Energy and Water Development: FY2007 Appropriations
Congressional research reportMay 2, 2007
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
ȱ
¢ȱȱȱDZȱŘŖŖŝȱ
ȱ
ȱǯȱǰȱȱ
ȱȱ¢ȱ¢ȱ
¢ȱŘǰȱŘŖŖŝȱ
ȱȱȱ
ŝȬśŝŖŖȱ
ǯǯȱ
řřřŚŜȱ
ȱȱȱ
Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress
¢ȱȱȱDZȱŘŖŖŝȱȱ
ȱ
¢ȱ
The Energy and Water Development appropriations bill in the past included funding for civil
works projects of the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), the Department of the Interior’s Bureau
of Reclamation (BOR), most of the Department of Energy (DOE), and a number of independent
agencies. For FY2006, the Congress reorganized the appropriations subcommittees and the
content of the various appropriations bills to be introduced. In the case of Energy and Water
Development, the only changes were the consolidation of DOE programs that had previously
been funded by the Interior and Related Agencies bill. That organization was followed by the
Administration in submitting its FY2007 budget request in February 2006.
Key budgetary issues involving these programs include
•
the need to balance efforts by the Army Corps of Engineers to prevent storm
damage in Louisiana with the rest of the agency’s portfolio of authorized projects
(Title I);
•
support of major ecosystem restoration initiatives, such as Florida Everglades
(Title I) and California “Bay-Delta” (CALFED) (Title II);
•
funding for the proposed national nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain,
Nevada, and proposals to store nuclear spent fuel temporarily (Title III: Nuclear
Waste Disposal); and
•
the Administration’s proposed Global Nuclear Energy Partnership to supply
plutonium-based fuel to other nations (Title III: Nuclear Energy).
ȱȱȱ
ȱ
¢ȱȱȱDZȱŘŖŖŝȱȱ
ȱ
Most Recent Developments............................................................................................................. 1
Status ............................................................................................................................................... 1
Overview ......................................................................................................................................... 1
Title I: Army Corps of Engineers .................................................................................................... 3
Key Policy Issues—Corps of Engineers ................................................................................... 5
Project Backlog and Agency Priorities ............................................................................... 5
Everglades........................................................................................................................... 5
Hurricane Katrina Repairs and Coastal Louisiana Restoration........................................... 6
Title II: Department of the Interior.................................................................................................. 6
Central Utah Project and Bureau of Reclamation: Budget In Brief .......................................... 7
Key Policy Issues—Bureau of Reclamation ............................................................................. 8
Background......................................................................................................................... 8
CALFED............................................................................................................................. 8
Security ............................................................................................................................... 8
Water 2025 .......................................................................................................................... 9
Title III: Department of Energy....................................................................................................... 9
Key Policy Issues—Department of Energy..............................................................................11
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.........................................................................11
Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability (OE)............................................................. 13
Nuclear Energy ................................................................................................................. 13
Fossil Energy Research, Development, and Demonstration............................................. 17
Strategic Petroleum Reserve ............................................................................................. 18
Science .............................................................................................................................. 19
Nuclear Waste Disposal .................................................................................................... 20
Nuclear Weapons Stockpile Stewardship.......................................................................... 22
Nonproliferation and National Security Programs............................................................ 29
Environmental Management............................................................................................. 31
Power Marketing Administrations .................................................................................... 37
Title IV: Independent Agencies ..................................................................................................... 38
Key Policy Issues—Independent Agencies............................................................................. 38
Nuclear Regulatory Commission...................................................................................... 38
For Additional Reading ................................................................................................................. 39
CRS Products .......................................................................................................................... 39
ȱ
Table 1. Status of Energy and Water Development Appropriations, FY2007 ................................. 1
Table 2. Energy and Water Development Appropriations, FY2000 to FY2007 .............................. 2
Table 3. Energy and Water Development Appropriations Summary............................................... 2
Table 4. Energy and Water Development Appropriations Title I: Army Corps of Engineers.......... 4
Table 5. Energy and Water Development Appropriations Title II: Central Utah Project
Completion Account..................................................................................................................... 6
ȱȱȱ
ȱ
¢ȱȱȱDZȱŘŖŖŝȱȱ
Table 6. Energy and Water Development Appropriations Title II: Bureau of Reclamation ............ 6
Table 7. Energy and Water Development Appropriations Title III: Department of Energy ............ 9
Table 8. Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Programs ...................................................... 13
Table 9. FutureGen Funding Profile.............................................................................................. 18
Table 10. Funding for Weapons Activities..................................................................................... 22
Table 11. NNSA Future Years Nuclear Security Program............................................................. 23
Table 12. DOE Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation Programs ....................................................... 29
Table 13. Environmental Management Program Appropriations .................................................. 33
Table 14. Office of Legacy Management Appropriations ............................................................. 36
Table 15. Energy and Water Development Appropriations Title IV: Independent Agencies......... 38
ȱ
Author Contact Information .......................................................................................................... 41
Key Policy Staff ............................................................................................................................ 41
ȱȱȱ
¢ȱȱȱDZȱŘŖŖŝȱȱ
ȱ
ȱȱȱ
The Bush Administration’s FY2007 budget request was released in February 2006. The request
followed the reorganization of appropriations subcommittees in 2005, in which the Energy and
Water Development appropriations bill acquired Department of Energy (DOE) programs that
previously had been included in the appropriations bill for Interior and Related Agencies.
Including these programs, the requested amount for FY2007 Energy and Water Development
totaled $29.45 billion. For FY2006, $36.73 billion was appropriated for comparable programs
(including $6.6 billion in emergency supplemental appropriations for the Corps of Engineers).
The House Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development marked up an
FY2007 appropriations bill May 11, and the full committee approved the bill (H.R. 5427, H.Rept.
109-474) May 17. The House passed the measure May 24.
The Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development approved its
version of H.R. 5427 on June 27, and the full committee reported it out June 29 (S.Rept. 109274). The Senate did not act on the bill in 2006.
Energy and Water Development programs were funded for FY2007 in the Revised Continuing
Appropriations Resolution, 2007 (H.J.Res. 20, P.L. 110-5). On March 16, 2007, DOE submitted
its “operating plan” to Congress, detailing funding for individual programs not specifically
identified in P.L. 110-5.
ȱ
. Status of Energy and Water Development Appropriations, FY2007
Table 1
Subcommittee
Markup
House Senate
House
Report
House
Passage
Senate
Report
Senate
Passage
Cont.
Res.
Cont. Resolution
Approval
House Senate
Public
Law
P.L.
5/11/06
6/27/06
H.Rept.
109-474
5/24/06
S.Rept.
109-274
—
H.J.Res.
20
1/31/07
2/14/07
110-5
2/15/07
ȱ
The Energy and Water Development bill has historically included funding for civil works projects
of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), the Department of the Interior’s Bureau of
Reclamation (BOR), most of DOE, and a number of independent agencies, including the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC) and the Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC). With the
reorganization of the appropriations subcommittees in 2005, DOE programs that had been funded
in the Interior and Related Agencies bill were transferred to the Energy and Water Development
bill. The Bush Administration’s FY2007 request was $29.455 billion for all of the programs now
included in the Energy and Water bill, compared with $36.726 billion appropriated for FY2006,
ȱȱȱ
ŗȱ
¢ȱȱȱDZȱŘŖŖŝȱȱ
ȱ
including $6.6 billion in emergency funding for the Corps of Engineers following the Katrina
hurricane disaster.
H.R. 5427, as passed by the House May 24, 2006, would have appropriated $30.017 billion for
Energy and Water Development programs, $546 million more than the requested amount. The
Senate version of H.R. 5427, as reported by the Senate Appropriations Committee, would have
appropriated $31.238 billion. The Continuing Resolution (P.L. 110-5) appropriated $30.265
billion.
Table 2 includes budget totals for energy and water development appropriations enacted for
FY2000 to FY2006 and the requested amount for FY2007.
. Energy and Water Development Appropriations,
FY2000 to FY2007
Table 2
(budget authority in billions of current dollars)
FY00
FY01
FY02
FY03
FY04
FY05
23.9
25.2
26.1
26.7
30.2a
21.2
FY06
36.7ab
FY07*
29.4a
These figures represent current dollars, exclude permanent budget authorities, and reflect rescissions.
* Request
a. Includes DOE programs transferred from Interior and Related Agencies appropriations bill.
b. Includes $6.6 billion in emergency funding for the Corps of Engineers.
Note:
Table 3 lists totals for each of the four titles. It also lists several “scorekeeping” adjustments of
accounts within the four titles, reflecting various expenditures or sources of revenue besides
appropriated funds. These adjustments affect the total amount appropriated in the bill but are not
included in the totals of the individual titles. Amounts listed in this report are derived from the
Administration’s FY2007 Congressional Budget Requests, from H.Rept. 109-474, from S.Rept.
109-274, and from P.L. 110-5. For Title III, some figures from DOE’s FY2007 Operating Plan
were used.
. Energy and Water Development Appropriations Summary
Table 3
($ millions)
FY2007
Title
Title I: Corps of Engineers
FY2006
Request
House
Senate
P.L. 110-5
$11,914.6*
$4,733.0
$4,983.8
$5,139.4
$5,340.2
Title II: CUP & BOR
Title III: Department of Energy
Title IV: Independent Agencies
1,054.8
24,046.8
268.4
923.8
24,074.8
248.8
941.0
24,373.5
227.8
1,067.3
24,725.1
306.3
1,054.7
24,093.2
306.0
E&W Subtotal
37,299.6
29,980.4
30,526.1
30,170.9
30,794.1
Scorekeeping Adjustments
Undistributed Pay Raise
Title II
Central Valley
ȱȱȱ
33.0
(43.9)
(33.8)
NA
NA
(44.0)
Řȱ
¢ȱȱȱDZȱŘŖŖŝȱȱ
ȱ
FY2007
Title
Title III
Colorado River Basins,
WAPA
Uranium Fund
Excess Fees FERC
E&W Total
FY2006
Request
House
Senate
P.L. 110-5
(23.0)
(23.0)
NA
NA
(23.0)
(446.5)
(15.5)
(452.0)
(16.4)
NA
NA
NA
NA
(446.0)
(19.2)
36,725.7
29,455.2
30,017.0
31,238.0
30,294.9
Administration FY2007 budget request, H.Rept. 109-474, S.Rept. 109-274, P.L. 110-5.
Note: Details may not add to totals due to rounding. NA: Not available.
* Includes $6.6 billion emergency supplemental funding. See Table 4 for details.
Source:
For the FY2007 Corps of Engineers budget, the Administration requested $4.733 billion, a
decrease of $0.595 billion from the enacted appropriation for FY2006 (not including emergency
supplementals). The House-passed bill would have appropriated $4.984 billion. The Senate
Appropriations Committee recommended $5.139 billion. P.L. 110-5 appropriated $5.239 billion.
The Administration asked for $923.8 million for FY2007 for the Department of the Interior (DOI)
programs included in the Energy and Water Development bill: the Bureau of Reclamation and the
Central Utah Project. This would be have been a decrease of $131 million from the FY2006
funding level. The House bill would have appropriated $941.0 million. The Senate Appropriations
Committee recommendation was $1.0673 billion. P.L. 110-5 appropriated $1.011 billion.
The FY2007 request for DOE programs was $24.075 billion, approximately the same amount
appropriated for the previous year. The major activities in the DOE budget are energy research
and development, general science, environmental cleanup, and nuclear weapons programs. Also
included in the DOE total is funding of DOE’s programs for fossil fuels, energy efficiency, and
energy statistics, which had historically been included in the Interior and Related Agencies
appropriations bill. The House bill would have funded these programs at $24.374 billion. The
Senate Appropriations Committee recommended $24.725 billion. P.L. 110-5 appropriated
$23.617 billion.
The FY2007 request for funding of the independent agencies in Title IV of the bill was $249
million, compared with $268 million appropriated for FY2006. The House bill would have
appropriated $228 million. The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended $306 million.
P.L. 110-5 appropriated $306 million.
Tables 4 through 15 provide budget details for Title I (Corps of Engineers), Title II (Department
of the Interior), Title III (Department of Energy), and Title IV (independent agencies) for
FY2005-FY2006.
ȱ DZȱ¢ȱȱȱȱ
Under P.L. 110-5, the FY2007 Energy and Water Development appropriations for the Corps is
$5,340.2 million, which is close to the enacted amount for FY2006 (not including supplemental
funds). Bill language specified the total amount for the Corps’ various civil works budget
accounts. Guidelines to the agency for how to distribute each account’s funds across the hundreds
ȱȱȱ
řȱ
¢ȱȱȱDZȱŘŖŖŝȱȱ
ȱ
of Corps projects usually are laid out in congressional reports accompanying appropriations bills,
with funding for only 10 to 30 projects, on average, specified in bill language. P.L. 110-5
eliminated the provisions in the FY2006 bill language related to funding of specific projects; the
reports accompanying P.L. 110-5 did not provide guidance on how to distribute each account’s
money across the portfolio of Corps-authorized projects. Consequently, the Administration had
greater flexibility and discretion on how much to allocate to authorized projects in FY2007 than it
has had in most fiscal years. Reprogramming and contracting restrictions enacted with the
FY2006 appropriations, P.L. 109-103, continue into FY2007 under P.L. 110-5.
The Corps reported its FY2007 work plan to the Appropriations Committees on March 19, 2007.
The work plan was developed so that generally only projects that received money in FY2006
were funded, and generally the Administration’s FY2007 budget request was the basis for the
amounts allocated to projects.
. Energy and Water Development Appropriations
Title I: Army Corps of Engineers
Table 4
($ millions)
Program
Investigations
and Planning
Construction,
including
rescission
Flood
Control,
Mississippi
River
Operation
and
Maintenance
(O&M)
Regulatory
General
Expenses
FUSRAPb
Flood
Control and
Coastal
Emergencies
Office of the
Asst.
Secretary
of the Army
Total Title I
FY2006 Approp.
P.L. 109- Emerg.
103
Funding
T otal
a
a
FY2007
Request
House
Senate
P.L. 110-5
$162.4
$40.6
$203.0
$94.0
$128.0
$168.5
$162.9
2,348.3
650.8
2,999.1
1,555.0
1,891.1
1,986.4
2,336.5
396.0
153.8
549.8
278.0
290.6
450.5
396.6
1,969.1
330.7
2,299.8
2,258.0
2,195.5
2,030.0
1,975.1
158.4
—
158.0
173.0
173.0
168.0
159.3
152.5
—
152.5
164.0
142.1
164.0
167.2
138.6
—
138.6
130.0
130.0
140.0
138.7
—
5,408.0
5,408.0
81.0
32.0
32.0
—
4.0
1.6
5.6
—
1.5
0.0
4.0
5,329.2
6,585.5
11,914.6
4,983.8
5,139.4
5,340.2
ȱȱȱ
4,733.0
Śȱ
¢ȱȱȱDZȱŘŖŖŝȱȱ
ȱ
FY2007 Budget Request; H.Rept. 109-474: S.Rept. 109-274; P.L. 110-5; Army Corps of Engineers Civil
Works: FY2007 Work Plan (March 19, 2007).
a. The Defense Appropriations Act for FY2006 (P.L. 109-148) reallocated FY2005 emergency supplement
funds to the Corps’ civil works program. Also includes funding from P.L. 109-234.
b. “Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program.”
