[House Report 110-185]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]





110th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 1st Session                                                    110-185

======================================================================



 
         ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2008

                                _______
                                

  June 11, 2007.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

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

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                            ADDITIONAL VIEWS

                        [To accompany H.R. 2641]

    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, 2008, and for other purposes.

                        INDEX TO BILL AND REPORT

_______________________________________________________________________


                                                            Page Number

                                                            Bill Report
Introduction...............................................
                                                                      5
I. Department of Defense--Civil:
        Corps of Engineers--Civil:
                Introduction...............................
                                                                      9
                Investigations.............................     2
                                                                     23
                Construction...............................     2
                                                                     27
                Mississippi River and Tributaries..........     4
                                                                     31
                Operation and Maintenance..................     4
                                                                     33
                Regulatory Program.........................     7
                                                                     35
                Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies......     7
                                                                     36
                Expenses...................................     7
                                                                     36
                Office of the Assistant Secretary of the 
                    Army (Civil Works).....................     8
                                                                     37
                General Provisions.........................     8
                                                                     37
II. Department of the Interior:
        Central Utah Project Completion Account............    10
                                                                     38
        Bureau of Reclamation:
                Fiscal Year 2008 Budget Overview...........
                                                                     39
                Water and Related Resources................    11
                                                                     40
                Central Valley Project Restoration Fund....    12
                                                                     46
                California Bay-Delta Restoration...........    13
                                                                     47
                Policy and Administration..................    14
                                                                     48
                General Provisions.........................    15
                                                                     48
III. Department of Energy:
        Introduction.......................................
                                                                     49
        Energy Supply and Conservation.....................
                                                                     58
        Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.............    16
                                                                     59
        Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability........    16
                                                                     65
        Nuclear Energy.....................................    17
                                                                     66
        Clean Coal Technology..............................    17
                                                                     72
        Fossil Energy Research and Development.............    17
                                                                     72
        Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves.............    19
                                                                     75
        Strategic Petroleum Reserve........................    19
                                                                     76
        Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve.................    20
                                                                     76
        Energy Information Administration..................    20
                                                                     77
        Non-Defense Environmental Management...............
                                                                     77
        Non-Defense Environmental Cleanup..................    20
                                                                     78
        Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and 
            Decommissioning Fund...........................    21
                                                                     79
        Science............................................    21
                                                                     80
        Nuclear Waste Disposal.............................    21
                                                                     87
        Environment, Safety and Health.....................    24
                                                                     88
        Innovative Technology Loan Guarantee Program.......    24
                                                                     89
        Departmental Administration........................    25
                                                                     90
        Office of Inspector General........................    26
                                                                     92
        Atomic Energy Defense Activities:
          National Nuclear Security Administration:
                  Weapons Activities.......................    26
                                                                     93
                  Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation.........    27
                                                                    107
                  Naval Reactors...........................    27
                                                                    114
                  Office of the Administrator..............    27
                                                                    115
                Defense Environmental Management...........
                                                                    115
                Defense Environmental Cleanup..............    28
                                                                    118
                Other Defense Activities...................    28
                                                                    123
                Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal.............    29
                                                                    126
        Power Marketing Administrations:
                Bonneville Power Administration............    29
                                                                    126
                Southeastern Power Administration..........    29
                                                                    127
                Southwestern Power Administration..........    30
                                                                    127
                Western Power Administration...............    31
                                                                    128
                Falcon and Amistad Operating and 
                    Maintenance Fund.......................    32
                                                                    128
        Federal Energy Regulatory Commission...............    32
                                                                    129
        Committee Recommendation...........................
                                                                    129
        General Provisions.................................    33
                                                                    150
IV. Independent Agencies:
        Appalachian Regional Commission....................    37
                                                                    151
        Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board............    37
                                                                    151
        Delta Regional Commission..........................    38
                                                                    152
        Denali Commission..................................    38
                                                                    153
        Nuclear Regulatory Commission......................    38
                                                                    153
        Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board...............    39
                                                                    155
        Federal Coordinator for Alaska Natural Gas 
            Transportation Projects........................    40
                                                                    156
        Tennessee Valley Authority.........................
                                                                    156
V. General Provisions:                                         40
                                                                    157
House of Representatives Report Requirements
                                                                    157

                Summary of Estimates and Recommendations

    The Committee has considered budget estimates, which are 
contained in the Budget of the United States Government, 2008. 
The following table summarizes appropriations for fiscal year 
2007, the budget estimates, and amounts recommended in the bill 
for fiscal year 2008.


                              Introduction

    The Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill for 
fiscal year 2008 totals $31,603,000,000, $1,130,983,000 above 
the President's budget request, and $1,307,357,000 above the 
amount appropriated in fiscal year 2007.
    Title I of the bill provides $5,584,427,000 for the 
programs of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, an increase of 
$246,057,000 above the fiscal year 2007 enacted level (adjusted 
for one-time emergency spending) and $713,427,000 over the 
budget request. The fiscal year 2008 budget request for the 
Corps of Engineers totals $4,871,000,000, which is composed 
entirely of new budget authority.
    The fiscal year 2008 budget request for the Corps Civil 
Works program continues the performance-based ranking system 
with two major modifications to the guidelines. The first 
formalizes risks to human life for consideration along with 
economics for flood and storm damage reduction projects. The 
second changes the prioritization metric from the remaining-
benefits-to-remaining-costs ratio to benefit-to-cost ratio for 
all projects with the exception of those for which the primary 
purpose is environmental restoration. 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. The Committee 
supports the concept of focusing limited resources on 
completing high-value projects already under construction. The 
Committee bill and report retain 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 $1,072,880,000 for the Department of 
Interior and the Bureau of Reclamation, $72,000,000 over the 
budget request and $13,864,000 above the fiscal year 2007 
enacted level. The Committee recommends $1,029,880,000 for the 
Bureau of Reclamation, $72,000,000 above the budget request and 
$4,884,000 above the fiscal year 2007 enacted level. The 
Committee recommends $43,000,000 for the Central Utah Project, 
including $976,000 for deposit into the Utah Reclamation 
Mitigation and Conservation Account, both the same as the 
budget request.
    Title III provides $25,243,119,000 for the Department of 
Energy, an increase of $1,149,926,000 over fiscal year 2007 and 
$480,406,000 over the budget request of $24,762,713,000 
(adjusted for one-time emergency spending).
    Beginning in fiscal year 2008, the Energy Supply and 
Conservation account is separated into new program accounts: 
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy; Electricity Delivery 
and Energy Reliability, Nuclear Energy; and Environment, Safety 
and Health (non-defense). The Legacy Management (non-defense) 
account is transferred to the Environmental Management (non-
defense) account. The Committee recommends funding for 
renewable energy and energy efficiency programs at 
$1,873,844,000, an increase of $637,645,000 over the request; 
nuclear energy programs at $759,227,000, a decrease of 
$42,476,000 below the request; non-defense environment, safety 
and health programs at $31,625,000. The Committee recommends 
$4,514,082,000 for the Office of Science an increase of 
$116,206,000 above the budget request and $716,788,000 over the 
current year.
    Environmental management activities--non-defense 
environmental cleanup, uranium enrichment decontamination and 
decommissioning, non-defense legacy management, defense 
environmental cleanup, and defense legacy management--are 
funded at $6,671,361,000, a decrease of $30,883,000 below the 
fiscal year 2007 enacted level and an increase of $358,843,000 
over the budget request.
    The Committee recommends a total of $494,500,000 for the 
Yucca Mountain repository. This includes $202,454,000 for 
Nuclear Waste Disposal, the same as the request, and 
$292,046,000 for Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal, the same as 
the request.
    Funding for the National Nuclear Security Administration 
(NNSA), which includes nuclear weapons activities, defense 
nuclear nonproliferation, naval reactors, and the Office of the 
NNSA Administrator, is $8,786,881,000, a decrease of 
$599,952,000 below the request, and a decrease of $294,132,000 
below fiscal year 2007. The Committee recommendation includes 
$1,683,646,000 for Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation, an 
increase of $307,000 over the current year and $11,000,000 over 
the budget request. Funding for the Power Marketing 
Administrations is provided at requested levels.
    Title IV provides $239,895,000 for several Independent 
Agencies, a decrease of $70,051,000 from fiscal year 2007 and 
$12,850,000 below the budget request of $252,745,000. The 
requested funding is provided for the Defense Nuclear 
Facilities Safety Board, the Delta Regional Authority, the 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Inspector General, and the 
Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board, the Denali Commission, 
and the Office of the Federal Coordinator for Alaska Natural 
Gas Transportation Projects. The request for the Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission is increased by $17,150,000. The request 
for the Appalachian Regional Commission is reduced by 
$30,000,000, and no funds are provided for the Office of 
Inspector General for the Tennessee Valley Authority.

                                Projects

    Congress has made significant reforms in the way it reviews 
and allocates funding for the Federal government, reforms that 
the Committee takes very seriously as it executes its 
constitutional authority. Earmarking or directed spending of 
Federal dollars does not begin with Congress. It begins with 
the Executive Branch. For example, the Administration requests 
funding for several Corps of Engineers accounts and one Bureau 
of Reclamation account as tabular lists of projects. The 
Administration, in selecting these projects, goes through a 
process that is the functional equivalent of earmarking. When 
the Committee reviews the budget request, it goes through a 
process of rigorous review and may alter or modify this list to 
reflect additional priorities.
    The Executive Branch also engages in another practice which 
steers or directs money to specific entities or purposes 
through a process of contracting out various activities and 
services. The Executive Branch steers or directs far greater 
spending to specific projects or corporations than is directed 
or earmarked by Congress. In nearly all Department of Energy 
work locations, the number of people working for contractors 
far exceeds the number of Federal employees at the same site. 
Many of the contracts at these locations, in fact, are non-
competitive or sole-sourced. The Department of Energy manages 
its large holdings of research facilities and production sites 
primarily as Government-Owned, Contractor-Operated sites and 
facilities. These site management and operating contractors 
(M&O contractors) are granted great flexibility by the 
Department of Energy to subcontract out for goods and services 
and ultimately direct billions of dollars appropriated for 
programmatic activities to specific companies and other 
entities at the sole discretion of the M&O contractors.
    The Committee provides no recommendation at this time for 
specific projects contained in either the Administration's 
budget or proposed by Members of Congress. Individual project 
allocations will be considered comprehensively after the 
Committee has properly analyzed all relevant information.

            Funding To Address Gas Prices and Climate Change

    For fiscal year 2008, the Energy and Water Development 
appropriation includes $3,403,857,000 to address climate 
change, an increase of $767,352,000 from the fiscal year 2007 
enacted funding level and $1,065,144,000 more than requested by 
the President. Funding is provided for research, development, 
demonstration, and deployment of energy technologies that 
increase energy conservation and production of energy without 
emission of greenhouse gases. Funding also is provided for 
research to understand and predict climate change. While 
funding through this appropriation will not reduce or stabilize 
gas prices immediately, $503,497,000 of these funds are 
provided for research, development, and demonstration of 
improved vehicle technology and production of biofuels. On a 
five- to ten-year timescale, the results of these activities 
should reduce demand for oil and increase supplies of 
alternative motor fuels.
    The energy research funded at the Department of Energy 
ranges from basic work to map the genomes of microorganisms 
that digest cellulous to applied work to increase the 
efficiency of turbines. Work on conservation aims at 
development of zero energy houses by 2020, improved energy 
efficiency for U.S. industry, and technology to further 
increase the fuel efficiency of vehicles along with improved 
batteries for electric and hybrid cars and hydrogen storage for 
the FreedomCar of the future. Support for deployment of 
available conservation technology is provided through the 
weatherization grants, state energy grants, and federal energy 
management programs. Renewable energy generation includes 
biofuels, solar, wind, geothermal, and hydropower. Increased 
renewable energy production is supported through major 
refurbishment by the Army Corps of Engineers of existing 
hydropower dams. Nuclear energy provides 20% of current 
electricity generation in the United States. Sustaining this 
level of energy production is supported with research, 
subsidies for first applicants to the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission for new types of licenses, and demonstration of 
safer, gas-cooled next generation nuclear power plants. Fossil 
energy spending is devoted to carbon separation and 
sequestration so that coal can be used to generate energy 
without greenhouse gas emissions and to improving the energy 
efficiency of current coal-fired power plants.
    The science research features climate modeling using DOE's 
state-of-the-art super computers, atmospheric radiation 
monitoring, and long-term experiments on the response of 
forests and other ecosystems to increased atmospheric carbon 
dioxide.

     REVERSING THE DECLINE IN ENERGY RD&D FUNDING SINCE THE CARTER 
                             ADMINISTRATION

    In the 1970s, the United States responded to an energy 
crisis with substantial funding for energy research, 
development, and demonstration (RD&D) through the newly-created 
Department of Energy. With the collapse in oil prices in the 
1980's, the long-term challenge of reducing U.S. dependence on 
imported oil was neglected and funding for these efforts was 
drastically reduced. Subsequently, energy RD&D funding was 
neglected for two decades. By fiscal year 2006, after adjusting 
for inflation, the research budget for renewable energy was 
only 20 percent of what it had been in fiscal year 1980. 
Similar declines occurred for nuclear energy with 2006 funding 
at 11 percent and fossil energy at 25.5 percent of 1980 levels. 
Funding for conservation fared better but also decreased to 49 
percent of 1980 levels.
    In the year-long continuing resolution for fiscal year 
2007, Congress began to reverse this decline by providing a 
$300,000,000 increase for renewable energy and conservation 
that the Department of Energy wisely allocated mostly to RD&D. 
This increase brought 2007 funding for renewable energy and 
conservation up to 38 percent and 54 percent, respectively, of 
1980 levels.
    This bill continues to increase the investment in energy 
RD&D so that the United States can invent and innovate its way 
to a better energy future. The Committee provides funding 
increases for renewable, nuclear, and fossil energy and 
conservation RD&D. These increases will bring fiscal year 2008 
funding compared to 1980 appropriations up to 47.5 percent for 
renewables, 31 percent for fossil, and 67 percent for 
conservation. Nuclear energy RD&D spending in the bill is still 
only at the 11 percent level compared to 1980 because most of 
the increase in nuclear energy is devoted to subsidies for 
licensing new nuclear power plants and fabricating mixed oxide 
fuel--non-research activities.
    While RD&D is only one tool in addressing the current 
energy crisis, it is the tool available to the Committee. As 
the above figures make clear, there is considerable room for 
increased investment in all four energy areas. The Department 
of Energy is encouraged to pursue all the technologies that can 
help abate the current energy crisis and to do so in creative 
and innovative ways. The Department must maintain a careful eye 
toward what can be used in the private and public sectors in 
the coming five to fifteen years. The Administration is 
encouraged to propose future budgets that build on the 
increased support provided by the Committee.

                                TITLE I


                      DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL


                         Department of the Army


                       Corps of Engineers--Civil


                              INTRODUCTION

    The Army Corps of Engineers is made up of approximately 
34,600 civilian and 650 military members. The military and 
civilian engineers, scientists and other specialists work 
together on engineering and environmental matters. The diverse 
workforce of biologists, engineers, geologists, hydrologists, 
natural resource managers and other professionals is necessary 
to meet the demands of changing times and requirements.
    The Energy and Water Development Act funds the Civil Works 
component of the Corps of Engineers, which encompasses 
approximately 23,000 civilians and 190 military personnel. Army 
involvement in works of civil nature dates back to the origins 
of the nation. Over the years, the Corps Civil Works mission 
has changed to accommodate changing societal needs and values. 
A brief legislative history of the Corps has been included in 
past Energy and Water Development reports. The section that 
follows outlines the major civil works mission areas of the 
Corps.

                          MAJOR MISSION AREAS

    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 the construction 
of major improvements or rehabilitation features for existing 
projects. The Corps currently operates and maintains 12,000 
miles of commercial inland navigation channels; owns and/or 
operates 257 navigation lock chambers at 215 sites; and 
maintains 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.'' 
The Corps manages 383 major lakes and reservoirs, and inspects 
or controls 12,000 miles of federal levees. In addition, the 
Corps inspects 1,800 miles of levees that are non-Federal, but 
which participate in the Rehabilitation and Inspection Program. 
Over the last ten years, the average damages prevented by Corps 
projects totaled $21.1 billion per year.
    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. In addition, the Corps regulates all work in 
wetlands and waters of the United States and manages the 
cleanup of former Manhattan Project and Atomic Energy 
Commission sites.
    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. There is no general 
authority for Corps participation in a single-purpose 
recreation project.

                     CONTINUING AUTHORITIES PROGRAM

    The continuing authorities program (CAP) provides a 
mechanism for the Corps to respond to a variety of local water 
resource problems without the need to obtain specific 
congressional authorization for each project. The CAP program 
is comprised of ten legislative authorities under which the 
Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers, 
is authorized to plan, design, and implement certain types of 
water resources projects. The individual authorities are as 
follows:
    Section  14--Emergency streambank and shoreline erosion.
    Section  103--Hurricane and storm damage reduction.
    Section  107--Small navigation improvements.
    Section  111--Shore damage caused by federal navigation 
works.
    Section  145--Placement of dredged material on beaches.
    Section  204--Beneficial uses of dredged material.
    Section  205--Small flood damage reduction projects.
    Section  206--Aquatic ecosystem restoration.
    Section  208--Snagging and clearing for flood control.
    Section  1135--Project modifications for environmental 
improvement.

             INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT IN THE UNITED STATES

    Public infrastructure has played a critical role in the 
development and economic success of the United States. Past 
investment in the nation's water resource infrastructure was 
not made by chance, nor was it made lightly. That 
infrastructure must be maintained and updated to meet the 
current requirements of our Nation. Despite the value to our 
economy and the safety of our citizens, the level of investment 
has not kept pace with critical requirements of existing 
infrastructure, let alone improvements to meet changing needs. 
One need only look at the decline in federal investment in 
public infrastructure over the last five decades, as detailed 
by the Congressional Budget Office in its report, ``Trends in 
Public Infrastructure Spending,'' to see the trend. A portion 
of this reduction can be attributed to elements of public 
infrastructure that have shifted from construction to less 
expensive maintenance and the move toward an economy based more 
on technology and services. However, public investment has 
declined beyond the level accounted for by these factors.
    In the area of water resource infrastructure, while 
investment has been static or declining in real terms, the 
needs of the Nation are increasing. This increased demand is 
required in part by aging infrastructure and in part by 
changing national needs and values. The long-term risk to the 
Nation of under-investment is an important issue, as 
illustrated by the tragedy that resulted from the hurricanes in 
New Orleans and the Gulf Coast area in 2005. However, the 
question of whether the investments we make are the right ones 
should be of equal concern. Current policy favors new 
construction over maintenance of existing infrastructure, even 
when maintenance or rehabilitation may offer a better outcome. 
Announcing that we are adequately maintaining what the public 
already owns is not newsworthy--it is simply expected.
    In 2005, the American Society of Civil Engineers estimated 
that nearly 50% of all Corps maintained locks are functionally 
obsolete, having reached or exceeded their design life of 50 
years. While this information is necessary and important to 
investment decisions, project age does not always correlate 
directly with performance. As we move forward modernizing and 
updating our water resource infrastructure, we must look at the 
desired outcomes necessary for the future performance of the 
Nation's navigation and flood control projects.
    As noted by the National Association of Public 
Administration's report ``Prioritizing America's Water Resource 
Investments'', the model used in the past for how we invest in 
the Nation's water resource infrastructure is no longer 
appropriate. We face significant challenges that require a more 
disciplined and rigorous approach that encompasses a broader 
context than has been applied in the past. The Corps of 
Engineers and the Administration are making progress in this 
regard, with increased attention to fiscal management and 
project execution, recognition of risk, balancing of multiple 
objectives and longer term planning having all contributed to 
this progress. Yet much work remains.
    The Committee supports the Corps' efforts to prioritize its 
portfolio of projects. While the Committee agrees in large part 
with the prioritization of projects, it does not believe the 
level of funding provided by the Administration is sufficient 
to meet the needs of the Nation. In light of the need for 
increased investment in public infrastructure, the Committee 
recommends a significant increase to the Corps of Engineers 
budget for fiscal year 2008 to address additional priorities. 
Were it not for current severe fiscal constraints, the 
Committee would have recommended more, particularly in the 
Construction account for ongoing projects to address flood 
control and navigation. The Committee remains adamant that the 
Corps of Engineers continue the reforms made in the last 
several years regarding project management and execution and 
out-year planning. The Committee's expectation, regardless of 
the amount of the annual appropriation, is that the Corps will 
ensure its funding is expended in good faith and in the best 
interests of the public.

                                PROJECTS

    Congress has made significant reforms in the way it reviews 
and allocates funding for the Federal government, reforms that 
the Committee takes very seriously as it executes its 
constitutional authority. Earmarking or directed spending of 
Federal dollars does not begin with Congress. It begins with 
the Executive Branch. For example, the Administration requests 
funding for Corps of Engineers on a project-specific basis for 
the Investigations, Construction and Mississippi River and 
Tributaries accounts. The Administration has historically also 
asked for the Operation and Maintenance account as a tabular 
list of projects. A change to the presentation of the budget 
request this year shows these projects aggregated into regions; 
however, the substance of the request remains the same. If 
Operation and Maintenance is included, these project-specific 
requests amount to 84 percent of the Corps of Engineers budget. 
The Administration, in selecting these projects, goes through a 
process that is the functional equivalent of earmarking. When 
the Committee reviews the budget request, it goes through a 
process of rigorous review and may alter or modify this list to 
reflect additional priorities.
    The Committee provides no recommendation at this time for 
specific projects contained in either the Administration's 
budget or proposed by Members of Congress. Individual project 
allocations will be considered comprehensively after the 
Committee has properly analyzed all relevant information.

                  HYDROPOWER INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT

    Energy security and issues of global climate change are 
increasingly important to the decisions made regarding 
infrastructure investment. Hydropower improvements at existing 
facilities provide a reliable, efficient, domestic, emission-
free resource that is renewable. Hydropower plants have, 
without question, changed the natural river environment. 
However, with some exceptions, the environmental damages of 
existing dams are largely complete, and further investment in 
modern turbines can have the benefit of improving existing 
water quality and fish passage issues in addition to increasing 
generation efficiency and capacity. The Corps must continue to 
focus on minimizing the negative impacts to the environment, 
while maximizing the use of existing infrastructure. Hydropower 
benefits also include the flexibility to meet peak power 
demands, the displacement of additional thermal plants, and 
ancillary services such as voltage stability of the 
transmission system and system restoration after black-outs.
    The Corps of Engineers is the largest operator of 
hydroelectric power plants in the United States, accounting for 
24 percent of the nation's hydropower generating capacity. The 
total investment in these federal facilities is nearly $18 
billion, but much of the hydropower infrastructure is 
approaching the end of, or exceeds, its design life. The Corps 
hydropower program has seen a decline in system availability 
that is now 15 percent below the industry standard. In 
addition, the force outage rate for Corps facilities has been 
increasing over the last five years and now is more than twice 
the industry standard.
    The Corps is in the process of developing overall short and 
long term asset management strategies. The Committee urges the 
Administration to complete the planning for this business line 
and budget more fully for this activity once the plan is in 
place and performance metrics are clearly articulated. The 
investment in existing hydropower plants can contribute to our 
nation's energy security while providing direct repayment to 
the Treasury as the electricity reaches the market.
    The Committee provides $95,000,000 for major hydropower 
rehabilitations to provide near-term benefit to the nation's 
energy supply.

            FISCAL YEAR 2007 CONTINUING RESOLUTION EXECUTION

    Fiscal year 2007 appropriations were provided to the Corps 
through a full-year continuing resolution; this method of 
funding gave the Administration broad latitude to determine 
project allocations among all accounts. The Committee 
recognizes and appreciates the efforts of the Corps and the 
Administration in determining the project allocations. The 
methodology was fair, taking into account past commitments 
while trying to avoid unnecessary delays or terminations of 
projects.

                    FISCAL YEAR 2008 BUDGET OVERVIEW

    The fiscal year 2008 budget request for the Corps of 
Engineers totals $4,871,000,000, which is composed entirely of 
new budget authority. The Committee recommends a total of 
$5,584,427,000 for the Corps of Engineers, an increase of 
$246,057,000 from fiscal year 2007 enacted levels (adjusted for 
one-time emergency spending) and $713,427,000 above the 
request. The budget request for fiscal year 2008 represents a 
continuation of the performance-based system, using the ratio 
of total benefits-to-costs as the primary measure. This 
represents a change from the previous two years, when the 
Administration relied 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.
    The Committee supports the changes the Administration has 
made in its project selection criteria. First and foremost in 
these changes is the recognition of the primary importance of 
human safety in project selection. Projects that address 
significant risk to human safety receive sufficient funding to 
support an uninterrupted effort during the budget year. The 
Committee has expressed concern over the last several years 
that risk to large populations was not being addressed due to 
the limitations of using a strict benefit-to-cost ratio. For 
fiscal year 2008, the budget request formalizes the 
consideration of risk including: the population in the 100-year 
floodplain, velocity and depth of flow, warning time and paths 
of egress. This change resulted in budget requests for 14 
projects that otherwise would not have met the minimum benefit-
to-cost criteria.
    The second change made in project prioritization is the 
move from remaining-benefit-to-remaining-cost (RBRC) to 
benefit-to-cost ratio (BCR). RBRC introduced a perverse 
incentive to defer those elements of projects that provided the 
most benefits while focusing first on those that do not provide 
economic benefits. While still an imperfect measure, the BCR 
does not change significantly over the project development 
timeframe, resulting in more stability from year to year. Corps 
of Engineers projects are generally formulated as a total 
project rather than as a series of separable elements. As such, 
if a project is initiated, it should be done with the intent to 
complete the project. While the Committee believes this should 
be the general rule, there are inevitable circumstances where 
projects should be reevaluated in light of changed conditions 
or improved data.
    The budget request includes no projects in the Construction 
account which would be considered ``new starts''; however, it 
does include one new project study under the Mississippi River 
and Tributaries (MR&T) account. In addition, the request 
includes two new activities, the ``Wise Use of Floodplains'' 
study in the Investigations account and the ``Portfolio 
Assessment for Reallocations'' study in the Operation and 
Maintenance account.
    The Committee remains concerned that the initiation of 
additional, new projects will adversely impact ongoing 
projects. Available funding is insufficient to execute existing 
projects in a timely fashion; adding additional projects only 
exacerbates the problem. The Committee notes that the latter 
two activities are short-term efforts which will not result in 
significant out-year requirements. Evaluating policy, 
procedural and administrative issues related to investing in 
infrastructure and programs that reduce risk from flooding as 
proposed in the floodplains study is a wise investment that may 
improve the implementation of future projects; the study is a 
one-time cost of $1,000,000. The second study, Portfolio 
Assessment for Reallocations, is a two-year appraisal of the 
portfolio of existing Corps multipurpose projects to identify 
the best candidates for opportunities for operational changes 
and/or reallocation opportunities.
    The Committee will consider funding for the major 
rehabilitations at Markland Lock and Dam and Locks No. 27, 
Mississippi River, critical elements of the Ohio and 
Mississippi River systems. The Committee does not view the 
rehabilitation of existing infrastructure as a new construction 
start on par with entirely new investments, but rather a 
necessity to ensure adequate functioning of the Nation's water 
resource infrastructure.
    A summary table illustrating the fiscal year 2007 enacted 
appropriation, the fiscal year 2008 budget request, and the 
Committee recommended levels is shown below:

                                                (Dollars in 000s)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Fiscal year 2007         Fiscal year 2008            Committee
               Account                         enacted                  request               recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Investigations.......................                 $162,916                  $90,000                 $120,100
  Rescission.........................                     (--)                     (--)                   (-100)
  Emergency appropriations...........                    8,165                     (--)                     (--)
Construction.........................                2,336,368                1,523,000                2,008,874
  Rescission.........................                     (--)                     (--)                 (-4,688)
  Emergency appropriations...........                   36,500                     (--)                     (--)
Mississippi River and tributaries....                  396,565                  260,000                  278,000
Operation and Maintenance............                1,973,347                2,471,000                2,655,241
  Emergency appropriations...........                    3,000                     (--)                     (--)
Regulatory program...................                  159,273                  180,000                  180,000
FUSRAP...............................                  138,672                  130,000                  130,000
Flood control and coastal emergencies                       --                   40,000                   40,000
  Emergency appropriations...........                1,561,000                     (--)                     (--)
Expenses.............................                  167,250                  177,000                  171,000
Office of Assistant Secretary of the                     3,979                    (\1\)                    6,000
 Army (Civil Works)..................
                                      --------------------------------------------------------------------------
    TOTAL, Corps of Engineers........                6,947,035                4,871,000                5,584,427
        Appropriations...............                5,338,370                4,871,000                5,584,427
        Emergency appropriations.....                1,608,665                     (--)                     (--)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\The budget proposes to fund this office from within the General Expenses account. For purposes of comparison,
  the budget request includes $6,000,000 for these activities in fiscal year 2008.

                  FISCAL YEAR 2008 BUDGET PRESENTATION

    For the second year, the Corps of Engineers has proposed 
several changes to the manner that the Civil Works program is 
presented and appropriated. The most significant change appears 
in the Operation and Maintenance account, where four categories 
of projects and programs are moved from Construction into the 
Operation and Maintenance account. These categories are: the 
rehabilitation of infrastructure; Endangered Species Act 
compliance; the construction of facilities, projects or 
features (including islands and wetlands) to use materials 
dredged during Federal navigation operation and maintenance 
activities; and the mitigation of impacts on shorelines 
resulting from Federal navigation operation and maintenance 
activities. Additionally, the budget request rolls operation 
and maintenance projects into geographical regions and provides 
a top line appropriation for all projects contained within each 
of the 21 regions.
    The Committee reiterates its support for a more systematic 
approach to funding the operation and maintenance of the 
nation's waterways and understands the dynamic nature of the 
project needs under this account. The Committee remains 
concerned that the budget request simply reflects the summation 
of the projects under each region and is not a genuine effort 
to budget on a watershed basis. Moreover, it appears, on its 
face, to be an attempt to circumvent the Committee's 
reprogramming restrictions.
    The Committee supports the proposal that three of the four 
categories be moved to the Operation and Maintenance account 
but maintains major rehabilitations within the Construction 
account. Further, the Committee recommends that the Operation 
and Maintenance account be appropriated based on the geographic 
regions contained in the budget request. Given the Committee's 
concerns, this recommendation is made with the following 
stipulations:
           The Corps will provide, under signature, to 
        the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations the 
        planned funding allocations by project for this 
        account, including a detailed accounting of activities 
        previously funded under the Columbia River Fish 
        Mitigation Project and the Missouri River Fish 
        Mitigation Project;
           The Corps will maintain this information on 
        its website;
           The Corps will not deviate from this 
        allocation of funds without a clearly articulated 
        management plan outlining the circumstances under which 
        a reprogramming between individual projects is 
        justified and the process by which these decisions will 
        be made;
           This management plan shall be provided to 
        the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations; and
           As part of the management plan, the Corps is 
        instructed to develop a communication plan for how this 
        process would be coordinated with, and justified to, 
        the affected Members of Congress, water system users 
        and other interested parties.
    Last year, the House report contained essentially the same 
recommendations and conditions; by contrast, the Senate report 
rejected the proposal in its entirety. Yet there is no evidence 
that the Corps has made an effort to provide additional 
justification for the change or detail how this new budget 
approach would be managed. Further, the Corps was instructed in 
fiscal year 2007 to reevaluate the fiscal management of this 
account; to the knowledge of this Committee, this review was 
never undertaken. If the Corps and the Administration expect 
this Committee to continue its support for this change, these 
issues must be addressed.
    The fiscal year 2008 request for the Operation and 
Maintenance account is nine percent above the fiscal year 2007 
request. However, once adjusted for the projects involved in 
the shift of the above mentioned activities, the fiscal year 
2008 request is 14 percent above the fiscal year 2007 request. 
The following table provides a comparison.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Fiscal year                 Fiscal year
                Account                   Fiscal year      2007       Fiscal year      2008         Committee
                                         2006 Enacted   Request\1\   2007 Enacted   Request\1\    Recommended\1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operations and Maintenance.............    $1,969,000    $2,258,000    $1,973,347    $2,471,000      $2,655,241
                                                        (1,916,000)   (1,973,347)   (2,175,079)     (2,382,000)
Construction...........................     2,348,000     1,555,000     2,336,368     1,523,000       2,008,874
                                                        (1,897,000)   (2,336,368)   (1,818,921)    (2,282,115)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Bracketed figures reflect account totals following the structure used in fiscal year 2006.

    Within the funds provided, the Committee directs the Corps 
to implement the Ohio River and Tributaries navigation system 
improvements as outlined in the Lakes and River Division's Five 
Year Development Perspective. Though inadequate to address all 
identified needs, additional funding is provided to support the 
efforts of the Division and stakeholders. Additionally, the 
Committee encourages the Corps to place greater priority on 
navigation improvements in the Great Lakes Region.

