Order Code RL33346
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Energy and Water Development:
FY2007 Appropriations
Updated May 22, 2006
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://beta.crs.gov/cli/level_2.
aspx?PRDS_CLI_ITEM_ID=73].

---

Energy and Water Development:
FY2007 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. For FY2006, the Congress
reorganized the appropriations subcommittees and the content of the various
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. That organization was followed by
the Administration in submitting its FY2007 budget request in February 2006.
Key budgetary issues involving these programs include
! the need to balance efforts by the Army Corps of Engineers to
prevent storm damage in Louisiana with the rest of the agency’s
portfolio of authorized projects (Title I);
! support of major ecosystem restoration initiatives, such as Florida
Everglades (Title I) and California “Bay-Delta” (CALFED) (Title
II);
! funding for the proposed national nuclear waste repository at Yucca
Mountain, Nevada (Title III: Nuclear Waste Disposal); and
! the Administration’s proposed Global Nuclear Energy Partnership
to supply plutonium-based fuel to other nations (Title III: Nuclear
Energy).
This report will be updated as events warrant.

---

Key Policy Staff
CRS
Area of Expertise
Name
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
Nic Lane
RSI
7-7905
Betsy Cody
RSI
7-7229
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
Nic Lane
RSI
7-7905
Bonneville Power Administration
Nic Lane
RSI
7-7905
Fossil Energy Research
Marc Humphries
RSI
7-7264
Naval/Strategic Petroleum Reserve
Carl Behrens
RSI
7-8303
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: Army Corps of Engineers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Key Policy Issues — Corps of Engineers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Hurricane Katrina Repairs and Coastal Louisiana Restoration . . . . . . . 4
Agency Budget Priorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Everglades . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Title II: Department of the Interior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Central Utah Project and Bureau of Reclamation: Budget In Brief . . . . . . . . 8
Key Policy Issues — Bureau of Reclamation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
CALFED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Water 2025 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Title III: Department of Energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Key Policy Issues — Department of Energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability (OE) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Nuclear Energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Fossil Energy Research, Development, and Demonstration . . . . . . . . 16
Strategic Petroleum Reserve . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Science . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Nuclear Waste Disposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Nuclear Weapons Stockpile Stewardship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Nonproliferation and National Security Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Environmental Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Power Marketing Administrations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Title IV: Independent Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Key Policy Issues — Independent Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Nuclear Regulatory Commission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
For Additional Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
CRS Issue Briefs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
CRS Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

---

List of Tables
Table 1. Status of Energy and Water Development Appropriations, FY2007 . . . 1
Table 2. Energy and Water Development Appropriations, FY2000 to FY2007 . . 2
Table 3. Energy and Water Development Appropriations Summary . . . . . . . . . . 2
Table 4. Energy and Water Development Appropriations Title I: Army
Corps of Engineers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Table 5. Energy and Water Development Appropriations Title II:
Central Utah Project Completion Account . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Table 6. Energy and Water Development Appropriations Title II:
Bureau of Reclamation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Table 7. Energy and Water Development Appropriations Title III:
Department of Energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Table 8. Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Table 9. FutureGen Funding Profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Table 10. Funding for Weapons Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Table 11. NNSA Future Years Nuclear Security Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Table 12. DOE Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Table 13. Environmental Management Program Appropriations: FY2006
Enacted, FY2007 Requested, and House Appropriations
Committee Recommendation for FY2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Table 14. Energy and Water Development Appropriations Title IV:
Independent Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

---

Energy and Water Development:
FY2007 Appropriations
Most Recent Developments
The Bush Administration’s FY2007 budget request was released in February
2006. The request followed the reorganization of appropriations subcommittees in
2005, in which 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 FY2007 Energy and Water Development totaled $29.43 billion.
For FY2006, $33.07 billion was appropriated for comparable programs (including
$2.9 billion in emergency supplemental appropriations for the Corps of Engineers).
The House Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development
marked up an FY2007 appropriations bill May 11, and the full committee approved
the bill (H.R. 5427, H.Rept. 109-474) May 17. The bill was expected to reach the
House floor the week of May 22.
Status
Table 1. Status of Energy and Water Development Appropriations, FY2007
Subcommittee
Conference Report
Markup
Approval
House
House
Senate
Senate
Conf.
House
Senate
Report
Passage
Report
Passage
Report
House
Senate Public Law
H.Rept.
5/11/06
109-474
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
Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC). With the reorganization of the
appropriations subcommittees, DOE programs that had been funded in the Interior
and Related Agencies bill were transferred to the Energy and Water Development
bill. The Bush Administration’s FY2007 request was $29.455 billion for all of the

---

CRS-2
programs now included in the Energy and Water bill, compared with $33.070 billion
appropriated for FY2006, including $2.9 billion in emergency funding for the Corps
of Engineers following the Katrina hurricane disaster.
H.R. 5427, as approved by the House Appropriations Committee May 17, would
appropriate $30.017 billion for Energy and Water Development programs, $546
million more than the requested amount.
Table 2 includes budget totals for energy and water development appropriations
enacted for FY2000 to FY2006 and the requested amount for FY2007.
Table 2. Energy and Water Development Appropriations,
FY2000 to FY2007
(budget authority in billions of current dollars)
FY00
FY01
FY02
FY03
FY04
FY05
FY06
FY07
21.2
23.9
25.2
26.1
26.7
30.2a
33.1a
29.4a
Note: These figures represent current dollars, exclude permanent budget authorities, and reflect
rescissions.
a. Includes DOE programs transferred from Interior and Related Agencies appropriations bill.
Table 3 lists totals for each of the four titles. It also lists several “scorekeeping”
adjustments of accounts within the four titles, reflecting various expenditures or
sources of revenue besides appropriated funds. These adjustments affect the total
amount appropriated in the bill but are not included in the totals of the individual
titles. Amounts listed in this report are derived from the Administration’s FY2007
Congressional Budget Requests and from H.Rept. 109-474.
Table 3. Energy and Water Development Appropriations Summary
($ millions)
FY2007
Title
FY2006
House
Senate
Conf.
Request
Title I: Corps of Engineers
$8,228.7*
$4,733.0
$4,983.8
Title II: CUP & BOR
1,054.8
923.8
941.0
Title III: Department of Energy
24,046.8
24,074.8
24,373.5
Title IV: Independent Agencies
268.4
248.8
227.8
E&W Subtotal
33,598.7
29,980.4
30,526.1
Scorekeeping Adjustments
Title II
Central Valley
(43.9)
(33.8)
NA
Title III
Colorado River Basins, WAPA
(23.0)
(23.0)
NA

---

CRS-3
FY2007
Title
FY2006
House
Senate
Conf.
Request
Uranium Fund
(446.5)
(452.0)
NA
Excess Fees FERC
(15.5)
(16.4)
NA
E&W Total
33,069.8
29,455.2
30,017.0
Source: Administration FY2007 budget request and H.Rept. 109-474.
Note: Details may not add to totals due to rounding. NA: Not available.
* Includes $2.9 billion emergency supplemental funding. See Table 4 for details.
For the FY2007 Corps of Engineers budget, the Administration requested
$4.733 billion, a decrease of $0.595 billion from the enacted appropriation for
FY2006 (not including emergency supplementals). The House Appropriations
Committee recommended $4.983 billion. The Administration asked for $923.8
million for FY2007 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 $131 million from the FY2006 funding
level. The House Appropriations Committee recommendation was $941.0 million.
The FY2007 request for DOE programs was $24.075 billion, approximately the
same amount appropriated for the previous year. 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 House Appropriations Committee recommended $24,373.5 billion.
The FY2007 request for funding of the independent agencies in Title IV of the
bill was $249 million, compared with $268 million appropriated for FY2006. The
House Appropriations Committee recommended $228 million.
Tables 4 through 15 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.
Title I: Army Corps of Engineers
The Energy and Water Development FY2007 budget request for the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers was for $4,733.0 million, a decrease of $596 million (11%) from
the FY2006 enacted appropriations (not including supplemental funds). The House
Appropriations Committee bill, H.R. 5427, provides $306.9 million more than
requested, for a total of $4,983.8 million.

---

CRS-4
Table 4. Energy and Water Development Appropriations
Title I: Army Corps of Engineers
($ millions)
FY2006 Approp.
FY2007
Program
House
Senate
Conf.
P.L. 109-
Emerg.
Request
103
Fundinga
Total
Investigations and
$162.4
$37.3
$199.7
$94.0
$128.0
Planning
Construction
2,348.3
101.4
2,449.4
1,555.0
1,873.4
Flood Control,
396.0
153.8
549.8
278.0
290.6
Mississippi River
Operation and
1,969.1
327.5
2,296.5
2,258.0
2,195.5
Maintenance (O&M)
Regulatory
158.4
—
158.0
173.0
173.0
General Expenses
152.5
—
152.0
164.0
156.3
FUSRAPb
138.6
—
139.0
130.0
130.0
Flood Control and
—
2,278.0
2,278.0
81.0
32.0
Coastal Emergencies
Office of the Asst.
Secretary
4.0
1.6
5.6
—
5.0
of the Army
Total Title I
5,329.2
2,899.6
8,228.7
4,733.0
4,983.8
Source: FY2007 Budget Request; H.Rept. 109-474.
a. The Defense Appropriations Act for FY2006 (P.L. 109-148) reallocated FY2005 emergency
supplement funds to the Corps’ civil works program.
b. “Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program.”
Key Policy Issues — Corps of Engineers
Hurricane Katrina Repairs and Coastal Louisiana Restoration. The
Corps is responsible for much of the repair and fortification of the hurricane
protection system of coastal Louisiana, particularly in the greater New Orleans area;
to date, most of the Corps’ work on the region’s hurricane protection system has been
funded through FY2006 emergency supplemental appropriations as shown in Table
4; the Corps also received $400 million for these activities through FY2005
supplemental appropriations. Additional supplemental appropriations for Louisiana
are being considered by the 109th Congress as part of the emergency supplemental for
Iraq, other international activities, and Hurricane Katrina relief (H.R. 4939); $1.46
billion is included in the House version and more than $4 billion in the Senate
version. The vast majority of the enacted and requested supplemental appropriations
for the region is for structural hurricane defenses; coastal wetlands restoration
activities by the Corps have received $86 million of the enacted Katrina
appropriations and would receive another $100 million in the $1.46 billion package

