[House Report 109-86]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



109th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 1st Session                                                     109-86

======================================================================
 
         ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2006

                                _______
                                

  May 18, 2005.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

    Mr. Hobson, from the Committee on Appropriations, submitted the 
                               following

                              R E P O R T

                        [To accompany H.R. 2419]

    The Committee on Appropriations submits the following 
report in explanation of the accompanying bill making 
appropriations for energy and water development for the fiscal 
year ending September 30, 2006, and for other purposes.

                        INDEX TO BILL AND REPORT

_______________________________________________________________________


                                                            Page Number

                                                            Bill Report
Summary of Estimates and Recommendations...................
                                                                      2
Introduction...............................................
                                                                      3
I. Department of Defense--Civil:
        Corps of Engineers--Civil:
                Introduction...............................     2
                                                                      7
                General investigations.....................     2
                                                                     19
                Construction, general......................     3
                                                                     24
                Flood control, Mississippi River and 
                    Tributaries............................     5
                                                                     42
                Operation and maintenance, general.........     5
                                                                     45
                Regulatory program.........................     7
                                                                     66
                Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action 
                    Program................................     7
                                                                     66
                Flood control and coastal emergencies......
                                                                     67
                General expenses...........................     7
                                                                     67
                Administrative provisions..................     8

                Office of the Assistant Secretary of the 
                    Army (Civil Works).....................     8
                                                                     70
                General provisions.........................     8
                                                                     71
II. Department of the Interior:
        Central Utah Project completion account............    12
                                                                     73
        Bureau of Reclamation:
                Water and related resources................    12
                                                                     75
                California Bay-Delta ecosystem restoration.    14
                                                                     83
                Central Valley Project restoration fund....    14
                                                                     83
                Policy and administration..................    15
                                                                     85
                Administrative provisions..................    15

                General provisions.........................    16
                                                                     85
III. Department of Energy:
        Energy supply and conservation.....................    18
                                                                     87
        Clean coal technology..............................    19
                                                                    110
        Fossil energy research and development.............    19
                                                                    110
        Naval petroleum and oil shale reserves.............    22
                                                                    113
        Elk Hills School lands funds.......................    22
                                                                    113
        Strategic petroleum reserve........................    23
                                                                    114
        Northeast home heating oil reserve.................
                                                                    114
        Energy Information Administration..................    23
                                                                    115
        Non-defense environmental management:
                Non-defense environmental cleanup..........    23
                                                                    116
                Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and 
                    Decommissioning Fund...................    24
                                                                    117
        Science............................................    24
                                                                    118
        Nuclear waste disposal.............................    25
                                                                    124
        Departmental administration........................    27
                                                                    127
        Office of Inspector General........................    28
                                                                    128
        Atomic energy defense activities...................    28
                                                                    128
        National Nuclear Security Administration:
                Weapons activities.........................    28
                                                                    129
                Defense nuclear nonproliferation...........    29
                                                                    140
                Naval reactors.............................    29
                                                                    145
                Office of the Administrator................    29
                                                                    146
        Environmental and Other Defense Activities.........    30
                                                                    147
        Defense environmental management...................    30
                                                                    147
                Defense environmental cleanup..............    30
                                                                    149
                Other defense activities...................    30
                                                                    151
                Defense nuclear waste disposal.............    31
                                                                    154
        Power marketing administrations....................    31
                                                                    154
                Bonneville Power Administration............    31
                                                                    155
                Southeastern Power Administration..........    31
                                                                    155
                Southwestern Power Administration..........    32
                                                                    156
                Western Area Power Administration..........    33
                                                                    156
                Falcon and Amistad operating and 
                    maintenance fund.......................    34
                                                                    157
        Federal Energy Regulatory Commission...............    34
                                                                    157
        General provisions.................................    35
                                                                    177
IV. Independent agencies:
        Appalachian Regional Commission....................    41
                                                                    179
        Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board............    42
                                                                    179
        Delta Regional Authority...........................    42
                                                                    180
        Denali Commission..................................    42
                                                                    180
        Nuclear Regulatory Commission......................    43
                                                                    181
        Office of Inspector General........................    44
                                                                    182
        Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board...............    44
                                                                    183
V. General provisions:
        House reporting requirements.......................    44
                                                                    187

                Summary of Estimates and Recommendations

    The Committee has considered budget estimates which are 
contained in the Budget of the United States Government, 2006, 
The following table summarizes appropriations for fiscal year 
2005, the budget estimates, and amounts recommended in the bill 
for fiscal year 2006. Amounts shown include mandatory, 
discretionary and emergency appropriations.

                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                          2006 recommendation
                                                                                            compared with--
                                                2005         2006          2006      ---------------------------
                                                           estimate   recommendation       2005          2006
                                                                                      appropriation    estimate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Title I--Department of Defense--Civil.....   $5,039,948   $4,332,000      4,746,021      -$293,927      $414,021
Title II--Department of the Interior......    1,017,546      951,055      1,011,486         -6,060        60,431
Title III--Department of Energy...........   24,419,197   24,213,307     24,317,857       -101,340       104,550
Title IV--Independent Agencies............      289,336      234,238        207,266        -82,070       -26,972
                                           ---------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal............................   30,727,429   29,730,600     30,539,630       -187,799      -809,030
Scorekeeping adjustments..................     -849,747       16,128       -793,630         56,117      -809,758
                                           =====================================================================
      Grand Total of bill.................   29,877,682   29,746,728     29,746,000       -131,682          -728
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              Introduction

    The Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill for 
fiscal year 2006 totals $29,746,000,000 the same as the 
President's budget request, and $131,682,000 below the amount 
appropriated in fiscal year 2005.
    Title I of the bill provides $4,746,021,000 for the 
programs of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, a decrease of 
$293,927,000 below the fiscal year 2005 enacted level and 
$414,021,000 over the budget request of $4,332,000. The fiscal 
year 2006 budget request for the Corps of Engineers totals 
$4,513,000,000, which is composed of $4,332,000,000 in new 
budget authority and $181,000,000 in new offsetting 
collections. A proposal to provide direct financing of the 
operation and maintenance of Corps of Engineers' hydropower 
facilities as offsetting collections from the Power Marketing 
Administrations' power sales revenues is rejected by the 
Committee.
    The fiscal year 2006 budget request for the Corps' Civil 
Works program represents a significant departure from previous 
Administration requests for the Corps, as it applies a new 
performance-based system based on the ratio of remaining 
benefits-to-remaining costs. This performance-based system is 
intended to focus limited federal resources on the efficient 
completion of high economic-value projects while suspending or 
terminating work on other projects found not to be of as high 
an economic value and on Congressionally mandated projects that 
have been included in prior Administration requests. The 
Committee supports the concept of focusing limited resources on 
completing high-value projects already under construction, and 
the Committee recommendation is based in large part on the 
Administration's performance-based approach. The Committee bill 
and report also makes a number of changes to improve the Corps' 
project management and execution, particularly in the areas of 
reprogrammings, continuing contracts, and five-year budget 
planning.
    Title II provides $1,011,486,000 for the Department of 
Interior and the Bureau of Reclamation, an increase of 
$60,431,000 above the budget request of $951,055,000 and 
$6,060,000 below the fiscal year 2005 enacted level. The 
Committee recommends $977,136,000 for the Bureau of 
Reclamation, an increase of $60,431,000 over the request and 
$6,060,000 below the fiscal year 2005 enacted level. A proposal 
to provide direct financing of operation and maintenance costs 
associated with the power functions of Reclamation facilities 
that generate the power sold by the Western Power 
Administration is rejected by the Committee. The Committee 
recommends $34,350,000 for the Central Utah Project and 
$946,000 for deposit into the Utah Reclamation Mitigation and 
Conservation Account, both the same as the budget request.
    Title III provides $24,574,857,000 for the Department of 
Energy (DOE), an increase of $278,103,000 over fiscal year 2005 
and $361,550,000 over the budget request of $24,213,307,000. 
Consistent with the reorganization of the subcommittees within 
the House Committee on Appropriations, all Department of Energy 
programs are funded within this bill. The Committee funds new 
initiatives on the consolidation of special nuclear materials, 
the interim storage and integrated recycling of spent nuclear 
fuel, and on creating a sustainable nuclear stockpile and the 
DOE complex necessary to support that stockpile.
    The Energy Supply and Conservation account, which funds 
renewable energy, energy efficiency, nuclear energy, non-
defense environment, safety, and health programs, and energy 
conservation, is funded at $1,762,888,000, an increase of 
$13,442,000 over the request and $44,050,000 below the current 
year enacted level. The Committee recommends $3,666,055,000 for 
the Office of Science, an increase of $203,337,000 over the 
budget request and $66,184,000 over the current year. 
Additional funds are provided for priority work on advanced 
scientific computing, high energy physics, and operation of 
user facilities at fiscal year 2005 levels.
    Environmental management activities (i.e., non-defense 
environmental cleanup, uranium enrichment decontamination and 
decommissioning fund, and defense environmental cleanup) are 
funded at $7,379,768,000, a decrease of $395,675,000 below the 
fiscal year 2005 enacted level and an increase of $423,292,000 
over the budget request. A large portion of this increase 
results from the Committee retaining environmental cleanup 
responsibilities within Environmental Management for facilities 
under the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), 
rather than transferring such responsibilities to the NNSA as 
proposed in the budget. The Committee recommendation also 
restores $194,905,000 from the proposed reduction for cleanup 
of the Hanford site.
    The Committee recommends a total of $661,447,000 for the 
Yucca Mountain repository, which includes $310,000,000 for 
Nuclear Waste Disposal, an increase of $10,000,000 over the 
request, and $351,447,000 for Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal, 
the same as the request. The additional funds are provided for 
the Department to begin to move spent nuclear fuel away from 
reactor sites to interim storage at one or more existing DOE 
sites.
    Funding for the National Nuclear Security Administration 
(NNSA), which includes nuclear weapons activities, defense 
nuclear nonproliferation, naval reactors, and the Office of the 
NNSA Administrator, is $8,848,449,000, an increase of 
$23,990,000 over fiscal year 2005 and a decrease of 
$548,792,000 from the budget request. Within the weapons 
activities account, the Committee provides no funds for the 
robust nuclear earth penetrator study, but provides significant 
increases for the Sustainable Stockpile Initiative, including 
development of the Reliable Replacement Warhead. Additional 
funds are also provided to accelerate the consolidation of 
special nuclear materials into a small number of secure sites. 
The Committee recommendation includes $1,500,959,000 for 
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation, an increase of $7,926,000 
over the current year and a decrease of $136,280,000 from the 
request. Much of this reduction comes from the mixed oxide fuel 
facility at Savannah River, which has large uncosted balances 
and is delayed by the absence of a liability agreement with the 
Russian Federation.
    Title IV provides $207,266,000 for several Independent 
Agencies, a decrease of $82,070,000 from fiscal year 2005 and 
$26,972,000 below the budget request of $234,238,000. The 
requested funding is provided for the Defense Nuclear 
Facilities Safety Board, the Delta Regional Authority, the 
Denali Commission, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Inspector 
General, and the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board. An 
additional $21,000,000 is provided to the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission for safety and security work. The request for the 
Appalachian Regional Commission is reduced by $26,972,000, and 
no funds are provided for the Office of Inspector General for 
the Tennessee Valley Authority.
                                TITLE I

                      DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL

                         Department of the Army

                       Corps of Engineers--Civil

                              INTRODUCTION

    The United States Army Corps of Engineers traces its 
history to June 1775, when Congress established the Continental 
Army with a provision for a Chief Engineer to oversee the 
construction of fortifications for the Battle of Bunker Hill. 
An Act of Congress permanently established the Corps in 1802. 
The Corps' Civil Works role and mission is grounded in a series 
of laws enacted since 1824. A brief legislative history of the 
Corps follows:
      
     The General Survey Act of 1824 authorized the 
President to have surveys made of routes for roads and canals 
of national importance, from a commercial or military point of 
view, or necessary for the transportation of public mail. The 
President assigned responsibility for the surveys to the Corps 
of Engineers. A second Act, also signed in 1824, appropriated 
$75,000 to improve navigation on the Ohio and Mississippi 
rivers by removing sandbags, snags and other obstacles, and was 
subsequently amended to include other rivers such as the 
Missouri. This work was also given to the Corps of Engineers. 
Subsequent Acts of Congress expanded the Corps' 
responsibilities for navigation.
     The Rivers and Harbors Act of 1909 expanded the 
Corps' Civil Works authority by authorizing the consideration 
of hydroelectric power generation in the planning, design and 
construction of water resource development projects.
     The 1917 Flood Control Act established a role for 
the Corps in flood damage reduction, which became a national 
flood protection role for the Civil Works program in the 1936 
Flood Control Act. The Flood Control Act of 1944 gave the Corps 
a recreation role that was added as part of flood control at 
Corps reservoirs. The 1962 River and Harbor Flood Act expanded 
that role by authorizing the Corps to build recreational 
facilities as part of all water resource development projects.
     The environmental role to protect, restore and 
manage the environment emanates from the Rivers and Harbors Act 
of 1899 that assigned the Corps the mission to prevent 
obstacles in navigable waterways. As concerns over the 
environment grew in the late 20th century, the Clean Water Act 
of 1972 broadened this responsibility by giving the Corps the 
authority and direction to regulate dredging and activities 
that result in fill being placed in the ``waters of the United 
States,'' including many wetlands. The 1986 Water Resources 
Development Act further expanded the Corps' environmental role 
to include enhancing and restoring natural resources at new and 
existing projects, and the Water Resources Development Act of 
1990 made environmental protection one of the Corps' primary 
water resources development missions.
     The Water Supply Act of 1958 gave the Civil Works 
Program the authority to include water storage in new and 
existing reservoir projects for municipal and industrial uses.
     The Flood Control and Coastal Emergency Act (P.L. 
84-99) and the Stafford Disaster and Emergency Assistance Act 
gave the Civil Works program direct authority to help the 
nation in times of national disaster. P.L. 84-99 directed the 
Corps to provide emergency assistance during or following flood 
events to protect lives, public facilities and infrastructure. 
The Stafford Act authorized the Corps to support the Federal 
Emergency Management Agency in carrying out the Federal 
Response Plan (now the National Response Plan), which requires 
26 federal departments and agencies to provide coordinated 
disaster relief and recovery operations.
     Title 10 of the U.S. Code, (Navigation and 
Navigable Waterways), as further outlined in Title 33, enables 
the Civil Works program to provide services to other federal 
entities, states, or local governments on a reimbursable basis. 
This work includes flood control, the improvement of rivers and 
harbors, research, and support to private engineering and 
construction firms competing for, or performing, work outside 
the United States. The Support for Others program engages the 
Corps in reimbursable work that is determined to be in 
America's best interests.
      
    Currently, the Corps accomplishes the Civil Works mission 
through the following major business programs:
    Navigation.--The role of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 
with respect to navigation is to provide safe, reliable, and 
efficient waterborne transportation systems, such as channels, 
harbors and waterways, for movement of commerce, national 
security needs and recreation. The Corps seeks to accomplish 
this mission through a combination of capital improvements and 
the operation and maintenance of existing projects. Capital 
improvement activities include the planning, design, and 
construction of new navigation projects and major 
rehabilitation of existing projects. In fiscal year 2004, the 
Corps operated and maintained 12,000 miles of commercial inland 
navigation channels; owned and/or operated 257 navigation lock 
chambers at 212 sites; and maintained 926 coastal, Great Lakes 
and inland harbors.
    Flood damage reduction.--Section 1 of the Flood Control Act 
of 1936 declared flood control to be a proper Federal activity 
since improvements for flood control purposes are in the 
interest of the general welfare of the public. The Act 
stipulated that, for Federal involvement to be justified, `` * 
* * the benefits to whomsoever they may accrue (must be) in 
excess of the estimated costs, and * * * the lives and social 
security of people (must be) otherwise adversely affected.'' In 
fiscal year 2004, the Corps managed 383 major lakes and 
reservoirs; and constructed or controlled 8,500 miles of 
federal levees. Over the last ten years, the average annual 
damages prevented by Corps projects totaled $21.1 billion.
    Ecosystem restoration.--The Corps of Engineers incorporated 
ecosystem restoration as a project purpose within the Civil 
Works program in response to increasing national emphasis on 
environmental restoration and preservation. Historically, Corps 
involvement in environmental issues focused on compliance with 
National Environmental Protection Act requirements related to 
flood protection, navigation, and other project purposes. More 
recent efforts have involved pro-active restoration measures to 
damaged ecosystems, and the provision of local environmental 
infrastructure.
    Hurricane and storm damage reduction.--Congress authorized 
Federal participation in the cost of restoring and protecting 
the shores of the United States, its territories and its 
possessions. Under current policy, shore protection projects 
are designed to reduce damages caused by wind-generated and 
tide-generated waves and currents along the nation's ocean 
coasts, Gulf of Mexico, Great Lakes, and estuary shores. 
Hurricane protection was added to the erosion control mission 
in 1956 when Congress authorized cost-shared Federal 
participation in shore protection and restoration of publicly 
owned shore areas. Federal assistance for periodic nourishment 
was also authorized on the same basis as new construction, for 
a period to be specified for each project, when it is 
determined that it is the most suitable and economical remedial 
measure.
    Water supply.--National policy regarding water supply 
states that the primary responsibility for water supply rests 
with states and local entities. The Corps may participate and 
cooperate in developing water supplies in connection with 
construction, operation and modification of Federal navigation, 
flood damage reduction, or multipurpose projects. Certain 
conditions of non-federal participation are required.
    Hydroelectric power generation.--Congress, through various 
statutes, has directed the Corps to consider the development of 
hydroelectric power in conjunction with other water resources 
development plans. The Corps owns and operates nearly one-
quarter of the United States' hydropower capacity, with 75 
projects in operation.
    Recreation.--The Corps is one of the nation's largest 
providers of outdoor recreation opportunities, and ranks first 
among federal providers of outdoor recreation. Although known 
primarily for the opportunities managed at its lake projects, 
the Corps also participates in the planning, design and 
construction of recreation facilities at a wide variety of 
other types of water resource projects. Such facilities may 
include hiking and biking trails associated with a stream 
channel or levee primarily designed for flood damage reduction, 
though there is no general authority for Corps participation in 
a single purpose recreation project.

                    FISCAL YEAR 2006 BUDGET OVERVIEW

    The fiscal year 2006 budget request for the Corps of 
Engineers totals $4,513,000,000, which is composed of 
$4,332,000,000 in new budget authority and $181,000,000 in new 
offsetting collections. The Committee recommends a total of 
$4,746,021,000 for the Corps of Engineers, an increase of 
$78,473,000 from fiscal year 2005 enacted levels (adjusted for 
one-time emergency spending) and $414,021,000 above the 
request. A proposal to provide direct financing of the 
operation and maintenance of Corps of Engineers' hydropower 
facilities as offsetting collections from the Power Marketing 
Administrations' power sales revenues is again included in the 
request, and again rejected by the Committee. The budget 
request represents, in part, a divergence from previous 
Administration's requests for the Corps, as it applies a new 
performance-based system based on the ratio of remaining 
benefits-to-remaining costs. This performance-based system is 
intended to focus limited federal resources on the efficient 
completion of high economic-value projects while suspending or 
terminating work on other projects found not to be of as high 
an economic value and on Congressionally mandated projects that 
have been included in prior Administration requests.
    A summary table illustrating the fiscal year 2005 enacted 
appropriation, the fiscal year 2006 budget request and the 
Committee recommended levels is shown below:

                            [Dollars in 000s]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Fiscal year  Fiscal year
            Account                 2005         2006        Committee
                                  enacted      request    recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
General investigations........     $143,344      $95,000       $100,000
    Hurricane disasters                 400  ...........  ..............
     assistance (emergency)...
Construction, general.........    1,781,720    1,637,000      1,900,000
    Hurricane disasters              62,600  ...........  ..............
     assistance (emergency)...
Flood control, Mississippi          321,904      270,000        290,000
 River and tributaries........
    Hurricane disasters               6,000  ...........  ..............
     assistance (emergency)...
Operation and maintenance,        1,943,428    1,979,000      2,000,000
 general......................
    Offsetting collections....  ...........     -181,000  ..............
    Hurricane disasters             145,400  ...........  ..............
     assistance (emergency)...
        Subtotal, operation       2,098,828    1,798,000      2,000,000
         and maintenance......
Regulatory program............      143,840      160,000        160,000
FUSRAP........................      163,680      140,000        140,000
Flood control and coastal       ...........       70,000  ..............
 emergencies..................
    Hurricane disasters             148,000  ...........  ..............
     assistance (emergency)...
General expenses..............      165,664      162,000        152,021
Office of Assistant Secretary         3,968        (\1\)          4,000
 of the Army (Civil Works)....
Storm damage (emergency)......       10,000  ...........  ..............
          Total, Corps of         5,039,948    4,332,000     4,746,021
         Engineers............
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The budget proposes to fund this office from funds appropriated to
  the Department of Defense, Army in the fiscal year 2006 Department of
  Defense Appropriations Act. For comparability purposes, the budget
  request includes $4,700,000 for these activities in fiscal year 2006.

                    Program Management and Execution

    Over the past year, the Committee has embarked on a 
concerted effort to improve general budgeting and project 
execution by the Corps. This effort was precipitated, in part, 
by a progressively tighter fiscal environment, the enormous 
backlog of Civil Works projects, and the realization that the 
Civil Works program has become an agglomeration of individual 
projects of interest to the Congress and the Administration, 
with little or no systematic approach to the Nation's water and 
coastal infrastructure underlying the selection of which 
projects received funding. In the view of this Committee, the 
Civil Works program needs to be managed as a program and not as 
a collection of individual projects. The Corps needs to take a 
more sophisticated approach to project and contract management 
and must undertake immediate structural improvements and 
process changes to ensure that the Corps remains healthy and 
focused during a time of static or declining budgets. As part 
of the Committee's ongoing oversight activities, the Committee 
has identified a number of issues requiring immediate 
attention. These issues include, but are not limited to:
           the development of a five-year comprehensive 
        budget plan;
           a re-evaluation of the emphasis on 
        expenditures;
           a fully transparent accounting of all 
        movement of funds in project execution through the 
        conservative use of reprogramming authorities;
           the development of performance-based 
        guidelines for funding Corps construction projects;
           a more limited use of continuing contracts 
        authorities which have the effect of obligating the 
        federal government in anticipation of future 
        appropriations for which the Corps does not budget 
        fully; and
           a more thorough justification and 
        improvement in the Corps' annual budget submission to 
        the Congress.
    Each of these areas is addressed more fully below. 
Collectively, the Congress, the Administration and the Corps of 
Engineers must work together to ensure that constrained Federal 
resources are spent efficiently, commitments to local sponsors 
are honored, projects do not drag on forever, and taxpayers 
receive the greatest return on their investment.
    Five-year comprehensive budget planning.--In response to 
growing concern that the Civil Works program lacks a clear set 
of priorities to guide either development of the annual budget 
request or annual appropriations bills, last year the Committee 
directed the Corps to prepare and submit with the fiscal year 
2006 budget submission a comprehensive five-year plan for the 
Civil Works program. Such a plan, in the view of the Committee, 
would begin to allay the concern that the Civil Works program 
has become nothing more than an assortment of individual 
projects lacking a coherent focus. In its direction to the 
Corps, the Committee specifically identified the five-year 
development plan (FYDP) of the Department of Defense as the 
model for the Corps to emulate; however, the Committee received 
an inadequate and disappointing submission--a seven-page table 
delineating hundreds of projects and their costs. Given the 
structured approach used by the Department of the Army to 
develop its military five-year budget plan, the Civil Works 
plan is surprisingly poor. Additionally, such a plan must 
clearly reflect the thorough engagement of all stakeholders; 
the Corps submission showed no evidence of such engagement.
    The Committee reiterates its strong belief in the value of 
developing five-year plans and longer-term strategic visions to 
help guide budget requests and Congressional spending 
decisions. Many Corps projects last longer than five years and 
affect whole regions of the country such as the coast or the 
Gulf of Mexico or the watershed of the Ohio River. Such plans 
force discipline and regional integration in making budgetary 
decisions and encourage stability from year to year. By 
providing the Congress and the executive branch a view of what 
lies ahead in the Civil Works program, a comprehensive five-
year plan may alleviate some of the pressure to fund every 
project in each fiscal year. The development of a plan will 
also require the Corps to make the necessary tradeoffs to 
integrate individual projects into a coherent future-years 
Civil Works program. In the absence of a rational and 
articulate strategy, the long-term vitality of the Corps is 
placed at risk and scarce federal resources will be squandered 
on projects of limited national benefit.
    The Committee notes that the preparation of the FYDP at the 
Department of Defense is not a one-time or static report; 
rather, it is updated regularly to reflect changing policies, 
fiscal realities and other factors. Accordingly, the Corps is 
directed to submit to the House and Senate Committees on 
Appropriations concurrent with each annual budget submission 
hereafter, an updated five-year plan. The Committee further 
expects that the plan will be just one part of a larger 
submission that articulates a clear program of priorities and 
is a result of a deliberative process within the Corps and with 
its stakeholders. The submission shall include documents 
similar to the Program Objective Memorandum (POM) and the 
Defense Planning Guidance used by the Department of Defense in 
developing its FYDP. The plan is to be financially constrained 
in the budget year only and shall show the effects of the 
proposed budget in the out-years. In addition, the plan shall 
include the full annual costs of all continuing contracts for 
which the Corps has obligated the Federal government in advance 
of appropriations.
    Misplaced emphasis on expenditures.--In managing its 
national program, the Corps has sought to ensure the efficient 
expenditure of annual appropriations and has implemented a 
formal strategy to maximize expenditures, based in part on past 
Congressional guidance. While this strategy sounds reasonable 
in theory, the Corps has become inordinately focused on a 99-
percent expenditure goal, which requires that program and 
project managers expend 99 percent of funds allocated to each 
project and, if they are unable to do so, excess funds are 
diverted to other projects so as to approach a national 99 
percent expenditure rate. Program and project managers are then 
rated on their performance relative to this expenditure goal. 
This strategy, while it seeks to minimize annual carryover, 
ignores project financial requirements in future years and 
Congressional project allocations for the current year. This 
internal performance measure has resulted in the massive 
movements of funds and, in the aggregate, created significant 
payback requirements that are currently not budgeted. Taken to 
its extreme, the Government Accountability Office has 
determined that the Corps reprogrammed $0.06 from one project 
to meet this performance measure. By the Corps' own admission, 
each year there may be as many as 20,000 transfers of funds 
among only 2,000 projects. (A more detailed discussion follows 
in the paragraphs below.) The Committee directs the Corps to 
abandon this internal directive and adopt a fiscal management 
practice that fully honors Congressional direction and accepts 
a higher level of carryover funds in order to achieve greatly 
increased transparency into project costs and multiyear funding 
commitments.
    Reprogrammings.--The fiscal year 2005 conference report 
accompanying the Energy and Water Development Appropriations 
Act imposed new requirements on the Corps regarding the use of 
its reprogramming authorities. This action was deemed necessary 
as the Committee became more aware of a growing number of 
reprogrammings. This concern has not abated but intensified 
over the last several months as the Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) conducted an audit of the Corps' reprogramming 
actions and compliance with the Committee's directives. The GAO 
has informed the Committee that the Corps has moved millions of 
dollars set aside for specific projects and has expended them 
on other activities, without the knowledge or approval of the 
Committee on Appropriations.
    Based on a preliminary review by the GAO of the 
reprogramming procedures employed by the Corps, the Corps has 
generally followed its own and Congressional reprogramming 
guidelines. However, within those guidelines, the Corps has 
interpreted these guidelines so as to enable it to transfer 
funds between projects and programs without having to notify or 
receive approval from Congress. For example, the Corps does not 
consider most actions reprogramming funds into projects as 
reprogrammings. Instead, these actions are classified as 
restorations of current and prior years' revocations. 
Similarly, most actions reprogramming funds out of projects are 
classified as revocations. So, restorations and revocations are 
not counted as reprogrammings and therefore are not considered 
as counting toward the thresholds that trigger the need for 
Congressional notification or approval. The GAO further 
determined that the Corps uses different definitions of 
reprogramming depending on the appropriation account.
    Reprogramming, although a useful and needed management 
tool, has become the Corps' routine way of doing business. 
However, the Corps manages funds using a ``just-in-time'' 
reprogramming strategy. This strategy has resulted in the Corps 
moving funds from projects that have currently available funds 
to projects with an immediate need, regardless of the donor 
project's future needs; placed an excessive administrative 
burden from processing and tracking thousands of transactions; 
and lacks a formal Corps-wide reprogramming prioritization and 
planning strategy. The GAO notes, ``The Corps is using 
reprogramming as an ineffective substitute for a fiscally 
prudent financial planning and management system for its 
appropriations.''
    Reprogramming is defined in the GAO's Principles of Federal 
Appropriations Law as the ``utilization of funds in an 
appropriation account for purposes other than those 
contemplated at the time of appropriation.'' It does not make 
distinctions for transfers of funds as defined as revocations, 
savings and slippage or restorations. Any movement of funds 
within an account for purposes other than for those purposes 
assumed at the time of the appropriation is a reprogramming.
    The Committee believes the Corps' execution of 
Congressionally directed projects through its liberal use of 
reprogramming actions and its unbalanced emphasis on annual 
expenditures exhibit on-going disregard of the specific program 
and project allocations provided by the Congress each year in 
report language. The Committee expects the Corps to honor 
Congressional directives contained in report language with the 
same reverence as those items contained in bill language. To 
ensure that the expenditure of funds in fiscal year 2006 is 
consistent with Congressional direction, to minimize the 
movement of funds and to improve overall budget execution, the 
bill incorporates by reference the projects identified in the 
report accompanying this Act into statute. In addition, the 
bill includes a new section prohibiting the obligation or 
expenditure through a reprogramming of funds that:
          (1) creates or initiates a new program, project or 
        activity;
          (2) eliminates a program, project or activity;
          (3) increases funds or personnel for any program, 
        project or activity for which funds have been denied or 
        restricted by this Act;
          (4) reduces funds that are directed to be used for a 
        specific activity by this Act;
          (5) increases funds for any existing program, project 
        or activity by more than $2,000,000 or 10 percent, 
        whichever is less; or
          (6) reduces funds for any program, project or 
        activity by more than $2,000,000 or 10 percent, 
        whichever is less.
This provision shall not apply to the initiation of new 
projects or activities under the continuing authorities 
programs. However, it shall apply to the program levels for the 
individual continuing authorities programs. New projects under 
the continuing authorities program that are not identified in 
the conference agreement to accompany this Act must be 
submitted to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations 
for approval. Reprogramming approvals shall also be required 
for changes in a project's scope and cost relative to what was 
submitted to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations 
in the justification sheets. The guidelines contained in this 
report supersede all other reprogramming guidance provided in 
previous appropriations Acts or their accompanying reports and 
shall be applied to all accounts and all no-year funds within 
the Corps of Engineers.
    The Committee recognizes special circumstances may arise 
that require an exception to these guidelines. In such 
circumstances, the Corps must provide prior notice to and 
approval by the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations.
    When the Corps transfers funds from one project to another, 
it makes a promise to ``repay'' the borrowed amounts. These 
cumulative actions have created a significant financial 
obligation that the Corps has no way to honor except to 
continue the practice ad infinitum and to repay these 
borrowings from future appropriations. However, these 
repayments are not budgeted, nor can the Corps even provide an 
accurate accounting of these accumulated IOUs. This system may 
have worked well for the Corps in the past when budgets were 
rising and when the Corps carried over substantial unobligated 
balances from year to year. But, more recently, unobligated 
balances have all but disappeared, endangering the Corps' 
ability to honor its multitude of promises to ``repay'' 
borrowed funds to project sponsors except from new 
appropriations. The Committee is concerned that neither it nor 
the Corps knows the full extent of the payback required. 
Accordingly, the Corps is directed to submit a report to the 
House and Senate Committee on Appropriations, within 30 days of 
enactment of this Act summarizing, by project, the cumulative 
amount of repayments owed to the donor projects. The Committee 
further directs that these repayments be fully budgeted in the 
fiscal year 2007 budget presented to Congress.
    Continuing contracts.--The Rivers and Harbors 
Appropriations Act of 1890 first authorized the Corps to award 
continuation contracts. Later, section 10 of the Rivers and 
Harbor Act of 1922 provided general authority to award 
continuing contracts for any public work on canals, rivers, and 
harbors adopted by Congress. These contracts are exempt from 
the Anti-Deficiency Act. When entering such contracts, the 
Corps obligates the Federal government to pay certain costs 
from future appropriations. Contractors may perform more work 
than is budgeted in any fiscal year, but when available 
appropriations for the current fiscal year are exhausted, work 
continues at the contractors' risk, with an expectation that 
payment will be made from subsequent appropriations. Simple 
interest may be added to any delayed payment that the 
contracting officer determines was actually earned under the 
terms of the contract and would have been made but for 
exhaustion of funds.
    Over the last two years, the Committee has grown 
increasingly concerned with the Corps' liberal use of and 
inadequate budgeting for continuing contracts. First, the 
Committee believes that the use of continuing contracts may be 
the rule and not the exception, as the Corps has executed 
continuing contracts for small-scale projects that extend only 
a few months beyond the current fiscal year. The Corps has not 
demonstrated to the Committee that the use of a continuing 
contract as the preferred means is established by a sound 
acquisition planning including an analysis of alternative 
contract vehicles. After executing continuing contracts, the 
Corps has failed to budget properly for the out-year costs of 
these projects. In fact, the Corps currently plans to execute 
continuing contracts for projects that do not meet the 
Administration's own criteria and are proposed for termination 
in the budget request to Congress. The costs of these contracts 
are not reflected anywhere in the budget, yet the Corps is 
poised to obligate the Federal government for millions of 
dollars in contravention of the Administration's proposed 
policies.
    Secondly, the Committee has learned that when a contractor 
exhausts the amounts reserved in a contract, the Corps has 
chosen to reprogram funds each year to satisfy the contractual 
obligations incurred under these contracts, though the Corps is 
not required to do so. When making such payments, the Corps 
borrows funds from other projects, creating an IOU, as 
discussed above under ``Reprogrammings.'' Congress determines 
how much funding is to be available for a particular project in 
any given fiscal year, and the Corps must ensure that it 
manages its program within the funds provided each year. The 
Corps abrogates its management responsibilities and improperly 
intrudes upon Congressional prerogatives in determining annual 
appropriations levels when the Corps reserves insufficient 
funds to cover the work performed each fiscal year through the 
duration of the contract or when it makes available funds, 
through reprogramming, in excess of the amounts reserved in 
such contracts or appropriated in any fiscal year because of 
unbudgeted accelerated contractor earnings. The Federal 
government, not the contractor, must determine how much will be 
spent on each project each year.
    The budget request includes language repealing statutory 
authority for the Corps to execute new continuing contracts and 
proposes new multi-year contract authority with better controls 
on spending. The Committee does not adopt this proposal. In 
lieu of the Administration's proposal, the bill includes a 
provision that prohibits the use of funds provided in title I 
of this Act to execute any new continuing contract (or 
modifications to any existing continuing contract) that 
reserves an amount for a project in excess of the amount 
appropriated for such project in this Act. In addition, the 
Committee directs the Corps to:
          (1) discontinue the practice of reserving 
        insufficient funds to cover the work to be performed 
        each fiscal year through the duration of the contract;
          (2) discontinue the practice of reprogramming funds 
        to satisfy contractor earnings in excess of the amounts 
        reserved in the contract for the current fiscal year;
          (3) discontinue the practice of issuing continuing 
        contracts for small-scale projects that are limited in 
        scope, schedule, construction and funding requirements;
          (4) issue continuing contracts only when it is 
        determined that such a contract is the preferred means, 
        demonstrated by an alternative analysis, and only after 
        the approval of the House and Senate Committees on 
        Appropriations. Any new continuing contract shall be 
        submitted by the Assistant Secretary for the Army 
        (Civil Works) for approval to the House and Senate 
        Committee on Appropriations, consistent with the 
        reprogramming guidelines contained in this Act;
          (5) budget fully the out-year costs of all existing 
        and new continuing contracts (or, if the budget year 
        policy is to eliminate the authority to execute such 
        contracts, fund fully the termination costs of such 
        contracts in the budget year);
          (6) provide to the House and Senate Committees on 
        Appropriations within 30 days of enactment of this Act 
        a report identifying all existing continuing contracts 
        and the amount, by project, of the out-year funding 
        requirements of those contracts; and
          (7) provide a quarterly update to the report 
        identified above in item (6).
    The bill also includes a provision that prohibits the 
execution of any new continuing contract (or modifications to 
any existing continuing contract) after February 6, 2006 that 
obligates the Federal government during fiscal year 2007 to 
make payment under such contract for any project that is 
proposed for deferral or suspension in the fiscal year 2007 
budget materials prepared by the Assistant Secretary of the 
Army (Civil Works) and submitted to Congress.
    Congressional justification materials.--The congressional 
justifications submitted by the Corps in support of the annual 
budget request are woefully inadequate. To justify an 
appropriation of over $4,513,000,000 for fiscal year 2006, the 
Corps submitted a 113-page ``press book'', which included 11 
brief paragraphs of narrative and 111 pages of project tables 
distributed by state. In addition, justification materials 
supporting each of the projects included in the budget request 
were supplied to the Committee. These materials, in their 
totality, are incomplete, do not provide a clearly articulated 
discussion of the policy proposals included in the annual 
budget request, and reflect program delivery rather than 
project execution. The justification materials provide little, 
if any, transparency of program activity in the current year or 
a comparison of the budget request to the enacted levels. For 
example, the Corps does not submit to the Committee on 
Appropriations justification materials for those programs, 
projects or activities for which the request seeks no 
appropriation but for which funding was provided in the current 
year. Without such information, the Committee is unable to 
determine the extent to which the agency is carrying out 
current-year programs and directives for which appropriations 
have been made. Similarly, the project fact sheets in many 
instances fail to include projected completion dates, without 
which the Committee cannot determine whether the Corps is 
meeting a project's planned construction schedule or track cost 
increases relative to the initial cost estimate or to the 
authorized project cost ceiling.
    The Committee directs the Corps to improve its annual 
congressional budget submission by expanding the information 
presented to Congress each year and to present its budget 
estimate by mission area. That information shall include, but 
not be limited to, an analysis of appropriations language 
provisions and changes; comparative amounts available for 
obligation; comparative amounts showing obligations by object 
class; summary of changes from the enacted level; a delineation 
of responses to significant items included in the reports 
accompanying annual appropriations Acts; appropriations and 
authorizing histories; explanations of how individual projects 
fit in the context of larger regional objectives, and narrative 
and tabular summaries of program requests. The Corps is 
directed to transmit with its annual budget submission project 
justifications for those projects that are funded in the 
current year but for which no funds are requested in the budget 
estimate. In addition, justifications are to be provided for 
all activities of the Corps including regulatory and research 
function. The Corps is encouraged to review the materials 
submitted by the departments of Education and Transportation, 
as they are models for emulation. The Committee recognizes that 
the improvements needed in the budget justifications will need 
to be developed over time; however, the Committee expects major 
changes in the fiscal year 2007 budget submission and pledges 
to work with the Corps to develop implementing instructions to 
its program offices.
    Performance-based budget proposal.--Last year, the 
Committee challenged the Corps of Engineers and the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) to engage the Committee on 
Appropriations in a constructive dialog in an attempt to close 
the gap between the enormous backlog of Civil Works projects--
estimated to be $50,000,000,000--and the limited financial 
resources available to address that backlog. This backlog has 
grown significantly in recent years and has resulted in some 
projects costing more than necessary and most projects being 
finished many months and sometimes years later than they could 
be. In response, the OMB proposed seven performance guidelines 
for funding Corps construction projects in order to generate 
greater benefits. The Committee appreciates the efforts of the 
Administration in developing a rationale for focusing limited 
federal resources on finishing the most important projects in a 
timely manner. The proposal is a performance-based ranking 
system based primarily on the ratio of remaining benefits-to-
remaining costs.
    The Committee has several observations about the approach 
adopted by OMB. First, the budget proposes to fund fourteen dam 
safety projects at full capability, but one dam, Fern Ridge, 
categorized as aging infrastructure in active failure, was not 
funded at all. The second category of priority projects are 
those projects that have a remaining benefit-to-remaining cost 
ratio in excess of 6-to-1, which are nationally significant 
environmental restoration projects, or which can be completed 
in fiscal year 2006 with a final increment of funding. Those 
projects with an RBRC ratio in excess of 6 would receive 80 to 
100 percent of the capability level of funding. The third 
category includes several projects with an RBRC ratio less than 
5, and these projects receive something less than the 
capability level of funding, but the ratio of funding to 
capability is inconsistent across this set of projects. The 
budget proposes a fourth category of priority construction 
projects, or ``special cases,'' which have RBRC ratios less 
than 3 but for which funding is requested. Lastly, for those 31 
ongoing projects that received federal funding in fiscal year 
2005 that did not meet the thresholds described above, the 
budget proposes to terminate or suspend them. With respect to 
beach nourishment, the budget proposes to undertake only that 
portion of renourishment that is attributable to the impacts of 
federal navigation structures.
    Specifically, the ranking system appears to prejudice those 
projects that have completed initial segments where the 
benefits-to-costs ratios are greater than the remaining 
benefits-to-remaining costs on their unfinished segments. In 
addition, the RBRC ratio contains an inherent bias toward 
protecting expensive property as opposed to property that may 
be less valuable but involves the protection of more people; it 
does not consider how water resources infrastructure 
contributes to national economic development or multi-modal 
transportation; and it ignores other related Federal investment 
in the project. The RBRC ratio is a good place to start, but 
the proposal has its limitations. It needs further refinement 
and consideration before the Committee can recommend that it be 
strictly applied. In determining the projects identified in 
this report, the Committee has used the ranking system as a 
guide but not as a final determinative factor in the allocation 
of funds. The Committee directs the Corps, working with the 
OMB, to refine further the performance measures to address the 
concerns outlined above as part of the fiscal year 2007 budget 
submission.
    Savings and slippage.--Traditionally, savings and slippage 
referred to the amount of funds that were determined to be 
excess to project needs at a particular time during the 
project's development. Statistically, the Corps is unable to 
execute 100 percent of the appropriation for 100 percent of the 
projects, so a program appropriation would include a percentage 
reduction for savings and slippage to reflect this less-than-
100-percent execution. The Congress has abused this historic 
average over the years, applying an inflated savings and 
slippage factor to squeeze more projects into programs with 
finite funding. The Corps, too, would abuse this average by 
taxing all projects to obtain funds to increase funding for 
particular programs and projects in excess of the levels 
included in annual appropriations Acts. The Corps would 
subsequently restore these reductions through reprogramming 
actions.
    The Committee has discontinued the practice of assuming an 
estimate for savings and slippage within the Corps of Engineers 
civil works program and has returned to the traditional 
definition of savings and slippage. As savings and slippage 
occurs on any project in the Corps civil works Construction and 
General Investigations programs and the general investigations 
and construction elements of the Flood Control, Mississippi 
River and Tributaries account in fiscal year 2006, resources 
excess to a project's needs shall remain with that project and 
shall be available for two years after the date of enactment of 
the Act containing appropriations for that project, after which 
time the unobligated balances may be transferred to other 
ongoing projects, consistent with the reprogramming guidelines 
contained in this Act. In addition, the Corps shall submit to 
the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations a quarterly 
report detailing project execution relative to stated 
capability and enacted appropriations.