                    Program Management and Execution

    In recent years, the Committee has directed the Corps to 
improve program management and project execution. In the 
current environment of aging infrastructure, static or 
declining budgets, increasing backlog, and changing societal 
values and requirements, past Corps management practices no 
longer serve the Nation well. The Corps of Engineers is 
uniquely qualified to play a significant role in the future of 
our water resource infrastructure, given its role over the past 
several centuries. To meet this challenge, the Corps must adapt 
to new circumstances and focus on its core missions and 
responsibilities.
    In executing this program, the lessons learned from the 
Gulf Coast hurricanes should remain at the forefront of the 
agency's collective consciousness to ensure that the agency 
regains the public's trust and mistakes of the past are not 
repeated. The Corps of Engineers has many talented and 
dedicated civil service employees, and the agency must rely on 
these individuals' expertise for the technical assessments 
necessary to execute the Corps of Engineers' program. It is 
incumbent upon leadership at the Corps of Engineers to provide 
the structure and culture that allows critical review and 
divergent opinions to be aired and seriously considered. The 
alternative to open and honest communication carries a risk far 
too high for the people who rely upon the Corps of Engineers.
    The Committee supports the Corps' efforts to improve its 
budgeting and management processes, as well as the 
implementation of the principles in the ``12 Actions for 
Change'' introduced last year. These principles were announced 
in the wake of the lessons of Hurricane Katrina and fall within 
three areas: effective implementation of a comprehensive 
systems approach; improved communication; and reliable public 
service professionalism. Institutional change is an extremely 
difficult and a long process, the Committee commends the Corps 
for recognizing the need for action.
    The Committee continues its focus on several program 
management issues including: five-year budget plans, 
conservative use of reprogramming and continuing contracts, 
performance based budgeting, and improved budget justification 
materials. The Corps and the Administration continue to improve 
in these areas, and the Committee commends the Corps and the 
Office of Management and Budget for the progress made to date. 
Additionally, the Committee adds accurate cost estimating as an 
area of focus to execution issues. The recent significant cost 
increases in New Orleans, as well as those on several large 
lock and dam projects, illustrate this is an area in which the 
Corps of Engineers needs to improve.
    Five-year comprehensive budget planning.--The Committee 
reiterates its strong belief in the value of five-year budget 
plans and longer-term strategic visions to help guide budget 
requests and Congressional spending decisions. The National 
Academy of Public Administration, in ``Prioritizing America's 
Water Resources Investments'', recommends both shorter term 
project-specific plans as well as long-range planning on a 20-
year time horizon. The circumstances of our nation's economy 
and physical development have changed significantly from the 
time much of our existing infrastructure was designed and 
built. Global competitiveness, energy policy, and environmental 
values all affect our water resource needs. These longer-range 
budget plans are critical to understanding the outcome and 
timeline of current investments so that scarce resources may be 
spent with consideration of the future.
    Additionally, such plans force discipline and regional 
integration in 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 
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. This is one of the principal lessons 
from the Gulf Coast hurricanes, and a lesson that must not be 
forgotten.
    Emphasis on expenditures.--The Committee continues its 
direction that the Corps adhere to a fiscal management practice 
that fully honors congressional direction and accepts a higher 
level of carryover funds in order to achieve increased 
transparency into project costs and multi-year funding 
commitments.
    Prior to fiscal year 2006, the Corps of Engineers used 99% 
expenditure of appropriated funds as its primary performance 
metric. This metric was initiated in response to congressional 
direction to ``spend down'' large unobligated balances. As with 
any performance metric, care must be taken when selecting 
measures to ensure that unintended consequences are minimized 
and that such metrics do not skew decision making in a manner 
that adversely impacts the ultimate performance of the program. 
Tying performance to fully expending an annual appropriation 
leads to decisions at the individual project level that would 
not be made if the metric was simply project budget and 
schedule. It also results in an inordinate amount of resources 
being directed to moving funds from project to project in order 
to meet the expenditure goal, rather than focusing on the 
primary task of the Corps of Engineers--planning, designing and 
building water resource projects.
    Changing the Corps' business model to prioritize 
obligations as a performance measure rather than expenditures 
brings stability and certainty to the program and to individual 
projects. In addition, it honors congressional intent as to the 
allocations for individual projects. While this change does 
bring a short-term impact, it does not adversely impact 
projects over time, as it essentially shifts the funding 
profile of the program. Over any multi-year time horizon, the 
same number of projects will be funded at the same level--the 
difference is the sequencing of the funding. As fully funded 
contract obligations are entered into that span multiple years, 
additional resources are ``freed'' to fund other projects in 
future years.
    As the Corps improves its fiscal management practices, the 
carryover balances of unobligated funds will be reduced. Much 
has been made of the high carryover balances of fiscal year 
2006. However, an objective analysis of unobligated funding 
shows that once supplemental appropriations and Act language 
(funding that cannot be reprogrammed without statutory 
language) are deducted, the carryover is approximately $460 
million. If unobligated funding for congressionally directed 
projects is removed, the unobligated carryover is less than 
$200 million out of a more than $5.3 billion program.
    Reprogrammings.--The Committee again provides legislative 
language to guide reprogramming actions in fiscal year 2008. 
The Committee recognizes that there are legitimate instances 
where reprogramming is necessary and desirable, and has 
endeavored to work with the Administration and the Corps to 
ensure those instances are addressed expeditiously. The 
flexibility to move funds among projects is a necessary tool to 
adjust to changing project conditions and needs; the guidelines 
imposed by the Committee do not preclude such flexibility, but 
do provide a method to exercise Congressional oversight to 
ensure that the Civil Works program is being executed 
consistent with Congressional intent.
    It is the Committee's intent that the Corps should meet its 
commitments to Members and local sponsors. The Committee 
reminds the Corps that it is responsible for budgeting funds to 
fulfill the commitments made to local sponsors and Members of 
Congress. The Administration and the Corps made progress toward 
this goal in the fiscal year 2007 work plan. Additionally, the 
Committee has provided funding in the Construction and 
Investigations accounts to make further progress to this end.
    To ensure that the expenditure of funds in fiscal year 2008 
is consistent with congressional direction, to minimize the 
movement of funds, and to improve overall budget execution, the 
bill includes a 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 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; or
          (5) increases or reduces funds for any existing 
        program, project or activity by more than $2,000,000 or 
        25 percent, whichever is less;
    Notifications pursuant to this section or any other 
authority for reprogramming or transfer shall be made solely to 
the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations. This 
provision shall not apply to the initiation of new projects or 
activities under the continuing authorities program. However, 
new projects under the continuing authorities program not 
identified in the report accompanying this Act must be 
submitted to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations 
for approval. This requirement is in recognition of the large 
backlog of existing projects. Until ongoing projects are 
complete, the Committee does not see the wisdom in initiating 
new projects that the Corps does not have the financial 
wherewithal to address. Reprogramming approvals shall also be 
required for changes in a project's scope and cost relative to 
what was submitted in the project justifications. These 
guidelines vitiate all other reprogramming guidance provided in 
previous appropriations Acts or their accompanying reports and 
shall be applied to all accounts of the Corps of Engineers. In 
addition, the Corps is directed to submit to the House and 
Senate Committees on Appropriations a quarterly report 
detailing project execution relative to stated capability and 
enacted appropriations.
    Continuing contracts.--The Rivers and Harbors 
Appropriations Act of 1890 first authorized the Corps to award 
continuing 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 specific authorizations for 
continuing contracts save the Corps from being in violation of 
the Anti-Deficiency Act. Unlike the multi-year contracting 
authorities of other agencies under titles 10 and 41 of the 
U.S. Code, which do not provide for the obligation of funds in 
advance of appropriations and are subject to reasonable bounds, 
the Corps continuing contract authority has few constraints. 
Its use has resulted over the years in a large number of long-
term contracts with high out-year funding commitments, which 
could also involve a significant unfunded cost to the taxpayer 
if the Corps later terminated the contract.
    In the past, when entering into such contracts, the Corps 
obligated the federal government to pay certain costs from 
future appropriations. The contract clause also allowed the 
contractor to perform more work than was budgeted in any fiscal 
year when available appropriations for the current fiscal year 
were exhausted, but at the contractors' risk with an 
expectation that payment would be made from subsequent 
appropriations.
    These are the two fundamental objections this Committee has 
with the use of the ``true'' continuing contract clause. This 
Committee is unwilling to allow the Corps to make obligations 
on behalf of future Congresses. Also, the Federal government, 
not the contractor, must determine the level of resources 
committed to each project each year. The Committee once again 
reminds the Corps that 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 that amount.
    In fiscal year 2006, the Committee limited the Corps' 
ability to use continuing contracts. This guidance was 
maintained under the Continuing Resolution for fiscal year 
2007, and the Committee extends it for fiscal year 2008. 
Originally this action was the result of several years of 
increasing concern with the Corps' liberal use of and 
inadequate budgeting for continuing contracts, concerns which 
were confirmed by a GAO study. The Committee recognizes that 
the Corps has taken significant steps to address the problem, 
including fully budgeting for the majority of contracts rather 
than using incremental funding for contracts of limited 
duration and cost.
    The Committee remains unconvinced that the Corps, in 
attending to these concerns, has endeavored to implement this 
change in a manner that balances all interests. The Committee 
is aware of several different strategies that have been used on 
large multi-year contracts and fails to understand why 
refinement of one or more of these alternatives could not be 
used to provide certainty for Congress as well as the 
contracting community.
    The Committee understands that the vastly varied scope of 
the projects the Corps is charged with constructing requires a 
variety of contract mechanisms and supports the use of 
continuing contracts on large multi-year projects as long as 
the two issues discussed above are directly addressed and an 
analysis shows this is the appropriate contract mechanism. The 
fiscal year 2006 Conference Report carried a provision that 
made continuing contracts optional rather than required. The 
Committee continues to believe that the continuing contract has 
a role; however, no specific contracting mechanism should be 
required without consideration to the specific circumstances of 
the situation.
    The Committee therefore directs the Corps to develop 
criteria and standards for the use of continuing contracts as 
well as examine alternatives to this contracting mechanism. The 
Committee has been unwilling to eliminate the use of continuing 
contracts. However, if the Corps cannot refine its current 
approach and justification for the use of this mechanism, 
perhaps it is time for the Corps of Engineers to function as 
every other Federal agency does with respect to contracting. 
This Nation landed men on the moon without the use of 
continuing contracts; surely a lock and dam can be built 
without one.
    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 commits an amount for a project in 
excess of the amounts appropriated for such project that remain 
unobligated.
    Cost estimating.--Historically, the Committee has used the 
Corps as an example of technical competency in providing 
accurate cost estimates. The Committee is becoming concerned 
that the Corps has not provided sufficient emphasis in this 
area in recent years. The cost estimates for the provision of 
flood protection in New Orleans have been decidedly off the 
mark. While the Committee recognizes the existence of 
significant mitigating factors in this instance, Corps' 
projects routinely see cost increases beyond the bounds of 
reason. This is not just an issue for this Committee, but 
adversely impacts many local sponsors. The Committee urges the 
Corps to take steps to improve project cost estimates, with 
particular attention given to using realistic funding profiles 
and marketplace trends.
    Congressional justification materials.--The Committee 
remains concerned that the congressional justifications 
submitted by the Corps in support of the annual budget request 
continue to be inadequate for an appropriation request of 
nearly $5 billion. The Committee continues to believe the 
materials must include a clearly articulated overview and 
discussion of policy proposals included in the annual budget 
request beyond that which is included in the annual summary of 
the President's budget request.
    The Committee reiterates prior direction that this 
information shall include, but not be limited to: discussion of 
the individual mission areas and their value to the nation; 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; 
dispositions of projects directed by Congress but not requested 
by the Administration; explanations of how individual projects 
fit in the context of larger regional objectives, and narrative 
and tabular summaries of program requests.
    Performance-based budget.--In fiscal year 2006, the 
Committee directed the Corps to contract with the National 
Academy of Public Administration (NAPA) to study and recommend 
factors which should be used in determining the allocation of 
limited resources for the construction of water resource 
projects. This study resulted from concerns with the 
Administration's use of remaining-benefit-to-remaining-cost 
(RBRC) ratio as the primary factor in the consideration of 
projects for inclusion in the fiscal year 2006 budget request.
    The report, ``Prioritizing America's Water Resource 
Investments'', released in February 2007, provides 
recommendations that, if implemented, would radically change 
the budget process at the Corps of Engineers. The Committee 
commends the panel responsible for the study as well as the 
many interested parties that contributed views and 
recommendations. While many of the proposals may prove to be 
long-term aspirations, there are several that are well within 
the Corps' authority and ability to implement as the budget 
process evolves, including increasing the number of factors 
used to analyze, plan and prioritize Corps construction 
projects and the continued development of five-year planning as 
well as longer-range plans.
    The Committee supports the Administration's change to 
ranking projects based on benefit-cost ratio (BCR) from RBRC, 
and the more rigorous approach to the risk to human safety. The 
Committee continues to believe the ranking system is a valuable 
guide but is not determinative in the allocation of funds.
    Savings and slippage.--In fiscal year 2006, the Committee 
discontinued the practice of assuming an estimate for savings 
and slippage with the Corps of Engineers Civil Works program. 
As noted in prior reports, the practice had devolved into a 
method to ratably reduce funding for individual projects in 
order to fund more projects than an appropriation would 
support. This was equivalent to an airline selling more seats 
than an aircraft can accommodate. The practice led to 
confusion, and in some cases, allocations to projects through 
reprogramming in excess of appropriated funding.
    Continuing authorities.--The Corps has taken significant 
measures in managing this program in response to Congressional 
concern and criticism on past practices. The Committee fully 
supports the measures taken and the proposal to begin 
prioritizing projects, as well as managing the approval of new 
agreements to realistic expectations of annual appropriations. 
The Committee does not renew the prohibition that has been in 
place for the last two years on executing new cost sharing 
agreements. However, the Corps is directed to maintain approval 
authority for all cost-share agreements for this program with 
the Chief of Engineers. This authority cannot be delegated.
    In addition, the Committee directs that all 
Congressionally-directed funding for specific Continuing 
Authorities projects must remain available for use on the 
intended project for a period of two years after the date of 
enactment of this Act. For Congressionally-directed projects 
funded in previous appropriations bills, for which funds 
remain, those funds shall remain available for two years from 
the date of enactment of this Act. After the two year period, 
or after completion of the Congressionally-directed projects, 
any remaining unobligated funding may be made available to 
other ongoing Continuing Authorities projects without creating 
any obligation to repay those funds to the source projects. 
Such use of unobligated funds will not require Congressional 
approval via the reprogramming process. The intent of this 
language is to ensure that Congressional intent is executed 
within a reasonable timeframe, while also encouraging the Corps 
to provide more realistic cost and schedule estimates for 
Continuing Authorities projects.
    The Committee remains concerned regarding the backlog of 
existing Continuing Authority projects. The Corps current 
estimate of the federal requirements of these projects is 
almost $2 billion, for a program which receives an average of 
$120 million per year. Due to this backlog, the Committee 
continues its policy of no new starts.

                             Investigations


                    (INCLUDING RESCISSION OF FUNDS)




Appropriation, 2007...................................   \1\$162,916,000
Budget estimate, 2008.................................        90,000,000
Recommended, 2008.....................................       120,100,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2007...............................       -42,816,000
    Budget estimate, 2008.............................      +30,100,000

\1\Excludes emergency supplemental appropriations of $8,165,000.

    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 $120,100,000, 
a decrease of $42,816,000 from the fiscal year 2007 enacted 
level, and $30,100,000 over the budget request. The Committee 
recommendation includes the rescission of $100,000 appropriated 
in Public Law 106-554.
    The Committee provides no recommendation at this time for 
specific projects contained in either the Administration's 
budget or proposed by Members of Congress. Individual project 
allocations will be considered comprehensively after the 
Committee has properly analyzed all relevant information. The 
budget request for this account and the approved Committee 
recommendation for national programs are shown on the following 
table:


    National Inventory of Flood and Storm Damage Reduction 
Projects.--The budget request includes $10,000,000 to continue 
this effort, initiated with $30,000,000 in supplemental 
appropriations, to create a national inventory and database of 
flood and storm damage reduction projects and for assessing 
project structural and operational integrity and their 
associated risks. The Committee supports this effort; however, 
no funding is provided due to the lack of a specific 
authorization for this activity.

                              Construction


                    (INCLUDING RESCISSIONS OF FUNDS)




Appropriation, 2007...................................  \1\$2,336,368,00
                                                                       0
Budget estimate, 2008.................................     1,523,000,000
Recommended, 2008.....................................     2,008,874,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2007...............................      -327,494,000
    Budget estimate, 2008.............................     +485,874,000

\1\Excludes emergency supplemental appropriations of $36,500,000.

    This appropriation funds construction, major 
rehabilitation, and related activities for water resource 
projects whose principal purpose is to provide commercial 
navigation, flood and storm damage reduction, or aquatic 
ecosystem restoration benefits to the nation. Portions of this 
account are funded from the Harbor Maintenance Trust and the 
Inland Waterways Trust funds.
    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $2,008,874,000 
a decrease of $327,494,000 from the fiscal year 2007 enacted 
appropriation and $485,874,000 over the budget request. The 
Committee recommendation includes the proposal to move funding 
in the amount of $273,241,000 for three of the four categories 
of projects from the Construction account to the Operation and 
Maintenance account. Additionally, the Committee recommendation 
includes the rescission of $4,688,000 for projects where the 
Corps has determined no federal interest exists or work is 
complete and the funding is no longer required.
    The Committee provides no recommendation at this time for 
specific projects contained in either the Administration's 
budget or proposed by Members of Congress. Individual project 
allocations will be considered comprehensively after the 
Committee has properly analyzed all relevant information. The 
budget request for this account and the approved Committee 
recommendation for national programs are shown on the following 
table:


                   Mississippi River and Tributaries





Appropriation, 2007...................................      $396,565,000
Budget estimate, 2008.................................       260,000,000
Recommended, 2008.....................................       278,000,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2007...............................      -118,565,000
    Budget estimate, 2008.............................       +18,000,000


    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 Committee recommends an appropriation of $278,000,000, 
a decrease of $118,565,000 from the fiscal year 2007 enacted 
appropriation and an increase of $18,000,000 over the budget 
request.
    The Committee provides no recommendation at this time for 
specific projects contained in either the Administration's 
budget or proposed by Members of Congress. Individual project 
allocations will be considered comprehensively after the 
Committee has properly analyzed all relevant information. The 
budget request for this account is shown on the following 
table:


                       Operation and Maintenance





Appropriation, 2007...................................  \1\$1,973,347,00
                                                                       0
Budget estimate, 2008.................................     2,471,000,000
Recommended, 2008.....................................     2,655,241,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2007...............................      +681,894,000
    Budget estimate, 2008.............................     +184,241,000

\1\Excludes emergency appropriations of $3,000,000.

    This appropriation funds operation, maintenance, and 
related activities at the water resource projects that the 
Corps of Engineers operates and maintains. Work to be 
accomplished consists of dredging, repair, and operation of 
structures and other facilities, as authorized in various River 
and Harbor, Flood Control, and Water Resources Development 
Acts. Related activities include aquatic plant control, 
monitoring of completed projects, removal of sunken vessels, 
and the collection of domestic waterborne commerce statistics. 
Portions of this account are financed through the Harbor 
Maintenance Trust Fund.
    It has come to the Committee's attention that the 
Administration has not budgeted for the Corps of Engineers' 
financial obligations for the National Fish Hatchery System. 
The Committee expects the Corps of Engineers to work with the 
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to determine and budget for the 
costs associated with operating and maintaining mitigation fish 
hatcheries related to Corps water projects.
    The Committee recommends an appropriation of 
$2,655,241,000, an increase of $681,894,000 over the fiscal 
year 2007 enacted level and $184,241,000 above the budget 
request. The Committee recommendation does not include the 
proposal to move funding in the amount of $22,680,000 for 
rehabilitation of existing projects from the Construction 
account to Operation and Maintenance.
    The budget request and the approved Committee allowance are 
shown on the following table:


                           Regulatory Program





Appropriation, 2007...................................      $159,273,000
Budget estimate, 2008.................................       180,000,000
Recommended, 2008.....................................       180,000,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2007...............................       +20,727,000
    Budget estimate, 2008.............................             - - -


    This appropriation provides funds to administer laws 
pertaining to regulation of activities affecting U.S. waters, 
including wetlands, in accordance with the Rivers and Harbors 
Appropriation Act of 1899, the Clean Water Act, and the Marine 
Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972. Appropriated 
funds are used to review and process permit applications, 
ensure compliance on permitted sites, protect important aquatic 
resources, and support watershed planning efforts in sensitive 
environmental areas in cooperation with States and local 
communities.
    The Committee is concerned that the Corps is not completing 
regulatory approvals and Environmental Impact Reports (EIR) and 
Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) in an expeditious manner. 
The Committee urges the Corps of Engineers to ensure a 12-month 
time frame for completion of all EIR/EIS and to undertake other 
improvements that would expedite regulatory processes, such as 
requiring an EIR/EIS on major dredge and fill projects only, 
and expediting or waiving superfluous review at the division 
level.
    Additionally, the Committee is concerned with the 
performance of the Sacramento Regulatory Division. While the 
Committee does not support, in any manner, the Corps of 
Engineers abrogating its responsibilities under the Clean Water 
Act, the Sacramento District seems to have a disproportionate 
backlog associated with its area of jurisdiction. Given the 
region's continued projected growth, recent court decisions and 
the existing backlog, it is critical that this issue receive 
additional direct oversight by Corps leadership.
    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $180,000,000, 
which is the same as the budget request and $20,727,000 over 
the fiscal year 2007 enacted level.

        Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP)





Appropriation, 2007...................................      $138,672,000
Budget estimate, 2008.................................       130,000,000
Recommended, 2008.....................................       130,000,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2007...............................        -8,672,000
    Budget estimate, 2008.............................             - - -


    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.
    Congress transferred FUSRAP from the Department of Energy 
(DOE) to the Corps of Engineers in fiscal year 1998. In 
appropriating FUSRAP funds to the Corps of Engineers, the 
Committee intended to transfer only the responsibility for 
administration and execution of cleanup activities at FUSRAP 
sites where DOE had not completed cleanup. The Committee did 
not transfer to the Corps ownership of and accountability for 
real property interests, which remain with DOE. The Committee 
expects DOE to continue to provide its institutional knowledge 
and expertise to serve the Nation and the affected communities 
to ensure the success of this program.
    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $130,000,000, 
the same level as the budget request, and $8,672,000 below the 
fiscal year 2007 enacted level.

                 Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies





Appropriation, 2007...................................             - - -
Budget estimate, 2008.................................    \1\$40,000,000
Recommended, 2008.....................................       $40,000,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2007...............................       +40,000,000
    Budget estimate, 2008.............................            - - -

\1\Excludes emergency appropriations of $1,561,000,000.

    This appropriation funds the planning, training, exercises, 
and other measures that ensure the readiness of the Corps to 
respond to floods, hurricanes, and other natural disasters, and 
to support emergency operations in response to such natural 
disasters, including advance measures, flood fighting, 
emergency operations, providing potable water on an emergency 
basis, and the repair of certain flood and storm damage 
reduction projects. The requested amount is the base funding 
necessary for preparedness activities.
    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $40,000,000, 
the same level as the budget request, and $40,000,000 above the 
fiscal year 2007 enacted level.

                                Expenses





Appropriation, 2007...................................      $167,250,000
Budget estimate, 2008.................................    \1\177,000,000
Recommended, 2008.....................................       171,000,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2007...............................        +3,750,000
    Budget estimate, 2008.............................       -6,000,000

\1\The budget proposes to fund the Office for the Assistant Secretary
  for Civil Works under this account. The Committee recommendation
  includes funding in the amount of $6,000,000 for this office under the
  seperate heading ``Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army
  (Civil Works).''

    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 is concerned that the cost of many A-76 
contacting out studies exceeds the benefits of the studies, 
especially studies of small groups. The Committee notes that 
all A-76 studies performed by the Corps have been won by the 
Corps. The Committee believes that, in most areas, the 
government functions are so intermixed with the 
``contractible'' functions that it is very difficult to 
reorganize to separate them into contractible and governmental 
functions groups.
    The Corps of Engineers has requested funding for the 
development of a high performing organization that could 
dramatically affect the work performed by 3,500 employees. The 
Committee is aware that the Corps has successfully performed 
and implemented High Performing Organization (HPO) studies that 
follow the study process of A-76 studies with similar results, 
without incurring the additional time and costs associated with 
contracting out competitions. As the Corps moves forward on new 
HPO studies, the Committee urges the Corps to involve as much 
as possible the affected rank-and-file employees and their 
union representatives in the development of the high performing 
organization. The Committee reminds the Corps that no high 
performance organization can, ultimately, be implemented 
without the agreement of the Congress.
    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $171,000,000, 
an increase of $3,750,000 from the fiscal year 2007 enacted 
level and $6,000,000 less than the budget request. The decrease 
from the budget request is due to the Committee's 
recommendation to fund the Office of the Assistant Secretary of 
the Army for Civil Works separately.

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





Appropriation, 2007...................................        $3,979,000
Budget estimate, 2008.................................     \1\ 6,000,000
Recommended, 2008.....................................         6,000,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2007...............................        +2,021,000
    Budget estimate, 2008.............................            - - -

\1\The budget proposes this office be funded from Expenses.

    The Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) oversees 
Civil Works budget and policy whereas the Corps' executive 
direction and management of the Civil Works program are funded 
from the Expenses account. The budget request reflects 
$1,800,000 in support services not previously sub-allocated to 
ASA (CW) by the Department of the Army and includes this amount 
in the Expenses account.
    For purposes of transparency, the Committee recommends a 
separate appropriation for the Office of the Assistant 
Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) and has provided $6,000,000 
for this account.

                           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 title except in certain circumstances.
    The bill includes a provision prohibiting the use of funds 
in this Act to carry out any continuing contract that commits 
an amount for a project in excess of the amount appropriated 
for such project that remains unobligated.
    The bill includes a provision that prohibits funds for the 
operation or maritime-related maintenance of the hopper dredge 
McFarland.
    The bill includes language relating to the Sacramento 
District office of the Corps of Engineers.
    The bill includes a provision prohibiting the use of funds 
for any A-76 study.

                                TITLE II


                       DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR


                          Central Utah Project


                Central Utah Project Completion Account





Appropriation, 2007...................................       $34,020,000
Budget estimate, 2008.................................        43,000,000
Recommended, 2008.....................................        43,000,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2007...............................        +8,980,000
    Budget estimate, 2008.............................             - - -



    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 2008 to carry 
out the Central Utah Project is $43,000,000, the same as the 
budget request, and $8,980,000 above the fiscal year 2007 
enacted level. Within the $43,000,000 provided by the 
Committee, the following amounts are provided for the Central 
Utah Valley Water Conservation District by activity, as 
recommended in the budget request:

Utah Lake drainage basin delivery system................     $23,597,000
Water conservation measures.............................       5,000,000
Uinta Basin replacement project.........................       9,518,000
Other Title II programs.................................       1,500,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
    Total, Central Utah water conservation district.....      39,615,000

    The Committee recommendation includes the requested amount 
of $976,000 for deposit into the Utah Reclamation Mitigation 
and Conservation Account for use by the Utah Reclamation 
Mitigation and Conservation Commission. These funds, as 
proposed in the budget request, are to be used to implement the 
fish, wildlife, and recreation mitigation and conservation 
projects authorized in Title III of Public Law 102-575; and to 
complete mitigation measures committed to in pre-1992 Bureau of 
Reclamation planning documents, as follows:

Provo River/Utah Lake fish and wildlife.................        $150,000
Duchesne/Strawberry Rivers fish and wildlife............          30,000
CRSP/Statewide fish, wildlife and recreation............         535,000
Section 201(a)(1) mitigation measures...................         261,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
    Total, Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation 
      Commission........................................         976,000

    For program oversight and administration, the Committee has 
provided $1,620,000, the same level as the budget request, and 
$112,000 below the fiscal year 2007 enacted level. For fish and 
wildlife conservation programs, the Committee has provided 
$789,000, the same level as the budget request and $270,000 
above the fiscal year 2007 enacted level.

                         Bureau of Reclamation


                    Fiscal Year 2008 Budget Overview

    The mission of the Bureau of Reclamation is to manage, 
develop, and protect water and related resources in an 
environmentally and economically sound manner in the interest 
of the American public. Since its establishment by the 
Reclamation Act of June 17, 1902, the Bureau of Reclamation has 
developed water supply facilities that have contributed to 
sustained economic growth and an enhanced quality of life in 
the western states. Lands and communities served by Reclamation 
projects have been developed to meet agricultural, tribal, 
urban, and industrial needs. The Bureau continues to develop 
authorized facilities to store and convey new water supplies 
and is the largest supplier and manager of water in the 17 
western states. The Bureau maintains 472 dams and 348 
reservoirs with the capacity to store 245 million acre-feet of 
water. These facilities deliver water to one of every five 
western farmers for about 10 million acres of irrigated land, 
and to over 31 million people for municipal, rural, and 
industrial uses. The Bureau is also the Nation's second largest 
producer of hydroelectric power, generating 42 billion kilowatt 
hours of energy each year from 58 power plants. In addition, 
its facilities provide substantial flood control, recreation, 
and fish and wildlife benefits.
    The fiscal year 2008 budget request for the Bureau of 
Reclamation totals $957,880,000. The Committee recommendation 
totals $1,029,880,000 for the Bureau of Reclamation, 
$72,000,000 above the budget request and $4,884,000 above the 
fiscal year 2007 enacted level.
    A summary table illustrating the fiscal year 2007 enacted 
appropriation, the fiscal year 2008 budget request and the 
Committee recommendation is shown below:

                                                (Dollars in 000s)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Fiscal Year 2007         Fiscal Year 2008            Committee
               Account                         Enacted                  Request               Recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Water and related resources..........                 $878,623                 $816,197                 $871,197
        Emergency appropriations.....                   18,000                    - - -                    - - -
Central Valley project restoration                      52,150                   59,122                   59,122
 fund................................
California Bay-Delta restoration.....                   36,648                   31,750                   40,750
Policy and administration............                   57,575                   58,811                   58,811
Legislative proposal, SJRRF..........                    - - -                   -8,000                    - - -
                                      --------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total, Bureau of Reclamation.....                1,042,996                  957,880                1,029,880
        Appropriations...............                1,024,996                    - - -                    - - -
        Emergency appropriations.....                   18,000                    - - -                    - - -
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      Water and Related Resources


                     (INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)




Appropriation, 2007...................................   \1\$878,623,000
Budget estimate, 2008.................................       816,197,000
Recommended, 2008.....................................       871,197,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2007...............................        -7,426,000
    Budget estimate, 2008.............................       +55,000,000

\1\Excludes emergency supplemental appropriations of $18,000,000.

    The Water and Related Resources account supports the 
development, management, and restoration of water and related 
natural resources in the 17 western states. The account 
includes funds for 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 2008, the Committee recommends 
$871,197,000, $55,000,000 above the budget request and 
$7,426,000 below the fiscal year 2007 enacted level.
    Projects.--Congress has made significant reforms in the way 
it reviews and allocates funding for the Federal government, 
reforms which the Committee takes very seriously as it executes 
its constitutional authority. Earmarking or directed spending 
of Federal dollars does not begin with Congress. It begins with 
the Executive Branch. For example, the table following this 
section contains a list of individual Reclamation, Water and 
Related Resources projects submitted by the Administration. The 
Administration, in selecting these projects, goes through a 
process that is the functional equivalent of earmarking. When 
the Committee reviews the budget request, it goes through a 
process of rigorous review and may alter or modify this list to 
reflect additional priorities.
    The Committee provides no recommendation at this time for 
specific projects contained in either the Administration's 
budget or proposed by Members of Congress. Individual project 
allocations will be considered comprehensively after the 
Committee has properly analyzed all relevant information. The 
budget request for this account and the approved Committee 
recommendation for national programs are shown at the end of 
this section.
    Reprogramming.--The Department is directed to conform to 
the following reprogramming guidelines. The Bureau is permitted 
to transfer, without prior Congressional approval and without 
regard to percentage limitation, not more than $5,000,000 per 
project to provide adequate funds for settled contractor 
claims, increased contractor earnings due to accelerated rates 
of operations, and real estate deficiency judgments, provided 
that such reprogramming is necessary to discharge legal 
obligations of the Bureau of Reclamation.
    For each project within the Resources Management and 
Development category for which $2,000,000 or more is available 
at the beginning of the fiscal year, the Bureau is permitted to 
transfer to such project in that fiscal year no more than 
fifteen percent of the amount available at the beginning of the 
fiscal year for such project, without prior approval from the 
House and Senate Committees on Appropriations. For each project 
within the Resources Management and Development category for 
which less than $2,000,000 is available at the beginning of the 
fiscal year, the Bureau is permitted to transfer to such 
project no more than $300,000 in that fiscal year without prior 
approval from the House and Senate Committees on 
Appropriations. A transfer is defined as any movement of funds 
into or out of a program, project or activity.
    The Bureau is further permitted to transfer funds within 
the Facility Operation, Maintenance and Rehabilitation category 
without prior Congressional approval and without regard to 
percentage or dollar limitation.
    The Bureau may not transfer any funds, without prior 
approval from the House and Senate Committees on 
Appropriations, from either the Facilities Operation, 
Maintenance and Rehabilitation category or the Resources 
Management and Development category to any project in the other 
category. The Bureau is prohibited from using an internal 
reprogramming action to initiate, restart, or resume any 
program, project, or activity that does not receive a 
congressional appropriation in fiscal year 2008.


                            VARIOUS PROGRAMS

    Site security.--In fiscal year 2006, the Committee 
recognized that Federal reclamation law, specifically the 
Reclamation Act of 1939, allocates annual operation and 
maintenance (O&M) and replacement costs on Reclamation projects 
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. The Committee remains concerned that these costs be 
justified and accounted for in a transparent manner. Further, 
the Committee directs the Department to work closely with power 
customers, water users and other customers to ensure these 
requirements are adequately communicated and justified to those 
parties who share in the costs.
    Water 2025.--The budget request includes $11,000,000 for 
Water 2025. This program is intended to reduce crises and 
conflict over water and is to establish a framework to identify 
problems, solutions and plans as the Department of the Interior 
works with states, tribes, local governments 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 2008.

                Central Valley Project Restoration Fund





Appropriation, 2007...................................       $52,150,000
Budget estimate, 2008.................................        59,122,000
Recommended, 2008.....................................        59,122,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2007...............................        +6,972,000
    Budget estimate, 2008.............................             - - -


    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 2008, the Committee recommends $59,122,000, 
the same level as the budget request and $6,972,000 above the 
fiscal year 2007 enacted level. The budget request includes 
$7,500,000 of funds derived from Friant Division surcharges. 
Additional funds, as proposed in the budget request, are 
provided as follows:

Anadromous fish restoration program.....................      $4,500,000
Other Central Valley project impacts....................       1,500,000
Dedicated project yield.................................         800,000
Flow fluctuation study..................................          50,000
Restoration of riparian habitat and spawning gravel.....       1,000,000
Central Valley comprehensive assessment/monitoring 
    program.............................................         300,000
Anadromous fish screen program..........................       4,432,000
Refuge wheeling conveyance..............................       8,800,000
Refuge water supply, facility construction..............       5,000,000
Ecosystem/water systems operations model................       7,650,000
Water acquisition program...............................       9,990,000
San Joaquin Basin action plan...........................       2,800,000
Land retirement program.................................       1,000,000
Clear Creek restoration.................................         800,000
Trinity River restoration program.......................       1,000,000
San Joaquin River Basin resource management initiative..       2,000,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
    Total, Central Valley project restoration fund......      51,622,000

                    California Bay-Delta Restoration


                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)




Appropriation, 2007...................................       $36,648,000
Budget estimate, 2008.................................        31,750,000
Recommended, 2008.....................................        40,750,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2007...............................        +4,102,000
    Budget estimate, 2008.............................        +9,000,000


    The California Bay-Delta account funds the Federal share of 
water supply and reliability improvements, ecosystem 
improvements and other activities being developed for the 
Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and associated watersheds by a 
State and Federal partnership (CALFED). Federal participation 
in this program was initially authorized in the California Bay-
Delta Environmental and Water Security Act enacted in 1996. 
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. In 2005, the CALFED Bay-Delta 
Authorization Act (P.L. 108-361) was enacted, 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 total Federal expenditures under this Act 
from fiscal year 1998 through 2007 amount to almost 
$904,000,000.
    The Committee recognizes the impending danger the 
Sacramento/San Joaquin Delta levees pose to the economy, 
environment, water users, and general welfare of the people 
within the State. It is the Committee's belief that, because 
Reclamation relies on the Delta to provide water supply for 
central and southern California, it should share in the 
responsibility of maintaining and strengthening delta levees 
and has provided $5,000,000 under the CALFED Bay-Delta program 
for this purpose to be transferred to the Corps of Engineers.
    Due to the increasing need for water supply in the West, 
the Committee recommendation also includes an additional 
$5,000,000 for water use efficiency efforts. The Committee 
recommendation also includes a reduction of $1,000,000 for 
planning and management activities.
    For fiscal year 2008, the Committee recommends $40,750,000, 
$9,000,000 above the budget request and $4,120,000 above the 
fiscal year 2007 enacted level. The funds provided are intended 
to support the following activities, as delineated below:

Science.................................................      $3,000,000
Delta Levees............................................       5,000,000
Environmental water account.............................       7,000,000
Storage program.........................................       8,500,000
Conveyance..............................................       5,000,000
Planning and management activities......................       1,000,000
Water use efficiency....................................       5,000,000
Ecosystem restoration...................................       1,500,000
Water Quality...........................................       4,750,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
    Total, California Bay-Delta Restoration.............      40,750,000

                       Policy and Administration


                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)




Appropriation, 2007...................................       $57,575,000
Budget estimate, 2008.................................        58,811,000
Recommended, 2008.....................................        58,811,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2007...............................        +1,236,000
    Budget estimate, 2008.............................             - - -


    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 2008, the 
Committee recommends $58,811,000, the same as the budget 
request and $1,236,000 above the fiscal year 2007 enacted 
level.
    Five-year budget planning.--In fiscal year 2006, the 
Committee directed the Department of Interior to submit with 
its fiscal year 2007 budget request a detailed five-year budget 
plan for each of the major budget components including Water 
and Related Resources, California Bay-Delta Restoration 
program, Central Valley Project Restoration Fund and Central 
Utah Project Completion. The Department subsequently informed 
the Committee that it would be unable to provide a five-year 
plan in fiscal year 2007 and intended to make the initial 
submission with the fiscal year 2008 budget request. The Bureau 
failed to make that submission either, and now informs the 
Committee that the five-year plan will be submitted at some 
undefined time in the future. As a result of this Committee's 
extreme frustration with the Bureau's inability to provide a 
five-year budget plan, the Act contains a provision that 
transfers $10,000,000 from the Policy and Administration 
account to the Water and Related Resources account to meet 
unbudgeted needs in the event the five-year budget plan is not 
received 60 days after the date enactment of this Act.
    To reiterate the Committee's expectation, the program plans 
shall clearly state the assumptions and priorities behind the 
choices the Bureau will make between competing agency programs 
and projects, 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.