---

CRS-5
being considered. For more details and status information on the supplemental
appropriations for Louisiana and for other Corps activities included in H.R. 2939, see
CRS Report RL33298, FY2006 Supplemental Appropriations: Iraq and Other
International Activities; Additional Hurricane Katrina Relief, coordinated by Paul
M. Irwin and Larry Nowels.
Agency Budget Priorities. Responding to the impacts of the 2005 hurricane
season added to the tightening fiscal environment for the agency and its projects. Not
only fiscal constraints but also the Corps’s backlog of authorized projects and
concerns about the fiscal planning and management of the agency’s portfolio
contributed to the Administration and the House Appropriations Committee use of
performance-based criteria for structuring the agency’s budget.
Performance-Based Budgeting. The Corps civil works program has been
criticized by some observers as an agglomeration of projects with no underlying
design. These observers see the Corps’ backlog of authorized activities as an
example of this lack of focus. 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 Corps “to do” list, others are
concerned that projects in the backlog face construction delays and related cost
overruns as available appropriations are spread across an increasing portfolio of
projects.
One way the FY2007 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; 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
economic and environmental criteria were largely the same criteria used in
developing the FY2006 budget request; one distinction from the FY2006 budget
request is that the FY2007 budget development process gave funding preference to
projects that address a significant, ongoing risk to human safety. The House
Appropriations Committee for the most part adopted the Administration’s requested
amounts.
Another distinction was that the FY2007 budget request continued the
Administration’s movement toward presenting the agency’s budget request according
to 11 “business lines” (e.g., navigation, flood control, recreation, hydropower). For
example, of the $4.733 billion budget request, $1.926 billion (41% of the agency’s
budget) is for commercial navigation; $1.291 billion (27%) is for flood control and
storm damage reduction; and $0.320 billion (7%) and $0.089 billion (2%) are for the
agency’s relatively new roles in aquatic ecosystem restoration and environmental
stewardship, respectively. The agency’s regulatory responsibilities represent $173
million, 4% of the agency’s budget.
Priority Projects, New Starts, and Project Suspensions. To address
the backlog of authorized Corps activities, the Administration’s request and the
House Appropriations Committee limited the number of new activities; the
Administration request included only one construction project and two planning

---

CRS-6
activities. The President’s request would fund construction projects that could be
completed in FY2007 and projects considered by the Administration to be priorities,
similar to the President’s FY2006 and FY2005 requests. The eight national priority
projects for FY2007 included the New York and New Jersey Harbor Deepening
project, restoration projects in the Florida Everglades, and activities to meet
environmental requirements in the Columbia River and the Missouri River basins.
The budget request for the Upper Mississippi River (UMR) navigation system
states that the existing locks can process tows safely and reliably for the next 50 years
with prudent maintenance rehabilitation investments; this statement, coupled with a
letter by the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works regarding support for
preconstruction design of expanded UMR navigation locks (but not outright
construction authorization), appears to indicate that the Administration is giving
priority to rehabilitation of existing works, while being cautious with its support for
authorizing and funding new construction projects. The House Appropriations
Committee largely followed the Administration’s approach to the UMR system,
while giving more support for navigation rehabilitation projects than the
Administration.
Using performance-based budgeting criteria, the Administration identified
construction projects to be studied for possible suspension (i.e., to buy out current
construction contracts rather than complete them). The FY2007 request proposed a
$41 million fund to pay for canceling contracts for these projects. Rather than
supporting the suspension fund, the House Appropriations Committee directs the
Corps to report the cost of deferring or suspending these projects.
Financial Management and O&M Budgeting. During consideration of
the FY2006 Corps appropriations, the House and Senate Appropriations Committees
expressed dissatisfaction with the Corps’ financial management, particularly the
reprogramming of funds across projects and the use of continuing contracts for
projects. The FY2006 appropriations bill, P.L. 109-103, included language changing
the Corps’ ability to reprogram, to use continuing contracts, and to allocate project
funds on a quarterly rather than an annual basis. While recognizing some progress
in financial management by the Corps, the House Appropriations Committee
reiterated many of its concerns and imposed restrictions similar to those used to
restrict the agency’s FY2006 reprogramming and contracting authorities.
Unlike in previous years, for FY2007, the request and the House Appropriations
Committee do not specify the level of operation and maintenance funding for
individual Corps projects. Instead, the House Appropriations Committee followed
the Administration’s approach of dividing O&M appropriations among 21 regions
(which cover the 50 states and other territories); this approach provides the Corps
with some discretion for moving funding between projects within a region as O&M
needs arise. Some project stakeholders are resisting this approach because of the
decreased certainty in the O&M funding available for individual projects and the
greater discretion provided to the Corps.
Everglades. The Corps plays a significant coordination role in the restoration
of the Central and Southern Florida ecosystem. For FY2007, the President’s request
and the House Appropriations Committee included $164 million for the Corps’

---

CRS-7
construction projects in the region, up from $139 million enacted in FY2006. The
$164 million would fund Everglades activities that were previously budgeted
separately — the Central and Southern Florida Project ($70.5 million), the
Kissimmee River Restoration Project ($50.3 million), and the Everglades and South
Florida Restoration Projects ($8.3 million) — and the Modified Water Deliveries
Project (Mod Waters, $35 million). FY2006 was the first year that funds for the Mod
Waters project were included in the Corps budget request and enacted appropriations;
previously, the project was funded solely through Department of Interior
appropriations. (For more information on the Modified Water Deliveries Project, see
CRS Report RS21331, Everglades Restoration: Modified Water Deliveries Project,
by Pervaze A. Sheikh.) In addition to funding for Corps activities through Energy
and Water Development appropriations, federal activities in the Everglades are
funded through Department of the Interior appropriations bills.
Title II: Department of the Interior
The Department of the Interior has requested that Congress provide an increase
in funding for the Central Utah Project Completion Account and reduction for the
Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) for FY2007.
Table 5. Energy and Water Development Appropriations
Title II: Central Utah Project Completion Account
($ millions)
FY2007
Program
FY2006
House
Senate
Conf.
Request
Central Utah Project Construction
$31.4
$37.6
$37.6
Mitigation and Conservation Activities
0.9
1.0
1.0
Oversight & Administration
1.7
1.6
1.6
Total, Central Utah Project
34.0
40.2
40.2
Source: Central Utah Project Completion Act, FY2007 Budget Justification; H.Rept. 109-474.
Note: Details may not add to totals due to rounding.

---

CRS-8
Table 6. Energy and Water Development Appropriations
Title II: Bureau of Reclamation
($ millions)
FY2007
Program
FY2006
House
Senate
Conf.
Request
Water and Related Resources
$874.7
$833.4
$849.1
Desert Terminal Lakes Rescission
—
(88.0)
(88.0)
Policy & Administration
57.3
58.1
58.1
CVP Restoration Fund (CVPRF)a
52.1
41.5
41.5
Calif. Bay-Delta (CALFED)
36.6
38.6
40.1
Gross Current Authority
1,020.7
883.6
900.8
CVP Collectionsa
(43.9)
(33.8)
(33.8)
Net Current Authority
976.8
849.8
867.0
Total, Title II
1,054.7
923.8
941.0
Source: Bureau of Reclamation FY2007 Budget Justification; H.Rept. 109-474
a. In its request, the Reclamation lists CVP Collections as an “offset.” Congress does not follow this procedure.
Central Utah Project and Bureau of Reclamation:
Budget In Brief
The Administration requested $40.2 million for the Central Utah Project (CUP)
Completion Account for FY2007, an increase of $5.8 million (17%) from the
FY2006 appropriation of $34.4 million. The FY2007 request for the Bureau of
Reclamation (BOR) totals $833.6 million in gross current budget authority, including
a rescission of $88 million for the Desert Terminal Lakes. This amount is $137.4
million less than enacted for FY2006. The FY2007 request includes “offsets” of
$33.8 million for the Central Valley Project (CVP) Restoration Fund, yielding a “net”
current authority of $849.8 million 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 $833.4 million for the Water and Related Resources
Account for FY2007. This amount is $41.3 million (4.7%) less than enacted for
FY2006. The decreases are most apparent in Water and Energy Management and
Development — about $52 million less than FY2006 — as well as Fish and Wildlife
Management and Development and Facility Maintenance and Rehabilitation, with
reductions of $6.6 and $9.6 million, respectively. There is an offsetting increase of
$ 18 million for Facility Operations in FY2007.
The House Appropriations Committee made recommendations to provide $17
more for Reclamation programs than the President’s request. The Central Utah