Source:
¢ȱ¢ȱ ȯȱȱȱ
ȱȱȱ¢ȱȱ
P.L. 110-5 did not address the ongoing appropriations policy debate about how to structure the
agency’s budget and priorities. The Corps civil works program has been criticized by some
observers as an agglomeration of projects with no underlying design. These observers see the
Corps’ backlog of authorized activities as an example of this lack of focus. Estimates of the
backlog’s size vary from $11 billion to more than $50 billion, depending on which projects are
included. Although some observers view the backlog as nothing more than a Corps “to do” list,
others are concerned that projects in the backlog face construction delays and related cost
overruns as available appropriations are spread across an increasing portfolio of projects.
The Corps’ backlog of authorized projects and concerns about the fiscal planning and
management of the agency’s portfolio contribute to support for performance-based criteria for
structuring the agency’s budget and for concentrated appropriations on a small set of priority
projects. Others also express concerns about the agency’s fiscal planning and management, yet
reject both the use of performance-based criteria that have been proposed and the focus on 8 to 10
priority projects. These critics argue that the criteria used are too simplistic and that basing the
Corps’ budget on performance criteria does not produce an integrated multiyear program for the
agency. They also argue that the focus on priority projects has resulted in a disproportionate
amount of the agency’s budget being concentrated on a few projects, resulting in less investment
in other authorized, cost-beneficial projects and in those regions of the country that do not have
priority projects.
ȱ
The Corps plays a significant coordination role in the restoration of the Central and Southern
Florida ecosystem. The agency’s FY2007 workplan provided the $164 million sought for
Everglades restoration activities by the Administration in its FY2007 budget request—Central
and Southern Florida Project ($91 million), Kissimmee River Restoration Project ($34 million),
Everglades and South Florida Restoration Projects ($4 million), and Modified Water Deliveries
Project ($35 million).1 This is an increase from the $137 million appropriated for Corps
Everglades restoration projects in FY2006. The FY2007 work plan also provided $3 million for
the Florida Keys Everglades Improvement project, a project that had received funding in FY2006
but was not part of the FY2007 budget request.
1
For more information on the Modified Water Deliveries Project, see CRS Report RS21331, Everglades Restoration:
Modified Water Deliveries Project, by (name redacted).
ȱȱȱ
śȱ
¢ȱȱȱDZȱŘŖŖŝȱȱ
ȱ
ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱ
The Corps is responsible for much of the repair and fortification of the hurricane protection
system of coastal Louisiana, particularly in the greater New Orleans area; to date, most of the
Corps’ work on the region’s hurricane protection system has been funded through FY2006
emergency supplemental appropriations, as shown in Table 4. The Corps also received $400
million for these activities through FY2005 supplemental appropriations. The vast majority of the
enacted and requested supplemental appropriations for the region is for structural hurricane
defenses; coastal wetlands restoration activities by the Corps have received less than $200 million
of the enacted Katrina appropriations. For more information on the FY2006 supplemental
appropriations for Louisiana, see CRS Report RL33298, FY2006 Supplemental Appropriations:
Iraq and Other International Activities; Additional Hurricane Katrina Relief, by (name redacted) et
al.
ȱ DZȱȱȱȱ ȱ
The Department of the Interior initially requested that Congress provide an increase in funding
for the Central Utah Project Completion Account and reduction for the Bureau of Reclamation
(BOR) for FY2007; however, the final FY2007 funding level is the same as that enacted for
FY2006.
. Energy and Water Development Appropriations
Title II: Central Utah Project Completion Account
Table 5
($ millions)
Program
Central Utah Project Construction
Mitigation and Conservation Activities
Oversight & Administration
FY2006
FY2007
Request
House
Senate
P.L. 110-5
$31.4
0.9
1.7
$37.6
1.0
1.6
$37.6
1.0
1.6
$37.6
1.0
1.6
$31.4
0.9
1.7
34.0
40.2
40.2
40.2
34.0
Total, Central Utah Project
Central Utah Project Completion Act, FY2007 Budget Justification; H.Rept. 109-474; S.Rept. 109-274;
P.L. 110-5.
Note: Details may not add to totals due to rounding.
Source:
Table 6. Energy and Water Development Appropriations
Title II: Bureau of Reclamation
($ millions)
Program
FY2006
FY2007
Request
House
Senate
P.L. 110-5
Water and Related Resources
Desert Terminal Lakes Rescission
Policy & Administration
CVP Restoration Fund (CVPRF)a
$874.7
—
57.3
52.1
$833.4
(88.0)
58.1
41.5
$849.1
(88.0)
58.1
41.5
$889.0
0.0
58.1
41.5
$874.7
—
57.3
52.1
ȱȱȱ
Ŝȱ
¢ȱȱȱDZȱŘŖŖŝȱȱ
ȱ
Program
Calif. Bay-Delta (CALFED)
Gross Current Authority
CVP Collectionsa
FY2006
FY2007
Request
House
Senate
P.L. 110-5
36.6
38.6
40.1
38.6
36.6
1,020.7
883.6
900.8
1,027.2
1,020.7
(43.9)
(33.8)
(33.8)
(33.8)
(43.9)
Net Current Authority
976.8
849.8
867.0
993.4
976.8
Total, Title II
1,054.7
923.8
941.0
1,067.3
1,054.7
Source: Bureau of Reclamation FY2007 Budget Justification; H.Rept. 109-474; S.Rept. 109-274; P.L. 110-5.
a.
In its request, the Reclamation lists CVP Collections as an “offset.” Congress does not follow this
procedure.
ȱȱȱȱȱȱDZȱȱ
ȱ ȱȱ
The Administration requested $40.2 million for the Central Utah Project (CUP) Completion
Account for FY2007. Final FY2007 funding of the CUP remains at the $34.0 million FY2006
level. The FY2007 request for the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) totaled $833.6 million in gross
current budget authority, including a rescission of $88 million for the Desert Terminal Lakes. This
amount is $137.1 million less than enacted for FY2006. The FY2007 request included “offsets”
of $33.8 million for the Central Valley Project (CVP) Restoration Fund, yielding a “net” current
authority of $849.8 million for BOR. BOR has been funded at the FY2006 level for FY2007, with
the total for Title II funding at $1.05 billion.
BOR’s single largest account, Water and Related Resources, encompasses the agency’s traditional
programs and projects, including construction, operations and maintenance, the Dam Safety
Program, Water and Energy Management Development, and Fish and Wildlife Management and
Development, among others. The Administration requested $833.4 million for the Water and
Related Resources Account for FY2007. This amount is $41.3 million (4.7%) less than enacted
for FY2006. The FY2006 enacted funding level of $874.7 million is retained for FY2007.
The House Appropriations Committee made recommendations to provide $17 million more for
BOR programs than the President’s request. The Central Utah project, Central Valley Project, and
Policy and Administration were funded as requested. The Committee recommended that the
Water and Related Resources be funded at a level $15.7 million higher than the FY2007 request.
The California Bay-Delta Restoration project also saw a recommended increase for FY2007 of
$1.5 million.
The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended funding BOR Title II programs at a level
$109.8 million more than the President’s request and $92.6 million more than the House
recommendations. The Central Utah Project, Central Valley Project, and Policy and
Administration were funded as requested by the President and as recommended by the House.
The California Bay-Delta Restoration project was funded at the level requested by the President,
but $1.5 million lower than the House. The Committee recommended that Water and Related
Resources be funded at a level $55.6 million higher than the Administration’s FY2007 request,
and $39.9 million more than the House provided. The Senate had no Desert Terminal lakes
rescission in its recommendations, this was -$88 million in the President’s budget and House
report.
ȱȱȱ
ŝȱ
¢ȱȱȱDZȱŘŖŖŝȱȱ
ȱ
The final continuing resolution (P.L. 110-5) appropriated the same amounts that were
appropriated for FY2006.
¢ȱ¢ȱ ȯȱȱȱ
ȱ
Most of the large dams and water diversion structures in the West were built by, or with the
assistance of, the Bureau of Reclamation. Whereas the Army Corps of Engineers built hundreds
of flood control and navigation projects, BOR’s mission was to develop water supplies, primarily
for irrigation to reclaim arid lands in the West. Today, BOR manages hundreds of dams and
diversion projects, including more than 300 storage reservoirs in 17 western states. These projects
provide water to approximately 10 million acres of farmland and 31 million people. BOR is the
largest wholesale supplier of water in the 17 western states and the second-largest hydroelectric
power producer in the nation. BOR facilities also provide substantial flood control, recreation,
and fish and wildlife benefits. At the same time, operations of BOR facilities are often
controversial, particularly for their effect on sensitive fish and wildlife species and conflicts
among competing water users.
ȱ
The Administration requested $38.6 million for the California Bay-Delta Restoration Account
(Bay-Delta, or CALFED) for FY2007. The bulk of the requested funds were targeted at three
main program areas, including the Environmental Water Account, the Storage Program, and
conveyance. The remainder of the request was allocated for science, water quality, ecosystem
restoration, planning and management, and water use efficiency. The House Appropriations
Committee recommended funding CALFED at $1.5 million above the budget request and
provided a detailed delineation of how it expects funding to be allocated within the program. The
Senate Appropriations Committee recommended funding CALFED as requested by the
Administration and $1.5 million less than the House. P.L. 110-5 provides the same as the FY2006
level, $36.6 million. (For more information on CALFED, see CRS Report RL31975, CALFED
Bay-Delta Program: Overview of Institutional and Water Use Issues, by (name redacted) and
(name redacted).)
¢ȱ
The Administration requested $39.6 million for site security for FY2007. This amount is
comparable to that enacted for FY2006. The bulk of the request is for facility operations/security.
Funding covers such activities as administration of the security program (e.g., surveillance and
law enforcement), antiterrorism activities, and physical emergency security upgrades. P.L. 110-5
provides the same as the FY2006 level and the request, $39.6 million. (For more information, see
CRS Report RL32189, Terrorism and Security Issues Facing the Water Infrastructure Sector, by
(name redacted).)
The FY2007 request assumes annual costs for guard and patrol activities will be treated as project
O&M costs, and hence will be reimbursable based on project cost allocations. These costs are
estimated to be $20.9 million in FY2007, of which $18.9 million is reimbursable. BOR will
ȱȱȱ
Şȱ
¢ȱȱȱDZȱŘŖŖŝȱȱ
ȱ
continue to treat facility fortification and antiterrorism management-related expenses as
nonreimbursable.
ȱŘŖŘśȱ
The 2007 budget request for this program was $14.5 million, an increase of $9.5 million from
FY2006. In 2007, the program plans to continue retrofitting and modernizing existing facilities
aimed at water conservation. BOR also plans to introduce a grant program for System
Optimization Reviews in FY2007. The House and Senate Appropriations Committees
recommended funding Water 2025 at the level requested. P.L. 110-5 provides the same amount,
$14.5 million.
ȱ
DZȱȱȱ¢ȱ
Until last year, the Energy and Water Development bill included funding for most, but not all, of
DOE’s programs; other DOE programs were funded in the Interior and Related Agencies bill.
Major DOE activities historically funded by the Energy and Water bill include research and
development on renewable energy and nuclear power, general science, environmental cleanup,
and nuclear weapons programs.
The subcommittee reorganization of the appropriations committees last year transferred DOE’s
programs for fossil fuels, energy efficiency, the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, and energy
statistics, formerly included in the Interior and Related Agencies appropriations bill, to the
Energy and Water Development bill. Including the transferred programs, the total request for Title
III for FY2007 was $24.0748 billion, slightly more than appropriated for FY2006 (excluding the
adjustments noted in Table 3). The House-passed bill, H.R. 5427, would have appropriated
$24.3735 billion. The Senate Appropriations Committee version of H.R. 5427 recommended
$24.7251 billion. P.L. 110-5 appropriated $23.617 billion.
. Energy and Water Development Appropriations
Title III: Department of Energy
Table 7
($ millions)
Program
Energy Supply & Conservation
Energy Efficiency &
Renewables
Electricity Delivery & Energy
Reliability
Nuclear Energy
Environment, Safety, Health
Legacy Management
Adjustment1
Total, Energy Supply & Cons.
ȱȱȱ
FY2007
Request
House
$1,173.8
$1,176.4
$1,319.4
$1,385.5
$1,474.3
161.9
124.9
144.0
135.0
137.0
416.0
559.8
499.8
711.3
618.2
27.7
33.2
—
29.1
33.1
—
29.1
33.1
—
29.1
33.1
—
(135.0)
1,812.6
1,923.3
2,025.5
2,294.0
2,154.5
FY2006
Senate
P.L. 11052
27.8
33.2
şȱ
¢ȱȱȱDZȱŘŖŖŝȱȱ
ȱ
Program
Fossil Energy R&D
Clean Coal Technology
(Deferral)
Naval Petrol. & Oil Shale
Reserves
Elk Hills School Lands Funds
Strategic Petroleum Reserve
Northeast Home Heating Oil
Rsrv.
Strategic Petroleum Acct.
Energy Information
Administration
Non-Defense Environmental
Cleanup
Uranium Decontamination
and Decommissioning Fund
FY2006
FY2007
P.L. 110-
Request
House
592.0
469.7
558.2
644.3
592.6
(20.0)
—
—
(50.0)
—
21.3
18.8
18.8
39.8
21.3
84.0
—
—
—
—
207.3
155.4
155.4
155.4
164.4
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
—
Senate
52
(43.0)
—
—
—
—
85.3
89.8
89.8
93.0
90.7
349.7
310.4
309.9
310.4
349.7
556.6
579.4
579.4
573.4
556.6
716.7
367.0
1,134.6
579.8
287.6
234.7
—
281.6
(5.6)
775.1
454.1
1,421.0
510.3
319.0
319.0
—
309.3
(5.6)
775.1
454.1
1,421.0
540.3
319.0
319.0
—
309.3
(5.6)
766.8
434.1
1,445.9
560.0
307.0
318.7
79.9
334.3
(5.6)
3,596.4
4,102.1
4,131.7
4,241.0
3,797.3
Science
High Energy Physics
Nuclear Physics
Basic Energy Sciences
Bio. & Env. R&D
Fusion
Advanced Scientific Computing
High Energy Density Physics
Other
Adjustments
Total, Science
Nuclear Waste Disposal
Departmental Admin. (net)
Office of Inspector General
National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)
751.8
422.8
1,250.3
483.5
319.0
283.4
—
292.2
(5.7)
148.5
156.4
186.4
136.4
99.2
128.5
155.4
102.6
158.4
153.8
41.6
45.5
45.5
45.5
41.8
Weapons
6,369.6
6,407.9
6,412.0
6,503.1
6,275.6
Nuclear Nonproliferation
Naval Reactors
Office of Administrator
1,614.8
781.6
338.5
1,726.2
795.1
386.6
1,620.9
795.1
399.6
1,572.7
795.1
386.6
1,683.3
9,104.5
9,315.8
9,227.6
9,257.4
9,081.0
6,130.4
5,390.3
5,551.8
5,479.1
5,731.8
Total, NNSA
Defense Environmental
ȱȱȱ
781.8
340.3
ŗŖȱ
¢ȱȱȱDZȱŘŖŖŝȱȱ
ȱ
FY2007
Request
House
635.6
717.8
720.8
731.8
636.3
346.5
388.1
388.1
358.1
346.5
16,217.0
15,812.0
15,888.3
15,826.4
15,795.6
5.5
29.9
231.7
2.7
5.7
31.5
212.2
2.5
5.7
31.5
212.2
2.5
5.7
31.5
212.2
2.5
269.7
252.0
252.0
252.0
270.6
FERC
218.2
230.8
230.8
230.8
255.4
(revenues)
(218.2)
(230.8)
(230.8)
(230.8)
(255.4)
24,046.8
24,074.8
24,725.1
24,093.2
Program
Cleanup
Other Defense Activities
Defense Nuclear Waste
Disposal
FY2006
Total, Defense Activities
Power Marketing Administrations (PMA)
Southeastern
Southwestern
Western
Falcon & Armistad O&M
Total, PMAs
Total, Title III
24.375.5
Senate
P.L. 11052
5.6
30.0
232.3
2.7
Source: DOE FY2007 Congressional Budget Request, February 2006; H.Rept. 109-474; S.Rept. 109-274; P.L.