                         General Investigations





Appropriation, 2005...................................  \1\ $143,344,000
Budget estimate, 2006.................................        95,000,000
Recommended, 2006.....................................       100,000,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2005...............................       -43,344,000
    Budget estimate, 2006.............................       +5,000,000

\1\ Excludes emergency appropriations of $400,000.

    This appropriation funds studies to determine the need, the 
engineering and economic feasibility, and the environmental and 
social suitability of solutions to water and related land 
resource problems; and funds preconstruction engineering and 
design, data collection, interagency coordination, and 
research.
    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $100,000,000, 
a decrease of $43,344,000 from the fiscal year 2005 enacted 
level, and $5,000,000 over the budget estimate. The budget 
request and the approved Committee allowance are shown in the 
following table:


    Eastern Shore, Mid-Chesapeake Bay Island, Maryland.--The 
Committee has included $500,000 to continue the Mid-Chesapeake 
Bay Island environmental restoration feasibility study. These 
funds are to be expended to identify and study existing natural 
islands in need of restoration and not artificial islands.
    Southwest Valley Flood Damage Reduction, Albuquerque, New 
Mexico.--The Committee recommendation includes $180,000 to 
complete preconstruction engineering and design for the 
Southwest Valley flood damage reduction project in Albuquerque, 
New Mexico.
    Upper Trinity River Basin, Texas.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $1,000,000 for Upper Trinity River 
Basin, Texas to facilitate the project component associated 
with improvements to the existing Dallas Floodway.
    Remaining items, flood plain management services.--For 
fiscal year 2006, the Committee recommends $5,625,000 for flood 
management services, the same level as requested. Within the 
funds provided, the Corps is directed to undertake the 
following activity with the amount allocated below:

Jackson, Tennessee GIS system.................................  $500,000

    Remaining items, research and development.--For fiscal year 
2006, the Committee recommends $19,643,000. Within the funds 
provided for research and development, the Committee directs 
the Corps to evaluate advanced polymer technologies in concert 
with the Construction Engineering Research Lab to establish 
compliance of these new material coatings to meet or exceed 
current performance of materials used by the Corps.
    The Committee is frustrated by the lack of progress in the 
Corps' commitment to begin pilot testing of rapid deployment 
flood walls and reiterates its direction that, within available 
funds, the Corps begin pilot tests of these alternatives to 
sandbags within 90 days of enactment of this Act.
    Remaining items, planning assistance to states.--For fiscal 
year 2006, the Committee recommends $4,650,000 for planning 
assistance to states, the same level as requested. Within the 
funds provided, the Corps is directed to undertake the 
following studies with the amounts allocated below:

Assabet River sediment remediation study, Massachusetts.        $300,000
Bartlesville, Oklahoma water study......................         100,000
Lake Rogers, Creedmoor, North Carolina water quality 
    study...............................................          60,000
Pike River, Wisconsin hydraulic and hydrological study..          40,000
La Mirada, California flood control and drainage study..         250,000
Memphis, Tennessee riverfront development...............         200,000
Lafayette Wabash River waterfront development, Indiana..         100,000

                              Construction





Appropriation, 2005...................................  \1\ $1,781,720,0
                                                                      00
Budget estimate, 2006.................................     1,637,000,000
Recommended, 2006.....................................     1,900,000,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2005...............................      +118,280,000
    Budget estimate, 2006.............................     +263,000,000
 
\1\ Excludes emergency appropriations of $62,600,000.

    This appropriation funds construction, major 
rehabilitation, and related activities for water resources 
projects whose principal purpose is to provide commercial 
navigation, flood and storm damage reduction, or aquatic 
ecosystem restoration benefits to the nation. Portions of this 
account are funded from the Harbor Maintenance Trust and the 
Inland Waterways Trust funds.
    For fiscal year 2006, the Committee recommends an 
appropriation totaling $1,900,000,000, an increase of 
$118,280,000 over the fiscal year 2005 enacted appropriation 
and $263,000,000 over the budget estimate. The budget request 
and the Committee allowance are shown in the following table:


    Deferrals and suspensions.--The Committee has chosen not to 
restore funding for nearly half of the 31 projects proposed for 
deferral or suspension in the budget request. For those 
projects that were proposed for deferral or suspension in the 
request and for which the Committee has recommended funds in 
this Act, funds are available only to complete elements 
currently under construction and are not be available to 
initiate new elements not presently underway unless such 
elements would result in a complete separable element of the 
project. The Committee directs the Corps to determine the costs 
to defer or suspend those projects for which the Committee has 
not provided appropriations in this Act and provide those 
estimates on a project-by-project basis to the House Committee 
on Appropriations by September 1, 2005.
    Consistent with the budget request, the Committee 
recommendation assumes the deferral or suspension of the 
following projects:

          Big Sioux River, Sioux Falls, South Dakota
          Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, Lower Brule Sioux, South Dakota
          Delaware Coast, Rehobeth Beach to Dewey Beach, Delaware
          Larose to Golden Meadow, Louisiana
          Missouri River levee system, IA NE, KS and MO
          New Orleans to Venice, Louisiana
          Nome Harbor improvements, Alaska
          Oates Creek, Richmond County, Georgia
          Sand Point Harbor, Alaska
          St. Paul Harbor, Alaska
          Upper St. John's River, Florida
          Whitney Lake powerhouse, Texas

    American River watershed, California.--The Committee has 
provided $28,960,000 for American River watershed activities. 
Within this amount, not less than $7,000,000 shall be available 
for the permanent bridge below Folsom Dam.
    Broward County, Florida.--Funds provided for Broward 
County, Florida, are solely for reimbursement to the local 
sponsor for the federal share of segment 3 renourishment.
    Elk Creek Lake, Oregon.--The Committee has not recommended 
funding for the Elk Creek Lake project in Oregon given limited 
fiscal resources. The Committee reiterates its previous 
directive that any funding allocated to the project by the 
Corps through reprogramming actions in fiscal year 2006 shall 
not be available to further work on the Corps' original 
proposal to remove a section of the dam for fish passage.
    Folsom Dam, California.--The Committee notes that sections 
128 and 134 of Public Law 108-137 authorize funds for the 
construction of a permanent bridge at Folsom Dam. These 
authorizations provide appropriate and ample authority for the 
Corps to construct the bridge, including the $30,000,000 
authorization contained in section 134 of Public Law 108-137. 
The Committee further notes that the appropriations Acts since 
fiscal year 2004 have appropriated funds pursuant to these 
authorizations and the Corps has carried out projects under 
thse authorities. Accordingly, the Committee directs the Corps 
to budget for the permanent replacement at Folsom Dam.
    Levisa and Tug Forks and Upper Cumberland River, WV, VA and 
KY.--For fiscal year 2006, the Committee recommends a total of 
$20,0000,000 for Levisa and Tug Forks and Upper Cumberland 
River, WV, VA and KY. Within the amounts provided, $17,500,000 
shall be for elements of the project in the Commonwealth of 
Kentucky and the remaining $2,500,000 shall be available for 
the Grundy, Virginia element.
    Miami Harbor Channel, Florida.--The Committee has not 
recommended any funding in fiscal year 2006 for the Miami 
Harbor Channel, Florida as the Committee has been informed by 
the Corps that it expects to reprogram sufficient funds to 
complete the project during fiscal year 2005.
    Muddy River, Boston and Brookline, Massachusetts.--The 
Committee recommends $1,500,000 for the Muddy River, Boston and 
Brookline, Massachusetts project. Funds are provided to 
continue project design, including ecosystem restoration 
features.
    New York and New Jersey Harbor, New York and New Jersey.--
Within the funds provided for New York and New Jersey Harbor, 
the Committee directs the Corps of Engineers to use up to 
$2,000,000 to plan for and enter into an agreement with a state 
or non-Federal sponsor to develop a dredged material processing 
facility that would accomplish the objectives of reducing the 
cost of dredged material management in the port, preparing 
dredged material for beneficial uses, and implementing 
innovative dredged material management technologies.
    New York City watershed, New York.--The Committee directs 
the Corps to make available unexpended balances from previous 
allocations contained in Energy and Water Development Acts for 
fiscal years 1998 and 1999 to dredge the Federal channel in the 
vicinity of Hudson City Light to the north dock at Union 
Street, Athens, New York for New York City watershed projects 
in the Catskill/Delaware watershed in Delaware and Greene 
Counties, New York.
    Ohio environmental infrastructure.--The bill provides 
$13,000,000 for Ohio environmental infrastructure for fiscal 
year 2006. These funds shall be distributed as follows:

Benton Ridge wastewater treatment.......................        $500,000
Brookfield Center South santiary sewer..................         250,000
Cambridge sewer system east of I-77.....................         425,000
Cuyahoga River environmental restoration................         500,000
Elyria water treatment plant............................         200,000
Environmental infrastructure improvements to serve 
    northern Pickaway County............................       1,000,000
Fulton County Elmira/Burlington wastewater collection 
    and treatment.......................................         300,000
Gallia County water and sewer...........................         300,000
Higginsport sanitary sewer..............................         750,000
Lake County Madison Township Chapel Road Interceptor 
    sewer...............................................       1,000,000
Licking County, Village of Alexandria sanitary sewer....       1,000,000
Licking County, Village of Hanover wastewater collection         325,000
Marysville water treatment facility upgrades............       1,000,000
Norwalk wastewater treatment plant......................         300,000
Rushsylvania wastewater treatment.......................         500,000
Springfield Hospital water and sewer project............       1,000,000
Springfield Nextedge Technology Park water and sewer....         750,000
Toledo wastewater treatment plant.......................         250,000
Trotwood storm drain and stream relocation..............         750,000
University of Dayton, Brown and Stewart Streets water 
    and sewer...........................................       1,000,000
Village of Ottawa regional water line...................         300,000
Yellow Springs McGregor Center for Business and 
    Education Park, water and sewer.....................         435,000
Yellow Springs Morris Bean sanitary sewer...............         165,000

    Ozark-Jeta Taylor powerhouse (major rehabilitation), 
Arkansas.--The Committee has not provided any funds for major 
rehabilitation of the Ozark-Jeta Taylor powerhouse in Arkansas. 
This project was proposed for termination in the budget request 
as the project did not meet the remaining benefits-to-remaining 
costs ratio threshold. The Committee is aware that, in 
correspondence from the Administrator of the Southwestern Power 
Administration to the Director of Civil Works of the Corps of 
Engineers dated April 1, 2005, the Southwestern Area Power 
Administration has committed to using the Jonesboro Memorandum 
of Agreement to fund the Ozark/Webbers Falls contract. The 
Committee expects the Corps to use these funds to pay the 
contractual obligations in fiscal year 2006 and not to 
reprogram any funds from any other project to meet such 
contractual obligations.
    San Antonio channel improvement project, Texas.--The 
Committee has provided $3,640,000 for continuation of design 
and construction of the ecosystem restoration and recreation 
features for the project in accordance with the report of the 
Fort Worth District Engineer titled: San Antonio River, San 
Antonio, Texas Channel Improvement Project Ecosystem and 
Recreation, General Reevaluation Report and Integrated 
Environmental Assessment, dated September 2004 for Plan DC3BB.
    Santa Ana River mainstem, California.--In total, the 
Committee provides $61,650,000 for Santa Ana River mainstem in 
California, of which $6,000,000 is available to complete the 
San Timoteo Creek project; $4,000,000 is available to repair 
damage caused by recent storms and to clean out debris basins; 
and $650,000 is available for the repair of erosion damage to 
the outlet tunnel in Seven Oaks Dam that occurred during high 
flow testing; and $1,000,000 is available for the Seven Oaks 
Dam water quality study.
    South Florida Everglades Ecosystem Restoration.--The 
Committee recommendation includes $137,000,000 for South 
Florida Ecosystem Everglades Restoration program, which 
includes the Central and Southern Florida Project, the 
Kissimmee River Restoration project, and the Everglades and 
South Florida Restoration projects, which were previously 
budgeted separately. In addition, this program incorporates a 
share of the federal costs of the Modified Water Deliveries 
Project, for which the Committee has provided $35,000,000 in 
fiscal year 2006. Additional funds are budgeted and cost-shared 
by the Department of the Interior. The consolidated 
appropriation included herein includes the following separable 
elements: West Palm Beach Canal, South Dade County, 
Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, Manatee Pass Thru 
Gates, East Coast Canal Structures, Western C-111 Basin, 
Seminole Big Cypress, Ten Mile Creek, Tamiami Trail (Western 
Segment), Florida Keys Carrying Capacity, Lake Okeechobee Water 
Retention, Southern CREW, Lake Trafford, Kissimmee River 
Project and the Modified Water Deliveries to Everglades 
National Park Project. The Everglades National Park Protection 
and Expansion Act of 1989 (16.U.S.C. 410-r-8 and section 601 of 
the Water Resource Development Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-
541)) provide sufficient authorizations for the Corps to expend 
Civil Works funds and proceed with the construction of 
modifications to improve water deliveries to Everglades 
National Park.
    The Committee is very concerned about schedule delays and 
cost increases on the South Florida Everglades Ecosystem 
restoration projects, particularly Modified Water Deliveries to 
Everglades National Park. The Corps is directed to work with 
the Department of Interior, the Council on Environmental 
Quality and the Office of Management and Budget to improve 
oversight and project management; implement actions to achieve 
savings and develop an implementation schedule consistent with 
available funds, and to report to the Committee 60 days after 
the enactment of this Act on the project's revised cost, 
delivery schedule and actions planned to achieve savings. The 
Corps is further directed to work with the Department of 
Interior and the Department of Transportation to determine if 
the Department of Transportation's Federal Highway 
Administration is able to construct the most cost effective 
alternative to modify Tamiami Trail to ensure appropriate water 
flow between the park and the water conservation areas more 
cheaply than the Corps.
    Stillwater, Minnesota (St. Croix River), Minnesota.--The 
Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers, 
is directed to use previously appropriated funds to proceed 
with design and construction to complete the Stillwater, 
Minnesota, levee and flood control project.
    Upper Newport Bay Ecosystem Restoration project, 
California.--The Committee notes that recently the Corps of 
Engineers executed an agreement with the California Department 
of Fish and Game and Orange County, California, to provide at 
their discretion, funds to construct certain key features of 
the Upper Newport Bay Ecosystem Restoration project. A 
significant portion of the non-Federal share would be provided 
by the California Coastal Conservancy to the non-Federal 
sponsors in the forms of grants. These funds would be in excess 
of those funds required to maintain a cost-shared balance in 
the project expenditures, but would not exceed the total non-
Federal share. The Committee recommends $2,000,000 for this 
project in fiscal year 2006.

                     CONTINUING AUTHORITIES PROGRAM

    The continuing authorities program (CAP) establishes a 
process by which the Corps of Engineers can respond to a 
variety of water resource problems without the need to obtain 
specific congressional authorization for each project. The CAP 
program is comprised of individual programs for nine different 
types of projects, each with its own program authority and 
strict limits on the Federal contribution, which are as 
follows:
          Section 14 Emergency streambank and shoreline 
        erosion.--Authorized by section 14 of the 1946 Flood 
        Control Act, work under this authority allows emergency 
        streambank and shoreline protection for public 
        facilities, such as roads, bridges, hospitals, schools, 
        and water/sewage treatment plants, that are in imminent 
        danger of imminent danger of major damage. The cost 
        share is 65% federal and 35% non-federal; and the 
        federal share cannot exceed $1,000,000 per project.
          Section 103 Hurricane and storm damage reduction.--
        Authorized by section 103 of the 1962 River and Harbor 
        Act, work under this authority provides for protection 
        or restoration of public shorelines by the construction 
        of revetments, groins, and jetties, and may also 
        include periodic sand replenishment. The cost share is 
        65% federal and 35% non-federal; and the federal share 
        cannot exceed $3,000,000 per project.
          Section 107 Small navigation improvements.--
        Authorized by section 107 of the 1960 River and Harbor 
        Act, work under this authority is intended to provide 
        improvements to navigation including dredging of 
        channels, widening of turning basins, and construction 
        of navigation aids. The cost share is 80% federal and 
        20% non-federal; and the federal share may not exceed 
        $4,000,000 for each project.
          Section 111 Storm damage attributable to Federal 
        navigation works.--Authorized by section 111 of the 
        1968 River and Harbor Act, work under this authority 
        provides for the prevention or mitigation of erosion 
        damages to public or privately owned shores along the 
        coastline of the United States when the damages are a 
        result of a Federal navigation project. This authority 
        cannot be used for shore damages caused by riverbank 
        erosion or vessel-generated wave wash. It is not 
        intended to restore shorelines to historic dimensions, 
        but only to reduce erosion to the level that would have 
        existed without the construction of a Federal 
        navigation project. Cost sharing may not be required 
        for this program. If the Federal cost limitation of 
        $2,000,000 per project is exceeded, specific 
        congressional authorization is required.
          Section 204 Beneficial uses of dredged material.--
        Authorized by section 204 of the Water Resources 
        Development Act of 1992, work under this authority 
        provides for the use of dredged material from new or 
        existing federal projects to protect, restore, or 
        create aquatic and ecologically related habitats, 
        including wetlands. The cost sharing (25% non-federal, 
        75% Federal) would be applied to the incremental cost 
        above the least cost method of dredged material 
        disposal consistent with engineering and environmental 
        criteria.
          Section 205 Small flood control projects.--Authorized 
        by section 205 of the 1948 Flood Control Act, work 
        under this authority provides for local protection from 
        flooding by the construction or improvement of flood 
        control work such as levees, channels, and dams. Non-
        structural alternatives are also considered and may 
        include measures such as installation of flood warning 
        systems, raising and/or flood proofing of structures, 
        and relocation of flood prone facilities. The cost 
        share is 65% federal and 35% non-Federal; and the 
        Federal share may not exceed $7,000,000 per project.
          Section 206 Aquatic ecosystem restoration.--
        Authorized by section 206 of the Water Resources 
        Development Act of 1996, work under this authority may 
        carry out aquatic ecosystem restoration projects that 
        will improve the quality of the environment, are in the 
        public interest, and are cost-effective. There is no 
        requirement that a Corps project be involved. The cost 
        share is 65% federal and 35% non-Federal; and the 
        Federal share per project cannot exceed $5,000,000 
        including studies, plans and specifications, and 
        construction.
          Section 208 Snagging and clearing for flood 
        control.--Authorized by section 208 of the 1954 Flood 
        Control Act, work under this authority provides for 
        local protection from flooding by channel clearing and 
        excavation, with limited embankment construction by use 
        of materials from the clearing operation only. The cost 
        share is 65% federal and 35% non-Federal; and the 
        Federal share may not exceed $500,000 for each project.
          Section 1135 Project modifications for improvement of 
        the environment.--Authorized by section 1135 of the 
        Water Resources Development Act of 1986, work under 
        this authority provides for modifications in the 
        structures and operations of water resources projects 
        constructed by the Corps of Engineers to improve the 
        quality of the environment. Additionally, the Corps may 
        undertake restoration projects at locations where a 
        Corps project has contributed to the degradation. The 
        primary goal of these projects is ecosystem restoration 
        with an emphasis on projects benefiting fish and 
        wildlife. The project must be consistent with the 
        authorized purposes of the project being modified, 
        environmentally acceptable, and complete within itself. 
        A non-federal sponsor is required to provide 25% of the 
        cost of the project; and the Federal share of each 
        separate project may not exceed $5,000,000, including 
        studies, plans and specifications, and construction.
    The continuing authorities program (CAP) remains an 
effective way for the Corps to address the Nation's water 
resource challenges. The various authorities allow the Corps to 
assist local communities in addressing in a timely manner 
issues ranging from flood damage reduction and navigation to 
stream and riverbank protection and environmental restoration. 
The demand on the program continues to grow, particularly in 
the area of environmental restoration and flood damage 
reduction where significant out-year financial requirements 
exist for projects currently underway.
    In the fiscal year 2006 budget request, the Corps took 
steps to move to a performance-based budget for projects in the 
specifically authorized Construction account. The Committee 
asserts that the need for a prioritization process exists for 
all projects, regardless of their size or scope. While the 
criteria may prove different for projects pursued under the 
continuing authorities than that for the larger, more complex 
water resource projects, the fundamental principle remains the 
same--providing the largest benefit for the expenditure of 
Federal resources in the most efficient manner practicable. A 
well-articulated prioritization process will ensure that CAP 
projects that are undertaken are the most viable and beneficial 
projects the Corps has the ability and authority to execute.
    The Committee endeavored last year to provide sufficient 
appropriations for to continue various Corps initiated CAP 
projects while also allocating funds for Congressionally 
directed projects. The Committee remains concerned regarding 
the execution of projects detailed in this and past reports. 
The Committee is also troubled to learn that the Corps 
supplemented appropriated funds for the various CAP authorities 
by taxing other construction projects. While the Committee 
understands that the Corps has taken steps to address certain 
project execution issues, the Committee has not yet received a 
plan detailing the process by which the CAP program is to be 
managed. Therefore, within 60 days of enactment of the Act and 
annually thereafter concurrent with the budget submission, the 
Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) is directed to 
submit to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations a 
program management plan detailing the specific actions the 
Corps will take to prioritize projects and to manage the 
program in the future. This management plan shall include at 
least a five-year time horizon consistent with the Five-Year 
Comprehensive Budget Plan and may, after the initial 
submission, be incorporated into the larger planning effort. 
Additionally, the Corps shall provide to the House and Senate 
Committees on Appropriations, concurrent with the annual budget 
submission, a status report delineating all ongoing projects, 
identifying on a project-by-project basis the annual out-year 
budgetary requirements to complete each project.
    In last year's report, the Committee noted that many 
projects selected for funding in fiscal 2004 under the CAP 
program did not receive funding as directed in that report. 
Further, the report stipulated that those projects receive 
priority consideration for any available funds in fiscal 2005 
and in the subsequent years. Again, the Committee notes the 
apparent disregard of report language identifying specific 
funding levels for CAP projects, and accordingly, has chosen to 
include, by reference, CAP projects in statutory language this 
year.
    The following table includes the name of the project, the 
CAP authority under which the project is authorized and the 
amount of funding recommended by the Committee:


    Funding provided for CAP projects in this Act shall not be 
available to initiate construction unless construction can be 
completed within the funds provided. Unobligated funds carried 
forward from previous years may not be used to initiate any new 
projects unless submitted and approved to the House and Senate 
Committee on Appropriations.

                         MISCELLANEOUS PROGRAMS

    Estuary restoration program.--Due to limited funding and 
lack of justification, the Committee recommends no funding for 
the estuary restoration program.
    Big Paint Creek, Iowa.--Within the funds provided for 
section 206, the Corps is directed to complete the planning and 
design analysis for the Big Paint Creek, Iowa project.

 Flood Control, Mississippi River and Tributaries Arkansas, Illinois, 
        Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri and Tennessee





Appropriation, 2005...................................  \1\ $321,904,000
Budget estimate, 2006.................................       270,000,000
Recommended, 2006.....................................       290,000,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2005...............................       -31,904,000
    Budget estimate, 2006.............................      +20,000,000

\1\ Excludes emergency appropriations of $6,000,000.

    This appropriation funds planning, construction, and 
operation and maintenance activities associated with projects 
to reduce flood damage in the lower Mississippi River alluvial 
valley below Cape Giradeau, Missouri. The budget request and 
the approved Committee allowance are shown on the following 
table:


    Bayou Meto Basin, Arkansas.--The Committee recommends 
$1,640,000 to complete authorized preconstruction, engineering 
and design on this project.
    Mississippi River levees, AE, IL, KY, LA, MS, MO, and TN.--
Within the funds provided for Mississippi River levees 
construction activities, the Committee has included $3,000,000 
for St. Johns Bayou and New Madrid and box culverts in the 
State of Missouri. For maintenance, the Committee recommends 
$9,902,000, of which $1,100,000 shall be available for levee 
gravel placement at Commerce to Birds Point, Missouri.
    St. Francis Basin, AR and MO.--The bill includes $6,800,000 
for construction activities in the St. Francis Basin, Arkansas 
and Missouri project, which includes $4,160,000 to further 10/
15 Mile Bayous; $570,000 to complete Buffalo Island Inlet, 
Arkansas; $390,000 for right of way acquisition for Piggott 
Seepage, Arkansas; and $500,000 for work within the State of 
Missouri. The Committee recommendation also includes $8,800,000 
for St. Francis Basin, Arkansas and Missouri maintenance 
activities, of which $2,000,000 shall be available to complete 
work on the floodway in the State of Missouri.
    St. Johns Bayou and New Madrid floodway, Missouri.--The 
Committee has included $5,500,000 for St. Johns Bayou and New 
Madrid floodway, Missouri project. These funds shall be 
available to further work on the New Madrid pumping station and 
shall not be available to initiate new construction on any 
remaining project elements.
    Wolf River, Memphis, Tennessee.--The Committee provides 
$3,500,000 for the Wolf River ecosystem restoration project, 
which shall be available only to complete construction of the 
weirs and access roads and not to initiate construction of any 
remaining project elements.

                       Operation and Maintenance





Appropriation, 2005...................................  \1\ $1,943,428,0
                                                                      00
Budget estimate, 2006.................................  \2\ 1,798,000,00
                                                                       0
Recommended, 2006.....................................     2,000,000,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2005...............................       +56,572,000
    Budget estimate, 2006.............................      +21,000,000

\1\ Excludes emergency appropriations of $145,000,000.
\2\ The budget proposes certain receipts from the Power Marketing
  Administration totaling $181,000,000 be credited to this account as
  offsetting collections.

    This appropriation funds operation, maintenance, and 
related activities at the water resources projects that the 
Corps of Engineers operates and maintains. Work to be 
accomplished consists of dredging, repair, and operation of 
structures and other facilities, as authorized in various River 
and Harbor, Flood Control, and Water Resources Development 
Acts. Related activities include aquatic plant control, 
monitoring of completed projects, removal of sunken vessels, 
and the collection of domestic waterborne commerce statistics. 
Portions of this account are financed through the Harbor 
Maintenance Trust Fund.
    For fiscal year 2006, the Committee recommends an 
appropriation of $2,000,000,000, an increase of $56,572,000 
over the fiscal year 2005 enacted level and $21,000,000 over 
the budget estimate. The Committee recommendation does not 
include the proposal included in the budget estimate to 
reclassify certain receipts collected by the Southwestern Power 
Administration, the Southeastern Power Administration, and the 
Western Area Power Administration.
    The budget request and the approved Committee allowance are 
shown in the following table:


    Burns Harbor, Indiana.--Within available funds, the 
Committee directs the Corps to give priority consideration to 
the Bailly intake pipe.
    Dry Creek (Warm Springs) Lake and Channel, California.--The 
Committee recommendation includes a total of $5,825,000 for 
operation and maintenance at Dry Creek (Warm Springs) Lake and 
Channel, California. The amounts provided in excess of the 
request shall be available to complete outlet channel riprap 
repairs, control tower elevator shaft seepage repair, and 
spillway inlet channel repair.
    Duluth--Superior Harbor, MN and WI.--For Duluth--Superior 
Harbor, Minnesota and Wisconsin, the Committee has provided 
$5,381,000, of which $300,000 shall be available for a 
freshwater corrosion study.
    Garrison Dam, Lake Sakakawea, North Dakota.--Funds in 
excess of the budget request shall be for the removal of 
noxious weeds.
    Grays Harbor and Chehalis River, WA.--The Committee has 
included $9,000,000 to maintain the navigation channel of Grays 
Harbor, including the maintenance and improvement of the north 
and south jetties. The Corps is directed to identify operation 
and maintenance practices for the south jetty that will keep 
the breach closed and the Half Moon Bay shoreline stable.
    Kinzua Dam and Allegheny Reservoir, PA.--For Kinzua Dam and 
Allegheny Reservoir, Pennsylvania, the Committee has provided 
$1,447,000, of which $300,000 shall be available for 
recreational improvements to include visitor center and fishing 
access improvements.
    Hudson River, New York (O&C).--Within the funds provided, 
the Committee directs the Corps to conduct a reconnaissance 
study under section 216 authority of the Flood Control Act of 
1970, as amended, for review of the completed projects for the 
Hudson River, Troy Lock and Dam, Troy, New York.
    Miami River, Florida.--The Committee recommends $1,000,000 
for operations and maintenance of Miami River, Florida. The 
Committee is aware of the ongoing economic analysis of the 
Miami River maintenance project, and expects the Corps to 
complete and approve this analysis.
    Ohio River Locks and Dams, Kentucky, Ohio and West 
Virginia.--Within the funds provided, the Corps of Engineers is 
directed to utilize $2,500,000 in cooperation with Operation 
Respond, a non-profit organization, to implement a project 
collecting and integrating imagery of a selected segment of the 
Ohio Basin, gathering data from Federal and non-Federal 
interests, and developing and testing software primarily for 
the use of emergency responders.
    Ouchita and Black Rivers, AR & LA.--In total, the Committee 
recommends $10,400,000, of which $1,900,000 shall be available 
to complete annual maintenance dredging.
    Whitney Lake, Texas.--For fiscal year 2006, the Committee 
recommends $6,803,000, of which not less than $900,000 of the 
funds in excess of the budget request shall be for Ham Creek 
Park and not more than $300,000 of the funds in excess of the 
budget request shall be available for Kimball Bend Park.
    Remaining items, coastal inlet research program (CIRP).--
Within the funds provided for the coastal inlet research 
program, the Committee has included sufficient resources to use 
data from the Grays Harbor navigation study and the regional 
sediment management study at the mouth of the Columbia, in 
connection with the new CIRP models, to identify operation and 
maintenance changes to reduce maintenance costs.
    Remaining items, long term option assessment for low use 
navigation.--Due to funding limitations, the Committee has not 
recommended funding for the long term option assessment for low 
use navigation study. No funds were provided for this activity 
in fiscal year 2005.
    Remaining items, regional sediment management support 
program.--Within the funds provided for the regional sediment 
management support program, the Committee has included 
sufficient funds for the design of a sand retention structure 
at Fletcher Cove in the city of Solana Beach, California.

                           Regulatory Program





Appropriation, 2005...................................      $143,840,000
Budget estimate, 2006.................................       160,000,000
Recommended, 2006.....................................       160,000,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2005...............................       +16,160,000
    Budget estimate, 2006.............................  ................


    This appropriation provides funds to administer laws 
pertaining to regulation of activities affecting U.S. waters, 
including wetlands, in accordance with the Rivers and Harbors 
Appropriation Act of 1899, the Clean Water Act, and the Marine 
Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972. Appropriated 
funds are used to review and process permit applications, 
ensure compliance on permitted sites, protect important aquatic 
resources, and support watershed planning efforts in sensitive 
environmental areas in cooperation with States and local 
communities.
    For fiscal year 2006, the Committee recommends an 
appropriation of $160,000,000, which is the same as the budget 
estimate and $16,160,000 over the fiscal year 2005 enacted 
level.
    The Committee is concerned with the growing backlog and the 
delay in approving various permits, particularly in the 
Jacksonville, Florida and Sacramento, California offices. 
Therefore, the Committee directs that not less than ten percent 
of the increase over the fiscal year 2005 enacted level be 
directed to each of these offices.

            Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program





Appropriation, 2005...................................      $163,680,000
Budget estimate, 2006.................................       140,000,000
Recommended, 2006.....................................       140,000,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2005...............................       -23.680,000
    Budget estimate, 2006.............................  ................


    This appropriation funds the cleanup of certain low-level 
radioactive materials and mixed wastes, located mostly at sites 
contaminated as a result of the Nation's early efforts to 
develop atomic weapons. The Committee recommendation for the 
Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP) is 
$140,000,000, the same level as the budget request, and 
$23,680,000 below the fiscal year 2005 enacted level.
    Congress transferred FUSRAP from the Department of Energy 
(DOE) to the Corps of Engineers in fiscal year 1998. In 
appropriating FUSRAP funds to the Corps of Engineers, the 
Committee intended to transfer only the responsibility for 
administration and execution of cleanup activities at FUSRAP 
sites where DOE had not completed cleanup. The Committee did 
not transfer to the Corps ownership of and accountability for 
real property interests, which remain with DOE. The Committee 
expects DOE to continue to provide its institutional knowledge 
and expertise to serve the Nation and the affected communities 
to ensure the success of this program.
    In addition, the Committee directs the Corps of Engineers 
during fiscal year 2006 to prepare design specifications for 
Luckey, Ohio, and Shallow Land Disposal Area, Parks Township, 
Pennsylvania, and to complete investigations and initiate 
cleanup expeditiously for the former Sylvania nuclear fuel site 
at Hicksville, New York.

                 Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies





Appropriation, 2005...................................  ................
Budget estimate, 2006.................................       $70,000,000
Recommended, 2006.....................................  ................
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2005...............................  ................
    Budget estimate, 2006.............................       -70,000,000


    Funds needed to respond to floods, hurricanes, and other 
natural disasters, and to support emergency operations in 
response to flood and hurricane disasters, including advance 
measures, flood fighting, emergency operations, providing 
potable water on an emergency basis, and the repair of certain 
flood and storm damage reduction projects are provided in 
emergency appropriations Acts on an as needed basis. In 
addition, the Corps has the legislative authority to tap other 
appropriated program funds to meet emergency requirements. The 
budget proposes an appropriation of $70,000,000 in fiscal year 
2006 to meet the emergency needs of a typical year without 
disrupting activities in other program areas. The Committee 
does not recommend an appropriation for this account in fiscal 
year 2006 and will address emergency funding requirements as 
the needs arise.

                            General Expenses





Appropriation, 2005...................................      $165,664,000
Budget estimate, 2006.................................       162,000,000
Recommended, 2006.....................................       152,021,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2005...............................       -13,643,000
    Budget estimate, 2006.............................        -9,979,000


    This appropriation funds the executive direction and 
management of the Office of Chief of Engineers, the Division 
Offices, and certain research and statistical functions of the 
Corps of Engineers. The Committee recommends an appropriation 
of $152,021,000, a decrease of $13,643,000 from the fiscal year 
2005 enacted level and $9,979,000 less than the budget request.
    The recommended level assumes the following adjustments to 
the budget request:

Executive direction and management:
    Headquarters baselevel operating expenses:
        Undistributed reduction due to budget 
          constraints...................................    -$10,479,000
    Civil Works program accounts:
        Decrease in implementing competitive sourcing...      -2,000,000
        Decrease in e-government initiatives............        -500,000
        Undistributed reductions due to budget 
          constraints...................................      -2,000,000
Other activities........................................      +5,000,000

    Headquarters baselevel operating expenses.--The Committee 
recommendation includes an undistributed reduction of 
$10,479,000 due to budget constraints; this reduction is 
appropriate given the lack of detailed justification material 
accompanying the request. This reduction shall be taken from 
operating expenses at the headquarters level solely and not 
distributed to the divisions.
    Civil works program accounts.--Reductions of $2,000,000 to 
implement competitive outsourcing measures and $500,000 for e-
government initiatives are recommended by the Committee. The 
Committee recommendation includes sufficient funds to further 
these activities in fiscal year 2006. In addition, an 
undistributed reduction of $2,000,000 is recommended by the 
Committee due to budget constraints and a lack of detailed 
justification in support of the request.
    Other activities.--The Committee has included $5,000,000 to 
conduct comprehensive analyses on water resource management on 
a watershed or regional scale. These analyses are needed to 
examine multi-jurisdictional use and management of water 
resources, which, in the view of the Committee, are not being 
addressed under current project analyses. With few exceptions, 
existing cost-sharing requirements have resulted inadvertently 
in narrowly focused water resource management studies that are 
limited to single jurisdictions. The funds provided in this 
account are to be available without cost-sharing requirements; 
however, the Corps shall work directly with state and local 
governments in the study areas. Individual study areas shall 
include multiple states, and multiple watersheds shall be 
studied.
    District office closures or staff realignment.--The 
Committee is troubled to learn that the Corps is contemplating 
the closure of certain district offices in fiscal year 2005, 
largely because of the shifting workload among districts and 
divisions expected under the Civil Works program levels assumed 
in the budget request for fiscal year 2006. The Committee 
believes that it is premature to consider the closure or 
permanent relocation of staff from district and division 
offices until after the distribution of work is known with the 
enactment of appropriations for the civil works program for 
fiscal year 2006. District workloads in the Corps can vary 
significantly from year to year. Given current technology, the 
distributed engineering and other expertise of the Corps should 
be readily available to address Corps requirements wherever 
they occur. The issue of how many divisions and districts are 
needed to serve effectively the Nation and where they should be 
located is a larger issue that requires a comprehensive plan 
for the Corps and its civil works. In addition, the Corps shall 
re-evaluate the need to contract out to architect engineering 
firms thirty percent of planning and design activities in an 
effort to avoid personnel disruptions and to maintain in-house 
technical capability.
    CFO audit.--In fiscal year 2005, the Corps had planned to 
fund the CFO audit from funds appropriated for General 
Expenses, but has informed the Committee that the audit will 
not be performed in fiscal year 2005. For fiscal year 2006, the 
Corps proposes to fund the recurring costs of the CFO audit 
from the revolving fund. The Committee observes that the out-
year costs associated with the CFO audit seem relatively high. 
Given the delay in award and the unknown out-year costs, the 
Committee directs that the initial and recurring costs 
associated with an annual CFO audit be paid and budgeted from 
amounts provided for the General Expenses appropriation.
    Intermodal transportation and containerization.--Within the 
funds provided, the Institute of Water Resources (IWR) is 
directed to submit to the House and Senate Committees on 
Appropriations, within 180 days of enactment of this Act, a 
study delineating ways to improve and expand inland waterway 
containerization. In conducting its review, the IWR shall 
develop its recommendations in consultation with private 
shippers and carriers and the Department of Transportation. The 
Committee notes that the energy costs per ton-mile for shipping 
by barge are the lowest of any means of transport and increased 
use of the water infrastructure of the country therefore 
contributes to energy conservation.

