94–207 

114TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1st Session 114–91 

ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS 

BILL, 2016 

APRIL 24, 2015.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of 

the Union and ordered to be printed 

Mr. SIMPSON, from the Committee on Appropriations, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

together with 

ADDITIONAL VIEWS 

[To accompany H.R. 2028] 

The Committee on Appropriations submits the following report in 

explanation of the accompanying bill making appropriations for energy and water development for the fiscal year ending September 

30, 2016, and for other purposes. 

INDEX TO BILL AND REPORT 

Page Number 

Bill Report 

Introduction ................................................................................................ ........ 5 

I. Department of Defense—Civil: 

Corps of Engineers—Civil .................................................................. 2 11 

Investigations ............................................................................... 2 19 

Construction ................................................................................. 3 27 

Mississippi River and Tributaries .............................................. 4 33 

Operation and Maintenance ....................................................... 4 36 

Regulatory Program ..................................................................... 6 59 

Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program ................... 6 60 

Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies .................................... 6 60 

Expenses ....................................................................................... 6 61 

Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) 7 62 

General Provisions .............................................................................. 8 62 

II. Department of the Interior: 

Central Utah Project ........................................................................... 12 63 

Central Utah Project Completion Account ................................ 12 63 

Bureau of Reclamation: 

Water and Related Resources ..................................................... 13 65 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
2 

Page Number 

Bill Report 

Central Valley Project Restoration Fund ................................... 14 74 

California Bay-Delta Restoration ............................................... 15 75 

Policy and Administration .......................................................... 15 75 

Administrative Provision ............................................................. 16 76 

General Provisions .............................................................................. 16 76 

III. Department of Energy: 

Introduction ......................................................................................... ........ 76 

Committee Recommendations ............................................................ ........ 81 

Energy Programs: 

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy ................................. 20 82 

Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability ............................... 21 89 

Nuclear Energy ............................................................................ 21 92 

Fossil Energy Research and Development ................................. 22 95 

Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves .................................. 22 99 

Strategic Petroleum Reserve ....................................................... 23 99 

Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve ........................................ 23 100 

Energy Information Administration ........................................... 23 100 

Non-Defense Environmental Cleanup ........................................ 23 100 

Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning 

Fund .......................................................................................... 24 102 

Science .......................................................................................... 24 103 

Nuclear Waste Disposal .............................................................. 25 109 

Advanced Research Projects Agency—Energy ........................... 25 109 

Title 17 Innovative Technology Loan Guarantee Program ...... 26 110 

Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loan Program 27 110 

Departmental Administration ..................................................... 27 111 

Office of the Inspector General ................................................... 28 112 

Atomic Energy Defense Activities: 

National Nuclear Security Administration: 

Weapons Activities ....................................................................... 28 113 

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation .............................................. 29 121 

Naval Reactors ............................................................................. 30 124 

Federal Salaries and Expenses ................................................... 30 125 

Environmental and Other Defense Activities ................................... 30 125 

Defense Environmental Cleanup ................................................ 30 125 

Defense Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning ................................................................................. 31 129 

Other Defense Activities ............................................................. 31 129 

Power Marketing Administrations: 

Bonneville Power Administration ............................................... 32 131 

Southeastern Power Administration .......................................... 32 131 

Southwestern Power Administration ......................................... 34 131 

Western Area Power Administration ......................................... 35 132 

Falcon and Amistad Operating and Maintenance Fund .......... 37 132 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ........................................... 38 133 

Committee Recommendation .............................................................. ........ 133 

General Provisions .............................................................................. 39 170 

IV. Independent Agencies: 

Appalachian Regional Commission ................................................... 49 170 

Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board ........................................... 50 171 

Delta Regional Authority ................................................................... 50 172 

Denali Commission ............................................................................. 50 172 

Northern Border Regional Commission ............................................ 51 173 

Southeast Crescent Regional Commission ........................................ 51 173 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission ....................................................... 51 173 

Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board ........................................... 53 176 

Office of the Federal Coordinator for Alaska Natural Gas Transportation Projects ............................................................................ 54 176 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
3 

Page Number 

Bill Report 

V. General Provisions 

House of Representatives Report Requirements ..................................... ........ 177 

SUMMARY OF ESTIMATES AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee has considered budget estimates, which are contained in the Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 

2016. The following table summarizes appropriations for fiscal year 

2015, the budget estimates, and amounts recommended in the bill 

for fiscal year 2016. 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
4 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSEInsert offset folio 1 here 93754A.001
5 

INTRODUCTION 

The Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill for fiscal 

year 2016 totals $35,402,978,000, $1,200,701,000 above the amount 

appropriated in fiscal year 2015 and $633,036,000 below the President’s budget request. Total defense funding is $18,883,978,000, 

$1,039,978,000 above the amount appropriated in fiscal year 2015 

and $251,505,000 below the budget request. Total non-defense 

funding is $16,519,000,000, $160,723,000 above the amount appropriated in fiscal year 2015 and $381,531,000 below the budget request. 

Title I of the bill provides $5,596,750,000 for the Civil Works programs of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, $142,250,000 above 

fiscal year 2015 and $864,750,000 above the budget request. Total 

funding for activities eligible for reimbursement from the Harbor 

Maintenance Trust Fund is estimated at $1,178,000,000, which is 

$73,000,000 above fiscal year 2015 and $263,000,000 above the 

budget request. The bill makes use of all estimated annual revenues from the Inland Waterways Trust Fund. 

Title II provides $1,104,542,000 for the Department of the Interior and the Bureau of Reclamation, $35,458,000 below fiscal year 

2015 and $1,426,000 below the budget request. The Committee recommends $1,094,668,000 for the Bureau of Reclamation, 

$35,458,000 below fiscal year 2015 and $4,000,000 below the budget request. The Committee recommends $9,874,000 for the Central 

Utah Project, the same as fiscal year 2015 and $2,574,000 above 

the budget request. 

Title III provides $29,012,069,000 for the Department of Energy, 

$1,095,272,000 above fiscal year 2015 and $1,515,067,000 below the 

budget request. Funding for the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), which includes nuclear weapons activities, defense nuclear nonproliferation, naval reactors, and federal salaries 

and expenses, is $12,329,000,000, $921,705,000 above fiscal year 

2015 and $236,400,000 below the budget request. 

Funding for energy programs within the Department of Energy, 

which includes basic science research and the applied energy programs, is $10,324,007,000, $91,265,000 above fiscal year 2015 and 

$1,230,957,000 below the budget request. The Committee recommends $5,100,000,000 for the Office of Science, $1,657,774,000 

for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy; $936,161,000 for Nuclear Energy; $605,000,000 for Fossil Energy; and $280,000,000 for 

the Advanced Research Projects Agency—Energy. 

Environmental management activities—non-defense environmental cleanup, uranium enrichment decontamination and decommissioning, and defense environmental cleanup—are funded at 

$5,909,743,000, $38,743,000 above fiscal year 2015 and $91,719,000 

above the budget request. 

Funding for the Power Marketing Administrations is provided at 

the requested levels. 

Title IV provides $297,785,000 for several Independent Agencies, 

$28,805,000 above fiscal year 2015 and $16,875,000 above the 

budget request. Net funding for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is $140,959,000, $23,101,000 above fiscal year 2015 and 

$20,811,000 above the budget request. 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
6 

OVERVIEW OF THE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommendation continues the strong investments in American infrastructure contained in the fiscal year 2015 

Act. The recommendation rejects the Administration’s ill-considered request to cut approximately $708,000,000 from critical Army 

Corps of Engineers efforts to keep the nation’s rivers and ports 

dredged and to protect farmland and cities from flooding. Such a 

reduction would have a detrimental impact on the nation’s economic competitiveness and defenses against flooding. The Committee strongly encourages the Administration to request a fiscal 

year 2017 budget that recognizes and supports these critical missions of the Corps of Engineers. 

The recommendation also includes significant support to ensure 

the short- and long-term supply of affordable, clean energy and the 

stability of the nation’s electrical infrastructure. This portfolio 

builds upon this country’s significant fossil, nuclear, and renewable 

energy resources to strengthen American energy independence. The 

recommendation makes key investments in technologies to help our 

energy sector adjust to a challenging regulatory environment by 

supporting key advances in efficiency and emissions reduction. 

NATIONAL DEFENSE PROGRAMS

As in previous years, the Committee considers the national defense programs run by the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) to be the Department of Energy’s top priority. The recommendation strongly supports the Department’s proposals to 

modernize the nuclear weapons stockpile, increase investment in 

the NNSA’s infrastructure, prevent the proliferation of nuclear materials, and provide for the needs of the naval nuclear propulsion 

program. 

Within funding for the NNSA’s Weapons Activities, the recommendation continues support of the multi-year modernization 

plans for the nation’s nuclear weapons stockpile and its supporting 

infrastructure. Early formulations of the modernization plan tended to focus on stretch goals for warhead life extension programs 

and major construction projects that relied on overly optimistic 

timelines and invalid cost assumptions. The Committee will continue to emphasize conservative and affordable options for life extension programs and major facility construction that are clearly 

defined, resource-informed, and properly scoped to meet the 

timelines required. The Committee is concerned that though the 

costs of the overall program are escalating, the NNSA is producing 

less, taking longer, and scaling back scope just to keep up pace 

with the cost growth. To restore credibility, the NNSA must take 

early action to resolve the inconsistencies between its goals for 

modernization and its ability to achieve those goals. In the meantime, the Committee will continue to hold the NNSA accountable 

for delivering those missions within scope, cost, and schedule requirements. 

The recommendation provides strong support for Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation. The Committee recognizes the NNSA’s responsiveness in refining its nonproliferation strategies to meet the 

changing geopolitical environment and to improve the effectiveness 

of its programs in targeting the greatest threats. The recommendaVerDate Sep 11 2014 06:58 Apr 25, 2015 Jkt 094207 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR091.XXX HR091

smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
7 

tion provides no new funds for projects in Russia and the Committee awaits submission of a Secretarial waiver for nonproliferation work with the Russian Federation should such activities be determined to be in the national security interest by the Secretary of 

Energy. The Committee continues to view the NNSA’s programs as 

important for reducing international dangers to U.S. national security posed by the proliferation of nuclear technologies to other nation states and the threat of nuclear terrorism, rather than focused 

on domestic security activities that are the responsibility of other 

agencies. 

The Committee also strongly supports the activities to maintain 

our country’s nuclear naval fleet, which is funded through the 

Naval Reactors account. The recommendation continues to 

prioritize the multi-year development needs of the Ohio-class ballistic missile submarine replacement reactor program. The Committee greatly appreciates the service of the members of our country’s Armed Forces and will continue to place the highest priority 

on support for them and their work. 

INVESTMENTS IN INFRASTRUCTURE

The water resource infrastructure funded by the recommendation 

is a critical component of ensuring a robust national economy and 

of supporting American competitiveness in international markets. 

The Army Corps of Engineers is responsible for keeping our federal 

waterways open for business. The Corps also has been instrumental in reducing the risk of flooding for public safety, businesses, 

and much of this country’s food-producing lands. The Bureau of 

Reclamation supplies reliable water to approximately ten percent of 

this country’s population and to much of its fertile agricultural 

lands. Both agencies make significant contributions to national 

electricity production through hydropower facilities. 

The U.S. marine transportation industry supports 

$2,000,000,000,000 in commerce and creates employment for more 

than 13 million people. As the agency responsible for our nation’s 

federal waterways, the Army Corps of Engineers maintains 926 

ports and 25,000 miles of commercial channels serving 41 states. 

The maintenance of these commercial waterways is directly tied to 

the ability of this country to ship its manufactured and bulk products, as well as to compete with the ports of neighboring countries 

for the business of ships arriving from around the world. These waterways handled foreign commerce valued at more than 

$1,774,000,000,000 in 2012 alone. As a primary supporter of America’s waterway infrastructure, the Corps is ensuring that the nation has the tools to maintain a competitive edge in the global market. This recommendation makes key changes to the budget request to ensure that the Corps has the necessary tools to continue 

to support America’s shipping infrastructure. 

The flood protection infrastructure that the Corps builds or 

maintains reduces the risk of flooding to people, businesses, and 

other public infrastructure investments. In fact, Corps projects prevented damages of $13,400,000,000 in 2013 alone. Between 1928 

and 2013, each inflation-adjusted dollar invested in these projects 

prevented $7.92 in damages. The properties and investments protected by the Corps infrastructure would often be flooded without 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
8 

that infrastructure, destroying homes, businesses, and many valuable acres of cropland. 

The Bureau of Reclamation’s water infrastructure is a critical 

component of the agricultural productivity of this country. These 

facilities deliver water to one of every five western farmers resulting in approximately 10 million acres of irrigated land that produces 60 percent of the nation’s vegetables and 25 percent of its 

fruits and nuts. Additionally, these facilities deliver water to more 

than 31 million people for municipal, rural, and industrial uses. 

Without these dams and water supply facilities, American agricultural producers in the West would not be able to access reliable, 

safe water for their families and their businesses and many municipal and industrial users would face critical water shortages. 

The Corps and Reclamation are the nation’s largest and second 

largest producers of hydropower, respectively. Combined these federal hydropower facilities generate more than 112 billion kilowatthours, enough to power more than 10 million homes, annually. 

Gross revenues from the sale of this power reach nearly 

$6,000,000,000 annually. 

NATIONAL ENERGY POLICY

In 2012 the President unveiled an ‘‘all of the above’’ energy strategy designed to take advantage and utilize all sources of Americanmade energy. Since that time, each budget request has proposed increased funding for energy efficiency and renewable energy at the 

expense of more reliable energy sources. A true ‘‘all of the above’’ 

approach has to measure a vision for the future against the practical realities of the present. While investments in renewable energy are important and vital to a coherent national energy policy, 

they represent a fraction of the energy production in this country. 

Fossil and nuclear sources provide nearly 85 percent of all electricity generation in this nation. An energy policy that divests from 

these sources plans for an unrealistic future. 

The Administration’s severe regulations on carbon pollution from 

existing and new fossil-fueled electric power plants only further the 

inconsistencies in the budget request’s ‘‘all of the above’’ approach. 

These regulatory actions and the Administration’s subsequent low 

prioritization of fossil energy sources reveals a broken ‘‘all of the 

above’’ approach that the Committee has to rebalance each year. 

The Committee continues its long-standing support for the investment of taxpayer funds across the spectrum of all energy technologies. A national energy policy can only be successful if it maintains stability and resiliency while planning for long-term strategic 

goals of energy security, independence, and prosperity for the nation. The Committee recommends a balanced approach that focuses 

on improving the efficiency and effectiveness of fossil fuels while 

also investing in the latest technological breakthroughs of renewable fuel sources. 

COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT INITIATIVES

The highest priority mission of any federal agency is to be an effective steward of taxpayer dollars. Any waste, fraud, or abuse of 

taxpayer dollars is unacceptable. The Committee uses hearings, reviews by the Government Accountability Office, the Committee on 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
9 

Appropriations’ Surveys and Investigations staff, and its annual 

appropriations Act, including the accompanying report, to promote 

strong oversight of the agencies under its jurisdiction, with an emphasis on the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Bureau of Reclamation, and the Department of Energy. 

The recommendation continues the Committee’s responsibility to 

conduct in-depth oversight into all activities funded in this bill. 

Each agency shall designate a specific point of contact to track each 

report required in the bill and ensure its timely production and delivery. 

A summary of the major oversight efforts in the bill is provided 

below: 

Agency/Account Requirement 

Army Corps of Engineers .................................. Direction on Principles and Guidelines 

Army Corps of Engineers .................................. Brief on Legacy Studies 

Army Corps of Engineers .................................. Direction on 3×3×3 waiver process 

Army Corps of Engineers .................................. Direction on new Federal Flood Risk Management Standard 

Army Corps of Engineers .................................. Guidance on ratings systems for allocating additional funds 

Army Corps of Engineers .................................. Guidance on 2016 Work Plan submission 

Army Corps of Engineers .................................. Direction on prioritization of ongoing studies 

Army Corps of Engineers .................................. Direction on North Atlantic Coast Comprehensive Study 

Army Corps of Engineers .................................. Direction on New Starts 

Army Corps of Engineers .................................. Brief on ‘‘Remaining Items’’ 

Army Corps of Engineers/Investigations ........... Report on Can ̃o Martin Pen ̃ a, Puerto Rico 

Army Corps of Engineers/Construction ............. Guidance on allocating additional funding 

Army Corps of Engineers/Mississippi River and 

Tributaries.

Guidance on allocating additional funding 

Army Corps of Engineers/Mississippi River and 

Tributaries.

Direction on Mississippi River Commission funding 

Army Corps of Engineers/Operation and Maintenance.Guidance on allocating additional funding 

Army Corps of Engineers/Operation and Maintenance.Direction Dredged Material Disposal 

Army Corps of Engineers/Operation and Maintenance.Report on Ririe Reservoir 

Army Corps of Engineers/Regulatory Program Guidance on Congressional interpretation of Clean Water Act 

Army Corps of Engineers/FUSRAP ..................... Guidance on investigation and study at former Sylvania site 

Army Corps of Engineers/Expenses .................. Report on Public-Private Parnerships 

Army Corps of Engineers/Expenses .................. Report on Flood Damage Reduction Projects on Federal Lands 

Army Corps of Engineers/General Provisions ... Reprogramming requirements 

Army Corps of Engineers/General Provisions ... Restriction on use of continuing contracts 

Army Corps of Engineers/General Provisions ... Restriction on committing funds beyond appropriated amounts 

Army Corps of Engineers/General Provisions ... Restriction on changing certain Clean Water Act definitions 

Army Corps of Engineers/General Provisions ... Restriction on revising federal jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act 

Army Corps of Engineers/General Provisions ... Restriction on using funds to require permits for the discharge of dredged 

material. 