; DOE FY2007 Operating Plan, March 16, 2007.
a. Includes $122.6 million from Other Defense Activities and $13.4 million from Naval Reactors.
b. Figures in italics are from DOE FY2007 Operating Plan; Other figures are from P.L. 110-5.
110-5
¢ȱ¢ȱ ȯȱȱ¢ȱ
DOE administers a wide variety of programs with different functions and missions. In the
following pages, the programs are described, and major issues identified, in approximately the
order in which they appear in the budget tables in Table 7.
¢ȱ¢ȱȱ ȱ¢ȱ
A key component of the Administration’s American Competitiveness Initiative is the Advanced
Energy Initiative (AEI). DOE said AEI “aims to reduce America’s dependence on imported
energy sources.” Under AEI, initiatives for hydrogen, biofuels, and solar energy would be
supported by DOE’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE). To support
AEI, the DOE FY2007 request for EERE programs proposed major funding increases under
Hydrogen and Fuel Cell programs. The request also sought large increases under the Biomass and
Solar Energy programs. Overall, the FY2007 DOE request sought $484.7 million for energy
efficiency R&D, which was $32.6 million, or 7.2%, more than the FY2006 appropriation. Also,
the request sought $359.2 million for renewable energy R&D, which was $126.0 million, or 54%,
more than the FY2006 appropriation.
P.L. 110-5 (H.J.Res. 20) set EERE funding at $1.47 billion, which is $311.6 million more than the
FY2006 appropriation. Table 8 shows how the DOE FY2007 Operating Plan would distribute the
$311.6 million across major EERE programs. The $107.0 million for Facilities contains an $80.9
million increase. It includes $63 million to build a new facility at the National Renewable Energy
Laboratory (NREL), $20 million for NREL’s ethanol research biorefinery, and $16 million for
ȱȱȱ
ŗŗȱ
ȱ
¢ȱȱȱDZȱŘŖŖŝȱȱ
advanced photovoltaic manufacturing equipment. Other key increases include Biomass ($109.9
million), Solar Energy ($77.6 million), Hydrogen ($40.1 million), and Building Technologies
($36.1 million). The main cuts are for Weatherization grants (-$38.0 million), Geothermal (-$17.8
million), and Small Hydro termination (-$0.5 million).
The House Committee report includes several policy directives to EERE. First, it says (pp. 72-73)
that EERE could have avoided employee layoffs at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory
(NREL) through better management of uncosted balances, and it directs EERE to report by
January 31, 2007, on steps taken to identify prior year balances and account for all out-year
commitments. Second, the report directs (p. 73) EERE to report by January 31, 2007, on the
progress of implementing the Inspector General’s recommendations to improve the management
of cooperative agreements (IG audit report DOE/IG-0689). Further, the report directs (pp. 74-75)
EERE to fully fund a biomass R&D grant to Natureworks LLC, strengthen recruiting from
Historically Black Colleges and Universities, and prepare a report on solar water heaters by
January 31, 2007, that covers potential energy savings, market impediments, and deployment
strategy. Also, one DOE-wide directive that would clearly affect EERE involves funding for the
Asia Pacific Partnership (APP), which would support clean, energy-efficient technologies. The
report directs (pp. 67-68) DOE to submit a reprogramming request if it intends to support APP
with FY2006 funds and to submit a detailed budget justification (which would be considered by
the conference committee) if it proposes to use FY2007 funds. Other DOE-wide directives (pp.
68-70) that could affect EERE involve refocusing of Laboratory Directed Research and
Development (LDRD) funds to high-priority research, elimination of “excess facilities,” updates
of five-year plans, and controls over the use of budget reprogrammings.
The Senate Committee report also includes several policy directives to EERE. First, it
recommends (p. 116) that DOE complete unfinished awards for biorefineries before funding new
ones. It urges that DOE focus on cellulosic ethanol to reduce oil imports, and directs DOE to
recommend ways to implement the cellulosic biomass production incentive in EPACT (P.L. 10958, §942). Second, the Committee joins with the House in requiring (p. 117) a report on solar
water heaters. Third, it urges (p. 117) DOE to focus on non-silicon materials and directs DOE to
prepare a report by March 31, 2007, on short- and long-term silicon market conditions and the
potential impact on the photovoltaic market. Fourth, it recommends (p. 117) a $9 million increase
to support deployment of a solar-hydrogen pilot plant that would fulfill certain sections of
EPACT. Fifth, the Committee directs (p. 117) that funding for a 1 MW solar thermal facility can
only be used for deployment in New Mexico. Sixth, it requests (pp. 117-118) that EERE and OE
provide a report by March 2007 that identifies the most promising locations for wind resources
and the best opportunities for integrating the potential power generation facilities into the electric
grid. Seventh, it encourages (p. 118) DOE to form an interagency group to promote renewable
energy use in all aspects of federal agency operations, especially those on federal lands. In
particular, this group should address the issue of wind energy project delays due to Department of
Defense concerns about radar interference. Eighth, it recommends (p. 118) that $2.4 million be
provided as a competitive award for development of a 2 MW permanent magnet motor wind
turbine, which has the potential to eliminate the need for gearboxes. Ninth, it directs (p. 118) that
funding for Hydropower include a study of advanced techniques for ocean energy, including an
assessment of locations for demonstration plants, with a report by May 1, 2007. Tenth, it directs
(pp. 118-119) DOE to study possible impacts of plug-in hybrids on electricity supply and
distribution networks, including urban areas, and to study environmental aspects of fuelswitching. Eleventh, it directs (p. 119) DOE to provide a strategy to accelerate the development
of zero energy buildings by five to seven years.
ȱȱȱ
ŗŘȱ
¢ȱȱȱDZȱŘŖŖŝȱȱ
ȱ
¢ȱ¢ȱȱ¢ȱ¢ȱǻǼȱ
The FY2007 request included $124.9 million for the Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy
Reliability (OE). The House approved $144.0 million, and the Senate Appropriations Committee
approved $135.0 million. P.L. 110-5 includes $137.0 million, which is $21.2 million less than the
FY2006 appropriation.
Table 8. Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Programs
($ millions)
Program
Hydrogen Technologies
—Fuel Cell Technologies
Biomass & Biorefinery Systems
—Biochemical Platform (Cellulose)
Solar Energy
—Photovoltaics
Wind Energy
Geothermal Technology
Small Hydropower
Vehicle Technologies
Building Technologies
Industrial Technologies
Federal Energy Management
Facilities & Infrastructure
Weatherization Grants
State Energy Grants
Program Management
R&D Subtotal
Grants Subtotal
Use of Prior Year Balances
Total Appropriation, EE &RE
Office of Electricity Delivery &
Energy Reliability (OE)*
FY2006
FY2007
Request
FY2007
House
FY2007
Senate
FY2007
P.L. 110-5
$153.5
66.6
89.8
10.4
81.8
58.8
38.3
22.8
0.5
178.4
68.2
52.1
19.0
26.1
242.6
35.6
115.2
$195.8
96.6
149.7
32.8
148.4
139.5
43.8
0.0
0.0
166.0
77.3
45.6
16.9
5.9
164.2
49.5
102.0
$195.8
96.6
149.7
32.8
148.4
134.5
43.8
5.0
0.0
172.5
80.0
51.6
18.9
15.9
268.0
49.5
102.0
189.9
85.4
213.0
—
148.4
125.5
39.4
22.5
4.0
180.0
95.3
47.6
16.9
5.9
200.0
49.5
101.9
193.6
—
199.7
—
159.4
—
49.3
5.0
0.0
188.0
104.3
56.6
19.5
107.0
204.6
49.5
110.2
884.6
962.8
1,001.4
1,136.0
1,220.3
278.2
213.7
317.5
249.5
254.0
—
—
—
—
—
1,162.7
1,176.4
1,319.4
1,385.5
1,474.3
158.2
124.9
144.0
135.0
137.0
DOE FY2007 Operating Plan; S.Rept. 109-274; H.Rept. 109-474; DOE FY2007 Congressional Budget
Request, v. 3, Feb. 2006.
Note: *The Distributed Energy Program was moved from EERE to OE in FY2006.
Source:
ȱ¢ȱ
For nuclear energy research and development—including advanced reactors, fuel cycle
technology, nuclear hydrogen production, and infrastructure support—DOE requested $632.7
ȱȱȱ
ŗřȱ
¢ȱȱȱDZȱŘŖŖŝȱȱ
ȱ
million for FY2007, an 18.1% increase from the FY2006 appropriation. The request would have
boosted funding for the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative (AFCI) from $79.2 million in FY2006 to
$243.0 million in FY2007. The higher AFCI funding was intended to allow DOE to begin
developing an engineering-scale facility to demonstrate new technology for separating plutonium
and uranium in spent nuclear fuel, as part of the Administration’s Global Nuclear Energy
Partnership (GNEP). The nuclear energy program is run by DOE’s Office of Nuclear Energy,
Science, and Technology.
The House on May 24, 2006, passed its version of the FY2007 Energy and Water Development
Appropriations Bill (H.R. 5427, H.Rept. 109-474) with $572.8 million for nuclear energy
research and development—$59.9 million below the Bush Administration’s request but $20.8
million above the FY2006 funding level. The House-passed funding bill would have cut the AFCI
funding request to $120 million, which would still have been 50% above the FY2006 level. In
contrast, the Senate Appropriations Committee voted June 29 to increase nuclear energy funding
by $151.5 million over the request, to $784.2 million, including $279.0 million for AFCI (S.Rept.
109-274).
The DOE FY2007 operating plan provides $618.2 million for nuclear energy, about 10% above
the FY2006 level. AFCI funding more than doubles to $167.5 million.
According to DOE’s FY2007 budget justification, the nuclear energy R&D program is intended
“to enable nuclear energy to fulfill its promise as a safe, advanced, inexpensive and
environmentally benign approach to providing reliable energy to all of the world’s people.”
However, opponents have criticized DOE’s nuclear research program as providing wasteful
subsidies to an industry that they believe should be phased out as unacceptably hazardous and
economically uncompetitive.
Under the Administration’s GNEP initiative, plutonium partially separated from the highly
radioactive spent fuel from nuclear reactors would be recycled into new fuel to expand the future
supply of nuclear fuel and potentially reduce the amount of radioactive waste to be disposed of in
a permanent repository. The United States and other advanced nuclear nations would lease new
fuel to other nations that agreed to forgo uranium enrichment, spent fuel recycling (also called
reprocessing), and other fuel cycle facilities that could be used to produce nuclear weapons
materials. The leased fuel would then be returned to supplier nations for reprocessing. Solidified
high-level reprocessing waste would be sent back to the nation that had used the leased fuel,
along with supplies of fresh nuclear fuel, according to the GNEP concept; see
http://www.gnep.energy.gov.
Although GNEP is largely conceptual at this point, DOE issued a Spent Nuclear Fuel Recycling
Program Plan in May 2006 that provides a general schedule for a GNEP Technology
Demonstration Program (TDP),2 which would develop the necessary technologies to achieve
GNEP’s goals. According to the Program Plan, the first phase of the TDP, running through
FY2006, consisted of “program definition and development” and acceleration of AFCI. Phase 2,
running through FY2008, is to focus on the design of technology demonstration facilities, which
then are to begin operating during Phase 3, from FY2008 to FY2020.
2
DOE, Spent Nuclear Fuel Recycling Plan, Report to Congress, May 2006.
ȱȱȱ
ŗŚȱ
¢ȱȱȱDZȱŘŖŖŝȱȱ
ȱ
Nuclear critics oppose GNEP’s emphasis on spent fuel reprocessing, which they see as a weapons
proliferation risk, even if weapons-useable plutonium is not completely separated from other
spent fuel elements, as envisioned by the Administration. “As the research of DOE scientists
makes clear, the reprocessing technologies under consideration would still produce a material that
is not radioactive enough to deter theft, and that could be used to make nuclear weapons,”
according to the Union of Concerned Scientists.3
ȱ ȱŘŖŗŖȱ
President Bush’s specific mention of “clean, safe nuclear energy” in his 2006 State of the Union
address reiterated the Administration’s interest in encouraging construction of new commercial
reactors—for which there have been no U.S. orders since 1978. DOE’s efforts to restart the
nuclear construction pipeline have been focused on the Nuclear Power 2010 Program, which will
pay up to half of the nuclear industry’s costs of seeking regulatory approval for new reactor sites,
applying for new reactor licenses, and preparing detailed plant designs. The program is intended
to provide assistance for advanced versions of existing commercial nuclear plants that could be
ordered within the next few years.
The Nuclear Power 2010 Program is helping three utilities seek NRC approval for potential
nuclear reactor sites in Illinois, Mississippi, and Virginia. The first of those, for the Illinois site,
was issued March 15, 2007, and the second, for the Mississippi site, on March 27, 2007. In
addition, two industry consortia are receiving DOE assistance over the next several years to
design and license new nuclear power plants. DOE awarded the first funding to the consortia in
2004. DOE’s FY2007 budget request included $54.0 million for Nuclear Power 2010; the Housepassed funding bill would have provided the full request, and the Senate Appropriations
Committee voted to increase the program’s funding to $88.0 million. DOE’s operating plan
provides $80.3 million. DOE assistance under the program, including the early site permits, is
planned to reach a multiyear total of about $550 million.
ȱ ȱ
Advanced commercial reactor technologies that are not yet close to deployment are the focus of
DOE’s Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems Initiative, for which $31.4 million was requested
for FY2007—30% less than the FY2006 request and more than 40% below the final
appropriation of $53.3 million. The House-passed funding bill would have provided the requested
amount; most of the proposed reduction would have come from the Next Generation Nuclear
Plant (NGNP), which would have dropped from $40 million to $23.4 million. The Senate
Appropriations Committee voted to provide $48.0 million for the program and continue level
funding of $40.0 million for NGNP. The DOE operating plan provides $35.6 million for
Generation IV.
The Energy Policy Act of 2005 authorizes $1.25 billion through FY2015 for NGNP development
and construction (Title VI, Subtitle C). The authorization requires that NGNP be based on
research conducted by the Generation IV program and be capable of producing electricity,
3
Union of Concerned Scientists, U.S. Nuclear Fuel Reprocessing Initiative, http://www.ucsusa.org/global_security/
nuclear_terrorism/doe_proliferation_resistance.html
ȱȱȱ
ŗśȱ
ȱ
¢ȱȱȱDZȱŘŖŖŝȱȱ
hydrogen, or both. The Generation IV program is focusing on advanced designs that could be
commercially available around 2020-2030.
ȱȱ¢ȱ ȱ
The nuclear energy program’s Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative (AFCI) was the primary
component of GNEP in the FY2007 budget request. The $243 million budget request for AFCI
constituted nearly all of the $250 million GNEP program (with the remaining $7 million
requested for program direction).