                             Revolving Fund


               Plant Replacement and Improvement Program

    The revolving fund accounts for facilities, payroll and 
operations throughout the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers at its 
divisions, districts, separate field offices and laboratories 
including its engineer research and development centers. The 
fund incurs expenses for acquisition, rehabilitation, operation 
and maintenance of multiple use structures such as warehouses, 
shops and garages, as well as general-purpose plant, such as 
dredges, tugs, launches, trucks, cranes, bulldozers, drill rigs 
and other construction equipment. It also provides for 
reimbursement of the general and administrative expenses of 
district, laboratory and field offices.
    Dredge McFarland.--The Committee has deleted funds 
contained in the request for rehabilitation and asbestos and 
lead abatement of the Dredge McFarland in fiscal year 2006. 
Funds for these activities are premature as the Corps has yet 
to submit a final report to the House and Senate Committees on 
Appropriations on the benefits and effects of the current and 
proposed restrictions on the Corps' hopper dredge fleet, as 
required by the conference report accompanying the Energy and 
Water Appropriations Act of 2004. This report is to include 
recommendations on investment decisions regarding Corps hopper 
dredges, including the McFarland. Preliminary reports have 
included ten options for the Corps and Congress to consider, of 
which six include the retirement of the McFarland. Any 
expenditure to rehabilitate the dredges or to remove is 
premature asbestos and lead from the McFarland is premature 
until such time as the Corps makes a final decision on its 
preferred option with respect to the disposition of the 
McFarland, and until such time as a final report has been 
submitted to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations 
for full consideration. Accordingly, the Committee 
recommendation deletes these funds in fiscal year 2006. The 
Corps is further directed not to expend any additional funds on 
McFarland rehabilitation or asbestos or lead abatement in 
fiscal year 2005.

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





Appropriation, 2005...................................        $3,968,000
Budget estimate, 2006.................................             (\1\)
Recommended, 2006.....................................         4,000,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2005...............................           +32,000
    Budget estimate, 2006.............................             (\1\)

\1\ The budget proposes that this office be funded from amounts
  appropriated to the Department of Defense, Operation and maintenance,
  Army, and that within those amounts, $4,700,000 is assumed for the
  Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works).

    The Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) oversees 
Civil Works budget and policy whereas the Corps' executive 
direction and management of the Civil Works program are funded 
from the general expenses account. Congress had funded the 
Assistant Secretary's office from funds appropriated for the 
Operation and Maintenance, Army (OMA) account in the annual 
Department of Defense Appropriations Acts until fiscal year 
2005. Last year, however, Congress chose to fund the Assistant 
Secretary's office within the Energy and Water Development 
Appropriations Act. Again, for fiscal year 2006, the Committee 
recommends that a separate appropriation for the Office of the 
Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) be made in the 
annual Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, and has 
provided $4,000,000 for this account.
    Roles and responsibilities of the Office of the Assistant 
Secretary of the Army (Civil Works).--Army regulations and 
General Order No. 3 clearly stipulate that the Assistant 
Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) (ASA(CW)) has the principal 
responsibility for overall policy direction and supervision of 
the Department of the Army functions relating to all aspects of 
the civil works program, including all reimbursable work 
performed on behalf of Federal and non-Federal entities. Among 
the responsibilities of the ASA(CW) are managing the Department 
of Army civil works program for conservation and development of 
the national water resources, including flood damage reduction, 
river and harbor navigation, environmental restoration and 
protection, water supply, shore protection, hydroelectric 
power, recreation, and related purposes. This includes the 
following:
          (1) developing, defending, and directing the 
        execution of the Army civil works policy, legislative, 
        and financial programs and budget.
          (2) developing policy and guidance for and 
        administering the Department of the Army regulatory 
        program to protect, restore, and maintain the waters of 
        the United States in the interest of the environment, 
        navigation, and national defense.
          (3) serving as congressional liaison on civil works 
        matters, including serving as the Department of the 
        Army point of contact for House and Senate 
        authorization and Appropriations Committees charged 
        with oversight of the Department of the Army civil 
        works program.
    The Committee is extremely disappointed that the Office of 
the ASA(CW) has not been more actively engaged in the most 
significant issues facing the Corps in years, namely 
reprogrammings, project paybacks and continuing contracts, and 
has effectively allowed the Corps to dictate the role of the 
ASA(CW). The Committee expects the Office of the ASA(CW) to 
fully exercise its roles and responsibilities as delineated in 
Army General Order No. 3. Should the office of the Assistant 
Secretary for Civil Works not involve itself in these and other 
pertinent issues, the Committee will reevaluate the need for 
such an office.
    Indirect costs.--Budgeting for and tracking Army 
Headquarters costs is complex and involves many funding 
allocations, each with its own budgeting and management 
practices. While some of the Army Headquarters expenses are 
budgeted and directly attributed to specific offices, such as 
that of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works), 
other expenses are centrally budgeted and managed within the 
Army Headquarters, even though the expenditures may be tracked 
to individual offices at the end of the accounting period. 
Examples of these expenses include information technology and 
ADP support, communications, long-term training, performance 
bonuses for Senior Executive Service employees, and use of 
Pentagon space. Moreover, for other costs--such as public 
affairs, contracting services, legal services, executive motor 
pool--attribution of costs to specific offices has not been a 
matter of practice and, as a result, there are no established 
charging procedures or algorithms for allocating these costs to 
date.
    The fiscal year 2006 appropriation for the Office of the 
Assistant Secretary for the Army (Civil Works) is intended to 
cover expenses budgeted for and tracked to that office in the 
following general categories: civilian salaries and benefits, 
travel, supplies, equipment, contracts, communications, 
information technology, printing and postage, and rent. The 
Committee anticipates that OMA appropriations provided in the 
Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2006, are to fund 
those expenses currently centrally--budgeted and managed within 
the Army Headquarters, as described above. This policy 
continues the practice in place for fiscal year 2005. For 
fiscal year 2007, the Office of the Assistant Secretary (Civil 
Works) is directed to separate out these costs from the OMA 
budget and include and fully justify them in the Assistant 
Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) budget request to the 
Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development.

                           General Provisions


                       Corps of Engineers--Civil

    The bill includes a provision that prohibits the obligation 
or expenditure of funds through a reprogramming of funds in 
this Act except in certain circumstances. This provision is 
discussed more fully under ``Program Management and 
Execution.''
    The bill includes a provision prohibiting the Corps of 
Engineers from supporting activities related to the proposed 
Ridge Landfill in Tuscarawas County, Ohio.
    The bill includes a provision prohibiting the Corps of 
Engineers from supporting activities related to the proposed 
Indian Rum Sanitary Landfill in Sandy Township, Stark County 
Ohio.
    The bill includes a provision that requires the Secretary 
of the Army, when overseeing the use of multiyear contracts for 
water resource projects, to limit the duration of each 
multiyear contract to the term needed to achieve a substantial 
reduction of costs on the margin and limit the amount of work 
performed each on year on each project to the funding provided 
for that project during the fiscal year.
    The bill includes a provision prohibiting the use of funds 
in this Act to carry out any continuing contract that reserves 
an amount for a project in excess of the amount appropriated 
for such project in this Act.
    The bill includes a provision prohibiting the use of funds 
in this Act after February 6, 2006, to carry out any continuing 
contract (or modifications to any existing continuing contract) 
that obligates the Federal government during fiscal year 2007 
to make payment under such contract for any project that is not 
contained in the fiscal year 2007 budget materials of the civil 
works functions of the Corps of Engineers submitted by the 
Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) to Congress.
    The bill includes a provision that prohibits funds for the 
rehabilitation and lead and asbestos abatement activities of 
the dredge McFarland. A more detailed discussion of the dredge 
McFarland is contained under ``Revolving Fund.'' In addition, 
the bill includes a provision that reduces funds contained in 
title I of this Act by $18,630,000.
    The bill includes a provision prohibiting the use of funds 
in this Act for any fiscal year to carry out the construction 
of the Port Jersey element of the New York and New Jersey 
Harbor or reimbursement to the local sponsor for the 
construction of the Port Jersey element until commitments for 
construction of container handling facilities are obtained from 
the non-Federal sponsor for a second user along the Port Jersey 
element.
                                TITLE II

                       DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

                          Central Utah Project

                CENTRAL UTAH PROJECT COMPLETION ACCOUNT




Appropriation, 2005...................................       $47,625,000
Budget estimate, 2006.................................        34,350,000
Recommended, 2006.....................................        34,350,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2005...............................       -13,275,000
    Budget estimate, 2006.............................  ................


    The Central Utah Project Completion Act (Titles II-VI of 
Public Law 102-575) provides for the completion of the Central 
Utah Project by the Central Utah Water Conservancy District. 
The Act also authorizes the appropriation of funds for fish, 
wildlife, and recreation mitigation and conservation; 
establishes an account in the Treasury for the deposit of these 
funds and of other contributions for mitigation and 
conservation activities; and establishes a Utah Reclamation 
Mitigation and Conservation Commission to administer funds in 
that account. The Act further assigns responsibilities for 
carrying out the Act to the Secretary of the Interior and 
prohibits delegation of those responsibilities to the Bureau of 
Reclamation.
    The Committee recommendation for fiscal year 2006 to carry 
out the Central Utah Project is $34,350,000, the same as the 
budget request, and $13,275,000 below the fiscal year 2005 
enacted level. Within the $34,350,000 provided by the 
Committee, the following amounts are provided for the Central 
Utah Valley Water Conservation District by activity, as 
recommended in the budget request:

Utah Lake drainage basin delivery system................        $600,000
Diamond Fork system.....................................      14,600,000
Water conservation measures.............................       2,889,000
Uinta Basin replacement project.........................      12,182,000
Other Title II programs.................................       1,000,000
        Total, Central Utah water conservation district.      31,271,000

    The Committee recommendation includes the requested amount 
of $946,000 for deposit into the Utah Reclamation Mitigation 
and Conservation Account for use by the Utah Reclamation 
Mitigation and Conservation Commission. These funds, as 
proposed in the budget request, are to be used to implement the 
fish, wildlife, and recreation mitigation and conservation 
projects authorized in Title III; initiating fish and wildlife 
measures on section 203(a) Uinta Basin replacement projects; 
and in completing mitigation measures committed to in pre-1992 
Bureau of Reclamation planning documents, as follows:

Provo River/Utah Lake fish and wildlife.................        $150,000
Duchesne/Strawberry Rivers fish and wildlife............          30,000
CRSP/Statewide fish, wildlife and recreation............         295,000
Section 201(a)(1) mitigation measures...................         261,000
Section 203(a) mitigation measures......................         210,000
        Total, Utah Reclamation Mitigation and 
          Conservation Commission.......................         946,000

    For program oversight and administration, the Committee has 
provided $1,736,000, the same level as the budget request, and 
$16,000 above the fiscal year 2005 enacted level. For fish and 
wildlife conservation programs, the Committee has provided 
$397,000, the same level as the budget request.

                         Bureau of Reclamation


                        FY 2006 Budget Overview

    The mission of the Bureau of Reclamation is to manage, 
develop, and protect water and related resources in an 
environmentally and economically sound manner in the interest 
of the American public. Since its establishment by The 
Reclamation Act of June 17, 1902 (32 Stat. 388), the Bureau of 
Reclamation has developed water supply facilities that have 
contributed to sustained economic growth and an enhanced 
quality of life in the western states. Lands and communities 
served by Reclamation projects have been developed to meet 
agricultural, tribal, urban, and industrial needs. The Bureau 
continues to develop authorized facilities to store and convey 
new water supplies. The Bureau is the largest supplier and 
manager of water in the 17 western states. The Bureau maintains 
471 dams and 348 reservoirs with the capacity to store 245 
million acre-feet of water. These facilities deliver water to 
one of every five western farmers for about 10 million acres of 
irrigated land, and to over 31 million people for municipal, 
rural, and industrial uses. The Bureau is also the Nation's 
second largest producer of hydroelectric power, generating 42 
billion kilowatt hours of energy each year from 58 power 
plants. In addition, its facilities provide substantial flood 
control, recreation, and fish and wildlife benefits.
    The fiscal year budget request for the Bureau of 
Reclamation totals $916,705,000, and includes $30,000,000 in 
new offsetting collections. The Committee recommendation totals 
$997,136,000 for the Bureau of Reclamation, an increase of 
$60,431,000 over the budget request and $12,215,000 above the 
fiscal year enacted level (adjusted for one-time emergency 
spending). A proposal to provide direct financing of operation 
and maintenance costs associated with the power functions of 
Reclamation facilities that generate the power sold by the 
Western Power Administration is rejected by the Committee.
    A summary table illustrating the fiscal year 2005 enacted 
appropriation, the fiscal year 2006 budget request and the 
Committee recommendation is shown below:

                            [Dollars in 000s]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Fiscal year  Fiscal year
            Account                 2005         2006        Committee
                                  enacted      request    recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Water and related resources...     $852,605     $801,569       $832,000
    Offsetting collections....  ...........      -30,000  ..............
        Subtotal, water and         852,605      771,569        832,000
         related resources....
Central Valley project               54,628       52,219         52,219
 restoration fund.............
California Bay-Delta            ...........       35,000         35,000
 restoration..................
Policy and administration.....       57,688       57,917         57,917
Drought conditions, Nevada            5,000  ...........  ..............
 (emergency)..................
      Total, Bureau of              969,921      916,705        977,136
       Reclamation............
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      Water and Related Resources


                     [INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS]




Appropriation, 2005...................................      $852,605,000
Budget estimate, 2006.................................   \1\ 771,569,000
Recommended, 2006.....................................       832,000,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2005...............................       -20,605,000
    Budget estimate, 2006.............................      +60,431,000

\1\ The budget proposes certain receipts from the Western Area Power
  Administration totaling $30,000,000 be credited to this account as
  offsetting collections.

    The Water and Related Resources account supports the 
development, management, and restoration of water and related 
natural resources in the 17 western states. The account 
includes funds for operating and maintaining existing 
facilities to obtain the greatest overall levels of benefits, 
to protect public safety, and to conduct studies on ways to 
improve the use of water and related natural resources.
    For fiscal year 2006, the Committee recommends 
$832,000,000, an increase of $60,431,000 from the budget 
request and $20,605,000 below the fiscal year 2005 enacted 
level. The Committee does not adopt the proposal included in 
the budget request to reclassify certain receipts from the 
Western Area Power Administration and to credit them as 
offsetting collections to this account. The budget request and 
the approved Committee allowance for specific projects are 
shown, by state, in the following table:


    ]Central Valley project, California, miscellaneous project 
programs.--Within the funds provided for Central Valley 
project, miscellaneous project programs, the Committee has 
provided the funds necessary to complete phase II of the Kaweah 
River Delta Corridor Enhancement Study.
    Colorado River Front Work and Levee System, Arizona and 
California.--Within the funds provided, the Committee has 
included $750,000 to continue planning and design of regulating 
reservoirs near the All American Canal.
    Equus Beds Groundwater Recharge Demonstration Project, 
Kansas.--The Committee is aware that the pilot program for the 
Equus Beds project is complete. The Committee strongly urges 
the Bureau to work with the impacted communities and the State 
of Kansas on design and engineering of the full-scale project.
    Salton Sea research project, California.--The Committee has 
provided $4,800,000 for the Salton Sea research project, 
including $1,500,000 to continue environmental restoration 
efforts at the Alamo and New Rivers, and for other authorized 
pilot projects. The Bureau is encouraged to work jointly with 
the Salton Sea Authority and assist the authority in running 
its own pilot projects.
    Santa Margarita River conjunctive use project, 
California.--The Committee has provided $500,000 to complete 
the feasibility study for the project.
    South/central Arizona investigations program.--The 
Committee recommends $795,000 for the south/central Arizona 
investigations program. Within the funds provided, $210,000 
shall be available to complete the final report for phase II of 
the central Arizona salinity study and $250,000 for the West 
Salt River Management Study.
    Southern California investigations program.--Within the 
funds provided for the Southern California Investigations 
Program, $150,000 has been included for the Los Angeles Basin 
Watershed Water Supply Augmentation Study, as requested in the 
budget; $100,000 to assist the Western Municipal Water District 
in general planning and associated environmental compliance 
activities related to the Riverside-Corona Feeder project; 
$300,000 to assist the Lake Arrowhead Community Services 
District to develop a groundwater management plan; and $100,000 
to assist the City of Apple Valley, California to develop an 
appraisal study of the water reclamation portion of the City of 
Apple Valley's sewage treatment and reclamation project.
    St. Mary Diversion Facilities to the Milk River Basin, 
Montana.--The Committee is supportive of efforts to 
rehabilitate or replace the St. Mary Diversion Facilities to 
the Milk River Basin, Montana project given the agricultural, 
municipal, recreational, cultural and economic benefits the 
project accrues to the people its serves in North Central 
Montana.
    Washington investigations program.--The Committee 
recommendation provides $550,000 for Washington investigations 
program, of which $250,000 shall be available for technical 
assistance and studies for solutions to address the depletion 
of the Odessa Subaquifer.
    Yuma area projects, Arizona and California.--The Committee 
has provided a total of $22,600,000 for Yuma area projects in 
Arizona and California, of which $500,000 is available for 
renovation and refurbishment of the City of Needles, California 
Bureau Bay Reclamation Project site.

                            VARIOUS PROGRAMS

    Site security.--After the terrorists attacks of September 
11, 2001, the Bureau of Reclamation strengthened security at 
Federal dams and similar facilities and has undertaken--but not 
completed--extensive risk assessments for over 400 units 
throughout the west. The Bureau proposed to seek reimbursement 
for certain expenditures. The Committee expressed concern 
regarding reimbursability and directed the Bureau to provide to 
the Committee a report that included a breakout of planned 
reimbursable and non-reimbursable security costs by project and 
by region. The conference report went further to direct the 
Commissioner not to begin the reimbursement process until the 
Congress provides direct instruction to do so.
    The Committee now recognizes that in accordance with 
Federal reclamation law, specifically the Reclamation Act of 
1939, annual operation and maintenance (O&M) and replacement 
costs on Reclamation projects are allocated to a project's 
various authorized purposes. The ongoing costs of the 
additional security guards and patrols necessary to ensure the 
security of a project may be considered project O&M costs. 
Therefore, these costs are subject to reimbursement based on 
project cost reimbursable allocations beginning in fiscal year 
2006. Recognizing that the Bureau would expect to receive 
approximately $10,000,000 in reimbursements in fiscal year 
2006, the budget request for site security has been reduced by 
the Committee to $40,000,000.
    Science and technology programs.--Within the appropriation 
of $9,684,000 for science and technology programs, the 
Committee has provided $1,000,000 to continue the successful 
alliance with the International Center for Water Resources 
Management at Central State University for Central State 
University in Ohio, the Ohio View Consortium, and Colorado 
State University, for the development of advanced remote 
sensing technologies for use in operational decisions to manage 
the current drought conditions, and to develop optimal 
strategies for managing water resources and with future 
constraining events.
    Title XVI, water reclamation and reuse program.--The budget 
request included $1,229,000 for activities under the Title XVI, 
water reclamation and reuse program. This program is not 
authorized in fiscal year 2006, and accordingly the Committee 
does not recommend funding for this activity.
    Water 2025.--The budget request includes $30,000,000 for 
Water 2025. This program is intended to reduce crises and 
conflict over water and is to set a framework to identify 
problems, solutions and plans to focus a needed dialog as the 
Department of the Interior works with states, tribes, local 
government and the private sector to meet water supply 
challenges. While the Committee remains supportive of the 
program, given its lack of authorization, the Committee has not 
provided funding for the Water 2025 program for fiscal year 
2006.
    Water conservation field service program.--The Committee 
has provided $9,875,000 for water conservation field service 
program, of which $1,000,000 shall be allocated for the Many 
Farms Irrigation Water Conservation project.

                Central Valley Project Restoration Fund





Appropriation, 2005...................................       $54,628,000
Budget estimate, 2006.................................        52,219,000
Recommended, 2006.....................................        52,219,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2005...............................        -2,409,000
    Budget estimate, 2006.............................  ................


    This fund was established to carry out the provisions of 
the Central Valley Project Improvement Act and to provide 
funding for habitat restoration, improvement and acquisition, 
and other fish and wildlife restoration activities in the 
Central Valley area of California. Resources are derived from 
donations, revenues from voluntary water transfers and tiered 
water pricing, and Friant Division surcharges. The account is 
also financed through additional mitigation and restoration 
payments collected on an annual basis from project 
beneficiaries.
    For fiscal year 2006, the Committee recommends $52,219,000, 
the same level as the budget request and $2,409,000 below the 
fiscal year enacted level. Funds, as proposed in the budget 
request, are provided as follows:

Anadromous fish restoration program.....................      $5,000,000
Other Central Valley project impacts....................       2,500,000
Dedicated project yield.................................         900,000
Flow fluctuation study..................................          50,000
Restoration of riparian habitat and spawning gravel.....         500,000
Central Valley comprehensive assessment/monitoring 
    program.............................................         500,000
Anadromous fish screen program..........................       3,500,000
Refugee wheeling conveyance.............................       7,800,000
Refuge water supply, facility construction..............       3,500,000
Ecosystem/water systems operations model................       6,434,000
Water acquisition program...............................       9,952,000
San Joaquin Basin action plan...........................       7,583,000
Land retirement program.................................       1,500,000
Coleman fish hatchery...................................         200,000
Clear Creek restoration.................................         300,000
Trinity River restoration program.......................       2,000,000
        Total, Central Valley project restoration fund..      52,219,000

                    California Bay-Delta Restoration


                     [INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS]





Appropriation, 2005...................................             (\1\)
Budget estimate, 2006.................................       $35,000,000
Recommended, 2006.....................................        35,000,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2005...............................       +35,000,000
    Budget estimate, 2006.............................  ................

\1\ Funds were appropriated in fiscal year 2005 within the Central
  Valley project to carry out activities now authorized from this
  account.

    The purpose of the California Bay-Delta account is to fund 
the Federal share of water supply and reliability improvements, 
ecosystem improvements and other activities being developed for 
the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and associated watersheds by a 
State and Federal partnership (CALFED). Federal participation 
in this program was initially authorized in the California Bay-
Delta Environmental and Water Security Act enacted in 1996. 
That Act authorized the appropriation of $143,300,000 for 
ecosystem restoration activities in each of fiscal years 1998, 
1999, and 2000. Absent an explicit authorization, no funds were 
provided in this account for the CALFED effort between fiscal 
years 2001 and 2005. However, the Committee funded CALFED 
programs and activities within the general authorities of the 
Water and Related Resources account even though a specific 
programmatic authorization was lacking. Funding for fiscal year 
2001 totaled $79,030,000; fiscal year 2002, $126,775,000; 
fiscal year 2003, $84,403,000; fiscal year 2004, $78,929,000; 
and fiscal year 2005, $74,571,000. Total Federal expenditures 
under this Act from fiscal year 1998 through 2005 amount to 
almost $830,000,000.
    In 2005, the CALFED Bay-Delta Authorization Act was enacted 
(P.L. 108-361), authorizing $389,000,000 in Federal 
appropriations for fiscal year 2005 through fiscal year 2010. 
The authorizing legislation required an annual cross-cut budget 
in order to reflect the budget requests of all Federal agencies 
engaged in CALFED implementation. The Committee is pleased the 
CALFED Bay-Delta program was included in the fiscal year 2006 
budget request and recommends the budget request of 
$35,000,000. However, the Committee notices a missing program 
element from the budget request, a ``water quality'' section, 
and has added funding for this element as shown below. The 
Committee has redirected the funding for higher priority 
projects that will support the implementation of the CALFED 
program. The funded projects will produce increased sources of 
water for the state of California, otherwise known as ``firm 
yield'' projects, improve drinking water quality, and improve 
water delivery flexibility.
    In light of the new Federal authorization for CALFED Bay-
Delta Program and the initial implementation phase of the 
CALFED program, the Committee expects the budget request for 
fiscal year 2007 to include funds for all program elements at 
the fully authorized level.
    The funds provided are intended to support the following 
activities, as delineated below:

Environmental water account.............................      $5,000,000
Storage program.........................................      12,700,000
    San Joaquin River basin.............................     (4,000,000)
    Los Vaqueros........................................     (3,200,000)
    Shasta enlargement..................................     (4,000,000)
    Sites...............................................     (1,500,000)
Conveyance..............................................       6,300,000
    San Luis Reservoir Low Point........................     (3,000,000)
    Frank Tract.........................................     (1,000,000)
Planning and management activities......................         500,000
Water use efficiency....................................       6,500,000
    Westside regional drainage program..................     (2,300,000)
    Butte County Groundwater Model......................       (200,000)
    Inland Empire Utilities Agency regional water 
      recycling project.................................     (1,000,000)
Ecosystem restoration...................................       1,000,000
    Sacramento River small diversion fish screen program     (1,000,000)
Water Quality...........................................       3,000,000
    Contra Costa Water District alternative intake 
      project...........................................     (2,000,000)
    South Delta temporary barriers......................     (1,000,000)
    Total, California Bay-Delta Restoration.............      35,000,000


                       Policy and Administration





Appropriation, 2005...................................       $57,688,000
Budget estimate, 2006.................................        57,917,000
Recommended, 2006.....................................        57,917,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2005...............................          +229,000
    Budget estimate, 2006.............................  ................


    The policy and administration account provides for the 
executive direction and management of all Reclamation 
activities, as performed by the Commissioner's offices in 
Washington, DC, and Denver, Colorado, and in five regional 
offices. The Denver and regional offices charge individual 
projects or activities for direct beneficial services and 
related administrative and technical costs. These charges are 
covered under other appropriations. For fiscal year 2006, the 
Committee recommends $57,917,000, the same as the budget 
request and $229,000 above the fiscal year 2005 enacted level.
    Five-year budget planning.--Concurrent with the submission 
of the fiscal year 2007 budget request and for every fiscal 
year thereafter, the Department of the Interior shall submit to 
the Congress detailed five-year budget plans for each of the 
major components including Water and Related Resources, 
California Bay-Delta Restoration program, Central Valley 
Project Restoration Fund and Central Utah Project Completion. 
The program plans shall clearly state the assumptions and 
priorities behind the choices it will make between competing 
agency programs, and shall include a copy of the guidance 
provided to the program offices to guide their submissions into 
the five-year plan. The plan shall provide both fiscally 
constrained and unconstrained data.

                           General Provisions


                         Department of Interior

    The bill includes a provision regarding the San Luis Unit 
and Kesterson Reservoir in California. This language has been 
included in annual Energy and Water Development Appropriations 
Acts for several years.
    The bill includes language prohibiting the use of funds for 
any water acquisition or lease in the Middle Rio Grande or 
Carlsbad Projects in New Mexico unless the acquisition is in 
compliance with existing State law and administered under state 
priority allocation.
    The bill includes a provision relating to agreements with 
the city of Needles, California or the Imperial Irrigation 
District for the design and construction of stages of the Lower 
Colorado Water Supply Project.
                               TITLE III

                          DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Department of Energy (DOE) has requested 
$24,213,307,000 in fiscal year 2006 to fund programs in its 
four primary mission areas: science, energy, environment, and 
national security. The overall DOE budget would decline by 2.0 
percent compared to the fiscal year 2005 enacted level, but the 
four mission areas fare quite differently under the 
Department's budget proposal. Science research would decline by 
3.8 percent and Environment programs would decline by 6.4 
percent, while National Security programs would increase by 2.5 
percent and Energy programs by 3.0 percent. Total funding for 
the Department of Energy is $24,574,857,000, an increase of 
$278,103,000 over fiscal year 2005 and $361,550,000 over the 
budget request. The Committee makes a number of changes to the 
fiscal year 2006 budget request to reflect specific 
Congressional priorities and to fund several major new 
initiatives for the Department of Energy.
    Material Consolidation Initiative.--The Department 
currently has weapons-usable special nuclear materials (i.e., 
plutonium and highly enriched uranium) stored at a number of 
sites around the DOE complex. Most of these sites are under the 
control of the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), 
but special nuclear materials are also stored at sites under 
the control of the Office of Science, the Office of Nuclear 
Energy, and Environmental Management. Unfortunately, the 
Department has indicated that it will not be able to bring all 
of its facilities and operations into compliance with the 
latest Design Basis Threat until 2008. This delay is 
unacceptable. The Committee directs the Department to take 
prompt action to consolidate these materials into fewer 
locations to reduce security risks and costs. This initiative 
is discussed more fully under the NNSA and Other Defense 
Activities sections of this report.
    Spent Fuel Recycling Initiative.--Commercial spent nuclear 
fuel, as well as government-owned spent fuel and high level 
radioactive waste, is stored at over one hundred sites around 
the country and poses an analogous security problem. While this 
material poses a very different security risk than the weapons-
usable special nuclear materials, it still creates a costly and 
unnecessary security risk until these materials can be moved to 
the Yucca Mountain repository. The Department has estimated 
that it will cost the federal government approximately $1 
billion per year for every year that the repository is delayed 
and these materials must remain in interim onsite storage. To 
maintain or expand the role of nuclear power in this country's 
energy portfolio will require DOE to propose expansion of the 
authorized capacity of the Yucca Mountain repository, or begin 
the difficult process of siting a second repository. Therefore, 
the Committee directs the Department to take action in fiscal 
year 2006 to begin accepting spent commercial fuel from the 
nuclear utilities and placing it in centralized interim storage 
at one or more DOE sites. In addition, the Committee directs 
the Department to prepare an integrated spent fuel recycling 
plan for implementation in fiscal year 2007, including 
selection of an advanced reprocessing technology and a 
competitive process to select one or more sites to develop 
integrated spent fuel recycling facilities (i.e., reprocessing, 
preparation of mixed oxide fuel, vitrification of high level 
waste products, and temporary process storage). This initiative 
is discussed more fully in the Nuclear Energy section of the 
Energy Supply and Conservation account, and in the Nuclear 
Waste Disposal account.
    Sustainable Stockpile Initiative.--The Committee does not 
believe that the existing U.S. stockpile of nuclear weapons is 
sustainable in the long-term future. The United States relies 
on an arsenal of Cold War legacy designs with an average 
warhead age nearing twenty five years. These old weapons are 
expensive to maintain, hard to dismantle, and increasingly 
difficult to certify in the absence of nuclear testing. Because 
of uncertainties in the performance of these aging weapons, the 
U.S. is forced to retain absurdly large numbers of weapons in 
its nuclear stockpile to maintain a sufficient ``hedge'' 
against these uncertainties. Further, we also maintain a Cold 
War nuclear weapons complex to support this stockpile, 
maintaining antiquated facilities using antiquated processes to 
support antiquated weapons. In light of increased post-9/11 
security concerns, this is neither a sound nor sustainable 
strategy. The Committee continues the Reliable Replacement 
Warhead effort, initiated in the Energy and Water Development 
Appropriations Act, 2005, to improve the reliability, 
longevity, and certifiability without testing of existing 
nuclear weapons and their components. The Committee does not 
view these as new weapons, but rather re-engineered versions of 
existing weapons, using modern materials and manufacturing 
methods, to serve the same military function as existing 
warheads. A shift to modern Reliable Replacement Warheads will 
allow two important changes in the near term, namely a phased 
reduction in the current Life Extension Program and a 
corresponding increase in the rate of dismantlement of these 
aging weapons. This reduction in the total stockpile size is 
consistent with Presidential guidance on the future size and 
composition of the U.S. nuclear arsenal. In addition, the 
Committee is looking forward to receiving the recommendations 
of the task force established under the Secretary of Energy 
Advisory Board to conduct a Nuclear Weapons Complex 
Infrastructure Study. As the U.S. shifts to a smaller stockpile 
with re-engineered warheads, the Committee anticipates that 
there will be major changes in the DOE nuclear weapons complex 
will be needed to support that stockpile. This initiative is 
discussed more fully in the NNSA section of this report.

                        CONGRESSIONAL DIRECTION

    The Committee renews the direction provided in previous 
fiscal years requiring the Secretary to submit to the House and 
Senate Committees on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Energy and 
Water Development, a quarterly report on the status of all 
projects, reports, fund transfers, and other actions directed 
in this bill and report, in the corresponding Senate bill and 
report, in the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, 
2006, and in the statement of managers accompanying that Act. 
Any reports, transfers, or other actions directed in prior 
fiscal years that have not been completed as of the date of 
enactment of this Act should also be included in this quarterly 
report.

                            BUDGET STRUCTURE

    Funds recommended in Title III provide for all Department 
of Energy (DOE) programs. In previous years, the DOE was funded 
in two separate appropriations Acts. The Energy and Water 
Development appropriations Act funded DOE programs relating to: 
Energy Supply; Non-Defense Environmental Management (Non-
Defense Site Acceleration Completion; Non-Defense Environmental 
Services, and Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and 
Decommissioning Fund); Science; Nuclear Waste Disposal; 
Departmental Administration; the Inspector General; the 
National Nuclear Security Administration (Weapons Activities, 
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation, Naval Reactors, Office of the 
Administrator); Defense Environmental Management (Defense Site 
Acceleration Completion, Defense Environmental Services); Other 
Defense Activities; Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal; the Power 
Marketing Administrations; and the Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission. The Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations 
Act funded DOE programs relating to: Clean Coal Technology; 
Fossil Energy Research and Development; Naval Petroleum and Oil 
Shale Reserves; the Elk Hills School Lands Fund; Energy 
Conservation; the Strategic Petroleum Reserve; the Northeast 
Home Heating Oil Reserve; and the Energy Information 
Administration.
    With the reorganization in early 2005 of the subcommittee 
jurisdictions of the House and Senate Committees on 
Appropriations, the Energy and Water Development Appropriations 
Act now funds all DOE programs. The Committee recommendation 
for fiscal year 2006 proposes the following changes to the 
previous account structure: the merger of the previously 
separate Energy Supply and Energy Conservation accounts into a 
single Energy Supply and Conservation account; the merger of 
Non-Defense Site Acceleration Completion and Non-Defense 
Environmental Services into a single Non-Defense Environmental 
Cleanup account; and the merger of Defense Site Acceleration 
Completion and Defense Environmental Services into a single 
Defense Environmental Cleanup account.

                   BUDGET JUSTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS

    The fiscal year 2007 budget justifications submitted by the 
Department must include the following: (1) a section 
identifying the last year that authorizing legislation was 
provided by Congress for each program; (2) funding within each 
construction project data sheet for elimination of excess 
facilities at least equal to the square footage of the new 
facilities being requested; and (3) funding to eliminate excess 
facilities at least equal to the square footage of new 
facilities being constructed as general plant projects (GPP). 
The budget justifications must also include a statement that 
all appropriate project management requirements from DOE Order 
413.3 will have been met at the time the budget justifications 
are submitted to Congress. The Committee understands that all 
such requirements may not be met, and need not be met, at the 
time the budget request is formulated. The Committee does 
expect, however, that these project management requirements 
will have been fulfilled at the time the fiscal year 2007 
budget request is delivered to Congress.

                       FIVE-YEAR BUDGET PLANNING

    Concurrent with the submission of the fiscal year 2007 
budget request and for every fiscal year thereafter, the 
Department should submit to Congress detailed five-year budget 
plans for all major programs, including Energy Efficiency and 
Renewable Energy; Electricity Transmission and Distribution; 
Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology; Fossil Energy R&D 
Science; Non-Defense Environmental Cleanup; Defense 
Environmental Cleanup; Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and 
Decommissioning; Nuclear Waste Disposal (including Defense 
Nuclear Waste Disposal); Departmental Administration, Nuclear 
Weapons Activities, Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation; Naval 
Reactors; Other Defense Activities; the Power Marketing 
Administrations; and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission). 
Beginning with the submission of the fiscal year 2007 budget 
request and for every fiscal year thereafter, the Department 
shall also submit an integrated five-year budget plan for the 
entire Department. The program plans and the integrated 
Department-wide plan should state clearly the assumptions and 
priorities behind the choices the Secretary will make between 
competing Department programs, and shall include a copy of the 
guidance provided to the program offices to guide their 
submissions into the five-year plan.
    Essential to producing five-year budget plans for the major 
programs and for the entire Department is the need to define 
the missions and activities, and therefore the future budget 
requirements, of the various laboratories in the Department. 
The five-year plans prepared by the major program offices, and 
the comprehensive five-year plan for the Department, should 
reflect the business plans for each of the Department's 
laboratories. These business plans, to be submitted concurrent 
with the fiscal year 2007 budget submission, shall include a 
clear statement of the primary mission of each laboratory as 
such mission relates to each lab's lead program office(s), a 
clear statement of secondary missions to support other DOE 
program offices and other Federal agencies, and a five-year 
plan identifying the research, facilities, and resource 
requirements necessary to fulfill these primary and secondary 
missions. The laboratory business plans shall also include a 
longer-range vision statement to define where these 
laboratories are heading beyond the five-year budget horizon.
    The Committee had previously directed the Department to 
submit, with its fiscal year 2006 budget request, five-year 
program plans for the Nuclear Weapons Activities of the NNSA, 
for the Office of Science, and for Environmental Management 
(including Non-Defense Environmental Cleanup, Uranium 
Enrichment D&D Fund, and Defense Environmental Cleanup). The 
five-year plans submitted to date for these programs are of 
limited utility to Congress as real multiyear budget plans, but 
it is hoped these initial efforts for three programs will ease 
the task of preparing an integrated DOE five-year plan for the 
fiscal year 2007 submission.
    The NNSA plan for Nuclear Weapons Activities is adequate, 
but needs to have an improved explanation of how the outyear 
funding levels were derived and the connection between specific 
DoD-imposed stockpile requirements and funding items in the 
NNSA five-year plan. Many of the funding lines appear to be 
flat-line projections from current funding levels, with no 
rationale provided on whether these funding levels are 
realistic for the mission at hand or consistent with the latest 
decisions and assumptions about the future of the U.S. nuclear 
stockpile and the supporting DOE weapons complex.
    The five-year plan for Environmental Management fails to 
provide any meaningful detail on either how the specific 
funding levels were derived for each site or on the 
implications of those funding levels on project costs, closure 
dates, and compliance agreements. It also fails to include the 
Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommission program as 
previously directed. For any sites to be closed in the five-
year timeframe, the Environmental Management plan should 
clearly identify the responsibilities and liabilities being 
handed off to the Office of Legacy Management and should 
quantify the costs of those responsibilities and liabilities.
    The five-year plan prepared by the Office of Science is the 
most useful of the five-year plans, largely because it provides 
information on alternative funding scenarios. Such information 
enables Congress to understand how different funding levels 
translate into specific actions such as the ability to support 
all existing Science laboratories into the future, to operate 
existing user facilities at or near optimum levels, and to 
initiate new research facilities and programs. The presentation 
by the Office of Science, and in particular the inclusion of 
constrained and unconstrained funding scenarios, is the most 
useful to Congress and should be adopted by the Department for 
its future five-year plans.