Bureau of Reclamation/Water and Related Resources.Report on Ririe Reservoir 

Bureau of Reclamation/Water and Related Resources.Direction on CALFED feasibility studies 

Bureau of Reclamation/General Provisions ...... Reprogramming requirements 

Department of Energy ....................................... Report on future years energy program 

Department of Energy ....................................... Guidance on prior-year balances greater than five years old 

Department of Energy ....................................... Report on cost audit coverage 

Department of Energy ....................................... Report on alleviation of poverty 

Department of Energy ....................................... Guidance on Administration’s Yucca Mountain policy 

Department of Energy ....................................... Guidance on inclusion of centers in future budget justifications 

Department of Energy ....................................... Report on Office of Technology Transitions 

Department of Energy/Energy Efficiency .......... Direction on funding incubator programs 

Department of Energy/Energy Efficiency .......... Direction on developing list of bioenergy technologies 

Department of Energy/Energy Efficiency .......... Report on list of bioenergy technologies 

Department of Energy/Energy Efficiency .......... Direction on Solar Technologies program funding 

Department of Energy/Energy Efficiency .......... Direction on hydrokinetic power funding allocations 

Department of Energy/Energy Efficiency .......... Report on U.S. supply of lithium 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
10 

Agency/Account Requirement 

Department of Energy/Energy Efficiency .......... Direction on building energy codes 

Department of Energy/Energy Efficiency .......... Direction on ‘‘smart home’’ electronics study 

Department of Energy/Energy Efficiency .......... Report on Weatherization Assistance Program 

Department of Energy/Energy Efficiency .......... Guidance on social cost of carbon 

Department of Energy/Electricity Delivery ........ Report on energy security 

Department of Energy/Electricity Delivery ........ Report on EMP vulnerability 

Department of Energy/Nuclear .......................... Direction to support an SMR design award 

Department of Energy/Nuclear .......................... Direction on ATR update 

Department of Energy/Nuclear .......................... Report on spent fuel plans 

Department of Energy/Fossil ............................. Guidance on coal research and development 

Department of Energy/Fossil ............................. Direction on interagency research plan regarding hydraulic fracturing 

Department of Energy/Non-Defense Environmental Cleanup.Report on Mercury Export Ban Act 

Department of Energy/UED&D .......................... Report on uranium transfers 

Department of Energy/Science .......................... Report on exascale computing 

Department of Energy/Departmental Administration.Report on Working Capital Fund 

Department of Energy/Departmental Administration.Direction on renewable fuel standards 

Department of Energy/Departmental Administration.Direction on technical assistance to Ukraine 

Department of Energy/Weapons ........................ Guidance on definition of a ‘‘life extension program’’ 

Department of Energy/Weapons ........................ Direction on costs of the W88 life extension program 

Department of Energy/Weapons ........................ Report on red team assessment of alternatives 

Department of Energy/Weapons ........................ Guidance on infrastructure budget structure 

Department of Energy/Weapons ........................ Report on RLWTF project root causes 

Department of Energy/Weapons ........................ Guidance on funding for UPF 

Department of Energy/Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation.Guidance on new nonproliferation projects in Russia 

Department of Energy/Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation.Direction on offsetting costs associated with material removal 

Department of Energy/Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation.Report on Part 810 Process Improvement Program 

Department of Energy/Naval Reactors ............. Direction on an update of progress regarding ATR 

Department of Energy/Naval Reactors ............. Report on advanced fuel system using LEU fuel 

Department of Energy/Defense Environmental 

Cleanup.

Report on Hanford site 

Department of Energy/Defense Environmental 

Cleanup.

Report on IFDP 

Department of Energy/Other Defense Activities Direction on Office of Independent Enterprise Assessments annual report 

Department of Energy/Other Defense Activities Report on Graded Security Posture 

Department of Energy/General Provision .......... Reprogramming requirements 

Department of Energy/General Provision .......... Transfer authority specifications 

Department of Energy/General Provision .......... Prohibit funds for high hazard nuclear facilities construction unless cost 

estimates have been developed. 

Department of Energy/General Provision .......... Prohibit funds approving CD–2 and CD–3 without separate cost estimates 

Department of Energy/General Provision .......... Prohibit certain multi year funding agreements in Office of Science 

Department of Energy/General Provision .......... Restriction of certain activities in the Russian Federation 

Department of Energy/General Provision .......... Restriction of Strategic Petroleum Reserve activities and notification requirements. 

Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board .......... Report on tank maintenance and upgrade requirement at Hanford and Savannah River. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission ....................... Direction on allocation of any reduction in available resources 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission ....................... Requirement for joint management of salaries and expenses 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission ....................... Prohibition on terminating programs without Commissioner approval 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission ....................... Notification requirement for use of emergency functions 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission ....................... Direction on Yucca Mountain license application and funding needs 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission ....................... Semi-annual report on licensing and regulatory activities 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission ....................... Direction on reducing corporate support 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission ....................... Report on comprehensive workforce review and strategic plan 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission ....................... Direction on rulemaking process 

Independent Agencies/General Provision .......... Requirement for NRC to comply with Congressional requests 

General Provision .............................................. Prohibition on the use of funds to influence congressional action 

General Provision .............................................. Consolidation of transfer authorities 

General Provision .............................................. Prohibition of funds in contravention of Executive Order 12898 

General Provision .............................................. Prohibition on use of funds to close Yucca Mountain application process 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
11 

TITLE I—CORPS OF ENGINEERS—CIVIL 

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—CIVIL

INTRODUCTION

The Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act funds 

the Civil Works missions of the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). 

This program is responsible for activities in support of coastal and 

inland navigation, flood and coastal storm damage reduction, environmental protection and restoration, hydropower, recreation, 

water supply, and disaster preparedness and response. The Corps 

also performs regulatory oversight of navigable waters. Approximately 23,000 civilians and almost 300 military personnel located 

in eight Division offices and 38 District offices work to carry out 

the Civil Works program. 

FISCAL YEAR 2016 BUDGET REQUEST OVERVIEW AND ANALYSIS

The fiscal year 2016 budget request for the Civil Works program of the Corps of Engineers is $4,732,000,000, a decrease of 

$722,500,000 from fiscal year 2015. After adjusting for the rescission of $28,000,000 of prior-year appropriations in the fiscal year 

2015 Act, the budget request represents a reduction from fiscal 

year 2015 of $750,500,000 (¥14%). Each of the four main projectbased accounts would see a sharp decrease under the budget request. The Construction account would see the largest dollar reduction (¥$467,489,000) and largest percentage reduction (¥29%). 

The Investigations, Mississippi River and Tributaries, and Operation and Maintenance accounts are reduced by 20, 26, and 7 percent, respectively. 

Once again the Administration’s claims to understand the importance of infrastructure ring hollow when it comes to water resource 

infrastructure investments. Under the budget request, funding for 

both navigation and flood and storm damage reduction—the Committee’s two highest priorities for the Corps’ Civil Works program— 

is decreased significantly (¥16 and ¥20 percent, respectively). 

Within the navigation mission area, the budget request proposes to 

reduce funding for activities eligible for reimbursement from the 

Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund by $190,000,000 from fiscal year 

2015. Capital improvements funded in part from the Inland Waterways Trust Fund are reduced by $49,000,000 from fiscal year 2015. 

Funding for flood and storm damage reduction activities at each 

stage of the process—studies, construction, and operation and 

maintenance—would be reduced below fiscal year 2015 if the budget request were enacted. 

Once again, however, the Committee rejects the low priority 

placed on infrastructure in the budget request. Instead, the Committee allocates $810,046,000 above the budget request for additional investments in navigation and flood and storm damage reduction improvements. 

DEEP-DRAFT NAVIGATION

The Committee remains mindful of the evolving infrastructure 

needs of the nation’s ports. Meeting these needs—including deeper 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
12 

drafts to accommodate the move towards larger ships—will be essential if the nation is to remain competitive in international markets and to continue advancing economic development and job creation domestically. 

Investigations and construction of port projects, including the 

deepening of existing projects, are cost-shared between the federal 

government and non-federal sponsors, often local or regional port 

authorities. The operation and maintenance of these projects are 

federal responsibilities and are funded as reimbursements from the 

Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund (HMTF), which is supported by 

an ad valorem tax on the value of imported and domestic cargo. 

Expenditures from the trust fund are subject to annual appropriations. The balance in the HMTF by the beginning of fiscal year 

2016 is estimated to be approximately $8,989,000,000. 

The Water Resources Reform and Development Act (WRRDA) of 

2014 included target annual appropriations levels for use of HMTF 

receipts. The Committee remains committed to providing the maximum practicable amount of funding for HMTF-reimbursable activities consistent with annual allocations and after evaluating 

funding requirements for other priority activities within the Civil 

Works program. 

For fiscal year 2016, the Committee provides an estimated 

$1,178,000,000 for HMTF-related activities, an increase of 

$73,000,000 above fiscal year 2015 and $263,000,000 above the 

budget request. This substantial increase should allow the Corps to 

make progress on the backlog of dredging needs. 

INLAND WATERWAYS SYSTEM

The nation’s inland waterways system—consisting of approximately 12,000 miles of commercially navigable channels and 236 

lock chambers—also is essential to supporting the national economy. Freight transported on the inland waterways system includes 

a significant portion of the nation’s grain exports, domestic petroleum and petroleum products, and coal used in electricity generation. Much of the physical infrastructure of the system is aging, 

however, and in need of improvements. For example, commercial 

navigation locks typically have a design life of 50 years, yet nearly 

60 percent of these locks in the United States are more than 50 

years old, with the average age at almost 60 years old. 

Capital improvements to the inland waterways system generally 

are funded 50 percent from the General Treasury and 50 percent 

from the Inland Waterways Trust Fund (IWTF), while operation 

and maintenance costs are funded 100 percent from the General 

Treasury. The IWTF is supported by a tax on barge fuel. 

In recent years, the increasing rehabilitation and reconstruction 

needs and the escalating costs of those projects have far outstripped available revenues in the IWTF. Two statutory changes 

enacted last year, however, will lead to the availability of additional revenues to stand as the required cost-share for some additional work on the inland waterways system. These changes were 

the reduction in the portion of the costs of the Olmsted Locks and 

Dam project that is to be derived from the IWTF to 15 percent and 

the increase in the fuel tax to $0.29 per gallon from $0.20 per gallon. 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
13 

It should be noted that funds from both the General Treasury 

and the IWTF are counted under overall discretionary spending 

limits, which remain relatively flat from fiscal year 2015. Nevertheless, for fiscal year 2016, the Committee provides appropriations 

making use of all estimated annual revenues from the IWTF. This 

funding includes the budget request of $232,000,000 for construction of the Olmsted Locks and Dam project and the Locks 2, 3, and 

4, Monongahela River project, as well as $108,000,000 above the 

budget request for additional capital improvements to the inland 

waterways system. The Committee also allocates $42,000,000 above 

the budget request for additional operation and maintenance activities on the inland waterways. 

PRINCIPLES AND REQUIREMENTS

Concerns persist that the effort to update the Water Resources 

Principles and Guidelines did not proceed consistent with the language or intent of section 2031 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007. No funds provided to the Corps of Engineers 

shall be used to develop or implement rules or guidance to support 

implementation of the final Principles and Requirements for Federal Investments in Water Resources released in March 2013 or the 

final Interagency Guidelines released in December 2014. The Corps 

shall continue to use the document dated March 10, 1983, and entitled ‘‘Economic and Environmental Principles and Guidelines for 

Water and Related Land Resources Implementation Studies’’ during the fiscal year period covered by the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act for 2016. 

The Corps has been working diligently on assessing the impacts 

of the revised Principles and Requirements and Interagency Guidelines on the Civil Works program, consistent with congressional direction provided in the explanatory statement accompanying the 

fiscal year 2015 Act. The Committee looks forward to being briefed 

on this assessment in the near future. After an opportunity to review the assessment, the Committee may have further directions 

on this issue. 

PLANNING MODERNIZATION

The Committee remains strongly supportive of efforts to reduce 

the length of time and the funding required to complete studies 

while maintaining quality analysis and an appropriate level of information for congressional authorization and funding decisions. 

The Committee is aware that multiple studies, termed Legacy 

Studies, were rightly not required to transition to the new SMART 

planning process. The Corps shall be prepared to brief the Committee not later than 60 days after the enactment of this Act on 

the status of the Legacy Studies, including a schedule for bringing 

each study to completion. 

North Atlantic Coast Comprehensive Study Focus Areas.—Several 

of the nine identified focus areas, including the three areas proposed for funding in fiscal year 2016, involve geographic scopes and 

levels of complexity not seen in the typical Corps study. As such, 

confining these studies to the standard 3x3x3 planning restrictions 

for time and cost is not advisable. Rather than starting with the 

attempt to meet these arbitrary timing and funding goals and requesting waivers at the end of the study process, the Corps is diVerDate Sep 11 2014 06:58 Apr 25, 2015 Jkt 094207 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR091.XXX HR091

smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
14 

rected to evaluate each focus area expeditiously to determine the 

appropriate scope, schedule, and cost, without the initial time and 

cost limits of the 3x3x3 process. 

FEDERAL FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT STANDARD

On January 30, 2015, the President issued Executive Order 

13690 establishing a new Federal Flood Risk Management Standard and amending Executive Order 11988 (Floodplain Management). The Administration describes it as furtherance of the President’s Climate Action Plan and as building on the work done by 

the interagency task force in the wake of Hurricane Sandy. 

The Committee has heard numerous concerns about the new 

standard from many potentially-affected stakeholders. These concerns include the process by which the standard was developed, the 

lack of clarity as to which specific programs and activities will be 

affected, and the uncertainty related to how each agency will implement the new standard. The Committee takes these concerns seriously and will continue to closely monitor the Administration’s activities related to this new Federal Flood Risk Management Standard. 

The new standard and draft revised guidelines for implementing 

Executive Order 11988 are currently out for public comment until 

early May 2015. Executive Order 13690 directs each agency to 

issue or amend existing regulations and procedures to comply with 

the order and to submit to the National Security Council staff within 30 days of the closing of the public comment period for the revised guidelines an implementation plan that contains milestones 

and a timeline for implementation of the executive order and the 

standard. The Corps is directed to submit this implementation plan 

to the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress 

not later than 3 days after it has been submitted to the National 

Security Council staff. 

FIVE-YEAR COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING

Historically, the Committee has encouraged the Administration 

to provide five-year investment plans for all the agencies within 

the Energy and Water Development jurisdiction, particularly the 

Corps. The five-year plan should be based on realistic assumptions 

of project funding needs. It is the Committee’s expectation that 

once projects have been initiated, the Administration will request 

responsible annual funding levels for them through completion. 

The executive branch has traditionally been unwilling to project 

five-year horizons for projects it has not previously supported 

through the budget process. Comprehensive planning is important 

for understanding future requirements of projects that have been 

supported through the appropriations process, as well. While this 

unwillingness to have a dialogue regarding additional investment 

might be reasonable under circumstances where there is no likelihood of additional investment, the Congress consistently has supported additional investment in the nation’s water resource infrastructure. The uncertainty caused by year-to-year federal planning 

leaves too many non-federal sponsors unable to make informed decisions regarding local funding. 

It would be beneficial for the Congress, the Administration, and 

project partners to have a comprehensive plan to outline requireVerDate Sep 11 2014 06:58 Apr 25, 2015 Jkt 094207 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR091.XXX HR091

smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
15 

ments for all projects that have received an appropriation to date 

or are proposed to begin receiving funding this year. The Committee continues to welcome a dialogue to reach a mutually-agreeable way to comprehensively plan for all initiated projects. 

The Committee notes that in fiscal year 2014 the Corps was directed to prepare a comprehensive estimate of the optimum 

timeline and funding requirements to complete each of the ongoing 

projects which received construction funding in any of fiscal years 

2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, or 2013, but were not slated by the Administration for construction funding in the fiscal year 2014 budget request. This report was to have been submitted not later than 90 

days after the enactment of the fiscal year 2014 Act. As of the writing of this report, the Committee still has not received this information. 

FORMAT OF FUNDING PRIORITIES

Traditionally, the President requested and the Congress appropriated funds for the Civil Works program on a project-level basis. 

Taken together, however, these funding decisions indicated programmatic priorities and policy preferences. As with non-projectbased programs, the Congress at times disagreed with the priorities stated in the President’s budget request and made its priorities known in appropriations bills. Final federal government priorities were established in Acts passed by both chambers of the Congress and signed by the President. 

On January 5, 2011, the House of Representatives voted to prohibit congressional earmarks, as defined in House rule XXI. That 

definition encompasses project-level funding not requested by the 

President. Following that vote, the Committee reviewed the historical format of appropriations for the Corps to see if there was a 

more transparent way to highlight programmatic priorities without 

abandoning congressional oversight responsibilities. The fiscal year 

2012 Act included a modification to the format used in previous 

years, and that format is continued for fiscal year 2016. As in previous years, the Committee lists in report tables the studies, 

projects, and activities within each account requested by the President along with the Committee-recommended funding level. To advance its programmatic priorities, the Committee has included additional funding for certain categories of projects. Project-specific 

allocations within these categories will be determined by the Corps 

based on further direction provided in this report. 

ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR ONGOING WORK

As mentioned above, the budget request is woefully inadequate 

for meeting the critical water resource infrastructure needs of this 

nation. Numerous continuing studies and construction projects will 

be suspended or slowed, leaving many communities vulnerable to 

floods and coastal storms longer than necessary and hindering economic growth and international competitiveness. Underfunding operation and maintenance of existing assets results in economic inefficiencies and risks infrastructure failure, which can cause substantial economic losses. For these reasons, the Committee provides a 

total of $879,807,000 in additional funding for ongoing work within 

the Investigations, Construction, Mississippi River and Tributaries, 

and Operation and Maintenance accounts. This funding is for addiVerDate Sep 11 2014 06:58 Apr 25, 2015 Jkt 094207 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR091.XXX HR091

smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
16 

tional work that either was not included in the Administration’s request or was inadequately budgeted. The executive branch retains 

complete discretion over project-specific allocations of this funding. 

A project or study shall be eligible for additional funding within 

the Investigations, Construction, and Mississippi River and Tributaries accounts if: (1) it has received funding, other than through 

a reprogramming, in at least one of the previous three fiscal years; 

or (2) it was previously funded and could reach a significant milestone or produce significant outputs in fiscal year 2016. This eligibility includes reimbursements, as authorized by law and consistent with statutory funding limitations. None of the additional 

funding in any account may be used for any item where funding 

was specifically denied; to initiate new studies, projects, programs, 

or activities; to alter any existing cost-share requirements; or for 

projects in the Continuing Authorities Program. 

Funding associated with each category may be allocated to any 

eligible study or project, as appropriate, within that category; funding associated with each subcategory may be allocated only to eligible studies or projects, as appropriate, within that subcategory. The 

list of subcategories is not meant to be exhaustive. 

Transparency in the work plan development process.—The Administration’s continued lack of transparency in how work plan allocation decisions are made is troubling. The Committee’s position 

on this issue has not changed from previous years—a list of general 

factors and management controls considered when making allocation decisions is not sufficient as a response to congressional direction nor is it sufficient explanation to federal taxpayers generally 

or local sponsors interested in improving their projects’ competitiveness specifically. 