According to the budget justification, AFCI will develop and demonstrate nuclear fuel cycles that
could reduce the long-term hazard of spent nuclear fuel and recover additional energy. Such
technologies would involve separation of plutonium, uranium, and other long-lived radioactive
materials from spent fuel for re-use in a nuclear reactor or for transmutation in a particle
accelerator. Most of the proposed AFCI funding would be for an engineering-scale demonstration
of a separations technology called UREX+ ($155 million), in which uranium and other elements
are chemically removed from dissolved spent fuel, leaving a mixture of plutonium and other
highly radioactive elements. Proponents believe the process is proliferation-resistant, because
further purification would be required to make the plutonium useable for weapons and because its
high radioactivity would make it difficult to divert or work with.
However, the House Appropriations Committee expressed concern that more fundamental
research on the UREX+ process was needed, particularly on waste byproducts, before moving
ahead to the demonstration phase. As a result, the House-passed energy and water funding bill
would have held the program’s spending to $120 million. But the Senate Appropriations
Committee, calling GNEP “imperative” for reducing nuclear waste and increasing energy
supplies, boosted AFCI funding by $36 million over the request. As noted above, the spending
plan provides $167.5 million for the program.
Removing uranium from spent fuel would eliminate most of the volume of spent nuclear fuel that
would otherwise require disposal in a deep geologic repository, which DOE is developing at
Yucca Mountain, Nevada. The UREX+ process also would reduce the heat generated by nuclear
waste—the major limit on the repository’s capacity—by removing cesium and strontium for
separate storage and decay over several hundred years. Plutonium and other long-lived elements
would be fissioned in accelerators or fast reactors (such as the type under development by the
Generation IV program) to reduce the long-term hazard of nuclear waste. Even if technically
feasible, however, the economic viability of such waste processing has yet to be determined, and
it still faces significant opposition on nuclear nonproliferation grounds.
ȱ ¢ȱ ȱ
In support of President Bush’s program to develop hydrogen-fueled vehicles, DOE requested
$18.7 million in FY2007 for the Nuclear Hydrogen Initiative, a 25% reduction from the FY2006
level. The House-passed funding bill would have provided the same amount, but the Senate
Appropriations Committee voted to boost the program to $31.7 million. The DOE operating plan
provides $19.3 million. According to DOE’s FY2005 budget justification, “preliminary estimates
... indicate that hydrogen produced using nuclear-driven thermochemical or high-temperature
electrolysis processes would be only slightly more expensive than gasoline” and result in far less
air pollution.
ȱȱȱ
ŗŜȱ
ȱ
¢ȱȱȱDZȱŘŖŖŝȱȱ
ȱ¢ȱǰȱǰȱȱȱ
The Bush Administration’s FY2007 budget request of $469.7 million for fossil energy research
and development was about 21% less than the amount enacted for FY2006 ($592.0 million).
Major funding categories and amounts included Coal (President’s Coal Research Initiative,
$280.7 million, and Other Coal Related Activities, $63.9 million), Program Direction ($129
million), and Fossil Energy Environmental Restoration ($9.7 million). Coal and coal-related
activities accounted for more than 70% of the FY2007 Fossil Energy R&D budget request. The
House bill would have funded Fossil Energy programs at $558.2 million, including increasing the
Clean Coal Power Initiative from $5 million to $36.4 million, and other increases in the Fuels and
Power Systems category. The Senate Appropriations Committee approved $644.3 million for
Fossil Energy programs, 37% more than the Administration’s request. It would have provided $70
million for the Clean Coal Power Initiative and substantial increases for the Fuels and Power
Systems programs. P.L. 110-5 funded the programs at the FY2006 level, $592 million.
DOE again proposed for FY2007 to terminate both the Natural Gas and Oil Technology
programs, based on a Program Assessment Rating Tool review that rated both programs
ineffective. Congressional support of Natural Gas and Oil Technology programs has been
significantly higher than the Bush Administration’s request in previous years. Congress funded
both programs in FY2006. The House Committee agreed not to fund Natural Gas Technologies
and scaled back funding for Petroleum Technologies to $2.7 million because, according to the
Committee, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 authorizes $50 million of “mandatory receipts” for oil
and gas technologies R&D. The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended $17 million for
the development of natural gas from methane hydrates and $10 million for R&D efforts in oil
shale and tar sands technology.
The Administration’s $5 million request for its Clean Coal Power Initiative (CCPI) would have
been directed toward the next CCPI solicitation, but no new money would have been requested
for CCPI projects directly. The Administration said it would rather improve the use of current
CCPI funds. The Senate Appropriations Committee believed that the small request for CCPI was
inconsistent with the Administration’s goal of long-term domestic energy development.
According to DOE’s budget justification, CCPI is a “cost-shared program between the
government and industry to rapidly demonstrate emerging technologies in coal-based power
generation and to accelerate their commercialization.” About $500 million has been appropriated
since FY2002. The Administration previously announced its commitment to spend $2 billion over
10 years for clean coal research. CCPI is similar to the Clean Coal Technology Program (CCTP),
which began in the late 1980s. CCTP has completed most of its projects and has been subject to
rescissions and deferrals since the mid-1990s. It eventually is to be phased out.
However, while Congress and the Administration agreed that there is an unused, previously
appropriated balance of $257 million from the Clean Coal Technology Program, the
Administration requested again in FY2007 to rescind the money and incorporate the funds into
the fossil fuel account for FutureGen activities as an advanced appropriation to be used beginning
in FY2007 ($54 million) and beyond. In FY2006, Congress deferred the $257 million but
acknowledged that the funds would be used for the FutureGen program in fiscal years 2007 and
beyond (see FutureGen funding schedule in Table 9, below). FutureGen is a project to
demonstrate co-production of electricity and hydrogen from coal without emissions. For FY2007,
the House Appropriations Committee recommended rescinding $257 million of clean coal
funding because it is “no longer needed to complete active projects in the program.” The Senate
ȱȱȱ
ŗŝȱ
¢ȱȱȱDZȱŘŖŖŝȱȱ
ȱ
Appropriations Committee would instead have deferred $203 million and rescinded $50 million
from the CCTP. None of these proposals was included in P.L. 110-5.
Within the Coal R&D program, the Administration requested $54 million for gasification research
in FY2007, about $2 million less than what was enacted for FY2006. This level of funding
request indicated a sustained commitment by the Administration and Congress to the integrated
gasification combined cycle (IGCC) technology aimed at commercialization. There is ongoing
investment in IGCC because of its potential benefits from reduced NOx, SOx, mercury, and fine
particulate matter emissions. Moreover, lower CO2 emissions through greater plant efficiencies
and/or potential sequestration could be substantial. Under the Administration’s request, funding
for DOE’s Carbon Sequestration program would have increased from $66.3 million in FY2006 to
$73.9 million in FY2007. The House Appropriations Committee supported FutureGen and
Carbon Sequestration programs at the same levels of funding as the Administration’s request. The
Senate Appropriations Committee voted to provide $90 million for Carbon Sequestration, $16
million more than the Administration’s request and the House allowance and the same level of
funding for FutureGen as the Administration’s request. But the Senate Committee expressed its
concern over the need for the Administration to maintain an adequate level of funding for core
fossil energy R&D programs.
Table 9. FutureGen Funding Profile
($ millions)
FY
DOE direct
Other cash flows
Total
2004-2005
27
2
11
2006
18
7
25
2007
50
25
75
2008
100
44
144
2009
89
75
164
2010
57
66
123
2011-2018
159
224
383
Total
500
450
950
U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Fossil Energy, FutureGen, Integrated Hydrogen, Electric Power
Production and Carbon Sequestration Research Initiative, March 2004.
Source:
ȱȱȱ
The Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR), authorized by the Energy Policy and Conservation Act
(P.L. 94-163) in late 1975, consists of caverns formed out of naturally occurring salt domes in
Louisiana and Texas in which roughly 685 million barrels of crude oil are stored. The purpose of
the SPR is to provide an emergency source of crude oil that may be tapped in the event of a
presidential finding that an interruption in oil supply, or an interruption threatening adverse
economic effects, warrants a drawdown from the reserve. A Northeast Heating Oil Reserve
(NHOR) was established during the Clinton Administration. NHOR houses 2 million barrels of
home heating oil in above-ground facilities in Connecticut, New Jersey, and Rhode Island.
Recent program costs for the SPR have been almost exclusively dedicated to maintaining SPR
facilities and keeping the SPR in readiness should it be needed. Congress agreed to a funding
ȱȱȱ
ŗŞȱ
ȱ
¢ȱȱȱDZȱŘŖŖŝȱȱ
level of $207.3 million for the program in FY2006. The Administration request for FY2007 for
the SPR was $155.4 million, and the House and Senate bills included the same amount. P.L. 1105 did not specifically change SPR’s FY2007 funding from the FY2006 level of $164.4 million,
and DOE’s FY2007 operating plan projects that amount of spending.
ȱ
The DOE Office of Science conducts basic research in six program areas: basic energy sciences,
high-energy physics, biological and environmental research, nuclear physics, fusion energy
sciences, and advanced scientific computing research. Through these programs, DOE is the thirdlargest federal funder of basic research and the largest federal funder of research in the physical
sciences.4 For FY2007, DOE requested $4.102 billion for Science, an increase of 14% from the
FY2006 appropriation of $3.596 billion. This unusually large increase reflected the American
Competitiveness Initiative (ACI), which the President announced in his State of the Union
address on January 31, 2006. Over the next 10 years, the ACI would double R&D funding for the
DOE Office of Science and two other agencies. The House provided $4.132 billion, or $30
million more than the request. The Senate committee recommended $4.241 billion, or $139
million more than the request. The appropriation specified in the final continuing resolution was
$3.796 billion (P.L. 110-5, Sec. 20313).
The requested funding for the largest Office of Science program, basic energy sciences, was
$1.421 billion, a 25% increase from the FY2006 level of $1.135 billion. About $200 million of
the requested increase would have supported expanded facility operating time. (The House and
Senate appropriations reports for FY2006 both called for increased funding for this purpose.) The
House provided the requested amount. The Senate committee recommended an additional $25
million for water-related research. Under the March 2007 operating plan, basic energy sciences
received $1.250 billion.
The request for fusion energy sciences was $319 million, an 11% increase. Included was $60
million for U.S. participation in the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER), a
fusion facility whose other participants include China, the European Union, India, Japan, Russia,
and South Korea. The estimated total U.S. share of the cost of ITER is $1.2 billion through
FY2014. The House and conference appropriations reports for FY2006 both directed DOE to
fund ITER out of additional resources, not through reductions in the domestic fusion program.
Although the multiyear increase proposed for Science as part of the American Competitiveness
Initiative may take some of the budget pressure off the fusion program, the impact of ITER on the
domestic program is likely to remain an issue for future years. The House provided the requested
amount, with the House committee report expressing pleasure “that the department finally
requested sufficient funding.” The Senate committee recommended the requested amount, but
proposed moving $12 million of it to a new Science program in high energy-density science.
Under the Senate committee recommendations, the new program would also have received $20
million moved from nuclear physics, $8 million moved from high-energy physics, and $39
million moved from the inertial confinement fusion program (in the Weapons Activities account)
for a total of $80 million. Under the March 2007 operating plan, fusion energy sciences received
4
Based on preliminary FY2005 data from Tables 29 and 22 of National Science Foundation, Division of Science
Resources Statistics, Federal Funds for Research and Development: Fiscal Years 2003, 2004, and 2005, NSF 06-313
(May 2006).
ȱȱȱ
ŗşȱ
ȱ
¢ȱȱȱDZȱŘŖŖŝȱȱ
the requested amount, $319 million. The operating plan did not include the Senate’s proposed
new program in high energy-density science.
Biological and environmental research was the only Science program whose request for FY2007
was less than it received in FY2006: $510 million, down 12%. The decrease resulted from the
requested termination of 161 congressionally directed projects, with total funding of $130
million, that were specified in the FY2006 appropriations conference report. The House provided
the requested funding plus an increase of $30 million to pay for 67 directed projects. The Senate
committee recommended the requested funding plus an increase of $50 million to pay for 61
directed projects. As in FY2006, the budget request for biological and environmental research
included no funds for nuclear medicine. The Senate bill (Sec. 314) would have directed DOE to
support nuclear medicine activities from the Energy Technology Commercialization Fund
established by Sec. 1001(e) of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58). The Senate report
expressed the committee’s expectation that $25 million would be provided in this way. The March
2007 operating plan provided $483 million for biological and environmental research.
The three remaining Office of Science research programs would all have received increases under
the FY2007 request: $775 million for high-energy physics, up 8% from FY2006; $454 million for
nuclear physics, up 24%; and $319 million for advanced scientific computing research, up 36%.
The request for nuclear physics included no funds for construction of the Relativistic Ion
Accelerator, despite direction in Sec. 981 of P.L. 109-58 that construction of this project must
begin no later than the end of FY2008. The House provided the requested amount for all three
programs, and the House committee report directed DOE to submit a report on its plans to
comply with or seek relief from the Relativistic Ion Accelerator requirements of P.L. 109-58. The
Senate committee recommended the requested amount for all three programs but moved some of
the recommended funds to a new program in high energy-density science as noted above. The
Senate committee report also expressed concern about the long-term effects that funding for the
planned International Linear Collider project may have on other activities supported by the highenergy physics program. (In this discussion, the Senate report made analogies with both ITER
and the Relativistic Ion Accelerator.) For all three programs, the March 2007 operating plan
provided more than the FY2006 appropriation but less than the request: $752 million for highenergy physics, $423 million for nuclear physics, and $283 million for advanced scientific
computing research.
The Senate committee recommended an increase of $25 million in non-research funding for
science workforce development. The additional funds would have paid for graduate fellowships,
summer training for primary and secondary mathematics and science teachers, and the use of
national laboratory staff and equipment to support centers of excellence in public secondary
schools. These activities were closely related to provisions of the PACE-Energy Act (S. 2197) and
PACE-Education Act (S. 2198). The March 2007 operating plan provided $8 million for the
workforce development program, a decrease of $3 million from the request.
ȱȱȱ
DOE’s Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management (OCRWM) is responsible for
developing a nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, for disposal of nuclear reactor
spent fuel and defense-related high-level radioactive waste. OCRWM’s funding comes from two
appropriations accounts: the Nuclear Waste Disposal account, for which DOE requested $156.4
million for FY2007, and Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal, with a request of $388.1 million.
ȱȱȱ
ŘŖȱ
¢ȱȱȱDZȱŘŖŖŝȱȱ
ȱ
Appropriations under the Nuclear Waste Disposal account come from the Nuclear Waste Fund,
which holds disposal fees paid by nuclear utilities.
The total FY2007 nuclear waste budget request of $544.5 million was $50 million above the
FY2006 appropriation. The House approved the full request, plus $30 million, not from the
Nuclear Waste Fund, “to initiate the process for selecting and licensing one or more interim
storage sites.” The House Appropriations Committee further stated:
If the Congress has not provided the Department with clear statutory authority for interim
storage by the end of FY2007, the remaining funds shall be re-directed to non-site-specific
activities to select a second repository for nuclear waste disposal, consistent with Section 161
of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act [which prohibits site-specific activities on a second
repository].