                 SAFEGUARDS AND SECURITY IMPLEMENTATION

    The Committee is disappointed by the findings of its 
Surveys and Investigations Staff that the Department of Energy 
(DOE) is not basing current and future costs to secure the 
National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) nuclear weapons 
complex on quality intelligence. The Committee is particularly 
troubled by the calculation of safeguards and security 
requirements and attendant costs based on a dubious interagency 
Postulated Threat process that only feeds departmental 
apprehension, contributing to the perception that site security 
can only be assured by a Design Basis Threat (DBT) created to 
repel a worst-case assault. Each NNSA site has unique risk 
factors, a fact that DOE knows well, and the Committee will not 
appropriate scarce resources on the basis of worst-case 
suppositions. Augmenting site defenses to accommodate worst-
case scenarios can seldom be funded at a level that will assure 
a risk-free environment; therefore, to sustain the highest 
level of site security, DOE must fully exploit all relevant 
Intelligence Community (IC) products to assure NNSA's site 
defensive postures and all risk factors are carefully managed.
    Because the October 2004 DBT is not anchored in 
contemporaneous intelligence focused on threats to this 
country's nuclear facilities, it is unknown whether the 
enormous cost to implement this DBT is truly necessary. The 
Committee believes that the failed Postulated Threat process 
must give way to a more comprehensive and reliable system of 
recurring intelligence estimates, the responsibility for which 
will rest with the Director of National Intelligence (DNI). The 
DNI will ensure that each member of the IC vigorously and 
continuously tasks its intelligence bases to develop the kind 
and quality of intelligence that has, heretofore, been 
unavailable to DOE in support of its DBT process. Although the 
Committee remains firmly committed to the defense of the 
nuclear weapons complex, the Committee will not mechanically 
fund every security funding increase request for the 2004 DBT, 
either through the regular budget process or through 
supplemental appropriations, until the DNI produces an 
intelligence estimate on which a fully justifiable DBT can be 
prepared. The first intelligence estimate should be available 
to DOE on or before September 15, 2005, with recurring 
estimates at intervals to be determined by the DNI.
    Special Nuclear Material Consolidation Initiative.--In the 
absence of a reliable DBT, the Committee directs the Department 
to focus on common-sense security measures such as the Material 
Consolidation Initiative. Recognizing that increased security 
requirements are an inevitable outcome of the revised threat 
environment, the Committee has been unimpressed with the 
apparent lack of urgency with which the Department has pursued 
the consolidation of special nuclear material around the 
Department of Energy's complex. The Committee understands the 
historical legacy that results in the fact that special nuclear 
material is stored at multiple sites and multiple facilities 
within those sites across the DOE complex. However, nearly four 
years after the 9/11 attacks and nearly 15 years after the end 
of significant production activities, the Department has not 
accomplished any meaningful material consolidation. This 
indicates to the Committee that there is no institutional 
incentive in the Department to accomplish the material 
consolidation mission. The security and financial implications 
of continuing business as usual at the Department are 
unacceptable. The Department's programmatic stovepiping and the 
failure of past Departmental attempts to implement common sense 
directives across the entire organization concerns the 
Committee. The Committee, therefore, directs a number of 
specific actions in fiscal year 2006 to expedite the 
consolidation of special nuclear materials.
    Lastly, the Committee finds the lack of oversight applied 
by Federal site officials within the nuclear weapons complex to 
be particularly disturbing. Federal oversight is diminished by 
the fact that too few Federal personnel are assigned to 
oversight responsibilities, and those few who do fulfill 
oversight roles are ill-trained to administer oversight and are 
denied professional development opportunities to advance their 
oversight knowledge, skills, and abilities. The lack of quality 
federal oversight, which DOE cannot assure, risks producing 
inaccurate budget estimates that receive only cursory review at 
critical junctures and are merely passed along to the next 
authority level. If weakened oversight within DOE cannot 
determine when a contractor is providing inaccurate, incomplete 
or misleading information, it follows that Federal site 
officials are incapable of overseeing and assuring quality 
security. The Committee will not accept a weakened oversight 
capability and urges prompt corrective action.

          LABORATORY DIRECTED RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT (LDRD)

    Laboratory Directed Research and Development (LDRD) funding 
levels.--The Committee provides that not more than $250,000,000 
of the funds provided in this Act for the Department of Energy 
national laboratories and production plants are available for 
Laboratory Directed Research and Development (LDRD), Plant 
Directed Research and Development (PDRD), and Site Directed 
Research and Development (SDRD) activities. This limitation 
reflects the constrained budget realities that face the 
Committee generally and the DOE funding specifically in fiscal 
year 2006.
    In a budget year when federal funding constraints have 
resulted in Congress being unable to fund many Congressional 
priorities and when the Department's overall budget is 
essentially flat, the Committee is unable to reconcile the 
Department's significant level of support provided to the DOE 
national laboratories under the authority of the LDRD program. 
In fiscal year 2004, the national laboratories generated nearly 
$400,000,000 in discretionary funding with an LDRD tax on 
mission direct activities. This discretionary research 
continued undiminished even though, in one highly publicized 
instance, the laboratory contractor performed so poorly that, 
for the first time in the laboratory's history, the Department 
levied a significant reduction in performance fee against the 
contractor. The Committee notes the Department's misplaced 
outrage demonstrated by the constant complaining against 
Congressionally-directed spending priorities while at the same 
time providing its government contractor executives nearly 
$400,000,000 of discretionary money for activities that are 
neither explicitly included in the President's budget request 
nor subject to Congressional review and approval. The Committee 
finds this arrangement not to be in the interest of the 
taxpayer or the Department of Energy and has ceased to continue 
the implicit LDRD earmark to the Department's national 
laboratories. The Committee feels it is time the Nation realize 
benefits from the LDRD spending. The Committee notes that the 
Office of Management and Budget apparently agrees, as it 
proposed a reduction of the maximum allowable LDRD tax in the 
President's fiscal year 2006 budget request.
    By reducing the contractor-directed LDRD funding to an 
acceptable level, the Committee action will make available 
roughly $150,000,000 in additional fiscal year 2006 funding for 
actual program priorities at the laboratories and production 
plants, such as maintaining the reliability of the nation's 
nuclear stockpile and ensuring the safety and security of the 
Department's special nuclear materials. The Committee directs 
the Department to report to the Committee on additional reforms 
to the current LDRD program that would promote cutting edge 
discretionary research and development while opening up the 
LDRD funding to non-Laboratory entities to compete for research 
funds in support of the national defense and science mission. 
The Committee notes that the authorizing language in the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1991 (P.L. 
101-510) for Laboratory Directed R&D at DOE's national 
multipurpose laboratories, required the Secretary of Energy to 
provide a specific amount to be used by such laboratories for 
national security activities. The Committee directs the 
Secretary to follow the authorization language and provide a 
specific amount to each Department of Energy facility within 
the $250,000,000 made available for LDRD, PDRD, and SDRD in 
fiscal year 2006. The budget request for fiscal year 2007 
should identify clearly the recommended LDRD amounts for each 
laboratory, plant, and site conducting LDRD, PDRD, and SDRD, 
respectively.
    Laboratory Directed Research and Development (LDRD) Cost 
Accounting Practices.--In a March 4, 1996, memorandum signed by 
the DOE Comptroller, the Department included LDRD project costs 
as part of the General & Administrative (G&A) expense pool. 
That policy effectively increased the value of an LDRD research 
dollar by defining it as an indirect cost that is held harmless 
when allocating the G&A overhead burden on laboratory 
activities and, therefore, results in a disproportionate 
additional overhead burden on direct program activities. Such a 
policy undermines the intent of the Congress when it authorized 
the LDRD activity and limited the total funding to a percentage 
of operations and management funds. Because laboratory research 
and development activities are functionally identical whether 
or not the researcher is working on a project funded by LDRD 
funds or direct funded program budgets, the Committee does not 
support the favorable accounting treatment of LDRD project 
costs as indirect costs for the purposes of defining a 
contractor's reimbursable costs. LDRD activities are directly 
allocable costs that should not be accorded an accounting 
standard that inappropriately increases the actual value of 
LDRD R&D activities at the expense of the direct program 
mission work at the DOE facilities. The Committee directs the 
Secretary of Energy to implement cost accounting practices for 
the Major Facility Operating Contractors that define LDRD, 
PDRD, and SDRD as a Direct Cost element subject to all 
appropriate overhead burdens allowable under the respective 
contracts.
    This direction will generate additional resources for the 
direct funded mission activities by eliminating the 
disproportional overhead burden on the basic mission work that 
results from waiving overhead costs on laboratory research 
activities funded with LDRD funds.

                    NON-NNSA WORK AT NNSA FACILITIES

    In the statement of managers accompanying the Energy and 
Water Development Appropriations Act, 2005 (P.L. 108-447), the 
conferees directed the Secretary of Energy, working with the 
Administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration 
(NNSA), to put in place within 90 days of enactment of the Act 
written procedures for work taskings originating from non-NNSA 
program offices in DOE to NNSA laboratories. These procedures 
must be consistent with the constraints of Section 3213 of 
Public Law 106-65, as subsequently modified by Section 3157 of 
Public Law 106-398, and must follow the chain of command (i.e., 
through the Secretary of Energy and the Administrator of the 
NNSA to the NNSA field elements ) that is clearly specified in 
those statutes. To date, the Committee has seen no evidence 
that the Secretary has complied with this direction.

                           PROJECT MANAGEMENT

    The Committee repeats its prior guidance on the importance 
of improving the project management culture within the 
Department and on compliance with Project Management Order 
413.3. It is important for the Department to maintain its focus 
on project management for all aspects of its work, but most 
especially to major capital projects.

                        AUGMENTING FEDERAL STAFF

    The Committee continues to believe there is too much 
reliance on support service contractors and other non-Federal 
employees throughout the Department of Energy, but particularly 
in the Department's Washington operations. The number of 
management and operating (M&O) contractor employees assigned to 
the Washington metropolitan area in fiscal year 2006 shall not 
exceed 220, the same as the fiscal year 2005 ceiling.
    Report on M&O contractor employees.--The Department is to 
provide at the end of fiscal year 2005 a report to the 
Committee on the use of M&O contractor employees assigned to 
the Washington metropolitan area. The report is to identify all 
M&O contractor employees who work in the Washington 
metropolitan area, including the name of the employee, the name 
of the contractor, the organization to which he or she is 
assigned, the job title and a description of the tasks the 
employee is performing, the annual cost of the employee to the 
Department, the Headquarters program organization sponsoring 
each M&O employee, the program account funding that employee, 
and the length of time the employee has been detailed to the 
Department or elsewhere in the Washington metropolitan area 
(e.g., the Congress, the Executive Office of the President, and 
other Federal agencies). The report should also include 
detailed information on the cost of maintaining each M&O office 
in the Washington metropolitan area. This report is to include 
actual data for the period October 1, 2004 through September 
30, 2005, and is due to the Committee on January 31, 2006.
    Report on support service contractors.--The report is to 
include for each support service contract at Headquarters: the 
name of the contractor; the program organization (at the lowest 
organization level possible) hiring the contractor; a 
description and list of the tasks performed; the number of 
contractor employees working on the contract; and the annual 
cost of the contract. This report is to include actual data for 
the period October 1, 2004 through September 30, 2005, and is 
due to the Committee on January 31, 2006.

                        REPROGRAMMING GUIDELINES

    The Committee requires the Department to inform the 
Committee promptly and fully when a change in program execution 
and funding is required during the fiscal year. To assist the 
Department in this effort, the following guidance is provided 
for programs and activities funded in the Energy and Water 
Development Appropriations Act.
    Definition.--A reprogramming includes the reallocation of 
funds from one activity to another within an appropriation, or 
any significant departure from a program, project, or activity 
described in the agency's budget justification as presented to 
and approved by Congress. For construction projects, a 
reprogramming constitutes the reallocation of funds from one 
construction project identified in the justifications to 
another project, or a significant change in the scope of an 
approved project.
    Criteria for Reprogramming.--A reprogramming should be made 
only when an unforeseen situation arises, and then only if 
delay of the project or the activity until the next 
appropriations year would result in a detrimental impact to an 
agency program or priority. Reprogrammings may also be 
considered if the Department can show that significant cost 
savings can accrue by increasing funding for an activity. Mere 
convenience or preference should not be factors for 
consideration.
    Reprogrammings shall not be employed to initiate new 
programs or to change program, project, or activity allocations 
specifically denied, limited, or increased by Congress in this 
Act or the accompanying report. In cases where unforeseen 
events or conditions are deemed to require such changes, 
proposals shall be submitted in advance to the House and Senate 
Committees on Appropriations and be fully explained and 
justified.
    Reporting and Approval Procedures.--The Committee has not 
provided statutory language to define reprogramming guidelines, 
but expects the Department to follow the spirit and the letter 
of the guidance provided in this report. Consistent with prior 
years, the Committee has not provided the Department with any 
internal reprogramming flexibility in fiscal year 2006, unless 
specifically identified in the House, Senate, or conference 
reports for particular programs, projects, or activities. Any 
reallocation of new or prior year budget authority or prior 
year deobligations must be submitted to the Committees in 
writing and may not be implemented prior to approval by the 
House and Senate Committees on Appropriations.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee's recommendations for Department of Energy 
programs are described in the following sections. A detailed 
funding table is included at the end of this title.

                     Energy Supply and Conservation





Appropriation, 2005...................................    $1,806,936,000
Budget estimate, 2006.................................     1,749,446,000
Recommended, 2006.....................................     1,762,888,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2005...............................       -44,048,000
    Budget estimate, 2006.............................       +13,442,000


    The Energy Supply and Conservation account includes the 
following programs: Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, 
Nuclear Energy, Electricity Transmission and Distribution, 
Environment, Safety and Health (non-defense), and Legacy 
Management. Energy Conservation programs previously funded by 
the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act are now 
funded by the Energy Supply and Conservation appropriation, and 
are combined with energy efficiency activities in the Energy 
Efficiency and Renewable Energy account. As in fiscal year 
2005, the Committee recommends that the funds for Energy Supply 
and Conservation activities remain available until expended.

            ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY RESOURCES

    The total Committee recommendation for energy efficiency 
and renewable energy resources is $1,235,816,000 an increase of 
$35,402,000 compared to the budget request. This increase is 
for additional research and development activities in biomass 
and biorefinery systems, building and industrial energy 
conservation, and weatherization.
    The Committee supports the efforts by the Assistant 
Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) and 
his staff to strengthen project management in EERE, with the 
establishment of the Project Management Center (PMC). With the 
success of the PMC, the Committee sees no need for third-party 
contracting agents, and discourages the Department from 
engaging in third-party arrangements for the award and 
distribution of federal funds.

            ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY PROGRAMS

    Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Programs include 
biomass and biorefinery systems R&D, geothermal technology, 
hydrogen technology, hydropower, solar energy, and wind energy 
technologies. Energy conservation activities include improving 
the efficiency of vehicle, building, fuel cell, industrial, and 
distributed energy technologies.
    Hydrogen Technology.--This account combines the Energy 
Supply Hydrogen Technology account and the Energy Conservation 
Fuel-Cell Technologies account, previously funded within the 
Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations. The hydrogen 
technology program seeks to develop hydrogen production, 
storage, delivery, and fuel cell technologies for 
transportation and stationary applications. These technologies 
will be more energy efficient, cleaner, safer and less costly 
than those currently in use. The Committee recommendation for 
hydrogen technology is $182,694,000, the same as the budget 
request, of which $83,600,000 is designated for fuel cell 
technologies.
    Biomass and Biorefinery Systems R&D.--This account combines 
the Energy Supply Biomass and Biorefinery systems R&D account 
and the Energy Conservation Biomass and Biorefinery Systems R&D 
account, previously funded by the Interior and Related Agencies 
Appropriations Act. Biomass and Biorefinery Systems R&D will 
conduct research, development and technology validation on 
advanced technologies that will enable future biorefineries to 
convert cellulosic biomass to fuels, chemicals, heat and power. 
The program focuses on reducing processing energy requirements 
and production costs in biomass processing plants and future 
integrated industrial biorefineries. The Committee 
recommendation for integrated research and development on 
biomass and biorefinery systems is $86,164,000, an increase of 
$14,000,000 from the budget request. The increase is for 
additional thermochemical and bioconversion platform research 
and development.
    Solar Energy.--Solar energy technologies include: 
photovoltaic energy systems, solar heating and lighting, and 
concentrating solar power. These subprograms are combined into 
a single account for solar energy, and the control level for 
fiscal year 2006 continues at the solar energy program account 
level. The total Committee recommendation for solar energy for 
fiscal year 2006 is $83,953,000, the same as the budget 
request.
    Wind Energy Systems.--Wind energy systems are beginning to 
penetrate the electricity generation market in the United 
States. Given the technical maturity of high-capacity wind 
energy systems, the wind energy systems program will focus on 
development of wind turbines that can operate economically in 
areas with low wind speeds, small wind turbines that can serve 
a range of distributed power applications, and system 
technology in support of offshore wind resources, particularly 
beyond the viewshed of coastal communities. The Committee 
recommends $44,249,000 for wind energy systems, the same as the 
budget request.
    Geothermal Technology.--This program develops enhanced 
geothermal systems that will allow the broader use of 
geothermal energy throughout the United States, through 
cooperative research with industry, universities, and other 
government agencies to reduce the cost of geothermal 
development and to identify new resources. The Committee 
provides $23,299,000 for geothermal technology development, the 
same as the budget request.
    Hydropower.--The Committee recommends $500,000 for 
hydropower research, the same as the budget request. The 
Department should complete integration studies and close out 
outstanding contracts in advanced hydropower technology.
    Vehicle Technologies.--This program was previously funded 
in the Energy Conservation account in the Interior and Related 
Agencies Appropriations Act, and now is funded within the 
Energy Supply and Conservation account of this Act. The Vehicle 
Technologies program seeks technology breakthroughs to reduce 
greatly petroleum use by automobiles and trucks of all sizes, 
including R&D on lightweight materials, electronic power 
control, high power storage and hybrid electric drive motors. 
The Committee recommends $167,943,000, an increase of 
$2,000,000 above the budget request. The increase provides 
$1,000,000 for the High Temperature Material Laboratory, and 
$1,000,000 for Advanced Combustion R&D, Combustion and Emission 
Control.
    Building Technologies.--This program was previously funded 
in the Energy Conservation account in the Interior and Related 
Agencies Appropriations Act, and now is funded within the 
Energy Supply and Conservation account. In partnership with the 
buildings industry, this program develops, promotes, and 
integrates energy technologies and practices to make buildings 
more efficient and affordable. The Committee recommends 
$64,966,000, an increase of $7,000,000 over the budget request 
of $57,966,000. The recommendation provides $2,000,000 to 
restore funding at fiscal year 2005 levels for equipment 
standards and analysis at $10,256,000; and an increase of 
$5,000,000 for emerging technologies, which includes $2,000,000 
for lighting R&D, and $3,000,000 for thermal insulation and 
building materials.
    Report Requirement.--The appliance efficiency standards 
program, funded within the equipment standards and analysis 
subaccount, may be the most successful of all federal 
efficiency programs. The Committee understands that the 
Department is delayed in meeting legal deadlines for issuing 
approximately twenty new and updated programs, and that its 
three highest priority rulemakings will be delayed at least two 
years. The Committee notes that while the Department is behind 
in meeting legal deadlines for the issuance of certain 
rulemakings, its budget request reflects a reduction in 
resources needed to process such rulemakings. The goal of the 
Department's own ``Process Improvement'' rule (61 FR 36974) is 
to complete rulemakings within three years, including 18 months 
from Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to issuance of a 
final rule. The Committee strongly urges the Secretary to 
expedite the process, and requests that the Secretary report to 
the Committee by December 1, 2005 on plans to accelerate 
standards rulemakings, including:
          --A timeline for work on issuing the three highest 
        priority standards, with an explanation for the 
        additional delays announced in December 2004;
          --A plan for addressing the backlog of standards 
        rulemakings that have missed legal or internal 
        deadlines, including a list of the affected products 
        and deadlines, timelines for action on each product, 
        and funding requirements to complete each rulemaking; 
        and
          --A description of how the Department will meet the 
        timeframe goals of the ``Process Improvement'' rule, or 
        of how the process should be changed so that the 
        Department can meet the goals.
    Lighting R&D.--Improvements in energy efficiency that can 
result from development and deployment of solid-state lighting 
technologies show great promise. The goal is to have lighting 
systems that deliver 150 lumens per watt--roughly 50% better in 
terms of light per watt of electricity than most conventional 
systems--at costs that are competitive. Lighting constitutes 
about 30% of total energy use in US buildings, so increased 
investment in lighting technologies has the potential to reduce 
total building energy consumption by 10%.
    Industrial Technologies.--This program was previously 
funded in the Energy Conservation account in the Interior and 
Related Agencies Appropriations Act, and now is funded within 
the Energy Supply and Conservation appropriation account within 
this Act. The Industrial technologies program cost shares 
research in critical technology areas identified in partnership 
with industry in order to realize significant energy benefits. 
The Committee recommends $58,891,000, an increase of $2,402,000 
over the budget request, and a reduction of $16,458,000 below 
fiscal year 2005 levels. The recommendation provides the 
$2,402,000 increase for Industries of the Future to partially 
restore some of these programmatic reductions.
    Distributed Energy and Electricity Reliability Program.--
This program was previously funded in the Energy Conservation 
account in the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations 
Act, and now is funded within the Energy Supply and 
Conservation account within this Act. This program funds 
research and development to transform the current electrical 
generation sector to a smarter, more flexible and efficient 
energy system through the development and integration of 
distributed generation and combined heat and power 
technologies. The Committee recommends $56,629,000, the same as 
the budget request.
    Federal Energy Management Programs.--The Federal Energy 
Management Program was previously funded in the Energy 
Conservation account in the Interior and Related Agencies 
Appropriations Act. The Committee has combined it with the 
Energy Supply and Conservation Departmental Energy Management 
Program, so that energy efficiency programs for both the DOE 
and other Federal agencies are funded in one appropriations 
account. Federal Energy Management Programs reduce the cost and 
environmental impact of the Federal government by advancing 
energy efficiency and water conservation, promoting the use of 
renewable energy, and managing utility costs in Federal 
facilities and operations. The Committee recommendation for 
Federal Energy Management Programs is $19,166,000, the same as 
the budget request.
    Facilities and Infrastructure.--The Committee 
recommendation for renewable energy Facilities and 
Infrastructure is $16,315,000, the same as the budget request 
and an increase of $4,926,000 compared to fiscal year 2005. 
This amount includes $5,800,000 for operations and maintenance 
of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) in Golden, 
Colorado, and $10,515,000 to complete construction of the new 
Science and Technology facility at NREL (project 02-E-001).
    Weatherization and Intergovernmental activities.--
Weatherization assistance program grants, state energy program 
grants, state energy activities and gateway deployment were 
previously funded in the Energy Conservation account in the 
Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, and are now 
funded within the Energy Supply and Conversation account within 
this Act. Intergovernmental activities within the Energy Supply 
and Conversation appropriation include the International 
Renewable Energy Program, Tribal energy activities and the 
Renewable Energy Production Incentive.
    The Committee recommends $235,400,000 for weatherization 
assistance program grants, $4,600,000 for training and 
technical assistance, $41,000,000 for state energy program 
grants, $500,000 for state energy activities the same as the 
request, and $25,657,000 for gateway deployment, a reduction of 
$1,000,000 from the request. The Committee recommends that 
gateway deployment funds be distributed as follows: $2,807,000 
for Rebuild America, $350,000 for energy efficiency information 
and outreach, $5,500,000 for building codes training and 
assistance, $7,000,000 for Clean Cities, $6,000,000 for Energy 
Star, and $4,000,000 for inventions and innovations. The 
Committee recommends $12,910,000 for Intergovernmental 
Activities, an increase of $1,000,000 over the budget request, 
to include $3,910,000 for the international renewable energy 
program, $4,000,000 for tribal energy activities, and 
$5,000,000 for the Renewable Energy Production Incentive 
(REPI).
    Program Support.--This account reflects a consolidation of 
the Energy Conservation Program Management activities, such as 
planning, analysis and evaluation and, information, 
communications and outreach, which were funded previously in 
the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, with the 
Energy Supply Renewable Program Support. The Committee 
recommendation for Program Support is $9,456,000 the same as 
the budget request.
    Program Direction.--This account reflects a consolidation 
of the Energy Conservation Program Direction account, which was 
funded previously in the Interior and Related Agencies 
Appropriations Act, with the Energy Supply Renewable Program 
Direction account. The Committee recommendation for Program 
Direction is $101,524,000, the same as the budget request.
    Congressionally Directed Projects.--The Committee 
recommendation includes the following Congressionally directed 
projects, within available funds. The Committee reminds 
recipients that statutory cost sharing requirements may attach 
to these projects.


               ELECTRICITY TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION

    The Committee recommendation for Electricity Transmission 
and Distribution is $99,849,000, an increase of $4,245,000 from 
the budget request. The Committee does not support the entire 
requested increase for program direction. Instead, the 
Committee recommends $10,447,000 for program direction 
activities, an increase of $2,312,000 over the fiscal year 2005 
level. Detailed subprogram allocations are shown in the table 
at the end of Title III.
    Congressionally Directed Projects.--The Committee 
recommendation includes the following Congressionally directed 
projects, within available funds. The Committee reminds 
recipients that statutory cost sharing requirements may attach 
to these projects.


                        NUCLEAR ENERGY PROGRAMS

    The Committee recommendation for nuclear energy programs 
under the Energy Supply and Conservation appropriation is 
$377,701,000, a decrease of $12,205,000 below the budget 
request. This net decrease reflects the Committee's 
recommendation to shift the responsibility for U-233 
disposition at Oak Ridge from Nuclear Energy Programs to NNSA, 
a reduction of $18,705,000, and a reduction of $10,000,000 to 
Nuclear Power 2010. The Committee has provided an additional 
$16,500,000 for increased programmatic activities for the 
Office of Nuclear Energy, as described below.
    Of the total funding of $515,074,000 provided for Nuclear 
Energy programs and facilities, $137,373,000 represents costs 
allocated to the 050 budget function (i.e., defense 
activities.) These defense-related costs, which include 
$3,003,000 representing the security charges for reimbursable 
work, and are funded under the Other Defense Activities and 
Naval Reactors accounts. Within the total amount provided, 
$3,000,000 is for the transfer and implementation of nuclear 
safety technologies in Lithuania.

             UNIVERSITY REACTOR FUEL ASSISTANCE AND SUPPORT

    The Committee recommends $24,000,000, the same as the 
budget request. The Committee continues to support DOE's 
programs to sustain existing university reactors and provide 
grants and fellowships that support nuclear science and 
engineering education.

                NUCLEAR ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

    Nuclear Power 2010.--The Committee provides $46,000,000 for 
Nuclear Power 2010, a decrease of $10,000,000 from the budget 
request.
    Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems.--The Committee 
supports the Department's collaborative efforts on the research 
and development of a Generation IV reactor design that will be 
safer, more cost effective, and more proliferation resistant 
than current designs. The Committee recommends a total of 
$45,000,000 for Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems, the same 
as the budget request and an increase of $5,320,000 over the 
fiscal year 2005 enacted level. Within available funds, 
$1,000,000 is made available for work on high temperature fuel 
fabrication techniques in support of the Generation IV Nuclear 
Energy Systems under the direction of Idaho National Laboratory 
(INL).
    Nuclear hydrogen initiative.--The Committee provides 
$20,000,000 for the nuclear hydrogen initiative, the same as 
the budget request. The Committee expects the Department to 
meet the requirements of the Hydrogen Future Act of 1996 (P.L. 
104-271) for competition and industry cost sharing, and expects 
the Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology to 
coordinate the nuclear hydrogen initiative fully with the other 
hydrogen research being conducted by the Office of Science and 
the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
    Spent Fuel Recycling Initiative.--As mentioned previously 
in this report, the Committee directs the Department to conduct 
a new Spent Fuel Recycling Initiative, which has linked 
elements in both the Nuclear Energy and Nuclear Waste Disposal 
accounts. One part of this initiative requires the Department 
to begin to move existing spent nuclear fuel away from 
commercial reactor sites to centralized interim storage at one 
or more DOE sites. This task is the responsibility of the 
Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, and funding 
and direction are provided under the Nuclear Waste Disposal 
account. The other part of this initiative deals with 
developing a new strategy for managing future spent fuel, which 
is the responsibility of the Office of Nuclear Energy, Science 
and Technology within the Energy Supply and Conservation 
account.
    Up until the mid-1970s, the Federal government encouraged 
the reprocessing of commercial spent fuel in the United States, 
and commercial reprocessing facilities were developed at Morris 
(IL), West Valley (NY), and Barnwell (SC). Only the West Valley 
facility was ever operated, and it reprocessed both commercial 
and defense spent fuel. In the late 1970s, the United States 
decided to suspend commercial reprocessing efforts, primarily 
due to non-proliferation concerns that separated plutonium 
could be diverted to produce illicit nuclear weapons. Spent 
nuclear fuel, which contains a small percentage of plutonium 
created during the fission reaction, was considered to be 
inherently self-protecting because its high radiation levels 
would prevent its diversion to other purposes. Therefore, as 
long as it was not reprocessed, spent nuclear fuel was not 
considered to pose a significant proliferation risk. The U.S. 
ban on reprocessing was lifted in the 1980s, but economics did 
not support the reprocessing of commercial spent nuclear fuel 
at that time, especially in light of the lack of new nuclear 
plant orders and cancellation of existing orders after the 
Three Mile Island accident in 1979.
    Since the 1970s, U.S. policy on spent nuclear fuel has been 
to utilize the once-through fuel cycle and to store the spent 
fuel at reactor sites until it can be sent to the repository 
for permanent geologic disposal, without recycling the spent 
fuel. By the year 2005, however, several key conditions have 
changed significantly. A number of European countries are using 
existing reprocessing capabilities to recycle spent fuel in a 
safe and secure manner using the chemical reprocessing 
technology known as PUREX. There is no evidence that these 
reprocessing operations pose a significant proliferation risk. 
In part, the proliferation risk is manageable and acceptable 
because these countries recycle as they go, so that spent fuel 
is reprocessed and then promptly made into new mixed oxide 
fuel. These countries also vitrify the high-level waste 
promptly, avoiding the problems that the U.S. has encountered 
with storing large volumes of liquid high-level radioactive 
waste. New reprocessing technologies are becoming available 
that reduce the volume, toxicity, and fissile material content 
of the material requiring disposal in a permanent repository. 
New separation and reprocessing technologies may avoid the 
problems caused by separated plutonium and will produce smaller 
waste streams of high-level radioactive waste. Lastly, the 
theft or diversion of weapons-grade nuclear materials (i.e., 
plutonium and highly-enriched uranium) is no longer the only 
nuclear-related security concern. After the terrorist attacks 
of September 11, 2001, there are serious concerns about the 
potential for using spent nuclear fuel to create a ``dirty 
bomb'' to spread radioactive contamination over a large area. 
Spent nuclear fuel is currently stored at 72 commercial reactor 
sites in 33 States, as well as at a number of other DOE and 
commercial storage sites. The utilities and the Federal 
government spend a significant amount of money securing this 
spent fuel. While some onsite storage of spent fuel is 
necessary while the spent fuel cools, and more extensive onsite 
storage may be a manageable security risk, the large-scale and 
long-term storage of spent fuel at reactor sites is 
nevertheless an expensive and unnecessary risk. These security 
costs are making the once-through fuel cycle progressively more 
expensive. Common sense dictates that these materials would be 
better stored in fewer, centralized interim storage facilities 
in remote locations, away from population centers and water 
supplies. Although reprocessed mixed oxide reactor fuel is 
presently more costly than fresh uranium oxide fuel, the price 
of uranium has been rising in recent years. Also, there is not 
a life-cycle comparison that reflects the added costs for 
onsite storage of once-through spent fuel, the extended life of 
the repository up to 300,000 years (in accordance with the 
court-ordered review of the radiation standard), and the 
estimated $1 billion per year cost for delay in opening the 
Yucca Mountain repository.
    Shifting away from a once-through fuel cycle to a recycling 
approach does not eliminate the need for a geologic repository 
for future spent fuel disposal, because significant quantities 
of high-level waste that will require long-term geologic 
isolation will remain. However, recycling via advanced 
reprocessing technologies can reduce the volume of such high-
level waste substantially. Such a volume reduction could 
obviate the need to expand Yucca or site a second repository in 
the near future. Reprocessing can also reduce the radiotoxicity 
of the waste products, making a repository a simpler 
proposition to license. Also, by vitrifying the high-level 
waste into glass cylinders, the long-term protection comes from 
the properties of the glass itself, lessening the reliance on 
metal containers for long-term isolation of spent fuel. A shift 
to recycling our nuclear reactor fuel will reduce the Nation's 
dependence on foreign sources of fuel for present and planned 
future reactors, and the construction of new reactors can 
reduce the Nation's dependence on imported fossil fuels.
    Therefore, the Committee directs the Office of Nuclear 
Energy, Science and Technology to focus its research under the 
Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative to develop advanced reprocessing 
and transmutation technologies that will improve upon the 
existing PUREX process. The Department shall accelerate this 
research in order to make a specific technology recommendation, 
not later than the end of fiscal year 2007, to the President 
and Congress on a particular reprocessing technology that 
should be implemented in the United States. In addition, the 
Department shall prepare an integrated spent fuel recycling 
plan for implementation beginning in fiscal year 2007, 
including recommendation of an advanced reprocessing technology 
and a competitive process to select one or more sites to 
develop integrated spent fuel recycling facilities (i.e., 
reprocessing, preparation of mixed oxide fuel, vitrification of 
high level waste products, and temporary process storage). Some 
of the DOE sites would seem obvious candidates for such 
facilities, but there may also be interest from some States and 
other entities to host such facilities.
    Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative.--The Committee 
recommendation for the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative (AFCI) is 
$75,500,000, an increase of $8,044,000 over the current year 
and $5,500,000 more than the budget request. The additional 
funds are to be used to accelerate the development and 
selection of a separations technology no later than the end of 
fiscal year 2007 that can address the current inventories of 
commercial spent nuclear fuel, and prepare an integrated spent 
nuclear fuel recycling plan. The Committee directs the 
Department to submit the integrated spent nuclear fuel 
recycling plan to the House and Senate Committees on 
Appropriations by January 31, 2007.

                   RADIOLOGICAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT

    The purpose of the Radiological Facilities Management 
program is to maintain the critical infrastructure necessary to 
support users from the defense, space, and medical communities. 
These users fund DOE's actual operational, production, and 
research activities on a reimbursable basis.
    Space and defense infrastructure.--The Committee 
recommendation is $39,700,000, an increase of $8,500,000 over 
the budget request. This includes the requested amounts to 
operate radioisotope power systems at the Idaho National 
Laboratory (INL), maintain iridium capabilities at Oak Ridge 
National Laboratory, and maintain and operate the Pu-238 
mission at Los Alamos.
    The Committee recognizes the need to make available 
additional floor space in TA-55 for pit production, and directs 
the Department to develop a strategy to relocate expeditiously 
the mission for Pu-238 processing from Los Alamos to Idaho 
National Laboratory. The Committee provides an increase of 
$8,500,000 for INL to plan and build the capability to assume 
the Pu-238 mission, avoiding a gap in capability during the 
mission transfer. The Committee directs the Department to 
provide a mid-year report by January 31, 2006, on the transfer 
strategy and associated costs.
    Medical isotopes infrastructure.--The Committee 
recommendation is $14,395,000, a reduction of $18,705,000 from 
the budget request. The recommendation provides the requested 
amounts for Oak Ridge buildings 3047, 5500, 9204-3, the 
Calutron building at Y-12, isotope business management 
information, and for various facility costs at Brookhaven, Los 
Alamos, and Sandia national laboratories.
    The Committee provides no funding for the Medical Isotope 
Production and Building 3019 Complex Shutdown project. The 
Committee has been skeptical since the onset of this project, 
skepticism which has been confirmed when the fiscal year 2006 
budget justification data sheet reveals that the costs for this 
project have increased by 3.5 times over the previous cost 
estimate. The Department acknowledges that this new increased 
estimate does not even include funding necessary to meet the 
latest security requirements for this facility. Therefore, the 
Committee directs the Department to terminate promptly the 
Medical Isotope Production and Building 3019 Complex Shutdown 
project, and directs the NNSA to retrieve the U-233 material 
and put it into secure storage at a NNSA site.
    One of the highest priorities for the Committee is to 
ensure the swift and safe consolidation of special nuclear 
materials at DOE sites. The Committee expects the Office of 
Nuclear Energy to work cooperatively and effectively with the 
Office of Security and Performance Assurance to expeditiously 
achieve consolidation goals, thereby limiting the number of 
sites where the DOE holds and protects category I and II 
special nuclear materials.
    Enrichment facility infrastructure.--The Committee 
recommendation includes the requested $500,000 for oversight of 
enrichment facilities at the Government-owned, USEC-operated 
gaseous diffusion plant at Paducah.

                      IDAHO FACILITIES MANAGEMENT

    This program funds the operations and construction 
activities at the Idaho National Laboratory (INL), including 
ANL-West and the Test Reactor Area. The Committee provides 
$113,862,000 for Idaho Facilities Management, an increase of 
$16,000,000 over the budget request. Of this total, $82,600,000 
is allotted to the 270 budget function and the balance, 
$31,262,000, is allotted to the 050 function and funded under 
Other Defense Activities and Naval Reactors.
    INL operations.--The Committee recommendation provides the 
requested amount of funding, $69,145,000 from function 270 
Energy Supply, $17,762,000 from Other Defense Activities, and 
an increase of $13,500,000 from the Office of Naval Reactors to 
support the Idaho National Laboratory's Advanced Test Reactor 
(ATR). The increase is provided to maintain the current level 
of operations, make improvements, and implement the Long Range 
Operating Plan at the ATR. The Committee also provides an 
additional $2,500,000 for the utility corridor extension 
project at the Idaho National Laboratory.
    INL Construction.--The Committee recommends $10,955,000 for 
Idaho facilities construction, the same as the budget request. 
This includes the requested amounts for the Gas Test Loop in 
the Advanced Test Reactor.

Idaho Site-wide Safeguards and Security

    Consistent with the budget request, this activity is funded 
at the requested level of $75,008,000 as an 050 defense 
activity under the Other Defense Activities account.

                           PROGRAM DIRECTION

    The Committee recommends a total funding level for program 
direction of $61,109,000, the same as the budget request and 
$1,033,000 more than the current fiscal year. Of this amount, 
$30,006,000 is funded in the Energy Supply appropriation under 
budget function 270, and $31,103,000 is funded in the Other 
Defense Activities appropriation under budget function 050.

                     ENVIRONMENT, SAFETY AND HEALTH

    The Committee recommendation is $26,000,000, a reduction of 
$4,000,000 from the budget request due to overall funding 
constraints. The Committee recommendation includes $20,900,000 
for program direction, the same as the budget request. Like 
fiscal year 2005, no funds are provided in this Act for the 
Department to finalize or implement a new worker safety rule in 
fiscal year 2006.

                           LEGACY MANAGEMENT

    The Committee recommendation includes $23,522,000 for the 
Office of Legacy Management, a reduction of $10,000,000 from 
the budget request. Committee directs the Department to 
reassess the proportional split between non-defense and defense 
funding for Legacy Management activities in anticipation of the 
defense closure sites transitioning to Legacy Management 
responsibility. Funding from the Energy Supply account is 
provided for the long-term surveillance and maintenance of non-
defense DOE sites where remediation has been substantially 
completed, to oversee post-retirement benefits for former DOE 
contractor employees, and for records management and retrieval.

                         CLEAN COAL TECHNOLOGY

                               (DEFERRAL)

    The Committee recommends the deferral of $257,000,000 in 
clean coal technology funding until fiscal year 2007. These 
balances are not needed to complete active projects in this 
program. Funds are to be used for costs associated with the 
FutureGen program in fiscal 2007 and beyond, to develop a coal-
fired, nearly emissions-free electricity and hydrogen 
generation plant.

                 FOSSIL ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

    Fossil energy research and development programs are 
intended to make prudent investments in long-range research and 
development that help protect the environment through higher 
efficiency power generation, advanced technologies and improved 
compliance and stewardship operations. These activities 
safeguard our domestic energy security. This country will 
continue to rely on traditional fossil fuels for the majority 
of its energy requirements for the foreseeable future, and the 
activities funded through this account ensure that energy 
technologies continue to improve with respect to emissions 
reductions and control and energy efficiency.
    Fossil fuels, especially coal, are this country's most 
abundant and lowest cost fuels for electric power generation. 
The power generation technology research funded under this 
account has the goal of developing virtually pollution-free 
coal power plants within the next 15 or 20 years and doubling 
the amount of electricity produced from the same amount of 
fuel.
    The Committee recommendation is $502,467,000, an increase 
of $11,011,000 over the request, and a decrease of $69,387,000 
from fiscal year 2005 enacted levels.