The Committee expects considerable improvement in the quality 

and detail of information provided in fiscal year 2016 regarding the 

allocation of these additional funds. To assist the Administration in 

improving the transparency of the process, the Committee reiterates its direction to the Corps to develop ratings systems for use 

in evaluating projects for allocation of the additional funding provided in this Act. These evaluation systems may be, but are not required to be, individualized for each account or for each category 

of projects to be funded. The Corps retains complete control over 

the methodology of these ratings systems, but shall consider giving 

priority to the factors discussed under the heading ‘‘Additional 

Funding for Ongoing Work’’ within each relevant account. Each 

study or project eligible to receive additional funds shall be evaluated under the applicable ratings system; a study or project may 

not be excluded from evaluation under these ratings systems for 

being ‘‘inconsistent with Administration policy.’’ The Corps is reminded that these funds are in addition to the Administration’s 

budget request. Administration budget metrics shall not be a reason to disqualify a study or project from being funded. 

Work plan.—Not later than 60 days after the enactment of this 

Act, the Corps shall provide to the Committees on Appropriations 

of both Houses of Congress a work plan including the following information: (1) a detailed description of the ratings system(s) developed and used to evaluate studies and projects; (2) delineation of 

how these funds are to be allocated; (3) a summary of the work to 

be accomplished with each allocation, including phase of work; and 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
17 

(4) a list of all studies and projects that were considered eligible 

for funding but did not receive funding, including an explanation 

of whether the study or project could have used funds in fiscal year 

2016 and the specific reasons each study or project was considered 

as being less competitive for an allocation of funds. 

Full allocation of funds.—It is expected that all of the additional 

funding provided will be allocated to specific programs, projects, or 

activities. The focus of the allocation process should favor the obligation of funds for work in fiscal year 2016 rather than expenditures. With the significant backlog of work in the Corps’ inventory, 

there is absolutely no reason for funds provided above the budget 

request to remain unallocated. 

NEW STARTS

The Committee considers very carefully the decision of whether 

to provide funding for new starts each fiscal year. After three consecutive fiscal years with no new starts, the fiscal years 2014 and 

2015 Acts allowed the Corps to initiate a limited number of new 

studies and new construction projects. In each year, the Corps was 

required to submit an out-year funding scenario to demonstrate the 

affordability of the new construction starts selected and the impact 

these selections would have on other ongoing construction projects. 

Unfortunately, in both years the Administration submitted an 

analysis that fell far short of what was required. Due to the significant uncertainty remaining about the impact of recently initiated 

projects, the Committee recommends no new starts in any account 

in fiscal year 2016. The Corps is directed to prioritize ongoing studies and projects in an effort to complete them. 

One exception to this restriction on new starts is the proposed 

Disposition of Completed Projects line item within the Investigations account. This item funds study efforts intended to reduce federal responsibilities, rather than study efforts that will result in 

new federal projects added to the existing backlog of construction 

and operation and maintenance projects. Therefore, the Committee 

believes an exception is appropriate and has included funding for 

this line item. 

North Atlantic Coast Comprehensive Study Focus Areas.—The 

budget request proposed a single line item intended to fund feasibility activities for three focus areas identified in the North Atlantic Coast Comprehensive Study issued in January 2015. This line 

item was identified as a new start in the budget request since the 

initial work—the Comprehensive Study—was funded in the supplemental appropriations Act following Hurricane Sandy. While the 

Corps’ restraint in this instance is appreciated, the Committee believes it is unnecessary. Funding is included for the three focus 

areas as separate and individual feasibility studies. The Corps is 

directed to maintain this characterization (individual, ongoing activities) when making future funding decisions for study activities 

for these three focus areas, as well as the other six focus areas 

identified in the Comprehensive Study. 

Definition of a New Start.—The change in funding format 

prompted by the prohibition on congressional earmarks has resulted in greater significance for the Administration’s definition of 

a new start. Unfortunately, the Administration has been less than 

transparent with the Committee on this issue as well. Without this 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
18 

information, the Committee’s ability to assert its prerogative as to 

whether specific projects are new starts or ongoing projects is seriously limited. Therefore, the Administration is directed to submit 

to the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress 

not later than 30 days after the enactment of this Act its definition 

of a new start, including any relevant guidelines or criteria used 

to make project-specific determinations. The Administration is reminded that no new start shall be required when moving from the 

feasibility phase to the preconstruction engineering and design 

(PED) phase. 

ELIMINATING DUPLICATION

The budget request includes numerous line items under ‘‘Remaining Items’’ in the Investigations and Operation and Maintenance accounts. The budget justifications for several of these items 

seem to describe similar activities, thereby raising the question of 

whether these activities are truly distinct or whether overlapping 

or duplicative missions are leading to inefficiencies within the 

agency. The Corps is directed to be prepared to brief the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress not later than 

30 days after the enactment of this Act on whether the agency believes that each line item under ‘‘Remaining Items’’ is appropriate 

as a separate line item or whether some line items could be combined to eliminate overlapping or duplicative activities. 

ASIAN CARP

The threat of Asian Carp to the Great Lakes remains a concern 

for the Committee. The Army Corps of Engineers continues to play 

a critical role in preventing, controlling, and managing the threat 

of Asian carp. The Committee expects the Corps to expedite authorized actions related to Asian Carp, in particular the Great Lakes 

and Mississippi River Interbasin Study (GLMRIS) Brandon Road 

study. The Corps recently transferred management of the study to 

the Rock Island District. While this transfer may have been warranted, the Committee has not yet received a comprehensive explanation as to how this transfer will ensure the study will be executed efficiently and expeditiously. 

CONGRESSIONAL DIRECTION AND REPROGRAMMING

To ensure that the expenditure of funds in fiscal year 2016 is 

consistent with congressional direction, to minimize the movement 

of funds, and to improve overall budget execution, the bill carries 

a legislative provision outlining the circumstances under which the 

Corps of Engineers may reprogram funds. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $5,596,750,000 for the Corps of Engineers, $142,250,000 above fiscal year 2015 and $864,750,000 

above the budget request. 

A table summarizing the fiscal year 2015 enacted appropriation, 

the fiscal year 2016 budget request, and the Committee-recommended levels is provided below: 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
19 

(Dollars in thousands) 

Account FY 2015 enacted FY 2016 request Cmte. rec. 

Investigations .............................................................................................. $122,000 $97,000 $110,000 

Construction ................................................................................................ 1,639,489 1,172,000 1,631,000 

Mississippi River and tributaries ............................................................... 302,000 225,000 275,000 

Operation and maintenance ....................................................................... 2,908,511 2,710,000 3,058,000 

Regulatory program .................................................................................... 200,000 205,000 200,000 

FUSRAP ........................................................................................................ 101,500 104,000 104,000 

Flood control and coastal emergencies ...................................................... 28,000 34,000 34,000 

Expenses ..................................................................................................... 178,000 180,000 180,000 

Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works .................. 3,000 5,000 4,750 

TOTAL, Program Level ............................................................... 5,482,500 4,732,000 5,596,750 

Rescission ................................................................................................... ¥28,000 – – – – – – 

NET APPROPRIATION, Corps of Engineers—Civil ..................... 5,454,500 4,732,000 5,596,750 

INVESTIGATIONS

Appropriation, 2015 ............................................................................ $122,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ....................................................................... 97,000,000 

Recommended, 2016 ........................................................................... 110,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2015 .................................................................... ¥12,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ................................................................ +13,000,000 

This appropriation funds studies to determine the need for, the 

engineering and economic feasibility of, and the environmental and 

social suitability of solutions to water and related land resource 

problems; preconstruction engineering and design; data collection; 

interagency coordination; and research. 

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $110,000,000, 

$12,000,000 below fiscal year 2015 and $13,000,000 above the 

budget request. 

The budget request for this account and the approved Committee 

allowance are shown on the following table: 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
20 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSEInsert offset folio 21 here 93754A.002
21 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSEInsert offset folio 22 here 93754A.003
22 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSEInsert offset folio 23 here 93754A.004
23 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSEInsert offset folio 24 here 93754A.005
24 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSEInsert offset folio 25 here 93754A.006
25 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSEInsert offset folio 26 here 93754A.007
26 

Can ̃ o Martin Pen ̃a, Puerto Rico.—The Corps is directed to report 

to the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress 

not later than 90 days after the enactment of this Act on how this 

project is, or is not, consistent with current law and policy regarding hazardous and toxic materials. 

Additional Funding for Ongoing Work.—The Corps shall allocate 

the additional funding provided in this account in accordance with 

only the direction provided here and in the Title I front matter of 

this report. While this additional funding is shown in the feasibility 

column, the Corps should use these funds in both feasibility and 

PED, as applicable. When developing the rating system(s) for use 

in allocating additional funds under this account, the Corps shall 

consider giving priority to completing or accelerating ongoing studies that: (1) will enhance the nation’s economic development, job 

growth, and international competitiveness; (2) are for projects located in areas that have suffered recent natural disasters; or (3) 

are for projects to address legal requirements. The executive 

branch retains complete discretion over methodology of the ratings 

system(s) and project-specific allocation decisions within the additional funds provided. 

Research and Development, Additional Topics.—Within the funds 

provided, and in accordance with the amount requested for each 

mission area, the Corps is encouraged to consider conducting work 

on the following topics: 

1. The impact of reduced lock operations on endangered, threatened, and game fish species in low-use waterways and effective mitigation methods. The Committee has heard concerns that a reduction in or elimination of navigational lock operations is having a 

negative impact on the ability of some endangered, threatened, and 

game fish species to migrate through waterways, particularly during critical spawning periods. The Committee is aware that the 

Corps has collaborated with other federal agencies, such as the 

Fish and Wildlife Service, on two research initiatives that would 

provide a good foundation for this additional research effort. 

2. Urban flood damage reduction and stream restoration in arid 

regions. Previous work in this area included the development of 

tools and technologies for stakeholders, including Corps District 

personnel, other federal agencies, state and local governments, and 

flood control districts. It also demonstrated the application of new 

and innovative techniques, models, and methods to arid and semiarid regions. 

Research and Development, Partnerships.—The budget request 

includes funding for work on controlling invasive aquatic species 

throughout our nations waterways, including the Columbia River 

Basin. The Corps is encouraged to utilize local and regional research partners, as appropriate, when conducting work to address 

this serious issue. 

Budgeting for Tribal Areas.—Tribal communities located in remote areas that experience severe weather-related conditions jeopardizing public safety and health face a significant disadvantage 

under the Corps’ utilization of benefit-cost ratios in its budgeting 

process. The Committee encourages the Corps to examine ways 

that federal trust and treaty obligations and the need to protect 

public safety and health in severe weather situations could be better incorporated into determining budget priorities. 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
27 

CONSTRUCTION

Appropriation, 2015 ............................................................................ $1,639,489,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ....................................................................... 1,172,000,000 

Recommended, 2016 ........................................................................... 1,631,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2015 .................................................................... ¥8,489,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ................................................................ +459,000,000 

This appropriation funds construction, major rehabilitation, and 

related activities for water resource projects whose principal purpose is to provide commercial navigation, flood and storm damage 

reduction, or aquatic ecosystem restoration benefits to the nation. 

Portions of this account are funded from the Harbor Maintenance 

Trust Fund and the Inland Waterways Trust Fund. The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,631,000,000, $8,489,000 below fiscal year 2015 and $459,000,000 above the 

budget request. 

The budget request for this account and the approved Committee 

allowance are shown on the following table: 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
28 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSEInsert offset folio 29 here 93754A.008
29 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSEInsert offset folio 30 here 93754A.009
30 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSEInsert offset folio 31 here 93754A.010
31 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSEInsert offset folio 32 here 93754A.011
32 

Success Dam, California.—The Committee notes that in 2003 a 

project was initiated to increase the reservoir capacity, primarily 

for flood control but also for irrigation water storage. The project 

has been on hold for more than a decade due to seismic and seepage concerns, which have now been addressed. The drought in California continues to demonstrate the importance of and need for expanding water storage capacity to capture water during wet years 

for use in dry years. The non-federal sponsors remain very interested in continuing implementation of the project. The Committee 

urges the Corps to move expeditiously to resolve remaining hydrologic concerns and to update, as necessary, documents related to 

the project to increase reservoir capacity so that the project can finally be completed. 

South Florida Ecosystem Restoration, Florida.—The Committee 

is aware that the Corps currently is engaging a public process to 

update the Integrated Delivery System (IDS). The Committee encourages the Corps to include the Big Cypress–L–28 Interceptor 

Modifications Project into the updated IDS. 

Additional Funding for Ongoing Work.—The Corps shall allocate 

the additional funding provided in this account in accordance with 

only the direction provided here and in the Title I front matter of 

this report. Of the additional funds provided in this account, the 

Corps shall allocate not less than $12,450,000 to projects with 

riverfront development components. Of the additional funds provided in this account for flood and storm damage reduction and 

flood control, the Corps shall allocate not less than $18,000,000 to 

additional nonstructural flood control projects. When developing 

the rating system(s) for use in allocating additional funds under 

this account, the Corps shall consider giving priority to the following: 

(1) benefits of the funded work to the national economy; 

(2) extent to which the work will enhance national, regional, or 

local economic development; 

(3) number of jobs created directly by the funded activity; 

(4) ability to obligate the funds allocated within the fiscal year, 

including consideration of the ability of the non-federal sponsor to 

provide any required cost-share; 

(5) ability to complete the project, separable element, project 

phase, or useful increment of work with the funds allocated; 

(6) for flood and storm damage reduction projects, 

—the population, economic activity, or public infrastructure 

at risk, as appropriate; and 

—the severity of risk of flooding or the frequency with which 

an area has experienced flooding; 

(7) for navigation projects, the number of jobs or level of economic activity to be supported by completion of the project, separable element, project phase, or useful increment of work; 

(8) for Inland Waterways Trust Fund projects, the economic impact on the local, regional, and national economy if the project is 

not funded, as well as useful increments of work that can be completed within the funding provided in this line item; and 

(9) for environmental infrastructure, projects with the greater 

economic impact, projects in rural communities, and projects in 

counties or parishes with high poverty rates. 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
33 

The executive branch retains complete discretion over methodology of the ratings system(s) and project-specific allocation decisions within the additional funds provided. 

The Committee is aware that the Corps is developing a report 

describing a 20-year program for making capital investments on 

the inland and intracoastal waterways, pursuant to section 2002(d) 

of the Water Resources Reform and Development Act (WRRDA) of 

2014. This report is due to be submitted to Congress in June 2015. 

The Committee requires an opportunity to review any new report 

prior to the Corps incorporating any part of the report into funding 

decisions. Therefore, when allocating the fiscal year 2016 additional funding provided in this account for Inland Waterways Trust 

Fund Projects, the Corps shall not use the report being developed 

pursuant to WRRDA. The Corps shall continue to use, as appropriate, the Inland Marine Transportation System (IMTS) Capital 

Projects Business Model, Final Report published on April 13, 2010, 

as the applicable 20-year plan. 

Aquatic Plant Control Program.—Funding is provided for 

watercraft inspection stations, as authorized by section 1039 of 

WRRDA 2014. 

Continuing Authorities Program (CAP).—The Committee continues to support all sections of the Continuing Authorities Program. Funding is provided for eight CAP sections at a total of 

$23,750,000, an increase of $20,250,000 above the budget request, 

which proposed funding for only four sections. This program provides a useful tool for the Corps to undertake small localized 

projects without the lengthy study and authorization process typical of most larger Corps projects. The management of the Continuing Authorities Program should continue consistent with direction provided in previous fiscal years, except that the Chief shall 

no longer be required to submit annual reports on the backlog of 

projects. 

Continuing Authorities Program, Extraordinary Circumstances.— The Committee urges the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil 

Works) to review past projects with extraordinary circumstances to 

determine whether exceptions to policy are reasonable and advisable, including when implementing section 1030 of the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014. 

MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES

Appropriation, 2015 ............................................................................ $302,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ....................................................................... 225,000,000 

Recommended, 2016 ........................................................................... 275,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2015 .................................................................... ¥27,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ................................................................ +50,000,000 

This appropriation funds planning, construction, and operation 

and maintenance activities associated with projects to reduce flood 

damage in the lower Mississippi River alluvial valley below Cape 

Girardeau, Missouri. 

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $275,000,000, $27,000,000 below fiscal year 2015 and $50,000,000 above the 

budget request. 

The budget request for this account and the approved Committee 

allowance are shown on the following table: 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
34 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSEInsert offset folio 35 here 93754A.012
35 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSEInsert offset folio 36 here 93754A.013
36 

Lower Mississippi River Main Stem.—The budget request proposes to consolidate several activities across multiple states into 

one line item. The Committee does not support this change and instead continues to fund these activities as separate line items. 

Additional Funding for Ongoing Work.—The Corps shall allocate 

the additional funding provided in this account in accordance with 

only the direction provided here and in the Title I front matter of 

this report. While this additional funding is shown under remaining items, the Corps should use these funds in investigations, construction, and operation and maintenance, as applicable. When developing the rating system(s) for use in allocating additional funds 

under this account, the Corps shall consider giving priority to completing or accelerating ongoing work that (1) will enhance the region and nation’s economic development, job growth, and international competitiveness; or (2) is for projects located in areas that 

have suffered recent natural disasters. The executive branch retains complete discretion over methodology of the ratings system(s) 

and project-specific allocation decisions within the additional funds 

provided. 

Mississippi River Commission.—No funding is provided for this 

new line item. The Corps is directed to continue funding the costs 

of the commission from within the funds provided for activities 

within the Mississippi River and Tributaries project. 

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

Appropriation, 2015 ............................................................................ $2,908,511,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ....................................................................... 2,710,000,000 

Recommended, 2016 ........................................................................... 3,058,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2015 .................................................................... +149,489,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ................................................................ +348,000,000 

This appropriation funds operation, maintenance, and related activities at water resource projects the Corps operates and maintains. Work to be accomplished consists of dredging, repair, and operation of structures and other facilities as authorized in various 

River and Harbor, Flood Control, and Water Resources Development Acts. Related activities include aquatic plant control, monitoring of completed projects, removal of sunken vessels, and the 

collection of domestic, waterborne commerce statistics. Portions of 

this account are financed through the Harbor Maintenance Trust 

Fund. 

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $3,058,000,000, 

$149,489,000 above fiscal year 2015 and $348,000,000 above the 

budget request. 