The Senate Appropriations Committee voted to cut the request to $494.5 million, about the same
as the FY2006 funding level. Delays in the Yucca Mountain program “have forced the Committee
to reconsider the project’s budget needs,” according to the panel’s report. The Committee directed
DOE to reduce funding for transportation activities related to future waste disposal at Yucca
Mountain and to not proceed with any procurement or construction activities at a planned waste
canister handling facility. The DOE FY2007 operating plan provides $445.7 million for the
nuclear waste program—$99.2 million from the Nuclear Waste Fund and $346.5 million in the
defense nuclear waste disposal account.
DOE announced on October 25, 2005, that it would require most spent fuel to be sealed in
standardized canisters before shipment to Yucca Mountain, a change that would largely eliminate
the handling of individual fuel assemblies at the site. DOE subsequently informed the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission that making those changes to the repository’s operational plans would
further delay submission of a Yucca Mountain license application to NRC. DOE announced on
July 19, 2006, that an application would be submitted by June 30, 2008, with a goal of opening
the repository in 2017.
Because of the continued delays, the Senate panel added an extensive provision to the Energy and
Water bill (section 313), which ultimately was not enacted, to authorize the Secretary of Energy
to designate interim storage sites for spent nuclear fuel. The Secretary would have been required,
after consultation with the governor, to designate a storage site in each state with a nuclear power
plant, if feasible, or to designate regional storage facilities. Such sites would have been required
to be federally owned or able to be purchased by the federal government from a willing seller and
could not be located in Nevada or Utah (which has a licensed but undeveloped private storage
site). DOE would have been required to take over all responsibility for spent fuel stored at
shutdown reactors, upon the reactor owners’ request. The storage provisions in this section would
have been deemed sufficient to satisfy NRC requirements that new nuclear power plants
demonstrate the ability to safely dispose of nuclear waste before being licensed to operate.
The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (NWPA, P.L. 97-425), as amended, names Yucca
Mountain as the sole candidate site for a national geologic repository. Congress passed an
approval resolution in July 2002 (H.J.Res. 87, P.L. 107-200) that authorized the Yucca Mountain
project to proceed to the licensing phase.
NWPA required DOE to begin taking waste from nuclear plant sites by January 31, 1998. Nuclear
utilities, upset over DOE’s failure to meet that deadline, have won two federal court decisions
upholding the department’s obligation to meet the deadline and to compensate utilities for any
ȱȱȱ
Řŗȱ
¢ȱȱȱDZȱŘŖŖŝȱȱ
ȱ
resulting damages. Utilities have also won several cases in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. The
nation’s largest nuclear utility, Exelon Corporation, reached a breach-of-contract settlement with
the federal government in August 2004 that may total $600 million if DOE does not begin taking
spent fuel before its current goal of 2017.
Further delays in the Yucca Mountain program could result from a July 2004 court decision that
overturned a key aspect of the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) regulations for the
repository. A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
ruled that EPA’s 10,000-year compliance period was too short, but it rejected several other
challenges to the standards. EPA proposed revised Yucca Mountain standards on August 9, 2005.
More controversy erupted in March 2005 with the release of e-mail messages from Yucca
Mountain scientists that indicated that some of their data and documentation may have been
fabricated. The House Appropriations Committee report cited all those problems as reasons for
establishing a DOE interim storage program. (For more information, see CRS Report RL33461,
Civilian Nuclear Waste Disposal, by (name redacted).)
ȱȱȱ ȱ
Congress established the Stockpile Stewardship Program in the FY1994 National Defense
Authorization Act (P.L. 103-160) “to ensure the preservation of the core intellectual and technical
competencies of the United States in nuclear weapons.” The program is operated by the National
Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), a semiautonomous agency within DOE that Congress
established in the FY2000 National Defense Authorization Act (P.L. 106-65, Title XXXII). It
seeks to maintain the safety and reliability of the U.S. nuclear stockpile.
Stockpile stewardship consists of all activities in NNSA’s Weapons Activities account. The three
main elements of stockpile stewardship, described below, are Directed Stockpile Work (DSW),
Campaigns, and Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities (RTBF). Table 10 presents funding
for these elements. NNSA manages two programs outside of Weapons Activities: Defense
Nuclear Nonproliferation, discussed later in this report, and Naval Reactors.
Most stewardship activities take place at the nuclear weapons complex, which consists of three
laboratories (Los Alamos National Laboratory, NM; Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory,
CA; and Sandia National Laboratories, NM and CA); four production sites (Kansas City Plant,
MO; Pantex Plant, TX; Savannah River Site, SC; and Y-12 Plant, TN); and the Nevada Test Site.
NNSA manages and sets policy for the complex; contractors to NNSA operate the eight sites.
Table 10. Funding for Weapons Activities
($ millions)
Program
DSW
Campaigns
CNPC
RTBF
FY2006
FY2007
Request
House
Senate
Approp.
Comm.
$1,372.3
2,123.2
—
$1,410.3
1,937.4
—
$1,312.2
2,033.6
100.0
$1,323.2
2,027.6
—
$1,425.7
1,979.0
—
1,644.8
1,685.8
1,658.8
1,780.8
1,613.2
ȱȱȱ
Operating
Plan
ŘŘȱ
¢ȱȱȱDZȱŘŖŖŝȱȱ
ȱ
House
Senate
Approp.
Comm.
Program
Other
FY2006
FY2007
Request
1,229.4
1,374.5
1,307.4
1,371.5
1,257.7
Total
6,369.6
6,407.9
6,412.0
6,503.1
6,275.6
a
Operating
Plan
DOE FY2007 Congressional Budget Request, vol. 1 (NNSA), p. 55; H.Rept. 109-474, pp. 138-142;
and U.S. Department of Energy, FY 2007 Operating Plan by Appropriation, March 16, 2007, pp. 15-21.
Notes: Details may not add to totals due to rounding. DSW, Directed Stockpile Work; RTBF, Readiness in
Technical Base and Facilities; CNPC, Consolidated Nuclear Production Center.
a. Includes Secure Transportation Asset, Nuclear Weapons Incident Response, Facilities and Infrastructure
Recapitalization Program, Environmental Projects and Operations, Safeguards and Security, and several
adjustments.
Sources:
The FY2007 request document includes data from NNSA’s Future Years Nuclear Security
Program (FYNSP), which projects the budget and components through FY2011 (see Table 11).
Table 11. NNSA Future Years Nuclear Security Program
($ millions)
FY2007
DSW
Campaigns
RTBF
Othera
Total
FY2008
FY2009
FY2010
FY2011
$1,410.3
1,937.4
1,685.8
$1,381.9
1,961.6
1,767.6
$1,431.4
1,920.9
1,833.8
$1,462.3
1,899.0
1,907.5
$1,495.0
1,853.3
2,008.9
1,374.5
1,425.0
1,480.7
1,531.3
1,578.9
6,407.9
6,536.0
6,666.8
6,800.1
6,936.1
DOE FY2007 Congressional Budget Request, vol. 1 (NNSA), pp. 55, 56.
Note: Details may not add to totals because of rounding.
a. Includes Secure Transportation Asset, Nuclear Weapons Incident Response, Facilities and Infrastructure
Recapitalization Program, Environmental Projects and Operations, Safeguards and Security, and several
adjustments.
Source:
ȱȱ¡ȱȱ
In testimony before the House Appropriations Committee’s Energy and Water Subcommittee in
March 2004, the Secretary of Energy agreed to conduct a review of reconfiguring the nuclear
weapons complex (the “Complex”). The Committee’s FY2005 energy and water report contained
a requirement for that study. The committee was concerned about high costs, the security of
fissile material distributed among many sites, and the size and age of the current Complex. A task
force of the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board released its final report in October 2005. It
recommended, among other things, having a Consolidated Nuclear Production Center that would
make nuclear components (such as those of uranium or plutonium) for nuclear weapons and
would assemble and dismantle nuclear weapons. The task force also recommended consolidating
large quantities of uranium and plutonium at few sites, and probably closing several current
Complex sites. The House Appropriations Committee, in its FY2007 report, supported the task
force’s recommendations and rejected NNSA’s plan to modernize the current Complex in place.
The Committee recommended $100.0 million “for transition planning, site selection, and
ȱȱȱ
Řřȱ
ȱ
¢ȱȱȱDZȱŘŖŖŝȱȱ
preliminary design and development for a consolidated nuclear production site for reliable
replacement warheads and stockpile support.” The bill as passed by the House provided this sum.
NNSA had not requested funds for this purpose. The Senate Appropriations Committee did not
recommend funds for this purpose, and the DOE Operating Plan did not include such funds.
ȱȱȱǻǼȱ
This program involves work directly on nuclear weapons in the stockpile, such as monitoring
their condition; maintaining them through repairs, refurbishment, life extension, and
modifications; R&D in support of specific warheads; and dismantlement. The FY2007 DSW
request would support life extension programs for three nuclear warheads: B61 (gravity bomb),
W76 (for Trident II submarine-launched ballistic missiles), and W80 (for cruise missiles). It
would fund surveillance and maintenance for nine warhead types, dismantlement and disposition
of retired warheads and components, and management and technology work linked to multiple
warhead types or to no specific warhead type. It also included funds for the Reliable Replacement
Warhead (RRW) program.
RRW originated as a funded program in the FY2005 Consolidated Appropriations Act, P.L. 108447, where it was described as a “program to improve the reliability, longevity, and certifiability
of existing weapons and their components.” NNSA had not requested funds for it, and committee
reports had not mentioned it. Instead, the legislation transferred $9.0 million to RRW from the
Advanced Concepts Initiative, a weapons-related research program. NNSA requested $9.4 million
for RRW for FY2006. It stated that the program “is to demonstrate the feasibility of developing
reliable replacement components that are producible and certifiable for the existing stockpile” and
to initially provide replacement pits (first-stage cores) “that can be certified without Underground
Tests.” For FY2006, Congress appropriated $25.0 million (subsequently reduced to $24.75
million by a 1% across-the-board rescission). The FY2007 request was $27.7 million, and outyear
projections were FY2008, $14.6 million; FY2009, $29.7 million; FY2010, $29.6 million; and
FY2011, $28.7 million. (See CRS Report RL32929, The Reliable Replacement Warhead
Program: Background and Current Developments, by Jonathan Medalia.)
Although RRW is a small program in relation to the total NNSA budget, the House
Appropriations Committee, in its FY2006 report on the energy and water bill, viewed RRW as
enabling large changes: transitioning the nuclear weapons complex “from a large, expensive Cold
War relic into a smaller, more efficient modern complex”; allowing “long-term savings by
phasing out the multiple redundant Cold War warhead designs that require maintaining multiple
obsolete production technologies”; “obviat[ing] any reason to move to a provocative 18-month
test readiness posture” by increasing warhead reliability and reducing the need to test; permitting
a reduction in Advanced Simulation and Computing funds by redirecting them to current warhead
maintenance programs pending initiation of RRW; and supporting other changes and budget
decisions. The Senate Appropriations Committee’s report stated that the recommended funding
increase for RRW is “to accelerate the planning, development and design for a comprehensive
RRW strategy that improves the reliability, longevity and certifiability of existing weapons and
their components.” The conference report emphasized that RRW design work “must stay within
the military requirements of the existing deployed stockpile” and that any design “must stay
within the design parameters validated by past nuclear tests.” Other goals that the conference
report set for RRW were improving manufacturing practices, reducing cost, and increasing
performance margins to support a reduction in stockpile size. Further, P.L. 109-163, the FY2006
National Defense Authorization Act, section 3111, set seven objectives for the RRW program,
including “[t]o increase the reliability, safety, and security of the United States nuclear weapons
ȱȱȱ
ŘŚȱ
ȱ
¢ȱȱȱDZȱŘŖŖŝȱȱ
stockpile” and “[t]o further reduce the likelihood of the resumption of underground nuclear
weapons testing.”
For FY2007, the Administration requested $27.7 million for RRW. In its FY2007 report, the
House Appropriations Committee linked RRW with a restructured, smaller, and consolidated
nuclear weapons complex. “The Committee supports the RRW, but only if it is part of a larger
package of more comprehensive weapons complex reforms.” It recommended $52.7 million for
RRW but restricted use of the additional $25.0 million until NNSA delivered an infrastructure
plan to Congress. The committee also directed NNSA to have the JASON Defense Advisory
Group conduct a peer review of competing candidate RRW designs and to analyze the premise of
RRW—that a new warhead can be designed and deployed without nuclear testing. The committee
called for the report to be submitted to Congress. The bill as passed by the House left these
provisions unchanged.
Also under DSW, the committee (1) reduced the $232.7 million request for warhead life
extension programs by $80.0 million, directed NNSA to terminate the life extension program for
the W80 warhead for cruise missiles, and used the funds to support weapons complex
transformation; and (2) increased funding for warhead dismantlement from $75.0 million to
$105.0 million to accelerate that activity. The bill as passed by the House left these provisions
unchanged.
The Senate Appropriations Committee strongly supported RRW. It found, “The directors of Los
Alamos, Sandia and Livermore National Labs and the Commander, U.S. Strategic Command
share the belief that maintaining incremental modifications to the existing and highly optimized
legacy systems [i.e., life-extension programs (LEPs) of warheads now in the stockpile] is not
sustainable.” It “urges the NNSA to accelerate the transition to a responsive infrastructure and to
proceed expeditiously with the RRW design.” It noted that DOD and the Nuclear Weapons
Council no longer support the W80 LEP, and provided $10.0 million for a design competition for
a second RRW in lieu of W80 LEP activities. It provided $62.7 million for RRW, an increase of
$35.0 million from the budget request. It recommended reducing funds for warhead
dismantlement to $35.0 million, preferring to ensure that facilities for disassembling pits and for
fabricating mixed-oxide fuel will be built before providing full funding.
DOE’s FY2007 Operating Plan provided $35.8 million for RRW; $264.4 million for Life
Extension Programs, including $12.5 million for the W80 Life Extension Program; and $75.0
million for weapons dismantlement and disposition.
In the FY2004-FY2006 budget cycles, the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator (RNEP) was highly
controversial. RNEP was to be a study of the cost and feasibility of modifying existing nuclear
bombs to enable them to penetrate the ground before detonating, thereby magnifying their effect
on a buried target. (See CRS Report RL32130, Nuclear Weapon Initiatives: Low-Yield R&D,
Advanced Concepts, Earth Penetrators, Test Readiness, by Jonathan Medalia, and CRS Report
RL32347, "Bunker Busters": Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator Issues, FY2005-FY2007, by
Jonathan Medalia.) The FY2005 and FY2006 Energy and Water Development Appropriations
Acts deleted all funds for RNEP. For FY2007, NNSA requested no funds for the program, and the
FY2007 Operating Plan provided none.
ȱȱȱ
Řśȱ
ȱ
¢ȱȱȱDZȱŘŖŖŝȱȱ
ȱ
These are “multi-year, multi-functional efforts” that “provide specialized scientific knowledge
and technical support to the directed stockpile work on the nuclear weapons stockpile.” The
FY2007 request included six Campaigns, each with multiple components: Science, Engineering,
Inertial Confinement Fusion and High Yield, Advanced Simulation and Computing, Pit
Manufacturing and Certification, and Readiness. Many items within Campaigns have significance
for policy decisions. As one example, the Science Campaign’s goals include improving the ability
to assess warhead performance without nuclear testing, improving readiness to conduct tests
should the need arise, and maintaining the scientific infrastructure of the nuclear weapons
laboratories.