Appropriation, 2005...................................      $571,854,000
Budget estimate, 2006.................................       491,456,000
Recommended, 2006.....................................       502,467,000
Comparison:
  Appropriation, 2005.................................       -69,387,000
  Budget estimate, 2006...............................       +11,011,000


    Clean coal power initiative.--This program researches, 
develops, and demonstrates commercial readiness to implement 
advanced clean coal-based technologies that enhance electricity 
reliability, increase generation capacity, and reduce 
emissions. The Committee recommends $50,000,000 for the clean 
coal power initiative, the same as the budget request. This 
funding will support the third round of demonstration projects, 
incorporating the latest advances in clean coal technologies.
    FutureGen.--FutureGen is a $1 billion project, cost-shared 
with the private sector, to create the world's first fossil 
fuel-fired, zero emissions, electricity and hydrogen-producing 
power plant. The Committee recommends $18,000,000, the same as 
the request, for FutureGen. This funding will support the 
continuation of site characterization, technology assessments 
and preliminary design.
    Fuels and Power Systems.--The Committee recommends a total 
of $265,800,000 for fuels and power systems, a decrease of 
$17,200,000 from the budget request. The recommendation 
provides $23,850,000 for innovations for existing plants, 
$56,450,000 for advanced Integrated Gas Combined Cycle, and 
$18,000,000 for advanced turbines, the same as the request. The 
Committee recommends $50,000,000 for carbon sequestration, a 
reduction of $17,200,000 from the request, and an increase of 
$4,639,000 over last year's level. The Committee believes that 
this level of funding is sufficient to accomplish numerous 
pilot-scale capture tests. The program cannot absorb the scale 
of resources proposed in the request, and these resources are 
better utilized for other nearer-term technologies within the 
Fossil Energy R&D portfolio. The Committee recommends 
$22,000,000 for fuels, $65,000,000 for fuel cells, and 
$30,500,000 for advanced research, the same as the request.
    Natural Gas Technologies.--The Committee recommends 
$33,000,000 for natural gas technologies, an increase of 
$23,000,000 over the budget request and $11,389,000 below the 
fiscal year 2005 level. The budget request is $10,000,000 for 
natural gas technologies, to terminate the program and close-
out existing contracts. The Committee is concerned that with 
U.S. over-reliance on foreign oil imports and the pressures to 
increase greatly imports of natural gas, the budget proposes to 
terminate the federal research and development programs that 
seek to promote enhanced oil and gas recovery from existing 
domestic sources through new technology.
    Within the $33,000,000 provided, the Committee recommends 
$9,000,000 for advance drilling, completion and stimulation, 
including Deep Trek; $4,000,000 to continue work aimed at 
expanding the recoverability of natural gas from low-
permeability formations; $2,000,000 for stripper wells and 
technology transfer; $1,000,000 to improve the reliability and 
efficiency of gas storage system; and $2,000,000 for liquid 
natural gas technologies.
    Methane hydrates hold tremendous potential to provide 
abundant supplies of natural gas. Globally, more energy 
potential is stored in methane hydrates than in all other known 
fossil fuel reserves combined. It appears that the United 
States may be endowed with over 25 percent of total worldwide 
methane hydrate deposits. Within the funds provided, the 
Committee recommends $12,000,000 for gas hydrates, an increase 
of $12,000,000 over the request, and an increase of $2,632,000 
over fiscal year 2005 enacted levels. The Committee recommends 
$3,000,000 to continue research to develop treatment 
technologies that will allow water from conventional gas wells 
or coal bed methane wells to be put to beneficial use or to be 
safely discharged to the surface.
    Petroleum-Oil Technologies.--The Committee recommends 
$29,000,000 for petroleum-oil technologies, an increase of 
$19,000,000 over the budget request and $4,921,000 below the 
fiscal year 2005 level. The budget request of $10,000,000 for 
petroleum-oil technologies is to terminate the program and 
close-out existing contracts. The Committee supports the 
continuance of these important research and development 
programs that are targeted at maximizing domestic oil 
production for the smaller producer, and decreasing reliance on 
foreign oil imports. Small independent businesses account for 
50 percent of domestic petroleum production in the lower 48 
states. Even when new technology is available, independent 
producers often lack the investment capital to cope with the 
increased technical risks associated with hard-to-recover 
resources. As a result, anywhere from 30 to 70 percent of oil 
is not recovered in field development. It is estimated that 
enhanced oil recovery projects, including development of new 
recovery techniques, could add about 60 billion barrels of oil 
nationwide from existing fields.
    Within the funds provided, the Committee recommends 
$4,000,000 for enhancing utilization of industrial carbon 
dioxide; $4,000,000 for drilling and completion enhancements 
that support Microhole exploration; $4,000,000 for reservoir 
imaging; $3,000,000 for improved gas flooding recovery methods; 
$6,000,000 for reservoir life extension; and $8,000,000 for 
environmental protection.
    Strategic Plans.--In light of the criticism launched at the 
natural gas and petroleum/oil research and development 
programs, illustrated by the poor score achieved in the 
Administration's PART tool, the Department needs a better 
mechanism to articulate its achievements in these areas. The 
Department is encouraged to develop a strategic planning 
process that demonstrates a clear path of investment that will 
yield demonstrable results, and better reflect the successes of 
these programs. The Department is directed to report to the 
House and Senate Committees on Appropriations by December 15, 
2005, on the progress of implementing its strategic planning 
process for the natural gas and petroleum-oil research and 
development programs.
    Program Direction.--The Committee recommends $105,152,000 
for program direction, an increase of $6,211,000 over the 
budget request. The Committee seeks to maintain the personnel 
that otherwise would be lost as the result of the proposed gas 
and petroleum-oil program terminations.
    Other programs.--The Committee recommendation includes the 
requested amounts of $8,060,000 for fossil energy environmental 
restoration; $1,799,000 for import/export authorization; 
$8,000,000 for advanced metallurgical research; $656,000 for 
special recruitment programs and $3,000,000 for cooperative 
research and development.
    Prior year balances.--The Committee recommends a reduction 
of $20,000,000 of prior year uncommitted balances from excess 
contingency estimates in demonstration projects.
    Congressionally Directed Projects.--The Committee 
recommendation includes the following Congressionally directed 
projects, within available funds:

Fuels & Power:
    Center for Zero Emissions Research & Technology (MT)......$4,000,000
    Jupiter Oxy Fuel Technology (multi state)................. 5,000,000
    Solid Oxide fuel cell tech. stat. power applications 
      project (NC)............................................ 1,000,000
    MW-scale oxide fuel cell gas turbine hybrid system (multi 
      state).................................................. 2,500,000
    MW-scale solid oxide fuel cell stat. power generation (OH) 3,000,000
    Ramgen engine development (multi state)................... 2,500,000
    Center for Advanced Separation Technologies (VA).......... 1,000,000
    Power Plant Flue Gas Cleaning/Pill Elimination Project 
      (VA).................................................... 2,000,000

                 NAVAL PETROLEUM AND OIL SHALE RESERVES

    The Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves no longer serve 
the national defense purpose envisioned in the early 1900's, 
and consequently the National Defense Authorization Act for 
fiscal year 1996 required the sale of the Government's interest 
in the Naval Petroleum Reserve 1 (NPR-1). To comply with this 
requirement, the Elk Hills field in California was sold to 
Occidental Petroleum Corporation in 1998. Following the sale of 
Elk Hills and the transfer of the oil shale reserves, DOE 
retains two Naval Petroleum Reserve properties: the Naval 
Petroleum Reserve 3 in Wyoming (Teapot Dome field), a stripper 
well oil field that the Department is maintaining until it 
reaches its economic production limit; and the Buena Vista 
Hills Naval Petroleum Reserve 2 in California, a checkerboard 
pattern of government and privately owned tracts adjacent to 
the Elk Hills field. The DOE continues to be responsible for 
routine operations and maintenance of NPR-3, management of the 
Rocky Mountain Oilfield Testing Center at NPR-3, lease 
management at NPR-2, and continuing environmental and 
remediation work at Elk Hills.




Appropriation, 2005...................................       $17,750,000
Budget estimate, 2006.................................        18,500,000
Recommended, 2006.....................................        18,500,000
Comparison:
  Appropriation, 2005.................................          +750,000
  Budget estimate, 2006...............................  ................


    The Committee recommends $18,500,000, the same as the 
budget request for the operation of the naval petroleum and oil 
shale reserves and an increase of $750,000 above the fiscal 
year 2005 level.

                      ELK HILLS SCHOOL LANDS FUND

    Payment to the Elk Hills school lands fund was part of the 
settlement associated with the sale of the Naval Petroleum 
Reserve Number 1. Under the settlement, payments to the fund 
are to be made over a period of seven years. The payments to 
date ($216,000,000) were based on an estimate of the amount 
that would be required to pay the State of California nine 
percent of the net sales of proceeds.




Appropriation, 2005...................................   \1\ $36,000,000
Budget estimate, 2006.................................        48,000,000
Recommended, 2006.....................................        48,000,000
Comparison:
  Appropriation, 2005.................................       +48,000,000
  Budget estimate, 2006...............................  ................

\1\ The FY 2005 enacted level reflects an advanced appropriation
  available on October 1, 2005.

    The Committee recommends $48,000,000, the same as the 
budget request, and combined with the fiscal year 2005 advance 
appropriation of $36,000,000, will make available a total of 
$84,000,000 in fiscal year 2006. While this represents Payment 
#7 in a series of seven payments, the Committee understands 
that the final amount due will be based on the resolution of 
equity determinations, which cannot be determined until all 
divestment-related expenses are accounted for.

                      STRATEGIC PETROLEUM RESERVE

    The mission of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) is to 
store petroleum to reduce the adverse economic impact of a 
major petroleum supply interruption to the U.S. and to carry 
out obligations under the international energy program. The 
reserve will be filled to 700 million barrels in 2005, 
providing 59 days of net import protection.




Appropriation, 2005...................................      $169,710,000
Budget estimate, 2006.................................       166,000,000
Recommended, 2006.....................................       166,000,000
Comparison:
  Appropriation, 2005.................................        -3,710,000
  Budget estimate, 2006...............................  ................


    The Committee recommends $166,000,000, the same as the 
budget request, for operation of the Strategic Petroleum 
Reserve, a decrease of $3,710,000 from the fiscal year 2005 
level.

                   NORTHEAST HOME HEATING OIL RESERVE

    The acquisition and storage of heating oil for the 
Northeast states began in August 2000 when the Department of 
Energy, through the Strategic Petroleum Reserve account, 
awarded contracts for the lease of commercial storage 
facilities and acquisition of heating oil. The purpose of the 
reserve is to assure home heating oil supplies for the 
Northeast States during times of very low inventories and 
significant threats to immediate supply of heating oil. The 
Northeast Heating Oil Reserve was established as a separate 
entity from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve on March 6, 2001. 
The 2,000,000 barrel reserve is stored in commercial facilities 
in New York Harbor, New Haven, Connecticut, and the Providence, 
Rhode Island area.




Appropriation, 2005...................................        $4,960,000
Budget estimate, 2006.................................  ................
Recommended, 2006.....................................  ................
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2005...............................        -4,960,000
    Budget estimate, 2006.............................  ................


    The Committee recommends no new appropriation, the same as 
the budget request, for the Northeast Home Heating Oil reserve, 
a decrease of $4,960,000 from the fiscal 2005 level. All 
activities in fiscal year 2006 are funded from carryover 
balances.

                   ENERGY INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION

    The Energy Information Administration (EIA) is a quasi-
independent agency within the Department of Energy established 
to provide timely, objective, and accurate energy-related 
information to the Congress, executive branch, State 
governments, industry, and the public. The information and 
analysis prepared by the EIA is widely disseminated and the 
agency is recognized as an unbiased source of energy 
information by government organizations, industry, professional 
statistical organizations, and the public.




Appropriation, 2005...................................       $83,819,000
Budget estimate, 2006.................................        85,926,000
Recommended, 2006.....................................        86,426,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2005...............................        +2,607,000
    Budget estimate, 2006.............................          +500,000


    The Committee recommends $86,426,000, $500,000 above the 
request, for the Energy Information Administration, an increase 
of $2,607,000 above fiscal year 2005 level. The Committee's 
increase of $500,000 above the request is to fund increased 
requirements for cybersecurity measures to safeguard computer 
systems and data integrity.

                  NON-DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT

    The Non-Defense Environmental Management program includes 
funds to manage and clean up sites used for civilian energy 
research, and non-defense related activities. These past 
activities resulted in radioactive, hazardous, and mixed waste 
contamination that requires remediation, stabilization, or some 
other type of action.
    The Non-Defense Environmental Management activities were 
previously funded in three separate accounts, two of which are 
now combined: Non-Defense Site Acceleration Completion, and 
Non-Defense Environmental Services are now one account, Non-
Defense Environmental Cleanup. The Uranium Enrichment 
Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund for environmental 
management responsibilities at the three gaseous diffusion 
enrichment plants (Oak Ridge, Portsmouth, and Paducah) and for 
reimbursement of licensees conducting cleanup of uranium and 
thorium processing sites remains the same.
    The Committee remains committed to the strategy of 
accelerating cleanup and closing sites. However, the 
categorization of funding activities by planning goals has 
diminished in utility over time--dates slip, and activities 
that do not fit the ``2012'' timeframe were merely moved into 
the ``2035'' timeframe as a matter of course. As such, the 
Committee no longer finds this display of activities useful, 
and has moved to a location/site-based display, to increase the 
transparency of where environmental cleanup dollars are being 
spent. The Committee requests that Congressional budget 
submissions be submitted in this format in the future.
    Milestone report.--While the budget structure has changed, 
the Committee remains interested in whether the Department has 
met its goals for completion for years 2006, 2012, and 2035. 
Beginning December 31, 2005, the Committee requests a quarterly 
report, by site, that tracks accelerated clean-up milestones, 
whether they are being met or not, and includes annual budget 
estimates and life-cycle costs.
    Reprogramming Authority.--The Committee continues to 
support the need for flexibility to meet changing funding 
requirements at sites. In fiscal year 2006, the Department may 
transfer up to $2,000,000 between control points, to reduce 
health or safety risks or to gain cost savings as long as no 
program or project is increased or decreased by more than 
$2,000,000 once during the fiscal year. The control points for 
reprogramming are the Fast Flux Test Reactor Facility, West 
Valley Demonstration Project, Gaseous Diffusion Plants, Small 
Sites, and construction line-items. This reprogramming 
authority may not be used to initiate new programs or programs 
specifically denied, limited, or increased by Congress in the 
Act or report. The Committees on Appropriations of the House 
and Senate must be notified within thirty days prior to the use 
of this reprogramming authority.
    Economic development.--None of the Non-Defense 
Environmental Management funds, including those provided in the 
Non-Defense Environmental Cleanup, and Uranium Enrichment 
Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund, are available for 
economic development activities.

                   Non-Defense Environmental Cleanup





Appropriation, 2005...................................      $439,601,000
Budget Estimate, 2006.................................       259,934,000
Recommended, 2006.....................................       319,934,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2005...............................      -119,667,000
    Budget Estimate, 2006.............................       -30,000,000


    The Committee recommendation for Non-Defense Environmental 
Cleanup is $319,934,000, a reduction of $30,000,000 from the 
budget request.
    The recommendation provides $77,100,000 for solid waste 
stabilization and disposition, and nuclear facility 
decontamination and decommissioning at the West Valley 
Demonstration Project, and $45,528,000 for decontamination and 
decommissioning of the gaseous diffusion plants, the same as 
the budget request. The recommendation provides $41,113,000 for 
the decontamination and decommissioning of the Fast Flux Test 
Facility (FFTF), a decrease of $5,000,000 from the budget 
request. Given the delay in the contract award for the FFTF in 
fiscal year 2005, the Committee expects sufficient carryover 
funds in fiscal year 2006 will be available for this project.
    The recommendation provides $70,803,000 for depleted 
uranium hexafluoride conversion at Portsmouth and Paducah, a 
reduction of $15,000,000 from the budget request. The Committee 
understands there are large prior year balances that have not 
been expended for this project, and therefore recommends the 
reduction in new resources. The recommendation provides 
$18,006,000, for soil and water remediation measures at the 
former Atlas uranium mill tailings site at Moab, Utah, a 
reduction of $10,000,000 from the request, and an increase of 
$10,295,000 over fiscal year 2005 enacted levels. The final 
Environmental Impact Statement will be issued late in fiscal 
year 2005 for this site, and the Committee believes that the 
$18,006,000 will be sufficient to begin the recommended 
remediation alternative in fiscal year 2006.
    Small Sites.--The recommendation provides $34,328,000 for 
soil and water remediation, graphite research reactor and high 
flux beam reactor decontamination and decommissioning at 
Brookhaven National Laboratory; $10,487,000 for soil and water 
remediation and nuclear facility decontamination and 
decommissioning at Argonne National Laboratory; and $5,274,000 
for spent nuclear fuel stabilization and disposition at Idaho 
National Laboratory.
    Consolidated Business Center.--The Consolidated Business 
Center, located in Cincinnati, Ohio, provides administrative 
support and contractual assistance for the Environmental 
Management program, including the aforementioned Small Sites. 
The Committee recommendation provides $3,900,000 for soil and 
water remediation at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory; 
$3,500,000 for soil and water remediation at the Stanford 
Linear Accelerator Center; $9,000,000 for nuclear facility 
decontamination and decommissioning for the Energy Technology 
Engineering Center; $490,000 for decontamination and 
decommissioning of the Tritium System Test Assembly Facility at 
Los Alamos National Laboratory; $305,000 for soil and water 
remediation at Inhalation Toxicology Laboratory; and $100,000 
for cleanup work at various sites in California.
    Uranium assets.--The Committee reaffirms last year's 
directive to use uranium assets to self-finance cost effective 
operation of the Portsmouth S&T Facility to remove Technetium-
99 contamination from DOE and USEC inventories.

      Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund





Appropriation, 2005...................................      $495,015,000
Budget estimate, 2006.................................       591,498,000
Recommended, 2006.....................................       591,498,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2005...............................       +96,483,000
    Budget estimate, 2006.............................  ................


    Congress created the Uranium Facilities Maintenance and 
Remediation account in fiscal year 2001 to consolidate two 
previously separate programs. The consolidated Uranium 
Facilities Maintenance and Remediation account was managed by 
the Office of Environmental Management and included two sub-
accounts, the Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and 
Decommissioning Fund, and Other Uranium Activities. Beginning 
in fiscal year 2004, the activities previously funded under the 
Other Uranium Activities sub-account were transferred into the 
new Non-Defense Environmental Services account.
    The Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning 
Fund was established by the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (P.L. 
102-486) to carry out environmental remediation at the nation's 
three gaseous diffusion plants: at the East Tennessee 
Technology Park in Oak Ridge, Tennessee; at Portsmouth, Ohio; 
and at Paducah, Kentucky. Title X of the 1992 Act also 
authorized use of a portion of the Fund to reimburse private 
licensees for the Federal government's share of the cost of 
cleaning up uranium and thorium processing sites.
    The Committee recommends $591,498,000 for activities funded 
from the Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning 
Fund, the same as the budget request. This amount includes 
$571,498,000 for decontamination and decommissioning activities 
at the gaseous diffusion plants and $20,000,000 for Title X 
uranium and thorium reimbursements.
    RCRA closure.--The Committee expects the Department to 
complete the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act closure of 
building X-7725 by September 30, 2006, by any means feasible, 
within available funds.

                                Science





Appropriation, 2005...................................    $3,599,871,000
Budget estimate, 2006.................................     3,462,718,000
Recommended, 2006.....................................     3,666,055,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2005...............................       +66,184,000
    Budget estimate, 2006.............................      +203,337,000


    The Science account funds the Department's work on high 
energy physics, nuclear physics, biological and environmental 
sciences, basic energy sciences, advanced scientific computing, 
maintenance of the laboratories' physical infrastructure, 
fusion energy sciences, safeguards and security, science 
workforce development, and science program direction.
    The Department of Energy is the largest financial supporter 
of research in the physical sciences. The essential role of DOE 
is often neglected in discussions of government science, yet 
DOE funding and facilities have supported major discoveries, 
including many that have resulted in Nobel prizes. Its initial 
work with nuclear reactors and particle accelerators has led 
DOE to support a wide range of government, academic, and 
industrial research by providing light sources and neutron 
sources for use in studying the structure of materials and 
processes at the atomic and subatomic scale. Researchers from 
diverse fields and backgrounds rely increasingly on the 
advanced capabilities provided by the DOE user facilities. 
Existing and planned new facilities will offer researchers the 
revolutionary ability to observe chemical reactions as they 
happen, including those that take place within living cells.
    While DOE Science laboratories and researchers possess many 
multidisciplinary research capabilities, the unique niche that 
DOE fills is in the area of large research instruments (``big 
iron'') such as accelerators, colliders, and most recently the 
Spallation Neutron Source. These projects are of such a scale, 
complexity, and cost that they exceed the capabilities of 
universities, private companies, and even other government 
agencies. The DOE Office of Science takes on these challenging, 
high-risk research projects, and while it does not always 
achieve its schedule and budget targets, this experience in 
managing high-risk science projects has helped shape its 
science activities. In many ways, the work of the DOE Office of 
Science complements the funding strengths of the National 
Science Foundation and National Institutes of Health with their 
focus on providing grants to individual researchers and 
research teams. While DOE also makes grants and has committed 
to increasing use of agency-wide research announcements 
inviting open competition among universities, government labs, 
industry and others, often DOE is the provider of state-of-the-
art user facilities--both research machines and computers--that 
are used by NSF and NIH grantees. The health and success of 
science programs at DOE is critical to the overall health of 
research and development in the United States. National 
security, both from an economic and a defense perspective, 
rests on a foundation grounded in the physical sciences, and 
depends on DOE's continued leadership in these fields.
    The Committee was disappointed in the Department's budget 
request for the Office of Science in fiscal year 2006. The 
Committee recommendation is $3,666,055,000, an increase of 
$203,337,000 compared to the budget request and $66,184,000 
over the fiscal year 2005 enacted level. The Committee has 
provided additional funding for the Office of Science to 
address the following Committee priorities: high performance 
computing; additional operating time at Office of Science user 
facilities; and redirection of fusion funding to restore 
domestic fusion research that was displaced by the 
International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER).

                          HIGH ENERGY PHYSICS

    The Committee recommends a total of $735,933,000 for high 
energy physics, an increase of $22,000,000 over the budget 
request. With the proposed transfer of the Stanford Linear 
Accelerator Center (SLAC) to the Basic Energy Sciences account, 
the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory will become the only 
remaining high energy physics national laboratory in the 
country. High energy physics is the cornerstone of our 
understanding of the physical universe, and the Department of 
Energy maintains unique capabilities that cannot be duplicated 
in the academic or private sector, or by any other federal 
agency. The Committee provides an additional $22,000,000 to 
maintain high energy physics at the fiscal year 2005 enacted 
level. Of the additional funds, $11,000,000 is provided for 
research on the next-generation international linear collider 
and $11,000,000 is provided for upgrades to the neutrino 
research program. The Committee supports the Department's 
decision to maximize the operating time of its high energy 
physics user facilities during fiscal year 2006. The control 
level is at the High Energy Physics level.

                            NUCLEAR PHYSICS

    The Committee recommendation for nuclear physics is 
$408,341,000, an increase of $37,600,000 over the budget 
request. An additional $6,000,000 is provided to initiate a 
competitive down-select process for design and operations 
concepts for the Rare Isotope Accelerator, and an additional 
$31,600,000 is provided to restore operating time of the user 
facilities in the Nuclear Physics program (i.e., RHIC, TJNAF, 
HRIBF, and ATLAS) to fiscal year 2005 levels.

                 BIOLOGICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH

    The Committee recommendation for biological and 
environmental research (BER) is $525,688,000, an increase of 
$70,000,000 over the budget request. The Committee approves the 
Department's decision to maintain the operation of BER user 
facilities at fiscal year 2005 levels. Within available funds, 
the Department shall continue to fund the Savannah River 
Ecology Laboratory until the expiration of the current 
contract. The Committee recommendation provides an additional 
$70,000,000, with $35,000,000 for Congressionally-directed 
university and hospital earmarks and $35,000,000 for Medical 
Applications and Measurement Science. Congressionally-directed 
projects are shown in the table below.


                         BASIC ENERGY SCIENCES

    The Committee recommendation for Basic Energy Sciences is 
$1,173,149,000, an increase of $27,132,000 over the budget 
request. For purposes of reprogramming during fiscal year 2006, 
the Department may allocate funding among all operating 
accounts within Basic Energy Sciences, consistent with the 
reprogramming guidelines outlined earlier in this report.
    Research.--The Committee recommendation includes 
$772,025,000 for materials sciences and engineering, and 
$223,051,000 for chemical sciences, geosciences, and energy 
biosciences. An additional $19,737,000 is provided to maintain 
operating time on the Basic Energy Sciences user facilities at 
fiscal year 2005 levels, and an additional $7,395,000 is 
provided to restore university grants for core research in the 
basic energy sciences. The Committee recommendation funds 
nanoscale science research and the science research portion of 
the hydrogen initiative at the requested levels. Also included 
within this account is $7,280,000 for the Experimental Program 
to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR), the same as the 
budget request.
    Construction.--The Committee recommendation includes 
$178,073,000 for Basic Energy Sciences construction projects, 
the same as the requested amount. The Committee recommendation 
provides the requested funding of: $41,744,000 for the 
Spallation Neutron Source (99-E-334) at Oak Ridge National 
Laboratory; $2,544,000 for Title I and Title II design work 
(03-SC-002) and $83,000,000 to initiate construction (05-R-320) 
for the Linac Coherent Light Source at the Stanford Linear 
Accelerator Center; $36,553,000 for the Center for Functional 
Nanomaterials (05-R-321) at Brookhaven National Laboratory; 
$9,606,000 for the Molecular Foundry (04-R-313) at Lawrence 
Berkeley National Laboratory; and $4,626,000 for the Center for 
Integrated Nanotechnologies (03-R-313) at Los Alamos and Sandia 
National Laboratories.

                 ADVANCED SCIENTIFIC COMPUTING RESEARCH

    The Committee recommendation is $246,055,000, an increase 
of $39,000,000 over the budget request. The additional 
$39,000,000 is provided to support the Office of Science 
initiative to develop the hardware, software, and applied 
mathematics necessary for a leadership-class supercomputer to 
meet scientific computation needs; not more than $25,000,000 of 
this increase should be dedicated to hardware, and $9,000,000 
of the total increase should be dedicated to competitive 
university research grants. The Committee is disappointed that 
the Department's fiscal year 2006 budget request did not 
preserve the increases that Congress provided for this purpose 
during the past two fiscal years. Consistent with guidance 
provided in prior years, the Committee has chosen not to 
earmark these additional funds for a particular laboratory or a 
particular technology. However, the Committee expects the 
Department to make full use of the laboratory-industry 
capabilities that have already been selected competitively in 
previous years and not ``reinvent the wheel'' each fiscal year.

                         FUSION ENERGY SCIENCES

    The Committee recommendation for fusion energy sciences is 
$296,155,000, an increase of $5,605,000 over the budget request 
but with a significant redirection of funds as outlined below. 
The Committee is concerned that two-thirds of the proposed 
increase for the International Thermonuclear Experimental 
Reactor (ITER) would be achieved by reducing domestic fusion 
research and operating time on domestic user facilities. Under 
the proposed fiscal year 2006 budget, operating time at the 
three major fusion research facilities (DIII-D, Alcator C-Mod, 
and NSTX) would be reduced from 48 weeks in fiscal year 2005 to 
a total of only 17 weeks in fiscal year 2006. If the United 
States expects to be a serious contributor to international 
fusion research in general and to ITER in particular, the 
Nation needs to maintain strong domestic research programs and 
user facilities to train the next generation of fusion 
scientists and engineers. The Department's proposal to increase 
support for ITER at the expense of domestic fusion research is 
unwise and unacceptable. Such an approach is not only short-
sighted, but inconsistent with prior Congressional guidance. 
Therefore, the Committee directs the Department to utilize 
$29,900,000 of funding proposed for ITER and the additional 
$5,605,000 to restore U.S.-based fusion funding to fiscal year 
2005 levels as follows: $7,300,000 for high performance 
materials for fusion; $14,305,000 to restore operation of the 
three major user facilities to fiscal year 2005 operating 
levels; $7,200,000 for intense heavy ion beams and fast 
ignition studies; $5,100,000 for compact stellarators and 
small-scale experiments; and $1,600,000 for theory. As in 
previous years, the Committee directs the Department to fund 
the U.S. share of ITER through additional resources rather than 
through reductions to domestic fusion research or to other 
Office of Science programs. If the Department does not follow 
this guidance in its fiscal year 2007 budget submission, the 
Committee is prepared to eliminate all U.S. funding for the 
ITER project in the future.

                  SCIENCE LABORATORIES INFRASTRUCTURE

    The Committee recommendation provides a total of 
$42,105,000 for Science Laboratories Infrastructure, an 
increase of $2,000,000 over the budget request. The additional 
funds are provided to complete PED and initiate construction 
for project 04-05 MEL 001-046, the capability replacement 
laboratory at PNNL. The Committee expects the Department to 
request sufficient funds in fiscal year 2007 to have this 
replacement facility available for occupancy by 2009. Within 
available funds, the Committee directs the Department to 
continue to make PILT payments associated with Argonne National 
Laboratory at the fiscal year 2005 level.

                        SAFEGUARDS AND SECURITY

    The Committee recommends $74,317,000, the same as the 
budget request, to meet additional safeguards and security 
requirements at Office of Science facilities.

                     SCIENCE WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT

    The Committee provides $7,192,000 for Workforce Development 
for Teachers and Scientists in fiscal year 2006, the same as 
the requested amount.

                       SCIENCE PROGRAM DIRECTION

    The Committee recommendation is $162,725,000 for Science 
program direction, the same as the budget request. This amount 
includes: $92,593,000 for program direction at DOE field 
offices and $70,132,000 for program direction at DOE 
headquarters. The control level for fiscal year 2006 is at the 
program account level of Science Program Direction.

                          FUNDING ADJUSTMENTS

    The Committee recommendation includes an offset of 
$5,605,000 for the safeguards and security charge for 
reimbursable work, as proposed in the budget request.

                         Nuclear Waste Disposal





Appropriation, 2005...................................      $343,232,000
Budget estimate, 2006.................................       300,000,000
Recommended, 2006.....................................       310,000,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2005...............................       -33,232,000
    Budget estimate, 2006.............................       +10,000,000


    The Department of Energy requested a total of $651,447,000 
for work on the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository in 
fiscal year 2006, $300,000,000 for Nuclear Waste Disposal and 
$351,447,000 for Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal. According to 
the Department's budget justification, these requested funds 
will be sufficient to maintain the schedule for the December 
2005 submission of a repository license application to the 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and to continue the scientific 
and engineering work to defend that license application and to 
prepare for design and construction of the repository.
    At this time last year, the Department was still on track 
to open the repository in 2010. However, several events have 
combined to push that date out to 2012, at the earliest. In 
July 2004, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of 
Columbia Circuit vacated the 10,000-year radiation standard for 
the repository promulgated by the Environmental Protection 
Agency. Also during the summer of 2004, the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission invalidated the Department's initial certification 
of documentation for the Licensing Support Network (LSN). Most 
recently, the Department discovered that certain documents 
related to the quality assurance of water modeling for the 
repository may have been falsified by employees of the U.S. 
Geological Survey. Underlying these technical and policy 
challenges, Congress has consistently underfunded the 
repository program in recent years. In fiscal year 2005, the 
budget request was for $880,000,000, but Congress ultimately 
provided only $572,384,000 for the program.
    The net result is that the date for opening the Yucca 
Mountain repository continues to recede into the future. 
Indications suggest that the Department will not be able to 
open the repository by 2012, and actual initial operations 
might be delayed into the latter half of the next decade. This 
means that spent nuclear fuel and high level radioactive waste, 
both destined for final disposal in the repository, will remain 
in interim storage at 129 private and governmental sites 
scattered across the country. While such onsite interim storage 
is a manageable risk, it is an unnecessary risk. It is also 
becoming a very expensive proposition, as DOE has estimated 
that every year of delay in opening the Yucca Mountain 
repository will cost the federal government an additional $1 
billion per year, with a conservative estimate of $500 million 
in legal liability for failure to take title to commercial 
spent fuel, and another $500 million to monitor and guard 
defense spent fuel and high level radioactive waste at DOE 
sites.
    In addition to the challenges facing the Department in 
opening the first repository at Yucca Mountain, there are 
questions about spent fuel disposal once that repository is 
full. The authorized inventory capacity for the Yucca Mountain 
repository is 70,000 metric tons of heavy metal from spent fuel 
or solidified high level waste resulting from reprocessing, of 
which 63,000 tons are commercial spent fuel and 7,000 tons are 
defense spent fuel and high-level waste. DOE estimates that 
this capacity will be fully utilized by the year 2010. In other 
words, spent fuel generated after 2010 cannot be disposed in 
Yucca Mountain as that repository is presently authorized. 
Section 161 of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, as amended, 
outlines a process for siting a second repository. Absent an 
effort to increase the authorized capacity at Yucca Mountain, 
the Secretary is required to report to Congress on or after 
January 1, 2007, on the need for a second repository.
    As discussed earlier in this report, the Committee believes 
the Department should embark on a concerted initiative to begin 
recycling our spent nuclear fuel, starting with the preparation 
of an integrated spent fuel recycling plan for implementation 
in fiscal year 2007, including selection of an advanced 
reprocessing technology and a competitive process to select one 
or more sites to develop integrated spent fuel recycling 
facilities (i.e., reprocessing, preparation of mixed oxide 
fuel, vitrification of high level waste products, and temporary 
process storage).
    Until such an integrated recycling approach becomes 
operational, the Committee believes the Department should move 
aggressively to take title to commercial spent fuel and 
consolidate such fuel in a smaller number of more secure, 
above-ground interim storage facilities located at existing DOE 
facilities. Such interim storage at DOE sites is not a new 
concept. In the interests of nonproliferation, the United 
States is bringing back spent fuel from various foreign 
research reactors and storing such fuel on DOE sites, at 
Federal expense. Rather than create one or more new and 
separate interim storage sites for this foreign fuel, it is 
clearly more cost-effective to store this fuel at a centralized 
DOE site that is already secure because of the requirement to 
protect other DOE facilities and materials at the site. Given 
the sunk cost of protecting the DOE site for national and 
homeland security reasons, the incremental costs of storing 
additional foreign spent fuel at a DOE site are modest. The 
same logic should be applied to interim storage of domestic 
spent fuel.
    The Federal government should establish one or more 
centralized interim storage sites for commercial spent nuclear 
fuel. Interim storage would make the most sense co-located with 
the permanent repository at Yucca Mountain, but the Nuclear 
Waste Policy Act specifically prohibits siting an interim 
storage facility or a Monitored Retrievable Storage facility at 
the same location as the permanent repository. Other possible 
alternative DOE sites include Hanford, Idaho, and Savannah 
River, all of which presently store government-owned spent fuel 
and high level waste and both of which already have extensive 
site security measures in place. Should these or other DOE 
sites prove impractical, the Department should investigate 
other alternatives for centralized interim storage, including 
other federally-owned sites, closed military bases, and non-
federal fuel storage facilities. The Committee encourages the 
Department to maximize use of existing NRC-approved designs for 
storage casks and independent spent fuel storage installations. 
The Committee also encourages DOE to consider making use of 
existing European capabilities for reprocessing, vitrification, 
MOX fuel fabrication, and interim storage.
    DOE should take prompt action to take title to some 
commercial spent fuel and begin to move that fuel from the 
reactor sites to one or more centralized interim storage sites. 
There is an established queue that defines the order in which 
DOE is to take title to commercial spent fuel. However, there 
can be legitimate arguments to move fuel other than that with 
priority in the queue, such as spent fuel from reactors that 
are already decontaminated and decommissioned, or fuel from a 
utility which agrees to settle, drop, or otherwise limit its 
claim against the Federal government. The Committee defers to 
the Secretary's judgment on which fuel can and should be moved 
first.
    For Nuclear Waste Disposal in fiscal year 2006, the 
Committee provides $310,000,000, an increase of $10,000,000 
over the budget request. When coupled with the $10,000,000 
included within the budget request for the acquisition of 
transportation casks, this provides a total of $20,000,000 to 
support this early acceptance of commercial spent fuel. If the 
process for licensing the repository is delayed further in 
fiscal year 2006, the Committee would support a reprogramming 
request to reallocate additional funds to this Spent Fuel 
Initiative. The Committee directs the Secretary to provide to 
Congress, within 120 days of enactment of this Act, an 
implementation plan for such early acceptance of commercial 
spent fuel, transportation to a DOE site, and centralized 
interim storage at one or more DOE sites. Although the 
Committee believes that the Department already has authority 
for these actions under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as 
amended, the implementation plan should propose any changes to 
legislative language necessary to execute this plan. Further, 
the Committee directs the Department to begin the movement of 
spent fuel to centralized interim storage at one or more DOE 
sites within fiscal year 2006.

                      DEPARTMENTAL ADMINISTRATION


                          GROSS APPROPRIATION




Appropriation, 2005...................................      $238,503,000
Budget estimate, 2006.................................       279,976,000
Recommended, 2006.....................................       253,909,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2005...............................       +15,406,000
    Budget estimate, 2006.............................       -26,067,000


                         MISCELLANEOUS REVENUES




Appropriation, 2005...................................     $-122,000,000
Budget estimate, 2006.................................      -123,000,000
Recommended, 2006.....................................      -123,000,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2005...............................        -1,000,000
    Budget estimate, 2006.............................  ................


    The Committee recommendation for Departmental 
Administration is $253,909,000, a decrease of $26,067,000 from 
the budget request of $279,976,000. Funding recommended for 
Departmental Administration provides for general management and 
program support functions benefiting all elements of the 
Department of Energy, including the National Nuclear Security 
Administration. The account funds a wide array of headquarters 
activities not directly associated with program execution.
    Of the total $279,976,000 requested for Departmental 
Administration, roughly half ($139,651,000) represents salaries 
and benefits for the Federal employees at DOE headquarters. 
When the salary increase proposed for civilian federal 
employees is only 2.3 percent in fiscal year 2006, and when the 
overall DOE budget would decline by 2.0 percent in fiscal year 
2006 compared to fiscal year 2005, the Committee does not 
support the requested 17.4 percent increase for the overall 
Departmental Administration account. Three accounts (i.e., 
Chief Information Officer, Policy and International Affairs, 
and Public Affairs) show increases for salaries and expenses in 
excess of 20 percent, and several other accounts (i.e., Office 
of the Secretary, and General Counsel) show increases in excess 
of 10 percent. The Committee considers such proposed increases 
to be excessive in light of the modest Federal pay raise and 
the overall reduction proposed for the Department's total 
budget for fiscal year 2006. Therefore, the Committee limits 
the increase for the various salaries and expenses subaccounts 
within Departmental Administration to no more than 5 percent in 
fiscal year 2006, and maintains the program support subaccounts 
at the lesser of the fiscal year 2005 enacted level or the 
fiscal year 2006 request level.
    Office of Engineering and Construction Management.--The 
Committee continues to support the Office of Engineering and 
Construction Management as the focal point for improving 
project management within the Department. The Committee directs 
the Chief Financial Officer to reserve the appropriate amount 
of funds in the first quarter of the fiscal year from the 
Offices of Nuclear Energy, Science, Environmental Management, 
the National Nuclear Security Administration, and any other 
program offices with construction projects to conduct External 
Independent Reviews, at a sufficient level of detail to verify 
project baselines as required under Project Management Order 
413.3.
    Working Capital Fund.--The Committee renews its guidance as 
presented in House Report 107-681 regarding management of the 
Working Capital Fund.
    Revenues.--The recommendation for revenues is $123,000,000, 
consistent with the estimate of revenues provided by the 
Congressional Budget Office.
    Transfer from Other Defense Activities.--For fiscal year 
2006, the Department requested $87,575,000 as the defense 
contribution to the Departmental Administration account. The 
Committee provides the requested amount and expects the 
Department to continue to request a proportional defense 
contribution to Departmental Administration in future fiscal 
years.

                      Office of Inspector General




Appropriation, 2005...................................       $41,176,000
Budget estimate, 2006.................................        43,000,000
Recommended, 2006.....................................        43,000,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2005...............................        +1,824,000
    Budget estimate, 2006.............................  ................


    The Office of Inspector General performs agency-wide audit, 
inspection, and investigative functions to identify and correct 
management and administrative deficiencies that create 
conditions for existing or potential instances of fraud, waste 
and mismanagement. The audit function provides financial and 
performance audits of programs and operations. The inspections 
function provides independent inspections and analyses of the 
effectiveness, efficiency, and economy of programs and 
operations. The investigative function provides for the 
detection and investigation of improper and illegal activities 
involving programs, personnel, and operations.
    The Committee recommendation is $43,000,000, the same as 
the budget request.

                    Atomic Energy Defense Activities

    The Atomic Energy Defense Activities programs of the 
Department of Energy include the National Nuclear Security 
Administration that consists of Weapons Activities, Defense 
Nuclear Nonproliferation, Naval Reactors, and the Office of the 
Administrator; Defense Environmental Management; Other Defense 
Activities; and Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal. Descriptions of 
each of these accounts are provided below.

                NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

    The Department of Energy is responsible for enhancing U.S. 
national security through the military application of nuclear 
technology and reducing the global danger from the 
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. The National 
Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), a semi-autonomous 
agency within the Department, carries out these 
responsibilities. Established in March 2000 pursuant to Title 
32 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2000 (Public Law 106-65), the NNSA is responsible for the 
management and operation of the Nation's nuclear weapons 
complex, naval reactors, and nuclear nonproliferation 
activities. Three offices within the NNSA carry out the 
Department's national security mission: the Office of Defense 
Programs, the Office of Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation, and 
the Office of Naval Reactors. The Office of the NNSA 
Administrator oversees all NNSA programs.
    The Committee recommendation for the NNSA is $8,848,449,000 
a decrease of $548,792,000 from the budget request of 
$9,397,241,000, but an increase of $23,990,000 over fiscal year 
2005 when adjusted for the one-time transfer from Department of 
Defense.