The budget request for this account and the approved Committee 

allowance are shown on the following table: 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
37 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSEInsert offset folio 38 here 93754A.014
38 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSEInsert offset folio 39 here 93754A.015
39 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSEInsert offset folio 40 here 93754A.016
40 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSEInsert offset folio 41 here 93754A.017
41 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSEInsert offset folio 42 here 93754A.018
42 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSEInsert offset folio 43 here 93754A.019
43 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSEInsert offset folio 44 here 93754A.020
44 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSEInsert offset folio 45 here 93754A.021
45 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSEInsert offset folio 46 here 93754A.022
46 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSEInsert offset folio 47 here 93754A.023
47 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSEInsert offset folio 48 here 93754A.024
48 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSEInsert offset folio 49 here 93754A.025
49 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSEInsert offset folio 50 here 93754A.026
50 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSEInsert offset folio 51 here 93754A.027
51 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSEInsert offset folio 52 here 93754A.028
52 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSEInsert offset folio 53 here 93754A.029
53 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSEInsert offset folio 54 here 93754A.030
54 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSEInsert offset folio 55 here 93754A.031
55 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSEInsert offset folio 56 here 93754A.032
56 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSEInsert offset folio 57 here 93754A.033
57 

Emerging Harbor Projects.—The recommendation includes funding for individual projects defined as emerging harbor projects (in 

section 210(f)(2) of the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) 

of 1986) that exceeds the funding levels envisioned in section 

210(c)(3) and 210(d)(1)(ii) of WRDA 1986. 

Great Lakes Navigation System.—The recommendation includes 

funding for individual projects within this System that exceeds the 

funding level envisioned in section 210(d)(1)(B)(ii) of WRDA 1986. 

Additional Funding for Ongoing Work.—The Corps shall allocate 

the additional funding provided in this account in accordance with 

only the direction provided here and in the Title I front matter of 

this report. When developing the rating system(s) for use in allocating additional funds under this account, the Corps shall consider 

giving priority to the following: 

(1) ability to complete ongoing work maintaining authorized 

depths and widths of harbors and shipping channels, including 

where contaminated sediments are present; 

(2) ability to address critical maintenance backlog; 

(3) presence of the U.S. Coast Guard; 

(4) extent to which the work will enhance national, regional, or 

local economic development, including domestic manufacturing capacity; 

(5) extent to which the work will promote job growth or international competitiveness; 

(6) number of jobs created directly by the funded activity; 

(7) ability to obligate the funds allocated within the fiscal year; 

(8) ability to complete the project, separable element, project 

phase, or useful increment of work within the funds allocated; 

(9) the risk of imminent failure or closure of the facility; and 

(10) for harbor maintenance activities, 

—total tonnage handled; 

—total exports; 

—total imports; 

—dollar value of cargo handled; 

—energy infrastructure and national security needs served; 

—designation as strategic seaports; 

—lack of alternative means of freight movement; and 

—savings over alternative means of freight movement; 

The executive branch retains complete discretion over methodology of the ratings system(s) and project-specific allocation decisions within the additional funds provided. 

Small, Remote, or Subsistence Navigation.—Concerns persist 

that the Administration’s criteria for navigation maintenance do 

not allow small, remote, or subsistence harbors and waterways to 

properly compete for scarce navigation maintenance funds. The 

Committee notes that the budget request for this category of 

projects has increased over the past few years and urges the Corps 

to continue this effort to provide a reasonable and equitable allocation under this account. 

Water Operations Technical Support (WOTS).—Funding in addition to the budget request is included to continue research into atmospheric rivers first funded in fiscal year 2015. 

Dredged Material Disposal.—The Corps is directed to review its 

policies regarding dredged material disposal to determine whether 

these policies continue to be the most appropriate given changing 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
58 

economic and environmental realities. The review shall include, at 

a minimum, policy limitations in the study phase, including limitations on analyzing confined disposal facilities not yet in operation, 

even if use of those facilities would save the Federal government 

money over the long term; the sequencing of dredged material disposal sites and individual project efforts; cost share policies, including the roles and responsibilities relative to non-Federal sponsors; 

changing environmental considerations, including any challenges to 

the Federal standard for in-water disposal; and long-term capacity 

concerns, including any increases due to anticipated harbor improvements. In conducting this review, the Corps shall solicit and 

incorporate the views of interested stakeholders and other parties 

independent of the Administration. The Secretary shall submit to 

the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress not 

later than nine months after the enactment of this Act a report describing the results of this review, including detailed recommendations for any changes to Federal dredged material disposal policies 

necessary to responsibly address the maintenance of Federal navigation channels. 

Ririe Reservoir, Idaho.—The Committee appreciates the cooperation to date of the Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation to allow limited increases in the amount of water carried over 

through the winter flood season without increasing flood risk. 

Water users are interested in additional winter water storage, however, but the potential paths forward are not clear. The Corps and 

Reclamation are directed to work together to submit to the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress not later 

than 21 days after the enactment of this Act a single report describing options the water users could pursue for additional water 

carryover. The report should detail for each option the roles and responsibilities of each federal agency as well as the water users, including funding requirements, process challenges to be addressed, 

an approximate schedule through implementation, any policy or 

statutory changes necessary, and other relevant information the 

water users would need to make an informed decision on whether 

and how they might wish to proceed. 

Hopper dredges.—The Water Resources Development Act of 1996 

directed the Secretary to initiate a program to increase the use of 

private industry hopper dredges for the construction and maintenance of federal navigation channels and to develop and implement 

procedures to ensure that private industry hopper dredge capacity 

is available to meet both routine and time-sensitive dredging 

needs. The Committee notes that this ‘‘industry first’’ policy has 

worked well, with private industry increasing capacity by commissioning new hopper dredges and with the Corps instituting ‘‘raise 

the flag’’ procedures for time-sensitive situations. The Committee 

encourages the Corps to maintain the federal commitment to the 

‘‘industry first’’ policy, including by scheduling the federal hopper 

dredges in ready reserve status for only the number of routine testing days necessary to ensure the ability of the vessel to perform urgent and emergency work. 

Navigation safety and efficiency.—Modifications to deep draft 

high commercial use channels, including bends and entrances, are 

sometimes necessary to ensure safety of navigation and efficient 

operations. The Corps is strongly encouraged to use existing auVerDate Sep 11 2014 06:58 Apr 25, 2015 Jkt 094207 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR091.XXX HR091

smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
59 

thorities, such as 33 U.S.C. 562, or to make recommendations for 

appropriate new or modified authorizations to address such safety 

and efficiency issues in a timely manner. 

REGULATORY PROGRAM

Appropriation, 2015 ............................................................................ $200,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ....................................................................... 205,000,000 

Recommended, 2016 ........................................................................... 200,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2015 .................................................................... – – – 

Budget estimate, 2016 ................................................................ ¥5,000,000 

This appropriation provides funds to administer laws pertaining 

to the regulation of activities affecting U.S. waters, including wetlands, in accordance with the Rivers and Harbors Appropriation 

Act of 1899, the Clean Water Act, and the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972. Appropriated funds are used 

to review and process permit applications, ensure compliance on 

permitted sites, protect important aquatic resources, and support 

watershed planning efforts in sensitive environmental areas in cooperation with states and local communities. The Committee recommends an appropriation of $200,000,000, the same as fiscal year 2015 and $5,000,000 below the budget request. The funding increase proposed in the budget request is described as necessary to support Clean Water Act rulemaking activities and rule implementation related to proposed revisions to the 

definition of waters of the United States. Since the Committee includes legislative language prohibiting the Corps from carrying out 

these activities, the associated funding increase is unnecessary. 

The funding provided is therefore sufficient to maintain, at a minimum, staffing needs and scientific and technological support for 

traditional program activities such as processing permit applications and conducting the work necessary to reissue the Nationwide 

permits in 2017. 

In fiscal year 2014 and again in fiscal year 2015, the Committee 

raised a concern with the Corps’ changed interpretation of Clean 

Water Act requirements related to the identification of a specified 

end-user. Congress rejected the new interpretation. Unfortunately, 

the Committee continues to hear concerns on this issue. The Committee again directs the Corps to ensure that all field offices adhere 

in all instances to the interpretations directed by the Congress. The 

previous direction is repeated here for emphasis and clarity. 

The Committee is aware of at least two recent instances in which 

local economic development organizations have applied for permits 

to prepare sites to attract new economic activity but the Corps has 

denied or otherwise frustrated those efforts. Although the local organizations have established precedent by providing several examples of where similar applications were approved, the Corps now 

claims its regulations require the identification of a specified enduser of a proposed development so it can review final design plans 

and other exact specifications of the proposed development in order 

to issue a permit. The Committee strongly rejects this new interpretation of Clean Water Act requirements. The Corps is not a 

local land-use planning agency, and the Clean Water Act provides 

neither the directive nor the authority for the Corps to assume 

such responsibilities. The Committee encourages the Corps to work 

with these permit applicants, and any others with similar applicaVerDate Sep 11 2014 06:58 Apr 25, 2015 Jkt 094207 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR091.XXX HR091

smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
60 

tions, to reach a better balance between allowing desperately needed economic development while still safeguarding important environmental resources. 

FORMERLY UTILIZED SITES REMEDIAL ACTION PROGRAM

Appropriation, 2015 ............................................................................ $101,500,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ....................................................................... 104,000,000 

Recommended, 2016 ........................................................................... 104,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2015 .................................................................... +2,500,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ................................................................ – – – 

This appropriation funds the cleanup of certain low-level radioactive materials and mixed wastes located at sites contaminated as 

a result of the nation’s early efforts to develop atomic weapons. 

The Congress transferred the Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial 

Action Program (FUSRAP) from the Department of Energy to the 

Corps of Engineers in fiscal year 1998. In appropriating FUSRAP 

funds to the Corps of Engineers, the Committee intended to transfer only the responsibility for administration and execution of 

cleanup activities at FUSRAP sites where the Department had not 

completed cleanup. The Committee did not transfer to the Corps 

ownership of and accountability for real property interests, which 

remain with the Department. The Committee expects the Department to continue to provide its institutional knowledge and expertise to ensure the success of this program and to serve the nation 

and the affected communities. 

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $104,000,000, 

$2,500,000 above fiscal year 2015 and the same as the request. The 

Committee continues to support the prioritization of sites, especially those that are nearing completion. Within the funds provided 

in accordance with the budget request, the Corps is directed to 

complete the Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study of the 

former Sylvania nuclear fuel site at Hicksville, New York, and, as 

appropriate, to proceed expeditiously to a Record of Decision and 

initiation of any necessary remediation in accordance with the 

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). 

FLOOD CONTROL AND COASTAL EMERGENCIES

Appropriation, 2015 ............................................................................ $28,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ....................................................................... 34,000,000 

Recommended, 2016 ........................................................................... 34,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2015 .................................................................... +6,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ................................................................ – – – 

This appropriation funds planning, training, and other measures 

that ensure the readiness of the Corps to respond to floods, hurricanes, and other natural disasters, and to support emergency operations in response to such natural disasters, including advance 

measures, flood fighting, emergency operations, the provision of potable water on an emergency basis, and the repair of certain flood 

and storm damage reduction projects. 

The Committee recommends $34,000,000 for this account, 

$6,000,000 above fiscal year 2015 and the same as the budget request. 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
61 

EXPENSES

Appropriation, 2015 ............................................................................ $178,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ....................................................................... 180,000,000 

Recommended, 2016 ........................................................................... 180,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2015 .................................................................... +2,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ................................................................ – – – 

This appropriation funds the executive direction and management of the Office of the Chief of Engineers, the Division Offices, 

and certain research and statistical functions of the Corps of Engineers. 

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $180,000,000, 

$2,000,000 above fiscal year 2015 and the same as the budget request. 

The Committee reiterates direction provided in fiscal year 2015 

regarding implementation of the Water Resources Reform and Development Act (WRRDA) of 2014. 

Public-Private Partnership Program.—The Committee is aware of 

the strong support of many Members of the House of Representatives for the public-private partnership (P3) program authorized in 

section 5014 of WRRDA 2014. As part of its Civil Works Transformation initiative, the Corps has been discussing for several 

years the idea of public-private partnerships as a project delivery 

tool to help sustain the performance of existing infrastructure and 

construct new infrastructure more quickly. Water resource projects 

are different from more traditional P3 projects in key ways, however, and these issues need to be addressed before a P3 program 

could be viable. The Corps is directed to submit to the Committees 

on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress not later than 60 

days after the enactment of this Act a report detailing any work 

to date on developing public-private partnerships generally and on 

implementing section 5014 specifically (including a schedule for 

issuing implementation guidance). The report also shall include a 

list of any demonstration projects being evaluated and a detailed 

description of the goals, advances, and remaining challenges for 

each such demonstration project. 

Flood Damage Reduction Projects on Federal Lands.—The Committee is aware that some locally owned and operated flood damage 

reduction projects are located, at least in part, on federal land. One 

such project is the R–616 levee, a portion of which is physically located on Offutt Air Force Base. Local entities can find it challenging to try to determine what assistance might be available in 

situations involving multiple federal agencies with multiple programs and authorities, especially when property is owned by multiple entities. To help minimize this challenge, the Corps is directed 

to submit to the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of 

Congress not later than 90 days after the enactment of this Act a 

report describing existing programs, authorities, and funding options available to assist local sponsors with existing flood damage 

reduction projects located at least in part on federal land. The report shall include overall programmatic findings, as well as findings specific to the R–616 project. The Corps shall work with the 

other relevant federal agencies to describe available options specific 

to the R–616 project. 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
62 

OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE ARMY FOR CIVIL WORKS

Appropriation, 2015 ............................................................................ $3,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ....................................................................... 5,000,000 

Recommended, 2016 ........................................................................... 4,750,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2015 .................................................................... +1,750,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ................................................................ ¥250,000 

The Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works oversees the 

Civil Works budget and policy, whereas the Corps’ executive direction and management of the Civil Works program are funded from 

the Expenses account. The Committee recommends an appropriation of $4,750,000, $1,750,000 above fiscal year 2015 and $250,000 below the budget 

request. 

In the explanatory statement accompanying the fiscal year 2015 

Act, the Committee detailed serious concerns about the breakdown 

in traditional roles and responsibilities between the White House, 

the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works 

(ASA(CW)), and the Corps headquarters. Unfortunately, to date, 

the Committee has not noticed significant improvements nor heard 

from the ASA(CW) regarding steps taken to address the issues 

raised. The Committee eagerly awaits that information. 

The recommendation includes legislative language restricting the 

availability of 75 percent of the funding provided in this account 

until such time as at least 95 percent of the additional funding provided in each account has been allocated to specific programs, 

projects, or activities. As of the writing of this report—almost three 

months after the initial work plan submission—a significant portion of the additional funding provided in fiscal year 2015 remains 

unallocated, including 39 percent of the Investigations funding and 

22 percent of the Construction funding. The Administration has not 

shown any sense of urgency to allocate this remaining funding even 

after repeated inquiries from this Committee. The legislative provision is intended to impress upon the Administration the importance the Committee places on the prudent and expeditious allocation of additional funding provided in fiscal year 2016. 

GENERAL PROVISIONS—CORPS OF ENGINEERS—CIVIL 

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

The bill continues a provision that prohibits the obligation or expenditure of funds through a reprogramming of funds in this title 

except in certain circumstances. 

The bill continues a provision prohibiting the use of funds in this 

Act to carry out any contract that commits funds beyond the 

amounts appropriated for that program, project, or activity. 

The bill continues a provision authorizing the transfer of funds 

to the Fish and Wildlife Service to mitigate for fisheries lost due 

to Corps of Engineers projects. 

The bill makes permanent a provision prohibiting funds from 

being used to develop or implement changes to certain definitions 

for the purposes of the Clean Water Act. 

The bill includes a provision prohibiting funds from being used 

to implement revised guidance on determining jurisdiction under 

the Clean Water Act. 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
63 

The bill continues a provision prohibiting the use of funds to require permits for the discharge of dredged or fill material for certain agriculture activities. Identical language was included in the 

fiscal year 2015 Act. As articulated in report language in fiscal 

years 2014 and 2015, the Committee has been concerned that the 

Corps has changed its interpretation of the Clean Water Act to significantly reduce the application of the statutory exemptions included in the Act. Since the Corps made no improvements to implementation in response to the report language, the Committee included statutory language in the fiscal year 2015 Act to prohibit 

the Corps from requiring permits for the specified activities without exception. Unfortunately the Administration misinterpreted 

that language, as well, and issued implementation guidance asserting that the fiscal year 2015 Act language simply reinforced current practice. The Corps is directed to implement the provision in 

this bill as it is intended—as a complete prohibition on requiring 

permits for the specified activities; the so-called ‘‘recapture provision’’ shall not apply to these activities. 

The bill contains a provision allowing the possession of firearms 

at water resources development projects under certain circumstances. 

The bill includes a provision regarding certain dredged material 

disposal activities. 

TITLE II—DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

CENTRAL UTAH PROJECT

CENTRAL UTAH PROJECT COMPLETION ACCOUNT

Appropriation, 2015 ............................................................................ $9,874,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ....................................................................... 7,300,000 

Recommended, 2016 ........................................................................... 9,874,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2015 .................................................................... – – – 

Budget estimate, 2016 ................................................................ +2,574,000 

The Central Utah Project Completion Act (Titles II–VI of Public 

Law 102–575) provides for the completion of the Central Utah 

Project by the Central Utah Water Conservancy District. The Act 

also authorizes the appropriation of funds for fish, wildlife, and 

recreation mitigation and conservation; establishes an account in 

the Treasury for the deposit of these funds and of other contributions for mitigation and conservation activities; and establishes a 

Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Commission to administer funds in that account. The Act further assigns responsibilities for carrying out the Act to the Secretary of the Interior and 

prohibits delegation of those responsibilities to the Bureau of Reclamation. 

The Committee recommendation includes a total of $9,874,000 

for the Central Utah Project Completion Account, which includes 

$7,574,000 for Central Utah Project construction, $1,000,000 for 

transfer to the Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Account for use by the Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Commission, and $1,300,000 for necessary expenses of the Secretary of the Interior. This appropriation is the same as fiscal year 

2015 and $2,574,000 above the budget request. 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
64 

BUREAU OF RECLAMATION

INTRODUCTION

The mission of the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) is to 

manage, develop, and protect water and related resources in an environmentally and economically sound manner in the interest of 

the American public. Since its establishment by the Reclamation 

Act of 1902, the Bureau of Reclamation has developed water supply 

facilities that have contributed to sustained economic growth and 

an enhanced quality of life in the western states. Lands and communities served by Reclamation projects have been developed to 

meet agricultural, tribal, urban, and industrial needs. Reclamation 

continues to develop authorized facilities to store and convey new 

water supplies and is the largest supplier and manager of water in 

the 17 western states. Reclamation maintains 337 reservoirs with 

the capacity to store 245 million acre-feet of water. 

As Reclamation’s large impoundments and appurtenant facilities 

reach their design life, the projected cost of operating, maintaining, 

and rehabilitating Reclamation infrastructure continues to grow, 

yet Reclamation has not budgeted funding sufficient to implement 

a comprehensive program to reduce its maintenance backlog. At 

the same time, Reclamation is increasingly relied upon to provide 

water supply to federally-recognized Indian tribes through water 

settlements, rural communities through its Title I Rural Water 

Program, and municipalities through its Title XVI Water Reclamation and Reuse Program. Balancing these competing priorities will 

be challenging and requires active participation and leadership on 

the part of Reclamation and its technical staff. 