---

CRS-9
project, Central Valley Project, and Policy and Administration were funded as
requested. The Committee recommended that the Water and Related Resources be
funded at a level $15.7 million higher than the FY2007 request. The California Bay-
Delta Restoration project also saw a recommended increase for FY2007 of $1.5
million.
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,
particularly for their effect on sensitive fish and wildlife species and conflicts among
competing water users.
CALFED. The Administration requested $38.6 million for the California Bay-
Delta Restoration Account (Bay-Delta, or CALFED) for FY2007. The bulk of the
requested funds are targeted at three main program areas, including the
Environmental Water Account, the Storage Program, and conveyance. The remainder
of the request is allocated for science, water quality, ecosystem restoration, planning
and management, and water use efficiency. The House Appropriations Committee
recommended funding CALFED at $1.5 million above the budget request and
provided a detailed delineation of how it expects funding to be allocated within the
program. (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 $39.6 million for site security for
FY2007. This amount is comparable to that enacted for FY2006. 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),
antiterrorism 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.)
The FY2007 request assumes annual costs for guard and patrol activities will
be treated as project O&M costs, and hence will be reimbursable based on project
cost allocations. These costs are estimated to be $20.9 million in FY2007, of which
$18.9 million is reimbursable. BOR will continue to treat facility fortification and
antiterrorism management-related expenses as nonreimbursable.
Water 2025. The 2007 budget request for this program is $14.5 million, an
increase of $9.5 million from FY2006. In 2007, the program plans to continue

---

CRS-10
retrofitting and modernizing existing facilities aimed at water conservation. BOR
also plans to introduce a grant program for System Optimization Reviews in FY2007.
The House Appropriations Committee recommended funding Water 2025 at the level
requested.
Title III: Department of Energy
Until last year, the Energy and Water Development bill included funding for
most, but not all, of DOE’s programs; 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 last year
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 FY2007 was
$24.0748 billion, slightly more than appropriated for FY2006 (excluding the
adjustments noted in Table 3). The House Appropriations Committee bill, H.R.
5427, recommends $24.3735 billion.
Table 7. Energy and Water Development Appropriations
Title III: Department of Energy
($ millions)
FY2007
Program
FY2006
House
Senate
Conf.
Request
Energy Supply & Conservation
Energy Efficiency & Renewables
$1,173.8
$1,176.4
$1,319.4
Electricity Transmission & Distribution
161.9
124.9
144.0
Nuclear
Energy
416.0
559.8
499.8
Environment, Safety, Health
27.7
29.1
29.1
Other
33.2
33.1
33.1
Total, Energy Supply & Cons.
1,812.6
1,923.4
2,025.5
Fossil Energy R&D
592.0
469.7
558.2
Clean Coal Technology (Deferral)
(20.0)
—
—
Naval Petrol. & Oil Shale Reserves
21.3
18.8
18.8
Elk Hills School Lands Funds
84.0
—
—
Strategic Petroleum Reserve
207.3
155.4
155.4
Northeast Home Heating Oil Rsrv.
—
5.0
5.0
Strategic Petroleum Acct.
(43.0)
—
—
Energy Information Administration
85.3
89.8
89.8

---

CRS-11
FY2007
Program
FY2006
House
Senate
Conf.
Request
Non-Defense Environmental Cleanup
349.7
310.4
309.9
Uranium Decontamination and
556.6
579.4
579.4
Decommissioning Fund
Science
High Energy Physics
716.7
775.1
775.1
Nuclear Physics
367.0
454.1
454.1
Basic Energy Sciences
1,134.6
1,421.0
1,421.0
Bio. & Env. R&D
579.8
510.3
540.3
Fusion
287.6
319.0
319.0
Advanced Scientific Computing
234.7
319.0
319.0
Other
281.6
309.3
309.3
Adjustments
(5.6)
(5.6)
(5.6)
Total, Science
3,596.4
4,102.1
4,131.7
Nuclear Waste Disposal
148.5
156.4
186.4
Departmental Admin. (net)
128.5
155.4
155.4
Office of Inspector General
41.6
45.5
45.5
National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)
Weapons
6,369.6
6,407.9
6,421.0
Nuclear Nonproliferation
1,614.8
1,726.2
1,593.1
Naval Reactors
781.6
795.1
795.1
Office of Administrator
338.5
386.6
399.6
Total, NNSA
9,104.5
9,315.8
9,199.8
Defense Environmental Cleanup
6,130.4
5,390.3
5,551.8
Other Defense Activities
635.6
717.8
720.8
Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal
346.5
388.1
388.1
Total, Defense Activities
16,217.0
15,812.0
15,860.5
Power Marketing Administrations (PMA)
Southeastern
5.5
5.7
5.7
Southwestern
29.9
31.5
31.5
Western
231.7
212.2
212.2
Falcon & Armistad O&M
2.7
2.5
2.5
Total, PMAs
269.7
252.0
252.0
FERC
(revenues)
Total, Title III
24,046.8
24,074.8
24.375.5
Source: DOE FY2007 Congressional Budget Request, February 2006; H.Rept. 109-474.

---

CRS-12
Key Policy Issues — Department of Energy
DOE administers 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 in
Table 7.
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. A key component of the
Administration’s American Competitiveness Initiative (ACI) is the Advanced Energy
Initiative, which DOE says “aims to reduce America’s dependence on imported
energy sources.” The Hydrogen Fuel Initiative is one theme within the Advanced
Energy Initiative that would be funded under DOE’s Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy (EERE). To support this initiative, the DOE FY2007 request for
EERE programs proposes major funding increases for hydrogen and fuel cell
technology programs. The Solar America Initiative and the Biorefinery Initiative are
two more themes under the Advanced Energy Initiative that would be funded under
EERE programs. Overall, the FY2007 DOE request seeks $484.7 million for energy
efficiency R&D, which is $20.9 million, or 4.5%, more than the FY2006
appropriation. Also, the request seeks $359.2 million for renewable energy R&D,
which is $84.0 million, or 30.5%, more than the FY2006 appropriation.
Many EERE programs contain a sizable amount of funding for congressionally
directed (earmark) projects. The total amount of EERE earmarks nearly doubled
from $85.9 million in FY2005 to $159.0 million in FY2006 (see Table 8). The ACI
and the FY2007 federal budget documents express strong concern about the rapidly
growing amount of legislative earmarks for R&D programs, including the Hydrogen
program. The request calls for elimination (or reprogramming) of all congressional
earmarks. A discussion of the EERE earmarks appears in CRS Report RL33294,
DOE Budget Earmarks: A Selective Look at Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy R&D Programs, by Fred Sissine.
Compared with FY2006 funding, the FY2007 House Appropriations Committee
recommendation seeks an increase of $155.8 million for R&D and deployment
programs. This reflects support for the Advanced Energy Initiative, including
increases for Hydrogen ($40.2 million), Biomass/Biorefineries ($59.0 million), and
Solar ($65.3 million). The main cuts for R&D and deployment programs include
termination of the Geothermal program (-$23.1 million), termination of the Small
Hydro program (-$0.5 million), and a reduction of the Vehicle Technologies Program
(-$9.6 million). Further, the Committee supports DOE’s proposal to eliminate the
Gateway Deployment Program area, including termination of the Building Codes
Program (-$4.5 million), and significant cuts to the Clean Cities (-$3.5 million) and
Rebuild America (-$1.3 million) programs, which would be transferred to other
program areas. In addition, the Committee seeks a $25.4 million increase for
Weatherization Program grants and termination of the State Energy Program grants
(-$35.6 million). Also, the Committee seeks $54.9 million for congressionally
directed (earmark) activities, which would be a reduction of $104.1 million, or
65.5%, below the appropriations for EERE earmarks in FY2006.
The Committee report includes several policy directives to EERE. First, it says
(pp. 72-73) that EERE could have avoided employee layoffs at the National

---

CRS-13
Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) through better management of uncosted
balances, and it directs EERE to report by January 31, 2007, on steps taken to
identify prior year balances and account for all out-year commitments. Second, the
report directs (p. 73) EERE to report by January 31, 2007, on the progress of
implementing the Inspector General’s recommendations to improve the management
of cooperative agreements (IG audit report DOE/IG-0689). Further, the report directs
(pp. 74-75) EERE to fully fund a biomass R&D grant to Natureworks LLC,
strengthen recruiting from Historically Black Colleges and Universities, and prepare
a report on solar water heaters by January 31, 2007, that covers potential energy
savings, market impediments, and deployment strategy. Also, one DOE-wide
directive that would clearly affect EERE involves funding for the Asia Pacific
Partnership (APP), which would support clean, energy-efficient technologies. The
report directs (pp. 67-68) DOE to submit a reprogramming request if it intends to
support APP with FY2006 funds and to submit a detailed budget justification (which
would be considered by the conference committee) if it proposes to use FY2007
funds. Other DOE-wide directives (pp. 68-70) that could affect EERE involve
refocusing of Laboratory Directed Research and Development (LDRD) funds to high-
priority research, elimination of “excess facilities,” updates of five-year plans, and
controls over the use of budget reprogrammings.
Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability (OE). The FY2007 request
includes $124.9 million for the Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability
(OE), and the House Appropriations Committee seeks $144.0 million, which would
be $17.8 million less than the FY2006 appropriation.
Table 8. Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Programs
($ in millions)
House-

FY2007
FY2007
FY2006
Percentage
Program
FY2006
Request
House
Difference
Difference
Hydrogen Technologies
$155.6
$195.8
$195.8
40.2
25.8%
— Fuel Cell Technologies
67.8
96.6
96.6
28.8
42.4%
Biomass & Biorefinery Systems
90.7
149.7
149.7
59.0
65.0%
— Biochemical Platform
10.4
32.8
32.8
22.4
215.4%
(Cellulose)
Solar Energy
83.1
148.4
148.4
65.3
78.5%
— Photovoltaics
60.0
139.5
134.5
74.5
124.2%
Wind Energy
38.9
43.8
43.8
5.0
12.8%
Geothermal Technology
23.1
0.0
0.0
(23.1)
-100.0%
Small Hydropower
0.5
0.0
0.0
(0.5)
-100.0%
Vehicle Technologies
182.1
166.0
172.5
(9.6)
-5.3%
Building Technologies
69.3
77.3
80.0
10.8
15.6%
Industrial Technologies
56.9
45.6
51.6
(5.3)
-9.3%
Federal Energy Management
19.2
16.9
18.9
(0.3)
-1.6%
Facilities & Infrastructure
26.1
5.9
15.9
(10.1)
-38.7%