                           Weapons Activities





Appropriation, 2005...................................  \1\ $6,331,590,0
                                                                      00
Budget estimate, 2006.................................     6,630,133,000
Recommended, 2006.....................................     6,181,121,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2005...............................      -295,518,000
    Budget estimate, 2006.............................     -449,012,000

\1\ Does not include $300,000,000 transferred from the Department of
  Defense

    The goal of the Weapons Activities program is to ensure the 
safety, security, reliability, and performance of the Nation's 
nuclear weapons stockpile. The program seeks to maintain and 
refurbish nuclear weapons to sustain confidence in their safety 
and reliability under the nuclear testing moratorium and arms 
reduction treaties. The Committee's recommendation for Weapons 
Activities is $6,181,121,000, a decrease of $449,012,000 from 
the budget request of $6,630,133,000. The Committee 
recommendation did not include the proposed cleanup transfer 
from Environmental Management to the NNSA and the Committee 
recommendation returns the $221,386,000 back to the cleanup 
program. The net reduction to the Weapons Activities budget 
request is $227,626,000 from the budget request.
    Nuclear Weapons Complex Wide Review.--The Committee tasked 
the previous Secretary of Energy with conducting an independent 
assessment of the Department of Energy's infrastructure 
requirements for the nuclear weapons complex over the next 
twenty-five years. The Secretary established a Task Force 
within the Secretary of Energy's Advisory Board (SEAB) to 
conduct the Nuclear Weapons Complex Infrastructure Study. The 
Committee is encouraged by the preliminary work of the Task 
Force but will not act on any recommendations until the final 
report is finished this summer. The Committee will consider the 
Task Force recommendations in the fiscal year 2006 Conference 
Report this fall. The Committee notes the timeliness of the 
Task Force study based on the distribution of funds requested 
in the fiscal year 2006 budget request. The budget request for 
direct stockpile support by weapon tail number is only ten 
percent of the total Weapons Activities request. Too much of 
the remaining 90 percent of the budget request supports a 
residual Cold War capacity within the weapons complex which is 
not needed for the long term sustainable stockpile.
    Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW).--Congress initiated the 
Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW) program in the Consolidated 
Appropriations Act, 2005 (Public Law 108-447), to focus DOE and 
DOD on implementing a program for improving the long-term 
safety, reliability, and security of the nuclear weapons 
stockpile. The Committee is supportive of the Administration 
taking an accelerated approach to implement a new nuclear 
weapons paradigm that ensures the continued moratorium on 
nuclear testing and results in a dramatically smaller nuclear 
weapons stockpile in the near future. The RRW weapon will be 
designed for ease of manufacturing, maintenance, dismantlement, 
and certification without nuclear testing, allowing the NNSA to 
transition the weapons complex away from a large, expensive 
Cold War relic into a smaller, more efficient modern complex. A 
more reliable replacement warhead will allow long-term savings 
by phasing out the multiple redundant Cold War warhead designs 
that require maintaining multiple obsolete production 
technologies to maintain the older warheads. The Committee's 
qualified endorsement of the RRW initiative is based on the 
assumption that a replacement weapon will be designed only as a 
re-engineered and remanufactured warhead for an existing weapon 
system in the stockpile. The Committee does not endorse the RRW 
concept as the beginning of a new production program intended 
to produce new warhead designs or produce new weapons for any 
military mission beyond the current deterrent requirements. The 
Committee's support of the RRW concept is contingent on the 
intent of the program being solely to meet the current military 
characteristics and requirements of the existing stockpile.
    Sustainable Stockpile Initiative.--The Committee views the 
RRW initiative as part of a larger Sustainable Stockpile 
Initiative. The end of the Cold War left the DOE production 
complex awash in special nuclear material and excess weapons 
and weapons parts with no additional mission requirement. The 
post-9/11 threat environment has made providing safeguards and 
security for these old warheads and excess materials a serious 
security liability and a seemingly unlimited budget liability. 
The Committee expects the Department to develop an integrated 
RRW implementation plan that challenges the complex to produce 
a RRW certifiable design while implementing an accelerated 
warhead dismantlement program and an infrastructure 
reconfiguration proposal that maximizes special nuclear 
material consolidation. The Committee recognizes all of these 
program initiatives implemented together with the SEAB 
Infrastructure Task Force recommendations as the beginning of a 
responsive infrastructure for maintaining the future nuclear 
stockpile. The Committee directs the Secretary of Energy to 
establish a Federal Advisory Committee on the Reliable 
Replacement Warhead initiative and to advise on implementation 
of recommendations stemming from the Nuclear Weapons Complex 
Infrastructure Study.
    Proposed Cleanup Transfer to NNSA.--The Committee 
recommendation does not include the proposed transfer of 
Environmental Management cleanup activities at the National 
Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) weapons sites to the 
NNSA. The Committee believes that this proposal was not 
sufficiently justified by the Department, and has concerns that 
the mission orientation and experience in the Environmental 
Management organization is not resident in the NNSA.
    Reprogramming Authority.--The Committee provides limited 
reprogramming authority within the Weapons Activities account 
without submission of a reprogramming to be approved in advance 
by the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations. The 
reprogramming control levels will be as follows: subprograms 
within Directed Stockpile Work; Life Extension Programs, 
Stockpile Systems, Reliable Replacement Warhead, Warhead 
Dismantlement, and Stockpile Services. Additional reprogramming 
control levels will be as follows: Science Campaigns, 
Engineering Campaigns, Advanced Simulation and Computing, Pit 
Manufacturing and Certification, Readiness Campaigns, and 
Operations of Facilities for readiness in technical base and 
facilities. This should provide the needed flexibility to 
manage these programs.
    In addition, funding of not more than $5,000,000 may be 
transferred between each of these categories and each 
construction project subject to the following limitations: only 
one transfer may be made to or from any program or project; the 
transfer must be necessary to address a risk to health, safety 
or the environment; and funds may not be used for an item for 
which Congress has specifically denied funds or for a new 
program or project that has not been authorized by Congress.
    The Department must notify Congress within 15 days of the 
use of this reprogramming authority. Transfers during the 
fiscal year which would result in increases or decreases in 
excess of $5,000,000 or which would exceed the limitations 
outlined in the previous paragraph require prior notification 
of and approval by the House and Senate Committees on 
Appropriations.

                        DIRECTED STOCKPILE WORK

    Directed Stockpile Work (DSW) includes all activities that 
directly support weapons in the nuclear stockpile, including 
maintenance, research, development, engineering, certification 
and dismantlement and disposal activities. The DSW account 
provides all the direct funding for the Department's life 
extension activities, which are designed to extend the service 
life of the existing nuclear weapons stockpile, by providing 
new subsystems and components for each warhead thereby 
extending the operational service life. The Committee notes 
that the Directed Stockpile Work Life Extension activities are 
being reduced in anticipation of a revised out-year baseline 
plan from the NNSA that integrates all the elements of a long-
term sustainable stockpile plan that supports the ability to 
maintain a safe secure and reliable nuclear deterrent with a 
much smaller stockpile. The Committee expects a rebaselined 
life extension program plan by weapon type, a Reliable 
Replacement Warhead program plan, and a Warhead Dismantlement 
plan that, taken together, will provide reliable nuclear 
deterrence with a post-2025 stockpile significantly smaller 
that the 2012 Nuclear Stockpile levels committed to in the 
Moscow Treaty and specified in the revised Nuclear Stockpile 
Plan. The current Life Extension Plans will be scoped back to 
lower levels and the resources will be redeployed to support 
the Sustainable Stockpile Initiative.
    The Committee's recommendation for Directed Stockpile 
Activities is $1,283,682,000 a decrease of $137,349,000 from 
the budget request.
    Life Extension Programs.--The Committee recommendation 
includes $313,318,000 for the DSW Life Extension Programs, a 
reduction of $35,000,000 from the budget request. The Committee 
directs the reduction to be taken against the W80 LEP activity.
    Stockpile Systems.--The Committee provides $301,804,000 for 
the DSW Stockpile Systems activities, a decrease of $10,000,000 
from the budget request. The Committee directs the reduction to 
be taken against the W80 activity.
    Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW).--The Committee 
recommendation includes $25,000,000 for the Reliable 
Replacement Warhead (RRW) initiative, an increase of 
$15,649,000 from the budget request. The additional funds are 
provided to accelerate the planning effort to initiate a 
competition between the NNSA weapons laboratories to develop 
the design for the RRW re-engineered and remanufactured 
warhead. The Committee expects the initial design approved by 
the Department will be selected based a combination of 
considerations including the ability to certify the warhead 
without underground nuclear testing, cost of production, and 
ease of maintenance and dismantlement.
    Warhead Dismantlement.--The Committee recommendation 
includes $110,245,000 for the Warhead Dismantlement subprogram, 
an increase of $75,000,000 over the budget request. The 
Committee expects the NNSA to implement a robust warhead 
dismantlement program as part of the Sustainable Stockpile 
Initiative with aggressive near-term dismantlement milestones. 
Each year, the Committee notes with disappointment the funding 
levels for warhead dismantlement both in the request year and 
in the out-years of the NNSA Five Year National Security Plan 
(FYNSP). The fiscal year 2006 budget request of $35,245,000 
would drop to less than $30,000,000 in fiscal year 2008 and 
remain flat through fiscal year 2010. The cumulative FYNSP 
total for warhead dismantlement is only two percent of the 
total Directed Stockpile Work resources through fiscal year 
2010. As part of a concerted effort to relieve the weapons 
complex of excess Cold War era warheads and continue the 
development of a responsive infrastructure, the Committee 
expects to see significant program effort directed at the 
dismantlement of the existing Cold War stockpile.
    Stockpile Services.--The Committee recommendation includes 
$533,315,000 for the DSW Stockpile Services activities, a 
reduction of $182,998,000 from the request. The Committee notes 
the fiscal year 2006 budget justification references a 
``Responsive Infrastructure'' initiative that was to be started 
in fiscal year 2005 and funded out of DSW/Stockpile Services/ 
Research and Development Certification and Safety subprogram 
and the DSW/Stockpile Services/Management, Technology, and 
Production subprogram. The fiscal year 2005 budget 
justification included no reference to a Responsive 
Infrastructure initiative within the Directed Stockpile Work 
request and, as such, the Committee did not approve funding in 
the fiscal year 2005 Conference agreement within the specified 
subprograms for a Responsive Infrastructure initiative. 
Further, for the ``Responsive Infrastructure'' initiative in 
the fiscal year 2006 budget request justification is inadequate 
and the Committee recommendation includes no funding for any 
related activity within the DSW Stockpile Services 
appropriation. The Committee supports the development of a 
responsive infrastructure in the context of a larger 
transformation of the weapons complex, and will review a 
request submitted by the Department that provides an integrated 
program description and justification and associated budget 
requirements in the fiscal year 2007 request.
    Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator (RNEP).--The Committee 
recommendation provides no funding for RNEP. The Committee 
continues to oppose the diversion of resources and intellectual 
capital away from the more serious issues that confront the 
management of the nation's nuclear deterrent, primarily the 
transformation of the Cold War nuclear weapons complex and 
existing stockpile into a sustainable enterprise. The Committee 
has been disappointed at the bureaucracy's adherence to an 
initiative that threatens Congressional and public support for 
sustainable stockpile initiatives that will actually provide 
long-term security and deterrent value for the Nation. It is 
the understanding of the Committee that, instead of conducting 
an RNEP study at a DOE national laboratory, the Department of 
Defense will conduct a non-nuclear penetrator study at a 
Department of Defense facility.

                               CAMPAIGNS

    Campaigns are focused efforts involving the three weapons 
laboratories, the Nevada Test Site, the weapons production 
plants, and selected external organizations to address critical 
capabilities needed to achieve program objectives. The 
Committee recommendation is $1,911,686,000, a decrease of 
$168,758,000 below the budget request of $2,080,444,000. The 
Committee's recommendation takes into consideration the reduced 
scope of the Life Extension activities and the existing 
Science-based Stockpile Stewardship program to restructure the 
weapons program to transition to a Sustainable Stockpile 
configuration.
    In order to facilitate review of the President's annual 
budget request, the Committee continues to direct the 
Department to provide project baseline data for each campaign 
to include a brief description of the campaign with planned 
completion dates, the total estimated cost of each campaign, 
the costs by fiscal year for each major component of the 
campaign, and a list of major milestones by year. The Committee 
expects the Department to provide detailed project baseline 
data for each campaign showing the annual and five-year costs, 
schedule, scope, and deliverables for individual project 
activities as part of the fiscal year 2007 budget request.
    From within funds provided for the various campaigns, the 
Committee directs that $4,350,000 be provided to continue the 
University Research Program in Robotics (URPR) for the 
development of advanced robotic technologies for strategic 
national applications at the fiscal year 2005 funding level.
    Science campaigns.--The Committee recommendation for 
science campaigns is $216,905,000, a reduction of $45,020,000 
from the budget request. The Committee's recommendation takes 
into consideration the reduced scope of the Life Extension 
activities and the existing Science-based Stockpile Stewardship 
program to restructure the weapons program to transition to a 
Sustainable Stockpile configuration.
    The Committee provides $35,179,000 for the primary 
assessment technology subprogram, a reduction of $10,000,000 
from the request. The Committee recommendation includes 
$15,000,000 for the Test Readiness subprogram, a reduction of 
$10,000,000 from the budget request. The Committee continues to 
oppose the 18-month test readiness posture and refers the 
Department to the unambiguous language provided in the reports 
accompanying the fiscal year 2004 and 2005 Appropriation Acts 
requiring the Department to maintain the current 24-month test 
readiness posture. The initiation of the Reliable Replacement 
Warhead (RRW) program designed to provide for the continuance 
of the existing moratorium on underground nuclear testing by 
insuring the long-term reliability of the nuclear weapons 
stockpile obviates any reason to move to a provocative 18-month 
test readiness posture. The Committee recommendation includes 
$70,894,000 for the dynamic materials properties subprogram, a 
reduction of $10,000,000 from the budget request. The Committee 
recommendation includes $40,500,000 for the advanced 
radiography subprogram, a reduction of $9,020,000 from the 
budget request. The Committee is disappointed with the 
continued delay in the commissioning of the Dual-Axis 
Radiographic Hydrotest facility (DARHT), which is significantly 
over budget and behind schedule. The secondary assessment 
technologies subprogram recommendation is $55,332,000, a 
reduction of $6,000,000 from the budget request.
    Engineering campaigns.--The Committee recommendation for 
engineering campaigns is $192,704,000, a decrease of 
$37,052,000 from the budget request. The Committee 
recommendation for the enhanced surety subprogram is 
$22,000,000, a reduction of $7,845,000 from the budget request 
to maintain current year funding levels. The Committee provides 
$15,040,000 for the Weapons Systems Engineering Assessment 
Technology subprogram, a decrease of $9,000,000 from the budget 
request. The Committee provides $9,386,000 for the Nuclear 
Survivability subprogram, the same as the budget request. The 
Committee recommendation for enhanced surveillance subprogram 
is $76,000,000, a reduction of $20,207,000 from the budget 
request.
    Construction projects.--The Committee recommends 
$65,564,000 the same as the budget request, for Project 01-D-
108, Microsystems and engineering science applications (MESA), 
SNL, New Mexico.
    Inertial Confinement Fusion (ICF) Ignition and High 
Yield.--The Committee recommends $541,418,000 for the inertial 
confinement fusion and high yield program, which maintains the 
program at the current year level and is an increase of 
$81,000,000 over the budget request.
    The Committee supports the Department's response to the 
Congressional concern expressed last year regarding the fiscal 
year 2005 budget request proposed schedule slip to the program 
goal of ignition demonstration in 2010 for the National 
Ignition Facility (NIF). The Committee continues to view 
ignition demonstration as the primary benchmark for success in 
this program. The Committee commends the Department's effort to 
projectize the ICF program consistent with DOE Order 413.3, and 
to manage the ignition, diagnostic, cryogenic and experimental 
programs as projects incorporating a work breakdown structure 
to track scope, cost, and schedule milestones, within a project 
management control system. The Committee directs the NNSA to 
report quarterly on the milestone cost and schedule variance 
within the respective experimental programs on progress toward 
the NIF 2000 rebaselined program.
    The Committee recommendation includes a total of 
$69,623,000 for Facility Operations and Target Production, of 
which $15,000,000 shall be available to accelerate target 
fabrication. The Committee believes that a target that meets 
all the NIF ignition criteria should be produced and 
characterized in a cryogenic environment. NNSA should provide 
the Committee with a detailed schedule by March 2006 to 
accomplish this requirement. Should fabrication of the new 
beryllium target prove too high risk to ensure meeting the NIF 
milestones, NNSA is required to provide the Committee with the 
alternative that will be pursued in order to keep to the 2010 
ignition schedule. The Committee recommendation includes 
$25,000,000 to continue development of high average power 
lasers and supporting science and technology within the 
Inertial Fusion Technology program line; within that amount, 
the Committee includes $2,000,000 for the high density matter 
laser at the Ohio State University Technology Park. The 
Committee recommendation includes $15,000,000 for the Naval 
Research Laboratory, and $71,558,000 for the University of 
Rochester's Laboratory for Laser Energetics (LLE), an increase 
of $26,000,000 over the budget request. The LLE is the 
principal research and experimentation laser facility for NNSA 
Science-based Stockpile stewardship activities. The Committee 
increase includes an additional $4,000,000 for OMEGA operations 
to provide additional shots to support the ICF campaign goal of 
an ignition demonstration in 2010 and an additional $22,000,000 
to accelerate the OMEGA Extended Performance capability 
project, a four beam super-high-intensity, high-energy laser 
facility to support the nation's stockpile stewardship program. 
The Committee notes that the University of Rochester is 
providing $21 million for the building to house the OMEGA EP.
    The Committee recommendation provides $141,913,000 for 
construction of the National Ignition Facility (NIF), the same 
as the budget request.
    Advanced simulation and computing (ASCI).--The Committee 
recommendation for Advanced Simulation and Computing is 
$500,830,000, a reduction of $160,000,000 from the budget 
request. The Committee has consistently supported ASCI funding 
based on the assumption that spending three quarters of a 
billion dollars every year on high-end computing power at the 
three weapons laboratories; Los Alamos, Sandia, and Livermore 
was required to maintain the safety and reliability of the 
nuclear stockpile without underground testing. However, 
Congressional testimony by NNSA officials is beginning to erode 
the confidence of the Committee that the Science-based 
Stockpile Stewardship is performing as advertised. The 
Department continues to argue for an 18 month test readiness 
posture because of the possibility of unanticipated problems in 
the existing stockpile due to aging that ultimately will impact 
confidence in the reliability of the nuclear deterrent. The 
Department's argument for building a ``responsive 
infrastructure'' is also based on the need to respond to 
unforeseen problems in the existing stockpile. The Committee 
recommendation recognizes the Department's inability to achieve 
the promises of the Stockpile Stewardship effort and redirects 
ASCI funding to maintain current life extension production 
capabilities pending the initiation of the Reliable Replacement 
Warhead program. The Committee recommendation includes the 
following projects from within available funds: Nonprofit 
AVETeC for Nextedge Technical Park, Springfield (OH), 
$9,725,000; Wittenberg University supercomputer (OH), 
$1,000,000; Notre Dame/Purdue Supercomputer Grid (IL, IN), 
$5,000,000; and $6,000,000 provided to continue the 
demonstration at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory of 
advanced electronics packaging and thermal engineering for 
thermally-efficient electronics related to high performance 
data servers using three dimensional chip scale packaging 
integrated with spray cooling (WA).
    Pit Manufacturing and Pit Certification.--The Committee 
recommendation for pit manufacturing and certification campaign 
is $241,074,000, a reduction of $7,686,000 from the budget 
request. The Committee commends the Los Alamos National 
Laboratory for its work restoring the pit production capability 
to the nuclear weapons production complex. The Committee 
continues to oppose the Department's accelerated efforts to 
site and begin construction activities on a modern pit facility 
and urges the Department to continue to concentrate its 
management attention on meeting the fiscal year 2007 schedule 
for a certified pit ready for the stockpile. The Committee 
provides $120,926,000 for W88 Pit Manufacturing and 
$61,895,000, for W88 Certification, the same as the budget 
request. The Committee recommendation for pit manufacturing 
capability is $23,071,000 the same as the budget request.
    The Committee does not provide the requested $7,686,000 for 
the modern pit facility (MPF) pending the outcome of the 
Nuclear Weapons Complex Infrastructure Study and the 
accelerated plutonium aging experiments. The Committee 
recommends the NNSA focus its efforts on how best to lengthen 
the life of the stockpile and minimize the need for an 
enormously expensive infrastructure facility until the long-
term strategy for the physical infrastructure of the weapons 
complex has incorporated the Reliable Replacement Warhead 
strategy, and the potential for a significantly reduced out-
year stockpile requirement, and the expanding TA-55 pit 
production capacity at the Los Alamos National Laboratory. The 
post-2025 stockpile size and the evolving responsive 
infrastructure strategy for the weapons complex should dictate 
the timing and location of a pit production facility. The 
Committee will consider a modern pit facility site and design 
only when the detailed analysis of the pit aging experiments 
and the concomitant capacity requirements tied to the long-term 
stockpile size are determined. The Committee provides the 
budget request for Pit Campaign support activities at the 
Nevada Test Site.
    Readiness campaigns.--The Committee recommendation for 
Readiness Campaigns is $218,755,000, the same as the budget 
request. The Committee recommends $31,400,000, for Stockpile 
Readiness, the same as the budget request. The Committee 
recommends $17,097,000 for High Explosives Manufacturing & 
Weapons Assembly/Disassembly, the same as the budget request. 
The Committee recommends $28,630,000 for Nonnuclear Readiness. 
The Committee recommendation includes $54,040,000 for Advanced 
Design and Production Technologies, the same as the budget 
request. The Committee recommends $87,588,000 for Tritium 
Readiness, the same as the budget request.

               READINESS IN TECHNICAL BASE AND FACILITIES

    The Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities (RTBF) 
program supports the physical and operational infrastructure at 
the laboratories, the Nevada Test Site, and the production 
plants. The Committee recommendation is $1,610,870,000, a 
reduction of $20,516,000 below the budget request.
    Operations of facilities.--The Committee recommendation for 
Operations of Facilities is $1,204,786,000, an increase of 
$44,003,000 over the budget request. The comparison to the 
budget request includes a transfer of $46,997,000 from the RTBF 
account back to the Environmental Management appropriation. 
Additional funding of $51,000,000 has been provided for the 
Pantex plant in Texas and $40,000,000 for the Y-12 Plant in 
Tennessee to address chronic under-funding in the maintenance 
of production plant facilities. The Committee recognizes the 
efforts made by the NNSA to accelerate the reduction of the 
facility footprint at the Y-12 plant to modernize operations 
and reduce security costs and encourages additional aggressive 
efforts. The Committee recommendation includes the following 
projects from within available funds: $1,150,000 for risk based 
data management in Oklahoma (OK); $2,000,000 for Robotics 
repetitive system technology (OH); $3,750,000 for Plasma 
Separation Process High Energy Storage Isotope research (TN); 
$1,500,000 for Multi-Platform dosimeter radiation detection 
devices (WA); $2,000,000 for Secure Wireless Technologies at Y-
12 (TN); $2,000,000 for Airborne Particulate Threat Assessment 
(PA); $2,000,000 for comand and control of Vulnerable Materials 
Security System (PA, NJ); $1,000,000 for Advanced Engineering 
Environment at Sandia National Laboratory (NM).
    Program Readiness.--The Committee recommendation for 
Program Readiness is $105,738,000, the same as budget request.
    Material Recycle and Recovery.--The Committee 
recommendation for material recycle and recovery is 
$72,730,000, the same as the budget request.
    Containers.--The Committee recommendation for containers is 
$17,247,000, the same as the budget request.
    Storage.--The Committee recommendation for storage is 
$25,322,000.
    Special Projects.--The Committee recommendation includes no 
funding for Special Projects, a reduction of $6,619,000 from 
the budget request. The Committee directs future budget 
requests include all necessary activities within the RTBF 
Operations of Facilities account.
    Construction projects.--
    Project 06-D-140, Project engineering and design (PED)--
RTBF, various locations. The Committee recommends $14,113,000 
the same as the budget request.
    Project 06-D-402, Nevada Test Site Replace Fire Stations 
No. 1 and No. 2, Nevada Site Office, NV. The Committee 
recommends $8,284,000, the same as the budget request.
    Project 06-D-403, Tritium Facility Modernization, Lawrence 
Livermore National Laboratory, CA. The Committee recommends 
$2,600,000, the same as the budget request.
    Project 06-D-404, Building remediation, restoration, and 
upgrade, Nevada Site Office, NV. The Committee recommends 
$16,000,000, the same as the budget request.
    Project 04-D-125, Chemistry and Metallurgy Research 
Facility Replacement (CMRR), LANL. The Committee recommends no 
funding for the CMRR project, a decrease of $55,000,000 from 
the budget request. Construction at the CMRR facility should be 
delayed until the Department determines the long-term plan for 
developing the responsive infrastructure required to maintain 
the nation's existing nuclear stockpile and support replacement 
production anticipated for the RRW initiative. The Committee's 
recommendation does not prejudge the outcome of the Secretary's 
SEAB subcommittee's assessment of the NNSA weapons complex. 
However, the production capabilities proposed in the CMRR will 
be best located at whatever future production complex 
configuration the Department determines necessary to support 
the long term stockpile program.
    Project 01-D-124, Highly Enriched Uranium Materials 
Facility, Y-12 National Security Complex, Oak Ridge, TN. The 
Committee recommends $81,350,000, an increase of $11,000,000 
over the budget request. Consistent with the Committee's 
priority to address special nuclear material consolidation 
requirements across the DOE complex, the Committee directs the 
Department to accelerate the construction and operational start 
of the HEU Materials Facility to the extent practicable to 
provide for consolidated storage of HEU at the Y-12 plant.
    Project 03-D-103, Project engineering and design (PED)--
various locations. The Committee recommends $15,000,000 a 
reduction of $14,000,000 from the budget request. The reduction 
supports current year funding levels consistent with a 
reduction in the accelerated CMRR design activities pending the 
outcome of the SEAB Infrastructure Task Force assessment.

             FACILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE RECAPITALIZATION

    The Committee recommendation for Facilities and 
Infrastructure Recapitalization Program (FIRP) is $250,509,000, 
a reduction of $33,000,000 from the budget request. The 
Committee directs the NNSA to reassess its out-year planning 
for FIRP projects to ensure coordination between the highly 
allocated FIRP funds and the reduced facility requirements 
consistent with the consolidation of the complex under the 
long-term Responsive Infrastructure planning.
    FIRP is a corporate program to restore, rebuild, and 
revitalize the physical infrastructure of the nuclear weapons 
complex. Its purpose is to stem the deterioration of the 
complex and address the backlog of maintenance, repair, and 
upgrade projects. The Committee directs the NNSA to ensure that 
funds for recapitalization are not diverted to fund ongoing 
maintenance and programmatic needs while at the same time 
guarding against the inefficiency of large uncosted balances. 
The Committee directs the NNSA to reassess its outyear planning 
for FIRP projects to ensure coordination between the highly 
allocated FIRP funds and the reduced facility requirements 
consistent with the consolidation of the complex under the long 
term responsive infrastructure planning.
    The Committee directs that not less than $30,000,000 of the 
facilities and infrastructure funding in fiscal year 2006 be 
used to dispose of excess facilities. The Committee encourages 
continuation of this program to reduce the overall facilities 
footprint of the complex. The Committee continues to expect 
that services for D&D and demolition of excess facilities 
services be procured through open-competition where such 
actions provide the best return on investment for the federal 
government. The Committee directs the NNSA to continue a free 
and open competition process for at least 70 percent of the 
funds provided for disposal of excess facilities.
    The Committee recommendation provides $50,025,000 for FIRP 
construction projects, the same as the budget request.
    Facility Infrastructure and Recapitalization Construction 
Projects.--
    06-D-160 FIRP project engineering design (PED), various 
locations. The Committee recommends $5,811,000, the same as the 
budget request.
    06-D-601 Electrical Distribution System Upgrade, Pantex 
Plant, TX. The Committee recommends $4,000,000, the same as the 
budget request.
    06-D-602 Gas Main & Distribution System upgrade, Pantex 
Plant, TX. The Committee recommends $3,700,000, the same as the 
budget request.
    06-D-603 Steam Plant Life Extension project, Y-12 National 
Security Complex. The Committee recommends $729,000, the same 
as the budget request.

                      SECURE TRANSPORTATION ASSET

    The Secure Transportation Asset program provides for the 
safe, secure movement of nuclear weapons, special nuclear 
materials, and non-nuclear weapon components between military 
locations and nuclear weapons complex facilities within the 
United States. The Committee recommendation is $212,100,000, 
the same as the budget request.

                   NUCLEAR WEAPONS INCIDENT RESPONSE

    The Committee recommendation for nuclear weapons incident 
response is $118,796,000, the same as the budget request.

                        SAFEGUARDS AND SECURITY

    This program provides for all safeguards and security 
requirements at NNSA landlord sites. The Committee 
recommendation is $825,478,000, an increase of $85,000,000 over 
the budget request. The Committee increase includes $60,000,000 
for the Y-12 National Security Complex to accelerate security 
infrastructure upgrades and consolidate the facility footprint, 
and $25,000,000 for the Pantex Plant to cover a shortfall in 
security personnel, enhanced weapons and vehicle procurements 
to meet critical security requirements. The Committee urges the 
Department to review its DBT implementation strategy to bring 
innovative technology to bear on the problems of increased 
physical safeguards and security measures. Additional manpower 
is only a stopgap solution to address security concerns 
throughout the weapons complex if the Department hopes to have 
any resources remaining to execute the program. With program 
needs going unmet and infrastructure deteriorating, the 
Committee strongly encourages the NNSA to review these growing 
costs and seek smarter and more efficient ways to meet 
necessary security improvements.
    Construction Projects.--
    05-D-170 Project engineering and design (PED), various 
locations. The Committee recommends $41,000,000, the same as 
the budget request.

                          FUNDING ADJUSTMENTS

    The budget request included an offset of $32,000,000 for 
the safeguards and security charge for reimbursable work.

                    Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation





Appropriation, 2005...................................    $1,493,033,000
Budget estimate, 2006.................................     1,637,239,000
Recommended, 2006.....................................     1,500,959,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2005...............................        +7,926,000
    Budget estimate, 2006.............................      -136,280,000


    The Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation account includes 
funding for Nonproliferation and Verification Research and 
Development; Nonproliferation and International Security; 
Nonproliferation Programs with Russia including International 
Materials Protection, Control, and Cooperation, Russian 
Transition Initiative, Highly Enriched Uranium (HEU) 
Transparency Implementation, Elimination of Weapons-Grade 
Plutonium Production; Fissile Materials Disposition; and Global 
Threat Reduction Initiative and Program Direction funding. 
Descriptions of each of these programs are provided below.
    The Committee's recommendation for Defense Nuclear 
Nonproliferation is $1,500,959,000, a decrease of $136,280,000 
from the budget request of $1,637,239,000, but an increase of 
$7,926,000 over fiscal year 2005.

       NONPROLIFERATION AND VERIFICATION RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

    The nonproliferation and verification research and 
development program conducts applied research, development, 
testing, and evaluation of science and technology for 
strengthening the United States' response to threats to 
national security and to world peace posed by the proliferation 
of nuclear weapons and special nuclear materials. Activities 
center on the design and production of operational sensor 
systems needed for proliferation detection, treaty 
verification, nuclear warhead dismantlement initiatives, and 
intelligence activities.
    The Committee recommendation is $335,218,000, an increase 
of $63,000,000 over the budget request, and includes 
$177,471,000 for proliferation detection, an increase of 
$25,000,000 over the budget request for high priority research 
requirements; $138,642,000 for nuclear explosion monitoring, an 
increase of $30,000,000 over the request, of which $25,000,000 
is for ground-based systems for treaty monitoring; and 
$6,105,000 for supporting activities. The Committee provides 
$13,000,000 for Project 06-D-180, National Security Laboratory 
at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL), an 
increase of $8,000,000 from the budget request. The additional 
$8,000,000 is provided as construction funds to maintain the 
aggressive schedule in fiscal year 2006 for the relocation of 
laboratory personnel and facilities displaced by the planned 
shutdown and cleanup of the 300 Area at the Hanford reservation 
in Washington. The Committee supports the Department's cleanup 
goal for 300 Area and the timely development of replacement 
infrastructure to maintain the national security capabilities 
resident at PNNL. From within available funds, the Committee 
recommendation includes $4,000,000 for portable high purity 
germanium detectors for incident response and radiation 
detection applications. The Committee recommendation includes 
the following projects from within available funds: $1,000,000 
for the National Center for Biodefense at George Mason 
University (VA); $1,000,000 for the Offshore Detection 
Integrated System (OH); $750,000 for developing neutron 
dosimeter and Gamma-Beta Survey meter (OH); and $300,000 for 
the Texas A&M Moscow Physics Institute-Nonproliferation and 
International Security Program (TX).
    The Committee expects the Department to provide 
significantly greater opportunities for open competition where 
appropriate for nonproliferation and verification research and 
development activities and directs the Department to conduct a 
free and open competitive process for at least $20,000,000 of 
its research and development activities during fiscal year 2006 
for ground-based systems treaty monitoring. The Committee is 
concerned with the potential for systematic bias against non-
Federal entities in the conduct of competitive procurements if 
non-Federal entities are required to team with DOE national 
laboratories. The competitive process should be open to all 
Federal and non-Federal entities on an equal basis.
    Annual Reporting Requirement.--The Committee directs the 
Department to prepare an annual report on each project with the 
baseline cost, scope and schedule, deliverables, lab performing 
the research and development, and the proposed user and submit 
this with the fiscal year 2007 budget.

              NONPROLIFERATION AND INTERNATIONAL SECURITY

    The Nonproliferation and International Security program 
(formerly the Arms Control program) seeks to detect, prevent, 
and reverse the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction 
materials, technology, and expertise. The major functional 
areas of the program include: nonproliferation policy; 
international safeguards; export control; treaties and 
agreements; and international emergency management and 
cooperation. The Committee recommendation for Nonproliferation 
and International Security is $75,836,000, a reduction of 
$4,337,000 from the budget request. The Committee does not 
support the increase over current year level for the 
International Emergency Management activities. The Committee 
recommendation includes $25,321,000 for Nonproliferation 
Policy, $26,045,000 for International Safeguards, $19,970,000 
for Export Control activities, $2,000,000 for Treaties and 
Agreements, and $2,500,000 for International Emergency 
Management and Cooperation.

                 NONPROLIFERATION PROGRAMS WITH RUSSIA

    The Department of Energy funds many nonproliferation 
programs with Russia. These programs help secure Russian 
nuclear weapons and weapons material, prevent the outflow of 
scientific expertise from Russia, eliminate excess nuclear 
weapons materials, and help downsize the Russian nuclear 
weapons complex.
    Limitation on Russian Program Funds.--The Committee remains 
concerned that the Department is not placing a high management 
priority on ensuring that as much of the funds appropriated for 
the Russian programs as practical be spent in Russia, rather 
than at the Department's own national laboratories in the 
United States. The Department's contracting mechanisms are 
resulting in excessive funds paying laboratories for contract 
administration and oversight that would be better performed by 
Federal personnel. The Committee expects more direct 
contracting will be a result of the Nuclear Nonproliferation 
office achieving its Federal staffing goals in the current 
year. The Department's national laboratories should be used to 
provide technical oversight and programmatic guidance in those 
areas where they have special expertise. The Committee directs 
that not more than 40 percent of the funding for Russian 
programs may be spent in the United States.

       INTERNATIONAL NUCLEAR MATERIALS PROTECTION AND COOPERATION

    The International Nuclear Materials Protection and 
Cooperation (MPC&A) program is designed to work cooperatively 
with Russia to secure weapons and weapons-usable nuclear 
material. The focus is to improve the physical security at 
facilities that possess or process significant quantities of 
nuclear weapons-usable materials that are of proliferation 
concern. Activities include installing monitoring equipment, 
inventorying nuclear material, improving the Russian security 
culture, and establishing a security infrastructure.
    The Committee recommendation is $428,435,000, in increase 
of $85,000,000 over the budget request. The Committee's 
increase to the MPC&A program recognizes the expanded 
opportunities for high priority work at the 12th Main 
Directorate sites in Russia. The Committee supports the 
Department's efforts to continue to negotiate greater access to 
the Russian serial production enterprise and accelerate 
aggressively opportunities to secure material as site access is 
granted. Given budget constraints, the Committee views the 
hundreds of metric tons of nuclear material in Russia still 
stored under inadequate security and subject to theft or 
diversion as the highest risk potential for weapons-usable 
nuclear material diversion. Within funds provided for MPC&A, 
the Committee provides an additional $40,000,000 for Strategic 
Rocket Forces activities to accelerate securing nuclear warhead 
sites in Russia. The Committee recommendation includes 
$86,185,000 for the Rosatom Weapons Complex, the same as the 
budget request. The Committee provides $142,929,000 for the 
Second Line of Defense program, an increase of $45,000,000 over 
the budget request. The Committee recommendation provides an 
additional $25,000,000 for the core Second Line of Defense 
program to accelerate installation of radiation detection 
equipment in the Baltic and Caucasus regions and other critical 
border areas. The Committee provides $93,929,000 for the 
MegaPorts initiative, a $20,000,000 increase over the budget 
request, to accelerate this work at additional high-risk ports.

                     RUSSIAN TRANSITION INITIATIVES

    The Committee recommendation for the Russian Transition 
Initiative (RTI) program is $30,312,000, a reduction of 
$7,578,000 from the budget request. The Russian Transition 
Initiative includes the Initiative for Proliferation Prevention 
(IPP) program and the Nuclear Cities Initiatives (NCI) to 
develop projects to employ Russian weapons scientists and 
downsize the Russian weapons complex. The Committee is 
disappointed that the Department chose to lower the RTI Annual 
Performance Targets in the fiscal 2006 budget request compared 
to the fiscal 2005 budget request. The program performance 
target is defined as the annual percentage of non-US Government 
project funding contributions obtained. The fiscal year 2005 
budget request included a goal of reaching 80% matching 
contributions of non-US Government contributions in fiscal year 
2006 and 100% by fiscal year 2008. Instead of improving 
performance to achieve the goal, the Department lowered the 
fiscal year 2006 goal to 70% and abandoned the 100% goal 
altogether. The Committee expects the RTI program will be able 
to meet the Annual Performance Target in the fiscal year 2005 
budget request at the revised fiscal year 2006 budget level. 
The Committee does not agree with the requested name change for 
the Russian Transition Initiatives program.

       HIGHLY ENRICHED URANIUM (HEU) TRANSPARENCY IMPLEMENTATION

    The highly enriched uranium (HEU) transparency 
implementation program develops and implements mutually 
agreeable transparency measures for the February 1993 agreement 
between the United States and the Russian Federation. This 
agreement, which has an estimated value of $12 billion, covers 
the purchase over 20 years of low enriched uranium (LEU) 
derived from 500 metric tons of HEU removed from dismantled 
Russian nuclear weapons. Under the agreement, conversion of HEU 
components into LEU is performed in Russian facilities. The 
Committee recommendation is $20,483,000, the same as the budget 
request.

           ELIMINATION OF WEAPONS-GRADE PLUTONIUM PRODUCTION

    The Elimination of Weapons-Grade Plutonium Production 
Program (EWGPP) is a cooperative effort with the Federation of 
Russia to halt plutonium production at three nuclear reactors 
still in operation in Russia, two located at Seversk and one at 
Zheleznogorsk. The three reactors have approximately 15 years 
of remaining lifetime and could generate an additional 25 
metric tons of weapons-grade plutonium. They also provide heat 
and electricity required for the surrounding communities. The 
current approach is to shut down these three reactors within 
six years by providing two alternative fossil-fueled energy 
plants to supply heat and electricity to the surrounding 
communities generated by the nuclear plants. The Committee 
recommendation is $197,000,000, a $65,000,000 increase to the 
budget request. The Committee is concerned that the 
Department's plan for funding the Zheleznogorsk reactor 
shutdown by soliciting contributions from international 
partners will not succeed given the recent setbacks in 
receiving commitments from the G-8 partners. The Committee 
provides $65,000,000 in additional funding to maintain the 
Zheleznogorsk reactor shutdown schedule. The Committee 
acknowledges the management improvements implemented by NNSA 
since the program transfer from the Defense Department and 
supports the program goal of halting plutonium production at 
all three Russian reactors.