WESTERN DROUGHT

Extensive and exceptional drought continues to plague the Western United States. The U.S. Drought Monitor for March 31, 2015, 

shows that Montana is the only Reclamation state that is virtually 

drought free. All or significant portions of eleven Reclamation 

states are suffering from severe to exceptional drought. California 

has entered a fourth consecutive year of drought. 

Drought conditions are difficult to address at the time the 

drought is occurring, but there are some things that can be done 

to stretch available water supplies. The Bureau of Reclamation and 

the Department of the Interior are encouraged to use all of the 

flexibility and tools available to mitigate the impacts of this 

drought. 

The only way to mitigate the effects of future droughts, however, 

is through a strategy of providing a combination of additional storage, improved conveyance, and increased efficiencies in the uses of 

water both for agriculture and potable purposes. As the West has 

consistently been the fastest growing part of the country, it is incumbent on Reclamation, as the leading water purveyor in the 

West, to lead the way in increasing the water that is available from 

one year to the next and to research and develop more efficient 

uses of the water that is available. 

California.—The Committee notes that, with last year’s passage 

of California’s Proposition 1, the California Water Commission is 

expected to begin in early 2017 allocating $2,700,000,000 in funding for the public benefits of water storage projects. Reclamation, 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
65 

in consultation with other relevant federal agencies, is encouraged 

to review planned activities, including schedules, to ensure that 

federal actions do not needlessly inhibit the ability of local entities 

to compete for these state funds. 

FISCAL YEAR 2016 BUDGET REQUEST AND COMMITTEE

RECOMMENDATION

The fiscal year 2016 budget request for the Bureau of Reclamation totals $1,098,668,000. The Committee recommendation totals 

$1,094,668,000, $35,458,000 below fiscal year 2015 and $4,000,000 

below the budget request. 

A table summarizing the fiscal year 2015 enacted appropriation, 

the fiscal year 2016 budget request, and the Committee recommendation is provided below: 

(Dollars in thousands) 

Account FY 2015 

enacted 

FY 2016 

request Cmte rec. 

Water and Related Resources ................................................................................ $978,131 $805,157 $948,640 

Central Valley Project Restoration Fund ................................................................. 56,995 49,528 49,528 

California Bay-Delta Restoration ............................................................................ 37,000 37,000 37,000 

Policy and Administration ....................................................................................... 58,500 59,500 59,500 

Indian Water Rights Settlements ........................................................................... – – – 112,483 – – – 

San Joaquin River Restoration Fund ...................................................................... – – – 35,000 – – – 

Total, Bureau of Reclamation ............................................................... 1,130,626 1,098,668 1,094,668 

Rescission ............................................................................................................... ¥500 – – – – – – 

Net Appropriation, Bureau of Reclamation .......................................... 1,130,126 1,098,668 1,094,668 

WATER AND RELATED RESOURCES

(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

Appropriation, 2015 ............................................................................ $978,131,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ....................................................................... 805,157,000 

Recommended, 2016 ........................................................................... 948,640,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2015 .................................................................... ¥29,491,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ................................................................ +143,483,000 

The Water and Related Resources account supports the development, construction, management, and restoration of water and related natural resources in the 17 western states. The account includes funds for operating and maintaining existing facilities to obtain the greatest overall levels of benefits, to protect public safety, 

and to conduct studies on ways to improve the use of water and 

related natural resources. 

For fiscal year 2016, the Committee recommends $948,640,000, 

$29,491,000 below fiscal year 2015 and $143,483,000 above the 

budget request. The Committee recommendation includes in this 

account certain Indian Water Rights Settlements proposed for 

funding under a separate account in the President’s budget request. No funding is included for the San Joaquin River Restoration Fund, which the President’s request also proposed as a new 

separate account. Adjusted for this change in account structure, the 

recommendation is $4,000,000 below the budget request. 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
66 

The budget request for this account and the approved Committee 

allowance are shown on the following table: 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
67 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSEInsert offset folio 66 here 93754A.034
68 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSEInsert offset folio 67 here 93754A.035
69 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSEInsert offset folio 68 here 93754A.036
70 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSEInsert offset folio 69 here 93754A.037
71 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSEInsert offset folio 70 here 93754A.038
72 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSEInsert offset folio 71 here 93754A.039
73 

San Joaquin River Restoration Fund.—The budget request again 

proposes an account separate from the Water and Related Resources account for discretionary funding of San Joaquin River Restoration activities. As in past years, the Committee includes this 

line item within the Water and Related Resources account, although no funding is provided. 

Indian Water Rights Settlements.—The budget request again proposes a new appropriations account for five Indian water rights settlements. As in prior fiscal years, however, the Committee includes 

funding for these settlements in the Water and Related Resources 

account. 

Central Valley Project, San Luis Unit, California.—The Committee is aware that Reclamation and the Western Area Power Administration are evaluating the possible construction of a transmission line to directly serve the San Luis Unit from the Central 

Valley Project system as an alternative to receiving service under 

the California Independent System Operator’s (CAISO) Tariff. If 

this alternative is selected, the agencies are directed to work together and with the affected Central Valley Project water contractors to ensure the most efficient and cost-effective process for implementation. 

Ririe Reservoir, Idaho.—The Committee appreciates the cooperation to date of the Bureau of Reclamation and the Corps of Engineers to allow limited increases in the amount of water carried 

over through the winter flood season without increasing flood risk. 

Water users are interested in additional winter water storage, however, but the potential paths forward are not clear. Reclamation 

and the Corps are directed to work together to submit to the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress not later 

than 21 days after the enactment of this Act a single report describing options the water users could pursue for additional water 

carryover. The report should detail for each option the roles and responsibilities of each federal agency as well as the water users, including funding requirements, process challenges to be addressed, 

an approximate schedule through implementation, any policy or 

statutory changes necessary, and other relevant information the 

water users would need to make an informed decision on whether 

and how they might wish to proceed. 

Mni Wiconi Project, South Dakota.—Reclamation is encouraged 

to continue working with the Tribes and relevant Federal agencies, 

such as the Department of Agriculture, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Indian Health Service, and the Department of Housing and Urban Development to coordinate use of all existing authorities and funding sources to finish needed community system upgrades and connections as quickly 

as possible. 

Yakima River Basin Water Enhancement Project Integrated Plan, 

Washington.—The Committee is aware of the Integrated Plan that 

has been developed by the Yakima River Basin Water Enhancement Project Working Group, including the Bureau of Reclamation, 

to address water storage and water supply needs for agriculture, 

fish, and municipalities within the Yakima River Basin in Central 

Washington. The Committee is supportive of the Plan and encourages the Bureau to move forward on implementing authorized components of the Plan. 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
74 

WaterSMART Program, Interagency Partnerships.—The Committee notes the work being undertaken by the Bureau of Reclamation and United States Department of Agriculture’s Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) to coordinate the water use 

efficiency assistance authorized under the Secure Water Act and 

the on-farm water conservation assistance provided through the 

NRCS Environmental Quality Incentives Program. This partnership began in 2011 with attention focused in California, but has 

since expanded beyond this area. The Committee encourages Reclamation to continue working with the NRCS to identify and implement ways within existing authorities to extend the benefits of this 

collaborative effort throughout the West. 

WaterSMART Program, Title XVI Water Reclamation/Reuse 

Projects.—The Committee has heard from numerous stakeholders 

who believe the program’s effectiveness could be enhanced through 

expanding the pool of projects eligible to compete for funding for 

planning, design, or construction activities. The Committee encourages Reclamation to develop and propose to the authorizing committees of both Houses of Congress recommendations for improvements, which may include programmatic changes and project-specific authorizations. 

Water Supply Authorities.—Reclamation is directed to submit to 

the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress not 

later than 180 days after the enactment of this Act a report detailing the authorizations (including specific statutory citations) currently available to provide additional water supply to drought 

prone areas; an assessment of opportunities to accelerate actions to 

provide water supply; and research and development investments 

that could expand or maximize existing supplies through water 

quality improvements such as addressing Colorado River Salinity 

or impaired water. 

CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT RESTORATION FUND

Appropriation, 2015 ............................................................................ $56,995,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ....................................................................... 49,528,000 

Recommended, 2016 ........................................................................... 49,528,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2015 .................................................................... ¥7,467,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ................................................................ – – – 

This fund was established to carry out the provisions of the Central Valley Project Improvement Act and to provide funding for 

habitat restoration, improvement and acquisition, and other fish 

and wildlife restoration activities in the Central Valley area of 

California. Resources are derived from donations, revenues from 

voluntary water transfers and tiered water pricing, and Friant Division surcharges. The account also is financed through additional 

mitigation and restoration payments collected on an annual basis 

from project beneficiaries. For fiscal year 2016, the Committee recommends $49,528,000, $7,467,000 below fiscal year 2015 and the same as the budget request. Within this amount, the Committee provides funding for 

programs and activities according to the Administration’s request. 

The Committee notes that the decrease for this account in the 

budget request and recommendation is based on a three-year rolling average of collections, in accordance with the authorizing statute. 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
75 

The Committee has heard from Members of the House of Representatives and affected stakeholders concerned with the effectiveness of the funds expended, as well as progress made towards the 

activities and goals delineated in the Act. The Committee notes 

these concerns have been expressed repeatedly even though Reclamation makes an annual report available to the public. The Committee welcomes a discussion on ways to make Reclamation’s explanation of its work under this program more accessible and 

meaningful for all interested stakeholders. 

Anadromous Fish Screen Program.—The Committee notes the 

progress being made to screen the high priority unscreened diversions on the Sacramento River under the Bureau of Reclamation’s 

Anadromous Fish Screen Program. The Committee encourages Reclamation to continue its focus on screening of the remaining high 

priority diversions from within funds made available under the 

Central Valley Project Restoration Fund in future budget requests. 

CALIFORNIA BAY-DELTA RESTORATION

(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

Appropriation, 2015 ............................................................................ $37,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ....................................................................... 37,000,000 

Recommended, 2016 ........................................................................... 37,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2015 .................................................................... – – – 

Budget estimate, 2016 ................................................................ – – – 

The California Bay-Delta Restoration account funds the federal 

share of water supply and reliability improvements, ecosystem improvements, and other activities being developed for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and associated watersheds by a state 

and federal partnership (CALFED). Federal participation in this 

program was initially authorized in the California Bay-Delta Environmental and Water Security Act enacted in 1996. 

For fiscal year 2016, the Committee recommends $37,000,000, 

the same as fiscal year 2015 and the budget request. 

The Committee notes that with the passage last year of California’s Proposition 1, the California Water Commission is expected to 

begin in early 2017 allocating $2,700,000,000 for the public benefits 

of water storage projects. To ensure that the CALFED water supply projects are able to compete for the available State funding, the 

bill includes a general provision directing the Bureau of Reclamation to complete each of these feasibility studies by a specific date 

and to submit the completed studies to the appromiate committees 

of both houses of Congress. The language also requires periodic 

progress reports. 

POLICY AND ADMINISTRATION

Appropriation, 2015 ............................................................................ $58,500,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ....................................................................... 59,500,000 

Recommended, 2016 ........................................................................... 59,500,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2015 .................................................................... +1,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ................................................................ – – – 

The Policy and Administration account provides for the executive 

direction and management of all Reclamation activities, as performed by the Commissioner’s office in Washington, D.C.; the TechVerDate Sep 11 2014 06:58 Apr 25, 2015 Jkt 094207 PO 00000 Frm 00075 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR091.XXX HR091

smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
76 

nical Service Center in Denver, Colorado; and, in five regional offices. The Denver and regional offices charge individual projects or 

activities for direct beneficial services and related administrative 

and technical costs. These charges are covered under other appropriations. For fiscal year 2016, the Committee recommends 

$59,500,000, $1,000,000 above fiscal year 2015 and the same as the 

budget request. 

The recommendation includes legislative language restricting the 

availability of 75 percent of this funding until such time as Reclamation complies with congressional and statutory direction related to the Technical Memorandum on buried metallic water pipe 

and the associated pipeline reliability study. 

With the notable exception of the issue of buried metallic water 

pipe, Reclamation’s responsiveness to congressional direction and 

Committee information requests has improved significantly since 

last year. The Committee appreciates Reclamation’s efforts. 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISION

The bill includes an administrative provision allowing for the 

purchase of passenger motor vehicles. 

GENERAL PROVISIONS—DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

The bill continues a provision regarding the circumstances in 

which the Bureau of Reclamation may reprogram funds. 

The bill continues a provision regarding the San Luis Unit and 

Kesterson Reservoir in California. 

The bill includes a provision regarding completion of certain feasibility studies. 

TITLE III—DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

INTRODUCTION 

Funds recommended in Title III provide for all Department of 

Energy programs, including Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, Nuclear Energy, 

Fossil Energy Research and Development, Naval Petroleum and 

Oil Shale Reserves, the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, the Northeast 

Home Heating Oil Reserve, the Energy Information Administration, Non-Defense Environmental Cleanup, the Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund, Science, Nuclear Waste Disposal, the Advanced Research Projects Agency—Energy, Innovative Technology Loan Guarantee Program, Advanced 

Technology Vehicle Manufacturing Loans Program, Departmental 

Administration, Office of the Inspector General, the National Nuclear Security Administration (Weapons Activities, Defense Nuclear 

Nonproliferation, Naval Reactors, and Federal Salaries and Expenses), Defense Environmental Cleanup, Defense Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning, Other Defense 

Activities, the Power Marketing Administrations, and the Federal 

Energy Regulatory Commission. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Department of Energy has requested a total budget of 

$30,527,136,000, as estimated by the Congressional Budget Office, 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
77 

in fiscal year 2016 to fund programs in its four primary mission 

areas: science, energy, environment, and national security. The Department of Energy budget request is $2,610,339,000 above fiscal 

year 2015. 

The Committee’s recommendation restructures the balance of the 

bill to ensure inherently federal responsibilities, such as national 

security, basic science activities, and environmental cleanup, are 

supported, while investing in long-term research to improve existing forms of energy production and to develop new and innovative 

forms of energy for the nation’s long-term energy independence and 

prosperity. 

CONGRESSIONAL DIRECTION

Article I, section 9 of the United States Constitution states ‘‘No 

money shall be drawn from the Treasury but in consequence of Appropriations made by law’’. 

The Committee continues the Department’s reprogramming authority in statute to ensure that the Department carries out its 

programs consistent with congressional direction. This reprogramming authority is established at the program, project, or activity 

level, whichever is the most specific included in the table detailing 

the Committee’s recommendation for the Department of Energy’s 

various accounts. The Committee also prohibits new starts through 

the use of reprogramming and includes other direction to improve 

public oversight of the Department’s actions. In addition, the recommendation continues a general provision specifying which transfer authorities may be used for accounts funded by this Act. 

FINANCIAL REPORTING AND MANAGEMENT

The Department is still not in full compliance with its statutory 

requirement to submit to Congress, at the time that the President’s 

budget request is submitted, a future-years energy program that 

covers the fiscal year of the budget submission and the four succeeding years, as directed in the fiscal year 2012 Act. Development 

and submission of a five-year budget is an important step in enhancing the Department’s ability to conduct long-term planning 

and to understand issues that might impact the affordability of certain proposals. The Department is directed to submit not later than 

90 days after the enactment of this Act to the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress a report on a plan to become fully compliant with this requirement. 

The Committee continues to be concerned about the Department’s management of its prior-year carryover funds and the buildup of excessive prior-year balances that are greater than five years 

old. Retaining these old balances places a cumbersome administrative burden on DOE programs and makes the Department’s financial management processes inefficient and unnecessarily complex. 

Last year, the Committee directed the Department to consider all 

balances greater than five years old effectively expired and to submit all remaining unexpended balances greater than five years old 

as an offset to its annual budget request. The Department proposed 

a limited amount of funding in certain accounts to offset the fiscal 

year 2016 budget request, but did not submit any requests to retain specific prior-year funds. The Committee will monitor the 

monthly financial reports provided by the Department to ensure 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
78 

that these funds are eliminated during budget execution. The Committee will consider any additional amounts that have not been 

spent by the end of fiscal year 2015 to be available for offset, unless a specific request is received to retain those balances. The 

Committee will continue to consider all Department of Energy programs under a five year period of availability in future years. 

The Committee is also concerned that the Department is failing 

in its responsibility to ensure that DOE contracts with incurred 

costs valued at billions of dollars per year are audited in a timely 

manner. The DOE Inspector General recently investigated cost 

audit coverage of non-maintenance and operating contracts and 

found that the current cost audit coverage was insufficient because 

the Department primarily utilizes the Defense Contract Audit 

Agency and that agency has been unable to perform many of its audits on a timely basis. The Department is directed to submit not 

later than 120 days after the enactment of this Act to the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress a plan to improve cost audit coverage, with clear milestones and performance 

measures. 

Alleviation of Poverty. —The Secretary of Energy is directed to 

provide not later than 120 days after the enactment of this Act a 

report detailing all domestic and international projects and programs within its jurisdiction that contribute to the alleviation of 

poverty. 

MANAGEMENT OF SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL AND DEFENSE WASTE

Despite the DC Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that the Administration’s refusal to finish the Yucca Mountain license application 

was illegal, the Administration continues to disregard current law 

regarding Yucca Mountain. These actions to stop the development 

of the Yucca Mountain High-Level Waste Repository have delayed 

the federal government from fulfilling the legal requirement to take 

responsibility for civilian spent nuclear fuel, increasing the financial penalties taxpayers must bear. The remaining liability is currently estimated to be $22,600,000,000. Under current law, any 

damages or settlements in this litigation will be paid out of the 

Judgment Fund. In addition, high-level defense waste at sites 

across the country now have no disposition pathway, presenting 

the likelihood that the federal government will have to pay penalties to the states as deadlines for removal are missed. 

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has completed the 

Safety Evaluation Report for the project finding no substantive reasons that the Yucca Mountain Site cannot be completed. In Volume 

2 which covers safety before permanent closure, the NRC concludes 

that with reasonable assurance, subject to proposed conditions, the 

Department’s application meets the NRC regulatory requirements. 

The NRC has also begun preparing a supplement to the Department’s environmental impact statement (EIS) on the proposed geologic repository for spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive 

waste at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. Previously, the NRC staff 

found the EIS prepared by the Department did not adequately address all of the repository-related effects on groundwater, or from 

surface discharges of groundwater. In 2013, the Commission asked 

the Department to prepare a supplement. Rather than comply with 

the Court Order, the Department updated its analysis of potential 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
79 

groundwater impacts after closure of a repository at the site, and 

in February 2015 the Commission directed the NRC staff to prepare the supplement. The NRC staff will use the Department’s 

analysis in preparing the supplement, which is expected to be completed in the Spring of 2016. 