                               TITLE III

                          DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

                              INTRODUCTION

    Funds recommended in Title III provide for all Department 
of Energy (DOE) programs, including Energy Efficiency and 
Renewable Energy, Nuclear Energy, Fossil Energy Research and 
Development, Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, Naval 
Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves, the Strategic Petroleum 
Reserve, the Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve, the Energy 
Information Administration, Non-Defense Environmental 
Management, Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and 
Decommissioning Fund, Science, Nuclear Waste Disposal, 
Environmental Safety and Health, Departmental Administration, 
Office of the Inspector General, the National Nuclear Security 
Administration (Weapons Activities, Defense Nuclear 
Nonproliferation, Naval Reactors, and the Office of the 
Administrator), Defense Environmental Management, Other Defense 
Activities, Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal, the Power Marketing 
Administrations, and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Department of Energy (DOE) has requested a total budget 
of $24,762,713,000 in fiscal year 2008 to fund programs in its 
five primary mission areas: science, energy, environment, 
nuclear nonproliferation and national security. The overall DOE 
budget request is increased 2.8 percent compared to the fiscal 
year 2007 enacted level--essentially the rate of inflation, but 
the five mission areas fare quite differently under the 
Department's budget proposal. Science research would increase 
by over 15.8 percent while the budget for Nuclear 
Nonproliferation decreases by 0.6 percent. When the budget for 
constructing a domestic fuel fabrication facility is omitted, 
the proposed reduction in spending on actual nonproliferation 
activities is 5.8 percent. The total environmental cleanup 
budget request proposes a reduction of 8.7 percent compared to 
fiscal year 2006.
    Compared to fiscal year 2007 (adjusted for one-time 
emergency spending), the fiscal year 2008 budget request for 
applied energy research is actually down by 0.9 percent in the 
midst of an on-going energy crisis with increased, volatile 
costs for petroleum and natural gas, over-reliance on imported 
oil, and growing emissions of greenhouse gases. The 
Administration is proposing a 75.4 percent increase for nuclear 
energy and decreases for all other energy technologies. This 
increase is driven by the studies of potential nuclear fuel 
recycling facilities and fast reactors that comprise most of 
the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership proposal.
    The Committee recommends a number of significant changes to 
the fiscal year 2008 budget request to reflect specific 
Congressional priorities that better address our national 
interests. The Committee recommendation substantively funds the 
request for the Office of Science and supports the projected 
doubling of this area of research and development funding over 
the decade from 2006 to 2016. Significant adjustments to 
funding for nuclear nonproliferation, applied energy research, 
development, demonstration, and deployment, environmental 
cleanup, and weapons programs are recommended. In the current, 
constrained budget environment, total funding for the 
Department of Energy is $25,243,119,000, an increase of 
$1,149,925,000 over fiscal year 2007 and $480,406,000 over the 
budget request.

                        MAJOR COMMITTEE CONCERNS

    Overall, the Committee is concerned with two tendencies in 
DOE program formulation and execution. First, like many 
agencies, DOE seems focused more on preserving its component 
institutions than on accomplishing its work and serving the 
people of the United States, its customers, in a cost-effective 
manner. Second, the Department has established a pattern of 
rushing into the latest new initiative with unbridled 
enthusiasm, neglecting the completion of on-going work, and 
letting haste make waste. Most major DOE projects have long 
time scales, longer than those of political change. This means 
that it is essential to take time up-front to establish the 
reliability of new technologies that will be used, to complete 
end-to-end system engineering and include all mission 
requirements, and to build bipartisan political support for 
long-term missions that is broad rather than local.

                           PROJECT MANAGEMENT

    Project management is the Committee's number one concern at 
the Department of Energy. The Department of Energy is the 
largest civilian contracting agency in the federal government 
and spends over 90 percent of its annual budget on contracts to 
operate its laboratories, production facilities, and 
environmental restoration sites. In 1990, the Government 
Accountability Office (GAO) began an annual assessment 
resulting in a list of programs that are at high-risk for 
fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement. DOE contract management 
has been on this list since its inception.
    The Committee acknowledges some improvements have been made 
during the last two years--policies and guidance have been 
revised to require senior management approval at critical 
decision points, earned value management systems are now 
required of contractors, and federal project directors are now 
expected to complete a training and certification program. 
Despite these improvements, GAO found in January 2007 that 
performance on DOE projects is not substantially improved, and 
DOE has failed to ensure that its project management guidelines 
are consistently followed. Recently, Department management at 
the highest levels has chosen to short-circuit project 
management policy and combine critical decision milestones 
rather than follow the established procedure of making these 
decisions in sequence.
    DOE has set a performance goal of having 90 percent of its 
ongoing projects within a 10 percent variance of cost and 
schedule baseline. GAO has found that, since October 2002, DOE 
has achieved its performance goals for individually funded 
construction projects only about one-third of the time. Four 
significant projects, estimated to cost more than $100 million 
each, were not reporting cost and schedule information into 
DOE's tracking system. These and other findings have led GAO to 
conclude that DOE contract management remains, for the 
sixteenth year in a row, at high-risk for fraud, waste, abuse, 
and mismanagement.
    Despite the fact that DOE contract management remains on 
GAO's high-risk list, the Department proposes to proceed 
rapidly with major projects to build the Chemistry and 
Metallurgy Research Replacement Building, the MOX Fuel 
Fabrication Facility, and the Uranium Processing Facility at Y-
12, and is embarking on an aggressive plan utilizing the H-
Canyon at the Savannah River Site, proceeding with development 
of a Reliable Replacement Warhead nuclear weapon, and 
conducting studies leading to construction of Global Nuclear 
Energy Partnership commercial scale facilities.
    The Committee repeats its prior guidance on the importance 
of improving the project management culture within the 
Department and on faithful 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 for major capital projects.
    The Committee directs the Department to work with GAO and 
develop an action plan with concrete steps and schedule 
milestones whose implementation will result in DOE contract 
management being removed from the GAO High-Risk List as soon as 
possible. This action plan is to be provided to the Committees 
on Appropriations of the House and Senate not later than 
November 1, 2007. Given the persistence of this problem, the 
Committee recognizes that this achievement may require more 
than a year, but the Committee expects the plan to include 
items of measurable progress that can and will be reported to 
the Committees on Appropriations of the House and Senate with 
submission to Congress of the annual budget request beginning 
with the request for fiscal year 2009.
    The Department is directed to comply fully with Management 
Order 413.3 for every project exceeding $100 million in total 
cost, and to strengthen 413.3 by adding requirements for 
assessing the readiness of technology to be used in every 
project and to have demonstrated technology ready for project 
implementation before proceeding past critical decision 2. 
Given the cost increases that have occurred due to increased 
requirements to mitigate seismic risks, the Department should 
consider adding requirements for seismic risk assessment and 
appropriate designs to address this risk in all construction 
projects. Once the Department has certified estimates of 
project cost as part of reaching critical decision 2, the 
Department shall not proceed without obtaining Congressional 
approval for the project with its full construction and life-
cycle costs as part of the annual appropriations process.

                        NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION

    The Committee has long held that nuclear weapons material 
in the hands of terrorists poses the greatest threat to the 
United States. The most effective protection from this threat 
is to ensure that nuclear material is well-monitored and 
protected so that it does not fall into the hands of 
terrorists. Should material be illicitly removed from its 
protected locations, it is vital to detect it in transit. 
Accordingly, the Congress has consistently provided funding at 
or above the requested levels for work in partnership with 
Russia and other countries of the former Soviet Union, as well 
as others, to guard and account for fissional materials, to 
remove weapons-usable material from unsafe locations, and to 
provide and improve systems to detect radioactive materials at 
borders and other transportation nodes. The Administration 
request in this area is not commensurate with the importance of 
this issue, and the Committee provides significantly more 
funding for this work. These programs are an area where the 
performance of the Department has been quite good and the 
Committee commends the program officials responsible for their 
work to enhance the safety of the United States and the world.

      ENERGY RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, DEMONSTRATION, AND DEPLOYMENT

    The United States is in the midst of a multifaceted energy 
crisis that threatens our economy, our independence, and the 
environment. Reliance on imported petroleum makes the U.S. 
dependent on several politically unstable regions of the world. 
Growth in world demand for petroleum has created tight markets 
where prices are high and unstable. High prices for imported 
oil are major contributors to the U.S. trade deficit. Burning 
fossil fuels with current technologies leads to emission of 
carbon dioxide in amounts that cannot be absorbed by the 
environment fast enough to prevent significant increases in its 
atmospheric concentration. Carbon dioxide absorbs infrared 
radiation and thereby contributes to the greenhouse effect. The 
magnitude of the results is uncertain, but generally global 
average temperature increases, with especially significant 
warming of nights, winters, and polar latitudes. This global 
warming has the potential to cause environmental change that 
occurs faster than human infrastructure and economies can 
comfortably adapt.
    Given this threat to the well-being of the United States, 
the Administration request for energy research, development, 
demonstration, and deployment is woefully inadequate. The 
Committee has added significant funding for renewable energy 
sources and improvements to energy efficiency while providing 
additional funding for fossil energy technologies, particularly 
those to sequester carbon dioxide from coal combustion. The 
Committee redirects most of the major increase in funding for 
nuclear energy to activities that are more needed now than 
those associated with DOE's Global Nuclear Energy Partnership 
proposal. The budget structure is changed to highlight these 
major areas of energy investment along with electricity 
delivery and energy reliability. The Committee would have 
provided additional funds to invest in achieving energy 
independence and lowered emissions of greenhouse gases while 
supporting growth in the U.S. economy, but current constraints 
on the federal budget prevent this.

                        ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT

    Creating and maintaining a credible strategic deterrent of 
nuclear weapons from World War II to the end of the Cold War 
has left a legacy of toxic and radioactive chemicals and 
despoiled sites to be cleaned up, excess facilities to be 
removed, and former employees with retirement and health care 
needs that must be met. Early experiments associated with 
establishing a nuclear energy industry have also left behind a 
much smaller but still significant set of sites with similar 
requirements. The Defense and Non-Defense Environmental Clean-
Up, Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning, and 
Legacy Management accounts at the Department of Energy fund 
this work. With closure of the Rocky Flats site, the budget for 
these activities should decrease somewhat, but the reduced 
spending level recommended by the Administration is inadequate. 
The Committee recommends additional funds for these activities 
and would have recommended even more were there not profound 
constraints on funding for government programs such as this.

                       NUCLEAR WEAPONS ACTIVITIES

    Currently, the Administration has not provided to Congress 
an updated strategic assessment that articulates the role of 
nuclear weapons in a post-Cold War world. The national security 
environment for the United States has changed dramatically 
since the fall of the Soviet Union; however, the policy 
objectives that continue to require a large Cold War era 
nuclear stockpile have not been updated to reflect the changed 
international security environment. The Committee directs the 
Administration to develop a comprehensive nuclear defense 
strategy that defines the future mission, global threats, and 
the specific characteristics of the U.S. nuclear stockpile 
necessary to address the nation's nuclear deterrent 
requirements before proceeding with the Reliable Replacement 
Warhead proposal or significant nuclear complex modernization 
plans. The Department of Energy, as a civilian agency, is 
charged with maintaining a reliable stockpile of strategic 
nuclear weapons. The Cold War has left DOE with an eight-site 
weapons complex. The Department appears determined to retain 
this expensive complex and modernize it in place. The Committee 
rejects any such proposal. The nuclear weapons complex 
modernization plan needs to focus on the near-term milestones 
within five-year schedule windows with the intention of 
reducing the number, size, and cost of the NNSA sites and 
facilities while also requiring the minimum number of personnel 
for the mission.

                        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 a quarterly report on the 
status of all projects, reports, fund transfers, and other 
actions directed in this House bill and report. Any reports, 
transfers, or other actions directed in prior fiscal years that 
have not been completed as of the date of enactment of this Act 
should also be included in this quarterly report.

                  RESEARCH PRIORITIES AND COORDINATION

    The Department possesses enormous resources, both in terms 
of people and physical infrastructure, to conduct basic and 
applied research to benefit the citizens of the United States. 
These resources are concentrated in the physical sciences where 
DOE is the largest source of research funding in the federal 
government. The major increase in funding for the Office of 
Science is intended to begin to remedy years of neglect in 
support for these research areas and addresses the 
recommendations in the report by the National Academies, 
``Rising Above the Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing 
America for a Brighter Economic Future''. The Committee fully 
supports this increase, which will directly support an 
additional 3,500 individuals engaged in research sponsored by 
DOE's Science account. In general, the Department performs its 
basic science research and applied energy research missions 
well.
    The Committee notes that the Department sponsors energy 
research and development through the Office of Science, the 
four energy programs--Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, 
Fossil Energy, Nuclear Energy, Science, and Technology, and 
Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability--and through 
Laboratory Directed Research and Development (LDRD). The LDRD 
program consists of individual research projects selected at 
the discretion of DOE laboratory directors with Department 
concurrence and funded via overhead charge on all funding, 
direct and reimbursable, coming into each laboratory. In fiscal 
year 2006, the Department spent $476,000,000 on LDRD. The 
Committee directs the Department to make support for creative 
``out-of-the-box'' energy research a priority within LDRD, 
especially at science laboratories, and to establish a process 
coordinating research and development across the Department.

                       FIVE-YEAR BUDGET PLANNING

    Fiscal year 2008 was the second year in which the 
Department submitted five-year budget plans for all of its 
major programs, an integrated five-year budget plan for the 
entire Department, and business plans for each of the 
Department's national laboratories. The Administration used the 
uncertainty in the fiscal year 2007 budget that resulted from 
the enactment of three successive continuing resolutions to 
appropriate funds for the Department as an excuse for providing 
plans that were almost useless in many areas. The Committee 
directs the Department to submit updated versions of these 
plans (i.e., five-year budget plans for major DOE programs as 
listed in House Report 109-86, for the entire Department, and 
laboratory business plans) concurrent with submission of the 
fiscal year 2009 budget request.
    The Committee renews its previous direction that program 
plans and the integrated Department-wide plan should state 
clearly the assumptions and priorities behind the choices made 
among competing Department programs, and should include a copy 
of the direction provided to the program offices to guide their 
submissions to the five-year plan. The five-year budget plans 
for each major program also should identify clearly the five-
year funding profiles for all major projects with total project 
costs in excess of $100,000,000. This direction applies to all 
ongoing projects (e.g., the Hanford Waste Treatment Plant), all 
new projects (e.g., NSLS-II), and all major cleanup projects in 
excess of the threshold. This information is generally 
available on the construction data sheets, but should be 
incorporated into the five-year plans as well.
    The Committee appreciates the effort of the Office of 
Civilian Radioactive Waste Management in detailing the spending 
plan for licensing, opening, and operating the Yucca Mountain 
Geologic High-Level Nuclear Waste Repository. This plan extends 
well beyond five years and was critical in making the case for 
the fiscal year 2008 budget request for this activity. 
Accordingly, the Committee recommends full funding for this 
request. In contrast, the plan for the Office of Science was 
disappointing and only communicated the intention to double the 
overall spending level within 10 years. The budget requirements 
for the International Thermonuclear Energy Reactor (ITER) are 
known to the Department, but the variation in this major 
funding activity within Fusion Energy Research was not visible 
in the overall funding projected for this area. Were it not for 
the Committee's strong support for strengthening U.S. research 
in the physical sciences, the budget request for the Office of 
Science would not be funded.
    The programs of the Office of Environmental Management 
offer a clear example of the problem. Environmental Management 
has developed milestone schedules for each of its cleanup 
sites. These schedules were developed in cooperation with local 
communities and regulators, and in some cases, are the result 
of legally-binding agreements. There are known resource 
requirements that are necessary to meet these existing cleanup 
milestones. By summing up the funding requirements that are 
necessary to keep all existing cleanup sites on schedule for 
the next five years, the Office of Environmental Management can 
derive the minimum funding level required for the Environmental 
Management programs over the next five years. Where OMB or the 
Department imposes a funding ceiling that provides less than 
the minimum necessary to keep all cleanup sites on schedule, 
the five-year plan then should identify clearly which sites 
would remain on schedule and which ones would see a schedule 
slip and the extent of the slippage. Absent this level of 
detail, the five-year plan does not inform Congress of the 
trade-offs that are being made at the proposed five-year 
funding levels.
    The Department proposes significant work leading to the 
development of a reliable replacement warhead (RRW) within the 
weapons program. The Committee directs the Administration to 
develop a comprehensive nuclear defense strategy that defines 
the future mission, global threats, and the specific 
characteristics of the U.S. nuclear stockpile necessary to 
address the nation's nuclear deterrent requirements before 
proceeding with the RRW or significant nuclear complex 
modernization plans. Additionally, the Committee views this as 
a possibility only as part of a major consolidation of the 
nuclear weapons complex with significant reductions in 
operating costs. The plan for the complex is named by the 
Department the ``Complex 2030''. The Committee cannot support 
continued spending at current rates on the weapons program nor 
planning for the RRW absent a clear plan to restructure the 
complex over the coming five years and reduce the costs. The 
United States can ill afford to reconstitute the twentieth 
century Cold War nuclear weapons complex in the twenty-first 
century with its radically different threats and requirements.

             FUNDING OF SAFEGUARDS AND SECURITY ACTIVITIES

    The Committee again directs the Department of Energy (DOE) 
to continue to fund the safeguards and security activities 
within the DOE programs as a direct funded activity. The 
Committee notes security costs increases to fund increased 
requirements from changes to the Design Basis Threat (DBT) in 
the aftermath of the 9-11 attacks, requires a transparent 
accounting system to track funding across the Department of 
Energy's complex of sites. The Committee still is unaware of 
any compelling rationale to transition back to indirect funding 
of security activities within the DOE accounts, and therefore, 
the Committee will continue to appropriate funds for security 
activities as a direct appropriation.

                   BUDGET JUSTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS

    The fiscal year 2009 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 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 2009 budget request 
is delivered to Congress.

                        AUGMENTING FEDERAL STAFF

    The Committee expects the Department to manage closely the 
number of management and operating (M&O) contractor employees 
assigned to the Washington metropolitan area in fiscal year 
2008, in accordance with the guidance provided in the fiscal 
year 2006 conference report. The Committee maintains the 
following reporting requirements:
    Report on M&O contractor employees.--The Department is to 
provide a report to the Committee at the end of fiscal year 
2007 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, 2006 through September 30, 2007, 
and is due to the Committee no later than January 31, 2008.
    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, 2006 through September 30, 2007, and is 
due to the Committee no later than January 31, 2008.

                        REPROGRAMMING GUIDELINES

    The Committee requires the Department to inform the 
Committee promptly and fully when a change in program execution 
and funding is required during the fiscal year. To assist the 
Department in this effort, the following guidance is provided 
for programs and activities funded in the Energy and Water 
Development Appropriations Act. The Committee directs the 
Department to follow this guidance for all programs and 
activities unless specific reprogramming guidance is provided 
below for a program or activity. The Committee is aware of two 
instances in the previous fiscal year in which, from the 
Committee's perspective, the Department abused its 
reprogramming authorities. In the reorganization of the 
Environment, Safety and Health organization, the Department 
refused to submit a reprogramming request to the Committees, 
despite explicit direction to do so and despite the fact that 
the reorganization clearly involved the reallocation of funds 
in a manner significantly different than described in the 
budget request and approved in the conference report. In the 
second instance, the Department internally reprogrammed funds 
to begin implementation of the loan guarantee program after the 
Committee formally disapproved a reprogramming request for that 
purpose. This internal reprogramming by the Department led to a 
determination by the Government Accountability Office that the 
Department violated the Anti-Deficiency Act by these actions.
    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 should not be 
employed to initiate new programs, or to change program, 
project, or activity allocations specifically denied, limited, 
or increased by Congress in the Act or report. In cases where 
unforeseen events or conditions are deemed to require such 
changes, proposals shall be submitted in advance to the 
Committee and be fully explained and justified.
    Reporting and approval procedures.--The Committee has not 
provided statutory language to define reprogramming guidelines, 
but expects the Department to follow the spirit and the letter 
of the guidance provided in this report. Consistent with prior 
years, the Committee has not provided the Department with any 
internal reprogramming flexibility in fiscal year 2008, 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 
Committees on Appropriations.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee's recommendations for Department of Energy 
programs in fiscal year 2008 are described in the following 
sections. A detailed funding table is included at the end of 
this title.

                     Energy Supply and Conservation





Appropriation, 2007...................................    $2,154,504,000
Budget estimate, 2008.................................     2,187,943,000
Recommended, 2008.....................................             - - -
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2007...............................    -2,154,504,000
    Budget estimate, 2008.............................    -2,187,943,000


    In previous years the Committee has funded the Energy 
Supply and Conservation account that included the following 
programs: Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Resources; 
Nuclear Energy; Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability; 
Environment, Safety and Health (non-defense); and Legacy 
Management (non-defense). The Committee views that this 
combination obscures the nation's true investments in energy 
research, development, demonstration, and deployment. 
Consequently, four of these five programs will now have their 
own accounts, and together with the Fossil Energy account, 
which now will subsume the full Clean Coal Technology program, 
spending levels for energy at DOE will be more transparent. 
Legacy management (non-defense) now will be funded as a 
subaccount of Non-Defense Environmental Management.

                 Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy





Appropriation, 2007...................................    $1,474,285,000
Budget estimate, 2008.................................  \1\1,236,199,000
Recommended, 2008.....................................     1,873,844,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2007...............................      +399,559,000
    Budget estimate, 2008.............................     +637,645,000

\1\The budget request for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy of
  $1,236,199,000 was included in the request for Energy Supply and
  Conservation. The Committee is separating this line into its component
  accounts for FY 2008.

    Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy programs include 
renewable energy and energy conservation research, development, 
demonstration and deployment activities (RDD&D), and federal 
energy assistance programs. Renewable energy research, 
development, demonstration, and deployment activities include 
biomass and biorefinery systems, geothermal technology, 
hydrogen technology, hydropower, solar energy, and wind energy 
technologies. Energy conservation activities include improving 
the efficiency of vehicle, building, fuel cell, and industrial 
technologies. Federal energy assistance programs include 
weatherization assistance, state energy programs, international 
renewable energy program, tribal energy activities, and the 
renewable energy production incentive.
    The total Committee recommendation for Energy Efficiency 
and Renewable Energy (EERE) programs is $1,873,844,000, an 
increase of $637,645,000 compared to the budget request. This 
increases Weatherization Assistance funding, provides 
facilities and equipment for research and development to 
further renewable energy technology, and deploys innovative 
renewable technologies.
    The Committee directs the Department to quantify and track 
the progress and impact of the substantial investments the 
Committee has made in the Energy Efficiency and Renewable 
Energy portfolio. The Department shall brief the Committee on 
an annual basis on the return on investment for each of the 
accounts.
    Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Research, 
Development, Demonstration, and Deployment.--The Committee 
provides $1,558,897,000 for renewable energy and energy 
conservation RDD&D programs, an increase of $527,602,000 over 
the budget request.
    Hydrogen Technology.--The Hydrogen Technology program seeks 
to research, develop and validate fuel cell and hydrogen 
production, delivery, and storage technologies. This program 
aims to have hydrogen from diverse domestic resources used in a 
clean, safe, reliable, and affordable manner in fuel cell 
vehicles and stationary power applications. The Committee 
recommendation is $194,600,000, a decrease of $18,400,000 below 
the budget request. Most research and development activities 
within this account will not generally realize benefits until 
the 2050 timeframe, and therefore activities more appropriately 
funded in the longer term have been reduced in favor of other 
renewable energy and efficiency programs with nearer term 
benefits. The Committee recommends $30,000,000 for hydrogen 
production and delivery, a reduction of $10,000,000 below the 
budget request; $14,000,000 for safety and codes and standards, 
a reduction of $2,000,000 below the budget request; $2,000,000 
for education, a reduction of $1,900,000 below the budget 
request; $10,000,000 for systems analysis, $1,500,000 below the 
budget request; and $2,000,000 for manufacturing, a reduction 
of $3,000,000 below the budget request.
    Biomass and Biorefinery Systems R&D.--Biomass and 
Biorefinery Systems R&D conducts research, development and 
technology validation on advanced technologies that will enable 
future biorefineries to convert cellulosic biomass to fuels, 
chemicals, heat and power. The program focuses on reducing 
processing energy requirements and production costs in biomass 
processing plants and future integrated industrial 
biorefineries. The Committee recommendation for integrated 
research and development on biomass and biorefinery systems is 
$250,000,000, an increase of $70,737,000 over the budget 
request. The Committee provides $10,000,000 for feedstock 
infrastructure, $59,400,000 for platforms research and 
development, $104,863,000 for utilization of platform outputs, 
and $5,000,000 for cellulosic ethanol reverse auction, the same 
as the budget request. The increase of $70,737,000 includes 
$40,000,000 to support additional commercial biorefinery 
demonstrations to increase feedstock options and conversion 
technologies; $20,000,000 to support solicitations for new 
state-of-the-art biorefineries operating at 10 percent of 
commercial scale, enabling faster validation of cellulosic 
ethanol configurations and reducing the technological risks for 
scale-up to commercial operations; $4,000,000 for continuation 
of the FreedomPrize challenge to encourage private sector ideas 
to displace oil; and $4,237,000 to secure and upgrade high 
speed data infrastructure to provide access to DOE lab 
supercomputing capabilities to accelerate high volume protein 
and enzyme modeling. The Committee provides $2,500,000 for 
coordination with the Department of Transportation for work on 
the transport of biofuels, to include development of logistical 
movement patterns for diverse feedstock, utilizing different 
modes of transportation to include barges, rail and pipelines.
    The Committee directs DOE to implement an aggressive 
program to take advantage of the Historically Black Colleges 
and Universities and Hispanic Serving Institutions across the 
country in order to deepen the recruiting pool of diverse 
scientific and technical staff available to support the growing 
renewable energy marketplace.
    Solar Energy.--The Solar Energy program develops solar 
energy technologies, such as photovoltaics (PV) and 
concentrating solar power, that are reliable, affordable and 
environmentally sound. The Committee provides $200,000,000 for 
solar energy programs, an increase of $51,696,000 over the 
budget request. The Committee recommendation includes 
$149,000,000 for photovoltaic energy systems, an increase of 
$11,696,000 over the budget request for applied research on 
semi-conductor material, device and processing issues, 
technology acceptance and technology evaluation. The Committee 
recommendation includes $34,000,000 for concentrating solar 
power, an increase of $25,000,000 over the budget request to 
improve thermal storage technologies and systems to allow 
utilities to dispatch energy into the grid as needed, and to 
accelerate manufacturing technologies to enable scale-up and 
deployment of advanced systems. The Committee recommendation 
includes $12,000,000 for solar heating and lighting, an 
increase of $10,000,000 over the budget request to develop and 
validate integrated solar PV and solar thermal systems 
essential to the development of cost-neutral Zero Energy 
Buildings. The Committee recommendation provides $5,000,000 not 
included in the budget request, for accelerating the 
development and adoption of a solar PV rating system, including 
EnergyStar testing and qualification to accelerate market 
penetration.
    Wind Energy.--The Wind Energy program focuses on the 
development of wind turbines that can operate economically in 
areas with low wind speeds, small wind turbines that can serve 
a range of distributed power applications, and system 
technology in support of offshore wind systems further from 
shore, particularly beyond the viewshed of coastal communities. 
The Committee recommends $57,500,000 for wind energy systems, 
an increase of $17,431,000 over the budget request. The 
increase is to support renewable grid integration, a joint 
effort with the Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy 
Reliability to maximize and scale renewable resource, 
utilization and delivery.
    Geothermal Technology.--The Geothermal Technology program 
works in partnership with U.S. industry to establish geothermal 
energy as an economically competitive contributor to the U.S. 
energy supply. Analysis published in January 2007 by a 
Massachusetts Institute of Technology-led panel identified the 
potential for enhanced geothermal systems to contribute 100,000 
MWe to the Nation's energy supplies. The budget request 
included no funding for this activity. The Committee 
recommendation provides $44,258,000 for technology development 
and application strategies for enhanced geothermal systems, to 
be competitively awarded to industry, universities and national 
laboratories for exploration, drilling and conversion 
technologies.
    Hydropower.--The Committee provides $22,000,000 for 
hydropower research, an increase of $22,000,000 over the budget 
request. Hydropower is a major source of energy for the nation, 
and increased efficiency of existing plants coupled with 
emerging waterpower technologies can make a major contribution 
to clean energy generation. The Committee recommends $4,000,000 
for environmental studies to maximize the potential of 
conventional and alternative hydropower technologies; 
$6,000,000 for RDD&D of new waterpower technologies for ocean, 
tidal, and instream-based generation; $7,000,000 for the 
advanced turbine program; and $5,000,000 for hydropower 
resource assessments at existing dams.
    Vehicle Technologies.--The Vehicle Technologies program 
seeks technology breakthroughs that will greatly reduce 
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 $235,441,000, an increase of $59,303,000 over the 
budget request. The recommendation provides $93,664,000 for 
hybrid electric systems, an increase of $13,000,000 over the 
budget request. Of the increase, $10,000,000 is for energy 
storage research and development for advanced batteries for 
electric, hybrid-electric and plug-in hybrid electric vehicle 
(PHEV) applications, and $3,000,000 is for a competitively bid 
award to independently test and evaluate all vehicles developed 
in the upcoming PHEV demonstration. The Committee is concerned 
that DOE is moving forward with a demonstration program for 
plug-in hybrid electric vehicles that will not be independently 
evaluated outside of the car companies. The Committee 
recommends $49,550,000 for advanced combustion engine research 
and development, an increase of $15,000,000 to restore funding 
to the heavy truck engine research that was eliminated in the 
budget request. The Committee recommends $48,382,000 for 
materials technology research, an increase of $15,000,000 over 
the budget request to accelerate the development of cost-
effective materials and manufacturing processes that contribute 
to fuel-efficient passenger and commercial vehicles. The 
Committee supports the lightweight materials technology 
research and development on advanced high-strength steels to 
reduce the weight of commercial vehicles. The Committee 
provides $23,845,000 for fuels technology, an increase of 
$10,000,000 over the request for non-petroleum based fuels and 
lubricants evaluation to expand and accelerate RDD&D for 
optimized ethanol engine and vehicle technologies. The 
Committee provides $20,000,000 for technology integration, an 
increase of $6,303,000 over the budget request. This increase 
is for the vehicles technologies deployment (VTD) program, 
formerly the Clean Cities program, and increases the budget 
request for VTD/Clean Cities from $9,593,000 to $15,896,000, to 
promote the adoption and use of petroleum reduction 
technologies and practices by working with local Clean Cities 
coalitions and their stakeholders, industry partners, fuel 
providers, and end users.
    Building Technologies.--In partnership with the buildings 
industry, this program develops, promotes, and integrates 
energy technologies and practices to make buildings more 
efficient and affordable. A key program objective is the 
availability of market-viable, net zero energy homes by 2020. 
The Committee recommends $146,456,000, an increase of 
$60,000,000 over the budget request, for Building Technologies. 
The Committee provides $43,361,000 for technology validation 
and market introduction, an increase of $30,000,000 over the 
request, of which $28,751,000 is for building energy codes, an 
increase of $25,000,000 over the budget request. The Committee 
directs that $10,000,000 of the building energy code increase 
be directed to state compliance programs as authorized under 
Section 128 of EPAct 2005, and encourages states and/or local 
governments to provide direct training to builders and building 
code inspectors as part of their compliance plans. The 
additional $15,000,000 increase in building energy codes is to 
continue the development of the commercial zero-energy building 
initiative to improve building codes program support to code 
setting organizations and States. The Committee encourages the 
Department to work through EnergySmart schools and EnergySmart 
hospitals to ensure emergency preparedness while reducing 
energy costs. The Committee provides $11,776,000 for Energy 
Star, an increase of $5,000,000 over the budget request, for 
accelerating and modernizing Energy Star to include advanced 
technologies such as solar water heaters, photovoltaics, fuels 
cells and other consumer appliances. The Committee recommends 
work on early Energy Star ratings and deployment of LED white 
lighting, and encourages its use by the Federal Energy 
Management Program. The Committee provides $23,639,000 for 
equipment standards and analysis, an increase of $10,000,000 
over the budget request, to update appliance standards. 
Currently the program is behind schedule on over 20 standards 
and the delay is costing consumers and businesses billions of 
dollars in higher energy bills. The Committee has also provided 
additional resources in the DOE Office of the General Counsel 
dedicated to reviewing appliance standards to expedite the 
promulgation of the standards. The Committee provides 
$52,756,000 for emerging technologies, an increase of 
$20,000,000 over the budget request for lighting R&D, to 
accelerate the solid state lighting portfolio in core 
technology, product development and commercialization support.
    Industrial Technologies.--The Industrial Technologies 
program costshares research in critical technology areas 
identified in partnership with industry in order to realize 
significant energy benefits. The Committee recommends 
$57,000,000, an increase of $11,002,000 over the budget 
request, and consistent with fiscal year 2006 appropriated 
levels. The recommendation includes $16,254,000 for Industries 
of the Future (Specific), an increase of $7,000,000 over the 
budget request, to be allocated as follows: metal casting at 
$1,006,000, an increase of $812,000 over the budget request; 
steel industry at $3,716,000, an increase of $2,111,000 over 
the budget request; $2,330,000 for the aluminum industry, an 
increase of $580,000 over the budget request; $2,961,000 for 
the forest and paper products industry, an increase of 
$1,209,000 over the budget request; and, $5,982,000 for the 
chemicals industry, an increase of $2,288,000 over the budget 
request. The Committee provides $2,002,000 for the Inventions 
and Innovations program, which is not included in the 
Administration's budget request. This program provides small 
grants to independent investors and small technology-based 
businesses to develop skills in technology commercialization. 
The Committee provides $38,744,000 for Industries of the Future 
(crosscutting), an increase of $2,000,000 to expand outreach to 
the Information Technologies industry and data centers for 
energy savings, and development of software for verification 
and accountability in measuring energy savings in industry.
    Federal Energy Management Programs.--Federal Energy 
Management Programs (FEMP) 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 $27,000,000, an increase of $10,209,000 
over the budget request, of which $7,209,000 supports 
additional investment in more projects. The Federal government 
should lead by example in the area of energy efficiency by 
trying to squeeze every bit of productivity from energy use. As 
such, the Committee provides an additional $3,000,000 to 
leverage DOE specific initiatives at DOE facilities to lead the 
federal government in the use of energy efficiency products and 
practices.
    Facilities and Infrastructure.--The Committee 
recommendation for renewable energy Facilities and 
Infrastructure is $195,699,000, an increase of $188,717,000 
over the budget request. This amount includes the budget 
request of $6,982,000 for operations and maintenance of the 
National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) in Golden, 
Colorado; an increase of $8,000,000 to complete 
recapitalization and expansion of the solar program research 
and development equipment; $13,000,000 for South Table Mountain 
infrastructure, to include testing facilities for plug-in 
hybrid vehicles; and $77,000,000 for the acceleration of the 
NREL energy systems integration facility. The Committee 
provides $90,717,000 for the NREL Strategic Investments 
facilities program, to include $25,000,000 for project 
engineering and design for site planning; and $65,717,000 for 
the preliminary design and initial construction of the 
biological and chemical research facility.
    Program Support.--Program Support activities for the EERE 
program include planning, analysis and evaluation, and 
information, communications and outreach. The Committee 
recommendation for Program Support is $18,930,000, an increase 
of $5,649,000 over the budget request. The Committee provides 
an increase of $1,000,000 to assist in the establishment of a 
FACA-chartered Federal Advisory Council within the Office of 
EERE for Finance and Investment. The goal of this advisory 
council will be to help generate policy within EERE to 
stimulate capital investments in emerging technologies and 
thereby bring these technologies to the marketplace. The 
Department is directed to report back to the Committees on 
Appropriations within 60 days of enactment of this Act on the 
plan to establish this advisory council. The Committee provides 
$6,000,000 for the Energy Efficiency Public Information 
Initiative, an increase of $4,649,000, to leverage private 
sector funds to provide public service information on energy 
efficiency. The Committee believes that there is no further 
benefit to be gained from the National Academy of Sciences 
Phase 3 study effort on Prospective Benefits of DOE's Applied 
Energy R&D Programs, and directs the Department to use all 
remaining funding for this effort to support U.S. contributions 
to the Global Energy Assessment.
    Program Direction.--Program Direction provides for the 
Federal staffing resources and associated costs for supporting 
the management and oversight of EERE programs. The Committee 
recommendation for Program Direction is $110,013,000, an 
increase of $5,000,000 over the budget request, to provide 
additional federal support in the management and oversight of 
added resources provided by the Committee. The Committee 
encourages that resources first be applied to the work of 
promulgating appliance standards.
    Federal Energy Assistance Programs.--The Committee provides 
a total of $314,947,000 for federal energy assistance programs, 
an increase of $110,043,000 over the budget request. These 
programs are described in detail in the following sections.
    Weatherization Assistance.--The Committee recommends 
$245,550,000 for weatherization assistance program grants, an 
increase of $101,550,000 over the budget request, to include 
$4,550,000 for training and technical assistance. The Committee 
is concerned that the Department has severely under-funded this 
program, which almost immediately results in significant energy 
savings in American homes. The Secretary is directed to make FY 
2008 Weatherization funding available from Oct 1, 2007, to 
March 31, 2009, for states that submit plans requesting 
allocations for all or part of this period.
    International Renewable Energy Program.--The Committee 
recommends $10,000,000 for the International Renewable Energy 
Program, an increase of $10,000,000 over the budget request. No 
funds are provided specifically for the Asia Pacific Initiative 
account, a reduction of $7,500,000 from the budget request. The 
Committee believes there is value in working collaboratively 
with our global partners in promoting renewable energy and 
energy efficiency efforts, and supports the work of the Office 
of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy to this end. However, 
singling out one part of the globe to support an Administration 
initiative makes no sense. The Committee is disappointed that 
the Department has chosen to fund only the Asia-Pacific 
Initiative and provide no funds for other ongoing international 
exchange efforts. As such, the Committee provides $10,000,000 
for international efforts addressing greenhouse gas reduction 
technologies, energy efficiency, international standards, and 
energy security for continuing dialogue to include western 
nations, and countries with emerging economies. Within the 
International Renewable Energy Program account, no more than 
$2,000,000 may be spent on the Asia-Pacific Initiative.
    Tribal Energy Activities.--The Committee provides 
$5,000,000, an increase of $2,043,000 over the budget request, 
for tribal energy activities for additional energy projects. 
The Committee encourages the Department to consider uniform 
contracts for investment, in order to leverage tribal renewable 
energy contracts in a more efficient manner and with a longer 
term vision. The Committee directs the Department to establish 
a director for Indian Energy Policy and Programs to provide 
much needed coordination of the Department's activities and 
services to assist Indian tribes in developing their energy 
resources.
    Renewable Energy Production Incentive.--The Committee 
provides $4,946,000 for the Renewable Energy Production 
Incentive, the same as the budget request.
    State Energy Program.--The Committee recommends $49,451,000 
for the State Energy Program, an increase of $3,950,000 over 
the budget request, to include $10,501,000 for competitive 
projects, the same as the budget request. The Committee directs 
the Department to implement section 140 of EPAct to support 
state-wide pilot programs that encourage the reduction of 
electricity or natural gas consumption within the total funds 
provided.

              Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability





Appropriation, 2007...................................      $137,000,000
Budget estimate, 2008.................................    \1\114,937,000
Recommended, 2008.....................................       134,161,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2007...............................        -2,839,000
    Budget estimate, 2008.............................      +19,224,000

\1\The budget request for Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability of
  $114,937,000 was included in the request for Energy Supply and
  Conservation. The Committee is separating this line into its component
  accounts for FY 2008.

    The mission of the Office of Electricity Delivery and 
Energy Reliability is to lead national efforts to modernize the 
electric grid, enhance security and reliability of the energy 
infrastructure, and facilitate recovery from disruptions to the 
energy supply. The Committee recommendation for Electricity 
Delivery and Energy Reliability is $134,161,000, an increase of 
$19,224,000 over the budget request. The President has 
designated DOE as the Lead Sector-Specific Agency responsible 
for protecting the Nation's critical energy infrastructure. The 
Committee provides the $19,224,000 increase for infrastructure 
security and energy restoration, to further assist State and 
local governments with energy disruption and response 
preparedness.

                             NUCLEAR ENERGY




Appropriation, 2007...................................      $482,191,000
Budget estimate, 2008.................................  \1\1,233,052,000
Recommended, 2008.....................................       759,227,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2007...............................      +277,036,000
    Budget estimate, 2008.............................     -473,825,000

\1\The budget request for Nuclear Energy of $801,703,000 was included in
  the request for Energy Supply and Conservation. The Committee is
  separating this line into its component accounts for FY 2008 and has
  transferred from Nuclear Nonproliferation to Nuclear Energy the MOX
  fuel fabrication facility requested at $431,349,000 and work on
  Generation IV reactor fuel in partnership with Russia for which the
  request was zero.

    The Committee recommendation for the Nuclear Energy 
appropriation is $759,227,000, a decrease of $473,825,000 below 
the budget request. This net decrease reflects the Committee's 
recommendation to fund the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership 
(GNEP) program at $120,000,000, $35,000,000 below the 
authorization ceiling of $155,000,000, fund the Nuclear Power 
2010 program at the fiscal year 2007 appropriations level, and 
fund the Mixed Oxide fuel fabrication facility below the budget 
request. The Committee has transferred the Mixed Oxide (MOX) 
fuel fabrication facility program from the Office of Defense 
Nuclear Nonproliferation to the Nuclear Energy programs 
account. The Committee provides increased funding for nuclear 
energy facility infrastructure, and for the deployment of a 
reactor from the Generation IV nuclear energy systems 
initiative. The Committee provides no funds for the university 
education assistance program at the DOE, the same as the budget 
request; however, the Committee has provided additional funding 
for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to implement an education 
assistance program.
    Of the total funding of $835,176,000 provided for Nuclear 
Energy programs and facilities, $75,949,000 represents costs 
allocated to the 050 budget function, (i.e. defense activities) 
for Idaho Site-wide and Security activities.
    Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP).--The Department 
requests $405,000,000 for a major new initiative called the 
Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) including $10,000,000 
under Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation. This initiative claims 
to address the challenges of spent fuel disposal, nuclear 
nonproliferation, and growth in nuclear energy through the 
application of advanced technologies to recycle spent nuclear 
fuel. While the Committee is generally supportive of continued 
research that could lead to an eventual program of light water 
nuclear reactor spent fuel recycling, should that become 
necessary in the future, the aggressive program proposed by the 
Department is at best premature. The Committee has provided 
considerable funding in previous years and does so again in 
fiscal year 2008, to support a renaissance in nuclear energy 
generation in the United States. This renaissance appears to be 
coming, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is anticipating 
multiple license applications for new light water nuclear 
reactors before the end of 2008. But the renaissance has not 
taken shape as yet. It will be some years before one can be 
confident the industry will be renewed. The licensing, 
financing and construction of new reactors have not happened, 
and the economic viability of nuclear power will not be known 
until the first few new reactors are providing energy to the 
electric grid.
    GNEP and Nuclear Nonproliferation.--At the recent DOE-
sponsored international ministerial meeting on GNEP, the 
Administration abandoned any pretext that GNEP will promote 
international nuclear nonproliferation by relenting to partner 
demands that ``partnership'' countries can continue to produce 
weapons-usable plutonium in their reprocessing activities. The 
Committee is disappointed that the Administration would support 
any effort that leads to increased availability of plutonium 
anywhere in the world.
    GNEP's inclusion of fast reactors.--The Department's 
concept of the GNEP includes the development of fast burner 
reactors. The ultimate benefit of reducing the requirements for 
permanent geologic disposal largely results from the 
destruction of long-lived radionuclides in fast reactors and 
requires multiple cycles of reprocessing spent fast reactor 
fuel. Considerable research is needed before it is possible to 
judge the actual technology to be used or the costs and 
economic viability of this critical element of the GNEP 
approach.
    There are also concerns with the development of fast 
reactors in general. To date, virtually all fast reactors have 
been configured as breeder reactors, and breeder reactors, as 
the name implies, create more plutonium than they consume in 
fissionable material. Encouraging the development of this 
technology and reliance on fast reactors as part of spent fuel 
management poses proliferation risks.
    Divergence of Congressional and Department concepts for 
spent nuclear fuel recycling.--When Congress provided funding 
in fiscal year 2006 for Integrated Spent Fuel Recycling, 
Congress understood integrated recycling to involve four steps: 
an advanced separations technology such as UREX+ that would not 
yield separated plutonium, fabrication of new mixed oxide (MOX) 
fuel for use in commercial light water power reactors thereby 
recycling any plutonium containing product of UREX+, 
vitrification of waste products, and interim storage of spent 
fuel to support the recycling process. GNEP envisions a very 
different process, using fast burner reactors to destroy more 
completely the plutonium and other actinides in the spent fuel. 
The Department has failed to convince the Committee that 
advanced separations technology coupled with fast reactors is a 
viable, comprehensive approach to recycling spent fuel.
    Inadequate information on waste streams and life cycle 
costs.--The cost estimates for construction and commissioning 
of the Hanford Waste Treatment Plant (WTP) have gone from $4.3 
billion to over $12 billion in just three years, and there are 
numerous other examples of major construction projects with 
considerable cost growth and poor project management by the 
Department. Embarking on a costly process leading to major new 
construction projects is unwise, particularly where there is no 
urgency, and the Department has failed to persuade the 
Committee of the critical need to proceed with GNEP now. In 
addition, before the Department can expect the Committee to 
support funding for a major new initiative, the Department must 
provide a complete and credible estimate of the life-cycle 
costs of the program demonstrate that it can manage and control 
the costs of its ongoing projects.
    Future of nuclear energy.--At present, 103 civilian light-
water nuclear reactors generate twenty percent of the Nation's 
electricity. The generation process produces no greenhouse 
gases, is carefully regulated by the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission, and rate payers pay into the Nuclear Waste Fund for 
the permanent disposal of spent reactor fuel in Yucca Mountain. 
However, the current fleet of reactors are generally one-third 
to one-half through their expected operating lifetimes. To 
retain this component of our domestic energy supply, even at 
the twenty percent level of electricity generation, the United 
States will have to reach a consensus supporting the 
construction of dozens of new nuclear reactors beginning with 
improved versions of light water reactors and subsequently 
including thermal neutron Generation IV reactors. Delays in 
opening the Yucca Mountain repository and the legislated 
capacity limit of the repository cast a shadow over the future 
of nuclear energy, raising doubts about a viable disposal path 
for the spent fuel current and future reactors will generate.
    Generation IV high-temperature gas reactors.--The Committee 
notes that there are designs for Generation IV, thermal-
neutron, high output-temperature nuclear reactors that offer 
the potential of enhanced safety, improved efficiency in the 
generation of electricity, 950 degree Celsius output 
temperatures that may enable efficient generation of hydrogen 
from water, and the ability for higher burn-up of fissionable 
elements. A true nuclear renaissance should not be confined to 
improved versions of current light-water reactors. Accordingly, 
the Committee shifts significant support to the Generation IV 
program to accelerate demonstration of this reactor type, which 
is not subject to core meltdown.
    University education assistance.--The Committee provides no 
funding in the DOE nuclear energy account for grants and 
fellowships that support nuclear science and engineering 
education, the same as the budget request. However, the 
Committee provides $15,000,000 for the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission (NRC) to execute the university education assistance 
program. DOE annually requests no funding for education 
assistance, and the Congress sees fit every year to restore the 
funding. It is irresponsible for the Department to zero out 
education assistance at a time when the nuclear industry is 
attempting to revitalize. By requesting no funds for this 
program, the Department sends the wrong signal to aspiring 
students in the nuclear field that there is a lack of a 
commitment to a future with nuclear energy. The Committee 
therefore entrusts the NRC with the responsibility of providing 
a sustainable education assistance program.
    Nuclear Power 2010.--The Committee provides $80,291,000 for 
Nuclear Power 2010, a decrease of $33,709,000 below the budget 
request and the same as fiscal year 2007. The Committee 
believes the funds should be to assist in addressing the 
financial burden of new license applicants, and not to 
subsidize the work of reactor designers.

                NUCLEAR ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

    Generation IV nuclear energy systems.--The Committee 
supports the Department's collaborative efforts on the research 
and development of a Generation IV (Gen IV) reactor design that 
will be safer, more cost effective, and more proliferation 
resistant than current designs. The Committee recommends a 
total of $115,145,000 for Generation IV nuclear energy systems, 
an increase of $79,000,000 over the budget request, which 
includes $70,000,000 for the Next Generation Nuclear Plant 
program and $9,000,000 to continue work on fuel for Gen IV 
reactors in partnership with Russia, transferred from the 
Nuclear Nonproliferation account. The Committee directs the 
Department to make the Next Generation Nuclear Plant a higher 
priority than the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership and to 
begin a competitive solicitation process for a commercial 
demonstration of a thermal-neutron gas reactor, to be located 
at the Department's nuclear energy laboratory, the Idaho 
National Laboratory (INL). The DOE cost share with industry 
partners should be 50/50, with the management of the 
construction of the reactor to be undertaken by industry. In 
fiscal year 2008, these funds shall be used to prepare and 
conduct the solicitation, to develop a licensing strategy for 
this reactor in partnership with the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission, and to identify infrastructure needs at INL to 
support this endeavor.
    Nuclear Hydrogen Initiative.--The Committee provides 
$19,265,000 for the nuclear hydrogen initiative, a reduction of 
$3,335,000 from the budget request. The Committee's 
recommendation is consistent with the Department's fiscal year 
2007 operating plan. 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.

                           NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE

    The Committee creates a new subaccount entitled Nuclear 
Fuel Cycle that incorporates the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative 
(AFCI) and the Mixed Oxide (MOX) Fuel Fabrication Facility 
transferred from Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation.
    Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative.--The Committee provides 
$120,000,000 for the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative, 
$35,000,000 below the fiscal year 2008 authorization level, and 
$275,000,000 below the budget request, but the same as the 
House-recommended level for fiscal year 2007. The Committee 
supports continued research on advanced fuel cycles, including 
the development of technologies for recycling spent nuclear 
fuel. However, the Committee does not support the Department's 
rushed, poorly-defined, expansive, and expensive Global Nuclear 
Energy Partnership (GNEP) proposal. There is no compelling 
urgency to reach a decision point in the summer of 2008, nor is 
there urgency to begin the development of commercial-scale 
recycling facilities. Further research is required before the 
U.S. should commit the magnitude of funding proposed under the 
GNEP initiative.
    The Department should focus its limited AFCI resources in 
fiscal year 2008 on research activities at the Idaho National 
Laboratory, the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, and the Argonne 
National Laboratory, with support from university and private 
sector researchers as appropriate. The success of AFCI will be 
judged on the quality of the research it produces, not on the 
number of national laboratories that it supports.
    The Committee is pleased with the number of communities 
that volunteered to host GNEP facilities, and the Committee 
directs the Department to make available up to $5,000,000 to 
maintain this community interest in fiscal year 2008. Such 
interest may translate into candidate sites for fuel cycle 
facilities in the future.
    The Committee notes with disapproval that the Department 
used the flexibility it received under the year-long Continuing 
Resolution to allocate $167,484,000 for the Advanced Fuel Cycle 
Initiative in fiscal year 2007, a level that exceeds the 
authorized ceiling of $150,000,000 for AFCI activities in 
fiscal year 2007 that was established in section 953 of the 
Energy Policy Act of 2005.
    The Committee has learned that DOE's use of technology 
readiness levels in the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership 
technology development plan of April 2007 does not apply 
readiness in a manner consistent with the recommendations in 
the Government Accountability Office report from March 2007 
(GAO-07-336). Specifically, DOE has applied technology 
readiness levels to an entire facility, rather than assessing 
and reporting readiness levels for each of the critical 
technologies within each of the facilities. Such an evaluation 
would provide the transparency needed to understand the current 
maturity of each of the critical technologies and processes, 
and a clearer understanding of the cost and schedule of 
intended facilities. The Committee directs the Department to 
provide the technology readiness levels individually for each 
of the specific technologies within the proposed GNEP 
facilities, consistent with the GAO recommendations, in a 
revised GNEP technology development plan, including cost and 
schedules, to the Committee by January 31, 2008.
    Fuel Fabrication Facilities.--The Committee provides 
$167,849,000 for Fuel Fabrication Facilities, which includes 
$142,849,000 for construction of the Mixed Oxide (MOX) Fuel 
Fabrication Facility at the Savannah River Site, a reduction of 
$191,000,000 from the request. The Committee also provides 
$25,000,000 for other project costs associated with this 
facility, a decrease of $72,500,000 below the request. The MOX 
project has been transferred from the Defense Nuclear 
Nonproliferation account because the project ceased to be a 
nonproliferation project once it was de-linked from the 
companion Russian fissile material disposition project.
    The Committee strongly encourages the Department to take a 
fresh look at how the current single-purpose MOX design can be 
adapted to be a more versatile fuel fabrication facility that 
can not only process the 34 metric tons of excess weapons-
usable plutonium to fulfill the terms of the agreement with 
Russia, but can also fabricate fuel for advanced U.S. reactors 
that may be developed under the AFCI and Gen IV research 
initiatives. Given the high capital costs for constructing the 
single-purpose MOX plant, this project may only be a worthwhile 
investment if the Department can find a way to maximize the 
utility of this plant.
    The control point is at the Nuclear Fuel Cycle level, so 
that funds may be reprogrammed within and between the AFCI and 
Advanced Fuel Fabrication Facilities accounts without the need 
for prior Congressional approval.
    Project management.--The Committee is very concerned about 
the past mismanagement of the MOX fuel fabrication facility. 
The ever-increasing project cost baseline warrants a real-time 
project management oversight function performed by a group 
outside of the Department, as the MOX facility goes into the 
construction phase. As such, the Committee directs the 
Government Accountability Office to monitor the construction 
and management of the MOX facility, and report to the Committee 
on a quarterly basis on the progress of the fuel fabrication 
facility, regarding scope, cost and schedule changes and 
performance.

                   RADIOLOGICAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT

    The purpose of the Radiological Facilities Management 
program is to maintain the critical infrastructure necessary to 
support users from the defense, space, and medical communities. 
These outside users fund DOE's actual operational, production, 
and research activities on a reimbursable basis.
    Space and defense infrastructure.--The Committee 
recommendation is $35,110,000, the same as 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 National 
Laboratory.
    Medical isotopes infrastructure.--The Committee 
recommendation is $14,964,000, the same as the budget request. 
The recommendation provides the requested amounts for Oak Ridge 
buildings 4501, 7920, 5500, and 9204-3 at Y-12, and for various 
facility costs at Brookhaven and Los Alamos National 
Laboratories.
    Research reactor infrastructure.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $2,947,000, the same as the budget 
request, for fresh reactor fuel and disposal of spent fuel for 
university reactors.
    Oak Ridge nuclear infrastructure.--The Committee provides 
$10,000,000, not requested in the budget, to maintain the 
nuclear energy facilities and technical infrastructure at Oak 
Ridge National Laboratory without degradation.

                      IDAHO FACILITIES MANAGEMENT

    This program funds the operations and construction 
activities at the Idaho National Laboratory (INL), including 
the former ANL West and the Test Reactor Area.
    INL operations and infrastructure.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $122,263,000, $17,550,000 over the 
budget request, for INL operations and infrastructure. The 
Committee provides a $20,000,000 increase for the INL Advanced 
Test Reactor (ATR) Life Extension Program to continue safety 
posture improvements to ensure that the ATR remains 
contemporary with industry design and construction code 
standards, and for site infrastructure laboratory facilities. 
The Committee reduces INL operations and infrastructure by 
$2,450,000, which is for the Radiological and Environmental 
Sciences Laboratory. The Committee provides this funding in the 
Office of Environment, Safety and Health account in fiscal year 
2008.

                IDAHO SITE-WIDE SAFEGUARDS AND SECURITY

    Consistent with the budget request, this activity is funded 
at the requested level of $75,949,000 as a 050 Defense Activity 
under the Other Defense Activities account.

                           PROGRAM DIRECTION

    The Committee recommends a total funding level for program 
direction of $71,393,000, a reduction of $4,831,000 below the 
budget request. The reduction of $1,682,000 is commensurate 
with the reduction to the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership's 
overall programmatic funding. The Committee never received a 
reprogramming request from the Department for the movement of 
funds as the result of abolishing the Office of Environment, 
Safety, and Health. The Committee thereby reduces Nuclear 
Energy program direction by $3,149,000. This funding, which is 
for the Radiological and Environmental Sciences Laboratory, is 
provided by the Committee for fiscal year 2008 in the Office of 
Environment, Safety and Health account.

                         CLEAN COAL TECHNOLOGY

                    (INCLUDING RESCISSION OF FUNDS)

    The Revised Continuing Appropriations Resolution for Fiscal 
Year 2007 (Public Law 110-5), deferred $257,000,000 in 
unobligated Clean Coal Technology balances to fiscal year 2008. 
The Committee recommends the transfer of $108,000,000 of the 
$257,000,000 deferral to the FutureGen project, and rescinds 
the remaining $149,000,000 from the deferral. These balances 
are no longer needed in the Clean Coal Technology program to 
complete active projects. Of the $66,000,000 in unobligated 
balances carried forward at the start of fiscal year 2008, 
$58,000,000 is transferred to the carbon sequestration program, 
leaving $8,000,000 in balances for closeout activities. The 
Committee's recommendation differs from the budget request in 
that the budget request transferred the $58,000,000 in balances 
to the Clean Coal Power Initiative program. The Committee 
believes carbon sequestration is a higher research, 
development, and demonstration priority for the future of coal.

                 Fossil Energy Research and Development


                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)




Appropriation, 2007...................................      $592,621,000
Budget estimate, 2008.................................       566,801,000
Recommended, 2008.....................................       708,801,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2007...............................      +116,180,000
    Budget estimate, 2008.............................      +142,000,000


    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 help to 
safeguard our domestic energy security.
    Coal is this country's most abundant fuel for electric 
power generation. Faced with the threat of global warming, and 
increased costs of carbon sequestration and plant efficiency, 
the power generation technology research funded under this 
account has the difficult goal of developing virtually 
pollution-free power plants, while increasing plant efficiency 
in order to compete with other forms of electricity generation.
    The Committee recommendation is $708,801,000, an increase 
of $142,000,000 over the budget request and an increase of 
$116,180,000 from fiscal year 2007 enacted levels.
    Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Report.--The February 2007 
Government Accountability Office report, ``Public Safety 
Consequences of a Terrorist Attack on a Tanker Carrying 
Liquefied Natural Gas Need Clarification,'' found that the most 
likely public safety impact of an LNG spill is the heat hazard 
of a fire, but disagreed with the specific heat hazard of a 
fire and cascading failure conclusions, which is used by the 
Coast Guard to prepare Waterway Suitability Assessments for LNG 
facilities. Additionally, GAO found that the Department's 
``recently funded study involving large-scale LNG fire 
experiments addresses some, but not all, of the research 
priorities identified by the expert panel.'' Therefore, the 
Committee directs the Department to incorporate the following 
key issues, as identified by the expert panel, into its current 
LNG study: cascading failure, comprehensive modeling 
(interaction of physical processes), risk tolerability 
assessments, vulnerability of containment systems (hole size), 
mitigation techniques, the effect of sea water coming in as LNG 
flows out, and the impact of wind, weather and waves.
    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 $73,000,000 for the clean 
coal power initiative (CCPI), the same as the budget request. 
The Committee is concerned that past awards in this program 
were selected with priority given to factors other than 
technical merit. The Committee believes that no future awards 
should be made without a carbon capture sequestration 
component. The Committee believes that resources are more 
critical in the areas of demonstrating carbon capture, 
transport technologies and carbon sequestration, and directs 
the Department to recast the CCPI program with these 
objectives.
    FutureGen.--FutureGen was originally a $950 million 
project, cost-shared with the private sector, to create the 
world's first coal-fired, zero emissions, electricity, heat and 
hydrogen producing power plant. The Committee has been 
informed, through testimony and follow-up information from the 
Department, that the costs of FutureGen now approximate 
$1,800,000,000. Given the Department's track record for project 
management, the Committee expects this cost to escalate even 
further in the future. The Committee agrees with recent reports 
on the imperative to demonstrate the commercial viability of 
coal-based power generation with carbon capture and 
sequestration (CCS). FutureGen needs to be refocused as an 
integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) plant with carbon 
capture and sequestration, and drop the ambiguity of other 
less-critical research components. The Committee believes that, 
by streamlining the design to demonstrate IGCC and CCS, 
critical goals will be reached in a more timely and fiscally 
prudent manner. The Committee directs the Department to 
optimize the project design to support a proper sequestration 
demonstration. The Department is directed to provide a total 
life-cycle cost and project baseline for the streamlined 
FutureGen demonstration project by 120 days of enactment of 
this legislation.
    The Committee recommends $108,000,000, the same as the 
request, for FutureGen. This funding will support the plant re-
design and procurement activities, and continue permitting and 
site characterization efforts. It maintains the agreed level of 
federal commitment to this program.
    Fuels and power systems.--The Committee recommends a total 
of $375,602,000 for fuels and power systems, an increase of 
$130,000,000 over the budget request. The Committee provides 
$50,000,000 for innovations at existing plants, an increase of 
$50,000,000 over the budget request. Fifty percent of the 
nation's electricity generated in the U.S. comes from coal. 
With increased concern regarding CO2 emissions from 
coal plants as a contributing factor to climate change, there 
needs to be a rigorous research program on the potential for 
retrofitting existing coal plants for CO2 capture 
and sequestration. The Committee directs the Department to 
focus R&D efforts on CO2 capture technology for 
existing pulverized coal (PC) combustion plants, to include 
efforts on high-strength materials for heat intensive 
operations, plant efficiency, and oxy-fuel combustion PC 
retrofit technology. The recommendation provides the following 
amounts consistent with the budget request: $50,000,000 for 
advanced Integrated Gas Combined Cycle and, $22,000,000 for 
advanced turbines. The Committee recommends $131,577,000 for 
carbon sequestration, an increase of $52,500,000 over the 
budget request. The Department is directed to undertake large 
scale (i.e., one million tons per year injection) carbon 
sequestration experimental projects in reservoirs that are 
instrumented, monitored and analyzed to verify the practical 
reliability and implementation of sequestration. The Committee 
recommends $10,000,000 for fuels, the same as the budget 
request. The Committee provides $62,025,000 for fuel cells, the 
same as the budget request. The Committee provides $50,000,000 
for advanced research, an increase of $27,500,000 over the 
budget request. Of the increased amount, $8,000,000 is to 
support the liquefied natural gas report. The Committee is 
concerned about the findings that the Department is severely 
deficient in engineering-economic simulation tools for analysis 
of integrated coal combustion and conversion systems with 
carbon capture sequestration. The Committee provides the 
increase of $19,500,000 to be awarded competitively among 
universities, other nonprofits, industry and national 
laboratories to establish a strong program for modeling and 
simulation capability that will permit the analysis of design 
tradeoffs, turbine operation and sequestration requirements, 
and other factors that can accommodate validated engineering 
and cost data.
    Petroleum-oil technologies.--The Committee recommends 
$2,700,000 for petroleum-oil programs, an increase of 
$2,700,000 over the budget request. The Energy Policy Act of 
2005 (EPAct 2005) authorizes the use of $50,000,000 of 
mandatory receipts for oil and gas technologies, which will 
fund oil and gas research and development. The Committee 
provides $1,500,000 for the Stripper Well Consortium, and 
$1,200,000 for the states' Risk Based Data Management System, 
both important activities that fall outside of the EPAct 2005 
legislation, but should continue.
    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. While 
EPAct 2005 authorization provides mandatory receipts for 
expenditures for oil and gas exploration, it is unclear where 
the program consortium will focus these resources. The 
Committee believes that the federal government should maintain 
a rigorous research and development program for methane 
hydrates, in which the research is long-term and high risk, but 
has the potential for a high pay-off. The Committee provides 
$12,000,000 for gas hydrates research and development, an 
increase of $12,000,000 over the budget request and the same as 
fiscal year 2007 enacted levels.
    Program direction.--The Committee recommends $127,273,000 
for program direction, a reduction of $2,700,000 from the 
budget request, to be taken from support services. The 
Committee finds the 21.4 percent increase for support services 
to be excessive, and questions the need for the budget's 
proposed levels of outside government contracting when it has 
been emphasized that the work performed by the laboratories is 
inherently governmental. The Committee directs the Department 
to continue to budget for all federal employees in the program 
direction account.
    Other.--The Committee recommendation includes no funding 
for plant and capital equipment, the same as the budget 
request. The Committee provides $9,570,000 for fossil energy 
environmental restoration, and $656,000 for special recruitment 
programs, the same as the budget request.

                 Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves





Appropriation, 2007...................................       $21,316,000
Budget estimate, 2008.................................        17,301,000
Recommended, 2008.....................................        17,301,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2007...............................        -4,015,000
    Budget estimate, 2008.............................             - - -


    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, the transfer of the oil shale reserves, and transfer 
of administrative jurisdiction and environmental remediation of 
the Naval Petroleum Reserve 2 (NPR-2) to the Department of the 
Interior, DOE retains one Naval Petroleum Reserve property, the 
Naval Petroleum Reserve 3 (NPR-3) in Wyoming (Teapot Dome 
field). This is a stripper well oil field that the Department 
is maintaining until it reaches its economic production limit. 
The DOE continues to be responsible for routine operations and 
maintenance of NPR-3, management of the Rocky Mountain Oilfield 
Testing Center at NPR-3, and continuing environmental and 
remediation work at Elk Hills.
    The Committee recommends $17,301,000, the same as the 
budget request, for the operation of the naval petroleum and 
oil shale reserves.

                      Strategic Petroleum Reserve





Appropriation, 2007...................................      $164,441,000
Budget estimate, 2008.................................       331,609,000
Recommended, 2008.....................................       163,472,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2007...............................          -969,000
    Budget estimate, 2008.............................      -168,137,000


    The mission of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) is to 
store petroleum to reduce the adverse economic impact of a 
major petroleum supply interruption to the U.S. and to carry 
out obligations under the international energy program. The 
reserve's current inventory of 690.3 million barrels provides 
56 days of net import protection
    The Committee recommends $163,472,000, a decrease of 
$168,137,000 below the budget request. The Committee provides 
for the operation of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR), but 
does not support the expansion of the reserve to 1.5 billion 
barrels. Current cost estimates and schedule for the expansion 
are $10 billion for new facilities, $55 billion for the cost of 
the oil fill, and will not be complete until 2027. In addition, 
an August 2006 Government Accountability Office report 
recommended reviews of the proposed optimal oil mix, and said 
that clarity was needed in DOE's models on estimating the 
impact of the reserve, and the appropriate size of the SPR 
should be reassessed. Given the analytical shortcomings of the 
expansion plan, and the enormous cost and timeframe of the 
expansion, the Committee does not support proceeding with the 
expansion at this time.

                   Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve





Appropriation, 2007...................................        $5,000,000
Budget estimate, 2008.................................         5,325,000
Recommended, 2008.....................................         5,325,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2007...............................          +325,000
    Budget estimate, 2008.............................             - - -


    The acquisition and storage of heating oil for the 
Northeast began in August 2000 when the Department of Energy, 
through the Strategic Petroleum Reserve account, awarded 
contracts for the lease of commercial storage facilities and 
acquisition of heating oil. The purpose of the reserve is to 
assure home heating oil supplies for the Northeastern States 
during times of very low inventories and significant threats to 
the immediate supply of heating oil. The Northeast Heating Oil 
Reserve was established as a separate entity from the Strategic 
Petroleum Reserve on March 6, 2001. The 2,000,000 barrel 
reserve is stored in commercial facilities in New York Harbor, 
New Haven, Connecticut, and the Providence, Rhode Island area.
    The Committee recommends $5,325,000, the same as the budget 
request, for the Northeast Home Heating Oil reserve.

                   Energy Information Administration





Appropriation, 2007...................................       $90,653,000
Budget estimate, 2008.................................       105,095,000
Recommended, 2008.....................................       105,095,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2007...............................       +14,442,000
    Budget estimate, 2008.............................             - - -


    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 are widely disseminated and the 
agency is recognized as an unbiased source of energy 
information and projections by government organizations, 
industry, professional statistical organizations, and the 
public.
    The Committee recommends $105,095,000, the same as the 
budget request, for the Energy Information Administration.

                  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 action. Starting in fiscal year 2008, the Non-Defense 
Environmental Management program will include funding for the 
Office of Legacy Management (non-defense) activities. The 
Office of Legacy Management (non-defense) manages the 
Department's post-closure responsibilities, including long-term 
surveillance and maintenance, pension and benefit continuity 
for former contractor retirees, and archives management for 
non-defense sites.
    Legacy Management consolidation.--Beginning in fiscal year 
2008, the Committee has combined the Office of Legacy 
Management with the Environmental Management Program. The 
Committee believes that consolidating these activities in one 
organization will improve the communications and operations of 
both organizations. The Committee expects that the Office of 
Legacy Management will still operate as a separate office 
within the Environmental Management Program.
    Reprogramming authority.--The Committee continues to 
support the need for flexibility to meet changing funding 
requirements at sites. In fiscal year 2008, the Department may 
transfer up to $2,000,000 between accounts, to reduce health or 
safety risks or to gain cost savings as long as no program or 
project is increased or decreased by more than $2,000,000 
during the fiscal year. The account control points for 
reprogramming are the Fast Flux Test Reactor Facility, West 
Valley Demonstration Project, Gaseous Diffusion Plants, Legacy 
Management, Small Sites, and construction line-items. This 
reprogramming authority may not be used to initiate new 
programs or programs specifically denied, limited, or increased 
by Congress in the Act or report. The Committees on 
Appropriations in the House and Senate must be notified within 
thirty days of the use of this reprogramming authority.
    Economic development.--None of the Non-Defense 
Environmental Management funds, including those provided in the 
Non-Defense Environmental Cleanup and Uranium Enrichment 
Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund, are available for 
economic development activities.

                   Non-Defense Environmental Cleanup





Appropriation, 2007...................................      $349,687,000
Budget estimate, 2008.................................       180,937,000
Recommended, 2008.....................................       286,041,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2007...............................       -63,646,000
    Budget estimate, 2008.............................      +105,104,000


    The Committee recommendation for Non-Defense Environmental 
Cleanup is $286,041,000, an increase of $105,104,000 over the 
budget request. Of this increase, $35,104,000 reflects the 
consolidation of the Office of Legacy Management account within 
the Non-Defense Environmental Cleanup account, and $70,000,000 
is provided for additional priority cleanup activities.
    The recommendation provides $60,895,000 for solid waste 
stabilization and disposition, and nuclear facility 
decontamination and decommissioning (D&D) at the West Valley 
Demonstration Project, an increase of $6,500,000 over the 
budget request for the increased costs of shipping and 
disposing of low level waste. The Committee provides 
$84,620,000 for D&D of the gaseous diffusion plants, an 
increase of $46,500,000 over the budget request. The Committee 
does not support the Administration's proposed language on 
uranium barter, and instead funds the uranium cleanup 
activities through direct appropriations. As such, the 
Committee provides the increase of $46,500,000 for the 
completion of technetium-99 contaminated uranium cleanup, 
including appropriate staffing levels, operations, severance 
payments and contract close-out costs. The recommendation 
provides $10,342,000 for the deactivation of facilities and 
surveillance and maintenance of the Fast Flux Test Facility 
(FFTF), the same as the budget request.
    Small Sites.--The Committee is concerned that funds for 
Small Sites have been maintained ``flat'' for years, which 
extends the cleanup activities and contributes to the overall 
total cost of the program because cleanup takes longer. 
Therefore, the Committee recommends $33,699,000 for Brookhaven 
National Laboratory, an increase of $10,000,000 over the budget 
request, to accelerate the D&D of the graphite reactor. The 
Committee recommends $2,437,000 for soil and water remediation 
and nuclear facility decontamination and decommissioning at 
Argonne National Laboratory, the same as the budget request. 
The Committee recommends $5,400,000, the same as the budget 
request, 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 provides $1,200,000, the same as the budget 
request, for completed sites administration. The Committee 
recommendation provides $5,900,000 for the Stanford Linear 
Accelerator Center, the same as the budget request, for soil 
and groundwater remediation; and $20,000,000 for nuclear 
facility decontamination and decommissioning at the Energy 
Technology Engineering Center, an increase of $7,000,000 over 
the budget request, to complete cleanup and remediation of all 
radiological contamination. The Committee recommends $1,905,000 
for decontamination and decommissioning of the Tritium System 
Test Assembly Facility at Los Alamos National Laboratory, the 
same as the budget request. The Committee recommends $427,000 
for soil and water remediation at the Inhalation Toxicology 
Laboratory, $160,000 for cleanup work at various sites in 
California, and $23,952,000 for soil and water remediation 
measures at the former Atlas uranium mill tailings site at 
Moab, Utah, the same as the budget request. The Committee 
directs the Department to provide a report within 120 days of 
enactment of this Act on the annual funding requirements needed 
to complete remediation of the Moab uranium mill tailings site 
and removal of the tailings to the Crescent Junction site in 
Utah no later than the year 2019.
    Legacy Management.--The Committee recommendation includes 
$35,104,000 for the Office of Legacy Management, the same as 
the budget request.

      Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund





Appropriation, 2007...................................      $556,606,000
Budget estimate, 2008.................................       573,509,000
Recommended, 2008.....................................       618,759,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2007...............................       +62,153,000
    Budget estimate, 2008.............................       +45,250,000



    The Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning 
Fund was established by the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (P.L. 
102-486) to carry out environmental remediation at the nation's 
three gaseous diffusion plants, at the East Tennessee 
Technology Park in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, at Portsmouth, Ohio, 
and at Paducah, Kentucky. Title X of the 1992 Act also 
authorized use of a portion of the fund to reimburse private 
licensees for the federal government's share of the cost of 
cleaning up uranium and thorium processing sites.
    The Committee recommends $618,759,000 for activities funded 
from the Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning 
Fund, an increase of $45,250,000 over the budget request. This 
amount includes $598,759,000 for decontamination and 
decommissioning activities at the gaseous diffusion plants and 
$20,000,000 for Title X uranium and thorium reimbursements. The 
increase of $45,250,000 includes $11,000,000 for Paducah solid 
waste and stabilization to address the emerging problems of the 
soil and rubble piles; $11,000,000 for Paducah nuclear facility 
D&D of the C-410 complex buildings; and $23,250,000 for 
accelerated D&D of the K-25 and K-27 process buildings.

                                Science





Appropriation, 2007...................................    $3,797,294,000
Budget estimate, 2008.................................     4,397,876,000
Recommended, 2008.....................................     4,514,082,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2007...............................      +716,788,000
    Budget estimate, 2008.............................      +116,206,000



    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, workforce development 
for teachers and scientists, safeguards and security at Office 
of Science facilities, and science program direction.
    The Committee is generally pleased with the Department's 
budget request for the Office of Science in fiscal year 2008. 
This request for a 15.8 percent increase is the major 
incremental increase planned within the overall 10-year 
doubling of funding for these activities in DOE. A critical 
element of this increase is the support it will provide for 
3,500 more research personnel, including graduate students. 
This addresses a major concern for the future of the United 
States economy, namely the availability of highly educated 
scientists and engineers to support the technical innovations 
that drive economic growth.
    The fiscal year 2008 request fully funds operating time at 
most existing DOE user facilities and equal or increased 
operating time at several others. The request supports 
investments in major new research facilities such as the 
International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor, the Linac 
Coherent Light Source, and the 12 GeV upgrade to the Continuous 
Electron Beam Accelerator Facility, along with project 
engineering and design for the National Synchrotron Light 
Source II. U.S. scientific and technical leadership also is 
supported through the availability of advanced scientific 
computing facilities, and it is noteworthy that the Leadership 
Computing Facility at Oak Ridge National Laboratory is 
projected to achieve petaflop levels of performance before the 
end of fiscal year 2008.
    The Committee has several areas of concern. First, despite 
the large increase in funding, insufficient funds are proposed 
to fulfill the various landlord functions of the Office of 
Science. The considerable backlog of World War II vintage 
buildings cluttering the Oak Ridge National Laboratory is an 
example. Second, growth in the estimated cost for the 
International Linear Collider (ILC) means that the schedule for 
this major high energy physics facility, which the United 
States aspires to host, will be delayed. Implementation of the 
Dark Energy Mission without further delay can provide 
significant intellectual progress on the question of dark 
energy while further study is done on the ILC. Third, not all 
user facilities can be retained as new cutting-edge 
capabilities come on line, and some hard choices must be made. 
Fourth, while total funding for Fusion Energy Sciences 
increases significantly, the large increase to fund the U.S. 
contribution to the International Thermonuclear Energy Reactor 
(ITER) results in an increase to the domestic fusion research 
program that is only slightly above the rate of inflation and 
far smaller than the percentage increases for most other 
research areas. The Committee recommends some shifts in funding 
and priority from those proposed by the Administration to 
address these concerns.
    The Committee is disturbed by the lack of energy research 
and development coordination across the Office of Science, the 
applied energy programs--Energy Efficiency and Renewable 
Energy, Nuclear Energy, Fossil Energy, and Electricity Delivery 
and Energy Reliability--and the extensive funding through 
Laboratory Directed Research and Development (LDRD). The 
Department is directed to establish effective coordination 
mechanisms across these research efforts. The Committee 
recommends that LDRD emphasize advanced energy technologies.
    The Committee recommendation is $4,514,082,000, an increase 
of $116,206,000 from the budget request and $716,788,000 over 
the fiscal year 2007 enacted level. The Committee disapproves 
of the transfer of certain security functions to the Office of 
Science from the Office of Security as proposed by the 
Department, and this removes funding for these functions from 
the Science budget. Funding for these functions is provided 
under Other Defense Activities.

                          HIGH ENERGY PHYSICS

    The Committee recommends a total of $782,238,000 for high 
energy physics, the same as the budget request. The Committee 
supports the requested increase in research and development 
activities, from $30,000,000 to $60,000,000, to prepare for the 
International Linear Collider (ILC), including detailed studies 
of possible U.S. sites for the ILC.
    Over the past few years, the Committee has consistently 
supported the DOE/NASA Joint Dark Energy Mission (JDEM), a 
space probe to help answer the fundamental physics question of 
our time on the nature of the ``dark energy'' that constitutes 
the majority of the universe. Answering this question is among 
the top priorities of the physics community and of the Office 
of Science, and the Committee strongly believes that this 
initiative should move forward. DOE has done its part, 
developing the SuperNova Acceleration Probe (SNAP) as the DOE 
mission concept for JDEM. Unfortunately, NASA has failed to 
budget and program for launch services for JDEM. Furthering 
this delay, the Administration has set up a panel to decide 
which scientific mission should go first in NASA's queue of 
after Einstein space science missions.
    The situation with regard to JDEM raises critical science 
policy questions. Are scientific activities supported in the 
United States according the missions and interests of different 
agencies or according to the technology involved? DOE support 
for JDEM is predicated on the science priorities of High Energy 
Physics. The Administration's insistence that this mission be 
held hostage to NASA's mission agenda sends the clear signal 
that space science is the purview of NASA regardless of the 
scientific questions to be addressed. If space science is the 
special preserve of NASA within the U.S. Government, then all 
funding for such missions should be provided by NASA and the 
Dark Energy Mission should proceed on that basis with NASA 
providing the funding for all work at DOE national laboratories 
selected by NASA for participation.
    The Committee notes that NASA funds ground-based telescopes 
and that NSF funds a particle accelerator. Therefore, use of 
space technology by DOE to accomplish a mission that is a 
priority for its high energy physics program should proceed 
regardless of its priority to another agency. The Committee 
directs the Department to select, using competitive procedures, 
a mission science team and approach as soon as possible and 
proceed with a dark energy mission with a launch in fiscal year 
2013. As part of this, the Committee directs DOE to explore 
other launch options, including cooperative international 
approaches and the procurement of private launch services, to 
get the Dark Energy Mission into space. DOE is to proceed with 
its project implementation in compliance with Project 
Management Order 413.3. Additional funding in fiscal year 2008 
for proceeding with the Dark Energy Mission should be no more 
than $20,000,000 above the $3,500,000 requested for work by the 
SNAP team and should be taken from other lower-priority areas 
within High Energy Physics.
    The control level is at the High Energy Physics level.

                            NUCLEAR PHYSICS

    The Committee recommendation for nuclear physics is 
$471,319,000, the same as the budget request. The requested 
funding will support operations of the Thomas Jefferson 
National Accelerator Facility and the Relativistic Heavy Ion 
Collider. The requested funding will continue construction of 
the Electron Beam Ion Source at Brookhaven National Laboratory 
(project 07-SC-02) and the PED for the 12 GeV upgrade to the 
Continuous Electron Beam Accelerator Facility at the Thomas 
Jefferson National Accelerator Facility (project 06-SC-01).
    The nuclear physics community has proposed a shift in its 
priorities for future facilities to provide rare isotope beams. 
Specifically, the fiscal year 2008 request includes $4,000,000 
for research and development activities aimed at development of 
rare isotope beam capabilities. The Rare Isotope Beams (RIB) 
will involve modifications to existing accelerators rather than 
the construction of a new Rare Isotope Accelerator (RIA). This 
approach is projected to achieve much of the science planned 
for RIA but at significantly reduced cost. The Committee 
commends the nuclear physics research community for its 
constructive approach.

                 BIOLOGICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH

    The Committee notes that this area of the Office of Science 
encompasses two distinct research efforts: using biology to 
address energy production and environmental remediation and a 
combination of climate and ecosystem modeling, field research, 
and radiation monitoring as part of the Climate Change Research 
Program. Funding is provided in separate subaccounts for these 
two efforts and this practice should be used in future fiscal 
years.

                          BIOLOGICAL RESEARCH

    The Committee recommendation for Biological Research is 
$423,773,000, an increase of $30,000,000 above the budget 
request. The increase is provided for the Life Sciences 
component of Biological Research and is to be used to expand 
research efforts to develop new strategies for biofuels and 
sequestration of carbon, both important in addressing climate 
change. All of the added funds must be awarded competitively in 
solicitations that include all sources--universities, the 
private sector, and government laboratories--on an equal basis.
    The Committee applauds the use of genomics to address 
multiple areas associated with energy production including 
hydrogen and ethanol. The competitive selection of the Genomes 
to Life Bioenergy Research Centers is a major progressive step, 
and the Committee hopes that the Department will not confine 
its research in this area to just a few major centers but will 
complement these centers with an extensive program of 
competitive research grants to university, government 
laboratory and for-profit and not-for-profit private sector 
researchers.

                        CLIMATE CHANGE RESEARCH

    The Committee recommendation for Climate Change Research is 
$158,124,000, an increase of $20,000,000 above the budget 
request. The increase is provided for enhanced climate modeling 
to take advantage of the advanced computing resources of the 
Department. The Committee is providing this increase to 
accelerate progress toward horizontal spatial resolutions of 10 
kilometers. When this finer resolution is achieved, models 
should resolve local phenomena that punctuate the climate, such 
as severe storms with their intense precipitation and ability 
to transform the local landscape.
    The Climate Change Research Program at DOE is a collection 
of small efforts within the overall, multi-agency effort to 
understand and better predict climate change. This approach may 
prove inefficient in terms of research management and 
coordination and will be successful only if the extensive 
coordination of the Climate Change Research Program across 
multiple agencies, which has been a hallmark of this effort 
since its inception in the late 1980s, is continued. Long-term, 
ground-based monitoring of the environment is generally the 
province of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 
(NOAA), while the long term ecological research sites are 
supported through the National Science Foundation (NSF). 
Climate modeling at DOE benefits from the Department's 
preeminence in scientific computing, but climate modeling is 
also done by groups sponsored by NSF, NOAA, and NASA. The 
Committee is concerned that with the static budget for Climate 
Change Research and the true intellectual excitement of the 
other research areas in the Office of Science, climate change 
research is not a priority nor a unique expertise of the 
Department. Given the need for detailed understanding and 
predictions at local and regional scales to guide responses to 
climate change, it is time for the Department to make this area 
a priority.

                         BASIC ENERGY SCIENCES

    The Committee recommendation for basic energy sciences is 
$1,498,497,000, the same as the budget request and an increase 
of $248,247,000 over the current fiscal year. For purposes of 
reprogramming during fiscal year 2008, 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 
$1,093,219,000 for materials sciences and engineering, and 
$283,956,000 for chemical sciences, geosciences, and energy 
biosciences. The Committee recommendation funds operations of 
the five Nanoscale Science Research Centers, operations of the 
Advanced Light Source, the Advanced Photon Source, the National 
Synchrotron Light Source, the Stanford Synchrotron Radiation 
Laboratory, the Intense Pulsed Neutron Source, and the Manuel 
Lujan, Jr. Neutron Scattering Center at their full optimal 
numbers of hours, additional instrumentation for the recently-
completed Spallation Neutron Source (SNS), and the science 
research portion ($59,500,000) of the hydrogen initiative at 
the requested levels. Given the long-term nature of hydrogen as 
an energy transfer medium, with timescales for deployment 
similar to those for fusion energy, funding for hydrogen 
research in the Office of Science is particularly appropriate. 
The Committee previously directed the National Nuclear Security 
Administration to make available, from existing stocks, 
sufficient heavy water to meet SNS needs, and the Committee 
renews this direction for fiscal year 2008. Also included 
within this account is $8,240,000 for the Experimental Program 
to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR), the same as the 
budget request.
    Given the dismal operating record of the High Flux Isotope 
Reactor (HFIR) in fiscal year 2006 with 89.5% unscheduled 
downtime and the lack of major research accomplishments from 
its operation, the Committee will be watching to see that the 
steps taken by DOE to put HFIR back on track are successful.
    Construction.--The Committee recommendation includes 
$121,322,000 for Basic Energy Sciences construction projects, 
the same as the requested amount. The Committee recommendation 
provides the requested funding of: $51,356,000 to continue 
construction of the Linac Coherent Light Source (05-R-320) at 
the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center; $366,000 to complete 
construction of the Center for Functional Nanomaterials (05-R-
321) at Brookhaven National Laboratory; $45,000,000 for 
continued project engineering and design of the National 
Synchrotron Light Source II (07-SC-06) at Brookhaven National 
Laboratory; $17,200,000 for construction of the Advanced Light 
Source User Support Building (08-SC-01) at Lawrence Berkeley 
National Laboratory; $950,000 for PED of the Photon Ultrafast 
Laser Science (08-SC-10) and Engineering Building Renovation at 
the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center; and $6,450,000 to begin 
renovation of the Photon Ultrafast Laser Science and 
Engineering Building Renovation (08-SC-11) at the Stanford 
Linear Accelerator Center.
    Given the extremely poor record of the Department in 
correctly estimating and controlling costs for major projects, 
particularly construction, the Committee compliments the Office 
of Science for completing the Spallation Neutron Source almost 
on schedule and almost on budget.

                 ADVANCED SCIENTIFIC COMPUTING RESEARCH

    The Committee recommendation is $340,198,000, the same as 
the budget request and an increase of $56,783,000 over the 
current fiscal year. The Committee commends the Office of 
Science and the Office of Advanced Scientific Computing 
Research for their efforts to provide cutting-edge capabilities 
to meet current scientific computational needs, and at the same 
time to extend the boundaries of that cutting edge into the 
next generation of high-performance scientific computers and 
supporting software. Perhaps no other area of research at the 
Department is so critical to sustaining U.S. leadership in 
science and technology, revolutionizing the way science is 
done, and improving research productivity.

                         FUSION ENERGY SCIENCES

    The Committee recommendation for fusion energy sciences is 
$427,850,000, the same as the budget request, and $108,900,000 
above the previous year reflecting the $100,000,000 growth in 
the budget for the International Thermonuclear Experimental 
Reactor (ITER).
    The Committee does not support funding for a new program in 
High Energy Density Physics and provides no funds for this 
research area. The Committee directs that the $12,281,000 
requested for High Energy Density Physics be used to increase 
funding for the following: $7,500,000 for facility operations 
at the three U.S. user facilities--the DIII-D, Alcator C-Mod, 
and National Spherical Torus Experiment, $1,500,000 for Theory, 
$1,500,000 for materials research within Enabling R&D, and 
$1,781,000 for Alternative Concept Experimental Research.
    The Committee notes that major growth in support for ITER, 
with an additional increase in this support of $54,500,000 
planned for fiscal year 2009, is affecting the overall funding 
picture for Fusion Energy Sciences and for the Office of 
Science as a whole. When direct funding for ITER is excluded, 
Fusion Energy Sciences increases by just 3.8 percent and the 
increase requested for the Office of Science, while still 
large, is 13.4 percent rather than 15.8 percent. If delays in 
ITER associated with international cooperation reduce the 
amount that can be spent on ITER in fiscal year 2008, the 
Committee directs the Office of Fusion Energy Sciences to 
invest the funds made available in Theory, materials research 
within Enabling R&D, Alternative Concept Experimental Research 
and operating time at the three U.S. user facilities rather 
than retaining the money for ITER and carrying it over to 
future fiscal years.

                  SCIENCE LABORATORIES INFRASTRUCTURE

    The Committee recommendation provides a total of 
$151,806,000 for Science Laboratories Infrastructure, 
$72,850,000 above the budget request. The Committee supports 
the $6,145,000 for the continued demolition of the Bevatron at 
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. The $35,000,000 
requested for the Physical Sciences Facility at the Pacific 
Northwest National Laboratory (project 07-SC-05) is increased 
to $100,000,000 and should be used for all needed buildings, 
including those proposed for third party development. None of 
these funds should be held in reserve so that the pending 
cleanup and closure of all but three critical facilities of the 
300 Area at the Hanford site can proceed without further delay. 
Within available funds, the Committee directs the Department to 
continue to make Payments In Lieu of Taxes associated with 
Argonne National Laboratory and Brookhaven National Laboratory 
at the requested level of $1,520,000. Given the $325,000,000 
backlog of science facilities currently in need of demolition 
or cleanup for reuse, reduction in funding for Excess 
Facilities Disposition is unwise. Accordingly, $16,678,000 is 
provided for Excess Facilities Disposition, an increase of 
$7,850,000 above the request.
    The Committee is aware of significant legacy radioactive 
contamination at Argonne National Laboratory, and directs the 
Department to prepare an inventory of such contamination, 
including a determination of the parent programs responsible 
for such contamination, so that the Committee can apportion 
remediation costs fairly. This inventory is due to the 
Committee not later than November 30, 2007.

                        SAFEGUARDS AND SECURITY

    The Committee recommends $76,592,000, the same as the 
budget request, to meet safeguards and security requirements at 
Office of Science facilities.

                     SCIENCE WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT

    The Committee provides $11,000,000 for workforce 
development for teachers and scientists in fiscal year 2008, 
the same as the requested amount. The Committee concurs with 
the proposed expansion of the laboratory science teacher 
professional development program. It is desirable that science 
teachers at the secondary level be enabled to be scientists who 
teach at the precollegiate level rather than teachers who 
happen to teach science. Teachers should be encouraged to 
involve their students in doing science rather than just 
reading about and reproducing well-established principles.

                       SCIENCE PROGRAM DIRECTION

    The Committee recommendation is $178,290,000 for Science 
program direction, $6,644,000 below the budget request. This 
amount includes: $104,193,000 for program direction at DOE 
field offices and $74,097,000 for program direction at DOE 
headquarters. Funding for certain security functions proposed 
to be transferred to the Office of Science is removed from this 
budget and provided in the budget for the Office of Security in 
Other Defense Activities. The control level for fiscal year 
2008 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, 2007...................................       $99,206,000
Budget estimate, 2008.................................       202,454,000
Recommended, 2008.....................................       202,454,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2007...............................      +103,248,000
    Budget estimate, 2008.............................             - - -


    The Department of Energy requested a total of $494,500,000 
for work on the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository in 
fiscal year 2008, $202,454,000 for Nuclear Waste Disposal and 
$292,046,000 for Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal. According to 
the Department's testimony to the Committee, it will submit a 
License Application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in 
June 2008, and the funding requested is required to support 
that effort. The requested funds will be used for preparation 
of the License Application and activities to keep the site safe 
and secure.
    In testimony before the Committee, the Department indicated 
that the best achievable schedule for opening the Yucca 
Mountain repository would be 2017. This schedule assumes that 
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission would complete its review and 
grant a construction license to DOE in 36 months. It also 
assumes no delay in the opening due to litigation. The Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission review may require 48 months and there 
could be significant delays due to litigation once a license is 
granted. Fines and other payments due to the failure of the 
U.S. Government to take custody and remove spent nuclear fuel 
from commercial reactor sites will continue for more than two 
decades following the opening of the repository, as there will 
be a considerable backlog of waste to be emplaced. The 
government's liability for failure to remove spent nuclear fuel 
from reactor sites will grow to $7 billion and delays in 
opening Yucca Mountain will increase this total liability by 
approximately $500 million for each year of delay.
    Onsite storage of spent nuclear fuel at operating 
commercial reactor sites is a manageable risk. A recent study 
by the American Physical Society concludes that moving spent 
fuel to an alternative interim storage site and then to Yucca 
Mountain does not make sense given the costs of moving the 
spent fuel twice and the fact that operating reactors will 
always have an inventory of spent fuel to be guarded and 
managed. The same conclusion does not hold true for spent fuel 
in storage at the nine decommissioned reactor sites as removal 
of the fuel from these sites would allow them to be completely 
closed. While the requirement that DOE take custody of spent 
fuel is a matter of law, testimony to the Committee last year 
pointed out that failure to take custody of the fuel undermines 
public confidence in the overall policy on spent fuel from 
commercial nuclear reactors. The Committee directs the 
Department to develop a plan to take custody of spent fuel 
currently stored at decommissioned reactor sites to both reduce 
costs that are ultimately borne by the taxpayer and demonstrate 
that DOE can move forward in the near-term with at least some 
element of nuclear waste policy. The Department should consider 
consolidation of the spent fuel from decommissioned reactors 
either at an existing DOE site, at one or more existing 
operating reactor sites, or at a competitively-selected interim 
storage site. The Department should engage the 11 sites that 
volunteered to host GNEP facilities as part of this competitive 
process.
    In March 2007, the Department submitted a legislative 
proposal to Congress intended to enhance the management and 
disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive 
waste. Two of the proposed legislative provisions would address 
the waste confidence problem: the Administration proposes to 
repeal the statutory 70,000 metric ton capacity limit on Yucca 
Mountain, and also proposes to direct the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission to deem that the timely availability of sufficient 
repository capacity shall no longer be a consideration in 
licensing new reactors. While the Committee supports the effort 
to remove the arbitrary legislative limit on the capacity of 
Yucca Mountain, the Committee strongly opposes any attempt to 
legislate away the waste confidence problem.
    For Nuclear Waste Disposal in fiscal year 2008, the 
Committee provides $202,454,000, same as the budget request. 
The Committee also fully funds the request of $292,046,000 for 
Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal, providing a total of 
$494,500,000 for the nuclear waste repository in fiscal year 
2008.

                     Environment, Safety and Health


                             (NON-DEFENSE)




Appropriation, 2007...................................       $27,841,000
Budget estimate, 2008.................................             - - -
Recommended, 2008                                             31,625,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2007...............................        +3,784,000
    Budget estimate, 2008.............................       +31,625,000


    The Committee recommendation for non-defense environment, 
safety, and health activities is $31,625,000, an increase of 
$31,625,000 over the budget request. Within the funds provided, 
the Committee directs $465,000 for the medical monitoring 
program at the three gaseous diffusion plants in Paducah, 
Kentucky, Portsmouth, Ohio, and Oak Ridge, Tennessee.
    Reorganization of the Environment, Safety and Health 
Office.--In August 2006, the Department chose to abolish the 
existing Environment, Safety and Health (EH) organization and 
assign its functions to a number of other DOE offices, with 
primary responsibility resting with a new Office of Health, 
Safety and Security. While the Committee has no objective 
information to show that the new arrangement is performing 
better or worse than the previous EH organization, the 
Committee recognizes the authority of the Secretary to 
reorganize the Department in order to improve performance and 
accountability. However, the Committee reserves its own 
authority to determine the appropriations the Department 
receives for given activities in a fiscal year. In the case of 
the EH organization, which clearly involved moving funds from 
one organization to another in a manner inconsistent with the 
budget request or with the final appropriation, the Department 
refused to submit a reprogramming request to the House and 
Senate Committees on Appropriations.
    There were two consequences to this decision by the 
Department. First, in the year-long Continuing Resolution for 
fiscal year 2007 (P.L. 110-5), Congress eliminated the long-
standing transfer authority that the Department used to execute 
the EH reorganization. Second, the Committee for fiscal year 
2008 provides funding for the EH-related functions to the 
original pre-reorganization offices within DOE. The Committee 
does not fund the new Office of Health, Safety and Security as 
proposed by the Department in the budget request.
    Reprogramming requirement.--Per Committee reprogramming 
guidance and Department of Energy reprogramming guidelines, a 
reprogramming request submitted to the Committee for 
consideration is required to implement any reorganization 
proposal which includes moving previous appropriations between 
appropriation accounts. The Committee will not recognize any 
Departmental shift of previous appropriations for the Office of 
Environment, Safety and Health until a reprogramming request is 
submitted by the Department to the House and Senate Committees 
on Appropriations.
    Government Accountability Office (GAO) Report.--The 
Committee directs the GAO to prepare a report on the 
programmatic impacts of the proposed dissolution of the 
Environment, Safety and Health organization and the 
reorganization of the Office of Security at the Department. A 
preliminary report is due to the Committee on August 31, 2007.

              INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY LOAN GUARANTEE PROGRAM

    The budget request proposes language limiting the aggregate 
loan amount to $9,000,000,000 for loans to be made in fiscal 
year 2008 under the authority of Title XVII of the Energy 
Policy Act of 2005. The Committee provides a fiscal year 2008 
loan volume limitation of $7,000,000,000 to guarantee 
$2,000,000,000 in loans for carbon sequestration optimized coal 
power plants, $4,000,000,000 in loans for projects that promote 
biofuels and clean transportation fuels, and $1,000,000,000 in 
loans for projects using new technologies for electric 
transmission facilities or renewable power generation systems.
    The budget request proposes $8,390,000 in administrative 
expenses for the loan guarantee office; the Committee provides 
$2,390,000 for administrative expenses for the loan guarantee 
office, $6,000,000 below the request, in the Departmental 
Administration account. Initial funds were provided for the 
Office of Loan Guarantees in the fiscal year 2007 Joint 
Resolution after the budget request was formulated, and the 
Committee believes there are ample resources available to fund 
this office with the amount provided. Language has been 
provided to enable the Departmental Administration account to 
credit loan guarantee fees as offsetting collections.

                      Departmental Administration


                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

                          GROSS APPROPRIATION




Appropriation, 2007...................................      $276,832,000
Budget estimate, 2008.................................       310,366,000
Recommended, 2008.....................................       304,782,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2007...............................       +27,950,000
    Budget estimate, 2008.............................        -5,584,000


                                REVENUES




Appropriation, 2007...................................      -123,000,000
Budget estimate, 2008.................................      -161,818,000
Recommended, 2008.....................................      -161,818,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2007...............................       -38,818,000
    Budget estimate, 2008.............................             - - -


                           NET APPROPRIATION




Appropriation, 2007...................................       153,832,000
Budget estimate, 2008.................................       148,548,000
Recommended, 2008.....................................       142,964,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2007...............................       -10,868,000
    Budget estimate, 2008.............................        -5,584,000


    The Committee recommendation for Departmental 
Administration is $304,782,000, a decrease of $5,584,000 below 
the budget request. The recommendation for revenues is 
$161,818,000, consistent with the budget request, resulting in 
a net appropriation of $142,964,000. The Congressional Budget 
Office concurs with this estimate for revenues in fiscal year 
2008. Funding recommended for Departmental Administration 
provides for general management and program support functions 
benefiting all elements of the Department of Energy, including 
the National Nuclear Security Administration. The account funds 
a wide array of headquarters activities not directly associated 
with the execution of specific programs.
    Communications with Congress.--The Committee is aware of 
several instances in which the Department has attempted to 
suppress communication from its field personnel, both federal 
employees and contractors, to the committee. In one instance, 
laboratory personnel were threatened for responding to a direct 
inquiry from the Committee. The Committee will not tolerate any 
attempts by headquarters to intimidate field personnel 
answering legitimate Congressional questions. The Committee 
reserves the right to communicate with whoever can provide 
timely, accurate, and candid information on conditions and 
problems in the field.
    DOE pension and medical benefits.--The Committee provides 
no funding for implementing a revised contract reimbursement 
policy concerning pension and medical benefits. The proposed 
revised Department of Energy Order N351.1 would prohibit 
contractors from providing traditional defined benefit pensions 
to future employees. To date, the Department has not provided 
adequate justification for such a sweeping and ill-defined 
change of existing policy. For instance, the Department's cost 
calculation for existing defined benefit plans reflects only a 
limited snapshot in time, and fails to consider either the 
long-term historical costs of these plans, or future costs 
reasonably projected under the Pension Protection Act of 2006. 
The Committee notes that the three DOE contracts with 
disproportionate retiree benefits far outpacing the Federal DOE 
workforce are the three nuclear weapons design laboratories--
Sandia National Laboratory, Los Alamos National Laboratory, and 
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. The Department is 
directed to assess reducing the government's liabilities and 
normalizing the pension benefits across the DOE complex by 
reducing the disproportionately generous pension plans at the 
NNSA national laboratories. The Committee recommendation 
includes a request for the Government Accountability Office 
(GAO) report assessing the adequacy of the Department's 
analysis of pension and medical liabilities. The Committee 
requests a preliminary report by October 1, 2007 and a final 
report due by December 31, 2007.
    Management.--The Committee provides $60,725,000 for the 
Management account, a reduction of $3,214,000 below the budget 
request. The Committee provides an increase of $2,000,000 for 
the Office of Management to contract with the National Academy 
of Public Administration (NAPA). The Committee directs the 
Department to work with the NAPA on an organizational review of 
the offices of Procurement, Human Resources, and the Chief 
Financial Officer. The NAPA identified these three 
organizations as choke points for successful work flow during 
its review of the Environmental Management organization, and 
the Committee has heard this observation from DOE offices as 
well. As such, the Department can benefit much from a periodic 
review of its critical management support functions. The 
Committee also provides a reduction of $5,214,000 for 
Environmental, Safety and Health and Security Performance funds 
that are provided in the ES&H account and the Office of 
Security and Performance Assurance in fiscal year 2008.
    Loan Guarantee Office.--The Committee provides an increase 
of $2,390,000 over the budget request for the loan guarantee 
office within the Departmental Administration (DA) account. 
This office was proposed in the budget request as a separate 
account outside the DA structure funded at $8,390,000. The 
Committee provides funding for this activity at a level 
$6,000,000 below the request because initial funds were 
provided in the fiscal year 2007 Joint Resolution, after the 
budget request was formulated, and provides these funds within 
the Departmental Administration account, consistent with the 
Joint Resolution. Language has been provided to enable this 
account to credit loan guarantee fees as offsetting 
collections.
    General Counsel.--The Committee provides $27,086,000 for 
the General Counsel, a decrease of $2,990,000 below the budget 
request, reflecting a reduction of $3,990,000 for the transfer 
of funds to the Environmental Health and Safety account. Of the 
funds made available for the Office of the General Counsel, the 
Committee provides an increase of $1,000,000 to support 
additional attorney assistance for energy-efficiency related 
matters. The Committee leaves the decision to the Department on 
whether this additional legal support should be provided by 
procuring services from contractor attorneys or by hiring 
additional Federal employees. However, the additional support 
should be obtained as soon as possible. The Committee is aware 
that the Department is years behind schedule in promulgating 
energy conservation standards for consumer appliances and 
industrial equipment, and in establishing appropriate test 
procedures. The Committee believes that these additional 
resources will assist the Department in catching up on any 
overdue activities and, therefore, intends that the additional 
resources provided would be used for attorneys to support that 
work.
    The Committee provides no funds for the Competitive 
Sourcing Initiative (A-76), a reduction of $1,770,000 below the 
request. The Committee does not support the activities of this 
office.
    The Committee renews the direction provided in the fiscal 
year 2006 conference report regarding the primary liaison with 
the House Appropriations Committee being the Department's chief 
financial officer rather than the Office of Congressional and 
Intergovernmental Affairs.
    The Committee commends the work of the Department in the 
Clean Energy Technology Export (CETE) program.
    Transfer from Other Defense Activities.--For fiscal year 
2008, the Department requested $99,000,000 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, 2007...................................       $41,819,000
Budget estimate, 2008.................................        47,732,000
Recommended, 2008.....................................        47,732,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2007...............................        +5,913,000
    Budget estimate, 2008.............................             - - -


    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 $47,732,000, the same as 
the budget request.

                    Atomic Energy Defense Activities

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

                NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

    The Department of Energy is responsible for enhancing U.S. 
national security through the military application of nuclear 
technology and reducing the global danger from the 
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. The National 
Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), a semi-autonomous 
agency within the Department, carries out these 
responsibilities. Established in March 2000 pursuant to Title 
32 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2000 (Public Law 106-65), the NNSA is responsible for the 
management and operation of the Nation's nuclear weapons 
complex, naval reactors, and nuclear nonproliferation 
activities. Three offices within the NNSA carry out the 
Department's national security mission: the Office of Defense 
Programs, the Office of Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation, and 
the Office of Naval Reactors. The Office of the NNSA 
Administrator oversees all NNSA programs.
    The Committee provides $8,786,881,000 for the NNSA, a 
reduction of $599,952,000 below the budget request and a 
reduction of $294,132,000 below the current year level.