                     FISSILE MATERIALS DISPOSITION

    The fissile materials disposition program is responsible 
for the technical and management activities to assess, plan and 
direct efforts to provide for the safe, secure, environmentally 
sound long-term storage of all weapons-usable fissile materials 
and the disposition of fissile materials declared surplus to 
national defense needs. The Committee concludes that the 
continued impasse between the United States and Russia over 
liability protections for U.S. companies and personnel 
conducting nonproliferation work in Russia has created a 
programmatic environment incompatible with the efficient 
execution of the Fissile Materials Disposition program. The 
latest financial data from the Department shows an available 
prior year balance of over $650,000,000 in the Mixed Oxide 
(MOX) construction project. The fiscal year 2006 budget request 
would increase those balances to over $1,000,000,000, yet no 
nuclear nonproliferation or national security benefits have 
been realized due to continued program delays. Faced with 
severe budget constraints, the Committee cannot support the 
continued inefficient use of these nonproliferation funds. To 
restate the Committee's position from last year, there is no 
reason to proceed with the fiscal year 2006 budget request 
under the assumption that the liability dispute is nearing 
resolution. The Department assured the Committee during fiscal 
year 2006 budget hearings that a resolution was imminent, as it 
did last year at this time, and the year before that. While the 
Committee supports successful implementation of the 
Department's nuclear nonproliferation activities, it is 
troubled by the inability of the Department to maintain the 
continuity of the government-to-government implementing 
agreements for Plutonium Disposition activities. The 
Committee's severe budget constraints in other high priority 
areas of Congressional interest make it an irresponsible act to 
allocate hundreds of millions for a program that is currently 
prohibited from spending the funds. The Committee will 
recommend a General Accounting Office (GAO) report on the 
realistic expenditure rates for the MOX construction project if 
the liability impasse is resolved to assess the most efficient 
use of the large uncosted balances that exist on this project.
    The Committee recommendation is $301,700,000, a reduction 
of $351,365,000 from the budget request, to accommodate a delay 
in full funding until program activities can continue under a 
revised U.S.-Russia Plutonium Disposition implementing 
agreement. The Committee includes $35,000,000 in the MOX 
construction project to fund site preparation activities if 
resolution of the liability provision allows construction 
activities to proceed in fiscal year 2006. Funding of 
$52,300,000 is provided for U.S. surplus materials disposition 
and $64,000,000 for the Russian plutonium disposition program. 
The Committee recommendation maintains O&M program activities 
at roughly current year levels.
    Construction projects.--The Committee recommendation 
includes $35,000,000 in fiscal year 2006 for Project 99-D-143, 
the Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication facility project, a reduction 
of $303,565,000 from the budget request. Funding of $24,000,000 
is provided for Project 99-D-141, the Pit Disassembly and 
Conversion Facility project. The Committee recommendation 
includes $10,000,000 for conceptual design activities for the 
plutonium immobilization facility requested under the 
Environmental Management program. The Committee determines that 
the Fissile Materials program more suitably manages the 
plutonium disposition activities for the Department.

                   GLOBAL THREAT REDUCTION INITIATIVE

    The Global Threat Reduction Initiative (GTRI) mission is to 
identify, secure, remove and facilitate the disposition of 
high-risk, vulnerable nuclear and radiological materials and 
equipment around the world. The Committee recommendation is 
$111,975,000, a $14,000,000 increase to the President's 
request. The Committee provides an additional $20,000,000 for 
the Reduced Enrichment for Research and Test Reactors (RERTR) 
program to accelerate the conversion of domestic research 
reactors fuel from highly enriched uranium to low enriched 
uranium. The Committee recommendation includes $2,000,000 for 
the Kazakhstan Spent Fuel Disposition initiative, a reduction 
of $6,000,000 from the request. The Committee is concerned the 
baseline plan for the BN-350 reactor spent fuel does not 
reflect the post-9/11 threat environment of the region and 
requires additional review. None of the funds provided for this 
activity in fiscal year 2006, or previous fiscal years, may be 
obligated for transportation equipment or activities without 
first notifying the House and Senate Appropriations Committees.

                             Naval Reactors





Appropriation, 2005...................................      $801,437,000
Budget estimate, 2006.................................       786,000,000
Recommended, 2006.....................................       799,500,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2005...............................        -1,034,000
    Budget estimate, 2006.............................       +13,500,000


    The Naval Reactors program is responsible for all aspects 
of naval nuclear propulsion, from technology development 
through reactor operations to ultimate reactor plant disposal. 
The program provides for the design, development, testing, and 
evaluation of improved naval nuclear propulsion plants and 
reactor cores. These efforts are critical to ensuring the 
safety and reliability of 102 operating Naval reactor plants 
and to developing the next generation reactor. The Committee 
recommendation is $799,500,000, an increase of $13,500,000 over 
the budget request. This additional amount is to be transferred 
to the Office of Nuclear Energy to support the Idaho National 
Laboratory's Advanced Test Reactor (ATR). The Committee's 
increase is provided to maintain the current level of 
operations and implement the Long Range Operating Plan at the 
ATR.

                      Office of the Administrator





Appropriation, 2005...................................      $353,350,000
Budget estimate, 2006.................................       343,869,000
Recommended, 2006.....................................       366,869,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2005...............................       +13,019,000
    Budget estimate, 2006.............................       +23,000,000


    The Office of the Administrator of the National Nuclear 
Security Administration (NNSA) provides corporate planning and 
oversight for Defense Programs, Defense Nuclear 
Nonproliferation, and Naval Reactors, including the NNSA field 
offices in New Mexico, Nevada, and California. The Committee 
recommendation is $366,369,000, an increase of $22,500,000 
above the budget request. The increase is provided as the NNSA 
contribution to the Department's support for the Historically 
Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs). The Committee expects 
the Administrator to continue to maintain separate program 
direction budget and reporting accounting codes for the Office 
of Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation to maintain cost 
accountability between the separate programs within the NNSA. 
The Committee recommendation provides funds to support two 
additional Federal employees for the NNSA counterintelligence 
program. The additional staff is needed to support NNSA 
counterintelligence (CI) initiatives, integration with national 
level counterintelligence objectives and NNSA CI program 
management.
    The Committee recommendation provides $12,000, the same as 
the budget request, for official reception and representation 
expenses for the NNSA.
    Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs).--The 
Committee appreciates the serious effort of the NNSA to follow 
last year's Congressional direction to implement an aggressive 
program to take advantage of the HBCU educational institutions 
across the country in order to deepen the recruiting pool of 
diverse scientific and technical staff available to the NNSA 
and its national laboratories in support of the nation's 
national security programs. The Committee is again providing 
$22,500,000 of additional funding to expand the support to the 
HBCUs scientific and technical programs in fiscal year 2006. 
The Committee expects the Department to provide financial 
support in rough parity to both HBCUs and the Hispanic Serving 
Institutions (HSI). The Committee recommendation includes 
$2,000,000 each for Wilberforce University and Central State 
University in Wilberforce, Ohio; $2,000,000 for Claflin College 
in Orangeburg, SC; $4,000,000 for Allen University in Columbia, 
SC; and $1,000,000 each for Voorhees College in Denmark, SC and 
South Carolina State University in Orangeburg, SC, and Florida 
Memorial University for the Carrie Meek Health and Science 
Complex in Miami Gardens, FL. The Committee directs the 
Department to provide funds to HBCU institutions to allow for 
infrastructure improvements and technical programs. The 
Committee expects the Department to ensure the Dr. Samuel P. 
Massie Chairs of Excellence are fully supported within the HBCU 
program.

               Environmental and Other Defense Activities


                    DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT

    The Defense Environmental Management program is responsible 
for identifying and reducing risks and managing waste at sites 
where the Department carried out defense-related nuclear 
research and production activities that resulted in 
radioactive, hazardous, and mixed waste contamination requiring 
remediation, stabilization, or some other type of cleanup 
action. These responsibilities include facilities and areas at 
114 geographic sites. These sites are located in 30 States and 
one territory and occupy an area equal to that of Rhode Island 
and Delaware combined, or about two million acres.
    The Defense Environmental Management activities were 
previously funded in two separate accounts, Defense Site 
Acceleration Completion and Defense Environmental Services, and 
are now combined into one account, Defense Environmental 
Cleanup.
    The Committee remains committed to the strategy of 
accelerating cleanup and closing sites. However, the 
categorization of funding activities by planning goals has 
diminished in utility over time--dates slip, and activities 
that do not fit the ``2012'' timeframe were merely moved into 
the ``2035'' timeframe as a matter of course. As such, the 
Committee no longer finds this display of activities useful, 
and has moved to a location/site-based display, to increase the 
transparency of where environmental cleanup dollars are being 
spent. The Committee requests that Congressional budget 
submissions be submitted in this format in the future.
    Milestone report.--While the budget structure has changed, 
the Committee remains interested in whether the Department has 
met its goals for completion for years 2006, 2012, and 2035. 
Beginning December 31, 2005, the Committee requests a quarterly 
report by site that tracks accelerated clean-up milestones, 
whether they are being met or not, and includes annual budget 
estimates and life-cycle costs.
    NNSA Transfer.--The Committee does not support the transfer 
of environmental cleanup responsibilities to the National 
Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA). The Committee believes 
that this proposal was not sufficiently justified by the 
Department, and has concerns that the mission orientation and 
experience in environmental cleanup is not resident in NNSA. As 
currently proposed, the transfer has the potential for 
unintentional adverse outcomes for both the weapons mission and 
cleanup programs. The Committee will consider future transfer 
requests when the Department has provided a more extensive, 
thoughtful justification.
    Low-level radioactive waste disposal costs.--The Energy and 
Water Development Appropriations Act, 2002, directed the 
Department to prepare analysis of life-cycle costs of disposing 
of low-level radioactive waste and mixed low-level radioactive 
waste (LLW/MLLW). The conference committee was concerned with 
DOE's practices for disposal of LLW. These concerns centered on 
DOE's use of federal versus commercial disposal facilities and 
the life-cycle costs of each option. The House Committee on 
Appropriations noted that (1) DOE's was relying too heavily on 
its on-site and off-site disposal facilities, inhibiting 
development of a viable and competitive commercial disposal 
industry, and (2) commercial disposal facilities may offer DOE 
the lowest life-cycle cost for waste disposal. DOE responded 
with a July 2002 life-cycle cost report to Congress, which 
specified actions it would take to ensure that sites use life-
cycle cost analyses, including justification for expansion or 
new construction of on-site disposal facilities. DOE issued 
guidance in July 2002 directing its field offices to use full 
``cradle to grave'' life cycle costs and analysis of options in 
making LLW disposal decisions. The Committee requested that the 
Government Accountability Office (GAO) review the Department's 
implementation of using life-cycle analyses to evaluate LLW/
MLLW disposal options. GAO found that DOE sites do not 
consistently use life-cycle analyses to evaluate LLW/MLLW 
disposal options, which may be caused by DOE's ineffective 
communication and implementation of life cycle cost analysis 
guidance, and lack of oversight. GAO found that sites may 
conduct cost analyses of disposal options for major waste 
streams or projects, but most analyses did not include all 
life-cycle cost elements; some sites pursue waste disposal 
without fully considering alternatives; and DOE sites do not 
always use life-cycle analyses to evaluate on-site versus off-
site disposal options. The Committee is most concerned with the 
Department's response to GAO that, rather than relying on life-
cycle cost analyses, DOE is relying increasingly on incentive-
based contracts to ensure cost-effective decisionmaking. The 
Committee could not disagree more.
    Report Requirement.--The lack of implementing life-cycle 
cost analyses when considering LLW/MLW disposal options is a 
blatant disregard for Congressional direction. While 
contractors should pursue cost-effective clean-up activities at 
a site, it is up to the Federal management responsible for 
those contractors to provide guidance and make decisions that 
benefit the whole DOE complex. Relying on incentive-based 
contracts to ``take care of it all'' is an abrogation of duty 
by the federal managers. As such, the Secretary is directed to 
report to the Committee, within 30 days of enactment, on the 
specific steps the Department will take to ensure that life-
cycle cost guidance is implemented in the consideration of LLW/
MLW options by DOE contractors, and that a robust federal cadre 
of employees will oversee the implementation of such guidance.
    Economic development.--None of the Defense Environmental 
Management funds are available for economic development 
activities unless specifically authorized by law.
    Reprogramming Authority.--The Committee continues to 
support the need for flexibility to meet changing funding 
requirements at sites. In fiscal year 2006, the Department may 
transfer up to $5,000,000 between control points, as noted in 
the table below, to reduce health or safety risks or to gain 
cost savings as long as no program or project is increased or 
decreased by more than $5,000,000 once during the fiscal year. 
This reprogramming authority may not be used to initiate new 
programs or programs specifically denied, limited, or increased 
by Congress in the Act or report. The Committees on 
Appropriations of the House and Senate must be notified within 
thirty days of the use of this reprogramming authority.

                    CONTROL LEVELS FOR REPROGRAMMING

Savannah River site, 2012             Closure sites
 accelerations
Savannah River site, 2035             Program direction
 accelerations
Savannah River Tank Form              ..................................
Waste Isolation Pilot Plant           Program support
Idaho National Laboratory             UE D&D fund contribution
Oak Ridge Reservation                 Technology development
Hanford site, 2012 accelerated        All construction line items
 completions
Hanford site, 2035 accelerated        NNSA sites & Nevada off-sites
 completions
Office of River Protection, waste     Safeguards and Security
 treatment & immobilization
Office of River Protection, tank
 farm activities


    Details of the recommended funding levels follow below for 
the Defense Environmental Cleanup account.

                     Defense Environmental Cleanup





Appropriation, 2005...................................    $6,808,319,000
Budget estimate, 2006.................................     6,015,044,000
Recommended, 2006.....................................     6,468,336,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2005...............................      -339,953,000
    Budget estimate, 2006.............................      +453,292,000


    The Committee's recommendation for Defense Environmental 
Cleanup totals $6,468,336,000, an increase of $453,292,000 to 
the budget request of $6,015,044,000. Within the amounts 
provided, the Department is directed to fund hazardous waste 
worker training at $10,000,000.
    Closure Sites.--The Committee recommendation provides 
$1,038,589,000, an increase of $30,000,000 over the budget 
request. Cleanup of this category of sites is expected to be 
complete in fiscal year 2006. The recommendation provides 
$579,950,000 for Rocky Flats, Colorado; $327,609,000 for 
Fernald, Ohio; $16,000,000 for Ashtabula, Ohio; and $9,500,000 
for West Jefferson site, Columbus, Ohio. The Committee provides 
$105,530,000, an increase of $30,000,000 for the Miamisburg 
Closure Project. The increase over the request is to address 
the remaining hazardous wastes serving as the source term for 
Operable Unit 1 (OU-1).
    The Committee directs the Department to work with the 
Miamisburg Mound Community Improvement Corporation (MMCIC) to 
establish a remedy for OU-1 that is protective of human health 
and the environment, complies with regulatory requirements, is 
permanent, reduces contaminants, demonstrates an efficient use 
of the Government's resources, and permits reuse as provided in 
the MMCIC Comprehensive Reuse Plan. The Committee directs the 
Department to report back to the House and Senate Committees on 
Appropriations on the path forward for remediating OU-1 not 
later than December 1, 2005.
    Savannah River Site.--The Committee recommendation provides 
$1,219,082,000 for cleanup at the Savannah River Site, a 
reduction of $10,000,000 from the budget request. The Committee 
does not support the request of $10,000,000 for the melt and 
dilute technology for excess weapons-grade plutonium, because 
it is more appropriately funded within the National Nuclear 
Security Administration, as it addresses the disposition of 
fissile material, not cleanup responsibilities.
    Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP).--The Committee 
recommendation provides $212,629,000 for the Waste Isolation 
Pilot Project, the same as the budget request, and a decrease 
of $12,743,000 from fiscal year 2005.
    Idaho National Laboratory.--The Committee recommendation 
provides $531,725,000, the same as the budget request.
    Oak Ridge Reservation.--The Committee recommendation 
provides $202,652,000, an increase of $16,100,000 over the 
budget request. The recommendation includes an increase of 
$3,600,000 for the design of an upgraded waste treatment 
system; an increase of $6,000,000 to accelerate nuclear 
facility decontamination and decommissioning at Oak Ridge 
National Laboratory; and, an increase of $6,500,000 to 
accelerate the nuclear facility decontamination and 
decommissioning at East Tennessee Technology Park.
    Hanford Site.--The Committee recommendation provides 
$821,010,000 for the Hanford Site, an increase of $71,293,000 
over the budget request. The recommendation provides 
$206,565,000 for nuclear material stabilization and 
disposition, an increase of $15,793,000 over the budget 
request, and $188,501,000 for nuclear facility decontamination 
and decommissioning River Corridor, an increase of $20,000,000 
over the budget request. These increases are provided to 
maintain 2012 completion. The Committee recommendation provides 
$7,500,000 for the Volpentest Hazardous Materials Management 
and Emergency Response (HAMMER) training and education center, 
and $1,000,000 for preservation of the B Reactor as a historic 
landmark. The recommendation provides $58,479,000 for spent 
nuclear fuel stabilization and disposition, the same as the 
budget request.
    The recommendation includes $173,113,000 for solid waste 
stabilization and disposition in the 200 Area, an increase of 
$8,000,000 over the budget request, $86,955,000 for soil and 
water remediation, an increase of $14,000,000 over the budget 
request, and $75,812,000 for nuclear facility decontamination 
and decommissioning for the remainder of Hanford, an increase 
of $5,000,000 over the request. The Committee recommendation 
provides $5,861,000 to operate the waste disposal facility, 
$1,813,000 for spent fuel stabilization and storage, and 
$15,411,000 for Richland community and regulatory support, the 
same as the budget request.
    Office of River Protection.--The Committee recommendation 
provides $1,051,918,000 for the Office of River Protection, an 
increase of $123,612,000 over the request, and an increase of 
$59,505,000 over fiscal year 2005 enacted levels. The 
recommendation includes $690,000,000 for the waste treatment 
and immobilization plant, an increase of $64,107,000 over the 
request of $625,000,000, and an increase of $5,520,000 over 
fiscal year 2005 enacted levels. The increase is to maintain 
the project on a pace consistent with contractual agreements 
and completion dates. The recommendation includes $361,447,000 
for radioactive liquid tank waste stabilization and 
disposition, an increase of $67,000,000 over the request of 
$294,447,000, to continue tank retrievals and closure 
demonstrations. The Committee supports the expeditious removal 
of high-level liquid waste from the tanks, and immobilization, 
and is concerned the Administration does not share these same 
priorities, as reflected in the budget request. The Committee 
recommends no funding for the immobilized high level waste 
interim storage facility, a $7,495,000 reduction from the 
budget request. Construction of the storage facility for 
vitrified waste is premature in light of the timetable for the 
immobilization facility. The recommendation provides $471,000, 
the same as the budget request, for community and regulatory 
support.
    Program Direction.--The Committee recommendation provides 
$248,816,000, an increase of $17,885,000 over the request of 
$230,931,000. The increase reflects the return of program 
direction funds to the Environmental Management program that 
otherwise would have gone to the NNSA. Of the total amount of 
$248,816,000, $82,924,000 is available for obligation only 
after the report delivery to the Committee by the Secretary on 
the specific steps the Department will take to ensure that 
life-cycle cost guidance is implemented in the consideration of 
LLW/MLW options by DOE contractors.
    Program Support.--The Committee recommendation provides 
$32,846,000 for program support, the same as the budget 
request.
    Federal Contribution to Uranium Enrichment Decontamination 
and Decommissioning Fund.--The Energy Policy Act of 1992 
(Public Law 102-486) created the Uranium Enrichment 
Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund to pay for the cost of 
cleanup of the gaseous diffusion facilities located in Oak 
Ridge, Tennessee; Paducah, Kentucky; and Portsmouth, Ohio. The 
Committee recommendation includes the budget request of 
$451,000,000 for the Federal contribution to the Uranium 
Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund as 
authorized in Public Law 102-486.
    Technology Development and Deployment.--The Committee 
recommendation provides $21,389,000, the same as the budget 
request. Within the amounts provided, the Department is 
directed to fund the real-time identification warning system at 
$250,000, the Hanford Tank Waste Operations Simulator at 
$2,000,000, and the Mid-Atlantic Recycling Center for End of 
Life Electronics at $1,000,000.
    NNSA sites and Nevada off-sites.--The Committee 
recommendation provides $349,457,000, an increase of 
$204,402,000 over the budget request. The increase reflects the 
return of cleanup activities to the Environmental Management 
program that otherwise would have transferred to the NNSA.
    Safeguards and Security.--The Committee recommendation 
provides $287,223,000, the same as the budget request.

                        Other Defense Activities





Appropriation, 2005...................................      $687,149,000
Budget estimate, 2006.................................       635,998,000
Recommended, 2006.....................................       702,498,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2005...............................       +15,349,000
    Budget estimate, 2005.............................       +66,500,000


    This account provides funding for the Office of Security 
and Performance Assurance; Intelligence; Counterintelligence; 
Environment, Safety and Health (Defense); Legacy Management; 
Funding for Defense Activities in Idaho; Defense Related 
Administrative Support; and the Office of Hearings and Appeals. 
Descriptions of each of these programs are provided below.

              OFFICE OF SECURITY AND PERFORMANCE ASSURANCE

    The Office of Security and Performance Assurance (SSA) 
provides domestic safeguards and security for nuclear weapons, 
nuclear materials, nuclear facilities, and classified and 
unclassified information against sabotage, espionage, terrorist 
activities, or any loss or unauthorized disclosure that could 
endanger the national security or disrupt operations. The 
Committee recommendation for security and emergency operations 
is $357,595,000, an increase of $56,500,000 over the budget 
request. The Committee's increase is provided to support design 
and construction activities to upgrade CPP-651 and CPP-691 at 
the Idaho National Laboratory for complex-wide material 
consolidation of special nuclear material. The Department is 
directed to provide an implementation plan for consolidation to 
the Committee, due September 30, 2005, on the total cost, 
schedule, and consolidation capacity of the Idaho facilities 
and the candidate material inventories available for 
consolidation. The Committee also provides $20,000,000 to begin 
the immediate transfer of the excess uranium-233 stored in 
Building 3019 at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory to the Y-12 
National Security Complex for safe, secure interim storage. As 
a legacy weapons material, the Committee recognizes that the 
program owner of the excess uranium-233 material is the 
National Nuclear Security Administration and program 
responsibility transfers to the NNSA with the termination of 
Medical Isotope Production and Building 3019 Complex Shutdown 
project. The Committee provides funding within SSA to 
coordinate the shutdown activities and the transfer of this 
material to secure storage on an NNSA site. The Committee 
directs the Department to evaluate other existing blend down/
reprocessing capability within the complex to complete the 
material stabilization for long-term interim safe storage. The 
Secretary is directed to submit the report to the Committee on 
alternative disposition options for excess uranium-233 in 
Building 3019 that includes all options meeting the 2004 DBT 
requirements, maintaining all worker health and safety 
requirements, and cost estimates based on total life cycle 
costs including long term disposition. This report is due to 
the House and Senate Appropriations Committees by September 30, 
2005.
    In fiscal year 2006, the Department of Energy will spend 
$1.45 billion on safeguards and security activities at 
Headquarters and field locations. Funding for safeguards and 
security activities at Departmental facilities and laboratories 
for programmatic activities in the field is included within 
each program budget.

                         OFFICE OF INTELLIGENCE

    The intelligence program provides information and technical 
analyses on international arms proliferation, foreign nuclear 
programs, and other energy related matters to policy makers in 
the Department and other U.S. Government agencies. The focus of 
the Department's intelligence analysis and reporting is on 
emerging proliferant nations, nuclear technology transfers, 
foreign nuclear materials production, and proliferation 
implications of the breakup of the Former Soviet Union.

                     OFFICE OF COUNTERINTELLIGENCE

    The Office of Counterintelligence seeks to develop and 
implement an effective counterintelligence program throughout 
the Department of Energy. The goal of the program is to 
identify, neutralize, and deter foreign government or 
industrial intelligence threats directed at the Department's 
facilities, personnel, information, and technologies.

                ENVIRONMENT, SAFETY AND HEALTH (DEFENSE)

    The Office of Environment, Safety and Health develops 
programs and policies to protect the workers and the public, 
conducts independent oversight of performance, and funds health 
effects studies. The Committee recommendation is $77,029,000, 
the same as the budget request.

                           LEGACY MANAGEMENT

    The Committee recommendation provides a total of 
$78,598,000 for the Office of Legacy Management to manage the 
long-term stewardship responsibilities at the Department of 
Energy clean up sites. The Committee recommendation provides 
$55,076,000 in Other Defense Activities and the balance of 
$23,522,000 is provided in the non-defense Energy Supply 
account. The Department is directed to provide a report to the 
Committee, due September 30, 2005, on the Department's 
management plan and five-year cost estimates associated with 
procuring the services of a national stewardship contractor to 
administer the pension and benefit payments to former 
Environmental Management closure site contractor employees. The 
report should include detailed cost estimates of the pension 
and benefit liability by site and contract at the former 
cleanup sites. The Committee recommendation provides no funds 
for the worker and community transition activities.

                FUNDING FOR DEFENSE ACTIVITIES IN IDAHO

    The Committee recommendation includes $123,873,000 to fund 
the defense-related (050 budget function) activities at the 
Idaho National Laboratory (INL) and associated Idaho cleanup 
sites. This amount includes $17,762,000 for INL infrastructure, 
the same as the budget request, 75,008,000 for Idaho site-wide 
safeguards and security, the same as the budget request; and 
$31,103,000 for program direction to support Headquarters and 
Idaho Field Office personnel.

                 DEFENSE RELATED ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT

    The Committee recommendation includes $87,575,000, the same 
as the budget request, to provide administrative support for 
programs funded in the atomic energy defense activities 
accounts. This will fund Departmental activities performed by 
offices such as the Secretary, Deputy Secretary and Under 
Secretary, the General Counsel, Chief Financial Officer, Human 
Resources, Congressional Affairs, and Public Affairs, which 
support the organizations and activities funded in the atomic 
energy defense activities accounts.

                     OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

    The Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) is responsible for 
all of the Department's adjudicatory processes, other than 
those administered by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. 
The Committee recommendation is $4,353,000, the same as the 
budget request.

                          FUNDING ADJUSTMENTS

    The Committee recommendation for funding adjustments 
includes an offset of $3,003,000 for the safeguards and 
security charge for reimbursable work, the same as the budget 
request.

                     Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal





Appropriation, 2005...................................      $229,152,000
Budget estimate, 2006.................................       351,447,000
Recommended, 2006.....................................       351,447,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2005...............................      +122,295,000
    Budget estimate, 2006.............................  ................


    Since passage of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as 
amended, the Nuclear Waste Fund has incurred costs for 
activities related to the disposal of high-level waste and 
spent nuclear fuel generated from the atomic energy defense 
activities of the Department of Energy. The Defense Nuclear 
Waste Disposal appropriation was established to ensure payment 
of the Federal government's contribution to the nuclear waste 
repository program. The total amount due from defense 
contributions is estimated at $5.8 billion, of which only $2.6 
billion has been appropriated through the end of fiscal year 
2005, with a balance owed of approximately $3.2 billion. An 
estimated defense contribution of $2.8 billion will be required 
after fiscal year 2006 to fulfill the remaining defense 
obligation.
    The Committee recommendation is $351,447,000, the same as 
the budget request. Coupled with the $310,000,000 provided 
under the Nuclear Waste Disposal account, the Committee 
provides a total of $661,447,000 for the Yucca Mountain 
repository.

                    Power Marketing Administrations

    Management of the Federal power marketing functions was 
transferred from the Department of Interior to the Department 
of Energy by the Department of Energy Organization Act (P.L. 
95-91). These functions include the power marketing activities 
authorized under section 5 of the Flood Control Act of 1944 and 
all other functions of the Bonneville Power Administration, the 
Southeastern Power Administration, the Southwestern Power 
Administration, and the power marketing functions of the Bureau 
of Reclamation that have been transferred to the Western Area 
Power Administration.
    The Committee rejects the Administration proposal to 
recover expenses related to operations and maintenance 
activities and program direction expenditures using offsetting 
collections and the proposal to increase the power marketing 
administration rates to reflect market based rates.
    All power marketing administrations except the Bonneville 
Power Administration are funded annually with appropriated 
funds. Revenues collected from power sales and transmission 
services are deposited in the Treasury to offset expenditures. 
The Committee recommendation for fiscal year 2006 does not 
support the Administration proposal to continue the phase-out 
of Federal financing of the customers' purchase power and 
wheeling expenses for the Southeastern Power Administration, 
the Southwestern Power Administration, and the Western Area 
Power Administration. Also, the Committee recommendation does 
not at this time incorporate the Administration proposal for 
the Power Marketing Administrations to fund directly from 
revenues the costs of operation and maintenance of federal 
hydropower facilities at Corps of Engineers dams.
    Operations of the Bonneville Power Administration are self-
financed under the authority of the Federal Columbia River 
Transmission System Act (P.L. 93-454). Under this Act, the 
Bonneville Power Administration is authorized to use its 
revenues to finance the costs of its operations, maintenance, 
and capital construction, and to sell bonds to the Treasury if 
necessary to finance any additional capital program 
requirements.
    Purchase power and wheeling.--The Committee finds no 
compelling reason to continue the phase out of purchase power 
and wheeling, particularly since this activity is budget 
neutral. The Committee recommendation for fiscal year 2006 
maintains purchase power and wheeling activities at 
approximately the fiscal year 2005 level. The Committee will 
continue to establish ceilings on the use of receipts for 
purchase power and wheeling, and also establish the amount of 
offsetting collections.

                    BONNEVILLE POWER ADMINISTRATION

    The Bonneville Power Administration is the Department of 
Energy's marketing agency for electric power in the Pacific 
Northwest. Bonneville provides electricity to a 300,000 square 
mile service area in the Columbia River drainage basin. 
Bonneville markets the power from Federal hydropower projects 
in the Northwest, as well as power from non-Federal generating 
facilities in the region, and exchanges and markets surplus 
power with Canada and California. The Committee recommendation 
provides no new borrowing authority during fiscal year 2006.

      Operation and Maintenance, Southeastern Power Administration





Appropriation, 2005...................................        $5,158,000
Budget estimate, 2006.................................  ................
Recommended, 2006.....................................         5,600,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2005...............................          +442,000
    Budget estimate, 2006.............................        +5,600,000


    The Southeastern Power Administration markets the 
hydroelectric power produced at 23 Corps of Engineers projects 
in eleven states in the Southeast. Southeastern does not own or 
operate any transmission facilities, so it contracts to 
``wheel'' its power using the existing transmission facilities 
of area utilities.
    The Committee recommendation for the Southeastern Power 
Administration is $5,600,000, an increase of $5,600,000 from 
the budget request. The total program level for Southeastern in 
fiscal year 2006 is $38,313,000, with $32,713,000 for purchase 
power and wheeling and $5,600,000 for program direction. The 
purchase power and wheeling costs will be offset by collections 
of $32,713,000 provided in this Act.

      Operation and Maintenance, Southwestern Power Administration






Appropriation, 2005...................................       $29,117,000
Budget estimate, 2006.................................         3,166,000
Recommended, 2006.....................................        30,166,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2005...............................        +1,049,000
    Budget estimate, 2006.............................      +$27,000,000


    The Southwestern Power Administration markets the 
hydroelectric power produced at 24 Corps of Engineers projects 
in the six-state area of Arkansas, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, 
Oklahoma and Texas. Southwestern operates and maintains 1,380 
miles of transmission lines, with the supporting substations 
and communications sites. Southwestern gives preference in the 
sale of its power to publicly and cooperatively owned 
utilities.
    The Committee recommendation for the Southwestern Power 
Administration is $30,166,000, an increase of $27,000,000. The 
Committee's restoration of $27,000,000 to the fiscal year 2006 
budget reflects the Committee's rejection of the 
Administration's proposal to recover expenses related to 
operations and maintenance activities and program direction 
expenditures using offsetting collections. The total program 
level for Southwestern in fiscal year 2006 is $30,166,000, 
including $7,042,000 for operating expenses, $1,235,000 for 
purchase power and wheeling, $19,958,000 for program direction, 
and $3,166,000 for construction. The offset of $1,235,000 from 
collections for purchase power and wheeling yields a net 
appropriation of $30,166,000. The offsetting collections total 
$1,235,000 provided in this Act.

 Construction, Rehabilitation, Operation and Maintenance, Western Area 
                          Power Administration





Appropriation, 2005...................................      $171,715,000
Budget estimate, 2006.................................        53,957,000
Recommended, 2006.....................................       226,992,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2005...............................       +55,277,000
    Budget estimate, 2006.............................      +173,035,000


    The Western Area Power Administration is responsible for 
marketing the electric power generated by the Bureau of 
Reclamation, the Corps of Engineers, and the International 
Boundary and Water Commission. Western also operates and 
maintains a system of transmission lines nearly 17,000 miles 
long. Western provides electricity to 15 Central and Western 
states over a service area of 1.3 million square miles.
    The Committee recommendation for the Western Area Power 
Administration is $226,992,000, an increase of $173,035,000 
from the budget request. The total O&M program level for 
Western in fiscal year 2006 is $379,654,000, which includes 
$40,192,000 for construction and rehabilitation, $47,295,000 
for system operation and maintenance, $148,500,000 for purchase 
power and wheeling, and $143,667,000 for program direction. 
Offsetting collections total $152,662,000; with the use of 
$4,162,000 of offsetting collections from the Colorado River 
Dam Fund (as authorized in P.L. 98-381), this requires a net 
appropriation of $226,992,000.
    The Committee continues to keep a keen interest in the on-
going implementation and operation of the Sierra-Nevada 
Region's Post-2004 Power Marketing Plan and Transmission 
Operations. The Committee is supportive of the newly created 
sub-control area and plan; however it reiterates its concern to 
WAPA that is must follow the five criteria laid out in the 
Federal Register to maintain and enhance flexibility, 
certainty, durability, operating transparency, and most 
importantly, cost effectiveness to its customers. Therefore, 
the Committee directs WAPA to submit a report to the Committee 
on Appropriations and the Committee on Resources by January 1, 
2006 regarding the implementation of the Post-2004 Power 
Marketing Plan and Transmission Operations, and specifically 
identify the difference, if any, in the cost effectiveness, 
operating transparency, durability, certainty and flexibility 
of the current plan versus the Federal Register notice of 
December 3, 2003.
    Within available funds, the Committee recommendation 
includes $6,000,000 to complete the Topock-Davis segment of the 
Topock-Davis-Mead line to provide additional transmission 
capacity by using aluminum matrix composite conductor 
technology.

           Falcon and Amistad Operating and Maintenance Fund





Appropriation, 2005...................................        $2,804,000
Budget estimate, 2006.................................  ................
Recommended, 2006.....................................         2,692,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2005...............................              -112
    Budget estimate, 2006.............................        +2,692,000


    Falcon Dam and Amistad Dam are two international water 
projects located on the Rio Grande River between Texas and 
Mexico. Power generated by hydroelectric facilities at these 
two dams is sold to public utilities through the Western Area 
Power Administration. The Foreign Relations Authorization Act 
for Fiscal Years 1994 and 1995 created the Falcon and Amistad 
Operating and Maintenance Fund to defray the costs of 
operation, maintenance, and emergency activities. The Fund is 
administered by the Western Area Power Administration for use 
by the Commissioner of the U.S. Section of the International 
Boundary and Water Commission.
    The Committee recommendation is $2,692,000.

                  Federal Energy Regulatory Commission


                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES




Appropriation, 2005...................................      $208,320,000
Budget estimate, 2006.................................       220,400,000
Recommended, 2006.....................................       220,400,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2005...............................       +12,080,000
    Budget estimate, 2006.............................  ................


                            REVENUES APPLIED




Appropriation, 2004...................................     $-208,320,000
Budget estimate, 2005.................................      -220,400,000
Recommended, 2005.....................................      -220,400,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2004...............................       -12,080,000
    Budget estimate, 2005.............................  ................


    The Committee recommendation for the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission (FERC) is $220,400,000, the same as the 
budget request. Revenues for FERC are established at a rate 
equal to the budget authority, resulting in a net appropriation 
of $0.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee's detailed funding recommendations for 
programs in Title III are contained in the following table.