Nevertheless, the Administration’s fiscal year 2016 budget request once again attempts to fund unauthorized alternatives for 

used nuclear fuel disposition instead of moving forward with Yucca 

Mountain. It includes a proposal to implement the Department’s 

Strategy for the Management and Disposal of Used Nuclear Fuel 

and High-Level Radioactive Waste, which was informed by the Administration’s Blue Ribbon Commission that by its very charter did 

not examine the suitability of Yucca Mountain as a permanent repository. This strategy is estimated to cost $5,700,000,000 over the 

next ten years and proposes to reform the current funding arrangement for the Department’s nuclear waste fund management program. The recommendation rejects these non-Yucca proposals and 

makes clear that any activities funded from the Nuclear Waste 

Fund must be in support of Yucca Mountain. 

To address the Administration’s failure to execute current law, 

the recommendation provides $150,000,000 within Nuclear Waste 

Disposal to support the Yucca Mountain High-Level Waste Geologic 

Repository and $25,000,000 within the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to support the continued adjudication of the Yucca Mountain license application. The Committee notes that geological repositories in addition to Yucca Mountain will be needed. If the Congress provides the authority for such repositories, as well as for a 

consensus-based siting process, the Committee will consider support for such activities at that time. In the meantime, the bill contains a prohibition on using funds to close the Yucca Mountain license application or to take actions that would irrevocably remove 

Yucca Mountain as an option for a repository. 

PROLIFERATION OF CENTERS

The Committee remains concerned with the Department’s continual proposals to establish new research centers reliant on outyear funding commitments subject to future appropriations. In fiscal year 2016, the Department proposed funding two new Clean 

Energy Manufacturing Innovation Institutes, in addition to providing continued funding for the existing four Institutes funded in 

prior years. In last year’s Act, two Energy Innovation Hubs were 

renewed in for another five-year term while funds were provided to 

support continued operations at the other two existing Hubs. Furthermore, the Department is requesting continued funding for the 

BioEnergy Research Centers and additional funds for the Energy 

Frontier Research Centers. The funding of institutes constitutes a 

growing portion of the Department’s budget and represents a significant out-year investment. 

While the fiscal year 2016 request provided more detail than before for the establishment of new research centers, the Committee 

expects the Department to provide a more detailed analysis in future requests. The Committee continues to support the ongoing review of all existing research centers and urges the Department to 

take a critical look at its portfolio to determine where improvements can be made in its existing inventory of research centers. 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
80 

The Committee reiterates its previous direction for the Department to explicitly include in future budget justifications for all centers, hubs, institutes, facilities, and any other persistent, locationbased grantees; their current and proposed funding levels; expected 

out-year commitments; and details on their programmatic and 

technical goals. 

COMMONLY RECYCLED PAPER

The Department shall not expend funds for projects that knowingly use as a feedstock commonly recycled paper that is segregated from municipal solid waste or collected as part of a collection system that commingles commonly recycled paper with other 

solid waste at any point from the time of collection through materials recovery. 

OFFICE OF TECHNOLOGY TRANSITIONS

The Committee acknowledges the Department’s efforts to expand 

the commercial impact of its research activities in creating the Office of Technology Transitions. As one of the largest providers of 

basic and applied research in the nation, the Department is at the 

forefront of innovation. The scientific and technical capabilities of 

the Department’s research centers and the National Laboratories 

have been an essential component in many technological breakthroughs. The Committee supports the continued efforts of the Department in assisting the transfer of federally funded research 

from the laboratory to the commercial sector. However, the Committee expects that these technology transfer efforts will receive 

equal treatment across each of the Department’s research activities. In carrying out the activities of the Office of Technology Transitions, the Department is directed to use funding taken from individual applied research offices on projects within the purview of 

that same applied research office. The Committee directs the Department to submit to the Committees on Appropriations of both 

Houses of Congress not later than 180 days after enactment of this 

Act a report on the activities of the Office of Technology Transitions and provide a table tracking the usage of the Energy Technology Commercialization Fund to specific technology transfer and 

partnership activities. 

EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITIES

The Department is prohibited from funding fellowship and scholarship programs in fiscal year 2016 unless the programs were explicitly included in the budget justification or funded within this 

recommendation. Any new or ongoing programs that the Department chooses to fund in fiscal year 2016 must be detailed in the 

fiscal year 2016 budget justifications. This direction shall be followed in future fiscal years unless contradicted by the Committee. 

REPROGRAMMING AND TRANSFER GUIDELINES

The Committee requires the Department to inform the Committee promptly and fully when a change in program execution and 

funding is required during the fiscal year. The Department’s reprogramming requirements are detailed in statute. To assist the 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
81 

Department in this effort, the following guidance is provided for 

programs and activities. 

Definition.—A reprogramming includes the reallocation of funds 

from one activity to another within an appropriation. The recommendation includes a general provision providing internal reprogramming authority to the Department, as long as no program, 

project, or activity is increased or decreased by more than 

$5,000,000 or 10 percent, whichever is less, compared to the levels 

in the table detailing the Committee’s recommendations for the Department’s various accounts. For construction projects, a reprogramming constitutes the reallocation of funds from one construction project to another project or a change of $2,000,000 or 10 

percent, whichever is less, in the scope of an approved project. 

Criteria for Reprogramming.—A reprogramming should be made 

only when an unforeseen situation arises, and then only if delay of 

the project or activity until the next fiscal year would result in a 

detrimental impact to an agency program or priority. A reprogramming may also be considered if the Department can show that significant cost savings can accrue by increasing funding for an activity. Mere convenience or preference should not be a factor for consideration. A reprogramming may not be employed to initiate new 

programs, or to change program, project, or activity allocations specifically denied, limited, or increased by the Congress in the Act or 

report. 

Reporting and Approval Procedures.—In recognition of the security missions of the Department, the legislative guidelines allow 

the Secretary and the Administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration jointly to waive the reprogramming restriction 

by certifying to the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses 

of Congress that it is in the nation’s security interest to do so. The 

Department shall not deviate from the levels for activities specified 

in the report which are below the level of the detail table, except 

through the regular notification procedures of the Committee. No 

funds may be added to programs for which funding has been denied. Any reallocation of new or prior-year budget authority or 

prior-year de-obligations, or any request to implement a reorganization which includes moving previous appropriations between 

appropriations accounts must be submitted to the Committees on 

Appropriations of both Houses of Congress in writing and may not 

be implemented prior to approval by the Committees. 

Transfers.—As in fiscal year 2015, funding actions into or out of 

accounts funded by this Act may only be made by transfer authorities provided by this or other Appropriations Acts. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS 

The Committee’s recommendations for Department of Energy 

programs in fiscal year 2016 are described in the following sections. 

A detailed funding table is included at the end of this title. 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
82 

ENERGY PROGRAMS 

ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY

Appropriation, 2015 ............................................................................ $1,923,935,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ....................................................................... 2,722,987,000 

Recommended, 2016 ........................................................................... 1,657,774,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2015 .................................................................... ¥266,161,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ................................................................ ¥1,065,213,000 

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) programs include research, development, demonstration, and deployment activities advancing energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies, as well as federal energy assistance programs. The EERE 

program is divided into three portfolios: sustainable transportation, 

renewable energy, and energy efficiency. The sustainable transportation portfolio, which consists of the vehicles, bioenergy, and hydrogen and fuel cell programs, advances the development of plugin electric and other alternative vehicles, high-efficiency advanced 

combustion engines, and the replacement of oil with clean domestic 

transportation fuels. The renewable energy portfolio, which consists 

of the solar, wind, water, and geothermal programs, aims to develop innovative technologies to make renewable electricity generation cost competitive with traditional sources of energy. The energy 

efficiency portfolio, which consists of the advanced manufacturing, 

buildings, and federal energy assistance programs, seeks cost-effective solutions to reduce energy consumption in plants, buildings, 

and homes. 

The Committee recommends $1,657,774,000 for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, $266,161,000 below fiscal year 2015 and 

$1,065,213,000 below the budget request. 

For the purposes of allocating funding, the Committee encourages the Department to examine the feasibility of ultra conductive 

copper as an application-driven, crosscutting technology area, including funding to support prototype development and the scale-up 

of manufacturing with established experts within EERE. 

The Department is directed to end the practice of taking a small 

fraction of annual funding within EERE technology offices to fund 

incubator programs. 

SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORTATION

The Vehicle, Bioenergy, and Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technologies programs fund activities that can reduce American exposure to future high oil prices. Research into cutting-edge technologies that will increase the fuel economy of gasoline and diesel 

fuel vehicles—the vast majority of today’s fleet—will allow Americans to spend less on fuel while traveling the same distance. Research into next-generation automotive and fuel cell technologies 

that power vehicles with domestic energy sources such as natural 

gas, electricity, biofuels, and hydrogen can likewise dramatically 

lower the impact of future high gas prices on Americans. 

The Committee recommends $514,783,000 for Sustainable Transportation, $87,217,000 below fiscal year 2015 and $278,217,000 

below the budget request. 

Vehicle Technologies.—The Committee recommends $255,400,000 

for Vehicle Technologies, $24,600,000 below fiscal year 2015 and 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
83 

$188,600,000 below the budget request. The Committee acknowledges the success of the SuperTruck I program in improving freight 

and heavy-duty vehicle efficiency. Within available funds, the recommendation includes $8,000,000 for the SuperTruck II program to 

further improve the efficiency of heavy-duty class 8 long- and regional-haul vehicles through multi-year awards subject to future 

availability of funds. The Department is directed to provide maximum funding flexibility needed to achieve the program’s objectives. Additionally, the Department should consider industry-wide 

impacts when making these awards. 

The recommendation provides $95,000,000 for Batteries and 

Electric Drive Technology, of which $40,800,000 is for advanced 

battery development, including up to $6,000,000 to continue national laboratory performance testing and life cycle diagnostic assessment activities that validate and verify advanced battery performance. 

The recommendation provides $25,900,000 for Outreach and Development, of which $24,000,000 is for the Clean Cities program. 

No funding is provided for Advanced Vehicle Competitions or the 

Alternative Fuel Vehicle Community Partner projects. The Committee urges the Department to support training and outreach, including to small repair shops, related to diesel to natural gas retrofits. 

For other subprograms within Vehicle Technologies, the recommendation provides $34,500,000 for Vehicle and Systems Simulation and Testing; $47,000,000 for Advanced Combustion Engines; $32,500,000 for Materials Technology; and $22,500,000 for 

Fuels Technology. 

The Committee encourages Vehicle Technologies to further address the need to overcome the barriers to widespread adoption of 

lightweight designs that include mixed materials such as magnesium alloys, aluminum alloys, high-strength steels, and fiber-reinforced polymer composites. Applied research is needed to develop 

coatings, adhesives, high-strength fiber glass, and other advanced 

materials to effectively join mixed materials, prevent corrosion, reduce costs, and address consumer requirements such as noise mitigation and appearance. 

The Committee also encourages the Department to work with the 

natural gas vehicle industry to identify needs and develop solutions 

for additional engines and emissions control technologies in order 

to obtain the emission advantages when using natural gas in high 

efficiency engines. 

Bioenergy Technologies.—The Committee recommends 

$165,300,000 for Bioenergy Technologies, $59,700,000 below fiscal 

year 2015 and $80,700,000 below the budget request. 

Within available funds, the recommendation includes 

$46,500,000 for Feedstocks, of which $30,000,000 is for research 

and development of biofuels from algae feedstocks; $75,500,000 for 

Conversion Technologies; $25,800,000 for Demonstration and Deployment, of which no funding is for the joint initiative with the 

Navy and the Department of Agriculture to develop commercial 

diesel and jet biofuels production capacity for defense purposes; 

and $11,000,000 for Strategic Analysis and Cross-Cutting Sustainability. 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
84 

The Committee directs the Department to develop a comprehensive list of existing demonstration and pilot-scale multi-user facilities for bio-based products, chemicals, and intermediates, including 

synthesis gas, hydrogen, and methane, assess the gaps and needs 

of such inventory, and report to the Committees on Appropriations 

of both Houses of Congress not later than 90 days after the enactment of this Act. 

Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technologies.—The Committee recommends $94,083,000 for Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technologies, 

$2,917,000 below fiscal year 2015 and $8,917,000 below the budget 

request. Within available funds, the recommendation includes $7,000,000 

for Technology Validation, of which $5,000,000 is to continue to 

conduct testing and analysis of fuel cells as industrial-scale energy 

storage devices, with validation and testing using full-scale testing 

and demonstration capabilities. 

The Committee recognizes the achievements of the Fuel Cell 

Technologies program, and expresses its continued support for fuel 

cell and hydrogen energy systems for stationary, vehicle, motive 

and portable power applications. Through the Market Transformation program, the Department should engage in cost-shared 

deployments to encourage expanding state-related activities including, but not limited to: tri-generation facilities, ground support 

equipment for aviation and maritime ports, hybrid-vehicle range 

extenders, energy storage projects to support base load renewable 

energy projects, and microgrid deployments to improve resiliency. 

Additionally, the Department should work with states to overcome 

challenges associated with deployment of hydrogen infrastructure. 

RENEWABLE ENERGY

The Solar Energy, Wind Energy, Water Power, and Geothermal 

Technologies programs fund applied research, development, and 

demonstration to reduce the cost of renewable energy to economically competitive levels. Research into innovative technologies, such 

as photovoltaic and concentrating solar technologies, offshore wind, 

hydropower, and ground heat, can expand energy production from 

our domestic resources and reduce our dependence on foreign oil. 

The Committee recommends $326,750,000 for Renewable Energy, 

$129,250,000 below fiscal year 2015 and $318,450,000 below the 

budget request. 

Solar Energy.—The Committee recommends $151,600,000 for 

Solar Energy, $81,400,000 below fiscal year 2015 and $185,100,000 

below the budget request. Within available funds, the recommendation provides $32,000,000 for Concentrating Solar Power; 

$33,000,000 for Photovoltaic Research and Development; 

$39,500,000 for Systems Integration; and $23,000,000 for Innovations in Manufacturing Competitiveness, of which no funding is included for the SUNPATH III program. 

Within the funds available for Innovations in Manufacturing 

Competitiveness, the Committee directs the Solar Technologies program to provide funding opportunities, as proposed in the budget 

request, that support U.S. equipment supply chain technology efforts, which will reduce the cost of manufacturing silicon photovoltaic cells by reducing the amount of raw material silicon needed 

to produce a solar cell while also increasing manufacturing effiVerDate Sep 11 2014 06:58 Apr 25, 2015 Jkt 094207 PO 00000 Frm 00084 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR091.XXX HR091

smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
85 

ciencies by removing manufacturing process steps to produce solar 

cells. 

Wind Energy.—The Committee recommends $90,450,000 for 

Wind Energy, $16,550,000 below fiscal year 2015 and $55,050,000 

below the budget request. Within available funds, the recommendation provides $37,000,000 for the Offshore Wind Advanced Technology Demonstration Project; $2,000,000 to continue research and 

development in support of the offshore demonstration project; 

$10,000,000 for the Mitigate Market Barriers program, of which 

$4,500,000 is for the research initiative focused on Eagle Impact 

Mitigation Technologies; and $1,000,000 for the Wind for Schools 

program. 

The Committee continues to support wind activities with large 

generation potential that rely on technology innovations that would 

not be developed by the private sector alone. To this end, the Committee supports an emphasis on offshore wind technologies that address the unique opportunities and issues across the nation’s waterways, such as high winds, icing, and deep water, rather than 

those technologies currently being considered by the private sector. 

Water Power.—The Committee recommends $38,700,000 for 

Water Power, $22,300,000 below fiscal year 2015 and $28,300,000 

below the budget request. Within available funds, the recommendation provides $21,280,000 for marine and hydrokinetic technologies 

and $16,720,000 for conventional hydropower, of which $3,960,000 

is for the purposes of Section 242 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. 

The Committee recognizes the Department’s funding of marine 

hydrokinetic power research and understands the Department’s 

basis for past allocation of funding between the various sources of 

marine hydrokinetic power. The Committee also understands that 

locations for harnessing various forms of marine hydrokinetic 

power are located closer to major population centers, which could 

utilize the power created by marine hydrokinetic power technologies. The Committee directs the Department to allocate the 

current fiscal year funding to marine hydrokinetic power based on 

the Department’s comprehensive resource assessments and industry and stakeholder input, allowing for the further development of 

marine hydrokinetic power technologies. 

Geothermal Technologies.—The Committee recommends 

$46,000,000 for Geothermal Technologies, $9,000,000 below fiscal 

year 2015 and $50,000,000 below the budget request. Within available funds, the recommendation provides $27,000,000 for Enhanced 

Geothermal Systems, of which $21,000,000 is for ongoing activities 

for the Frontier Observatory for Research in Geothermal Energy 

project. 

ENERGY EFFICIENCY

The Advanced Manufacturing, Building Technologies, Federal 

Energy Management, and Weatherization and Intergovernmental 

programs advance cost-effective solutions to reduce energy consumption through increased efficiency. Research into cutting-edge 

technologies that enhance manufacturing processes, develop advanced materials, and reduce energy use in buildings, homes, and 

factories can serve the national interest by greatly reducing our energy needs, while also giving American manufacturers an advantage to compete in the global marketplace. 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
86 

The Committee recommends $617,562,000 for Energy Efficiency, $24,438,000 below fiscal year 2015 and $412,025,000 below the 

budget request. 

Advanced Manufacturing.—The Committee recommends 

$205,000,000 for Advanced Manufacturing, $5,000,000 above fiscal 

year 2015 and $199,000,000 below the budget request. Within 

available funds, the recommendation provides not less than 

$4,205,000 for improvements in the steel industry; not less than 

$20,000,000 for combined heat and power activities relevant to industrial applications and energy savings in manufacturing processes; and not less than $500,000 to continue efforts furthering improvements in mechanical insulation. The Committee encourages 

the Department to continue to support technical assistance for combined heat and power demonstrations and deployments that support systems-level optimization, microgrids, and grid integration, 

as well as research and development into next-generation combined 

heat and power technologies. 

