting any residual waste that
may remain upon closure. Neither the House bill nor the Senate bill explicitly stated
the amount of funding that would be allocated to tank closure activities at either site.
Office of Legacy Management. Related to the Environmental Management
program, both the House bill and the Senate bill include nearly $79 million for
DOE’s Office of Legacy Management, about the same as requested, and slightly
more than the enacted FY2005 amount of $77 million. Of the amount in the House
bill, $55 million would be allocated to former defense sites and related activities, and
the remaining $24 million to non-defense sites. The Senate bill would allocate $45
million to former defense sites and nearly $34 million to non-defense sites. Congress
provided the funding for DOE to establish this office in the Energy and Water
Development Appropriations Act for FY2004 (P.L. 108-137). The primary functions
of the Office of Legacy Management are to monitor and maintain remedial actions
over the long-term once cleanup is complete, to ensure protection of human health
and the environment, and to manage the pensions and benefits of former contractor
personnel who performed the cleanup. DOE previously administered these
responsibilities under multiple elements of its Environmental Management program.

CRS-38
Power Marketing Administrations. DOE’s four Power Marketing
Administrations (PMAs) — Bonneville Power Administration (BPA), Southeastern
Power Administration (SEPA), Southwestern Power Administration (SWPA), and
Western Area Power Administration (WAPA) — were established in response to the
construction of dams and multi-purpose water projects operated by the Bureau of
Reclamation and the Army Corps of Engineers. In many cases, conservation and
management of water resources — including irrigation, flood control, recreation or
other objectives — were the primary purpose of federal projects. However, these
facilities often generated electricity to meet project needs; PMAs were established
to market the excess power.
Priority for PMA power is extended to “preference customers,” which include
municipal utilities, co-ops and other “public” bodies. The PMAs sell power to these
entities “at the lowest possible rates” consistent with what they describe as “sound
business practice.” The PMAs are responsible for covering their expenses and for
repaying debt and the federal investment in the generating facilities. Their rates are
the focus of considerable discussion and the FY2006 Administration request includes
a recommendation that Congress raise PMA rates to “market rates.” The House
rejects this proposal in its Energy and Water appropriations bill, and no related
legislation has been introduced in the 109th Congress. (For more information see
CRS Report RL32798, Power Marketing Administrations: Proposals for Market-
Based Rates,
by Kyna Powers.)
The FY2006 Administration request for the PMAs ($57.1 million) is sharply
down from FY2005 levels ($208.8 million) — a reduction of 72.6%. This reflects
a reduction of $117.8 million for WAPA and $26.0 million for Southwestern. Net
appropriations for Southeastern, budgeted at roughly $5.2 million in FY2005, would
be eliminated altogether. However, the Administration’s request offset these
reductions by allowing SEPA, SWPA, and WAPA to credit a portion of their
revenues to their appropriation accounts as offsetting collections for program and
operating expenses. The House and Senate both reject this proposal and instead
provide appropriations for these activities. The House-passed bill includes $265.5
million for PMAs — a $56.7 million increase from FY2005 appropriations. This
appropriation includes $5.6 million for SEPA, $30.2 for SWPA, and $227.0 million
for WAPA. The Senate bill includes $279.2 million for PMAs — $11.1 million
more than the House. This appropriation includes $5.6 million for SEPA, $30.2
million for SWPA, and $240.8 million for WAPA. (For more information see CRS
Report RS22080, Power Marketing Administrations; Offsetting Collections in the
President’s FY2006 Budget Proposal
, by Kyna Powers.)
BPA receives no annual appropriation, but funds some of its activities from
permanent borrowing authority, which was increased in FY2003 from $3.75 billion
to $4.45 billion (a $700 million increase). BPA is not requesting, and neither the
House nor the Senate has included, additional borrowing authority in FY2006. BPA
intends to use $487 million of its borrowing authority in FY2006, up from $432
million in FY2005, for generation and transmission services, conservation, energy
efficiency, fish and wildlife, and capital equipment programs. In the Senate’s report,
109-84, it expresses concern with BPA’s fishery expenditures and prohibits new
obligations in support of the Fish Passage Center.