NNSA’s proposal to build a Modern Pit Facility (MPF) had been controversial for a number of
years. A pit is the fissile core of a nuclear weapon that is used to trigger a thermonuclear
explosion. The United States has been unable to manufacture pits that can be certified for use in
the stockpile since 1989. Los Alamos has a small-scale pit manufacturing facility, called TA-55;
NNSA’s plan is that TA-55 would be able to manufacture 10 pits per year by the end of FY2007
and 30-40 by FY2012, but NNSA saw that capacity as insufficient to maintain the stockpile and
has favored building MPF, with a capacity of perhaps 125 pits per year. H.R. 2419, the FY2006
Energy and Water Development Appropriations Bill, as passed by the House, eliminated MPF
funds until “capacity requirements tied to the long-term stockpile size are determined” and “until
the long-term strategy for the physical infrastructure of the weapons complex has incorporated
the Reliable Replacement Warhead strategy.” The bill as passed by the Senate provided the
amount requested for MPF, $7.7 million. The appropriation bill, as passed, provided no funds for
MPF. Conferees on the energy and water bill directed NNSA to focus instead on improving
manufacturing capability at TA-55. In response, NNSA requested no funds for MPF for FY2007
and instead plans to increase capacity at TA-55. NNSA requested $237.6 million for the Pit
Manufacturing and Certification campaign for FY2007; H.R. 5427 as passed by the House
provided that amount, and the Senate Appropriations Committee recommended that amount. The
FY2007 Operating Plan included $242.4 million for this activity.
The appropriate test readiness posture—the time between a presidential order to resume testing
and the conduct of the test—has been contentious. The posture was set at 24 to 36 months several
years ago, with fears that it was in actuality 36 months or more. The Administration and Congress
sought to shorten it, but there was a dispute over how much. NNSA and the Armed Services
Committees favored an 18-month posture on grounds that it would take that long to prepare a test
but that any testing should not be delayed beyond that time. In contrast, the Appropriations
Committees favored a 24-month posture on grounds that an 18-month posture would be
provocative and significantly more costly. (See CRS Report RL33548, Comprehensive NuclearTest-Ban Treaty: Background and Current Developments, by Jonathan Medalia.) The FY2006
request was $25.0 million; the appropriation was $19.8 million. In its FY2007 request, NNSA
stated that it achieved a 24-month readiness posture in FY2005 and planned to maintain that
posture at least through FY2011. It further stated that the posture is 18 months “under current
law” but that it “has thus far been limited to 24 months by Congressional funding.” The FY2007
test readiness request was $14.8 million; H.R. 5427 as passed by the House provided that amount,
the Senate Appropriations Committee recommended that amount; and the FY2007 Operating Plan
included $14.6 million.
The Engineering Campaign includes the Enhanced Surveillance Program (ESP), which seeks to
develop “predictive capabilities for early identification and assessment of stockpile aging
ȱȱȱ
ŘŜȱ
ȱ
¢ȱȱȱDZȱŘŖŖŝȱȱ
concerns ... to give NNSA a firm basis for determining when systems must be refurbished.” Of
particular interest to Congress, it is conducting experiments to determine the service life of pits
based on plutonium aging characteristics. The result will bear on decisions to build MPF and to
pursue RRW. NNSA requested $96.2 million for ESP for FY2006; the appropriation was $99.2
million. The FY2007 request was $86.5 million; H.R. 5427 as passed by the House provided that
amount. The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended $103.2 million, with some of the
funds “used to accelerate the deployment of advanced micro-engineering devices that can be used
to adopt advanced surveillance devices into the RRW design.” The FY2007 Operating Plan
provided $87.5 million.
According to NNSA, the Inertial Confinement Fusion (ICF) and High Yield Campaign “is to
develop laboratory capabilities to create and measure extreme conditions ... approaching those in
a nuclear explosion, and conduct weapons-related research in these environments.” A key part of
this campaign is the National Ignition Facility (NIF), a partly completed facility at Lawrence
Livermore National Laboratory that is already the world’s most powerful laser. NNSA plans to
complete the NIF project by March 30, 2010.
For FY2006, NNSA requested $141.9 million for NIF construction, and H.R. 2419, the Energy
and Water Development Appropriations Bill, as passed by the House, contained that sum. The
Senate Appropriations Committee noted that the planned five-year budget projection for Weapons
Activities in the FY2006 request was reduced by $3.0 billion, compared with the FY2005 request,
and directed that no funds be expended on NIF construction “in order to focus on supporting a
comprehensive stewardship program.” The appropriation was $140.5 million.
For FY2007, NNSA requested $451.2 million for the ICF and High Yield Campaign, of which
$111.4 million was for NIF construction. H.R. 5427 as passed by the House provided $528.2
million for this campaign, including the requested amount for NIF construction. The Senate
Appropriations Committee was critical of NIF. It called NNSA’s “enhanced management” activity
for the campaign “a NIF-at-all-costs strategy.” It continued, “The NNSA has pursued this agenda
as a means to justify an aggressive spending baseline at the expense of more compelling
stewardship responsibilities in the ICF campaign. The NNSA has proven unable to maintain a
balanced ICF and high yield research program. As such the Committee has reallocated funding
out of NIF demonstration and Construction activities to ensure that there is adequate program
balance.” It recommended funding the campaign at $412.3 million and, within that sum, funding
NIF construction at $81.4 million. The FY2007 Operating Plan included $489.7 million for this
campaign, of which $111.4 million was for NIF construction.
ȱȱȱȱȱȱǻǼȱ
This program provides infrastructure and operations at the nuclear weapons complex sites. The
FY2006 appropriation was $1,644.8 million; the FY2007 request was $1,685.8 million; and the
FY2007 Operating Plan included $1,613.2 million. RTBF has six subprograms. By far the largest
is Operations of Facilities ($1,166.2 million appropriated for FY2006; $1,203.8 million requested
for FY2007; and $1,150.1 million in the FY2007 Operating Plan). Others include Program
Readiness, which supports activities occurring at multiple sites or in multiple programs ($104.7
million appropriated for FY2006; $75.2 million requested for FY2007; and $75.2 million in the
FY2007 Operating Plan), and Material Recycle and Recovery, which recovers plutonium,
enriched uranium, and tritium from weapons production and disassembly ($72.0 million
appropriated for FY2006; $70.0 million requested for FY2007; and $70.0 million in the FY2007
Operating Plan). Construction is a separate category within RTBF; the FY2006 appropriation for
ȱȱȱ
Řŝȱ
¢ȱȱȱDZȱŘŖŖŝȱȱ
ȱ
that purpose was $259.9 million, the FY2007 request was $281.4 million, and the amount in the
FY2007 Operating Plan was $262.5 million.
For FY2007, the House Appropriations Committee recommended reducing RTBF overall by
$27.0 million from the request, including an increase of $73.0 million for Operations of Facilities
and a reduction of $100.0 million, from a request of $112.4 million, for a Chemistry and
Metallurgy Research Facility Replacement (CMRR). CMRR would replace a building about 50
years old at Los Alamos that, among other things, conducts research into plutonium and supports
pit production at TA-55. The committee stated that CMRR construction should be terminated,
DOE should revise its long-term plan for the Complex, and “[p]roduction capabilities proposed in
the CMRR should be located at the future production site that supports the RRW and long term
stockpile requirements.” The committee noted that NNSA proposed to build a Consolidated
Plutonium Production Center by 2022, so that “CMRR will serve its primary production support
function for only eight years before it is made obsolete by the new plutonium facility.” The
House, in considering H.R. 5427, made no changes to these provisions. The Senate
Appropriations Committee recommended $1,780.8 million for RTBF, including the amount
requested for CMRR. It said, “The Committee firmly believes this facility [CMRR] will continue
to play a central role in the plutonium mission at Los Alamos and is needed to support the
research and chemistry mission of plutonium activities.” The FY2007 Operating Plan included
$1,613.2 million for RTBF, including $53.4 million for CMRR.
ȱȱ
Weapons Activities includes four smaller programs in addition to DSW, Campaigns, and RTBF.
•
Secure Transportation Asset provides for the transport of nuclear weapons,
components, and materials safely and securely. It includes special vehicles used
for this purpose, communications and other supporting infrastructure, and threat
response. The appropriation for FY2006 was $210.0 million. The FY2007
request was $209.3 million. The House-passed bill provided that amount, the
Senate Appropriations Committee recommended that amount, and the FY2007
Operating Plan included $209.5 million.
•
Nuclear Weapons Incident Response provides for use of DOE assets to manage
and respond to a nuclear or radiological emergency within DOE, in the United
States, or abroad. The FY2006 appropriation was $117.6 million. The FY2007
request was $135.4 million; the House-passed bill provided that amount, the
Senate Appropriations Committee recommended that amount, and the FY2007
Operating Plan included $133.5 million.
•
Facilities and Infrastructure Recapitalization Program (FIRP) provides for
deferred maintenance and infrastructure improvements for the nuclear weapons
complex. In contrast, RTBF “ensure[s] that facilities necessary for immediate
programmatic workload activities are maintained sufficiently,” according to
NNSA. The FY2006 appropriation for FIRP was $149.4 million, and the FY2007
request was $291.2 million. The House Appropriations Committee recommended
reducing the latter sum by $145.0 million, and “directs the NNSA to reassess its
out-year planning for FIRP projects to ensure coordination between FIRP funds
and the reduced facility requirements consistent with the consolidation of the
complex under the long-term Responsive Infrastructure planning.” H.R. 5427 as
passed by the House left these provisions unchanged. The Senate Appropriations
ȱȱȱ
ŘŞȱ
¢ȱȱȱDZȱŘŖŖŝȱȱ
ȱ
Committee made a number of increases and decreases to FIRP, mostly to
construction projects, and recommended $283.2 million for the program. It said
the funds were “to restore, rebuild, and revitalize the physical infrastructure of
the nuclear weapons complex.” The FY2007 Operating Plan included $169.4
million.
•
Safeguards and Security provides operations and maintenance funds for physical
and cyber security, and related construction, to protect NNSA personnel and
assets from terrorist and other threats. Safeguards and Security is a major concern
for NNSA. Ambassador Linton Brooks, then Administrator of NNSA, stated to
the Senate Armed Services Committee on April 4, 2005, “We must now consider
the distinct possibility of well-armed and competent terrorist suicide teams
seeking to gain access to a warhead in order to detonate it in place. This has
driven our site security posture from one of ‘containment and recovery’ of stolen
warheads to one of ‘denial of any access’ to warheads. This change has
dramatically increased security costs for ‘gates, guns, guards’ at our nuclear
weapons sites.” The FY2006 appropriation was $797.8 million. The FY2007
request was $754.4 million; the House Appropriations Committee recommended
increasing this sum by $78.0 million, to $832.4 million, for various security
upgrades. H.R. 5427 as passed by the House left these provisions unchanged. The
Senate Appropriations Committee recommended $759.4 million for this program,
adding $5.0 million for Sandia to conduct R&D on enhanced security measures
“to reduce the overall security costs for the Complex.” The FY2007 Operating
Plan included $761.2 million.
ȱȱȱ¢ȱȱ
DOE’s nonproliferation and national security programs provide technical capabilities to support
U.S. efforts to prevent, detect, and counter the spread of nuclear weapons worldwide. These
nonproliferation and national security programs are included in the National Nuclear Security
Administration (NNSA).
Funding for these programs in FY2006 was $1.615 billion. For FY2007, the Administration
requested $1.726 billion. The House Appropriations Committee recommended $1.593 billion.
Table 12. DOE Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation Programs
($ millions)
Program
Nonproliferation & Verification R&D
Nonproliferation & International
Security
International Materials Protection,
Control and Accounting (MPC&A)
Russian Transition Initiativesa
Elimination of Weapons-Grade
Plutonium Production
HEU Transparency Implementation
ȱȱȱ
FY2006
FY2007
Request
House
Senate
P.L. 110-5c
$318.8
$268.9
$308.1
$282.9
$262.4
74.3
127.4b
127.4b
127.4b
128.9b
422.7
413.2
583.2
427.2
472.7
39.6
—b
—b
—b
—b
174.4
206.7
206.7
—
225.7
19.3
—b
—b
—b
—b
Řşȱ
¢ȱȱȱDZȱŘŖŖŝȱȱ
ȱ
Program
Fissile Materials Disposition
Global Threat Reduction Initiative
Total
FY2006
FY2007
Request
House
Senate
P.L. 110-5c
468.8
603.3
248.0
618.4
470.1
97.0
106.8
147.6
116.8
115.5
1,614.8
1,726.2
1,620.9
1,572.7
1,683.3
DOE FY2007 Congressional Budget Request; H.Rept. 109-474; S.Rept. 109-274; P.L. 110-5; DOE
FY2007 Operating Plan.
Note: Numbers may not add due to rounding.
a. As it did last year, DOE proposes changing the program name to Global Initiatives for Proliferation
Prevention. The final FY2006 appropriations bill kept the previous name, as shown in the table.
b. Funding for Russian Transition Initiatives ($28.140 million) and HEU Transparency Implementation ($17.531
million) was included in Nonproliferation & International Security.
Sources:
c.
Figures in italics are from DOE FY2007 Operating Plan; other figures are from P.L. 110-5.
The Nonproliferation and Verification R&D program received $318.78 million for FY2006; for
FY2007, the Administration requested $268.89 million. The House bill would have funded the
activity at $308.1 million; the Senate Appropriations Committee recommended $282.9 million.
DOE’s FY2007 Operating Plan funds the activity at $262.4 million.
Nonproliferation and International Security programs include international safeguards, export
controls, and treaties and agreements. They would have received $127.41 million in the FY2007
request, including the transfer of two previously independent programs, Russian Transition
Initiatives and HEU Transparency Implementation. These three programs received $133.2 million
in FY2006. The House bill and the Senate Appropriations Committee recommendation followed
the Administration’s request. The DOE Operating plan allots $128.9 million.
International Materials Protection, Control and Accounting (MPC&A), which is concerned with
reducing the threat posed by unsecured Russian weapons and weapons-usable material, would
have received $413.18 million under the President’s request, compared with $422.73 million
appropriated for FY2006. The House Appropriations Committee recommended $583.20 million,
citing “expanded opportunities for high priority work” at two Russian sites, and that amount was
in the bill as passed by the House. The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended $427.2
million. P.L. 110-5 specified $472.7 million for MPC&A.
Two programs in the former Soviet Union, Initiatives for Proliferation Prevention (IPP) and the
Nuclear Cities Initiatives (NCI), were combined for FY2005 into a single program called
“Russian Transition Initiative,” aimed at finding nonweapons employment for roughly 35,000
underemployed nuclear scientists from the former Soviet weapons complex. The FY2006
appropriation for the program was $39.6 million. For FY2007, the program was included in
Nonproliferation and International Security, with $28.14 million allotted for it in the request.
Requested funding for the Fissile Materials Disposition program for FY2006 was $653.1 million,
but the Congress appropriated $468.8 million. The program’s goal is disposal of U.S. surplus
weapons plutonium by converting it into fuel for commercial power reactors, including
construction of a facility to convert the plutonium to “mixed-oxide” (MOX) reactor fuel at
Savannah River, South Carolina, and a similar program in Russia. The House Appropriations
Committee cut funding for the Savannah River facility sharply, citing delays in agreement with
Russia over the program. Total funding for fissile materials disposition in H.R. 2419 as passed by
ȱȱȱ
řŖȱ
ȱ
¢ȱȱȱDZȱŘŖŖŝȱȱ
the House would have been $301.7 million. The Senate version of the bill would have funded the
program at the requested $653.1 million level.