For subprograms within Advanced Manufacturing, the rec- ommendation provides $79,000,000 for Next Generation Manufacturing Research and Development Projects, of which $12,900,000 is 

for the Advanced Manufacturing Incubator; $28,500,000 for Industrial Technical Assistance; and $106,500,000 for Advanced Manufacturing Research and Development Facilities, of which 

$25,000,000 is for the fifth year of funding for the Critical Materials Energy Innovation Hub, $10,000,000 is for the Manufacturing 

Demonstration Facility and the Carbon Fiber Test Facility, 

$1,500,000 is for the joint additive manufacturing pilot institute 

with the Department of Defense, and $70,000,000 is for five Clean 

Energy Manufacturing Innovation (CEMI) Institutes. The Department may use up to $6,000,000 of funding provided under Research 

and Development Projects to support operations of the Manufacturing Demonstration Facility and the Carbon Fiber Test Facility, 

should additional funding be needed. 

The recommendation supports the establishment of one new 

CEMI Institute in fiscal year 2016, in addition to the four established using fiscal years 2013, 2014, and 2015 funding. Should the 

Department propose funding for additional CEMI Institutes in the 

future, the Committee directs that all future budget justifications 

include a specific research topic associated with a CEMI Institute, 

which will provide the Committee with the necessary transparency 

to evaluate and prioritize funding to ensure that only highly-effective centers closely aligned with Advanced Manufacturing program 

missions are funded. 

The Committee recognizes the significant outcomes from 

partnering with industry to create American jobs and strengthen 

the U.S. manufacturing base and encourages an applied research 

funding opportunity announcement as a part of the Process intensification applied research portfolio which includes innovative approaches to low-thermal budget process heating and thermally activated chemical reactions to reduce industrial energy intensity. 

Suitable approaches might include novel applications of electromagnetic energy, such as microwave or radio frequency, and novel 

materials that require less energy to heat or chemically react. 

The Committee also recognizes the importance of the textile sector and believes that federal support for advanced textile research 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
87 

is essential to maintaining the competitiveness of the domestic textile and apparel industry. The Committee believes that advanced 

textile research can develop more sustainable manufacturing processes and technologies that will benefit producers, foster the reshoring of textile jobs to the United States, and reduce the global 

environmental impact of textile manufacturing. The Committee 

therefore encourages the Department to consider the need for competitively-funded advanced textile manufacturing process research. 

The Committee is aware that the U.S. represents the largest 

market for lithium metal, a near critical material with national security and advanced manufacturing applications. The Committee 

notes that the U.S. domestic supply and technology position of lithium metal is on a downward trend relative to China and Russia. 

Assuring domestic production of lithium metal is critical to many 

investments made across the Department. The Committee directs 

the Department to analyze the impact federal investment may 

have in strengthening the availability and usage of lithium, including low-sodium lithium metal, and issue not later than 180 days 

after the enactment of this Act a report on the Department’s capabilities to increase U.S. domestic supply. 

Building Technologies.—The Committee recommends 

$150,362,000 for Building Technologies, $21,638,000 below fiscal 

year 2015 and $113,638,000 below the budget request. 

Within available funds, the recommendation includes 

$14,000,000 for the Building America program, the same as the request, and $6,000,000 for research and development activities for 

small scale combined heat and power systems that can be used for 

residential and small commercial settings. 

For the subprograms within Building Technologies, the rec- ommendation provides $28,000,000 for Commercial Buildings Integration; $55,862,000 for Emerging Technologies, of which 

$21,000,000 is for solid state lighting and, in addition to funds recommended for lighting research and development, $5,000,000 is for 

the second Bright Tomorrow Lighting Prize, or ‘‘L Prize,’’ which offers both a monetary prize and federal procurement and other benefits to the first organization that manufactures highly-efficient 

PAR38 halogen replacement lamps meeting various technical requirements; $41,000,000 for Equipment and Buildings Standards; 

and $23,000,000 for Residential Buildings Integration. 

Commercial buildings account for 19 percent of the energy consumed in the United States. In order to improve energy efficiency 

within this important market, a national program to improve the 

energy efficiency of small- and medium-sized commercial buildings 

is needed. Within available funds, up to $10,000,000 is to support 

a competitive funding opportunity for proposals that would achieve 

deeper energy efficiency improvements in small- and medium-sized 

commercial buildings. 

The Committee recognizes that adaptive, automated, and learning building technologies offer new opportunities for energy savings 

in residential and commercial buildings. The Committee encourages the Department to support collaborative research with industry and demonstration of the energy savings potential of adaptive 

connected equipment and responsive building technologies. 

Consistent with current policy, of the funds made available for 

Building Technologies, the Department is directed not to advocate, 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
88 

promote, or discourage the adoption or inclusion of a particular 

building energy code or code provision, other than the technical 

and economic analysis work required by statutory mandate, or to 

provide funding to private third parties or non-governmental organizations that engage in this type of advocacy. 

Furthermore, the Committee encourages the Department to ensure consideration of states and localities’ priorities when developing a program for the Building Energy Codes Program. 

The Committee directs the Department to work with its partner 

agencies, industry, and relevant university programs to initiate not 

later than eight months after the enactment of this Act a study of 

the potential benefits of ‘‘smart home’’ electronics. The study should 

include, but not be limited to: consumer control of energy sources 

in the home from remote locations outside the home, compatible 

appliance availability, control of compatible appliances from remote 

locations outside the home, energy demand and load data capture 

and reporting, automation of energy monitoring and reduced consumption, and cost-effective technologies that could further save 

consumers money and reduce the energy consumption in homes, 

and an evaluation of research and development approaches for increasing energy efficiency of home energy consumption. 

Additionally, the Committee encourages the Department to continue to consider energy savings from increased energy efficiency of 

consumer electronics. 

Federal Energy Management Program.—The Committee recommends $18,800,000 for the Federal Energy Management Program, $8,200,000 below fiscal year 2015 and $24,288,000 below the 

budget request. 

Weatherization and Intergovernmental Programs.—The Committee recommends $243,400,000 for Weatherization and Intergovernmental Programs, $400,000 above fiscal year 2015 and 

$75,099,000 below the budget request. 

The recommendation provides $190,000,000 for Weatherization 

Assistance Grants, all of which is for formula grants; $3,000,000 for 

Training and Technical Assistance; and $50,000,000 for the State 

Energy Program. The recommendation includes no funding for competitive awards within the Weatherization Assistance Program to 

develop and test financing models to support energy efficiency retrofits. 

The Secretary shall report not later than 90 days after the enactment of this Act on the use of solar and other renewable energy 

measures and systems in the Weatherization Assistance Program 

and include an analysis of any requirements of law or regulation 

or any policies of the Department which result in making the installation of solar energy systems less likely than other measures 

of comparable cost and benefit that are installed by the program. 

Social Cost of Carbon.—The Department should not promulgate 

any regulations in fiscal year 2016 using the May 2013 estimates 

for the social cost of carbon until a new working group is convened. 

The working group should include the relevant agencies and affected stakeholders, re-examine the social cost of carbon using the 

best available science, and revise the estimates using an accurate 

discount rate and domestic estimate in accordance with Executive 

Order 12866 and OMB Circular A–4. To increase transparency, the 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
89 

working group should solicit public comment prior to finalizing any 

updates. 

CORPORATE SUPPORT

The Program Direction, Strategic Programs, and Facilities and 

Infrastructure budgets provide the necessary resources for program 

and project management across all of EERE’s technology programs, 

for the adoption of technologies to market, and for the operation 

and upkeep of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory. 

The Committee recommends $218,000,000 for Corporate Support 

programs, $19,000,000 below fiscal year 2015 and $37,200,000 

below the budget request. 

Program Direction.—The Committee recommends $150,000,000 

for Program Direction, $10,000,000 below fiscal year 2015 and 

$15,330,000 below the budget request. 

Strategic Programs.—The Committee recommends $12,000,000 

for Strategic Programs, of which $2,000,000 is for the U.S.-Israel 

energy cooperative agreement and $2,000,000 is for the joint industrial scale integrated energy systems research and development effort with the Office of Nuclear Energy. 

Facilities and Infrastructure.—The Committee recommends 

$56,000,000 for Facilities and Infrastructure, of which $26,000,000 

is for Operations and Maintenance and $30,000,000 is for Facility 

Management. 

Use of Prior-Year Balances.—The recommendation includes the 

use of $19,321,000 in prior-year balances, to be taken from Solar 

Energy Program Direction. 

ELECTRICITY DELIVERY AND ENERGY RELIABILITY

Appropriation, 2015 ............................................................................ $147,306,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ....................................................................... 270,100,000 

Recommended, 2015 ........................................................................... 187,500,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2015 .................................................................... +40,194,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ................................................................ ¥82,600,000 

The Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability program advances technologies and provides operational support to increase 

the efficiency, resilience, and security of the nation’s electricity delivery system. The power grid employs aging technologies at a time 

when power demands, the deployment of new intermittent technologies, and rising security threats are imposing new stresses on 

the system. The Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability aims to develop a modern power grid by advancing cyber security technologies, intelligent and high-efficiency grid components, 

and energy storage systems. The Committee recommends $187,500,000 for Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, $40,194,000 above fiscal year 2015 and 

$82,600,000 below the budget request. 

Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability Research and Development.—The Committee recommends $140,500,000 for Electricity 

Delivery and Energy Reliability Research and Development, 

$32,800,000 above fiscal year 2015 and $12,500,000 below the 

budget request. Within available funds, the recommendation provides $31,000,000 for Clean Energy Transmission and Reliability, 

of which $5,000,000 is for the Energy Systems Predictive CapaVerDate Sep 11 2014 06:58 Apr 25, 2015 Jkt 094207 PO 00000 Frm 00089 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR091.XXX HR091

smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
90 

bility activity; $30,000,000 for Smart Grid; $15,000,000 for Energy 

Storage; and $54,500,000 for cyber security for energy delivery systems, of which $5,000,000 is to continue development of the industry-scale electric grid test bed; and $10,000,000 for Transformer Resilience and Advanced Components. 

The Committee recognizes that our nation’s highly integrated 

electrical grid is a target of cyber-attacks, and it is imperative that 

we fully understand the complexity of the interdependencies between information technology, operational technology, and physical 

security. In this environment, the Department’s programs to 

strengthen the security and resilience of the nation’s electricity 

grid against cyber, physical, and human risks must be closely coordinated, and the agency must work with energy sector owners 

and operators to address these risks and develop comprehensive 

mitigation strategies. The Committee directs the Department to 

provide a report, not later than 90 days after the enactment of this 

Act, with the following: (1) the Department’s plans to better understand and respond to the full-range of energy sector threats 

through enhanced engagement with private sector owners and operators of such infrastructure; (2) recommendations to provide consideration to owners of energy delivery systems for services and 

hardware incurred in the act of information sharing, analyzing, or 

exercising with any DOE agency or instrument regarding energy 

sector systems protection as referenced in this paragraph; and (3) 

an assessment of the need for a revised organizational structure to 

better align the agency’s energy sector systems protection activities 

across cyber, physical, and human risks, including those protecting 

government facilities and networks. 

Within Smart Grid Research and Development, the Committee 

encourages the Department to accelerate the deployment of community-scale power microgrids that improve local energy reliability 

and resilience through technologies such as on-site generation and 

storage. This includes investments in system enhancements necessary to facilitate the integration of new technologies. The potential grid enhancements could include developing microgrid systems 

that can be customized to connect distributed generation and enhance reliability and power quality depending on customer needs. 

The Committee supports the Department’s efforts to improve 

electricity reliability and grid integration initiatives. Accordingly, 

the Committee encourages the Department to establish one or more 

grid integration demonstration modules. These projects should include a utility that has experienced some reliability problems in 

the past and serves a large population; industrial and academic 

partners with appropriate engineering capabilities in grid and energy storage technologies in an area that could incorporate opportunities to include solar and wind elements; and national laboratories 

involved in the grid integration consortium. 

The Committee continues to support the Department’s research 

activities to ensure transmission reliability. Recent weather-related 

events, however, have reinforced the need for integration of local, 

regional, and national weather into transmission reliability and resiliency modeling and simulation activities to support the utility industry and emergency response. The Committee encourages the 

Department to partner with universities, national laboratories, and 

industry when issuing competitively-awarded research and developVerDate Sep 11 2014 06:58 Apr 25, 2015 Jkt 094207 PO 00000 Frm 00090 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR091.XXX HR091

smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
91 

ment activities to ensure regional weather and related environmental variables are accounted for in advanced grid modeling research. 

The Committee recognizes the Department’s efforts in advancing 

the state of power management in the grid using advanced semiconductor technology. This technology has the potential for increasing transmission efficiency and grid reliability, and reducing the 

need for construction of additional power lines. The Committee encourages the Department to continue this support by investing in 

additional research and development of cost competitive, lateral, 

normally-off gallium nitride on silicon based power electronic devices with increased voltage and current handling capability appropriate for electric grid applications. This will result in lower power 

costs to the consumer and higher reliability of the transmission 

and distribution infrastructure. 

Within available funds for Energy Storage, the Committee encourages the Department to support utility-sponsored and operated 

energy storage test facilities that are capable of performance-driven 

data in a utility environment. 

Furthermore, the Committee understands that through using 

support of the electric grid, we can achieve capabilities unmatched 

by any other approach for the storage, transmission, and distribution offered by the natural gas grid. In recognition of this need, the 

Committee encourages the Energy Storage program to solicit a 

demonstration of utility-scale energy storage, utilizing existing 

pipeline infrastructure to store renewable natural gas. 

The Committee recognizes that further investment is needed to 

maintain and expand power and energy education programs, and 

secure industry partnerships to facilitate the development of a 

highly skilled next-generation technical and engineering workforce 

for the electric power sector. Therefore, the Committee encourages 

the Department to prioritize its research and development investments so that they engage and further develop the capabilities of 

university undergraduate and graduate programs in power and energy. 

The Committee recognizes the value an independent assessment 

may have to verify, criticize, and reinforce key issues within the 

Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability’s mission to 

support the nation’s electricity delivery system. In last year’s 

House Report, the Committee directed the Department to contract 

with an appropriate organization to conduct a national level comprehensive study on the future resiliency and reliability of the nation’s electric power transmission and distribution system. The 

Committee looks forward to the results of this ongoing study. 

Infrastructure Security and Energy Restoration (ISER).—The 

Committee recommends $14,000,000 for Infrastructure Security 

and Energy Restoration, $8,000,000 above fiscal year 2015 and the 

same as the budget request. The Department was directed to use 

$8,000,000 in 2015 for the Operational Energy and Resilience program to support the construction of the Operations Center within 

the Department’s Headquarters. It is the Committee’s understanding that the Department has chosen not to build out this Operations Center. Not later than 30 days after the enactment of this 

Act, the Department shall report on plans for meeting the requireVerDate Sep 11 2014 06:58 Apr 25, 2015 Jkt 094207 PO 00000 Frm 00091 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR091.XXX HR091

smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
92 

ment for a functional Operations Center that meets the needs articulated by the Department in last year’s budget request. 

The Committee directs the Department of Energy to submit not 

later than 6 months after the enactment of this Act a report on the 

vulnerability of the grid to an electromagnetic pulse event and the 

potential impact on reliability and delivery of electric power. At a 

minimum, the report should address protective and mitigative 

measures for these vulnerabilities, including hardening of infrastructure, blocking of induced currents and voltages, stocking and 

prepositioning of spare parts, and operational and emergency planning. The Department is encouraged to coordinate with the Federal 

Energy Regulatory Commission and the North American Electric 

Reliability Corporation (NERC) to provide an analysis of: (1) the 

actions taken by NERC to set standards for owners and operators 

of electric utilities; and (2) whether such standards are sufficient 

to harden the grid against severe space weather and other electromagnetic events. 

State Energy Reliability and Assurance Grants.—The Committee 

recommends no funds for this new activity. 

NUCLEAR ENERGY

Appropriation, 2015 ............................................................................ $833,500,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ....................................................................... 907,574,000 

Recommended, 2016 ........................................................................... 936,161,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2015 .................................................................... +102,661,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ................................................................ +28,587,000 

Nuclear power generates approximately one-fifth of the nation’s 

electricity and will continue to be an important base-load energy 

source in the future. The Department of Energy’s Nuclear Energy 

program invests in research, development, and demonstration activities that develop the next generation of clean and safe reactors, 

further improve the safety of our current reactor fleet, and contribute to the nation’s long-term leadership in the global nuclear 

power industry. 

The Committee recommends $936,161,000 for Nuclear Energy, 

$102,661,000 above fiscal year 2015 and $28,587,000 above the 

budget request. 

Spent Fuel Plans.—The Committee directs the Department to 

submit a report to the Committees on Appropriations of both 

Houses of Congress not later than 120 days after the enactment of 

this Act on how, under current law, the proximity to reservations 

of federally recognized Indian tribes, or lands owned by the United 

States in trust for the benefit of any Indian tribe, impacts the 

prioritization for disposal of spent nuclear fuel. 

NUCLEAR ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

The Committee provides $504,618,000 for Nuclear Energy Research and Development, $6,118,000 above fiscal year 2015 and 

$21,831,000 above the budget request. 

Nuclear Energy Enabling Technologies.—The Committee recommends $111,600,000 for Nuclear Energy Enabling Technologies, 

$10,600,000 above fiscal year 2015 and $25,213,000 above the 

budget request, of which not less than $4,000,000 shall be for 

knowledge and validation work; not less than $4,000,000 shall be 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
93 

for integrated energy systems; and not less than $2,000,000 for nuclear cyber activities. Within available funds, the recommendation 

provides $17,000,000 for Crosscutting Technology Development; 

$27,200,000 for Nuclear Energy Advanced Modeling and Simulation, of which funding above the request is for additional support 

for TREAT modeling and simulation activities; $24,300,000 for the 

second year of the second five-year term of the Energy Innovation 

Hub for Modeling and Simulation; $2,000,000 for Nuclear Energy 

Traineeships; and $41,100,000 for the National Science User Facility, of which funding above the request is to expand user facility 

capabilities and collaborations, including up to $2,000,000 to support high performance computing activities. 

Integrated University Program.—The Committee recommends 

$5,000,000 to continue the Integrated University Program, which is 

critical to ensuring the nation’s nuclear science and engineering 

workforce in future years. 

Small Modular Reactor (SMR) Licensing Technical Support.— The Committee recommends $62,500,000 for SMR Licensing Technical Support, $8,000,000 above fiscal year 2015 and the same as 

the budget request. The Committee directs that all fiscal year 2016 

funding within this program is to support the second award for an 

SMR design. The Committee is aware that the need for fiscal year 

2016 funding for the SMR Licensing Technical Support program 

may change throughout the year and will consider additional funding according to developments. 

In fiscal year 2014 the Department approved a second award 

which allowed support of advanced innovative technology. At that 

time, the Department’s main focus was on advanced safety innovation, and thus the Department did not require a utility partner or 

a near term commercialization date. There is now a utility partner 

and an earlier target commercialization date of 2023 for the second 

award. The Committee expects DOE will submit adequate budget 

requests to fully support a completed design certification from the 

NRC and standard plant design work, as well as a combined construction and operation license from NRC for its utility partner. 