---

CRS-14
House-

FY2007
FY2007
FY2006
Percentage
Program
FY2006
Request
House
Difference
Difference
Weatherization Grants
242.6
164.2
268.0
25.4
10.5%
State Energy Grants
35.6
49.5
0.0
(35.6)
-100.0%
Program Management
111.9
102.0
102.0
(9.9)
-8.8%
R&D Subtotal
895.7
962.8
1,051.4
155.8
17.4%
Grants Subtotal
278.2
213.7
268.0
(10.2)
-3.7%
EERE Earmarks
159.0
0.0
54.9
(104.1)
-65.5%
Use of Prior Year Balances
—
—
—
—
—
Total Appropriation, EE &RE
1,173.8
1,176.4
1,319.4
145.6
12.4%
Office of Electricity Delivery &
161.9
124.9
144.0
(17.8)
-11.0%
Energy Reliability (OE)*
OE Earmarks
66.7
0.0
17.1
(49.6)
-74.4%
Source: H.Rept. 109-474; DOE FY2007 Congressional Budget Request, v. 3, Feb. 2006.
* The Distributed Energy Program was moved from EERE to OE in FY2006.
Nuclear Energy. For nuclear energy research and development — including
advanced reactors, fuel cycle technology, nuclear hydrogen production, and
infrastructure support — DOE is requesting $632.7 million for FY2007, an 18.1%
increase from the FY2006 appropriation. The request would boost funding for the
Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative (AFCI) from $79.2 million in FY2006 to $243.0
million in FY2007. The higher AFCI funding would allow DOE to begin developing
an engineering-scale facility to demonstrate new technology for separating plutonium
and uranium in spent nuclear fuel, as part of the Administration’s Global Nuclear
Energy Partnership (GNEP). The nuclear energy program is run by DOE’s Office of
Nuclear Energy, Science, and Technology.
The House Appropriations Committee voted to cut the nuclear energy request
to $572.8 million, including a 50% reduction on the GNEP request. The Committee
sharply criticized the GNEP proposal for lacking sufficient detail to support the level
of funding requested.
According to DOE’s budget justification, the nuclear energy R&D program is
intended “to enable nuclear energy to fulfill its promise as a safe, advanced,
inexpensive and environmentally benign approach to providing reliable energy to all
of the world’s people.” Under the Administration’s GNEP initiative, plutonium
partially separated from spent nuclear fuel would be recycled into new fuel to expand
the future supply of nuclear fuel and potentially reduce waste. The United States and
other advanced nuclear nations would lease new fuel to other nations that agreed to
forgo uranium enrichment, spent fuel recycling (also called reprocessing), and other
fuel cycle facilities that could be used to produce nuclear weapons materials; see
[http://www.gnep.energy.gov/]. The leased fuel would then be returned to supplier
nations for reprocessing. Solidified high-level reprocessing waste would be sent

---

CRS-15
back to the nation that had used the leased fuel, along with supplies of fresh nuclear
fuel, according to the GNEP concept.
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. Opponents are particularly
concerned about GNEP’s emphasis on spent fuel reprocessing, which they see as a
weapons proliferation risk even if weapons-useable plutonium is not completely
separated from other spent fuel elements as envisioned by the Administration.
Nuclear Power 2010. President Bush’s specific mention of “clean, safe
nuclear energy” in his 2006 State of the Union address reiterated 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 Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC) approval for potential nuclear reactor sites in Illinois,
Mississippi, and Virginia. In addition, two industry consortia are receiving DOE
assistance over the next several years to design and license new nuclear power plants.
DOE awarded the first funding to the consortia in 2004. The FY2006 Energy and
Water appropriation included $65.3 million for the program, a $15.7 million boost
over FY2005. DOE’s FY2007 budget request includes $54.0 million for Nuclear
Power 2010, and the Committee approved the full amount. DOE assistance under
the program, including the early site permits, is planned to reach a multiyear total of
about $550 million.
The nuclear license applications under the Nuclear Power 2010 program are
intended to 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 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 Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58). The 2005 Act also authorizes DOE to
provide compensation to the first six new reactors for regulatory delays beyond their
control; the FY2007 budget request for the Nuclear Power 2010 Program includes
$1.8 million to develop criteria for such assistance.
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 $31.4 million is being requested for FY2007 — 30% less than
the FY2006 request and more than 40% below the final appropriation of $54.5
million. The Committee approved the full request. Most of the proposed reduction
would come from the Next Generation Nuclear Plant (a high-temperature reactor that
could produce electricity and hydrogen), which would drop from $40 million to $23.4
million.

---

CRS-16
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
liquid-metal-cooled, and one molten-salt concept. Some of these reactors would use
plutonium recovered through reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel, using technologies
being developed by the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative.
Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative. The nuclear energy program’s Advanced
Fuel Cycle Initiative (AFCI) is the primary component of GNEP. DOE’s $243
million budget request for AFCI for FY2007 makes up nearly all of the $250 million
GNEP program (with the remaining $7 million requested for program direction). The
FY2007 AFCI budget request is more than triple the FY2006 appropriation of $79.2
million. As noted above, the Committee cut the request for GNEP under AFCI to
$120 million, including a $30 million transfer approved during full committee
markup. Most of the cut is aimed at an engineering-scale demonstration of UREX+
separation technology (described below).
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 reuse in a
nuclear reactor or for transmutation in a particle accelerator. Most of the proposed
AFCI funding ($155 million) would be for an engineering-scale demonstration of a
separations technology called UREX+, in which uranium and other elements are
chemically removed from dissolved spent fuel, leaving a mixture of plutonium and
other highly radioactive elements. Proponents believe the process is proliferation-
resistant, because further purification would be required to make the plutonium
useable for weapons.
Removing uranium from spent fuel would eliminate most of the volume of spent
nuclear fuel that would otherwise require disposal in a deep geologic repository,
which DOE is developing at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. The UREX+ process also
would reduce the heat generated by nuclear waste — the major limit on the
repository’s capacity — by removing cesium and strontium for separate storage and
decay over several hundred years. Plutonium and other long-lived elements would
be destroyed in accelerators or fast reactors (such as the type under development by
the Generation IV program), to reduce the long-term hazard of nuclear waste. Even
if technically feasible, however, the economic viability of such waste processing has
yet to be determined, and it still faces significant opposition on nuclear
nonproliferation grounds, as noted above.
Nuclear Hydrogen Initiative. In support of President Bush’s program to
develop hydrogen-fueled vehicles, DOE is requesting $18.1 million in FY2007 for
the Nuclear Hydrogen Initiative, a 25% reduction from the FY2006 level. The
Committee approved the full request. 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.
Fossil Energy Research, Development, and Demonstration. The
Bush Administration’s FY2007 budget request of $469.7 million for fossil energy

---

CRS-17
research and development is about 21% less than the amount enacted for FY2006
($592.0 million) and 16.2% less than the enacted amount for FY2005 ($560.8
million). Major funding categories and amounts include Coal (President’s Coal
Research Initiative, $280.7 million, and Other Coal Related Activities, $63.9
million), Program Direction ($129 million), and Fossil Energy Environmental
Restoration ($9.7 million). Coal and coal-related activities would account for more
than 70% of the FY2007 Fossil Energy R&D budget. The House Appropriations
Committee approved $558.2 million for Fossil Energy programs. One of the major
differences being the Committee’s support for the Clean Coal Power Initiative at
$36.4 million versus $5 million in the Administration’s request. Other major
increases over the Administration’s request are included in the Fuels and Power
Systems category.
DOE is proposing again this year to terminate both the Natural Gas and Oil
Technology programs based on a Program Assessment Rating Tool review that 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. Congress funded both programs in FY2006. The
Committee agreed not to fund Natural Gas Technologies and scaled back funding for
Petroleum Technologies to $2.7 million because, according to the Committee, the
Energy Policy Act of 2005 authorizes $50 million of “mandatory receipts” for oil and
gas technologies R&D.
The Administration’s $5 million request for its Clean Coal Power Initiative
(CCPI) would be directed towards the next CCPI solicitation, but no new money
would be requested for CCPI projects directly. The Administration would rather
improve the use of current CCPI funds. 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.” About $500 million has been appropriated since FY2002.
The Administration has previously announced its commitment to spend $2 billion
over 10 years for clean coal research. CCPI is similar to the Clean Coal Technology
Program (CCTP), which began in the late 1980s. CCTP has completed most of its
projects and has been subject to rescissions and deferrals since the mid-1990s. It
eventually is to be phased out.
However, while Congress and the Administration agree that there is an unused,
previously appropriated balance of $257 million from the Clean Coal Technology
Program, the Administration requests again in FY2007 to rescind the money and
incorporate the funds into the fossil fuel account for FutureGen activities as an
advanced appropriation to be used beginning in FY2007 ($54 million) and beyond.
In FY2006, Congress deferred the $257 million but acknowledged that the funds
would be used for the FutureGen program in fiscal years 2007 and beyond (see
FutureGen funding schedule in Table 9, below). FutureGen is a project to
demonstrate co-production of electricity and hydrogen from coal without emissions.
This year, the Committee recommended rescinding $257 million of clean coal
funding because, they stated, it is “no longer needed to complete active projects in
the program.”