CRS-39
Title IV: Independent Agencies
Independent agencies that receive funding from the Energy and Water
Development bill include the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), the
Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC), and the Denali Commission.
Table 13 . Energy and Water Development Appropriations
Title IV: Independent Agencies
($ millions)
FY2006
House
Senate
Program
FY2005
Conf.
Request
H.R. 2419
H.R. 2419
Appalachian Regional Commission
65.5
65.5
38.5
65.5
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
664.9
701.7
714.3
742.7
(Revenues)
(536.8)
(567.1)
(580.6)
(606.1)
Net NRC
128.1
134.6
134.6
136.6
Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety
Board
20.1
22.0
22.0
22.0
Nuclear Waste Technical Review
Board
3.2
3.6
3.6
3.6
Denali Commission
66.4
2.6
2.6
67.0
Delta Regional Authority
6.0
6.0
6.0
12.0
Total
289.3
234.3
207.3
306.7
Source: House Report 109-86; Senate Report 109-84.
Key Policy Issues — Independent Agencies
Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC) requested a total budget of $701.7 million for FY2006, including $8.3
million for the NRC inspector general’s office. The request is about 4.8% above the
FY2005 funding level. Major activities conducted by NRC include safety regulation
and licensing of commercial nuclear reactors, licensing of nuclear waste facilities,
and oversight of nuclear materials users.
The House approved a $21 million increase over the NRC budget request, to
$722.7 million, for additional regulation of the security of spent fuel at nuclear
reactor sites. The House Appropriations Committee report cited spent fuel security
risks found by a 2004 study by the National Academy of Sciences and expressed
dissatisfaction with NRC’s response so far. The additional funding is intended “for
the NRC to perform the necessary technical analyses and award the contracts to
respond to the NAS safety and security recommendations.”
The Senate Appropriations Committee agreed with the House’s $21 million
increase for spent fuel pool security and provided an additional $20 million for
licensing of new nuclear power plants, for a total of $742.7 million. The Committee
called for NRC to get ready to process three to five applications for new commercial
reactors during the next two years.

CRS-40
For all homeland security activities, NRC’s FY2006 budget request included
$61.0 million, a 2% increase over FY2005. NRC oversees force-on-force security
exercises at nuclear plants and is requiring revised security plans to reflect increased
baseline threats. (For more information on protecting licensed nuclear facilities, see
CRS Report RS21131, Nuclear Power Plants: Vulnerability to Terrorist Attack, by
Carl E. Behrens and Mark Holt.)
To begin reviewing an anticipated DOE license application for a national
nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, NRC requested $69.1 million
— a slight increase over FY2005 but more than double the FY2004 level. The
budget request also included safety testing of full-scale casks for transporting nuclear
waste by rail and by truck.
Included in the bills passed by the Senate and the House is a one-year extension
of a requirement that 90% of NRC’s budget be offset by fees on licensees.8 The
provision otherwise would expire at the end of FY2005 and reduce the fee
requirement to 33%. Because the Administration’s budget request did not include
language to extend the 90% fee collections, the budget scorekeeping adjustments
(See Table 3) include a $358.1 million NRC “revenue adjustment” added to the
Administration’s total net request, assuming that only 33% of NRC’s appropriations
would be offset. The appropriations bills would extend the 90% fee requirement, so
the $358.1 million revenue adjustment is not added to their net appropriation in the
scorekeeping table.
Because $69.1 million of NRC’s FY2006 budget is to be appropriated from the
Nuclear Waste Fund to pay for waste repository licensing and another $2 million
would be used for DOE defense waste oversight, the 90% fee requirement applies to
about $630 million of the budget request, leaving a net appropriation of about $63
million. Including the Nuclear Waste Fund and defense waste appropriation, NRC’s
total FY2006 net appropriations request is $134.6 million. The additional $21
million for spent fuel security added by the House would be entirely offset by fees
so that the net appropriation would be the same as the request. The Senate’s
additional $20 million would be offset 90% by fees, for a total net appropriation of
$136.6 million.
Denali Commission. The main difference between the FY2006 request for
Title IV programs and the amount appropriated for FY2005 is a sharp reduction in
funding for the Denali Commission, a regional economic development agency
established in 1998. The Administration’s proposed reduction is typical. FY2004
funding for the commission was $54.7 million; for FY2005 the Administration
requested $2.5 million, and the House bill, H.R. 4614 (108th Congress) did not fund
it at all, but the omnibus appropriations act, P.L. 108-447, appropriated $66.5
million. For FY2006, the House-passed H.R. 2419 includes the requested $2.6
million. The Senate bill would appropriate $67 million.
8 Amendments to 42 U.S.C. 2214 included in the FY2001 Energy and Water Development
Appropriations Act (P.L. 106-377).