For FY2007, the Administration, noting that the issue that had delayed the program in Russia had
been resolved, requested $603.3 million. However, the House Appropriations Committee report
said “in 2006 it has become clear that the Russian government is not going to participate in the
MOX-light water reactor” plan that the United States has proposed, and the House-passed version
of H.R. 5427 would have cut the funding drastically to $248.0 million. The move would have
shut down the MOX-fuel construction project at Savannah River.
The Senate Appropriations Committee likewise expressed disappointment that the Russian
government was not pursuing its program to convert surplus weapons plutonium to MOX, but
supported the continuation of the U.S. program to convert its own surplus weapons plutonium to
MOX with continued construction of the facility at Savannah River. The Senate version of H.R.
5427 would have funded the Fissile Materials Disposition program at $618.4 million, $15 million
more than requested by the Administration.
P.L. 110-5 specifies that the “Secretary of Energy may not make available any of the funds
provided by this division or previous appropriations Acts for construction activities for Project
99-D-143, mixed oxide fuel fabrication facility, Savannah River Site, South Carolina, until
August 1, 2007.” DOE’s FY2007 Operating Plan allocates $470.1 million for Fissile Materials
Disposition, including $262.5 million for Project 99-D-143.
ȱȱ
The adequacy of funding to address human health and environmental risks resulting from the past
production of nuclear weapons is a long-standing issue. DOE established the Office of
Environmental Management in 1989 to consolidate its efforts to administer the cleanup of former
nuclear weapons sites. These efforts include the disposal of radioactive and other hazardous
wastes, management and disposal of surplus nuclear materials, the remediation of soil and
groundwater contaminated from such wastes, and the decontamination and decommissioning of
excess buildings and facilities. Through this program, DOE also administers the disposal of
wastes and remediation of contamination at sites where the federal government conducted civilian
nuclear energy research. Altogether, there were 114 “geographic”5 sites in 30 states where these
activities resulted in the generation of wastes and contamination.
Some of the ongoing issues associated with efforts to clean up contaminated sites have been the
adequacy of risk-based approaches to cleanup, the technical soundness of waste treatment facility
designs, how to safely remove, treat, and dispose of high-level radioactive waste stored in
underground tanks,6 the effectiveness and cost-savings of incentive-based cleanup contracts, and
the pace and adequacy of cleanup overall. The challenges of the Environmental Management
5
DOE makes a distinction between its “geographic” sites that represent entire facilities and the lands they occupy, and
the thousands of discrete contaminated sites located on each facility that have been, or need to be, cleaned up. One of
these geographic sites, the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in New Mexico was constructed as a repository to dispose of
transuranic radioactive waste from other sites. Although this facility is not a cleanup site, its operation is essential to the
cleanup of transuranic waste at many sites where such waste is removed and prepared for permanent disposal off-site.
6
See CRS Report RS21988, Radioactive Tank Waste from the Past Production of Nuclear Weapons: Background and
Issues for Congress, by (name redacted) and (name redacted).
ȱȱȱ
řŗȱ
ȱ
¢ȱȱȱDZȱŘŖŖŝȱȱ
program to clean up nuclear waste and contamination are substantial and require significant
resources. As such, this cleanup program is the second largest function within DOE (after the
National Nuclear Security Administration), and represents approximately one-fourth of the
Department’s total budget.
ŘŖŖŝȱȱ
As indicated in the table below, DOE’s FY2007 Operating Plan allocates $6.19 billion for the
Environmental Management Program.7 This funding level is more than the $5.83 billion that the
President originally requested in February 2006, and more than the $5.99 billion the full House
approved in passing H.R. 5427 in the 109th Congress and the $5.91 billion the Senate
Appropriations Committee reported in its version of that bill. Although DOE’s Operating Plan
allocates an increase relative to the funding originally proposed for FY2007, it provides less
funding for the program than the $6.59 billion that Congress appropriated for FY2006.
Accounting for the use of prior year balances, DOE’s plan indicates a larger amount of funding
was allocated in FY2006 for the Defense Environmental Cleanup account, resulting in a greater
decrease in FY2007 for the program when a comparison is made to FY2006 funding including
the use of these balances. (See the notes to the table below.)
A substantial portion of the reduction in funding for the program relative to FY2006 is due to the
completion of cleanup at “accelerated closure” sites, such as Rocky Flats in Colorado. Despite the
overall decrease, DOE’s plan allocates over $100 million more for closure activities at Rocky
Flats than any of the original proposals for FY2007, and more than twice the original proposals
for administration of closure sites. For sites where cleanup is not complete, there are varying
decreases and increases in funding when comparing DOE’s FY2007 Operating Plan to the
President’s FY2007 request, the FY2007 proposals considered in the 109th Congress, and the
FY2006 appropriation. Sites with some of the larger differences in funding include those where
substantial cleanup and waste disposal challenges remain, such as Hanford (WA) and Savannah
River (SC), both of which store high-level radioactive waste in underground tanks. As required by
the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, this waste must be removed for permanent disposal in a geologic
repository.
The adequacy of funding to clean up Hanford has been particularly controversial for many
reasons, including potential risks from radioactive contamination migrating through groundwater
into the Columbia River, and the delayed construction of the Waste Treatment and Immobilization
Plant. This facility is a key element in DOE’s plans to treat the substantial volume of high-level
radioactive waste to be removed from the underground tanks at Hanford, and to solidify that
waste for permanent disposal in a geologic repository. This task is one of the more costly cleanup
challenges across the complex of sites. Construction of the Waste Treatment and Immobilization
Plant has been delayed as a result of various engineering and design issues. DOE’s FY2007
Operating Plan allocates significantly more funding for the waste plant than appropriated in
FY2006, but allocates less funding than in FY2006 for the management of the waste still stored in
the underground tanks.
The table below indicates the FY2006 appropriation, the President’s FY2007 request, the full
House and Senate Appropriations Committee FY2007 funding proposals in the 109th Congress,
7
The $6.19 billion total reflects a $452 million offset resulting from federal payment to the Uranium Enrichment
Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund.
ȱȱȱ
řŘȱ
¢ȱȱȱDZȱŘŖŖŝȱȱ
ȱ
and funding allocated in DOE’s FY2007 Operating Plan. Amounts are indicated for each of the
three statutory accounts that fund the Environmental Management program, and for selected sites
and program activities within those accounts in which there has been broad congressional interest.
. Environmental Management Program Appropriations
Table 13
($ millions)
Environmental Management
Program Accounts
Defense Environmental Cleanup
FY2006
Request
FY2007
HouseSenatePassed
Reported
Accelerated Closure Sites
Ashtabula
Columbus
Fernald
Miamisburg
Rocky Flats
Closure Sites Administration
Hanford
Richland Office
Office of River Protection
Waste Treatment Plant
Tank Farm Activities
$1,018.3
$15.8
$9.4
$324.3
$104.5
$564.3
$0.0
$1,619.7
$772.8
$846.9
$520.7
$326.2
$320.9
$0.3
$0.0
$258.9
$34.9
$1.0
$25.9
$1,768.8
$804.7
$964.1
$690.0
$274.1
$321.9
$1.3
$0.0
$258.9
$34.9
$1.0
$25.9
$1,726.8
$832.7
$894.1
$600.0
$294.1
$320.9
$0.3
$0.0
$258.9
$34.9
$1.0
$25.9
$1,768.8
$804.7
$964.1
$690.0
$274.1
$468.1
$1.3
$0.0
$254.8
$39.9
$115.5
$56.6
$1,802.4
$835.3
$967.1
$690.0
$277.1
Savannah River Site
$1,158.9
$1,084.4
$1,195.4
$1,084.4
$1,113.4
Idaho National Laboratory
$532.8
$512.6
$544.6
$512.6
$526.9
Oak Ridge Reservation
$238.4
$159.9
$199.4
$179.2
$203.9
Waste Isolation Pilot Plant
$228.3
$213.3
$213.3
$232.3
$228.8
NNSA and Nevada Off-Sites
Technology Development
Safeguards and Security
Program Direction
Program Support
Federal Payment to Uranium
Enrichment D&D Funda
Total Defense Environmental
Cleanupb
Non-Defense Environmental
Cleanup
Uranium Enrichment D&D
Fund
c
a
Uranium Enrichment D&D Fund
Offseta
ȱȱȱ
DOE
Op. Plan
$299.4
$29.8
$284.4
$241.4
$32.5
$232.1
$21.4
$295.8
$291.2
$37.9
$232.1
$31.4
$295.8
$301.2
$37.9
$282.5
$21.4
$295.8
$291.2
$37.9
$306.5
$21.4
$275.9
$294.5
$38.0
$446.5
$452.0
$452.0
$452.0
$452.0
$6,130.4
$5,390.3
$5,551.8
$5,479.1
$5,731.8
$349.7
$310.4
$309.9
$310.4
$349.7
$556.6
$579.4
$579.4
$573.4
$556.6
$-446.5
$-452.0
$-452.0
$-452.0
$-452.0
řřȱ
¢ȱȱȱDZȱŘŖŖŝȱȱ
ȱ
FY2007
Environmental Management
HouseSenateDOE
Program Accounts
FY2006 Request
Passed
Reported
Op. Plan
Total Environmental
Management
Source: Prepared by the Congressional Research Service with information from the following sources: FY2006
$6,590.2
$5,828.1
$5,989.1
$5,910.9
$6,186.1
enacted, FY2007 request, FY2007 House-passed, and FY2007 Senate-reported amounts are from the Senate
Appropriations Committee report on the FY2007 appropriations bill in the 109th Congress (H.R. 5427, S.Rept.
109-274).
DOE’s FY2007 Operating Plan specifies funding allocated for the above program activities with authorities
provided in the Revised Continuing Appropriations Resolution for FY2007 (P.L. 110-5).
a. D&D = Decontamination and Decommissioning. Federal payment to the Uranium Enrichment D&D Fund is
typically treated as an offset to the total for the Environmental Management Program.
b. DOE’s FY2007 Operating Plan indicated a total appropriation of $6,316,047,000 for the Defense
Environmental Cleanup account in FY2006, including $166,318,000 in prior year balances and $20,000,000
from the FY2005 “uncosted” balance for the Salt Waste Processing Facility at the Savannah River site. The
FY2006 amounts for individual sites indicated in DOE’s FY2007 Operating Plan include the distribution of
these carried over balances, and as a result, some FY2006 amounts for individual sites in DOE’s plan are
more than the Senate Appropriations Committee reported in the 109th Congress, and as are depicted in
the above table.
c. P.L. 110-5 provided a total of $5,730,448,000 for the Defense Environmental Cleanup account. DOE
allocated $5,731,839,000 for this account in its FY2007 Operating Plan, but did not explain the difference
from the statutory appropriation provided in P.L. 110-5.
ȱȱȱȱ
The need for annual appropriations of several billion dollars to clean up nuclear waste sites has
motivated ongoing concern within Congress about the long-term financial liability of the United
States to meet these needs. Accordingly, there has been much debate about how to ensure public
health and safety, and the protection of the environment, in the most expedient and cost-effective
manner. DOE reports that it had cleaned up 81 of the 114 geographic sites as of the end of
FY2006.8 Although DOE has disposed of substantial quantities of waste and remediated many
areas of contamination at the remaining sites, much work remains to be done to complete cleanup
at many of them. DOE expects to complete cleanup at certain sites within the next few years.
However, the Department anticipates cleanup to continue for decades at the larger and more
complex sites, such as Hanford, Savannah River, and the Idaho National Laboratory, where highlevel radioactive waste is in need of treatment and disposal, and soil and groundwater
contamination is generally more severe. Based on recent assumptions, DOE expects cleanup and
disposal of wastes to be complete at Savannah River in 2031, at the Idaho National Laboratory in
2035, and at Hanford in 2042.9
8
DOE. Office of the Chief Financial Officer. FY2008 Congressional Budget Request. Volume 5, Environmental
Management. p. 31. DOE referenced 108 geographic sites, as it excluded six Nevada off-sites proposed for transfer to
the Office of Legacy Management. The total of 114 geographic sites noted above includes these six sites.
9
Ibid., p. 40. Two separate offices within the Environmental Management Program administer cleanup and disposal of
wastes at Hanford: the Richland Office and the Office of River Protection. The projected completion date for activities
of the Richland Office is 2035, and the projected completion date for activities of the Office of River Protection (ORP)
is 2042. The primary purpose of the ORP is to remove, treat, and dispose of high-level radioactive waste stored in
underground tanks near the Columbia River.
ȱȱȱ
řŚȱ
ȱ
¢ȱȱȱDZȱŘŖŖŝȱȱ
Accurately assessing the time and funding needed to complete cleanup and dispose of all
radioactive and other hazardous wastes is difficult at best. Developing reliable estimates is
especially challenging for the larger, more complex sites where many final decisions have yet to
be made because of technical limitations and uncertainties, such as the “end state”10 of many
sites. DOE periodically revises its estimates of outstanding costs to complete cleanup and dispose
of wastes as individual project baselines and assumptions change. These estimates have varied
widely over time by many billions of dollars. DOE reports its financial liabilities for the
Environmental Management Program, and all of its other program responsibilities, in its annual
financial statements contained in the department’s performance and accountability reports. DOE’s
Performance and Accountability Report for FY2006 estimated that, as of the end of FY2006,
$159 billion would be needed to complete cleanup and dispose of wastes at the remaining sites
administered under DOE’s Environmental Management Program.11 The $159 billion estimate is
not adjusted for inflation and is in FY2006 dollars.
In addition to inflation, other factors could cause actual costs to exceed the $159 billion estimate.
For example, actual costs could be higher than expected, depending on whether federal and state
regulators may require more stringent and costlier cleanup actions than DOE plans to take. Costs
also could rise if initial cleanup actions prove inadequate to protect human health and the
environment over the long-term. Future performance of cleanup actions is especially critical for
nuclear waste sites because of the rate of decay of radioactivity, which can be thousands of years
depending on the particular radionuclide. Predicting the effectiveness of methods to contain
radioactive wastes over such long periods of time is challenging, if not impracticable in some
cases. Consequently, additional funding could be needed at sites where cleanup was thought to be
complete, if the initial cleanup proves inadequate over time.
DOE’s $159 billion estimate also does not include the costs of long-term care of sites once
cleanup remedies are in place to ensure the protection of human health and the environment into
the future. DOE’s Performance and Accountability Report for FY2006, estimated that, as of the
end of FY2006, $18 billion would be needed for cleanup and post-closure site responsibilities
after work under the Environmental Management program is completed.12 These responsibilities
include surveillance and monitoring, long-term operation and maintenance of soil and
groundwater cleanup remedies, and disposal of excess materials remaining on-site after closeout
under the Environmental Management Program. DOE estimated that this $18 billion cost would
be incurred over 75 years through FY2081.13 DOE expects some long-term site care to be needed
beyond this time, requiring additional funding. However, the Department “believes” that costs
beyond 75 years cannot “reasonably” be estimated because of uncertainties inherent to such
distant time frames.14 Current administration and FY2007 funding for long-term site care is
discussed below.
10
DOE uses the term “end state” to denote the intended condition or land use of a contaminated site once cleanup is
complete. Determining the end state is critical to making cleanup decisions, as the degree of cleanup required, and the
specific action to achieve that degree of cleanup, are dependent on the potential pathways of human exposure that
would occur as a result of how the land will be used in the future. Land uses resulting in greater potential for human
exposure generally require a greater degree of cleanup.
11
DOE. Performance and Accountability Report for FY2006. pp. 173-175.
12
Ibid.
13
Ibid.
14
Ibid.