---

CRS-18
Within the Coal R&D program, the Administration is requesting $54 million for
gasification research in FY2007, about $2 million less than what was enacted for
FY2006. This level of funding request indicates a sustained commitment by the
Administration and Congress to the integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC)
technology aimed at commercialization. There is ongoing 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 from $66.3 million in FY2006 to $73.9 million in FY2007. The House
Appropriations Committee supported FutureGen and Carbon Sequestration programs
at the same levels of funding as the Administration’s request.
Table 9. FutureGen Funding Profile
($ millions)
Other cash
FY
DOE direct
flows
Total
2004-2005
27
2
11
2006
18
7
25
2007
50
25
75
2008
100
44
144
2009
89
75
164
2010
57
66
123
2011-2018
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 roughly 685 million barrels of crude oil are stored. The purpose of
the SPR is to provide an emergency source of crude oil that 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. NHOR houses 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 (then 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 ended in August 2005, when

---

CRS-19
the SPR reached 700 million barrels.1 Some policymakers objected to RIK fill,
arguing that this oil should have instead been released to tight markets. The
Administration argued that the volumes involved, varying between 65,000-200,000
barrels per day of deliveries to the SPR, were 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.
Congress agreed to a funding level of $207.3 million for the program in FY2006.
The Administration request for FY2007 for the SPR was $155.4 million, and the
House Appropriations Committee recommended the same amount.
Science. The DOE 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 funder of basic
research and the largest federal funder of research in the physical sciences.2 For
FY2007, DOE has requested $4.102 billion for Science, an increase of 14% from the
FY2006 appropriation of $3.596 billion. This unusually large increase reflects the
American Competitiveness Initiative (ACI), which the President announced in his
January 31, 2006, State of the Union address. Over the next 10 years, the ACI would
double R&D funding for the DOE Office of Science and two other agencies. The
House committee recommended the requested amount plus an additional $30 million
to pay for House-directed earmarks.
The requested funding for the largest Office of Science program, basic energy
sciences, is $1.421 billion, a 25% increase from FY2006. About $200 million of the
requested increase would support expanded facility operating time. (The House and
Senate appropriations reports for FY2006 both called for increased funding for this
purpose.) The House committee recommended the requested amount.
The request for fusion energy sciences is $319 million, an 11% increase.
Included is $60 million for U.S. participation in the International Thermonuclear
Experimental Reactor (ITER), a fusion facility whose other participants include
China, the European Union, India, Japan, Russia, and South Korea. The estimated
total U.S. share of the cost of ITER is $1.2 billion through FY2014. The House and
conference appropriations reports for FY2006 both directed DOE to fund ITER out
of additional resources, not through reductions in the domestic fusion program.
Although the overall increase requested for Science as part of the American
Competitiveness Initiative may take some of the pressure off the fusion program in
FY2007, the impact of ITER on the domestic program is likely to remain an issue for
future years. The House committee recommended the requested amount and
expressed pleasure “that the department finally requested sufficient funding.”
1 The capacity of the SPR is measured at 727 million barrels; however, the President’s order
was issued when the capacity was 700 million barrels and it specified fill to that level.
2 Based on preliminary FY2005 data from Tables 29 and 22 of National Science Foundation,
Division of Science Resources Statistics, Federal Funds for Research and Development:
Fiscal Years 2003, 2004, and 2005, NSF 06-313 (May 2006).

---

CRS-20
Three of the other four Office of Science programs would also receive increases
under the FY2007 request. High-energy physics would receive $775 million, up 8%
from FY2006. Nuclear physics would receive $454 million, up 24%. Advanced
scientific computing research would receive $319 million, up 36%. Only biological
and environmental research would receive less than in FY2006: $510 million, down
12%. The requested decrease for biological and environmental research results from
the requested termination of 161 congressionally directed projects, totaling $130
million, that were specified in the FY2006 appropriations conference report. The
request for nuclear physics includes no funds for construction of the Relativistic Ion
Accelerator, despite direction in Sec. 981 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-
58) that construction of this project must begin no later than the end of FY2008. The
House committee recommended the requested amount for all four programs, plus an
increase of $30 million to pay for 67 directed projects. It directed DOE to submit a
report by August 11, 2006, on its plans to comply with or seek relief from the
Relativistic Ion Accelerator requirements of P.L. 109-58.
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-
related high-level radioactive waste. OCRWM’s funding comes from two
appropriations accounts: the Nuclear Waste Disposal account, for which DOE is
requesting $156.4 million for FY2007, and Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal, with
a request of $388.1 million. Appropriations under the Nuclear Waste Disposal
account come from the Nuclear Waste Fund, which holds disposal fees paid by
nuclear utilities.
The total FY2007 nuclear waste budget request of $544.5 million is $50 million
above the FY2006 appropriation. The Committee approved the full request, plus $30
million, not from the Nuclear Waste Fund, “to initiate the process for selecting and
licensing one or more interim storage sites.” The Committee further stated:
If the Congress has not provided the Department with clear statutory authority
for interim storage by the end of FY2007, the remaining funds shall be re-
directed to non-site-specific activities to select a second repository for nuclear
waste disposal, consistent with Section 161 fo the Nuclear Waste Policy Act
[which prohibits site-specific activities on a second repository].
DOE announced on October 25, 2005, that it would require most spent fuel to
be sealed in standardized canisters before shipment to Yucca Mountain, a change that
would largely eliminate the handling of individual fuel assemblies at the site. DOE
subsequently informed the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) that making those
changes to the repository’s operational plans would further delay submission of a
Yucca Mountain license application to NRC. DOE currently has no announced
schedule for the license application, which previously had been planned by 2005.
The FY2006 energy and water bill provided $500 million for nuclear waste
disposal — $150 million from the Nuclear Waste Fund and $350 million from the
Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal Account. Of the defense waste funding, $50
million was provided for DOE to develop an integrated spent nuclear fuel recycling
plan, in conjunction with the technology development plan required under the

---

CRS-21
Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative. A reprocessing site is to be selected in FY2007 and
construction to begin in FY2010. “The site competition should not be limited to
DOE sites, but should be open to a wide range of other possible federal and
nonfederal sites on a strictly voluntary basis,” according to the conference report.
Applicants for a reprocessing facility can receive up to $5 million per site, up to a
total of $20 million, to prepare detailed proposals.
No funding is being sought for the integrated recycling program for FY2007.
However, $250 million for nuclear fuel recycling research is included in the request
for DOE nuclear energy R&D as part of a new Global Nuclear Energy Partnership
(GNEP). The Committee cut the GNEP request in half (for details, see the “Nuclear
Energy” section).
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 2002 (H.J.Res. 87, P.L. 107-200) that
authorized the Yucca Mountain project to proceed to the licensing phase.
NWPA required DOE to begin taking waste from nuclear plant sites by January
31, 1998. Nuclear utilities, upset over DOE’s failure to meet that 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. EPA proposed revised Yucca Mountain standards on August 9, 2005.
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.
According to DOE, the FY2007 funding request will allow OCRWM to
continue revising the Yucca Mountain license application to reflect the new
canistered fuel concept, correct quality assurance problems, and meet the new EPA
environmental standards. A significant funding increase for transportation would
allow completion of an environmental impact statement and record of decision on a
proposed 320-mile rail spur to Yucca Mountain.3 (For more information, see CRS
Issue Brief IB92059, Civilian Nuclear Waste Disposal, by Mark Holt.)
3 DOE, FY2007 Congressional Budget, vol. 4, p. 566.

---

CRS-22
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.
Stockpile stewardship consists of all activities in NNSA’s Weapons Activities
account. The three main elements of stockpile stewardship, described below, 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)
House
FY2007
Approp.
Program
FY2006
Request
Committee
Senate
P.L.
DSW
$1,372.3
$1,410.3
$1,312.2
Campaigns
2,123.2
1,937.4
2,033.6
CNPC
—
—
100.0
RTBF
1,644.8
1,685.8
1,658.8
Othera
1,229.4
1,374.5
1,307.4
Total
6,369.6
6,407.9
6,412.0
Sources: DOE FY2007 Congressional Budget Request, vol. 1 (NNSA), p. 55; H.Rept. 109-474, pp.
138-142.
Notes: Details may not add to totals due to rounding. DSW, Directed Stockpile Work; RTBF,
Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities; CNPC, Consolidated Nuclear Production Center.
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 FY2007 request document includes data from NNSA’s Future Years
Nuclear Security Program (FYNSP), which projects the budget and components
through FY2011 (see Table 11).

---

CRS-23
Table 11. NNSA Future Years Nuclear Security Program
($ millions)
FY2007
FY2008
FY2009
FY2010
FY2011
DSW
$1,410.3
$1,381.9
$1,431.4
$1,462.3
$1,495.0
Campaigns
1,937.4
1,961.6
1,920.9
1,899.0
1,853.3
RTBF
1,685.8
1,767.6
1,833.8
1,907.5
2,008.9
Othera
1,374.5
1,425.0
1,480.7
1,531.3
1,578.9
Total
6,407.9
6,536.0
6,666.8
6,800.1
6,936.1
Source: DOE FY2007 Congressional Budget Request, vol. 1 (NNSA), pp. 55, 56.
Note: 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.
Nuclear Weapons Complex Reconfiguration. In testimony before the
House Appropriations Committee’s Energy and Water Subcommittee in March 2004,
the Secretary of Energy agreed to conduct a review of reconfiguring the nuclear
weapons complex (the “Complex”). The Committee’s FY2005 energy and water
report contained a requirement for that study. The committee was concerned about
high costs, the security of fissile material distributed among many sites, and the size
and age of the current Complex. A task force of the Secretary of Energy Advisory
Board released its final report in October 2005. It recommended, among other things,
having a Consolidated Nuclear Production Center that would make nuclear
components (such as those of uranium or plutonium) for nuclear weapons and would
assemble and dismantle nuclear weapons. The task force also recommended
consolidating large quantities of uranium and plutonium at few sites, and probably
closing several current Complex sites. The House Appropriations Committee, in its
FY2007 report, supported the task force’s recommendations and rejected NNSA’s
plan to modernize the current Complex in place. The Committee recommended
$100.0 million “for transition planning, site selection, and preliminary design and
development for a consolidated nuclear production site for reliable replacement
warheads and stockpile support.” NNSA had not requested funds for this purpose.
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 FY2007 DSW request would
support life extension programs for three nuclear warheads: B61 (gravity bomb),
W76 (for Trident II submarine-launched ballistic missiles), and W80 (for cruise
missiles). It would fund surveillance and maintenance for nine warhead types,
dismantlement and disposition of retired warheads and components, and management
and technology work linked to multiple warhead types or to no specific warhead type.
It also includes funds for the Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW) program.