                           General Provisions


                          DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

    Contract Competition.--Section 301 modifies language 
carried in the conference report for the Energy and Water 
Development Act, 2005 (P.L. 108-447), requiring the competition 
of the management and operating contracts for Ames, Argonne, 
Lawrence Berkeley, Lawrence Livermore, and Los Alamos national 
laboratories. The Committee appreciates the efforts of the 
Secretary and his staff to comply with the provisions of the 
existing Section 301 in P.L. 108-137 and to schedule 
competitions for these five laboratory contracts. The Committee 
renews the statutory requirement to compete these five 
contracts to be sure the Department follows through on the 
commitments made by the present Secretary.
    Section 301 also reiterates language from previous Energy 
and Water Development Acts requiring notification of Congress 
if the Secretary awards a management and operating contract in 
excess of $100 million in annual funding at a current or former 
management and operating contract site or facility, or award a 
significant extension or expansion to an existing management 
and operating contract, or other contract covered by this 
section, unless such contract is awarded using competitive 
procedures, or the Secretary of Energy grants, on a case by 
case basis, a waiver to allow for such a deviation. At least 90 
days before granting such a waiver, the Secretary of Energy 
must submit to the House and Senate Committees on 
Appropriations a report notifying the Committees of the waiver 
and setting forth, in specificity, the reasons for the waiver. 
Section 301 does not preclude extensions of a contract awarded 
using competitive procedures, but does establish a presumption 
of competition unless the Secretary invokes the waiver option. 
The waiver for non competitive awards or extensions should be 
invoked only in truly exceptional circumstances or in the case 
of exceptional performance, not as a matter of routine. A non-
competitive award or extension may be in the taxpayers' 
interest, but the burden of proof is on the Department to make 
that case in the waiver request.
    Limitation on Benefits for Federal Employees.--Section 302 
provides that none of the funds in this Act may be used to 
prepare or implement workforce restructuring plans or provide 
enhanced severance payments and other benefits and community 
assistance grants for Federal employees of the Department of 
Energy under section 3161 of the National Defense Authorization 
Act of Fiscal Year 1993 (Public Law 102-484). The Committee has 
provided no funds to implement workforce restructuring plans 
which would provide benefits to Federal employees of the 
Department of Energy which are not available to other Federal 
employees of the United States Government. A similar provision 
was included in the Energy and Water Development Appropriations 
Act, 2005.
    Limitation on Funding for Section 3161 Benefits.--Section 
303 provides that none of the funds in this Act may be used for 
enhanced severance payments to contractors and other benefits 
and community assistance grants authorized under the provisions 
of section 3161 of the National Defense Authorization Act of 
Fiscal Year 1993 (Public Law 102-484).
    Limitation on Initiation of Requests for Proposals.--
Section 304 provides that none of the funds in this Act may be 
used to initiate requests for proposals or expressions of 
interest for new programs which have not yet been presented to 
Congress in the annual budget submission, and which have not 
yet been approved and funded by Congress. A similar provision 
was included in the Energy and Water Development Appropriations 
Act, 2005.
    Transfer and Merger of Unexpended Balances.--Section 305 
permits the transfer and merger of unexpended balances of prior 
appropriations with appropriation accounts established in this 
bill. A similar provision was included in the Energy and Water 
Development Appropriations Act, 2005.
    Limitation on Bonneville Power Administration.--Section 306 
provides that none of the funds in this or any other Act may be 
used by the Administrator of the Bonneville Power 
Administration to perform energy efficiency services outside 
the legally defined Bonneville service territory unless the 
Administrator certifies in advance that such services are not 
available from private sector businesses. A similar provision 
was included in the Energy and Water Development Appropriations 
Act, 2005.
    User Facilities.--Section 307 establishes certain notice 
and competition requirements with respect to the involvement of 
universities in Department of Energy user facilities. A similar 
provision was included in the Energy and Water Development 
Appropriations Act, 2005. The detailed guidance on the 
application of this provision was provided in House Report 107-
681 and continues to apply.
    Research, Development and Demonstration Activities.--
Section 308 provides authority for up to 2 percent of national 
security funding to be used for research, development, and 
demonstration activities at the four nuclear weapons plants 
(i.e., Kansas City, Pantex, Savannah River, and Y-12) and at 
the Nevada Test Site. A similar provision was included in the 
Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, 2005.
    Authorization of Intelligence Activities.--Section 309 
authorizes intelligence activities of the Department of Energy 
for purposes of section 504 of the National Security Act of 
1947 during fiscal year 2006 until the enactment of the 
Intelligence Authorization Act for fiscal year 2005.
    Siting of Modern Pit Facility.--Section 310 provides that 
none of the funds made available in this or any other 
appropriations act may be used to select a site for the Modern 
Pit Facility during fiscal year 2006. As explained in the NNSA 
section of this report, the Committee believes any siting 
decision on the Modern Pit Facility is premature at this time.
    Laboratory Directed Research and Development.--Section 311 
provides that none of the funds made available in title III of 
this Act shall be available for the Department of Energy 
national laboratories and production plants for Laboratory 
Directed Research and Development (LDRD) and Plant Directed 
Research and Development (PDRD) and Site Directed Research and 
Development (SDRD) activities in excess of $250,000,000.
    Laboratory Directed Research and Development.--Section 312 
provides that none of the funds made available in title III of 
this Act shall be available for Department of Energy LDRD and 
PDRD and SDRD activities for project costs incurred as Indirect 
Costs by Major Facility Operating Contractors under OMB's 
Federal Cost Accounting Standards (FAR Part 9900) or the 
Generally Accepted Accounting Principles issued by the 
Financial Accounting Standards Board.
    Laboratory Directed Research and Development.--Section 313 
provides that none of the funds made available in this Act may 
be used to finance LDRD, PDRD, and SDRD activities at 
Department of Energy laboratories on behalf of other Federal 
agencies.
                                TITLE IV

                          INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

                    Appalachian Regional Commission




Appropriation, 2005...................................       $65,472,000
Budget estimate, 2006.................................        65,472,000
Recommended, 2006.....................................        38,500,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2005...............................       -26,972,000
    Budget estimate, 2006.............................       -26,972,000


    The Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC) is a regional 
economic development agency established in 1965. It is 
comprised of the Governors of the thirteen Appalachian States 
and has a Federal co chairman, who is appointed by the 
President. For fiscal year 2006, the budget includes 
$65,472,000, of which $53,954,000 is for program development; 
$6,228,000 is local development districts and technical 
assistance; and $5,290,000 is for salaries and expenses. In 
addition, $450,000,000 is available to the ARC to construct 
approximately 25 additional miles of highway.
    The ARC budget justification indicates that it targets 
fifty percent of its funds to distressed counties or distressed 
areas in the Appalachian region. In times of budget austerity, 
the Committee believes this should be the primary focus of the 
ARC. The Committee recommendation for ARC is $38,500,000, 
nearly $27,000,000 less than the fiscal year 2005 enacted level 
and the budget estimate. The reduction is to be taken from the 
area development activities that serve other than distressed 
counties and distressed areas.
    Within the funds provided, the Committee has included the 
following activities:

Central West Virginia public water and wastewater 
    facilities..........................................      $2,000,000
Southern West Virginia public water and wastewater 
    treatment facilities................................       2,000,000
Scioto County, Ohio sanitary sewer pump station 
    renovations and improvements........................         750,000
Copeland low water bridge, Breathitt County, Kentucky...       1,800,000
Watershed coordination activities, Athens, Meigs, 
    Gallia, Lawrence and Scioto counties, Ohio..........         500,000
Logan County, West Virginia flood warning system........         305,000

                Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board


                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES




Appropriation, 2005...................................       $20,106,000
Budget estimate, 2006.................................        22,032,000
Recommended, 2006.....................................        22,032,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2005...............................        +1,926,000
    Budget estimate, 2006.............................               ---


    The Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board was created by 
the Fiscal Year 1989 National Defense Authorization Act. The 
Board, composed of five members appointed by the President, 
provides advice and recommendations to the Secretary of Energy 
regarding public health and safety issues at the Department's 
defense nuclear facilities. The Board is responsible for 
reviewing and evaluating the content and implementation of the 
standards relating to the design, construction, operation, and 
decommissioning of defense nuclear facilities of the Department 
of Energy. The Committee recommendation for fiscal year 2006 is 
$22,032,000, the same as the budget request.

                       Delta Regional Commission





Appropriation, 2005...................................        $6,000,000
Budget estimate, 2006.................................         6,000,000
Recommended, 2006.....................................         6,000,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2005...............................               ---
    Budget estimate, 2006.............................               ---


    The Delta Regional Authority (DRA) is a federal-state 
partnership serving a 240-county/parish area in an eight-state 
region. Led by a Federal Co-Chairman and the governors of each 
participating state, the DRA is designed to remedy severe and 
chronic economic distress by stimulating economic development 
and fostering partnerships that will have a positive impact on 
the region's economy. The DRA seeks to help economically 
distressed communities leverage other federal and state 
programs, which are focused on basic infrastructure development 
and transportation improvements, business development, and job 
training services. Under federal law, at least 75 percent of 
funds must be invested in distressed counties and parishes and 
pockets of poverty, with 50 percent of the funds earmarked for 
transportation and basic infrastructure improvements.
    For fiscal year 2006, the Committee recommends $6,000,000, 
the same as the enacted level and the budget estimate.

                           Denali Commission





Appropriation, 2005...................................       $66,464,000
Budget estimate, 2006.................................         2,562,000
Recommended, 2006.....................................         2,562,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2005...............................        63,902,000
    Budget estimate, 2006.............................               ---


    Introduced by Congress in 1998, the Denali Commission is a 
federal-state partnership designed to provide critical 
utilities, infrastructure, and economic support throughout 
Alaska. For fiscal year 2006, the Committee recommends 
$2,562,000 for the costs of the Commission's operations, the 
same level as the budget estimate. In addition to these funds, 
the Commission plans to expend other funds totaling $4,000,000 
in fiscal year 2006 on renovating or building bulk fuel storage 
facilities in two Alaskan communities.

                     Nuclear Regulatory Commission


                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES



Aropriation, 2005...................................      $657,475,000
Budget estimate, 2006.................................       693,376,000
Recommended, 2006.....................................       714,376,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2005...............................       +56,901,000
    Budget estimate, 2006.............................       +21,000,000


                                REVENUES




Appropriation, 2005...................................     -$530,079,000
Budget estimate, 2006.................................      -559,643,000
Recommended, 2006.....................................      -580,643,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2005...............................       -50,564,000
    Budget estimate, 2006.............................       -21,000,000


                           NET APPROPRIATION



Appropriation, 2005...................................      $127,396,000
Budget estimate, 2006.................................       133,733,000
Recommended, 2006.....................................       133,733,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2005...............................        +6,337,000
    Budget estimate, 2006.............................  ................


    The Committee recommendation for the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission (NRC) salaries and expenses is $714,376,000, an 
increase of $21,000,000 over the budget request. This amount is 
offset by estimated revenues of $580,643,000, resulting in a 
net appropriation of $133,733,000. The recommendation includes 
$66,717,000 to be derived from the Nuclear Waste Fund to 
support the Department of Energy's effort to develop a 
permanent geologic repository at Yucca Mountain for spent 
nuclear fuel and high-level waste.
    Fee recovery.--The Committee recommendation includes bill 
language providing for a one-year extension of the authority to 
continue the fee recovery percentage used in fiscal year 2005, 
namely, that the NRC is required in fiscal year 2006 to recover 
90 percent of its budget authority, less the appropriation 
derived from the Nuclear Waste Fund and the amount necessary to 
implement Section 3116 of the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (P.L. 108-375), by 
assessing license and annual fees. Of the $717,376,000 gross 
appropriation for fiscal year 2006, $66,717,000 is drawn from 
the Nuclear Waste Fund, $2,500,000 is drawn from the General 
Fund of the Treasury to execute NRC's responsibilities to 
provide oversight of certain Department of Energy activities 
under Section 3116 of Ronald W. Reagan National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (P.L 108-375), 90 
percent of the balance of $645,159,000 (i.e., $580,643,000) is 
funded by fees collected from NRC licensees, and the remaining 
10 percent (i.e., $64,516,000) is funded from the General Fund 
of the Treasury.
    Safety and Security of Spent Nuclear Fuel.--In its fiscal 
year 2004 conference report on Energy and Water Development 
Appropriations, the conferees directed the National Academy of 
Sciences (NAS) to conduct a study on the safety and security of 
spent nuclear fuel storage at commercial reactor sites. The NAS 
completed the classified version of this study in the summer of 
2004 and released an unclassified summary of the study in early 
2005. In its fiacal year 2005 conference report on Energy and 
Water Development Appropriations, the conferees provides the 
following direction to the NRC: ``The National Academy 
completed this study and found a number of areas in which the 
NRC could improve its modeling of the risks to spent fuel 
storage and the mitigation of such risks. The conferees expect 
the NRC to take the necessary steps to improve its analyses, 
including the preparation of site-specific models, and to work 
with the utilities to ensure timely application of this 
information to mitigate risks.''
    From the Committee's perspective, the NAS identified a 
number of risks that, while significant, are manageable risks 
given prompt and appropriate action by the NRC. However, the 
Committee has been disappointed by the NRC's response to date 
to the NAS recommendations. The Committee notes deficiencies in 
the following areas: (a) slow response by the NRC to post-9/11 
changes and to the NAS recommendations; (b) analysis of only 
worst-case vulnerabilities, with little or no attention to 
alternative scenarios; (c) focus on site-specific consequence 
assessments to the exclusion of site-specific vulnerability 
assessments; (d) delegation of the site-specific consequence 
assessments to the trade association, the Nuclear Energy 
Institute, rather than placing that contract under NRC control; 
and (e) willingness to allow industry to determine what 
measures are appropriate and ``readily available'' to mitigate 
against pool incidents. The Committee does not believe the NRC 
has taken the necessary steps to resolve fully the concerns 
identified by the NAS. The Committee expects the NRC to 
redouble its efforts to address the NAS-identified 
deficiencies, and to direct, not request, industry to take 
prompt corrective actions.
    Public confidence in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 
requires that the NRC be perceived to be an independent 
regulator of the nuclear industry. Steps such as asking 
industry to identify ``readily available'' mitigation measures 
and allowing the industry trade association to manage the 
contracts for force-on-force security assessments and site-
specific consequence assessments do not inspire such 
confidence. The Committee provides an additional $21,000,000 
for the NRC to perform the necessary technical analyses and 
award the contracts to respond to the NAS safety and security 
recommendations.
    Reports.--The Committee directs the Commission to continue 
to provide monthly reports on the status of its licensing and 
other regulatory activities.

                      Office of Inspector General


                          GROSS APPROPRIATION




Appropriation, 2005...................................        $7,458,000
Budget estimate, 2006.................................         8,316,000
Recommended, 2006.....................................         8,316,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2005...............................          +858,000
    Budget estimate, 2006.............................             - - -


                                REVENUES




Appropriation, 2005...................................       -$6,712,000
Budget estimate, 2006.................................        -7,485,000
Recommended, 2006.....................................        -7,485,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2005...............................          -773,000
    Budget estimate, 2006.............................  ................


                           NET APPROPRIATION




Appropriation, 2005...................................          $746,000
Budget estimate, 2006.................................           831,000
Recommended, 2006.....................................           831,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2005...............................           +85,000
    Budget estimate, 2006.............................  ................


    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $8,316,000, 
the same as the budget request. The Committee recommendation 
includes bill language providing for a one-year extension of 
the authority to continue the fee recovery percentage used in 
fiscal year through the assessment of license and annual fees, 
as proposed by the Administration. Therefore, the revenue 
estimate is $7,485,000, resulting in a net appropriation for 
the NRC Inspector General of $831,000.

                  Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board





Appropriation, 2005...................................        $3,152,000
Budget estimate, 2006.................................         3,608,000
Recommended, 2006.....................................         3,608,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2005...............................          +456,000
    Budget estimate, 2006.............................  ................


    The Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board was established by 
the 1987 amendments to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 to 
provide independent technical oversight of the Department of 
Energy's nuclear waste disposal program. The Committee sees the 
Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board as having a continuing 
independent oversight role, as is specified in Section 503 of 
the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended, as the 
Department begins to focus on the packaging and transportation 
of high-level radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel.
    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $3,608,000 for 
the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board in fiscal year 2006, 
the same as the budget request and an increase of $456,000 over 
fiscal year 2005 funding.

                       Tennessee Valley Authority


                      OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

                          GROSS APPROPRIATION




Appropriation, 2005...................................  ................
Budget estimate, 2006.................................        $9,000,000
Recommended, 2006.....................................  ................
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2005...............................        +9,000,000
    Budget estimate, 2006.............................        -9,000,000


              OFFSET FROM TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY FUND




Appropriation, 2005...................................  ................
Budget estimate, 2006.................................       -$9,000,000
Recommended, 2006.....................................  ................
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2005...............................        -9,000,000
    Budget estimate, 2006.............................        +9,000,000


    The Committee recommendation does not include the 
Administration proposal to establish a Congressionally-funded 
Office of Inspector General to oversee the Tennessee Valley 
Authority. In recent years, the TVA has funded the requests of 
the TVA-IG office out of power revenues and receipts. This 
process has worked well and the Committee sees no compelling 
reason to change that mechanism for financing the TVA-IG.
    Reports.--The Committee directs the Inspector General to 
forward copies of all audit and inspection reports to the 
Committee immediately after they are issued, and immediately 
make the Committee aware of any review that recommends 
cancellation of, or modification to, any major acquisition 
project or grant, or which recommends significant budgetary 
savings. The Inspector General is also directed to withhold 
from public distribution for a period of 15 days any final 
audit or investigation report that was requested by the House 
Committee on Appropriations.
                                TITLE V

                           GENERAL PROVISIONS

    The Committee recommendation includes several general 
provisions pertaining to specific programs and activities 
funded in the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act.
    Prohibition on lobbying.--The bill includes a provision 
that none of the funds appropriated in this Act may be used in 
any way, directly or indirectly, to influence congressional 
action on any legislation or appropriation matters pending 
before Congress, other than to communicate to Members of 
Congress as described in section 1913 of Title 18, United 
States Code.
    Transfers.--The bill includes language regarding the 
transfer of funds made available in this Act to other 
departments or agencies of the Federal government.
              HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES REPORT REQUIREMENTS

    The following items are included in accordance with various 
requirements of the Rules of the House of Representatives.

                        Constitutional Authority

    Clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives states that:

          Each report of a committee on a public bill or public 
        Joint resolution shall contain the following: (1) A 
        statement citing the specific powers granted to 
        Congress in the Constitution to enact the law proposed 
        by the bill or joint resolution.

    The Committee on Appropriations bases its authority to 
report this legislation from Clause 7 of Section 9 of Article I 
of the Constitution of the United States of America which 
states:

          No money shall be drawn from the Treasury but in 
        consequence of Appropriations made by law.

    Appropriations contained in this Act are made pursuant to 
this specific power granted by the Constitution.

                   Comparison With Budget Resolution

    Clause 3(c)2 of ru1e XIII of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives requires an explanation of compliance with 
section 308(a)(1)(A) of the Congressional Budget and 
Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-344), as 
amended, which requires that the report accompanying a bill 
providing new budget authority contain a statement detailing 
how that authority compares with the reports submitted under 
section 302 of the Act for the most recently agreed to 
concurrent resolution on the budget for the fiscal year from 
the Committee's section 302(a) allocation. This information 
follows:

                                            [In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                302(b) Allocation                         This bill
                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Budget authority       Outlays        Budget authority       Outlays
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary.......................             29,746             30,273             29,746             30,264
Mandatory...........................                  0                  0                  0                  0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

         Statement of General Performance Goals and Objectives

    Pursuant to clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the following is a statement of 
general performance goals and objectives for which this measure 
authorizes funding:
    The Committee on Appropriations considers program 
performance, including a program's success in developing and 
attaining outcome-related goals and objectives, in developing 
funding recommendations.

                      Five-Year Outlay Projections

    In compliance with section 308(a)(1)(B) of the 
Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 
(Public Law 933-44), as amended, the following table contains 
five-year projections associated with the budget authority in 
the accompanying bill:

                                                                Millions
Budget Authority........................................         $29,746
Outlays:
        2006............................................          19,208
        2007............................................           8,707
        2008............................................           1,683
        2009............................................              87
        2010 and beyond.................................             118

               Assistance to State and Local Governments

    In accordance with section 308(a)(1)(C) of the 
Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 
(Public Law 933-44), as amended, the financial assistance to 
State and local governments is as follows:

                                                                Millions
Budget authority........................................            $301
Fiscal year 2006 outlays resulting therefrom............             134

                           Transfer of Funds

    Pursuant to clause 3(f)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the following is submitted describing 
the transfer of funds provided in the accompanying bill.
    Under Title II, Bureau of Reclamation, Water an Related 
Resources:

          * * * of which $55,544,000 shall be available or 
        transfer to the Upper Colorado River Basin Fund 
        $21,998,000 and shall be available for transfer to the 
        Lower Colorado River Basin Development Fund; of which 
        such amounts as may be necessary may be advanced to the 
        Colorado River Dam Fund; * * *
          * * * Provided further, That such transfers may be 
        increased or decreased within the overall 
        appropriations under this heading: * * *

    Under Title III, General Provisions:

          Sec. 305. The unexpended balances of prior 
        appropriations provided for activities in this Act may 
        be transferred to appropriation accounts for such 
        activities established pursuant to this title. Balances 
        so transferred may be merged with funds in the 
        applicable established accounts and thereafter may be 
        accounted for as one fund for the same time period as 
        originally enacted.

               Changes in the Application of Existing Law

    Pursuant to clause 3(f)(1)(A) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, the following statements are 
submitted describing the effect of provisions in the 
accompanying bill which directly or indirectly change the 
application of existing law.

                      TITLE I--CORPS OF ENGINEERS

    Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, 
General Investigations, providing for detailed studies and 
plans and specifications of projects prior to construction.
    Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, 
General Investigations, providing that amounts made available 
under this paragraph shall be provided in accordance with the 
terms and conditions specified in the report accompanying this 
Act.
    Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, 
Construction, to provide appropriations that remain available 
until expended for South Florida Everglades Restoration 
projects.
    Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, 
Construction, permitting the use of funds from the Inland 
Waterways Trust Fund and the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund.
    Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, 
Construction, providing that amounts made available under this 
paragraph shall be provided in accordance with the terms and 
conditions specified in the report accompanying this Act.
    Language has been included under the Corps of Engineers, 
Operation and Maintenance, stating that funds can be used for: 
providing security at facilities owned and operated by or on 
behalf of the Corps of Engineers, including the Washington 
Aqueduct; maintenance of harbor channels provided by a State, 
municipality, or other public agency that serve essential 
navigation needs of general commerce; and surveys and charting 
of northern and northwestern lakes and connecting waters, 
clearing and straightening channels, and removing obstructions 
to navigation.
    Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, 
Operation and Maintenance, permitting the use of funds from the 
Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund; providing for the use of funds 
from a special account for resource protection, research, 
interpretation, and maintenance activities at outdoor 
recreation areas; and allowing use of funds to cover the cost 
of operation and maintenance of dredged material disposal 
facilities for which fees have been collected.
    Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, 
Operations and Maintenance, providing that amounts made 
available under this paragraph shall be provided in accordance 
with the terms and conditions specified in the report 
accompanying this Act.
    Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, 
General Expenses, regarding support of the Humphreys Engineer 
Support Center Activity, the Institute for Water Resources, the 
United States Army Corps of Engineers Research and Development 
Center, and headquarters support functions at the United States 
Army Corps of Engineers Finance Center.
    Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, 
General Expenses, prohibiting the use of funds other funds in 
this Act for the Office of the Chief of Engineers and the 
division offices.
    Language has been included to provide for funding for the 
Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works).
    Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, 
Administrative Provisions, providing that funds are available 
for official reception and representation expenses, and for 
purchase and hire of motor vehicles.
    Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, 
General Provisions, pertaining to the reprogramming of funds 
contained in title I of this Act.
    Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, 
General Provisions, prohibiting the use of funds provided in 
this Act to support activities related to the proposed Ridge 
Landfill in Tuscarawas County, Ohio.
    Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, 
General Provisions, prohibiting the use of funds provided in 
this Act to support activities related to the proposed Indian 
Run Sanitary Landfill in Sandy Township, Stark County, Ohio.
    Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, 
General Provisions, pertaining to the oversight and execution 
of multiyear contracts.
    Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, 
General Provisions, prohibiting after February 6, 2006, the 
execution of any continuing contract that obligates the United 
States Government during fiscal year 2007 to make payment under 
such contract for any project that is not contained in the 
fiscal year 2007 budget materials of the civil functions of the 
Corps of Engineers submitted by the Assistant Secretary of the 
Army (Civil Works) to the Congress.
    Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, 
General Provisions, prohibiting the execution of any continuing 
contract that reserves an amount for a project in excess of the 
amount appropriated for such project in this Act.
    Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, 
General Provisions, prohibiting the expenditure of funds on 
rehabilitation and lead and asbestos abatement of the dredge 
McFarland.
    Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, 
General Provisions, reducing funds otherwise provided in title 
I of this Act by $18,630,000.
    Language has been included prohibiting the use of funds in 
this Act to carry out the construction of the Port Jersey 
element of the New York and New Jersey Harbor or reimbursement 
to the local sponsor for the construction of the Port Jersey 
element until commitments for construction of container 
handling facilities are obtained from the non-Federal sponsor 
for a second user along the Port Jersey element.

                  TITLE II--DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

    Language has been included under Bureau of Reclamation, 
Water and Related Resources providing that funds are available 
for fulfilling Federal responsibilities to Native Americans and 
for grants to and cooperative agreements with State and local 
governments and Indian tribes.
    Language has been included under Bureau of Reclamation, 
Water and Related Resources allowing fund transfers within the 
overall appropriation to the Upper Colorado River Basin Fund 
and the Lower Colorado River Basin Development Fund; providing 
that such sums as necessary may be advanced to the Colorado 
River Dam Fund; providing that funds may be used for work 
carried out by the Youth Conservation Corps; and providing that 
transfers may be increased or decreased within the overall 
appropriation.
    Language has been included under Bureau of Reclamation, 
Water and Related Resources providing that funds may be derived 
from the Reclamation Fund or the special fee account 
established by 16 U.S.C. 4601-6a(i); that funds contributed 
under 43 U.S.C. 395 by non-Federal entities shall be available 
for expenditure; and that funds advanced under 43 U.S.C. 397a 
for operation and maintenance of reclamation facilities are to 
be credited to the Water and Related Resources account.
    Language has been included under Bureau of Reclamation, 
Water and Related Resources permitting the use of funds 
available for the Departmental Irrigation Drainage Program for 
site remediation on a non-reimbursable basis.
    Language has been included under Bureau of Reclamation, 
Central Valley Project Restoration Fund directing the Bureau of 
Reclamation to assess and collect the full amount of additional 
mitigation and restoration payments authorized by section 
3407(d) of Public Law 102-575.
    Language has been included under Bureau of Reclamation, 
Central Valley Project Restoration Fund providing that none of 
the funds under the heading may be used for the acquisition or 
lease of water for in-stream purposes if the water is already 
committed to in-stream purposes by a court order adopted by 
consent or decree.
    Language has been included under Bureau of Reclamation, 
California Bay-Delta Restoration permitting the transfer of 
funds to appropriate accounts of other participating Federal 
agencies to carry out authorized programs; providing that funds 
made available under this heading may be used for the Federal 
share of the costs of the CALFED Program management; providing 
that use of any funds provided to the California Bay-Delta 
Authority for program-wide management and oversight activities 
shall be subject to the approval of the Secretary of the 
Interior; providing that CALFED implementation shall be carried 
out with clear performance measures demonstrating concurrent 
progress in achieving the goals and objectives of the program.
    Language has been included under Bureau of Reclamation, 
Policy and Administration providing that funds may be derived 
from the Reclamation Fund and providing that no part of any 
other appropriation in the Act shall be available for 
activities budgeted as policy and administration.
    Language has been included under Bureau of Reclamation, 
Administrative Provisions providing for the purchase of motor 
vehicles.
    Language has been included under Title II, General 
Provisions, regarding the San Luis Unit and the Kesterson 
Reservoir in California. This language has been carried in 
prior appropriations Acts.
    Language has been included under Title II, General 
Provisions, prohibiting the use of funds for any water 
acquisition or lease in the Middle Rio Grande or Carlsbad 
Projects in New Mexico unless the acquisition is in compliance 
with existing state law and administered under state priority 
allocation.
    Language has been included under Title II, General 
Provisions, relating to agreements with the city of Needles, 
California or the Imperial Irrigation District for the design 
and construction of stages of the Lower Colorado Water Supply 
Project.

                     TITLE III-DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

    Language has been included under Energy Supply and 
Conservation for the purchase, construction, and acquisition of 
plant and capital equipment.
    Language has been included under Clean Coal Technology 
deferring certain funding for one year.
    Language has been included under Fossil Energy Research and 
Development providing for vehicle and guard services, and 
uniform allowances; providing funding and limitations for the 
FutureGen program; permitting the use of funds from other 
program accounts for the National Energy Technology Laboratory; 
specifying certain conditions for the Clean Coal Power 
Initiative; and, prohibiting the field-testing of nuclear 
explosives for the recovery of oil and gas.
    Language has been included under the Naval Petroleum and 
Oil Shale Reserves, permitting the use of unobligated balances, 
and the hire of passenger vehicles.
    Language has been included under the Elk Hills School Lands 
Fund specifying the amount that can be derived from the Fund.
    Language has been included under the Strategic Petroleum 
Reserve providing for vehicle, aircraft, and guard services, 
and uniform allowances.
    Language has been included under Non-Defense Environmental 
Cleanup providing for the purchase of motor vehicles.
    Language has been included under Science providing for the 
purchase of motor vehicles.
    Language has been included under Nuclear Waste Disposal 
limiting the use of external oversight funds.
    Language has been included under Departmental 
Administration, notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, and consistent 
with the authorization in Public Law 95-238, to permit the 
Department of Energy to use revenues to offset appropriations. 
The appropriations language for this account reflects the total 
estimated program funding to be reduced as revenues are 
received. This language has been carried in prior 
appropriations Acts.
    Language has been included under Departmental 
Administration providing, notwithstanding the provisions of the 
Anti-Deficiency Act, such additional amounts as necessary to 
cover increases in the estimated amount of cost of work for 
others, as long as such increases are offset by revenue 
increases of the same or greater amounts. This language has 
been carried in prior appropriations Acts.
    Language has been included under Departmental 
Administration providing, notwithstanding the provisions of the 
Anti-Deficiency Act, such additional amounts as necessary to 
cover increases in the estimated amount of cost of work for 
others, as long as such increases are offset by revenue 
increases of the same or greater amounts. This language has 
been carried in prior appropriations Acts.
    Language has been included under Departmental 
Administration providing not to exceed $35,000 for official 
reception and representation expenses.
    Language has been included under Weapons Activities 
providing for the purchase of motor vehicles.
    Language has been included under the Office of the 
Administrator providing not to exceed $12,000 for official 
reception and representation expenses.
    Language has been included under Defense Environmental 
Cleanup for the purchase, construction, and acquisition of 
plant and capital equipment.
    Language has been included under Other Defense Activities 
providing for the purchase of motor vehicles.
    Language has been included under Bonneville Power 
Administration Fund providing not to exceed $1,500 for official 
reception and representation expenses, and precluding any new 
direct loan obligations.
    Language has been included under Southeastern Power 
Administration providing that, not withstanding the provisions 
of 31 U.S.C. 3302, amounts collected to recover purchase power 
and wheeling expenses shall be credited to the account as 
offsetting collections and remain available until expended for 
the sole purpose of making purchase power and wheeling 
expenditures.
    Language has been included under Southwestern Power 
Administration providing that, not withstanding the provisions 
of 31 U.S.C. 3302, amounts collected to recover purchase power 
and wheeling expenses shall be credited to the account as 
offsetting collections and remain available until expended for 
the sole purpose of making purchase power and wheeling 
expenditures, and to provide not to exceed $1,500 for official 
reception and representation expenses.
    Language has been included under Construction, 
Rehabilitation, Operation and Maintenance, Western Area Power 
Administration, providing not to exceed $1,500 for official 
reception and representation expenses.
    Language has been included under Construction, 
Rehabilitation, Operation and Maintenance, Western Area Power 
Administration, providing that, not withstanding the provisions 
of 31 U.S.C. 3302, amounts collected to recover purchase power 
and wheeling expenses shall be credited to the account as 
offsetting collections and remain available until expended for 
the sole purpose of making purchase power and wheeling 
expenditures.
    Language has been included under Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission to permit the hire of passenger motor vehicles, to 
provide official reception and representation expenses, and to 
permit the use of revenues collected to reduce the 
appropriation as revenues are received. This language has been 
included in prior appropriation Acts.
    Language has been included under Department of Energy, 
General Provisions, Section 301, providing that none of the 
funds may be used to make payments for a noncompetitive 
management and operating contract unless certain conditions are 
met.
    Language has been included under Department of Energy, 
General Provisions, Section 302, prohibiting the use of funds 
to prepare workforce restructuring plans or to provide enhanced 
severance payments and other benefits for Department of Energy 
employees under section 3161 of Public Law 102-484.
    Language has been included under Department of Energy, 
General Provisions, Section 303, prohibiting the use of funds 
to augment the funding provided for section 3161 of Public Law 
102-484 unless a reprogramming is submitted to the Committee.
    Language has been included under Department of Energy, 
General Provisions, Section 304, prohibiting the use of funds 
to prepare or initiate requests for proposals for programs that 
have not yet been funded by Congress.
    Language has been included under Department of Energy, 
General Provisions, Section 305, providing that unexpended 
balances of prior appropriations may be transferred and merged 
with new appropriation accounts established in this Act.
    Language has been included under Department of Energy, 
General Provisions, Section 306, prohibiting the Administrator 
of the Bonneville Power Administration to enter into any 
agreement to perform energy efficiency services outside the 
legally defined Bonneville service territory.
    Language has been included under Department of Energy, 
General Provisions, Section 307, requiring the Department of 
Energy to ensure broad public notice when it makes a user 
facility available to universities and other potential users or 
seeks input regarding significant characteristics or equipment 
in a user facility or a proposed user facility, and requiring 
competition when the Department partners with a university or 
other entity for the establishment or operation of a user 
facility.
    Language has been included under Department of Energy, 
General Provisions, Section 308, allowing the manager of a 
nuclear weapons facility to engage in research, development, 
and demonstration activities using no more than 2 percent of 
the amounts available from national security programs.
    Language has been included under Department of Energy, 
General Provisions, Section 309, providing that funds for 
intelligence activities are deemed to be specifically 
authorized for purposes of section 504 ofthe National Security 
Act of 1947 during fiscal year 2005 until enactment of the 
Intelligence Authorization Act for fiscal year 2005.
    Language has been included under Department of Energy, 
General Provisions, Section 310, prohibiting the use of funds 
to select a site for a Modern Pit Facility during fiscal year 
2006.
    Language has been included under Department of Energy, 
General Provisions, Section 311, prohibiting the use of funds 
in this act to finance laboratory directed research and 
development activities in excess of $250,000,000.
    Language has been included under Department of Energy, 
General Provisions, Section 312, prohibiting the use of funds 
in this act to finance laboratory directed research and 
development activities for project costs incurred as Indirect 
Costs by Major Facility Operating Contractors.
    Language has been included under Department of Energy, 
General Provisions, Section 313, prohibiting the use of funds 
in this act in fiscal year 2006 to finance laboratory directed 
research and development activities on behalf of other Federal 
agencies.
    Language has been included under Department of Energy, 
General Provisions, Section 314 limiting programs for price 
supports and loan guarantees to what is provided in 
appropriations Acts.

                     TITLE IV-INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

    Language has been included under Title IV, General 
Provisions, continuing the fee arrangement used in fiscal year 
2005 through fiscal year 2006 for the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission.

                       TITLE V-GENERAL PROVISIONS

    Language has been included under General Provisions, 
prohibiting the use of funds in this Act to influence 
congressional action on any legislation or appropriation 
matters pending before Congress.
    Language has been included under General Provisions, 
prohibiting the transfer of funds in this Act except pursuant 
to a transfer made by, or transfer authority provided in, this 
Act or any other appropriation Act.

         Compliance With Clause 3 of Rule XIII (Ramseyer Rule)

    In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by 
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law 
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new 
matter is printed in italic, existing law in which no change is 
proposed is shown in roman):

                        ACT OF NOVEMBER 14, 1986


        AN ACT Entitled the ``Lower Colorado Water Supply Act''.

                          (Public Law 99-655)

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. AUTHORIZATION.

  (a) The Secretary of the Interior is authorized to construct, 
operate, and maintain the Lower Colorado Water Supply Project, 
California, in order to supply water for domestic, municipal, 
industrial, and recreational purposes only: Provided, That, the 
Secretary is hereby authorized, in his discretion, to contract 
with non-Federal interests for the care, operation, and 
maintenance of all or any part of the project works, subject to 
such rules and regulations as he may prescribe. Such project 
shall be constructed in stages as increases in demand warrant 
and substantially in accordance with the plans set forth in the 
document entitled ``Lower Colorado Water Supply Study, 
California'' (December 1985): Provided, That the Secretary is 
prohibited from constructing facilities with a total capacity 
in excess of ten thousand acre-feet per annum under authority 
of this Act. The Secretary is authorized to enter into an 
agreement or agreements with the city of Needles or the 
Imperial Irrigation District for the design and construction of 
the remaining stages of the Lower Colorado Water Supply Project 
on or after November 1, 2004, and the Secretary shall ensure 
that any such agreement or agreements include provisions 
setting forth (1) the responsibilities of the parties to the 
agreement for design and construction; (2) the locations of the 
remaining wells, discharge pipelines, and power transmission 
lines; (3) the remaining design capacity of up to 5,000 acre-
feet per year which is the authorized capacity less the design 
capacity of the first stage constructed; (4) the procedures and 
requirements for approval and acceptance by the Secretary of 
the remaining stages, including approval of the quality of 
construction, measures to protect the public health and safety, 
and procedures for protection of such stages; (5) the rights, 
responsibilities, and liabilities of each party to the 
agreement; and (6) the term of the agreement.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 2. REPAYMENT OF COSTS.

    (a) * * *
    (b) Any contracts executed by the Secretary to fulfill the 
requirements of subsections (a)(2) and (a)(3) of this section 
must be with persons, or Federal or non-Federal governmental 
entities whose lands or interests in lands are located adjacent 
to the Colorado River in the State of California who do not 
hold rights to Colorado River water or whose rights are 
insufficient to meet their present or anticipated future needs, 
as determined by the Secretary. Such persons, or Federal or 
non-Federal governmental entities shall include the city of 
Needles, the town of Winterhaven, and other domestic, 
municipal, industrial, and recreational water users along the 
Colorado River in the State of California. Subject to the 
demand of such users along or adjacent to the Colorado River 
for Project water, the Secretary is further authorized to 
contract with additional persons or entities who hold Boulder 
Canyon Project Act section 5 contracts for municipal and 
industrial uses within the State of California for the use or 
benefit of Project water under such terms as the Secretary 
determines will benefit the interest of Project users along the 
Colorado River.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


       SECTION 6101 OF OMNIBUS BUDGET RECONCILIATION ACT OF 1990

SEC. 6101. NRC USER FEES AND ANNUAL CHARGES.

        (a) Annual Assessment.--
            (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

            [(3) Last assessment of annual charges.--The last 
        assessment of annual charges under subsection (c) shall 
        be made not later than September 20, 2005.]

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

        (c) Annual Charges.--
            (1) * * *
            (2) Aggregate amount of charges.--
                    (A) * * *
                    (B) Percentages.--The percentages referred 
                to in subparagraph (A) are--
                                    (i) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                                    (v) 90 percent for fiscal 
                                year 2005 and fiscal year 2006.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                  Appropriations Not Authorized by Law

    Pursuant to clause 3(f) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the following table lists the 
appropriations in the accompanying bill which are not 
authorized:

                                               [Thousand dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                   Approrpiation
                                                                      Last year of  Authorization   in last year
                           Agency/Program                            authorization      level            of
                                                                                                   authorization
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Corps of Engineers:
    Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action programs...............         (\1\)          (\1\)        140,000
Energy Supply:
    Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy:
        Hydrogen Technology........................................          2001         40,000         26,594
        Solar Energy...............................................          1993        150,000        161,394
        Wind Energy................................................          1993         55,000         23,841
        Hydropower.................................................          1980        100,000         20,939
        Geothermal Technology......................................          1993         23,000         23,252
        Biomass and Biorefinery Systems R&D........................          1994         50,000         55,830
        Intergovernmental Activities...............................          1997         10,000          4,000
        Departmental Energy Management Program.....................          1979         10,000         15,055
        Program Direction..........................................          1977          (\2\)          (\2\)
        Facilities and Infrastructure..............................          1977          (\2\)          (\2\)
    Nuclear Energy:
        Advanced Nuclear Reactor Technology........................          1994          (\3\)         95,235
        Fast Flux Test Facility....................................          1993         70,000         60,656
    Environment, Safety and Health.................................          1977          (\2\)          (\2\)
Non-Defense Environmental Management:
    Commercial Waste Management/Operating Expenses.................          1984        300,000          (\2\)
    Commercial Waste Management/Plant and Capital Equipment........          1982            975          (\2\)
    UMTRA Groundwater and Long-Term Surveillance and Maintenance...          1998          (\2\)          5,052
    West Valley Demonstration......................................          1981          5,000          5,000
Uranium Activities:
    DUF6 Conversion................................................          2004          (\3\)         98,800
Science:
    General Science and Research Activities........................          1984         50,000        635,417
    High Energy Physics............................................          1984          (\3\)        477,947
    Nuclear Physics................................................          1984          (\3\)        155,220
    Biological and Environmental Research..........................          1994          (\3\)        388,298
    Basic Energy Sciences..........................................          1994          (\3\)        743,590
    Advanced Scientific Computing Research.........................          1996        169,000        111,068
    Science Laboratories Infrastructure............................          1994          (\3\)         39,327
    Fusion Energy Sources..........................................          1994        380,000        322,277
    Program Direction..............................................          1994          (\2\)          (\2\)
    Science Education..............................................          1991         40,000         42,667
Federal Laboratory Consortium......................................          1995          (\2\)          (\2\)
Departmental Administration........................................          1984        246,963        185,682
Office of Economic Impact and Diversity............................          1981          6,000            583
Office of Inspector General........................................          1984          (\2\)         14,670
Atomic Energy Defense Activities:
    National Nuclear Security Administration:
        Weapons Activities.........................................          2005      6,592,053      6,583,350
        Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation...........................          2005      1,348,647      1,422,103
        Naval Reactors.............................................          2005        797,900        801,437
        Office of Administrator....................................          2005        343,700        343,869
Defense Environmental Management:
    Defense Site Acceleration Completion...........................          2005      5,970,837      5,725,935
    Defense Environmental Services.................................          2005        986,470        845,704
Other Defense Activities...........................................          2005        636,036        672,590
Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal.....................................          2005        120,000        229,152
Power Marketing Administration:
    Southeastern...................................................          1984         24,240         20,594
    Southwestern...................................................          1984         40,254         36,229
    Western Area...................................................          1984        259,700        194,630
    WAPA Emergency Fund............................................          1984          (\2\)            500
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission...............................          1984        275,000          (\2\)
Fossil Energy:
    Fossil Energy Research and Development.........................          1997          (\3\)          (\3\)
    Clean Coal.....................................................          1998          (\3\)       -101,000
    Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves.........................          2005         20,000         18,000
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy:
    Energy Conservation
    Vehicle Technologies--Fuels....................................          2000          (\3\)         21,600
    Vehicle Technologies--Electric Motor Vehicle...................          2001         50,000          (\2\)
    Fuel Cell Technologies.........................................          1997         40,000         50,117
  Weatherization...................................................          1994          5,000        200,000
  Building Technologies............................................          1997          (\2\)         81,198
Energy Information Administration..................................          1992          (\2\)         83,819
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Program was initiated in 1972 and has never received a separate authorization.
\2\ No amount specified.
\3\ Such sums as necessary.

                              Rescissions

    Pursuant to clause 3(f)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the Committee reports that it 
recommends no rescissions in this bill.

                          Full Committee Votes

    Pursuant to the provisions of clause 3(b) of rule XIII of 
the Rules of the House of Representatives, the results of each 
roll call vote on an amendment or on the motion to report, 
together with the names of those voting and those voting 
against, are printed below:
    There were no roll call votes.
    
    