                           Weapons Activities





Appropriation, 2007...................................    $6,275,583,000
Budget estimate, 2008.................................     6,511,312,000
Recommended, 2008.....................................     5,879,137,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2007...............................      -396,446,000
    Budget estimate, 2008.............................      -632,175,000


    The goal of the Weapons Activities program is to ensure the 
safety, security, reliability and performance of the Nation's 
nuclear weapons stockpile. The program seeks to maintain and 
refurbish nuclear weapons to sustain confidence in their safety 
and reliability under the nuclear testing moratorium and arms 
reduction treaties. The Committee's recommendation provides 
$5,879,137,000, for Weapons Activities, a reduction of 
$632,175,000 below the budget request and a reduction of 
$396,446,000 below the current year level.
    U.S. Strategic Nuclear Weapons Strategy for the 21st 
century and the Future Nuclear Weapons stockpile.--The 
Department of Energy (DOE) and the Department of Defense (DoD) 
are proposing to develop a new nuclear warhead under the 
Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW) program and begin a nuclear 
weapons complex modernization proposal called Complex 2030. 
These multi-billion dollar initiatives are being proposed in a 
policy vacuum without any Administration statement on the 
national security environment that the future nuclear deterrent 
is designed to address. The Committee's concern is supported by 
statements made by nuclear weapon experts in recent reports by 
the Defense Science Board and the American Association for the 
Advancement of Science, and in congressional testimony by such 
credible experts as a former Chairman of the Senate Armed 
Services Committee and a former Secretary of Defense. These 
review panel and national security experts all agreed that 
there has been no clear policy statements that articulate the 
role of nuclear weapons in a post-Cold War and post-9/11 world. 
The lack of any definitive analysis or strategic assessment 
defining the objectives of a future nuclear stockpile makes it 
impossible to weigh the relative merits of investing billions 
of taxpayer dollars in new nuclear weapon production activities 
when the United States is facing the problem of having too 
large a stockpile as a Cold War legacy. Currently, there exists 
no convincing rationale for maintaining the large number of 
existing Cold War nuclear weapons, much less producing 
additional warheads, or for the DoD requirements that drive the 
management of the DOE nuclear weapons complex.
    The Committee believes it is premature to proceed with 
further development of the RRW or a significant nuclear complex 
modernization plan, until a three-part planning sequence is 
completed, including: (1) a comprehensive nuclear defense 
strategy, based upon current and projected global threats; (2) 
clearly defined military requirements for the size and 
composition of the nuclear stockpile derived from the 
comprehensive nuclear defense strategy; and (3) alignment of 
these military requirements to the existing and estimated 
future needs and capabilities of NNSA's weapons complex. The 
Committee views completion of this three-part planning sequence 
as a necessary condition before considering additional funding 
for Complex 2030 and RRW activities.
    Therefore, the Committee directs the Secretary, in 
consultation with the Department of Defense and Intelligence 
Community, to submit to the House and Senate Committees on 
Appropriations, a comprehensive nuclear security plan that:
          (1.) Includes a comprehensive nuclear defense and 
        nonproliferation strategy, developed by all relevant 
        stakeholders across the Administration, defining the 
        future U.S. nuclear deterrent requirements and nuclear 
        nonproliferation goals. To the extent this strategy 
        involves the production and deployment of new warheads 
        and acceleration of legacy warhead dismantlements, a 
        statement of how such actions will impact the state of 
        global security, with respect to the future U.S. 
        nuclear deterrent and nonproliferation goals, should be 
        included in the comprehensive strategy.
          (2.) Includes a detailed description, prepared by the 
        Department of Defense (DoD) and the Department of 
        Energy (DOE), that translates the strategy described in 
        (1) above into a specific nuclear stockpile, that:
                  a. Aligns estimated global threats to the 
                required characteristics of the U.S. nuclear 
                stockpile in terms of specific numbers and 
                types of warheads, both active and inactive, 
                and associated delivery systems.
                  b. Includes a complete, quantitative status 
                of the current stockpile warhead inventory by 
                type and delivery system and anticipated 
                changes to reach the 2012 Moscow Treaty 
                commitments, including an unclassified summary 
                of the topline stockpile quantity.
                  c. Defines, in year by year increments 
                planned changes in the size and composition of 
                the nuclear stockpile through fiscal year 2030 
                required to meet the strategy described in (1) 
                above. Identify changes in the stockpile 
                related to the nuclear force structure based on 
                the strategy described in (1) above; the impact 
                of accelerated warhead retirements and 
                dismantlements based on out year stockpile 
                requirements under the Moscow Treaty, as well 
                as, potential reductions associated with the 
                strategy described in (1) above; the impact of 
                completing planned life extension milestones to 
                extend the service life of the existing 
                stockpile; the impact on the future stockpile 
                employing both existing warheads and new 
                warheads under the RRW proposal; required life 
                extension program throughput rates; required 
                production rates for an operationally deployed 
                RRW replacing an existing system; and 
                associated dismantlement rates. This should 
                include an unclassified summary of the topline 
                stockpile quantity, per year, up through 2030.
                  d. Includes a detailed analysis comparing the 
                risks, costs and benefits, stockpile size, and 
                relationship to achieving the nuclear defense 
                and nonproliferation strategic goals of 
                maintaining the existing stockpile under the 
                Life Extension Program (LEP) versus 
                transitioning to the reliable replacement 
                warhead strategy, by warhead type and delivery 
                system.
          (3.) Includes a comprehensive, long-term expenditure 
        plan, from fiscal year 2008 through fiscal year 2030, 
        that fully defines the needs and capabilities of the 
        NNSA weapons complex to support the stated military 
        requirements outlined in (2) above, including:
                  a. A comprehensive, fiscal year 2008 complex 
                operating cost inventory by site and activity 
                as a baseline;
                  b. A year-by-year resource plan from fiscal 
                year 2008 through fiscal year 2030, subdivided 
                into five-year milestones for dismantlements, 
                stockpile reduction, cost savings (with respect 
                to the established, fiscal year 2008 baseline), 
                complex consolidation, life extension programs, 
                warhead refurbishments, special nuclear 
                material consolidation, physical and cyber 
                security requirements, proposed RRW production 
                and deployment, and how achievement of such 
                milestones aligns with long-term complex 
                transformation goals, specifically identifying 
                the cost impacts of alternative strategies. 
                This should include an unclassified summary of 
                dismantlement progress, relative to the topline 
                stockpile quantity for the given year.
                  c. A detailed description of the potential 
                impacts of significant reductions in the 
                overall stockpile in terms of cost savings, 
                physical security benefits, complex 
                consolidation, and stockpile reliability, 
                safety, and security.
                  d. Estimates of staffing requirements 
                corresponding to achievement of five-year 
                milestones and long-term complex transformation 
                plans.
                  e. A detailed cost-benefit analysis comparing 
                the resources required to maintain the existing 
                facilities for the existing stockpile to new 
                facilities required to support RRW production 
                and deployment, and a description of how NNSA 
                will mitigate the potential risks and costs 
                associated with simultaneously managing both 
                competing objectives in the near term.
    The Committee does not accept the same policy argument put 
forward by the nuclear weapons establishment after the Cold War 
ended that justified the Science-Based Stockpile Stewardship 
program. With the demise of the Soviet Union, the U.S. halted 
nuclear weapons production activities and implemented a 
moratorium of underground nuclear testing. In 1995, the 
Department of Energy proposed, and Congress supported, 
investing billions in new science facilities and super-
computing capabilities to maintain the safety, security, and 
reliability of the existing stockpile without underground 
nuclear testing. Only a decade later, and after having spent 
billions of dollars, the NNSA is proposing to begin production 
of a new nuclear warhead before the country has received any 
significant return on the earlier investments, even though the 
major Stockpile Stewardship facilities are not yet completed 
and fully operational.
    In order to make more informed policy and funding 
decisions, the revised nuclear strategy and stockpile plan must 
address the specific threats the nuclear stockpile of the 
future needs to address; the arms control treaties and 
agreements that bound our nuclear weapons activities; the 
nuclear policies and programs of other nations; and the impact 
on nonproliferation goals, policies and programs supported by 
the United States. Neither the Quadrennial Defense Reviews nor 
the Administration's 2001 Nuclear Posture Review provided a 
long term nuclear weapons strategy or the defined total nuclear 
stockpile requirements for the 21st century. The 
Administration's contention that the Moscow Treaty puts the 
U.S. on the path toward the lowest number of nuclear weapons 
necessary for national security would only be accurate if the 
Moscow Treaty addressed the actual status of all the warheads 
in the U.S. stockpile and all the above concerns. It does not.
    The future of the nuclear weapons complex.--At the 
Committee's direction in fiscal year 2004, the Secretary of 
Energy tasked the Secretary of Energy's Advisory Board (SEAB) 
to conduct an independent assessment of the Department's future 
infrastructure requirements for the nuclear weapons complex 
over the next twenty-five years. The Committee strongly 
commended the SEAB's Task Force efforts in developing the 
report on Recommendations for the Nuclear Weapons Complex of 
the Future. The SEAB report began the policy process of 
debating the future of the nation's nuclear weapons program and 
led the NNSA to propose its competing future vision in the 
spring of 2006, called ``Complex 2030''. The Committee notes 
that, on October 19, 2006, the NNSA issued in the Federal 
Register a Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an Environmental 
Impact Statement entitled the ``Complex 2030 Supplement to the 
Stockpile Stewardship and Management Programmatic Environmental 
Impact Statement.'' The NOI outlines the alternatives that the 
NNSA will consider in transforming the nuclear weapons complex 
to meet the future national security requirements.
    The Committee has strong reservations concerning the NNSA's 
preferred alternative proposed in the Complex 2030 EIS NOI. 
Despite the Committee's repeated attempts through the 
legislative process to encourage an effective, thoughtful 
process within the NNSA to develop a plan for transforming the 
nuclear weapons complex, the NNSA has rejected that support. 
Instead of working with the Committee to arrive at a realistic 
plan that has the possibility of garnering bipartisan political 
support, the NNSA continues to pursue a policy of rebuilding 
and modernizing the entire complex in situ without any thought 
given to a sensible strategy for long-term efficiency and 
consolidation.
    The Complex 2030 plan assumes the immediate support for an 
RRW design, development, and production program, while also 
assuming continuation of the Life Extension Program extending 
the service life for the legacy systems and the Science-Based 
Stockpile Stewardship activities supporting the legacy 
stockpile. The schedule implicit in the NNSA's plans requires 
all the current facilities, production facilities and processes 
be sustained for decades. As pointed out in the AAAS RRW 
report, this has the effect of divorcing the first RRW from 
complex transformation and proceeds to build the RRW using the 
existing legacy weapons complex. The total redundancy required 
by the NNSA Complex 2030 plan is the highest cost option of any 
possible scenario. The NNSA's program will result in maximizing 
the budget for the nuclear weapons complex with little thought 
given to efficiency or cost savings. The Committee rejects any 
such proposal. The nuclear weapons complex modernization plan 
needs to focus on the near-term milestones within five-year 
schedule windows with the intention of reducing the number, 
size, and cost of the NNSA sites and facilities while also 
requiring the minimum number of personnel for the mission. A 
``Complex 2012'' plan might be credible, especially if tied to 
a Stockpile 2012 plan; a Complex 2030 plan not tied to any 
revised future nuclear stockpile plan is not. If the NNSA 
continues to adhere to a transformation schedule stretched out 
over 23 years, the Committee assumes adequate funding can be 
supported with marginal appropriations allocated over the same 
schedule.
    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 a program to improve the long-term reliability, 
longevity, and certifiability of the existing weapons and their 
components. The Committee finds the RRW program the DoD and 
NNSA have pursued at the direction of Congress goes far beyond 
the scope and purpose of the original congressional language 
and intent. The Committee supported the RRW design competition 
undertaken by the two weapons design laboratories and notes 
that its conclusion satisfies one of the primary objectives of 
the RRW proposal, that being to reestablish the design 
capability of the weapons laboratories. That objective has 
successfully been accomplished. The Committee is unconvinced 
that pursuing the RRW design competition to a production phase 
is necessary at this time.
    Under any realistic future U.S. nuclear defense scenario, 
the existing legacy stockpile will continue to provide the 
nation's nuclear deterrent for well over the next two to three 
decades. The effort by the NNSA to apply urgency to developing 
a significant production capacity for the RRW while lacking any 
urgency to rationalize an oversized complex appears to mean 
simply more costs to the American taxpayer. The Committee notes 
that maintaining the legacy stockpile was acceptable to DoD and 
DOE while the large funding allocations were flowing for the 
Science-Based Stockpile Stewardship facilities and programs. 
Now that the Stockpile Stewardship facilities are nearing 
completion and the funding curve is flattening out, NNSA is 
raising concerns with the reliability of the existing stockpile 
and wants Congress to embark on a new multi-billion, multi-
decade initiative that will ensure an expanding funding curve. 
The Committee recognizes it may be a skeptical view of the 
budgeting process within the nuclear weapons complex to assume 
a direct correlation between newly emergent concerns with the 
existing stockpile and the NNSA's desire to begin building a 
new RRW nuclear warhead, but DOE and DoD have not made a 
compelling national security argument to prove this view wrong.
    A particularly troubling issue for the Committee related to 
the RRW proposal is the contradictory U.S. policy position of 
demanding other nations give up their nuclear ambitions while 
the U.S. aggressively pursues a program to build new nuclear 
warheads. The Administration needs to develop a policy 
rationale that explains why the RRW program is not 
contradictory and does not undermine our international nuclear 
nonproliferation goals. The Committee will reconsider the RRW 
proposal when the requisite nuclear strategy, nuclear stockpile 
and weapons complex transformation plans have been delivered to 
Congress.
    Oversight model for NNSA sites.--The NNSA implemented a new 
Federal oversight model called Streamlined Oversight as a pilot 
initiative at the Kansas City Plant and the Los Alamos National 
Laboratory with the goal of reducing the authority and 
responsibility of the Federal personnel at the sites because a 
perception that the heavy hand of federal oversight was causing 
``excessive risk aversion'' in achieving programmatic missions. 
The Committee notes with interest the NNSA implementation 
memorandum attributed the concern over ``excessive risk 
aversion'' to observations by outside groups. The Committee is 
troubled by the federal senior management's decision-process 
that delegates the management model for an inherently 
governmental responsibility such as overseeing the contractors 
running the nuclear weapons complex to a nongovernmental 
outside group. An apparent bias for accepting the complaints 
from the contractors instead of supporting the federal 
employees has resulted in mismanagement at the national 
laboratories and near complete erosion of credibility outside 
the Department that any federal oversight exists across the 
nuclear weapons complex. Rather than undermining the federal 
oversight located at the complex site offices by accepting the 
``trust us'' model insisted on by site contractors, the 
Committee supports a stronger role by the federal program 
managers in improving safety and security and controlling costs 
and achieving program objectives. The underlying security and 
safety performance failures at LANL, coupled with the NNSA's 
failure to include the financial penalty clause for 
noncompliance in the new laboratory contract, prove the fallacy 
of this ``management'' strategy.
    Cost Analysis and Improvement Group (CAIG).--The Committee 
is aware the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) requested 
the DoD Cost Analysis and Improvement Group (CAIG) provide cost 
analytical support for the Administration by leading an 
independent assessment of the NNSA's proposed Complex 2030 
proposal, competing plans, and an evaluation of the risks and 
projected resource requirements necessary to support these 
plans. The Committee anticipates the fiscal year 2009 NNSA 
budget request will reflect more rigorous analysis developing 
the out year cost data.
    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, 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 Readiness in Technical Base and 
Facilities (RTBF). Because the NNSA has ignored House funding 
direction in the past, the Committee provides no reprogramming 
authority between site allocations for Readiness in Technical 
Base and Facilities Operations of 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 with the exception of the RTBF site 
allocations, subject to the following limitations: only one 
transfer may be made to or from any program or project; the 
transfer must be necessary to address a risk to health, safety 
or the environment; 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

    The Committee recommendation provides $1,336,594,000 for 
Directed Stockpile Activities, a reduction of $110,642,000 from 
the budget request. 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.
    Life Extension Programs.--The Committee provides 
$238,686,000 for the DSW life extension programs, the same as 
the budget request.
    Stockpile Systems.--The Committee provides $319,345,000 for 
the DSW stockpile systems activities, a reduction of 
$27,372,000 from the budget request. The reduction is applied 
to the W80 activities that have been terminated by the Nuclear 
Weapons Council.
    Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW).--The Committee 
recommendation provides no funding for the reliable replacement 
warhead (RRW) initiative, a decrease of $88,769,000 from the 
budget request. The Committee has noted elsewhere that it is 
premature to continue design activities for a new nuclear 
warhead until a revised U.S. nuclear weapons strategy is 
developed that describes the long term nuclear stockpile 
requirements and demonstrates how a new nuclear warhead is 
necessary to address specific U.S. national security 
requirements and nuclear nonproliferation commitments.
    Warhead Dismantlement.--The Committee recommendation 
provides $173,250,000 for the warhead dismantlement program, an 
increase of $121,000,000 over the budget request. The Committee 
provides an additional $30,000,000 to begin dismantlement 
activities at the Device Assembly Facility (DAF) at the Nevada 
Test Site (NTS). During testimony before the subcommittee, the 
Secretary of Energy identified the Pantex Plant as the single 
most inefficient element of the current nuclear weapons 
complex. The Pantex Plant is the only weapons site presently 
authorized for warhead dismantlement activities. Based on the 
Secretary's judgment, the Committee is concerned that the 
workload requirements of stockpile evaluation and maintenance 
and ongoing life extension activities will preclude any 
significant warhead dismantlement progress at the Pantex Plant, 
particularly with increased stockpile reductions to be made 
over the next two decades. The Committee expects sufficient 
facility space at the underutilized Device Assembly Facility at 
NTS to be retrofit for unique dismantlement operations. The DAF 
was originally constructed for warhead operations and has the 
security posture to accommodate temporary warhead staging for 
the purposes of dismantlement. The Committee commends the NNSA 
for finally implementing a robust warhead dismantlement program 
as directed by the Committee for the past four years with 
significant funding increases over the Administration's request 
as part of a concerted effort to relieve the weapons complex of 
excess Cold War era warheads. However, the Department must view 
dismantlement as a priority in and of itself, rather than as a 
workload leveling function to fill-in for down times in the 
life extension workload at Pantex.
    Pit Disassembly and Conversion Facility.--The Committee 
recommendation transfers the Department's activity to construct 
a Pit Disassembly and Conversion Facility (PDCF) to the Office 
of Defense programs from the Office of Nuclear Nonproliferation 
and directs the Department to begin the siting process for 
constructing the facility at the Pantex Plant in Amarillo, 
Texas. The Committee provides $91,000,000 to continue the 
facility design activity, the same as the budget request. The 
Committee recognizes that pit disassembly is the last step in 
the warhead dismantlement process and the Pantex plant is the 
only site within the NNSA complex currently authorized to 
conduct dismantlement operations on a nuclear warhead. Co-
locating the Pit Disassembly facility with the pit storage 
facilities at the Pantex Plant provides an obvious security 
improvement and program efficiency element to the PDCF 
proposal. The Committee finds the Department initial decision 
to site the Pit Disassembly facility at the Savannah River Site 
(SRS) not appropriate in light of the post 9/11 security 
environment. The Committee finds the security vulnerabilities 
inherent in transporting intact nuclear weapon pits from the 
storage location at the Pantex Plant to a disassembly operation 
1,200 miles across the country too significant and costly to 
justify constructing the facility at SRS. The Committee also 
recognizes the sensitivity of the State of South Carolina 
concerning the shipment of plutonium from out of state to the 
Savannah River Site and assumes this programmatic change will 
address the State's concerns by delaying the shipment of any 
plutonium to South Carolina until the material is in oxide form 
for fuel fabrication minimizing any storage requirement at SRS. 
The Committee notes the PDCF is in a very early design phase 
and the transfer should not be significantly disruptive to the 
planning process.
    Stockpile services.--The Committee recommendation provides 
$605,313,000 for the DSW stockpile services activities, a 
decrease of $115,501,000 from the request. The Committee 
provides no additional funding in fiscal year 2008 for the 
responsive infrastructure activities until an in-depth, 
schedule-driven, fully costed transformation plan for the 
weapons complex is developed by the NNSA. The Committee's 
reductions in Stockpile Services are targeted to maintain 
approximate current year funding levels pending the development 
of rigorous out-year planning documents as noted elsewhere in 
the report.

                               CAMPAIGNS

    Campaigns are focused on efforts involving the three 
weapons laboratories, the Nevada test site, the weapons 
production plants, and selected external organizations to 
address critical capabilities needed to achieve program 
objectives.
    The Committee recommendation provides $1,725,236,000, a 
decrease of $140,984,000 from the budget request.
    From within funds provided for the various campaigns, the 
Committee supports the budget request for the university 
research program in robotics (URPR) for the development of 
advanced robotic technologies for strategic national 
applications.
    Science campaigns.--The Committee provides $201,534,000 for 
the science campaigns, a reduction of $71,541,000 from the 
budget request.
    The Committee recommendation provides $40,000,000 for the 
primary assessment technologies subprogram, a reduction of 
$23,527,000 from the budget request. The Committee 
recommendation provides $65,000,000 for the dynamic materials 
properties subprogram, a reduction of $33,014,000 from the 
budget request. The Committee recommendation includes 
$20,995,000 for the advanced radiography activities, a 
reduction of $10,000,000 from the budget request. The Committee 
reductions reflect a funding redirection away from premature 
funding of Complex 2030 and RRW activities. The Committee is 
disappointed with the delay in achieving full capability for 
the second axis of the Dual-Axis Radiographic Hydrotest 
facility (DARHT). The secondary assessment technologies 
subprogram recommendation is $55,539,000, a reduction of 
$25,000,000 from the budget request. The Committee does not 
support the Administration's budget request for significant 
funding increases for the Z machine at Sandia National 
Laboratory and the LANSCE center at Los Alamos National 
Laboratory.
    Test readiness.--The Committee supports the 24-month test 
readiness posture at the Nevada Test Site and provides an 
additional $20,000,000 to restore the funding in the 
Administration's budget request which terminated the activity. 
The Committee is baffled by the Administration's decision to 
eliminate funding for nuclear test readiness after four budget 
cycles of insisting that shortening to an 18-month test 
readiness posture was required for national security reasons. 
Congress provided an additional $50 million in additional 
budget authority to restore the test readiness capabilities and 
achieve a readiness posture of 24-months rather than the more 
provocative 18-month posture. In the fiscal year 2008 budget 
request, the NNSA proposes what the Committee believes to be a 
wasteful investment by allowing the restored test readiness 
activities to be degraded. The Committee views such 
inconsistent program, planning and budgeting as a significant 
credibility issue with the NNSA decision-making process.
    Engineering campaigns.--The Committee provides $152,749,000 
for the engineering campaigns, the same as the budget request.
    Construction projects.--The Committee recommends 
$11,198,000, 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 $524,046,000 for the inertial 
confinement fusion and yield program, an increase of 
$111,787,000 over the budget request. The Committee is 
disappointed the NNSA has failed to propose sufficient 
resources in the budget request to support key activities to 
ensure that the 2010 ignition goal for the National Ignition 
Facility (NIF) is reached. The Committee restores adequate 
funding to the ICF campaign to support the 2010 ignition goal.
    The Committee recommendation for Facility Operations and 
Target Production is $114,383,000, an increase of $28,300,000 
over the budget request. The additional Facility Operation 
funding is provided for enhanced target production and 
characterization capabilities. The Committee recommendation for 
NIF diagnostics, cryogenics and experimental support is 
$85,935,000, an increase of $18,000,000 over the budget 
request. The increased funding is provided for additional 
cryogenics and diagnostic activities necessary to achieve the 
2010 ignition goal. 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. The Committee 
recommendation includes $15,000,000 for the Naval Research 
Laboratory and a total of $62,044,000 for the Laboratory for 
Laser Energetics (LLE) operations, an increase of $9,000,000 
over the budget request. The LLE is the principal research and 
experimentation laser facility for NNSA Science-Based Stockpile 
Stewardship activities. The Committee's increase is for OMEGA 
operations to provide additional shots to support the ICF 
campaign goal of an ignition demonstration in 2010. The 
Committee recommendation provides an additional $15,000,000 for 
the Ignition subprogram and $13,700,000 for the NIF 
demonstration program to restore funding required to meet the 
2010 ignition goal for NIF.
    The Committee provides $10,139,000 for construction of the 
National Ignition Facility (NIF), the same as the budget 
request.
    The Committee recommendation does not include the proposed 
Joint program in High Energy Density Laboratory Plasmas. The 
Committee expects the NNSA to include sufficient operating 
funding for the Naval Research Laboratory in the fiscal year 
2009 budget request.
    Advanced simulation and computing (ASCI).--The Committee 
recommendation for Advanced Simulation and Computing is 
$535,738,000, a reduction of $50,000,000 from the budget 
request. No funding is provided for the Administration's budget 
request at Los Alamos National Laboratory for the procurement 
of the super computer designated Roadrunner. The Committee is 
aware this procurement was a laboratory initiated request and 
not supported by the Federal weapons program computing program 
and is unnecessary for providing computational capability to 
address weapons stockpile requirements.
    Pit manufacturing and Pit certification.--The Committee 
recommendation for pit manufacturing and certification campaign 
is $150,000,000, a reduction of $131,230,000 below the budget 
request. The Committee notes the NNSA budget request has 
funding requests in multiple lines for plutonium work at Los 
Alamos National Laboratory that assume a preferred future 
programmatic approach. The ad hoc management and budgeting 
approach to upgrading plutonium operations in TA-55 ensures 
unnecessary expenditures and lack of accountability. Any future 
program activities for upgrading TA-55 pit manufacturing 
operations must strictly adhere to DOE Order 413.3A. The 
Committee will not continue to fund activities that are not 
part of a clearly articulated facilities strategy. Until the 
Committee receives a new nuclear weapons strategic plan that 
addresses the future requirements for plutonium production 
including specifically how plutonium facilities factor into 
supporting the future stockpile, the Committee will not support 
funding activities that assume a modernization-in-place 
strategy for the current nuclear weapons complex.
    The Committee recommendation includes no funds for the 
consolidated plutonium center proposal.
    Readiness campaigns.--The Committee recommendation for 
Readiness Campaigns is $161,169,000, 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 $1,479,632,000, a 
reduction of $182,512,000 below the budget request as detailed 
below.
    Operations of facilities.--The Committee recommendation for 
Operations of Facilities is $1,041,379,000, a decrease of 
$117,926,000 below the budget request. The Committee 
recommendation includes an additional $20,000,000 for the 
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California, an 
additional $45,000,000 for the Pantex plant in Texas, and an 
additional $60,000,000 is for the Y-12 Plant in Tennessee to 
address chronic under-funding in the maintenance of production 
plant facilities. Within the additional funds provided for the 
Y-12 Plant, the Committee provides $22,000,000 for addressing 
the safety and deferred maintenance issues identified by the 
Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board in the 9212 Complex 
Facility Risk Review. The Committee notes both the December 
2001 Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) and the Defense Science Board 
Report on Nuclear Capabilities observed there has been a 
significant underinvestment in the nuclear production complex. 
The NNSA opted to prioritize the national laboratory funding 
over the production plants since the end of Cold War production 
activity. The Committee recommendations are intended to redress 
the investment imbalance and ensure a minimum capacity to 
maintain current nuclear weapons capabilities and restore lost 
capabilities at the complex production sites. The Committee 
directs the NNSA and the Office of Science to coordinate 
activities to ensure sufficient stocks of heavy water are 
available when needed to avoid schedule disruption for the 
Spallation Neutron Source requirements. The Committee provides 
the Operations of Facilities account funding in site specific 
allocations specified in the detail table at the end of Title 
III.
    Program Readiness.--The Committee recommendation for 
Program Readiness is $71,466,000, the same as budget request.
    Material recycle and recovery.--The Committee 
recommendation for material recycle and recovery is 
$72,962,000, an increase of $3,000,000 to budget request to 
fully support the required Life Extension program schedules.
    Containers.--The Committee recommendation for containers is 
$22,184,000, an increase of $3,000,000 to the budget request to 
support nuclear material consolidation efforts.
    Storage.--The Committee recommendation for storage is 
$35,133,000, the same as the budget request.
    Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities (RTBF) 
Construction projects.--
    Project 08-D-801, High pressure fire loop (HPFL), Pantex, 
TX.--The Committee recommends $7,000,000, the same as the 
budget request.
    Project 08-D-802, High explosive pressing facility, Pantex, 
TX.--The Committee recommends $25,300,000, the same as the 
budget request.
    Project 08-D-804, TA-55 Reinvestment project, Los Alamos 
National Laboratory, NM.--The Committee recommends $6,000,000, 
the same as the budget request.
    Project 07-D-140, Project engineering and design (PED), 
various locations.--The Committee recommends $2,500,000, the 
same as the budget request.
    Project 07-D-220, Radioactive liquid waste treatment 
facility upgrade project, Los Alamos National Laboratory, NM.--
The Committee recommends $26,672,000, the same as the budget 
request.
    Project 06-D-140, Project engineering and design (PED), 
various locations.--The Committee recommends $63,862,000, an 
increase of $40,000,000 to the budget request. The Committee 
provides the additional funding to restore the baseline Uranium 
Processing Facility (UPF) PED funding that was reprogrammed in 
fiscal year 2007 to fund other purposes by the NNSA. The 
Committee supports the facility and material consolidation 
activities at the Y-12 Plant.
    Project 04-D-125, Chemistry and Metallurgy Research 
Facility Replacement (CMRR), LANL.--The recommendation provides 
no funds for the CMRR project, a decrease of $95,586,000 from 
the budget request. The Committee direction halts the 
construction activity at the CMRR facility. Proceeding with the 
CMRR project as currently designed will strongly prejudice any 
nuclear complex transformation plan. The CMRR facility has no 
coherent mission to justify it unless the decision is made to 
begin an aggressive new nuclear warhead design and pit 
production mission at Los Alamos National Laboratory. The NNSA 
is directed to develop a long-term plan to maintain the 
nation's nuclear stockpile requirements that does not assume an 
a priori case for the current program. Production capabilities 
proposed in the CMRR should be located at the future production 
sites identified in a detailed complex transformation plan that 
supports the long-term stockpile requirements. The Committee is 
concerned the NNSA is proceeding with large expenditures for 
this project while there are significant unresolved issues, and 
recommends the fiscal year 2007 funding be held in reserve. 
Although the NNSA claims the Nuclear Facility Phase 3 of the 
project is under review, the Committee notes the Laboratory 
excavated 90,000 cubic yards of soil at the construction site 
where the CMRR Phase 3 Nuclear Facility is proposed to be 
built. The Committee also notes the Department's CMRR 
acquisition strategy combines Critical Decision 2 (approval of 
performance baseline) and Critical Decision 3 (approval to 
start construction) under DOE Order 413.3A on project 
management. The Committee does not support construction 
projects that fail to strictly adhere to DOE Order 413.3 
requirements by abbreviating the process.
    Project 04-D-128, TA-18 mission relocation project, Los 
Alamos National Laboratory.--The Committee recommends 
$14,455,000, a decrease of $15,000,000 from the budget request. 
The Department of Energy's Inspector General conducted an audit 
on the NNSA's ability to maintain capability of the TA-18 
mission to conduct nuclear criticality experiments during the 
transfer of the special nuclear materials from the TA-18 
facility at Los Alamos National Laboratory to the Device 
Assembly Facility (DAF) at the Nevada Test Site. Although the 
NNSA goal was to restore interim criticality operations as 
early as 2005, the current NNSA plan delays transfer and 
reestablishment of capability at DAF until 2010 at the 
earliest. The Department recognized the security requirement to 
remove the SNM from TA-18 in 1999; however, according to the 
DOE IG, it will now take over a decade for the NNSA to complete 
the relocation of the criticality experiments mission. While 
the Committee is disappointed at the failure of the NNSA and 
Los Alamos National Laboratory to complete the SNM 
consolidation activity, the funding reduction reflects the 
schedule slip and reallocation of funding for higher 
priorities.

             FACILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE RECAPITALIZATION

    The Committee recommendation for Facilities and 
Infrastructure Recapitalization Program (FIRP) is $137,720,000, 
a reduction of $156,023,000 from the budget request. The FIRP 
program was begun in fiscal year 2002 to work off the deferred 
maintenance requirements that were allowed to build up at all 
the nuclear weapons complex sites. The complex transformation 
plans will have a direct impact on the facilities required for 
future program activities. The Committee directs the NNSA to 
reassess its out-year planning for FIRP projects to coordinate 
the final years of FIRP activities to be consistent with the 
long-term facilities planning process of the weapons complex 
transformation.
    The Committee directs not less than $25,000,000 of the 
facilities and infrastructure funding in fiscal year 2008 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 recommendation provides $62,720,000 for FIRP 
construction projects, 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 $215,646,000, 
the same as the budget request.

                   NUCLEAR WEAPONS INCIDENT RESPONSE

    The Nuclear Weapons Incident Response (NWIR) program 
responds to and mitigates nuclear and radiological incidents 
worldwide. The Committee recommendation for nuclear weapons 
incident response is $161,748,000, the same as the budget 
request.

                 ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS AND OPERATIONS

    The Committee provides no funding for Environmental 
Projects and Operations activities, consistent with the NNSA 
fiscal year 2007 operating plan.

                        SAFEGUARDS AND SECURITY

    This program provides for all safeguards and security 
requirements for the NNSA. The Committee recommendation is 
$911,561,000, an increase of $30,504,000 over the budget 
request. Of the total S&S funding, $112,243,000 is for Cyber 
Security activities, an increase of $10,000,000 over the budget 
request. The Committee increase includes $14,000,000 for the Y-
12 National Security Complex, of which $4,000,000 is for cyber 
security requirements, to accelerate security infrastructure 
upgrades required to consolidate the facility footprint, and an 
additional $16,000,000 for the Lawrence Livermore National 
Laboratory to address superblock security and cyber security 
upgrades. The Committee provides $50,000,000 for a material 
consolidation and upgrade construction project at the Idaho 
National Laboratory.
    The Committee is concerned about career-threatening 
retaliatory acts against contractor personnel at DOE sites that 
identify and report security vulnerabilities. The Committee 
takes a dim view of any management reaction that appears to be 
more about protecting their reputation and avoiding bad press 
reports than addressing potential security vulnerabilities 
within their institutions.
    Safeguards and Security Construction Projects.--Project 08-
D-701, Nuclear materials S&S upgrade project, Los Alamos 
National Laboratory.--The Committee recommendation provides no 
funds for Nuclear materials S&S upgrade project, a decrease of 
$49,496,000 from the budget request. The current plan to spend 
$250,000,000 to upgrade the security posture at the TA-55 
facility and the proposed Chemistry and Metallurgy Research 
Facility Replacement (CMRR) is based on the assumption that the 
CMRR facility is going to proceed on schedule. The Committee 
has strong reservations about the requirements for the CMRR 
facility as currently configured. Production capabilities 
proposed in the CMRR should be located at the future production 
sites identified in a detailed complex transformation plan that 
supports the long term stockpile requirements.
    Building 651 and Building 691 refurbishment, Idaho National 
Laboratory.--The Committee directs the start of a construction 
project at the Idaho National Laboratory retrofitting Building 
651 and completing Building 691 to handle special nuclear 
material consolidation and storage. The Committee provides 
$50,000,000 for the Material Security and Consolidation Project 
at Building 651 and 691, Idaho National Laboratory. The 
Committee understands that Building 651 requires minimal 
upgrades to provide secure storage space for special nuclear 
material inventories. Building 691 requires more extensive 
planning for estimating total cost and schedule to complete 
upgrades for using the unfinished structure for SNM storage and 
other future radiological handling activities. The Committee 
directs the $4,900,000 provided to the Office of Security and 
Performance Assurance for planning the material consolidation 
construction activity in the fiscal year 2006 Conference report 
be transferred to the NNSA Office of Safeguards and Security 
for planning, engineering and design activities.

                          FUNDING ADJUSTMENTS

    The Committee directs the use of $55,000,000 of prior year 
balances of funds made available from cancelled construction 
projects. The budget request included an offset of $33,000,000 
for the safeguards and security charge for reimbursable work.

                    Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation





Appropriation, 2007...................................  \1\$1,683,339,00
                                                                       0
Budget estimate, 2008.................................     1,672,646,000
Recommended, 2008.....................................     1,683,646,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2007...............................          +307,000
    Budget estimate, 2008.............................      +11,000,000

\1\Excludes emergency appropriations of $135,000,000.

    The Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation account includes 
funding for Nonproliferation and Verification Research and 
Development; Nonproliferation and International Security 
(Global Initiatives for Proliferation Prevention and Highly 
Enriched Uranium Transparency Implementation programs are 
funded within the Nonproliferation and International Security 
activities); Nonproliferation Programs with Russia including 
International Materials Protection, Control, and Cooperation, 
Elimination of Weapons-Grade Plutonium Production; Fissile 
Materials Disposition; and the Global Threat Reduction 
Initiative. The Committee recommendation for fiscal year 2008 
includes a new initiative; the International Nuclear Fuel Bank.
    The Committee's recommendation for Defense Nuclear 
Nonproliferation is $1,683,646,000 an increase of $11,000,000 
above the budget request of $1,672,646,000 and approximately 
the same as the new budget authority provided in fiscal year 
2007. The Committee provides funding direction for a total 
program level for Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation activities 
in fiscal year 2008 of $2,070,646,000, a $398,000,000 increase 
over the fiscal year 2008 budget request. The Committee directs 
the use of $387,000,000 of prior year balances in fiscal year 
2008 to accelerate high priority nuclear nonproliferation 
activities.
    Global coordination.--The Committee views NNSA's nuclear 
nonproliferation mission as a critical, global effort that must 
be choreographed amongst various military, intelligence, 
customs, and law enforcement entities in order to be effective. 
The Committee expects NNSA to lead this effort through 
strategic investment planning across all foreign and domestic 
stakeholders as well as the expansion of cooperative border 
detection opportunities around the world. To further this 
mission, the Committee provides a robust increase in available 
funding for Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation, as detailed later 
in this report. The Committee directs NNSA to expand and 
intensify the use of intelligence and the coordination of law 
enforcement and customs resources throughout Asia and, in 
particular, Russia and the former Soviet states, to further 
constrict avenues for illicit transport of nuclear and 
radiological material. This effort should include an 
appropriate allocation of resources to proactive, intelligence-
driven security operations as well as the strengthening of the 
current and planned global nuclear detection architecture.
    International Nuclear Fuel Bank.--The Committee 
recommendation provides $100,000,000, under Defense Nuclear 
Nonproliferation as the United States Government's contribution 
to the implementation of an International Nuclear Fuel Bank 
that establishes a nuclear fuel supply for peaceful means under 
the auspices of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). 
The International Nuclear Fuel Bank would provide a nuclear 
fuel stockpile to be available as a fuel supply reserve for 
nations that have made the sovereign choice to develop their 
civilian nuclear energy industry based on foreign sources of 
nuclear fuel and therefore have no requirement to develop an 
indigenous nuclear fuel enrichment capability.
    The initiative will ensure that fuel supplies from the 
international market are secure by offering customer states 
that are in full compliance with their nonproliferation 
obligations reliable access to a nuclear fuel reserve under 
impartial IAEA control should their traditional international 
market supply arrangements be disrupted. None of the funds made 
available for the International Nuclear Fuel Bank are available 
for obligation until the Secretary of Energy submits a report 
to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations certifying 
the objectives and the conditions of use for the IAEA nuclear 
fuel reserve program achieves the congressional intent for the 
International Nuclear Fuel Bank and additional funds in a total 
amount of not less than $50,000,000 have been pledged for the 
purposes of this initiative by the other member states to the 
International Atomic Energy Agency. Not later than 180 days 
after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of 
Energy shall transmit to the House and Senate Committees on 
Appropriations and the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the 
House of Representatives and the Committee on Foreign Relations 
of the Senate a report on the progress of the United States to 
support the establishment of a nuclear fuel supply for peaceful 
means under the auspices of the International Atomic Energy 
Agency.