---

CRS-24
RRW originated as a funded program in the FY2005 Consolidated
Appropriations Act, P.L. 108-447, where it was described as a “program to improve
the reliability, longevity, and certifiability of existing weapons and their
components.” NNSA had not requested funds for it, and committee reports had not
mentioned it. Instead, the legislation transferred $9.0 million to RRW from the
Advanced Concepts Initiative, a weapons-related research program. NNSA
requested $9.4 million for RRW for FY2006. It stated 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.” For FY2006, Congress appropriated $25.0 million (subsequently reduced to
$24.75 million by a 1% across-the-board rescission). The FY2007 request is $27.7
million, and outyear projections are FY2008, $14.6 million; FY2009, $29.7 million;
FY2010, $29.6 million; and FY2011, $28.7 million. (See CRS Report RL32929,
Nuclear Weapons: The Reliable Replacement Warhead Program, by Jonathan
Medalia.)
Although RRW is a small program in relation to the total NNSA budget, the
House Appropriations Committee, in its FY2006 report on the energy and water bill
(H.Rept. 109-86), viewed RRW as enabling 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. The Senate
Appropriations Committee’s report (S.Rept. 109-84) stated 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.” The conference report
(H.Rept. 109-275) emphasized that RRW design work “must stay within the military
requirements of the existing deployed stockpile” and that any design “must stay
within the design parameters validated by past nuclear tests.” Other goals that the
conference report set for RRW were improving manufacturing practices, reducing
cost, and increasing performance margins to support a reduction in stockpile size.
Further, P.L. 109-163, the FY2006 National Defense Authorization Act, section
3111, set seven objectives for the RRW program, including “[t]o increase the
reliability, safety, and security of the United States nuclear weapons stockpile” and
“[t]o further reduce the likelihood of the resumption of underground nuclear weapons
testing.”
In its FY2007 report, the House Appropriations Committee linked RRW with
a restructured, smaller, and consolidated nuclear weapons complex. “The Committee
supports the RRW, but only if it is part of a larger package of more comprehensive
weapons complex reforms.” It recommended providing $52.7 million for RRW, an
increase of $25.0 million, but restricted use of the latter amount until NNSA delivers
an infrastructure plan to Congress. The committee also directed NNSA to have the
JASON Defense Advisory Group conduct a peer review of competing candidate

---

CRS-25
RRW designs and to analyze the premise of RRW — that a new warhead can be
designed and deployed without nuclear testing. The committee called for the report
to be submitted to Congress by March 31, 2007.
Also under DSW, the committee (1) reduced the $232.7 million request for
warhead life extension programs by $80.0 million, directed NNSA to terminate the
life extension program for the W80 warhead for cruise missiles, and used the funds
to support weapons complex transformation; and (2) increased funding for warhead
dismantlement from $75.0 million to $105.0 million to accelerate that activity.
In the FY2004-FY2006 budget cycles, the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator
(RNEP) was highly controversial. RNEP was to be a study of the cost and feasibility
of modifying existing nuclear bombs to enable them to penetrate 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, by Jonathan Medalia, and CRS Report RL32347,
“Bunker Busters”: Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator Issues, FY2005 and FY2006,
by Jonathan Medalia.) The FY2005 and FY2006 Energy and Water Development
Appropriations Acts deleted all funds for RNEP. For FY2007, NNSA requested no
funds for the program.
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 FY2007, there are six Campaigns, each with
multiple components: Science, Engineering, Inertial Confinement Fusion and High
Yield, Advanced Simulation and Computing, Pit Manufacturing and Certification,
and Readiness.
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.
NNSA’s proposal to build a Modern Pit Facility (MPF) had been controversial
for a number of years. A pit is the fissile core of a nuclear weapon that is used to
trigger a thermonuclear explosion. The United States has been unable to manufacture
pits that can be certified for use in the stockpile since 1989. Los Alamos has a small-
scale pit manufacturing facility, called TA-55; NNSA’s plan is that TA-55 would be
able to manufacture 10 pits per year by the end of FY2007 and 30-40 by FY2012, but
NNSA saw that capacity as insufficient to maintain the stockpile and has favored
building MPF, with a capacity of perhaps 125 pits per year. H.R. 2419, the FY2006
Energy and Water Development Appropriations Bill, as passed by the House,
eliminated 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 provided the amount requested for MPF,
$7.7 million. The appropriation bill, as passed, provided no funds for MPF.
Conferees on the energy and water bill directed NNSA to focus instead on improving
manufacturing capability at TA-55. In response, NNSA requested no funds for MPF

---

CRS-26
for FY2007 and instead plans to increase capacity at TA-55. NNSA requested
$237.6 million for the Pit Manufacturing and Certification campaign for FY2007; the
House Appropriations Committee recommended providing that amount.
The appropriate test readiness posture — the time between a presidential order
to resume testing and the conduct of the test — has been contentious. The posture
was set at 24 to 36 months several years ago, with fears that it was in actuality 36
months or more. The Administration and Congress sought to shorten it, but there was
a dispute over how much. NNSA and the Armed Services Committees favored an 18-
month posture on grounds that it would take that long to prepare a test but that any
testing should not be delayed beyond that time. In contrast, the Appropriations
Committees favored a 24-month posture on grounds that an 18-month posture would
be provocative and significantly more costly. (See CRS Issue Brief IB92099,
Nuclear Weapons: Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, by Jonathan Medalia.) The
FY2006 request was $25.0 million; the appropriation was $19.8 million. In its
FY2007 request, NNSA states that it achieved a 24-month readiness posture in
FY2005 and plans to maintain that posture at least through FY2011. It further states
that the posture is 18 months “under current law” but that it “has thus far been
limited to 24 months by Congressional funding.” The FY2007 test readiness request
is $14.8 million; the House Appropriations Committee recommended that amount.
The Engineering Campaign includes the Enhanced Surveillance Program (ESP),
which 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.” Of particular interest to Congress, it is
conducting experiments to determine the service life of pits based on plutonium
aging characteristics. The result will bear on decisions to build MPF and to pursue
RRW. NNSA requested $96.2 million for ESP for FY2006; the appropriation was
$99.2 million. The FY2007 request is $86.5 million; the House Appropriations
Committee recommended that amount.
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 requested $141.9
million for NIF construction, and H.R. 2419, the Energy and Water Development
Appropriations Bill, as passed by the House, contained that sum. The Senate
Appropriations Committee noted that the planned five-year budget projection for
Weapons Activities in the FY2006 request was reduced by $3.0 billion, compared
with the FY2005 request, and directed that no funds be expended on NIF
construction “in order to focus on supporting a comprehensive stewardship program.”
The appropriation was $140.5 million. For FY2007, NNSA requested $111.4 million
for NIF construction; the House Appropriations Committee recommended that
amount. NNSA plans to complete the NIF project by March 30, 2009.
Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities (RTBF). This program
provides infrastructure and operations at the nuclear weapons complex sites. The
FY2006 appropriation was $1,644.8 million; the FY2007 request is $1,685.8 million.

---

CRS-27
RTBF has six subprograms. By far the largest is Operations of Facilities ($1,166.2
million appropriated for FY2006; $1,203.8 million requested for FY2007). Others
include Program Readiness, which supports activities occurring at multiple sites or
in multiple programs ($104.7 million appropriated for FY2006; $75.2 million
requested for FY2007), and Material Recycle and Recovery, which recovers
plutonium, enriched uranium, and tritium from weapons production and disassembly
($72.0 million appropriated for FY2006; $70.0 million requested for FY2007).
Construction is a separate category within RTBF; the FY2006 appropriation was
$259.9 million, and the FY2007 request is $281.4 million.
For FY2007, the House Appropriations Committee recommended reducing
RTBF overall by $27.0 million from the request, including an increase of $73.0
million for Operations of Facilities and a reduction of $100.0 million, from a request
of $112.4 million, for a Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Facility Replacement
(CMRR). CMRR would replace a building about 50 years old at Los Alamos that,
among other things, conducts research into plutonium and supports pit production at
TA-55. The committee stated that CMRR construction should be terminated, DOE
should revise its long-term plan for the Complex, and “[p]roduction capabilities
proposed in the CMRR should be located at the future production site that supports
the RRW and long term stockpile requirements.” The committee noted that NNSA
proposed to build a Consolidated Plutonium Production Center by 2022, so that
“CMRR will serve its primary production support function for only eight years before
it is made obsolete by the new plutonium facility.”
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
special vehicles used for this purpose, communications and other
supporting infrastructure, and threat response. The FY2006
appropriation was $210.0 million. The FY2007 request is $209.3
million; the House Appropriations Committee recommended that
amount.
! 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 FY2006 appropriation
was $117.6 million. The FY2007 request is $135.4 million; the
House Appropriations Committee recommended that amount.
! 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 FY2006
appropriation was $149.4 million, and the FY2007 request is $291.2
million. The House Appropriations Committee recommended
reducing the latter sum by $145.0 million, and “directs the NNSA to
reassess its out-year planning for FIRP projects to ensure