ȱȱȱ
řśȱ
¢ȱȱȱDZȱŘŖŖŝȱȱ
ȱ
Ȭȱȱȱ
Once a site is cleaned up and there is no continuing DOE mission, responsibility for long-term
care of the site is transferred to DOE’s Office of Legacy Management.15 This office also manages
the payment of pensions and post-retirement benefits of former contractor personnel who worked
at these sites.16 DOE’s FY2007 Operating Plan allocates $64 million for the Office of Legacy
Management, including both defense and non-defense accounts. This amount is less than the
FY2006 appropriation of $78 million, and is substantially less than the $201 million that the
President requested for FY2007 in February 2006, and the full House and the Senate
Appropriations Committee proposed in the 109th Congress in their respective versions of H.R.
5427.
The majority of the originally proposed increase above FY2006 was intended to support the
payment of pensions and post-retirement benefits associated with sites expected to be cleaned up
and transferred to this office. Of the originally proposed increase, $20 million was intended for
site care related to long-term cleanup responsibilities, including surveillance and monitoring at
Rocky Flats, Fernald, Columbus, and certain Nevada “off-sites.” How the funding reduction in
DOE’s plan would affect these site responsibilities is unclear. However, Rocky Flats did receive
continued funding within the Environmental Management Program at a level that is over $100
million more than originally proposed for FY2007. More than double the funding than originally
proposed was provided for continued administration of closure sites, such as Rocky Flats, within
that program as well.
Table 14. Office of Legacy Management Appropriations
($ millions)
FY2007
House
Senate-
DOE
FY2006
Request
Passed
Reported
Op. Plan
Defense
$44.6
$167.9
$167.9
$167.9
$30.9
Non-Defense
$33.2
$33.1
$33.1
$33.1
$33.2
Total
$77.8
$201.0
$201.0
$201.0
$64.1
Type of Site
Source:
Prepared by the Congressional Research Service with information from the following sources:
FY2006 enacted, FY2007 request, FY2007 House-passed, and FY2007 Senate-reported amounts are from the
Senate Appropriations Committee report on the FY2007 appropriations bill in the 109th Congress (H.R. 5427,
S.Rept. 109-274).
DOE’s FY2007 Operating Plan specifies funding allocated for the above program activities with authorities
provided in the Revised Continuing Appropriations Resolution for FY2007 (P.L. 110-5).
15
When there is a continuing mission, long-term site care is transferred to the program office within DOE that is
responsible for administering that mission or is the “landlord” of the site.
16
Likewise, at sites with a continuing mission, payment of pensions and post-retirement benefits is assigned to the
program office within DOE that is responsible for administering that mission or is the “landlord” of the site, rather than
the Office of Legacy Management.
ȱȱȱ
řŜȱ
ȱ
¢ȱȱȱDZȱŘŖŖŝȱȱ
ȱȱȱ
DOE’s four Power Marketing Administrations (PMAs)—Bonneville Power Administration
(BPA), Southeastern Power Administration (SEPA), Southwestern Power Administration
(SWPA), and Western Area Power Administration (WAPA)—were established in response to the
construction of dams and multipurpose water projects operated by the Bureau of Reclamation and
the Army Corps of Engineers. In many cases, conservation and management of water resources—
including irrigation, flood control, recreation or other objectives—were the primary purpose of
federal projects. However, these facilities often generated electricity to meet project needs; PMAs
were established to market the excess power. (For more information, see CRS Report RS22564,
Power Marketing Administrations: Background and Current Issues, by (name redacted).)
Priority for PMA power is extended to “preference customers,” which include municipal utilities,
co-ops, and other “public” bodies. The PMAs sell power to these entities “at the lowest possible
rates” consistent with what they describe as “sound business practice.” The PMAs are responsible
for covering their expenses and for repaying debt and the federal investment in the generating
facilities. Their rates are the focus of considerable discussion, and in its FY2006 budget request,
the Administration recommended that Congress raise PMA rates to “market rates.” The House
rejected this proposal in its Energy and Water appropriations bill. It was not mentioned in the
conference report, and no related legislation was introduced in the 109th Congress. (For more
information, see CRS Report RL32798, Power Marketing Administrations: Proposals for
Market-Based Rates, by (name redacted).)
The Administration’s net FY2007 request for the PMAs of $249.5 million was a reduction of
6.6% from the FY2006 appropriation of $267.1 million. This reflected a reduction of $19.4
million for WAPA, with slight increases of $1.7 million for Southwestern and $180,000 for
Southeastern. The House and Senate Appropriations Committees recommended funding for the
PMAs as requested, with an FY2007 allocation of $252.0 million (this included $2.5 million for
the Falcon and Amistad O&M fund). DOE’s FY2007 Operating Plan indicates a net outlay of
$247.6 million for the PMAs.
The House Appropriations Committee did not support the Administration’s proposals to recover
O&M expenses for WAPA, SEPA, and SWPA through offsetting collections, or to increase PMA
rates to reflect market-based rates. Nor did the committee incorporate the Administration’s
proposal to directly fund Corps hydropower O&M expenses through the revenues of WAPA,
SEPA, and SWPA.
In FY2007 WAPA, SEPA, and SWPA proposed to assign “Agency Rates” to new obligations. The
Agency Rate is the rate at which federal corporations and BPA borrow. This change was expected
to have a rate impact of less than 1% (the Agency Rate was 0.4% higher on average than PMA
rates from 1997-2005) and to generate $11.8 million in additional Treasury revenue from 2007 to
2011. The Senate Appropriations Committee rejected this proposal in S.Rept. 109-274, §312.
BPA receives no annual appropriation, but funds some of its activities from permanent borrowing
authority, which was increased in FY2003 from $3.75 billion to $4.45 billion (a $700 million
increase). DOE’s 2007 Operating Plan indicates that BPA intends to use $305 million of its
borrowing authority during the remainder of FY2007.
Beginning in FY2007 BPA was proposing to use secondary net revenues beyond $500 million to
make advance amortization payments to the Treasury on BPA’s bond obligations. BPA is
ȱȱȱ
řŝȱ
¢ȱȱȱDZȱŘŖŖŝȱȱ
ȱ
expecting this additional revenue to be $169 million in FY2007. P.L. 109-234, §2308 prevents
this use of BPA revenue.
ȱ DZȱ ȱȱ
Independent agencies that receive funding from the Energy and Water Development bill include
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), the Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC), and
the Denali Commission.
. Energy and Water Development Appropriations
Title IV: Independent Agencies
Table 15
($ millions)
Program
FY2006
FY2007
Request
House
Senate
P.L. 110-5
Appalachian Regional Commission
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(Revenues)
Net NRC
Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board
Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board
Denali Commission
Delta Regional Authority
$65.0
735.2
(618.4)
116.8
21.8
3.6
49.5
11.9
$65.0
776.6
(627.7)
148.9
22.3
3.7
2.5
5.9
$35.5
816.6
(663.7)
152.9
22.3
3.7
7.5
5.9
$65.5
816.6
(663.7)
152.9
22.3
3.7
50.0
12.0
$65.0
821.6
(667.4)
154.2
21.8
3.6
49.5
11.9
Total
268.4
248.8
227.8
306.3
306.0
Source: FY2007 Budget Request; H.Rept. 109-474.
¢ȱ¢ȱ ȯ ȱȱ
ȱ¢ȱȱ
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) requested a total budget of $776.6 million for
FY2007, including $8.1 million for the NRC inspector general’s office. The request was 4.5%
above the FY2006 appropriation of $741.5 million. Major activities conducted by NRC include
safety regulation and licensing of commercial nuclear reactors, licensing of nuclear waste
facilities, and oversight of nuclear materials users.
The NRC budget request included a $22 million increase in the Nuclear Reactor Safety program,
largely to handle anticipated new nuclear power plant license applications. No commercial reactor
license applications have been submitted to NRC since the 1970s, but higher fossil fuel prices and
incentives provided by the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58) have prompted electric
utilities to announce plans for more than a dozen reactor license applications over the next few
years. The House and the Senate Appropriations Committee approved a further increase of $40
million for reactor licensing, with the Senate panel designating $2 million of the increase for
oversight of spent fuel recycling under GNEP. The continuing resolution provides $821.6 million
for NRC in FY2007, including the inspector general’s office.
ȱȱȱ
řŞȱ
ȱ
¢ȱȱȱDZȱŘŖŖŝȱȱ
NRC’s proposed budget included a 10% reduction, to $41.0 million, for licensing DOE’s planned
Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository, reflecting delays in the program. The budget request
assumed that DOE would submit a repository license application in FY2008.
For all homeland security activities, NRC’s FY2007 budget request included $70.3 million, an
11% decrease from FY2006. NRC oversees force-on-force security exercises at nuclear plants
and is requiring revised reactor security plans to reflect increased baseline threats. (For more
information on protecting licensed nuclear facilities, see CRS Report RS21131, Nuclear Power
Plants: Vulnerability to Terrorist Attack, by (name redacted) and (name redacted).)
The Energy Policy Act of 2005 permanently extended a requirement that 90% of NRC’s budget
be offset by fees on licensees. Not subject to the offset are $45.7 million from the Nuclear Waste
Fund to pay for waste repository licensing, spending on generic homeland security, and DOE
defense waste oversight. The continuing resolution specifies that the offsets must result in a net
appropriation of not more than $154.2 million.
ȱȱȱ
ȱȱ
CRS Report RL31975, CALFED Bay-Delta Program: Overview of Institutional and Water Use
Issues, by (name redacted) and (name redacted).
CRS Report RL33461, Civilian Nuclear Waste Disposal, by (name redacted).
CRS Report RS20866, The Civil Works Program of the Army Corps of Engineers: A Primer, by
(name redacted) and (name redacted).
CRS Report RL33294, DOE Budget Earmarks: A Selective Look at Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy R&D Programs, by (name redacted).
CRS Report RL33599, Energy Efficiency Policy: Budget, Electricity Conservation, and Fuel
Conservation Issues, by (name redacted).
CRS Report RL32543, Energy Savings Performance Contracts: Reauthorization Issues, by
(name redacted).
CRS Report RS21331, Everglades Restoration: Modified Water Deliveries Project, by (name redac
ted).
CRS Report RL30478, Federally Supported Water Supply and Wastewater Treatment Programs,
coordinated by (name redacted).
CRS Report RL33298, FY2006 Supplemental Appropriations: Iraq and Other International
Activities; Additional Hurricane Katrina Relief, by (name redacted) et al.
CRS Report RS21442, Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Vehicle R&D: FreedomCAR and the President’s
Hydrogen Fuel Initiative, by (name redacted).
ȱȱȱ
řşȱ
ȱ
¢ȱȱȱDZȱŘŖŖŝȱȱ
CRS Report RL31098, Klamath River Basin Issues: An Overview of Water Use Conflicts, by
(name redacted), (name redacted), and (name redacted).
CRS Report RL33558, Nuclear Energy Policy, by (name redacted).
CRS Report RS21131, Nuclear Power Plants: Vulnerability to Terrorist Attack, by (name redacted) and
(name redacted).
CRS Report RL31993, Nuclear Warhead “Pit” Production: Background and Issues for Congress,
by Jonathan Medalia.
CRS Report RL32130, Nuclear Weapon Initiatives: Low-Yield R&D, Advanced Concepts, Earth
Penetrators, Test Readiness, by Jonathan Medalia.
CRS Report RL32131, Phosphorus Mitigation in the Everglades, by (name redacted) and
(name redacted).
CRS Report RL32798, Power Marketing Administrations: Proposals for Market-Based Rates, by
(name redacted).
CRS Report RL32163, Radioactive Waste Streams: Waste Classification for Disposal, by
(name redacted).
CRS Report RL33588, Renewable Energy Policy: Tax Credit, Budget, and Regulatory Issues, by
(name redacted).
CRS Report RL32347, “Bunker Busters”: Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator Issues, FY2005FY2007, by Jonathan Medalia.
CRS Report RL32189, Terrorism and Security Issues Facing the Water Infrastructure Sector, by
(name redacted).
CRS Report RS20569, Water Resource Issues in the 110th Congress, by (name redacted) and (na
me redacted)
ȱȱȱ
ŚŖȱ
¢ȱȱȱDZȱŘŖŖŝȱȱ
ȱ
ȱȱ ȱ
(name redacted), Coordinator
Specialist in Energy Policy
[redacted]@crs.loc.gov, 7-....
(name redacted)
Analyst in Energy Policy
[redacted]@crs.loc.gov, 7-....
(name redacted)
Specialist in Environmental Policy
[redacted]@crs.loc.gov, 7-....
(name redacted)
Analyst in Science and Technology Policy
[redacted]@crs.loc.gov, 7-....
(name redacted)
Specialist in Natural Resources Policy
[redacted]@crs.loc.gov, 7-....
(name redacted)
Specialist in Energy Policy
[redacted]@crs.loc.gov, 7-....
(name redacted)
Specialist in Natural Resources Policy
[redacted]@crs.loc.gov, 7-....
Jonathan Medalia
Specialist in Nuclear Weapons Policy
[redacted]@crs.loc.gov
, 7-....
(name redacted)
Specialist in Energy Policy
[redacted]@crs.loc.gov, 7-....
(name redacted)
Information Research Specialist
[redacted]@crs.loc.gov, 7-....
¢ȱ¢ȱȱ
Area of Expertise
General
Corps of Engineers
Bureau of Reclamation
Solar and Renewable Energy
Nuclear Energy
Science Programs
Nuclear Weapons Stewardship
Nonproliferation and Terrorism
DOE Environmental Management
Power Marketing Administrations
Bonneville Power Administration
Fossil Energy Research
Naval/Strategic Petroleum Reserve
Energy Conservation
Budget Data and Report Preparation
Name
Carl Behrens
name reacte
Nicole Carter
Steve Hughes
name reacte
Betsy Cody
name redacted
name redacted
name redacted
Jonathan Medalia
Carl Behrens
David Bearden
name redacted
name redacted
name redacted
Carl Behrens
name redacted
name redacted
CRS
Division
RSI
RSI
RSI
RSI
RSI
RSI
RSI
RSI
RSI
FDT
RSI
RSI
RSI
RSI
RSI
RSI
RSI
RSI
Telephone
777777777777777777-
Division abbreviations: RSI = Resources, Science, and Industry; FDT= Foreign Affairs, Defense, and
Trade.
ȱȱȱ
Śŗȱ
ȱ
ȱȱȱ
¢ȱȱȱDZȱŘŖŖŝȱȱ
ŚŘȱ
EveryCRSReport.com
The Congressional Research Service (CRS) is a federal legislative branch agency, housed inside the
Library of Congress, charged with providing the United States Congress non-partisan advice on
issues that may come before Congress.
EveryCRSReport.com republishes CRS reports that are available to all Congressional staff. The
reports are not classified, and Members of Congress routinely make individual reports available to
the public.
Prior to our republication, we redacted names, phone numbers and email addresses of analysts
who produced the reports. We also added this page to the report. We have not intentionally made
any other changes to any report published on EveryCRSReport.com.
CRS reports, as a work of the United States government, are not subject to copyright protection in
the United States. Any CRS report may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without
permission from CRS. However, as a CRS report may include copyrighted images or material from a
third party, you may need to obtain permission of the copyright holder if you wish to copy or
otherwise use copyrighted material.
Information in a CRS report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public
understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to members of Congress in
connection with CRS' institutional role.
EveryCRSReport.com is not a government website and is not affiliated with CRS. We do not claim
copyright on any CRS report we have republished.
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.