       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 provides $484,313,000 for Nonproliferation 
and Verification research and development, an increase of 
$219,061,000 over the budget request. The Committee 
recommendation includes $267,107,000 for proliferation 
detection, an increase of $120,000,000 over the budget request. 
The Committee's recommendation reflects the urgent need to 
develop advanced proliferation detection technology and nuclear 
explosion monitoring capability. The Committee's concerns are 
based not only on the nuclear weapons test by North Korea and 
the well known nuclear ambitions of Iran, but also the 
clandestine and unknown nuclear ambitions of other states and 
non-state or terrorist and international criminal 
organizations. The Nonproliferation R&D program is the 
principal U.S. government activity focusing on long-term, next 
generation radiation detection capabilities that are specific 
for nonproliferation and counter proliferation applications 
expected to be fielded within 3-10 years. The Committee notes 
that, across all agencies, the Federal government collectively 
invests less than $100 million on this type of advanced, 
breakthrough research and development on nuclear detection 
capabilities. The Committee views such minimal investment for 
developing important capabilities such as stand off nuclear 
detection as a serious security issue. The Committee 
recommendation provides an additional $120,000,000 to 
aggressively expand critical research and development in high-
risk, high return cutting edge nuclear detection areas.
    The Committee recommendation for nuclear explosion 
monitoring is $173,750,000, an increase of $61,100,000 over the 
budget request; and $5,495,000 for supporting activities. The 
Committee increase for nuclear explosion monitoring is directed 
at expanding nuclear explosion monitoring for very low yield 
nuclear testing around the world. The Committee notes the 
Nonproliferation R&D program is the sole science-based provider 
for the U.S. national nuclear test monitoring system.
    The Committee provides $37,961,000 for Project 06-D-180, 
National Security Laboratory at the Pacific Northwest National 
Laboratory (PNNL), an increase of $37,961,000 over the budget 
request. The Committee is exasperated by the continued failure 
to make meaningful progress within the Department on building 
the facilities necessary 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 is concerned at the possibility of an 
interruption in critical capabilities maintained in the 300 
area attributable to the Department's apparent lack of interest 
in this project. The Committee recommendation accelerates the 
NNSA fiscal year 2009 funding share based on the project 
baseline in the budget request.
    The Committee recommendation includes an increase of 
$25,000,000 for ground-based systems treaty monitoring 
activities. The additional funds should be allocated through a 
competitive process 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, and the public 
or private entity performing the research and development, and 
the proposed user and submit this with the fiscal year 2009 
budget request.

              NONPROLIFERATION AND INTERNATIONAL SECURITY

    The Committee recommendation provides $144,870,000 for 
Nonproliferation and International Security, an increase of 
$20,000,000 above the budget request. The Committee provides an 
additional $20,000,000 for the Dismantlement and Transparency 
subprogram, and an additional $10,000,000 for the Global 
Security Engagement and Cooperation subprogram to restore 
funding for the Nuclear Cities Initiative eliminated in the 
budget request.
    The Committee recommendation supports none of the proposed 
$10,000,000 for the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) 
activities within the Office of Nonproliferation and 
International Security. The Committee finds the nuclear 
nonproliferation arguments proposed by the Department 
describing the GNEP reprocessing initiative advocating 
separating weapons grade special nuclear materials as a 
nonproliferation initiative unpersuasive and largely 
contradictory.

       INTERNATIONAL NUCLEAR MATERIALS PROTECTION AND COOPERATION

    The International Nuclear Materials Protection and 
Cooperation (MPC&A) program is designed to work cooperatively 
with Russia and the border states of the former Soviet Union to 
secure weapons and weapons-usable nuclear material. The focus 
is to improve the physical security at facilities that possess 
or process significant quantities of nuclear weapons-usable 
materials that are of proliferation concern. Programmatic 
activities include installing monitoring equipment, 
inventorying nuclear material, improving the Russian security 
culture, and establishing a security infrastructure.
    The Committee provides $831,771,000 for MPC&A activities, 
an increase of $359,041,000 over the Department's FY 2007 
operating plan and $460,000,000 over the budget request. The 
Committee's increase is in recognition that the MPC&A 
activities securing nuclear material in Russia and at other 
vulnerable locations is the front line in the global war on 
terror protecting the U.S. against a terrorist using a nuclear 
device on U.S. soil. The devastating consequences domestically 
and internationally of such an act are difficult to quantify or 
imagine; however, the large inventories of special nuclear 
material in vulnerable locations worldwide and the well-known 
hostile intent of terrorist movements to inflict the maximum 
devastation to U.S. interests make this threat very real. 
Although past financial commitments by the Committee to address 
the terrorist threat of a nuclear detonation in a U.S. city 
were significant, the urgency increases with each year as large 
inventories of nuclear material continue to exist in unsecured 
international locations. The increased financial commitment in 
the Committee recommendation is clear congressional direction 
to the Administration to shift the nuclear nonproliferation 
issues beyond marginally supported security programs to one 
accorded the highest priority in the war on world wide terror.
    The Committee's increase to the MPC&A program recognizes 
the expanded opportunities for high priority work at Rosatom 
and 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. The Committee recommendation includes 
$127,114,000 for the Rosatom Weapons Complex, an increase of 
$67,000,000 over the budget request. The additional funds are 
provided to conduct expanded training programs for Russian 
nuclear facility security forces, force-on-force exercises, and 
to upgrade facility perimeter detection. The Committee provides 
an additional $85,000,000 for Material, Consolidation and 
Conversion, Civilian Nuclear sites and other National Programs 
and Sustainability subprograms. The additional funds are 
provided for new security upgrades focused on insider threats 
to secure materials against theft or unauthorized diversion. 
The Committee supports additional sustainability activities to 
implement rigorous regulation, inspections protocols, and 
training programs at the nuclear facilities. The Committee 
supports these activities to institutionalize a ``best 
practices'' security culture and U.S.-Russian long-term 
coordination in program collaboration to ensure sustainability 
of security improvements funded through cooperative security 
programs. The Committee provides an additional $15,000,000 for 
expanded activities within the Strategic Rocket Force 
subprogram to secure nuclear warhead storage and transfer 
locations in Russia.
    The recommendation provides $412,331,000 for the Second 
Line of Defense program, an increase of $293,000,000 over the 
budget request. The Committee recommendation provides an 
additional $125,000,000 for the core Second Line of Defense 
(SLD) program to accelerate installation activities in the 
Baltic and Caucasus regions and other critical border 
activities. The Committee is aware that nearly 200 priority 
border crossings in twelve countries remain to be secured with 
nuclear detection capability. The Committee directs the 
Department to expand the SLD activities to take advantage of 
mobile detection capabilities and coordination with law 
enforcement and custom agencies in countries of interest. In 
addition, the Committee directs targeted SLD activities to 
protect against the diversion of nuclear material from North 
Korea. The Committee supports coordinating activities with the 
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to develop a security 
``best practices'' organization for addressing security 
deficiencies at nuclear material storage and operational 
facilities world wide.
    The Committee provides $214,797,000 for the Second Line of 
Defense megaports initiative, a $168,000,000 increase over the 
budget request. The additional funding for megaports activities 
will address port security activities in twelve countries with 
either signed implementation agreements or agreements 
anticipated in fiscal year 2007 that are not funded in the 
fiscal year 2008 budget request to complete deployment of 
radiation detection equipment for scanning U.S.-bound cargo 
containers at high-risk foreign seaports.
    MegaAirports.--The Committee recommendation provides 
$20,000,000 within the megaports activities to expand Second 
Line of Defense nuclear detection activities to include 
selected high-risk major international airports. The Committee 
is aware the Second Line of Defense program has installed 
detection equipment at a limited number of airports in 
sensitive locations. The Committee believes the policy 
rationale supports rapid expansion of the MegaPorts activity 
for nuclear detection scanning for air cargo bound for the 
U.S., particularly factoring in the much shorter time frames 
with air transport.

           ELIMINATION OF WEAPONS-GRADE PLUTONIUM PRODUCTION

    The Committee recommendation for the Elimination of 
Weapons-Grade Plutonium Production Program (EWGPP) is 
$191,593,000, a $10,000,000 increase to the budget request. The 
Committee provides the additional funding to accelerate work on 
the backup boilers to achieve early reactor shutdown and cost 
savings at the Zheleznogorsk reactor. 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 service 
life and could generate an additional 25 metric tons of 
weapons-grade plutonium. They also provide heat and electricity 
required for the surrounding communities. The program approach 
is to shutdown these three reactors within five years by 
providing two alternative fossil-fueled energy plants to supply 
heat and electricity to the surrounding communities.

                     FISSILE MATERIALS DISPOSITION

    The Committee recommendation provides $66,843,000 for U.S. 
uranium disposition activities, the same as the budget request.
    The Committee recommendation funds the activities for the 
Mixed Oxide (MOX) Fuel Fabrication Facility construction 
project and the Pit Disassembly and Conversion Facility (PDCF) 
activity, previously funded under Fissile Materials 
Disposition, in the Office of Nuclear Energy and the NNSA 
Office of Defense Programs, respectively. The fissile materials 
disposition program was originally created to execute the 
September 2000 agreement between the United States and Russia 
on plutonium management and disposition. Under that agreement, 
the United States and Russia each committed to dispose of 34 
metric tons of surplus weapons-grade plutonium.
    However, to date Congress has appropriated $1.7 billion for 
the domestic MOX program facilities without any nuclear 
nonproliferation benefit accrued to the U.S. taxpayer. The 
Committee points to the continued delays in this activity, 
including the Administration's year-long delay in 2001 
reviewing the disposition activity, the lengthy impasse with 
the Russian Government over liability protection for U.S. 
contractors working in Russia, and the current program 
redirection by the Russian Government in 2006, abandoning the 
MOX-light water reactor disposition path for surplus Russian 
plutonium unless the U.S. and international community bear the 
full cost of such disposition. Instead, the Russian Government 
announced a new approach, with limited disposition in an 
existing BN-600 fast breeder reactor and the bulk of 
disposition to be accomplished in the yet-to-be-built BN-800 
fast reactor. The Russian action resulted in the U.S. 
Government delinking the requirements under the Agreement, 
thereby marginalizing the original nuclear nonproliferation 
goals of the program. The Committee notes the Administration's 
decision to terminate U.S. support in the budget request for 
the Russian Surplus Fissile Materials Disposition activities 
under the Agreement as a sensible acknowledgement of the 
failure of the bilateral process under the Agreement.
    Given these changes in the United States and Russia, the 
Committee sees no further reason to proceed with the U.S. MOX 
program as a nonproliferation activity. The plutonium 
disposition program, as it relates to domestic priorities, is 
primarily a fuel fabrication facility construction project for 
domestic nuclear energy goals. However, the Committee 
recommendation reflects the redirection of plutonium 
disposition activities within the United States in light of 
continued Russian inaction and the domestic choices on GNEP and 
the future of nuclear energy in the U.S.
    The Committee action recognizes that continued funding of 
the MOX and PDCF construction activities within the ``Defense 
Nuclear Nonproliferation'' appropriation in a flat out year 
budget environment will result in the quick erosion of funding 
available for true nuclear nonproliferation activities that 
protect against direct and potentially immediate terrorist 
nuclear threats. The Committee cannot, and will not, support 
such a misguided prioritization of resources.

                   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 provides $251,256,000 
for GTRI activities, an increase of $131,630,000 over the 
budget request. The Committee provides an additional 
$20,000,000 for the Reduced Enrichment for Research and Test 
Reactors to accelerate the reactor conversion from highly 
enriched uranium (HEU) fuel to low enriched uranium (LEU) fuel, 
$7,000,000 for Russian Research Reactor Fuel Return, 
$10,000,000 in Emerging Threats and Gap Materials for recovery 
of U.S.-origin orphaned material overseas, and $94,630,000 in 
the International Radiological Threat Reduction program to 
accelerate the significant inventory of nuclear materials in 
vulnerable, unsecured or poorly guarded international 
locations. The Committee is aware that delaying the recovery 
schedule to secure these materials increases the risk for theft 
and diversion of the material for use as an improvised nuclear 
device (IND) or a radiological dispersal device (RDD). The 
Committee recommendation includes $31,722,000 for the 
Kazakhstan Spent Fuel Disposition initiative, the same as the 
budget request. None of the funds provided for this activity in 
fiscal year 2008, or previous fiscal years, may be obligated 
for transportation equipment or activities without written 
notification to the House and Senate Appropriations Committees.

                          FUNDING ADJUSTMENTS

    The Committee recommendation for funding adjustments in 
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation includes the use of 
$387,000,000 of prior year balances. The sources of the prior 
year balances are $57,000,000 from the Russian Surplus 
Materials Disposition program, $230,000,000 from unobligated, 
uncosted balance within the Mixed oxide fuel fabrication 
facility construction line, and $100,000,000 from the remaining 
$151,000,000 of unexpended balances from the Russian material 
disposition funding provided in the fiscal year 1999 emergency 
supplemental (P.L. 105-277).

                             Naval Reactors





Appropriation, 2007...................................      $781,800,000
Budget estimate, 2008.................................       808,219,000
Recommended, 2008.....................................       808,219,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2007...............................       +26,419,000
    Budget estimate, 2008.............................             - - -


    The Naval Reactors program is responsible for all aspects 
of naval nuclear propulsion from technology development through 
reactor operations to ultimate reactor plant disposal. The 
program provides for the design, development, testing, and 
evaluation of improved naval nuclear propulsion plants and 
reactor cores. These efforts are critical to ensuring the 
safety and reliability of 102 operating Naval reactor plants 
and to developing the next generation reactor. The Committee 
recommendation provides $808,219,000, the same as the request, 
for Naval Reactors activities.

                      Office of the Administrator





Appropriation, 2007...................................      $340,291,000
Budget estimate, 2008.................................       394,656,000
Recommended, 2008.....................................       415,879,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2007...............................       +75,588,000
    Budget estimate, 2008.............................       +21,223,000


    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 $415,879,000, an increase of $21,223,000 
above the budget request. The Committee recommendation provides 
$31,000,000 as the NNSA contribution to the Department's 
support for the Historically Black Colleges and Universities 
(HBCUs).
    Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation.--The Committee provides 
$75,000,000 for program direction support for Federal employees 
in the Office of Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation. The 
Committee provides an additional $15,000,000 program direction 
funding and directs the NNSA to increase the Federal personnel 
workforce to oversee the additional nuclear nonproliferation 
activities proposed in the Committee's fiscal year 2008 
recommendation. The Committee directs the ``Office of the 
Administrator'' funding for Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation be 
identified and executed separately from other ``Office of the 
Administrator'' funding categories. The Committee identifies 
the nuclear nonproliferation funding to allow greater 
management flexibility and more effective Federal oversight 
when implementing NNSA activities to address international 
nuclear proliferation threats. None of these funds may be taxed 
by the NNSA for any purpose without prior notification and 
approval by the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations.
    The Committee recommendation provides $12,000, the same as 
the budget request, for official reception and representation 
expenses for the NNSA.
    Support to Minority Colleges and Universities.--The 
Committee appreciates the serious effort of the NNSA 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 
providing $31,000,000 of additional funding to expand the 
support to the HBCUs' scientific and technical programs in 
fiscal year 2008. The Committee expects the Department to 
ensure the Dr. Samuel P. Massie Chairs of Excellence are fully 
supported within the HBCU program. The Committee expects the 
Department to provide financial support in rough parity to both 
HBCUs and the Hispanic Serving Institutions (HSI).

                    Defense Environmental Management

    The Defense Environmental Management (EM) program is 
responsible for identifying and reducing risks and managing 
waste at sites where the Department carried out defense-related 
nuclear research and production activities that resulted in 
radioactive, hazardous, and mixed waste contamination requiring 
remediation, stabilization, or some other cleanup action.
    Workforce and Technology Development Investments.--The 
Committee views that the oversight of contractor performance by 
the federal workforce is critical to ensure that taxpayers are 
getting good value for their money. The Committee is providing 
resources to improve this oversight, such as increasing the 
federal staff by 120 positions in the areas of contract 
management and project management. These resource 
recommendations are consistent with the preliminary 
recommendations of the National Academy of Public 
Administration's review of the EM program, which will be 
complete in the fall of 2007. The Committee also provides a 
significant increase to the Technology Development program, to 
improve the technical approaches to waste treatment, and 
produce cost-savings in the long run. The National Academy of 
Sciences (NAS) is currently working with EM on a technology 
roadmap, and the Committee endorses EM's effort to engage the 
NAS.
    Project management.--The Committee is pleased with the 
Assistant Secretary's emphasis on project management and his 
follow-through to this commitment by seeing that managers are 
trained and certified in project management. The Committee re-
emphasizes the Government Accountability Office's (GAO) 
findings that DOE must ``ensure that project management 
guidelines are consistently followed . . . and that exceptions 
to follow the guidelines are allowed only after senior 
management review''. The Committee also notes that while 
earned-value reports are an information tool, they are not a 
substitute for regular project baseline and technical reviews. 
The Committee directs that the Department incorporate the GAO's 
technology readiness recommendations into the management of all 
EM projects.
    Unfunded Environmental Liabilities.--The Committee is aware 
that the Environmental Management program has responsibility 
for facility decontamination and decommissioning for legacy 
buildings across the complex. The Committee needs to be aware 
of environmental liabilities that the EM program will assume in 
the future, and directs the Department to prepare a report on 
the scope of this liability, the facilities and sites to be 
considered, life-cycle cost estimates of work to be performed, 
and the schedule as to when the work will begin and end. The 
report is due to the Committee by June 30, 2008.
    Hanford Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant (WTP).--In 
the fall of 2005, the total cost of WTP was estimated at $9.3 
billion with start-up being delayed to 2015. On April 6, 2006, 
the Government Accountability Office (GAO) testified before the 
Committee that the cost of the Hanford waste treatment plant 
was nearly $11 billion, and the completion schedule extended to 
at least 2017. The fiscal year 2008 budget request now 
indicates the total project cost for the WTP is 
$12,263,000,000, with a completion date of November, 2019. The 
project has had extensive reviews for the past two years, and 
the Committee expects that the project is on track in resolving 
technical issues, and sequencing work so that construction 
begins when designs are mature, and that facilities are not 
sitting idle waiting for waste to be processed. The Committee 
also expects that the latest project cost for WTP has taken 
into account all the ``findings'' of the reviews, and cost 
growth is now under control.
    However, the Committee remains concerned that the necessary 
management improvements on the project are not fully realized. 
There are two senior federal manager positions at the Hanford 
site that are vacant, including the one for WTP. Providing a 
strong management team at the federal level is critical, 
particularly as an Administration transition begins in 18 
months. The Committee notes there was a dearth of executive 
leadership in calendar year 2000, which contributed to the 
shoddy contract transfer for WTP, and may be a contributing 
factor as to why the total project cost is now $12.2 billion. 
The federal coffers cannot afford another lapse in management 
oversight at WTP.
    The Committee has learned of preliminary findings of a 
review of the DOE's internal controls for accounting and 
monitoring contractor costs for WTP. The findings indicate 
there is little review of contractor invoices or supporting 
documents, with a reliance on periodic reviews by outside 
auditors, rather than ongoing oversight of WTP-specific costs. 
There also appears to be little oversight of contractor-
accountability for government-owned property, and lack of 
adequate procedures and policies for maintaining property 
accountability. The Committee will not comment on the findings 
while they still are preliminary, but emphasizes it is a 
critical function of the federal workforce to ensure payments 
to contractors are tracked, verified and appropriately 
reported, and government-owned assets are accounted for. The 
Committee expects an immediate action plan from the Department 
should the preliminary findings become final.
    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 2008, the Department may 
transfer up to $5,000,000 within accounts, and between 
accounts, 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 in 
total during the fiscal year. This reprogramming authority may 
not be used to initiate new programs or to change funding for 
programs specifically denied, limited, or increased by Congress 
in the Act or report. The Committees on Appropriations in the 
House and Senate must be notified within thirty days of the use 
of this reprogramming authority.
    Account Control Points:

          Closure Sites
          Savannah River site, nuclear material stabilization 
        and disposition
          Savannah River site, 2012 accelerations
          Savannah River site, 2035 accelerations
          Savannah River Tank Farm
          Waste Isolation Pilot Plant
          Idaho National Laboratory
          Oak Ridge Reservation
          Hanford site 2012 accelerated completions
          Hanford site 2035 accelerated completions
          Office of River Protection (ORP) Waste Treatment & 
        Immobilization (WTP) Pretreatment facility:
          ORP WTP High-level waste facility
          ORP WTP Low activity waste facility
          ORP WTP Analytical laboratory
          ORP WTP Balance of facilities
          Program Direction
          Program Support
          UE D&D Fund contribution
          Technology Development
          Legacy Management
          Office of Material Consolidation

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

                     Defense Environmental Cleanup





Appropriation, 2007...................................    $5,731,839,000
Budget estimate, 2008.................................     5,363,905,000
Recommended, 2008.....................................     5,766,561,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2007...............................       +34,722,000
    Budget estimate, 2008.............................      +402,656,000


    The Committee's recommendation for Defense Environmental 
Cleanup totals $5,766,561,000, an increase of $402,656,000 over 
the budget request of $5,363,905,000. Within the amounts 
provided, the Department is directed to fund hazardous waste 
worker training at $10,000,000.
    Closure Sites.--The Committee recommendation provides 
$42,437,000, the same as the budget request. The recommendation 
provides $11,834,000 for Closure Sites Administration, 
$30,308,000 for Miamisburg, Ohio, and $295,000 for Ashtabula, 
Ohio.
    Savannah River Site.--The Committee recommendation provides 
$1,160,463,000 for cleanup at the Savannah River Site, a 
decrease of $45,627,000 below the budget request. The Committee 
provides $31,000,000 for container surveillance, $12,500,000 
for community and regulatory support, and $31,133,000 for spent 
nuclear fuel stabilization and disposition, the same as the 
budget request. The Committee provides several increases for 
environmental cleanup activities at the site: the Committee 
provides $80,000,000 for solid waste stabilization and 
disposition, an increase of $18,472,000 over the budget request 
for the acceleration of transuranic waste disposal; $90,000,000 
for soil and water remediation, an increase of $14,809,000 over 
the budget request for increased groundwater corrective 
actions; and, $24,000,000 for nuclear facility decontamination 
and decommissioning (D&D), an increase of $21,092,000 over the 
budget request, for deferred D&D workscope. The Committee 
provides $665,019,000 for tank farm activities, the same as the 
budget request.
    The Committee was not sufficiently informed of the 
Department's decision to utilize H-canyon for a 10-year 
campaign, despite several meetings with a senior EM official 
who was coordinating the Department's material consolidation 
efforts. The Committee received DOE planning documents from the 
Government Accountability Office that brought these decisions 
to the Committee's attention. The Committee was struck by the 
lack of rigorous options analysis contained in these documents, 
and in particular, the disregard for addressing the proper 
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) implications. The 
Committee is very concerned about the lack of data supporting 
the decision to operate the canyon another decade, including 
costs of operations, canyon upgrades, assessment of plausible 
alternatives, and waste generation impacts on the tank farms. 
The Committee provides $226,811,000 for nuclear material 
stabilization and disposition, a reduction of $85,000,000 for H 
canyon/HB line operations and surveillance and maintenance. The 
fiscal year 2008 budget request for this activity was 
predicated on full operations of H-canyon in a high state of 
readiness. The Committee transfers $30,270,000 of the 
$85,000,000 reduction, to the new Office of Material 
Consolidation, located at Headquarters, to be held in reserve 
until a rigorous options analysis for the excess materials 
consolidation has been performed, taking into account all DOE 
sites interested in a materials consolidation mission, and 
presented to the Committees on Appropriations to their 
satisfaction. The Committee provides no funding for plutonium 
vitrification at Savannah River Site, a reduction of 
$15,000,000 from the budget request. The Committee transfers 
these funds to the new Office of Materials Consolidation at 
Headquarters, to be held in reserve until the aforementioned 
analysis has been presented to Committee.
    Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP).--The Committee 
recommendation provides $219,739,000 for the Waste Isolation 
Pilot Project, the same as the budget request.
    Idaho National Laboratory.--The Committee recommendation 
provides $600,815,000, an increase of $96,789,000 for cleanup 
activities at the Idaho National Laboratory. The Committee 
provides an increase of $39,377,000 for solid waste 
stabilization and disposition to operate the Advanced Mixed 
Waste Treatment Plant at capacity, and complete remote-handled 
transuranic shipments to the WIPP by the end of fiscal year 
2008. The Committee provides an increase of $57,412,000 for 
nuclear facility deactivation and decommissioning, to 
accelerate the deactivation of the Materials Testing Reactor 
facility, the Fuel Reprocessing Complex, and complete close-out 
of the Engineering Test Reactor Demolition and the TAN-607 Hot 
Shop demolition.
    Oak Ridge Reservation.--The Committee recommendation 
provides $235,284,000, an increase of $56,000,000 over the 
budget request. The recommendation includes $50,000,000 for the 
disposition of material in building 3019, an increase of 
$30,000,000 over the budget request. The Committee continues to 
view building 3019 as a high priority, and the Committee 
provides the increased funds to begin the disposition of the 
material in fiscal year 2008. The recommendation includes 
$61,446,000 for nuclear facility decontamination and 
decommissioning at Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), an 
increase of $10,000,000 for the acceleration of cleanup 
activities at the ORNL Central Campus to meet enforceable 
regulatory milestones. The Committee provides $29,855,000 for 
nuclear facility decontamination and decommissioning at Y-12, 
an increase of $10,000,000 over the budget request, to meet 
enforceable regulatory milestones to remediate the Y-12 scrap 
yard and Bear Creek burial ground. The Committee provides 
$12,379,000 for soil and water remediation at offsite 
locations, an increase of $6,000,000 to accelerate the 
completion of the David Witherspoon sites.
    Hanford Site.--The Committee recommendation provides 
$949,980,000 for the Hanford Site, an increase of $72,900,000 
over the budget request, and $114,664,000 over fiscal year 2007 
enacted levels. The Committee recommendation provides 
$7,500,000 for the Volpentest Hazardous Materials Management 
and Emergency Response (HAMMER) training and education center, 
not included in the budget request. The Committee provides 
$98,002,000 for nuclear material stabilization and disposition 
at the Plutonium Finishing Plant, and $99,815,000 for spent 
nuclear fuel stabilization and disposition, the same as the 
budget request.
    The Committee is very concerned that sufficient resources 
have not been requested to accommodate existing Tri-Party 
Agreement milestones. As such, the Committee recommendation 
provides $238,221,000 for river corridor nuclear facility 
decontamination and decommissioning, an increase of $23,000,000 
over the budget request for additional soil and groundwater 
remediation along the Columbia River corridor to meet 
compliance milestones. The Committee provides $259,788,000 for 
solid waste stabilization and disposition, an increase of 
$23,000,00 over the budget request for additional transuranic 
waste retrieval and mixed-low level and low level waste 
disposal to meet compliance milestones. The Committee 
recommendation also provides $118,153,000, for Hanford nuclear 
facility decontamination and decommissioning, an increase of 
$19,400,000 over the budget request, for soil remediation in 
the Central Plateau, and a PUREX remedial investigation/
feasibility study to meet compliance milestones.
    The Committee recommendation provides $3,329,000 to operate 
the waste disposal facility, and $19,620,000 for Richland 
community and regulatory support, the same as the budget 
request. The Committee is pleased to see and supports the 
budget request of $105,552,000 for soil and water remediation, 
which is an increase of $18,238,000 over fiscal year 2007 
levels for Columbia River cleanup technologies, a Committee 
priority.
    Office of River Protection.--The Committee recommendation 
provides $863,443,000 for the Office of River Protection, a 
decrease of $100,000,000 below the request. During fiscal years 
2005 and 2006, DOE slowed construction on the pretreatment and 
high-level waste facilities to address technical and management 
problems. This slowdown is expected to continue through at 
least half of fiscal year 2007, and possibly through 2008, 
resulting in uncommitted carryover from fiscal year 2007 that 
will be available to offset a portion of the fiscal 2008 
funding request. Based on this slowdown of work pending 
technical and managerial resolution, the GAO estimates that 
approximately $100,000,000 in uncosted balances would be 
available to offset the fiscal year 2008 appropriation. As 
such, the Committee has provided $590,000,000 for the Waste 
Treatment Plant, a decrease of $100,000,000 below the request 
of $690,000,000. The recommendation includes $212,000,000 for 
the pretreatment facility, a decrease of $41,000,000 below the 
budget request of $253,000,000; $118,000,000 for the high level 
waste vitrification facility, a decrease of $59,000,000 below 
the budget request of $177,000,000; $143,000,000 for the low 
activity waste facility, $45,000,000 for the analytical 
laboratory, and $72,000,000 for the balance of facilities, the 
same as the budget request. The Committee has provided language 
under the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) account to 
prepare a resource plan and regulatory framework should NRC 
become the regulator of the Waste Treatment Plant.
    The recommendation includes $272,972,000 for radioactive 
liquid tank waste stabilization and disposition, the same as 
the budget request. The recommendation provides $471,000, the 
same as the budget request, for community and regulatory 
support.
    Bulk vitrification.--The Committee requested the Government 
Accountability Office (GAO) review and report on the budget and 
life-cycle costs estimates for bulk vitrification, and the 
technical challenges and performance issues that have emerged 
so far on the demonstration of this technology. GAO reports 
that the extent which DOE continues to need a supplemental 
technology to treat a portion of the low-activity tank waste at 
Hanford is unclear, but DOE does not plan to reassess the need 
for the bulk vitrification project before completing the 
demonstration. In the four years since DOE selected the bulk 
vitrification technology for further development, conditions 
have changed. The original objectives DOE used to justify the 
project are no longer achievable. As a result, it is no longer 
clear when, or if, a supplemental technology will be needed. 
For example, DOE has estimated that the waste treatment plant 
operations may continue for 20 to 55 years, which may reduce 
the need for a supplemental technology as more of the low-
activity waste could be treated in waste treatment plant 
facilities. In addition, DOE does not have a strategy that 
shows how the project will be integrated with the Waste 
Treatment Plant to meet mission requirements while controlling 
costs. Although DOE's management guidance specifies that, when 
conditions have significantly changed, DOE should reassess the 
mission need of a project, DOE does not intend to conduct this 
reassessment because DOE officials said they want more 
information about the technology. Proceeding with the 
demonstration project before reaffirming the need for the 
project increases the risk that DOE will spend an additional 
$140 million or more to develop a technology that may not be 
needed. Therefore, the Committee directs the Department to 
reassess the need for the bulk vitrification project, as well 
as present a defined integrated strategy for low-level waste, 
and present this strategy to the House and Senate Committees on 
Appropriations. The Committee will revisit the need for bulk 
vitrification for low-level waste in conference negotiations.
    Program direction.--The Committee recommendation provides 
$341,760,000, an increase of $32,000,000 over the budget 
request for program direction. The increase reflects an 
increase of $11,000,000 due to the transfer of Legacy 
Management activities under the Environmental Management 
program. The recommendation also provides an increase of 
$21,000,000 to fund approximately 120 new full-time equivalent 
(FTE) positions, for contract management and project 
management. This increase, which bolsters the federal workforce 
contractor oversight function, implements a preliminary 
recommendation from the National Academy of Public 
Administration's ongoing management review of the EM program.
    Program support.--The Committee recommendation provides 
$35,146,000 for program support, an increase of $2,000,000 over 
the budget request, and a decrease $2,885,000 from FY 2007 
levels. The increase is for analytical work in support of the 
program's mission.
    Federal Contribution to Uranium Enrichment Decontamination 
and Decommissioning Fund.--The Energy Policy Act of 1992, 
(Public Law 102-486), created the Uranium Enrichment 
Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund to pay for the cost of 
cleanup of the gaseous diffusion facilities located in Oak 
Ridge, Tennessee; Paducah, Kentucky; and Portsmouth, Ohio. The 
Committee recommendation includes the budget request of 
$463,000,000 for the Federal contribution to the Uranium 
Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund as 
authorized in Public Law 102-486.
    Technology development and deployment.--The Committee 
recommendation provides $108,100,000, an increase of 
$86,711,000 over the budget request. The EM technology 
development program funding has declined over the years, while 
at the same time, many technological challenges continue to 
face the program. This lack of a technology R&D program 
exacerbates project management, because new or better cleanup 
approaches are not adopted, resulting in delays in projects, 
and increased overall project costs. The Committee supports an 
increased, expanded technology development program, and 
suggests the following overall areas for pursuit: tank wastes, 
soil and groundwater initiatives, and decontamination and 
decommissioning initiatives. The Committee's immediate 
priorities are the following: (1) evaluation of alternative 
supplemental treatment of low-activity waste at Hanford, using 
a systems-analysis approach; (2) increased waste loading in 
glass; and (3) improving methods to remove non-radioactive 
components from the sludge-heels in the high-level waste tanks. 
The Committee directs the Department to report back to the 
Committee on the EM technology development plan in these areas 
by January 31, 2008.
    NNSA Sites.--The Committee recommendation provides 
$271,130,000, the same as the budget request.
    Safeguards and security.--The Committee recommendation 
provides $278,381,000 an increase of $5,000,000 over the budget 
request for safeguards and security. The recommendation 
includes $5,000,000 for the Paducah site, an increase of 
$5,000,000 over the budget request of no funds.
    Legacy Management consolidation.--Beginning in fiscal year 
2008, the Committee has combined the Office of Legacy 
Management with the Environmental Management Program. The 
Committee believes that consolidating these activities in one 
organization will improve the communications and operations of 
both organizations. The Committee expects that the Office of 
Legacy Management will still operate as a separate office 
within the Environmental Management Program. The Committee 
provides $148,063,000, the same as the budget request, for 
legacy management activities.
    Material Consolidation Office.--Beginning in fiscal year 
2008, the Committee has provided $50,270,000 for a new Office 
of Material Consolidation. Of this amount, $15,000,000 was 
proposed in the budget request for plutonium vitrification 
activities at Savannah River, and $30,270,000 was proposed in 
the budget request for H-canyon operations at Savannah River. 
The Committee transfers these amounts to the Headquarters for 
material consolidation activities, to be held in reserve until 
a rigorous options analysis for the excess materials 
consolidation has been performed, taking into account all DOE 
sites interested in a materials consolidated mission, and 
presented to the Committees on Appropriations to their 
satisfaction. The Committee provides $5,000,000, not proposed 
in the budget request, for preparation of the options analysis 
and general support of this office.
    Environment, Safety and Health transfer.--The Committee 
recommendation includes a transfer of $1,450,000 to the 
Environment, Safety and Health account.