---

CRS-28
coordination between FIRP funds and the reduced facility
requirements consistent with the consolidation of the complex under
the long-term Responsive Infrastructure planning.”
! 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.
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 FY2006 appropriation was $797.8 million. The FY2007 request
is $754.4 million; the House Appropriations Committee
recommended increasing this sum by $78.0 million for various
security upgrades.
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).
Funding for these programs in FY2006 was $1.615 billion. For FY2007, the
Administration requested $1.726 billion. The House Appropriations Committee
recommended $1.593 billion.
Table 12. DOE Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation Programs
($ millions)
FY2007
Program
FY2006
Request
House
Senate
Conf.
Nonproliferation & Verification R&D
$318.8
$268.9
$308.1
Nonproliferation & International
74.3
127.4b
127.4b
Security
International Materials Protection,
422.7
413.2
583.2
Control and Accounting (MPC&A)
Russian Transition Initiativesa
39.6
— b
— b
Elimination of Weapons-Grade
174.4
206.7
206.7
Plutonium Production
HEU Transparency Implementation
19.3
— b
— b
Fissile Materials Disposition
468.8
638.0
282.7

---

CRS-29
FY2007
Program
FY2006
Request
House
Senate
Conf.
Global Threat Reduction Initiative
97.0
106.8
119.8
Adjustment
—
(34.7)
(34.7)
Total
1,614.8
1,726.2
1,593.1
Source: DOE FY2007 Congressional Budget Request; H.Rept. 109-474.
Note: Numbers may not add due to rounding.
a. As it did last year, DOE proposes changing the program name to Global Initiatives for Proliferation
Prevention. The final FY2006 appropriations bill kept the previous name, as shown in the table.
b. Funding for Russian Transition Initiatives ($28.140 million) and HEU Transparency Implementation
($17.531 million) was included in Nonproliferation & International Security.
The Nonproliferation and Verification R&D program received $318.78 million
for FY2006; for FY2007, the Administration requested $268.89 million
Nonproliferation and International Security programs would receive $127.41 million
in the FY2007 request, compared with $74.25 million in FY2006. These programs
include international safeguards, export controls, and treaties and agreements. The
House Appropriations Committee recommended $308.1 million.
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 $413.18 million under the President’s
request, compared with $422.73 million appropriated for FY2006. The House
Appropriations Committee recommended $583.20 million, citing “expanded
opportunities for high priority work” at two Russian sites.
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
nonweapons employment for roughly 35,000 underemployed nuclear scientists from
the former Soviet weapons complex. The FY2006 appropriation for the program was
$39.6 million. For FY2007, the program was included in Nonproliferation and
International Security, with $28.14 million allotted for it in the request.
Requested funding for the Fissile Materials Disposition program for FY2006
was $653.1 million, but the Congress appropriated $468.8 million. 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 “mixed-oxide” (MOX) reactor fuel at Savannah River, South Carolina,
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 have been $301.7 million. The Senate version of the bill would
have funded the program at the requested $653.1 million level. For FY2007, the
Administration, noting that the issue that had delayed the program in Russia had been
resolved, requested $638 million. However, the House Appropriations Committee

---

CRS-30
report said “in 2006 it has become clear that the Russian government is not going to
participate in the MOX-light water reactor” plan that the United States has proposed,
and cut the funding drastically to $282.7 million. The move would shut down the
MOX-fuel construction project at Savannah River.
Environmental Management. The adequacy of funding to address human
health and environmental risks resulting from the past production of nuclear weapons
is a long-standing issue. DOE established the Office of Environmental Management
in 1989 to consolidate its efforts to administer the cleanup of former nuclear weapons
sites. These efforts include the disposal of radioactive and hazardous wastes,
management and disposal of surplus nuclear materials, the remediation of soil and
groundwater contaminated from such wastes, and the decontamination and
decommissioning of excess buildings and facilities. Through this program, DOE also
administers the disposal of wastes and remediation of contamination at sites where
the federal government conducted civilian nuclear energy research. Altogether, there
were 114 “geographic”4 sites in 30 states where these activities resulted in the
generation of wastes and contamination.
Some of the ongoing issues associated with efforts to clean up these sites have
been the adequacy of risk-based approaches to cleanup, the technical soundness of
waste treatment facility designs, how to safely dispose of high-level radioactive
wastes stored in underground tanks, the effectiveness and cost-savings of incentive-
based cleanup contracts, and the pace and adequacy of cleanup overall. The
challenges of the Environmental Management program to clean up nuclear waste and
contamination are substantial and require significant resources. As such, this cleanup
program is the second largest function within DOE (after the National Nuclear
Security Administration), and it represents approximately one-fourth of the
Department’s total budget.
The House Appropriations Committee recommended a total of $5.99 billion for
the Environmental Management program for FY2007, an increase above the
President’s FY2007 request of $5.83 billion. Most of the increase above the request
is for certain defense sites, such as Savannah River, the Idaho National Laboratory,
and the Oak Ridge Reservation. However, total funding for Hanford would be less
than requested because of reductions for the Waste Treatment Plant, which has
experienced delays in construction stemming from issues regarding the engineering
and design of the facility.
Compared with the FY2006 appropriation, the House Appropriations
Committee recommendation is a decrease below the amount of $6.59 billion
Congress enacted last year. Most of the committee’s recommended reduction below
the FY2006 appropriation is attributed to progress at defense sites where cleanup is
scheduled to be completed in 2006,5 and reduced funding at other defense sites such
4 DOE makes a distinction between its “geographic” sites that represent entire facilities and
the lands they occupy, and the thousands of discrete contaminated sites located on each
facility that have been, or need to be, cleaned up.
5 These sites include Ashtabula, Columbus, Fernald, Miamisburg, and Rocky Flats. The
(continued...)

---

CRS-31
as the Oak Ridge Reservation and the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant. However, the
committee’s recommendation would provide more funding than in FY2006 for some
of the larger and more complex defense sites, including Hanford (and its Waste
Treatment Plant), the Idaho National Laboratory, and Savannah River.
Table 13 below indicates the FY2006 appropriation, the FY2007 request, and
the House Appropriations Committee’s recommendation for FY2007 for each of the
three accounts that fund the Environmental Management program, and for selected
sites and program activities within these accounts in which there has been broad
congressional interest.
Table 13. Environmental Management Program Appropriations:
FY2006 Enacted, FY2007 Requested, and House Appropriations
Committee Recommendation for FY2007
($ millions)
House
Environmental Management
FY2006
FY2007
Approp.
Program Accounts
Enacted
Requested
Committee
Defense Environmental Cleanup
2006 Closure Sites
$1,018.3
$320.9
$321.9
Ashtabula
$15.8
$0.3
$1.3
Columbus
$9.4
$0.0
$0.0
Fernald
$324.3
$258.9
$258.9
Miamisburg
$104.5
$34.9
$34.9
Rocky Flats
$564.3
$1.0
$1.0
Closure Sites Administration
$0.0
$25.9
$25.9
Hanford
$1,619.7
$1,768.8
$1,726.8
Richland Office
$772.8
$804.7
$832.7
Office of River Protection
$846.9
$964.1
$894.1
Waste Treatment Plant
$520.7
$690.0
$600.0
Tank Farm Activities
$326.2
$274.1
$294.1
Savannah River Site
$1,158.9
$1,084.4
$1,195.4
Idaho National Laboratory
$532.8
$512.6
$544.6
Oak Ridge Reservation
$238.4
$159.9
$199.4
Waste Isolation Pilot Plant
$228.3
$213.3
$213.3
National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)
Sites
$299.4
$232.1
$232.1
Technology Development and Deployment
$29.8
$21.4
$31.4
Safeguards and Security
$284.4
$295.8
$295.8
Program Direction
$241.4
$291.2
$301.2
Program Support
$32.5
$37.9
$37.9
5 (...continued)
contractor for Rocky Flats reported that physical work for cleanup was completed in
October 2005. DOE expects to complete cleanup at the four remaining sites by the end of
calendar year 2006. However, long-term maintenance of remedial actions and monitoring
may continue for many years, necessitating some continued funding in the future.

---

CRS-32
Federal Payment to Uranium Enrichment D&D Funda
$446.5
$452.0
$452.0
Total Defense Environmental Cleanup
$6,130.4
$5,390.3
$5,551.8
Non-Defense Environmental Cleanup
$349.7
$310.4
$309.9
Uranium Enrichment D&D Funda
$556.6
$579.4
$579.4
Uranium Enrichment D&D Fund Offseta
$-446.5
$-452.0
$-452.0
Total Environmental Management
$6,590.2
$5,828.1
$5,989.1
Source: Prepared by CRS with information from the House Appropriations Committee, including
H.Rept. 109-474, and DOE’s FY2007 budget justification, vol. 5: Environmental Management, pp.5-
7.
Note: Numbers may not add as a result of rounding.
a. D&D = Decontamination and Decommissioning. Federal payment to the Uranium Enrichment
D&D Fund is traditionally treated as an offset to the total for the Environmental Management
Program.
Estimated Future Funding Needs. The need for annual appropriations of
several billion dollars to clean up nuclear waste sites has motivated ongoing concern
within Congress about the long-term financial liability of the United States to meet
these needs. Accordingly, there has been much debate about how to ensure public
health and safety, and the protection of the environment, in the most expedient and
cost-effective manner. DOE reports that it had cleaned up 78 of the 114 sites as of
the end of FY2005.6 Although DOE has disposed of substantial quantities of waste
and remediated many areas of contamination at the remaining 36 sites, much work
remains to be done to complete cleanup at many of these sites. DOE expects to
complete cleanup at several additional small sites within the next few years, but it
anticipates cleanup to continue for decades at the larger and more complex sites.
Assessing the total time and funding that will be needed to complete cleanup is
difficult, especially for the larger, more complex sites where many final decisions
have yet to be made because of technical limitations and uncertainties, such as the
end state7 of many sites. Congress has appropriated a total of $91 billion for cleanup
through FY2006, and DOE estimates that an additional $91 billion would be needed
through FY2035 to complete cleanup at the 36 remaining sites.8 This estimate
reflects the Department’s change in assumptions of certain costs, such as projected
increases in funding needs for the Waste Treatment Plant at Hanford, inclusion of
costs for the decontamination and decommissioning of the gaseous diffusion plants
6 See DOE’s FY2007 budget justification, volume 5: Environmental Management, p. 30.
7 DOE uses the term “end state” to denote the intended condition or land use of a
contaminated site once cleanup is complete. Determining the end state is critical to making
cleanup decisions, as the degree of cleanup required, and the specific action to achieve that
degree of cleanup, are dependent on the potential pathways of human exposure that would
occur as a result of how the land will be used in the future. Land uses resulting in greater
potential for human exposure require a greater degree of cleanup.
8 In April 2005, DOE reported an estimate of $105 billion to CRS for future cleanup costs
from FY2005 through FY2035. Accounting for appropriations of $7.3 billion for FY2005
and $6.6 billion for FY2006, the remaining estimated costs from FY2007 through FY2035
would be $91 billion.