CRS-41
For Additional Reading
CRS Issue Briefs
CRS Issue Brief IB10041. Renewable Energy: Tax Credit, Budget, and Electricity
Production Issues, by Fred Sissine.
CRS Issue Brief IB10020. Energy Efficiency: Budget, Oil Conservation, and
Electricity Conservation Issues, by Fred Sissine.
CRS Issue Brief IB92059. Civilian Nuclear Waste Disposal, by Mark Holt.
CRS Issue Brief IB10091. Nuclear Nonproliferation Issues, by Carl Behrens.
CRS Issue Brief IB10120. Army Corps of Engineers Civil Works Program: Issues
for Congress, by Nicole T. Carter and Pervaze A. Sheikh.
CRS Issue Brief IB88090. Nuclear Energy Policy, by Mark Holt and Carl Behrens.
CRS Reports
CRS Report RS20702. South Florida Ecosystem Restoration and the Comprehensive
Everglades Restoration Plan, by Nicole T. Carter and Pervaze A. Sheikh.
CRS Report RS20569. Water Resource Issues in the 109th Congress, by Betsy A.
Cody and H. Steven Hughes.
CRS Report RS20866. The Civil Works Program of the Army Corps of Engineers:
A Primer, by Nicole T. Carter and Betsy A. Cody.
CRS Report RL30478. Federally Supported Water Supply and Wastewater
Treatment Programs, by the Resources, Science and Industry Division.
CRS Report RL32189. Terrorism and Security Issues Facing the Water
Infrastructure Sector, by Claudia Copeland and Betsy A. Cody.
CRS Report RL31098. Klamath River Basin Issues: An Overview of Water Use
Conflicts, coordinated by Betsy A. Cody.
CRS Report RL32131, Phosphorus Mitigation in the Everglades, by Pervaze A.
Sheikh and Barbara Johnson.
CRS Report RL31975, CALFED Bay-Delta Program: Overview of Institutional and
Water Use Issues, by Betsy A. Cody and Pervaze Sheikh.
CRS Report RL32130, Nuclear Weapon Initiatives: Low-Yield R&D, Advanced
Concepts, Earth Penetrators, Test Readiness, by Jonathan Medalia.

CRS-42
CRS Report RL32347, Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator Budget Request and Plan,
FY2005-FY2009, by Jonathan Medalia.
CRS Report RL31993, Nuclear Warhead ‘Pit’ Production: Background and Issues
for Congress, by Jonathan Medalia.
CRS Report RL32163, Radioactive Waste Streams: An Overview of Waste
Classification for Disposal, by Anthony Andrews.
CRS Report RS21131, Nuclear Power Plants: Vulnerability to Terrorist Attack, by
Carl E. Behrens.
CRS Report RS21442. Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Vehicle R&D: FreedomCAR and the
President’s Hydrogen Fuel Initiative, by Brent D. Yacobucci.
CRS Report RL32543. Energy Saving Performance Contracts, by Anthony
Andrews.
CRS Report RS22080. Power Marketing Administrations: Offsetting Collections in
the President’s FY2006 Budget Proposal, by Kyna Powers.