                        Other Defense Activities





Appropriation, 2007...................................      $635,577,000
Budget estimate, 2008.................................       763,974,000
Recommended, 2008.....................................       604,313,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2007...............................       -31,264,000
    Budget estimate, 2008.............................      -159,661,000


    This account provides funding for the Office of Security 
and Performance Assurance; Intelligence; Counterintelligence; 
Environment, Safety and Health (Defense); 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 $345,959,000 the same as the budget request. The Committee 
provides the fiscal year 2008 funding in the same appropriation 
accounts as proposed in the fiscal year 2007 budget request 
until a reprogramming request is submitted for approval by the 
House and Senate Committees on Appropriations. The Committee 
recommendation includes bill language transferring $4,900,000 
included in the fiscal year 2006 conference report for a 
special nuclear material consolidation building at the Idaho 
National Laboratory from the Office of Security and Performance 
Assurance to Weapons Activities.

                         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. The 
Committee expects the Office of Intelligence to assist and 
advise the Administrator of the NNSA in the prioritization of 
resources for Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation activities.

                     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 $81,801,000, a 
$4,000,000 increase above the budget request. The Committee 
recommendation provides $16,500,000 for the former Worker 
Health Screening program, an increase of $4,000,000 over the 
budget request.
    Reorganization of the Environment, Safety, and Health 
Office.--In August 2006, the Department chose to abolish the 
existing Environment, Safety and Health (EH) organization and 
assign its functions to a number of other DOE offices, with 
primary responsibility resting with a new Office of Health, 
Safety and Security. While the Committee has no objective 
information to show that the new arrangement is performing 
better or worse than the previous EH organization, the 
Committee recognizes the authority of the Secretary to 
reorganize the Department in order to improve performance and 
accountability. However, the Committee reserves its own 
authority to determine the appropriations the Department 
receives for given activities in a fiscal year. In the case of 
the EH organization, which clearly involved moving funds from 
one organization to another in a manner inconsistent with the 
budget request or with the final appropriation, the Department 
refused to submit a reprogramming request to the House and 
Senate Committees on Appropriations.
    There were two consequences to this decision by the 
Department. First, in the year-long Continuing Resolution for 
Fiscal Year 2007 (P.L. 110-5), Congress eliminated the long-
standing transfer authority that the Department used to execute 
the EH reorganization. Second, the Committee for fiscal year 
2008 provides funding for the EH-related functions to the 
original pre-reorganization offices within DOE. The Committee 
does not fund the new Office of Health, Safety and Security as 
proposed by the Department in the budget request.
    Reprogramming requirement.--Per Committee reprogramming 
guidance and Department of Energy reprogramming guidelines, a 
reprogramming request submitted to the Committee for 
consideration is required to implement any reorganization 
proposal which includes moving previous appropriations between 
appropriation accounts. The Committee will not recognize any 
Departmental shift of previous appropriations for the Office of 
Environment, Safety and Health until a reprogramming request is 
submitted by the Department to the House and Senate Committees 
on Appropriations.
    Government Accountability Office (GAO) Report.--The 
Committee directs the GAO to prepare a report on the 
programmatic impacts of the proposed dissolution of the 
Environment, Safety, and Health organization and the 
reorganization of the Office of Security at the Department. A 
preliminary report is due to the Committee on August 31, 2007.

                           LEGACY MANAGEMENT

    The Committee recommendation transfers the Office of Legacy 
Management to the Office of Environmental Management and 
provides the funding within the defense Environmental 
Management account.

                FUNDING FOR DEFENSE ACTIVITIES IN IDAHO

    The Committee recommendation includes $75,949,000 to fund 
the defense-related (050 budget function) activities at the 
Idaho National Laboratory (INL).

                 DEFENSE RELATED ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT

    The Committee recommendation includes $99,000,000, 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 
Secretaries, the General Counsel, Chief Financial Officer, 
Human Resources, Congressional Affairs, and Public Affairs, 
which support the organizations and activities funded in the 
atomic energy defense activities accounts.

                     OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

    The Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) is responsible for 
all of the Department's adjudicatory processes, other than 
those administered by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. 
The Committee recommendation is $4,607,000, 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 and $990,000 use of prior 
year balances in the Office of Security and Performance 
Assurance, the same as the budget request.

                     Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal





Appropriation, 2007...................................      $346,500,000
Budget estimate, 2008.................................       292,046,000
Recommended, 2008.....................................       292,046,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2007...............................       -54,454,000
    Budget estimate, 2008.............................             - - -


                     DEFENSE NUCLEAR WASTE DISPOSAL

    The Committee recommendation is $292,046,000, the same as 
the budget request. Combined with the funding recommended for 
the Nuclear Waste Disposal, this will provide a total of 
$494,500,000 for nuclear waste disposal activities in fiscal 
year 2008.

                    POWER MARKETING ADMINISTRATIONS

    Management of the Federal power marketing functions was 
transferred from the Department of Interior to the Department 
of Energy by the Department of Energy Organization Act (P.L. 
95-91). These functions include the power marketing activities 
authorized under section 5 of the Flood Control Act of 1944 and 
all other functions of the Bonneville Power Administration, the 
Southeastern Power Administration, the Southwestern Power 
Administration, and the power marketing functions of the Bureau 
of Reclamation that have been transferred to the Western Area 
Power Administration.
    All power marketing administrations except the Bonneville 
Power Administration are funded annually with appropriated 
funds. Revenues collected from power sales and transmission 
services are deposited in the treasury to offset expenditures.
    Operations of the Bonneville Power Administration are self-
financed under the authority of the Federal Columbia River 
Transmission System Act (P.L. 93-454). Under this Act, the 
Bonneville Power Administration is authorized to use its 
revenues to finance the costs of its operations, maintenance, 
and capital construction, and to sell bonds to the Treasury if 
necessary to finance any additional capital program 
requirements.
    The Committee rejects the Administration's proposal to 
recover expenses related to operations and maintenance 
activities and program direction expenditures using offsetting 
collections and the proposal to increase the power marketing 
administration rates to reflect market based rates.

                    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 2008.

      Operation and Maintenance, Southeastern Power Administration





Appropriation, 2007...................................        $5,602,000
Budget estimate, 2008.................................         6,463,000
Recommended, 2008.....................................         6,463,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2007...............................          +861,000
    Budget estimate, 2008.............................             - - -


    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 $6,463,000, the same as the budget request. 
The total program level for Southeastern in fiscal year 2007 is 
$54,876,000, with $48,413,000 for purchase power and wheeling 
and $6,463,000 for program direction. The purchase power and 
wheeling costs will be offset by collections of $48,413 
provided in this Act. Additionally, Southeastern has identified 
$13,802,000 in alternative financing for purchase power and 
wheeling that is not reflected in these totals.

      Operation and Maintenance, Southwestern Power Administration





Appropriation, 2007...................................       $29,998,000
Budget estimate, 2008.................................        30,442,000
Recommended, 2008.....................................        30,442,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2007...............................          +444,000
    Budget estimate, 2008.............................             - - -


    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 $30,442,000, the same as the budget request. 
The total program level for Southwestern in fiscal year 2008 is 
$65,442,000, including $5,674,000 for operating expenses, 
$35,000,000 for purchase power and wheeling, $21,337,000 for 
program direction, and $3,431,000 for construction. The 
offsetting collections total of $35,000,000 from collections 
for purchase power and wheeling yields a net appropriation of 
$30,442,000. Additionally, Southwestern has identified 
$18,050,000 in alternative financing for program direction, 
operations and maintenance, construction, and purchase power 
and wheeling that is not reflected in these totals.

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





Appropriation, 2007...................................      $232,326,000
Budget estimate, 2008.................................       201,030,000
Recommended, 2008.....................................       201,030,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2007...............................       -31,296,000
    Budget estimate, 2008.............................             - - -


    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 $201,030,000, the same as the budget request. 
The total program level for Western in fiscal year 2007 is 
$463,669,000, which includes $15,000,000 for construction and 
rehabilitation, $41,300,000 for system operation and 
maintenance, $258,702,000 for purchase power and wheeling, and 
$141,500,000 for program direction. The Committee 
recommendation includes $7,167,000 for the Utah Mitigation and 
Conservation Fund.
    Offsetting collections total $262,639,000; with the use of 
$3,937,000 of offsetting collections from the Colorado River 
Dam Fund (as authorized in P.L. 98-381), this requires a net 
appropriation of $201,030,000. Additionally, Western has 
identified $242,242,000 in alternative financing for program 
direction, operations and maintenance, construction and 
rehabilitation, and purchase power and wheeling that is not 
reflected in these totals.

           Falcon and Amistad Operating and Maintenance Fund





Appropriation, 2007...................................        $2,665,000
Budget estimate, 2008.................................         2,500,000
Recommended, 2008.....................................         2,500,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2007...............................          -165,000
    Budget estimate, 2008.............................             - - -


    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 $2,500,000, the same as the 
budget request.

                  Federal Energy Regulatory Commission


                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES




Appropriation, 2007...................................      $221,902,000
Budget estimate, 2008.................................       255,425,000
Recommended, 2008.....................................       255,425,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2007...............................       +33,523,000
    Budget estimate, 2008.............................             - - -


                                REVENUES




Appropriation, 2007...................................      -221,902,000
Budget estimate, 2008.................................      -255,425,000
Recommended, 2008.....................................      -255,425,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2007...............................       -33,523,000
    Budget estimate, 2008.............................             - - -


    The Committee recommendation for the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission (FERC) is $255,425,000, 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 provides that none of 
the funds in this Act may be used to award a management and 
operating contract, or a contract for environmental remediation 
or waste management, in excess of $100 million in annual 
funding at a current or former management and operating 
contract site of facility, or award a significant extension or 
expansion to an existing management and operating contract, or 
other contract covered by this section, unless such contract is 
awarded using competitive procedures, or the Secretary of 
Energy grants, on a case-by-case basis, a waiver to allow for 
such a deviation. Within 30 days of formally notifying an 
incumbent contractor of the intent to grant such a waiver, the 
Secretary of Energy must submit to the House and Senate 
Committees on Appropriations a report notifying the Committees 
of the waiver and setting forth, in specificity, the reasons 
for the waiver. Section 301 does not preclude extensions of a 
contract awarded using competitive procedures, but does 
establish a presumption of competition unless the Secretary 
invokes the waiver option.
    The Committee's concern is to establish clearly that 
competition is the norm for the Department of Energy. The 
waiver for non-competitive awards or extensions should be 
invoked only in truly exceptional circumstances, not as a 
matter of routine. A non-competitive award or extensions may be 
in the taxpayers' interest, but the burden of proof is on the 
Department to make that case in the waiver notice.
    Unfunded Requests for Proposals.--Section 302 provides that 
none of the funds in this Act may be used to initiate requests 
for proposals or other solicitations or expressions of interest 
for new programs that have not yet been presented to Congress 
in the annual budget submission, and that have not yet been 
approved and funded by Congress.
    Unexpended Balances.--Section 303 permits the transfer and 
merger of unexpended balances of prior appropriations with 
appropriation accounts established in this bill.
    Bonneville Power Administration Service Territory.--Section 
304 provides that none of the funds in this or any other Act 
may be used by the Administrator of the Bonneville Power 
Administration to perform energy efficiency services outside 
the legally defined Bonneville service territory unless the 
Administrator certifies in advance that such services are not 
available from private sector businesses.
    User Facilities.--Section 305 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.
    Intelligence Activities.--Section 306 authorizes 
intelligence activities of the Department of Energy for 
purposes of section 504 of the National Security Act of 1947 
during fiscal year 2008 until the enactment of the Intelligence 
Authorization Act for fiscal year 2008.
    Laboratory Directed Research and Development.--Section 307 
provides for authorization of Laboratory Directed Research and 
Development (LDRD), Site Directed Research and Development, and 
Plant Directed Research and Development (PDRD) activities.
    Contractor Pension Benefits.--Sec. 308 includes language 
prohibiting funding to implement Department of Energy Order N 
351.1 modifying contractor employee pension and medical 
benefits policy from defined benefit plans to a defined 
contribution plan.
    International Nuclear Fuel Bank.--Sec. 309 reallocates 
unexpended balances provided in Public Law 105-277 for Other 
Defense Activities to provide the U.S. contribution to an 
International Nuclear Fuel Bank under the auspices of the 
International Atomic Energy Agency, subject to authorization.

                                TITLE IV


                          INDEPENDENT AGENCIES


                    Appalachian Regional Commission





Appropriation, 2007...................................       $64,858,000
Budget estimate, 2008.................................        65,000,000
Recommended, 2008.....................................        35,000,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2007...............................       -29,858,000
    Budget estimate, 2008.............................       -30,000,000


    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 2008, the budget request includes 
$65,000,000, of which $54,087,000 is for program development; 
$5,316,000 is local development districts and technical 
assistance; and $5,597,000 is for salaries and expenses.
    The ARC budget justification indicates that it targets 
fifty percent of its funds to distressed counties or distressed 
areas in the Appalachian region. In times of budget austerity, 
the Committee believes this should be the primary, and in fact 
the sole, focus of the ARC. The Committee recommendation for 
ARC is $35,000,000, $29,817,000 less than the fiscal year 2007 
enacted level and $30,000,000 less than the budget estimate. 
The reduction is to be taken from the area development 
activities that serve other than distressed counties and 
distressed areas.

                Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board





Appropriation, 2007...................................       $21,914,000
Budget estimate, 2008.................................        22,499,000
Recommended, 2008.....................................        22,499,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2007...............................          +585,000
    Budget estimate, 2008.............................             - - -


    The Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (DNFSB) was 
created by the Fiscal Year 1989 National Defense Authorization 
Act. The Board, composed of five members appointed by the 
President, provides advice and recommendations to the Secretary 
of Energy regarding public health and safety issues at the 
Department's defense nuclear facilities. The Board is 
responsible for reviewing and evaluating the content and 
implementation of the standards relating to the design, 
construction, operation, and decommissioning of defense nuclear 
facilities of the Department of Energy. The Committee 
recommendation for fiscal year 2008 is $22,499,000, the same as 
the budget request.

                       Delta Regional Commission





Appropriation, 2007...................................       $11,888,000
Budget estimate, 2008.................................         6,000,000
Recommended, 2008.....................................         6,000,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2007...............................        -5,888,000
    Budget estimate, 2008.............................             - - -


    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.
    The Committee is concerned with the level of administrative 
expenses and with the Authority's lack of direction and 
strategic planning. The Committee directs the Federal Co-
Chairman to provide to the House and Senate Committees on 
Appropriations a five-year strategic plan that comprehensively 
addresses the development of annual and long-term measures for 
ensuring the performance and accountability of the Authority 
and its program partners. As part of this plan, the Federal Co-
Chairman shall ensure that administrative expenses shall comply 
with the 5 percent limit of total appropriations, as provided 
in the authorizing legislation. As part of this plan, the 
Federal Co-Chairman shall outline an approach to ensure that 
administrative expenses shall comply with the 5 percent limit 
of total appropriations within 2 years.
    It has come to the Committee's attention that the Delta 
Regional Authority is not responsive to Congressional 
inquiries. The Delta Regional Authority should be able to 
respond in a timely manner to inquiries regarding its budget 
and expenditures.
    For fiscal year 2008, the Committee recommends $6,000,000, 
the same as the budget request.

                           Denali Commission





Appropriation, 2007...................................       $49,509,000
Budget estimate, 2008.................................         1,800,000
Recommended, 2008.....................................         1,800,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2007...............................       -47,709,000
    Budget estimate, 2008.............................             - - -


    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 2008, the Committee recommends 
$1,800,000 for the costs of the Commission's operations, the 
same as the budget request.

                     Nuclear Regulatory Commission


                          GROSS APPROPRIATION




Appropriation, 2007...................................      $816,639,000
Budget estimate, 2008.................................       908,409,000
Recommended, 2008.....................................       925,559,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2007...............................      +108,920,000
    Budget estimate, 2008.............................       +17,150,000


                                REVENUES




Appropriation, 2007...................................      -659,328,000
Budget estimate, 2008.................................      -757,720,000
Recommended, 2008.....................................      -757,720,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2007...............................       -98,392,000
    Budget estimate, 2008.............................             - - -


                           NET APPROPRIATION




Appropriation, 2007...................................       157,311,000
Budget estimate, 2008.................................       150,689,000
Recommended, 2008.....................................       167,839,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2007...............................       +10,528,000
    Budget estimate, 2008.............................       +17,150,000


    The Committee recommendation for the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission (NRC) salaries and expenses for fiscal year 2008 is 
$925,559,000, an increase of $17,150,000 above the budget 
request. The total amount of budget authority is offset by 
estimated revenues of $757,720,000, resulting in a net 
appropriation of $167,839,000. The recommendation includes the 
requested amount of $37,250,000 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.
    The Committee is pleased that the Commission is continuing 
to fund academic scholarships and fellowships to enable 
students to pursue education in science, engineering, and other 
fields of study that constitute critical skills areas needed to 
sustain the NRC's regulatory mission. The Committee provides an 
additional $15,000,000 to support the Commission's efforts. 
Some of these funds are to be used to help support scholarships 
to attend trade school programs that develop skills needed to 
facilitate construction and operation of nuclear facilities and 
the handling of nuclear materials. In addition, these funds are 
to be used for college scholarships and graduate fellowships to 
develop critical nuclear regulatory skills and those skills 
needed by the regulated industries, including engineering and 
health physics, and for faculty development grants supporting 
faculty in these academic areas in the first six years of their 
careers.
    The Committee recommendation provides $3,000,000 for 
international program activities at the Commission, an increase 
of $2,150,000 above the request. These funds are included in 
the homeland security responsibilities of the NRC and provided 
to enable the Commission to provide support to foreign 
regulators in addressing the control of high-risk radioactive 
sources.
    The Committee directs the NRC to provide, not later than 
November 30, 2007, a report to the House and Senate Committees 
on Appropriations, and appropriate authorizing Committees, on a 
plan for NRC regulation of the Hanford Waste Treatment Plant 
that includes resource requirements and regulatory structure.
    Fee Recovery.--The Committee recommendation assumes that 
the NRC will recover 90 percent of its budget authority from 
user fees and annual charges, as authorized in Section 637 of 
the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), less the 
appropriation derived from the Nuclear Waste Fund, the amount 
necessary to implement Section 3116 of the Ronald W. Reagan 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (P.L. 
108-375), the $15,000,000 added above the request for nuclear 
education support, and the amount necessary for homeland 
security activities of the Commission. Of the $923,409,000 
gross appropriation for fiscal year 2008, $37,250,000 is drawn 
from the Nuclear Waste Fund, $2,000,000 is drawn from the 
General Fund of the Treasury to execute NRC's responsibilities 
to provide oversight of certain Department of Energy activities 
under Section 3116 of Ronald W. Reagan National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (P.L. 108-375), and 
$29,398,000 is drawn from the General Fund of the Treasury to 
execute NRC's homeland security responsibilities. Ninety 
percent of the balance of $841,911,000 (i.e., $757,720,000) is 
funded by fees collected from NRC licensees, and the remaining 
10 percent (i.e., $84,191,000) is funded from the General Fund 
of the Treasury.
    Reports.--The Committee directs the Commission to continue 
to provide quarterly reports on the status of its licensing and 
other regulatory activities. The Committee has been very 
supportive of the Commission in recent years by providing 
substantial additional resources to meet an anticipated round 
of new plant licensing activities. The Committee believes the 
NRC should use these additional resources, both from taxpayer 
funds and from licensees, to conduct an efficient, 
understandable, and predictable licensing process.

                      Office of Inspector General


                          GROSS APPROPRIATION




Appropriation, 2007...................................        $8,285,000
Budget estimate, 2008.................................         8,144,000
Recommended, 2008.....................................         8,144,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2007...............................          -141,000
    Budget estimate, 2008.............................             - - -


                                REVENUES




Appropriation, 2007...................................        -7,410,000
Budget estimate, 2008.................................        -7,330,000
Recommended, 2008.....................................        -7,330,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2007...............................           +80,000
    Budget estimate, 2008.............................             - - -


                           NET APPROPRIATION




Appropriation, 2007...................................           875,000
Budget estimate, 2008.................................           814,000
Recommended, 2008.....................................           814,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2007...............................           -61,000
    Budget estimate, 2008.............................             - - -


    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $8,144,000, 
the same as the budget request. Given the formula for fee 
recovery, the revenue estimate is $7,330,000, resulting in a 
net appropriation for the NRC Inspector General of $814,000.

                  Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board





Appropriation, 2007...................................        $3,591,000
Budget estimate, 2008.................................         3,621,000
Recommended, 2008.....................................         3,621,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2007...............................           +30,000
    Budget estimate, 2008.............................             - - -


    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 $3,621,000 for 
the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board in fiscal year 2008, 
the same as the budget request and an increase of $30,000 over 
fiscal year 2007 funding.

Office of the Federal Coordinator for Alaska Natural Gas Transportation 
                                Projects





Appropriation, 2007...................................             - - -
Budget estimate, 2008.................................        $2,322,000
Recommended, 2008.....................................         2,322,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2007...............................        +2,322,000
    Budget estimate, 2008.............................             - - -


    The Office of the Federal Coordinator for Alaska Natural 
Gas Transportation Projects was established as an independent 
agency in the Executive Branch on December 13, 2006, pursuant 
to the Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline Act of 2004. The Federal 
Coordinator is responsible for coordinating all Federal 
activities for an Alaska natural gas transportation project, 
including joint surveillance and monitoring with the State of 
Alaska of construction of a project. An Alaska natural gas 
transportation project could deliver significant natural gas 
supply to the U.S. lower 48 states. Action by the State of 
Alaska in reaching agreement with potential project owners as 
to fiscal terms is necessary before project development can 
move forward.
    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $2,322,000 to 
support the activities of this office in fiscal year 2008, the 
same as the budget request.

                       Tennessee Valley Authority


                      Office of Inspector General


                          GROSS APPROPRIATION




Appropriation, 2007...................................             - - -
Budget estimate, 2008.................................       $15,000,000
Recommended, 2008.....................................             - - -
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2007...............................             - - -
    Budget estimate, 2008.............................       -15,000,000


              Offset From Tennessee Valley Authority Fund





Appropriation, 2007...................................             - - -
Budget estimate, 2008.................................       -15,000,000
Recommended, 2008.....................................             - - -
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 2007...............................             - - -
    Budget estimate, 2008.............................       +15,000,000


    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.

         Statement of General Performance Goals and Objectives

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

                           Transfer of Funds

    Pursuant to clause 3(f)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the following is submitted describing 
the transfer of funds provided in the accompanying bill.

                    TITLE II--BUREAU OF RECLAMATION

    Under ```Water and Related Resources'', $57,615,000 is 
available for transfer to the Upper Colorado River Basin Fund 
and $26,825,000 is available for transfer to the Lower Colorado 
River Basin Development Fund. Such funds as may be necessary 
may be advanced to the Colorado River Dam Fund. The amounts of 
transfers may be increased or decreased within the overall 
appropriation under the heading.

                    TITLE III--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

    Under ``Fossil Energy Research and Development'', 
$166,000,000 is transferred from ``Clean Coal Technology'', 
including $58,000,000 in unexpended balances.
    Under ``Other Defense Activities'', $4,900,000 of funds 
provided under Public Law 109-103, are transferred to ``Weapons 
Activities'' for planning activities associated with special 
nuclear material consolidation.
    Under Section 305, ``General Provision--Department of 
Energy'', unexpended balances of prior appropriations provided 
for activities in this Act may be transferred to appropriation 
accounts for such activities established pursuant to this 
title. Balances so transferred may be merged with funds in the 
applicable established accounts and thereafter may be accounted 
for as one fund for the same time period as originally enacted.

               Changes in the Application of Existing Law

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

                      TITLE I--CORPS OF ENGINEERS

    Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, 
Investigations, providing for detailed studies and plans and 
specifications of projects prior to construction.
    Language has been included under 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, delineating the amounts available for the 
continuing authorities program.
    Language has been included under the Corps of Engineers, 
Operation and Maintenance, stating that funds can be used for: 
the operation, maintenance, and care of existing river and 
harbor, flood and storm damage reduction, aquatic ecosystem 
restoration, and related authorized projects, including the 
construction of facilities, projects, or features (including 
islands and wetlands) to use materials dredged during Federal 
navigation maintenance activities; the mitigation of impacts on 
shorelines resulting from Federal navigation operation and 
maintenance activities; to address the effects of civil works 
projects owned or operated by the Corps on federally listed 
species; to provide security for infrastructure operated by the 
Corps, or operated on its behalf, including administrative 
buildings and facilities, and laboratories; the maintenance of 
authorized 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 channels, 
and removal of obstructions to navigation.
    Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, 
Operation and Maintenance, delineating the amount of funding 
available to various regions.
    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, 
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, 
Expenses, prohibiting the use of other funds in this Act for 
the Office of the Chief of Engineers and the division offices.
    Language has been included to provide for funding for the 
Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works).
    Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, 
Administrative Provisions, providing that funds are available 
for official reception and representation expenses, and for 
purchase and hire of motor vehicles.
    Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, 
General Provisions, 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 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 regarding staffing at the 
Sacramento District Corps of Engineers.
    Language has been included relating to the funding of A-76 
studies.

                  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, 
Policy and Administration providing for the transfer of 
$10,000,000 from this account to Water and Related Resources, 
if a five-year budget plan is not received from the Secretary 
of the Interior within the 60-day period following the date of 
enactment.
    Language has been included under Bureau of Reclamation, 
Administrative Provisions providing for the purchase of motor 
vehicles.
    Language has been included under Title II, General 
Provisions, regarding the San Luis Unit and the Kesterson 
Reservoir in California. This language has been carried in 
prior appropriations Acts.

                    TITLE III--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

    Activities formerly funded under Energy Supply and 
Conservation are now funded as Energy Efficiency and Renewable 
Energy, Electricity Distribution and Energy Reliability, 
Nuclear Energy, Environment, Safety and Health, and as part of 
Non-Defense Environmental Cleanup.
    Language has been included under Energy Efficiency and 
Renewable Energy for the purchase, construction, and 
acquisition of plant and capital equipment.
    Language has been included under Electricity Distribution 
and Energy Reliability for the purchase, construction, and 
acquisition of plant and capital equipment.
    Language has been included under Nuclear Energy for the 
purchase, construction, and acquisition of plant and capital 
equipment and for the purchase of motor vehicles.
    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; 
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 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 Innovative Technology Loan 
Guarantee Program setting a fiscal year 2008 loan volume 
limitation.
    Language has been included under Departmental 
Administration, notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, and consistent 
with the authorization in Public Law 95-238, to permit the 
Department of Energy to use revenues to offset appropriations. 
The appropriations language for this account reflects the total 
estimated program funding to be reduced as revenues are 
received. This language has been carried in prior 
appropriations Acts.
    Language has been included under Departmental 
Administration that fees collected for loan guarantee 
administrative expenses are credited as offsetting collections 
to this account.
    Language has been included under Departmental 
Administration providing, 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 $5,000 for official 
reception and representation expenses.
    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, funds received from any state, municipality, 
corporation, association, firm, district, or individual as 
advance payment for work that is associated with Southeastern's 
Operation and Maintenance, consistent with that authorized in 
section 5 of the Flood Control Act of 1944, shall be credited 
to the account and be available until expended.
    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 Construction, 
Rehabilitation, Operation and Maintenance, Western Area Power 
Administration, providing for the operation, maintenance, and 
purchase through transfer, exchange or sale of one helicopter 
for replacement only.
    Language has been included under Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission to permit the hire of passenger motor vehicles, to 
provide official reception and representation expenses, not to 
exceed $3,000 and to permit the use of revenues collected to 
reduce the appropriation as revenues are received.
    Language has been included under Department of Energy, 
General Provisions, Section 301, providing that none of the 
funds may be used to make payments for a noncompetitive 
management and operating contract unless certain conditions are 
met.
    Language has been included under Department of Energy, 
General Provisions, Section 302, prohibiting the use of funds 
to prepare or initiate requests for proposals for programs that 
have not yet been funded by Congress.
    Language has been included under Department of Energy, 
General Provisions, Section 303, 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 304, 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 305, 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 306, providing that funds for 
intelligence activities are deemed to be specifically 
authorized for purposes of section 504 of the National Security 
Act of 1947 during fiscal year 2008 until enactment of the 
Intelligence Authorization Act for fiscal year 2008.
    Language has been included under Department of Energy, 
General Provisions, Section 307, regarding the laboratory 
directed research and development activities.
    Language has been included under Department of Energy, 
General Provisions, Section 308, providing that none of the 
funds may be used to implement a Department of Energy order 
modifying contractor employee pension and medical benefits 
policy.
    Language has been included under Department of Energy, 
General Provisions, Section 309, relating to allocation of 
funds provided under Public Law 105-277.

                     TITLE IV--INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

    Language has been included under Appalachian Regional 
Commission providing of the hire of passenger vehicles.

                      TITLE V--GENERAL PROVISIONS

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

          Compliance With Rule XIII, CL. 3(e) (Ramseyer Rule)

    In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, the Committee notes that the 
accomplanying bill doesn ot propose to repeal or amend a 
statute or part thereof.

                  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:


                              Rescissions

    Pursuant to clause 3(f)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the following table is submitted 
describing the rescissions recommended in the accompanying 
bill:

Department or Activity
    Corps of Engineers-Civil: Investigations............        $100,000
    Corps of Engineers-Civil: Construction..............      $4,688,000
    Department of Energy: Clean Coal Technology.........    $149,000,000

                                 earmarks

Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House of 
  Representatives, this bill, as reported, contains no 
  congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff 
  benefits as defined in clause 9(d), 9(e), or 9(f) of rule XXI.

                  Comparison With the Budget Resolution

Pursuant to clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 
    House of Representatives and section 308(a)(1)(A) of the 
    Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the following table 
    compares the levels of new budget authority provided in 
    the bill with the appropriate allocation under section 
    302(b) of the Budget Act.

                                            [in millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            302(b) allocation                                      This bill
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                              Budget
                      Budget authority                          Outlays     authority     Outlays
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary...............................................       31,603       32,774       31,603       32,744
Mandatory...................................................  ...........            1  ...........            1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      Five-Year Outlay Projections

Pursuant to section 308(a)(1)(B) of the Congressional Budget 
    Act of 1974, the following table contains five-year 
    projections prepared by the Congressional Budget Office of 
    outlays associated with the budget authority provided int 
    he accompanying bill:

                        [in millions of dollars]



Budget Authority......................................           $31,603
Outlays:
    2008..............................................            19,566
    2009..............................................             8,963
    2010..............................................             2,637
    2011..............................................               194
    2012..............................................                77


                Assistance to State and Local Governments

Pursuant to section 308(a)(1)(C) of the Congressional Budget 
    Act of 1974, the amount of financial assistance to State 
    and local governments is as follows:

[In millions of dollars]

Budget Authority........................................             $39
Fiscal Year 2008 outlays resulting therefrom............               5

                          Full Committee Votes

    Pursuant to the provisions of clause 3(b) of rule XIII of 
the House of Representatives, the results of each rollcall vote 
on an amendment or on the motion to report, together with the 
names of those voting for and those voting against, are printed 
below:

                             ROLLCALL NO. 1

    Date: June 6, 2007.
    Measure: Energy and Wagter Development Bill, FY 2008.
    Motion by: Mr. Hinchey.
    Description of Motion: To prohibit funds from being used by 
the Secretary of Energy to designagte a national electric 
transmission corridor or by the Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission to take any action related to the processing or 
issuance of a permit under section 216(b) of the Federal Power 
Act.
    Results: Rejected 30 yeas to 35 nays.
        Members Voting Yea            Members Voting Nay
Mr. Alexander                       Mr. Aderholt
Mr. Berry                           Mr. Bishop
Mr. Boyd                            Mr. Calvert
Mr. Chandler                        Mr. Carter
Mr. Culberson                       Mr. Cramer
Ms. DeLauro                         Mr. Crenshaw
Mr. Dicks                           Mr. Edwards
Mr. Farr                            Mrs. Emerson
Mr. Fattah                          Mr. Goode
Mr. Frelinghuysen                   Ms. Granger
Mr. Hinchey                         Mr. Hobson
Mr. Israel                          Mr. Honda
Mr. Jackson                         Ms. Kaptur
Mr. Kennedy                         Ms. Kilpatrick
Ms. Lee                             Mr. Kingston
Mrs. Lowey                          Mr. Kirk
Ms. McCollum                        Mr. Knollenberg
Mr. Mollahan                        Mr. LaHood
Mr. Moran                           Mr. Latham
Mr. Murtha                          Mr. Lewis
Mr. Obey                            Mr. Olver
Mr. Pastor                          Mr. Peterson
Mr. Price                           Mr. Rehberg
Mr. Rodriguez                       Mr. Rogers
Mr. Rothman                         Ms. Roybal-Allard
Mr. Udall                           Mr. Ruppersberger
Mr. Walsh                           Mr. Ryan
Ms. Wasserman Schultz               Mr. Schiff
Mr. Wicker                          Mr. Serrano
Mr. Wolf                            Mr. Simpson
                                    Mr. Tiahrt
                                    Mr. Visclosky
                                    Mr. Wamp
                                    Dr. Weldon
                                    Mr. Young
                                    
                                    

   ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF REPRESENTATIVES LEWIS OF CALIFORNIA AND HOBSON

                           302(B) ALLOCATION

    The 302(b) discretionary allocation for the fiscal year 
2008 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Bill is $31.6 
billion, an increase of $1.13 billion (3.7 percent) above the 
President's request and $1.3 billion (4.3 percent) above the 
amount provided in fiscal year 2007. Much of this increase in 
discretionary funding would be justified to address chronic 
underfunding of water resources infrastructure, but only if 
accompanied by project-specific guidance directing how these 
funds are to be spent. If the House is not able to include such 
project-specific guidance in the final conference report, then 
we do not support providing these increased funding levels to 
the agencies.

                         PRIORITIES IN THE BILL

    This bill addresses some very difficult issues, including 
reversing the degradation of our nation's water infrastructure, 
developing domestic energy sources with less impact on global 
climate, and fostering our national security through rational 
efforts on nuclear nonproliferation and nuclear weapons. While 
these are legitimate priorities, the absence of Congressional 
direction for these large funding increases and the decision to 
defer such direction to conference is not only an abdication of 
our constitutional responsibilities, but a fundamental 
disservice to our constituents as well. We also caution that 
increased spending at the Department of Energy is no guarantee 
of increased results. The subcommittee must continue intensive 
oversight to ensure that the increases in funding are 
accompanied by increased results.

                            NUCLEAR WEAPONS

    The concept of the Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW) has 
merit if it allows the United States to meet our strategic 
defense goals while maintaining a smaller stockpile of more 
reliable weapons that will not require nuclear testing. 
Unfortunately, what the National Nuclear Security 
Administration (NNSA) has presented to Congress is little more 
than a vague promise that RRW might lead to a smaller future 
stockpile. At the same time, the NNSA is planning to modernize 
its infrastructure to meet anticipated needs out to the year 
2030, and is basing this modernization plan on the assumption 
that the current stockpile remains largely unchanged in terms 
of systems and total numbers. What is needed is a specific 
stockpile plan from the Administration, based upon validated 
strategic goals and military requirements, that shows how 
developing the RRW will actually get us to a much smaller, more 
responsible future stockpile. Such a stockpile plan is 
absolutely essential before we invest in the modernization of 
the DOE nuclear weapons complex. NNSA must strive to transform 
its existing complex from a Cold War relic, with weapons 
laboratories plagued by security lapses, safety accidents, and 
persistent mismanagement, to a streamlined operation aligned 
with the national security demands and economic constraints of 
the post-9/11 environment. NNSA laboratories should not aspire 
to involvement in other program activities of the Department 
until they demonstrate they can execute their primary weapons 
responsibilities in a safe, secure, and efficient manner.

              MIXED OXIDE (MOX) FUEL FABRICATION FACILITY

    This project, which DOE originally told Congress would cost 
only $1 billion, has now escalated to $4.7 billion before 
construction has even started. The life cycle cost for all of 
the activities and facilities necessary to dispose of 34 metric 
tons of excess U.S. weapons usable plutonium is currently 
estimated at $11 billion, and will most certainly climb higher. 
This project is simply a waste of money. It has completely lost 
its way from being a cooperative nonproliferation program with 
Russia to being little more than a jobs program in South 
Carolina. While we are appreciative of the majority's proposed 
reduction in funding for this project, this funding should be 
eliminated entirely and applied to other higher priority needs. 


                                   Jerry Lewis.
                                   Dave Hobson.

                                  