---

CRS-33
at Portsmouth and Paducah into the Environmental Management program, and
increased costs of security associated with many program activities.
Whether DOE’s estimate may be a reliable indicator of actual cleanup costs in
the future depends on many variables. For example, actual costs could differ
depending on whether federal and state regulators may require more stringent and
costlier cleanup actions than DOE plans to take. Whether cleanup actions are
adequate over the long-term to protect human health and the environment also could
affect costs. Long-term performance of cleanup actions is especially critical for
nuclear waste sites because of the rate of radioactive decay, which can be thousands
of years, depending on the particular radionuclide. Additional funding could be
needed at sites where cleanup was thought to be complete, if the initial cleanup
proves inadequate over time.
DOE’s $91 billion estimate of future costs also does not include the costs of
long-term care of sites once cleanup remedies are in place to ensure the protection
of human health and the environment into the future. As of FY2005, DOE estimated
$17.5 billion would be needed for cleanup and post-closure responsibilities, such as
surveillance and monitoring, operation and maintenance of cleanup remedies, and
disposal of excess materials after cleanup work under the Environmental
Management program is completed.9 DOE estimated these costs for a period of 75
years through FY2080.10 Although DOE acknowledged that some long-term care
would be needed after this period, the Department indicated that the costs beyond
FY2080 could not reasonably be estimated because of uncertainties in such distant
future years. Long-term site care is discussed further below.
Long-Term Site Care. Once a site is cleaned up and there is no continuing
DOE mission, responsibility for long-term care of the site is transferred to DOE’s
Office of Legacy Management.11 This office also manages the payment of pensions
and post-retirement benefits of former contractor personnel who worked at these
sites.12 The House Appropriations Committee recommended $201 million for the
Office of Legacy Management in FY2007, the same as the President requested, but
$123 million more than the FY2006 appropriation of $78 million. The majority of
the proposed increase above FY2006 is for the payment of pensions and post-
retirement benefits associated with the sites that are expected to be cleaned up and
transferred to this office. Of the recommended increase, $20 million is for site care
related to long-term cleanup responsibilities, including surveillance and maintenance
activities at Rocky Flats, Fernald, Columbus, and the eight Nevada “off-sites.” The
proposed increase is indicative of higher funding needs in the future for post-closure
9 DOE. Performance and Accountability Report for FY2005. p. 206.
10 Ibid., p. 206.
11 When there is a continuing mission, long-term site care is transferred to the program
office within DOE that is responsible for administering that mission or is the “landlord” of
the site.
12 Likewise, at sites with a continuing mission, payment of pensions and post-retirement
benefits is assigned to the program office within DOE that is responsible for administering
that mission or is the “landlord” of the site, rather than the Office of Legacy Management.

---

CRS-34
responsibilities, as physical cleanup work is completed at other sites over time and
long-term site care is transferred to the Office of Legacy Management.
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 multipurpose 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 in its FY2006 budget request, the
Administration recommended that Congress raise PMA rates to “market rates.” The
House rejected this proposal in its Energy and Water appropriations bill. It was not
mentioned in the conference report, 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 Administration’s net FY2007 request for the PMAs of $249.5 million is a
reduction of 6.6% from the FY2006 appropriation of $267.1 million. This reflects
a reduction of $19.4 million for WAPA, with slight increases of $1.6 million for
Southwestern and $180,000 for Southeastern. The House Appropriations Committee
recommended funding for the PMAs as requested, with an FY2007 allocation of
$252.0 million (including $2.5 million for the Falcon and Amistad O&M fund).
The House Appropriations Committee does not support the Administration’s
proposals to recover O&M expenses for WAPA, SEPA, and SWPA through
offsetting collections, or to increase PMA rates to reflect market-based rates. Nor has
the committee incorporated the Administration’s proposal to directly fund Corps
hydropower O&M expenses through the revenues of WAPA, SEPA, and SWPA.
In FY2007 WAPA, SEPA, and SWPA propose to assign “Agency Rates” to new
obligations. The Agency Rate is the rate at which federal corporations and BPA
borrow. This change is expected to have a rate impact of less than 1% (the Agency
Rate was 0.4% higher on average than PMA rates from 1997-2005) and will generate
$11.8 million in additional Treasury revenue from 2007 to 2011.
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 did not request additional borrowing
authority in FY2007. BPA intends to use $477 million of its borrowing authority in
FY2007, down from $487 million proposed in FY2006, for generation and

---

CRS-35
transmission services, conservation, energy efficiency, fish and wildlife, and capital
equipment programs.
Beginning in FY2007 BPA is proposing to use secondary net revenues beyond
$500 million to make advance amortization payments to the Treasury on BPA’s bond
obligations. BPA is expecting this additional revenue to be $169 million in FY2007.
Section 9013 of H.R. 4939 would prevent this use of BPA revenue.
BPA’s FY2007 budget also assumes that Energy Northwest will refinance a
portion of its debt in calendar years 2006 and 2007, and that the effects of this debt
optimization will be realized in fiscal years 2006 and 2007. The additional cash
made available by this refinancing, expected to be $312 million in FY2007, will be
used to pay down BPA’s federal bond debt.
Title IV: Independent Agencies
Independent agencies that receive funding from the Energy and Water
Development bill include the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), the
Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC), and the Denali Commission.
Table 14. Energy and Water Development Appropriations
Title IV: Independent Agencies
($ millions)
FY2007
Program
FY2006
House
Senate
Conf.
Request
Appalachian Regional Commission
$65.0
$65.0
$35.5
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
727.0
768.4
809.2
(Revenues)
(627.7)
(628.3)
(656.3)
Net NRC
116.0
140.1
152.9
Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety
21.8
22.3
22.3
Board
Nuclear Waste Technical Review
3.6
3.7
3.7
Board
Denali Commission
49.5
2.5
7.5
Delta Regional Authority
11.9
5.9
5.9
Total
268.4
248.8
227.8
Source: FY2007 Budget Request; H.Rept. 109-474.
Key Policy Issues — Independent Agencies
Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC) requested a total budget of $776.6 million for FY2007, including $8.1 million
for the NRC inspector general’s office. The request is 4.5% above the FY2006

---

CRS-36
appropriation of $741.5 million. 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 NRC budget request includes a $22 million increase in the Nuclear Reactor
Safety program, largely to handle anticipated new nuclear power plant license
applications. No commercial reactor license applications have been submitted to
NRC since the 1970s, but higher fossil fuel prices and incentives provided by the
Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58) have prompted electric utilities to announce
plans for about a dozen reactor license applications over the next few years. The
Committee approved an additional increase of $40 million for reactor licensing.
NRC is proposing a 10% reduction to $41.0 million in funding for licensing
DOE’s planned national nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada,
reflecting delays in the program. The budget request assumes that DOE will submit
a repository license application in FY2008, although no schedule has been
announced.
For all homeland security activities, NRC’s FY2007 budget request includes
$70.3 million, an 11% decrease from FY2006. NRC oversees force-on-force security
exercises at nuclear plants and is requiring revised reactor 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.)
The Energy Policy Act of 2005 permanently extended a requirement that 90%
of NRC’s budget be offset by fees on licensees. Not subject to the offset were the
$41 million from the Nuclear Waste Fund to pay for waste repository licensing, $35.3
million for generic homeland security, and another $2.9 million for DOE defense
waste oversight. These amounts plus 10% of the remaining $698 million leaves a net
appropriation of $148.9 million.

---

CRS-37
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 IB88090, Nuclear Energy Policy, by Mark Holt and Carl Behrens.
CRS Reports
CRS Report RS21331, Everglades Restoration: Modified Water Deliveries Project,
by Pervaze A. Sheikh.
CRS Report RL33298, FY2006 Supplemental Appropriations: Iraq and Other
International Activities; Additional Hurricane Katrina Relief, coordinated by
Paul M. Irwin and Larry Nowels.
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 RL33294, DOE Budget Earmarks: A Selective Look at Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy R&D Programs, by Fred Sissine.
CRS Report RL32130, Nuclear Weapon Initiatives: Low-Yield R&D, Advanced
Concepts, Earth Penetrators, Test Readiness, by Jonathan Medalia.

---

CRS-38
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 and Mark Holt.
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 RL32798, Power Marketing Administrations: Proposals for Market-
Based Rates, by Kyna Powers.

---