The utility partner identified for a previous award may continue 

with site permitting activities and combined construction and operation license activities. 

Reactor Concepts Research, Development, and Demonstration.— 

The Committee recommends $141,718,000 for Reactor Concepts Research, Development, and Demonstration, $8,718,000 above fiscal 

year 2015 and $33,578,000 above the budget request. Within available funds, the recommendation provides $40,000,000 for Light 

Water Reactor Sustainability, of which $14,000,000 is to support 

advanced safety methods development and the risk informed safety 

margin characterization methodology; and $99,718,000 for Advanced Reactor Concepts to consist of the following activities: 

$33,000,000 is for research of the fuel and graphite qualification 

program for the High Temperature Gas Reactor; $17,500,000 is for 

the continued development of two performance-based advanced reactor concepts, of which $11,500,000 is follow-on funding for the industry-only competition of two performance-based advanced reactor 

concepts held in fiscal year 2015 and $6,000,000 is for the national 

laboratories selected to work with the awardees to perform the 

work required by the awardees to meet the goals of the awards; 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
94 

and $7,000,000 is for an advanced test/demonstration reactor planning study by the national laboratories, industry, and other relevant stakeholders of such a reactor in the U.S. The recommendation funds other activities within Advanced Reactor Concepts at the 

requested level. As the nation’s leading sponsor of research in advanced reactor concepts, the Department plays an important role 

in propelling nuclear energy innovation. The Committee encourages 

the Department to develop a plan for demonstrating a new advanced reactor by 2035. 

Fuel Cycle Research and Development.—The Committee recommends $175,800,000 for Fuel Cycle Research and Development, 

$21,200,000 below fiscal year 2015 and $41,960,000 below the 

budget request. Within available funds, the recommendation provides $60,100,000 for the Advanced Fuels Program to continue implementation of accident tolerant fuels development, of which 

$17,000,000 is for additional support of feasibility studies for accident tolerant light water reactor fuels and $4,000,000 is for additional support of capability development of transient testing, including test design, modeling, and simulation. The recommendation provides $55,000,000 for Used Nuclear Fuel Disposition (UNFD), $16,500,000 below fiscal year 2015 and 

$53,360,000 below the budget request. The recommendation provides $55,000,000 for UNFD research and development activities, 

$6,000,000 above fiscal year 2015 and $20,360,000 below the budget request. Within available funds, the recommendation provides 

$6,000,000 to support activities to design and certify a rail car or 

cars for use with licensed and anticipated transportation casks; and 

$7,000,000 to support preparation activities for testing of high 

burnup fuel. The Committee directs the Department to support research and development of advanced sensors, online monitoring, 

and other non-destructive evaluation and examination technologies 

to ensure long-term dry cask storage integrity. No funding is provided for integrated waste management system activities or new 

activities related to Department of Energy-Managed High Level 

Waste and Spent Nuclear Fuel. 

RADIOLOGICAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT

The Committee recommends $6,800,000 for Radiological Facili- ties Management, $18,200,000 below fiscal year 2015 and the same 

as the budget request, to support the continued operation of U.S. 

research reactors by providing research reactor fuel services and 

maintenance of fuel fabrication equipment. 

IDAHO FACILITIES MANAGEMENT

The Committee recommends $218,582,000 for Idaho Facilities 

Management, $12,582,000 above fiscal year 2015 and $6,756,000 

above the budget request. 

INL Operations and Infrastructure.—The Committee recommends $216,582,000 for INL Operations and Infrastructure, 

$15,951,000 above fiscal year 2015 and $6,756,000 above the budget request. Of the funds provided above the budget request, the recommendation provides an additional $6,000,000 for control system 

modernization at the Advanced Test Reactor Critical Facility. Ensuring continued safe operation of the Advanced Test Reactor 

(ATR) is a high priority for the Committee. Naval Reactors and the 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
95 

Office of Nuclear Energy are working together to identify upgrades 

that are needed to ensure the safe and reliable operation of ATR 

until at least 2050. However, the Committee is concerned that the 

period of time that has passed since these planning activities were 

first initiated is resulting in an extended schedule for completion. 

Continued delays will only serve to increase costs and risks. The 

Committee directs Naval Reactors and the Office of Nuclear Energy 

to expedite resolution of any remaining issues and to provide an 

update of progress as soon as possible. 

Construction.—The Committee recommends $2,000,000 for Construction, $3,369,000 below fiscal year 2015 and the same as the 

request, to commence preliminary design activities of the Sample 

Preparation Laboratory. 

IDAHO SITEWIDE SAFEGUARDS AND SECURITY

The Committee recommends $126,161,000 for Idaho Sitewide 

Safeguards and Security, $22,161,000 above fiscal year 2015 and 

the same as the budget request. The recommendation continues to 

fund this activity out of the Nuclear Energy account, as proposed 

in the budget request, and not out of Other Defense Activities, as 

it was prior to fiscal year 2014. 

SUPERCRITICAL TRANSFORMATIONAL ELECTRIC POWER GENERATION

The Committee recommends $5,000,000 for the Supercritical 

Transformational Electric Power (STEP) Generation Initiative, the 

same as fiscal year 2015 and the budget request, to develop and 

scale up advanced supercritical carbon dioxide Brayton Cycle energy conversion technologies to pre-commercial pilot demonstration 

to facilitate commercial development. This is a joint initiative with 

the Office of Fossil Energy and the Solar Energy program within 

the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. 

FOSSIL ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

Appropriation, 2015 ............................................................................ $571,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ....................................................................... 560,000,000 

Recommended, 2016 ........................................................................... 605,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2015 .................................................................... +34,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ................................................................ +45,000,000 

Fossil energy resources, such as coal, oil, and natural gas, provide approximately 82 percent of all energy used by the nation’s 

homes and businesses and will continue to provide for the majority 

of our needs for the foreseeable future. The Fossil Energy Research 

and Development program funds research, development, and demonstration activities to improve existing technologies and to develop 

next-generation systems in the full spectrum of fossil energy areas. 

At a time when fossil fuel power generation is expanding around 

the globe, the activities funded within this program advance our 

nation’s position as a leader in fossil energy technologies and ensure that we use the full extent of our domestic resources safely 

and efficiently. 

The Committee recommends $605,000,000 for Fossil Energy Research and Development, $34,000,000 above fiscal year 2015 and 

$45,000,000 above the budget request. 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
96 

Even with the enormous increases shown to almost every account 

within the Department, the budget request once again proposes reductions to the Office of Fossil Energy. Nearly 66 percent of electricity generated in the United States comes from coal and natural 

gas. Fossil fuels will continue to be a critical source of energy many 

years into the future. In order to ensure the efficient use of existing 

fossil energy resources and to deliver safe and responsible uses of 

untapped domestic resources, the Office of Fossil Energy must remain one of the highest priorities of the Department. The Department’s past research and development efforts have helped usher in 

technological developments responsible for the production increases 

seen today. The Committee recommendation increases funding in 

these areas to ensure these technological advances continue to 

occur and help American industry maintain leadership in the global marketplace for fossil energy technologies. 

COAL—CCS AND POWER SYSTEMS

The Committee recommends $423,900,000 for Coal Carbon Cap- ture and Storage (CCS) and Power Systems, $23,900,000 above fiscal year 2015 and $54,543,000 above the budget request. The Department is directed to use funds within the coal program only for 

coal research and development, with the exception of the Supercritical Transformational Electric Power Generation program, which 

has applications to all high-temperature fossil heat sources. 

The Committee encourages the Department to establish university partnerships to support ongoing fossil energy programs, to promote broader research into CCS technologies, and to expand its 

technology transfer efforts. The Department has previously funded 

several university-based CCS projects and can build on an established research base to support ongoing research and to address 

the wider implementation of CCS technologies. 

Carbon Capture.—The Committee recommends $97,800,000 for 

Carbon Capture, $9,800,000 above fiscal year 2015 and $18,831,000 

below the budget request. Within available funds, the recommendation provides $12,000,000 for pre-combustion capture systems and 

$85,800,000 for post-combustion capture systems. 

Carbon Storage.—The Committee recommends $104,000,000 for 

Carbon Storage, $4,000,000 above fiscal year 2015 and $4,768,000 

below the budget request. Within available funds, the recommendation provides $13,500,000 for Geologic Storage Technologies; 

$10,000,000 for Monitoring, Verification, Accounting, and Assessment; $2,000,000 for Carbon Use and Reuse; $8,500,000 for Carbon 

Sequestration Science; and $70,000,000 for Storage Infrastructure, 

of which funding above the request is for additional support of detailed site assessments for potential storage sites. 

The Committee encourages the Department to expand its support 

for carbon dioxide enhanced oil recovery technologies beyond the 

current scope and urges the Department to support the demonstration and deployment of promising, next-generation technologies at 

mature oil fields. 

Advanced Energy Systems.—The Committee recommends 

$105,000,000 for Advanced Energy Systems, $2,000,000 above fiscal 

year 2015 and $65,615,000 above the budget request. Within available funds, the recommendation provides $30,000,000 for Advanced 

Combustion Systems, of which funding above the request is for adVerDate Sep 11 2014 06:58 Apr 25, 2015 Jkt 094207 PO 00000 Frm 00096 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR091.XXX HR091

smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
97 

ditional support of projects that show dramatic improvements in 

combustion capabilities, and pressure gain combustion, chemical 

looping, and pressurized combustion technologies projects; 

$25,000,000 for Gasification Systems, of which $8,000,000 is for the 

Advanced Air Separation Program to continue activities improving 

advanced air separation technologies; $15,000,000 for Hydrogen 

Turbines; $5,000,000 for coal-biomass to liquids activities, which 

seek to produce liquid fuels from blends of domestic coal and biomass resources with reduced emissions and land and water use 

through integration of carbon capture and other technologies; and 

$30,000,000 for Solid Oxide Fuel Cells, which have the potential to 

increase substantially the efficiency of clean coal power generation 

systems, to create new opportunities for the efficient use of natural 

gas, and to contribute significantly to the development of alternative-fuel vehicles. 

Within available funds for Gasification Systems, the Department 

is encouraged to support projects near completion. 

Crosscutting Research.—The Committee recommends $52,100,000 

for Crosscutting Research, $3,100,000 above fiscal year 2015 and 

$858,000 above the budget request. Within available funds, the recommendation provides $25,000,000 for Coal Utilization Science; 

$1,500,000 for Energy Analyses; $3,000,000 for University Training 

and Research; and $21,500,000 for Plant Optimization Technologies, of which $9,000,000 is for the Advanced Ultrasupercritical 

Program to identify, test, qualify, and develop domestic suppliers 

capable of producing components from high temperature materials 

and $6,000,000 is for water management research and development. 

The Committee is concerned with the public safety implications 

of the transportation of crude oil and directs the Department to examine methods to reduce its volatility prior to shipment. 

National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) Coal Research 

and Development.—The Committee recommends $50,000,000 for 

NETL Coal Research and Development, the same as fiscal year 

2015 and $15,969,000 above the budget request. The Committee 

notes that this program was funded within Program Direction prior 

to fiscal year 2012. The Department is directed to continue including in the budget request all full-time equivalent employee information within this program, as it does under Program Direction. 

The recommendation includes $15,000,000 for the Department to 

expand its external agency activities to develop and test commercially viable advanced separation technologies at proof-of-concept or 

pilot scale that can be deployed near term for the extraction and 

recovery of rare earth elements and minerals from U.S. coal and 

coal byproduct source shaving the highest potential for success. The 

Committee encourages the Department to leverage the capabilities 

of outside applied researchers in implementing these activities. 

Supercritical Transformational Electric Power (STEP) Generation 

Program.—The Committee recommends $15,000,000 within Fossil 

Energy for the STEP program, a joint initiative with the Office of 

Nuclear Energy and the Solar Energy program within the Office of 

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy to spur the development 

of the necessary designs, materials, components, operation and control systems, sensors, and understanding and characterization for 

large scale supercritical carbon dioxide power conversion. 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
98 

The supercritical carbon dioxide Brayton cycle energy conversion 

system transforms heat energy through use of a supercritical fluid 

medium with no condensation rather than through steam and 

water and offers the possibility of higher cycle efficiency over steam 

turbines by increasing turbine inlet temperatures. Within the Fossil Energy program, higher inlet temperatures and materials development are already underway to develop ultrasupercritical steam 

turbines at 700 degrees Celsius in conjunction with coal power 

plants. At this inlet temperature, the supercritical carbon dioxide 

cycle-based plant systems offer the potential for efficiency improvements of up to four percent compared to steam systems. 

The approach to develop supercritical carbon dioxide-based power 

conversion is crosscutting except for the difference in heat sources 

and, thus, the inlet temperatures expected. Currently, only fossil 

heat sources have achieved the desired high temperature inlet conditions necessary to achieve significant thermal efficiency gains afforded by supercritical carbon dioxide cycles. The Committee, therefore, has included $15,000,000 for the Office of Fossil Energy to 

support the technology development of supercritical carbon dioxidebased power conversion from fossil heat sources, as well as 

$5,000,000 for the Office of Nuclear Energy to support the technology development of supercritical carbon dioxide-based power 

conversion from nuclear energy. 

NATURAL GAS TECHNOLOGIES

The Committee recommends $21,200,000 for Natural Gas Technologies, $3,921,000 below fiscal year 2015 and $22,800,000 below 

the budget request. 

Research.—The Committee recommends $21,200,000 for Natural 

Gas Technologies Research. Within available funds, the recommendation provides $12,500,000 for research into the cost-effective and responsible extraction of methane hydrates, a vast but 

currently inaccessible resource whose total energy reserves rival 

those from all other known fossil fuels combined; $5,200,000 for the 

Risk Based Data Management System; and $3,500,000 for midstream natural gas infrastructure research and development. The 

Committee directs that any funding for midstream natural gas infrastructure research and development be to enhance the deliverability efficiency of natural gas. The Committee directs no funding 

for the $10,000,000 budget request proposal to quantify emissions 

from natural gas infrastructure. 

Other than its support for the Risk Based Data Management 

System, the recommendation provides no funding for the joint research effort with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and 

the United States Geological Survey (USGS) into hydraulic fracturing technologies. The Committee further reiterates its previous 

direction that any funding in the area of hydraulic fracturing, including any funding to support the proposed joint effort with EPA 

and USGS, is for research into hydraulic fracturing technologies 

that aims both to improve the economics and recoverability of reserves and to address the health, safety, and environmental risks 

of shale gas extraction. 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
99 

UNCONVENTIONAL FOSSIL ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES

The Committee recommends $13,000,000 for Unconventional Fossil Energy Technologies, $8,500,000 above fiscal year 2015 and 

$13,000,000 above the budget request. Within available funds, the 

recommendation provides not less than $12,500,000 for activities to 

improve the economic viability, safety, and environmental responsibility of offshore exploration and production in challenging conditions, of exploration and production from unconventional natural 

gas and other petroleum resources, and of production by small producers. 

NAVAL PETROLEUM AND OIL SHALE RESERVES

Appropriation, 2015 ............................................................................ $19,950,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ....................................................................... 17,500,000 

Recommended, 2016 ........................................................................... 17,500,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2015 .................................................................... ¥2,450,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ................................................................ – – – 

The Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves no longer serve the 

national defense purpose envisioned in the early 1900’s, and consequently the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 

1996 required the sale of the Government’s interest in the Naval 

Petroleum Reserve 1 (NPR–1). To comply with this requirement, 

the Elk Hills field in California was sold to Occidental Petroleum 

Corporation in 1998. Following the sale of Elk Hills, the transfer 

of the oil shale reserves, and transfer of administrative jurisdiction 

and environmental remediation of the Naval Petroleum Reserve 2 

(NPR–2) to the Department of the Interior, the Department retained one Naval Petroleum Reserve property, the Naval Petroleum 

Reserve 3 (NPR–3) in Wyoming (Teapot Dome field). The Department issued a disposition plan for NPR–3 in June 2013 and began 

implementation of the plan in fiscal year 2014. Transfer of NPR– 

3 to a new owner occurred in fiscal year 2015. 

The fiscal year 2016 budget request supports post-sale legacy environmental clean-up and remediation at NPR–1 and the completion of the NPR–3 disposition plan, with activities related to remediation of the landfill and the closeout of the Casper office. 

The Committee recommendation for the operation of the naval petroleum and oil shale reserves is $17,500,000, $2,450,000 below 

fiscal year 2015 and the same as the budget request. 

STRATEGIC PETROLEUM RESERVE

Appropriation, 2015 ............................................................................ $200,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ....................................................................... 257,000,000 

Recommended, 2016 ........................................................................... 212,030,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2015 .................................................................... +12,030,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ................................................................ ¥44,970,000 

The mission of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) is to store 

petroleum to reduce the adverse economic impact of a major petroleum supply interruption to the U.S. and to carry out obligations 

under the international energy program. The capacity of the Reserve is 727 million barrels. The current inventory is approximately 691 million barrels or approximately 112 days of net import 

protection for the United States economy. 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
100 

The Committee recommendation for the Strategic Petroleum Re- serve is $212,030,000, $12,030,000 above fiscal year 2015 and 

$44,970,000 below the budget request. The funding increase above 

fiscal year 2015 is primarily for the major maintenance program, 

to address aging infrastructure and deferred maintenance backlog. 

NORTHEAST HOME HEATING OIL RESERVE

Appropriation, 2015 ............................................................................ $1,600,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ....................................................................... 7,600,000 

Recommended, 2016 ........................................................................... 7,600,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2015 .................................................................... +6,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ................................................................ – – – 

The acquisition and storage of heating oil for the Northeast 

began in August 2000 when the Department of Energy, through 

the Strategic Petroleum Reserve account, awarded contracts for the 

lease of commercial storage facilities and acquisition of heating oil. 

The purpose of the reserve is to assure home heating oil supplies 

for the Northeastern States during times of very low inventories 

and significant threats to the immediate supply of heating oil. The 

Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve was established as a separate 

entity from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve on March 6, 2001. The 

reserve contains one million barrels of Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel 

(ULSD), which is the equivalent of three to four days of emergency 

stocks in the Northeast. 

The Committee recommendation for the Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve is $7,600,000, $6,000,000 above fiscal year 2015 

and the same as the budget request. After accounting for a rescission of $6,000,000 of prior-year unobligated balances in fiscal year 

2015, the fiscal year 2016 program level is the same as fiscal year 

2015 and the budget request. 

ENERGY INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION

Appropriation, 2015 ............................................................................ $117,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ....................................................................... 131,000,000 

Recommended, 2016 ........................................................................... 117,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2015 .................................................................... – – – 

Budget estimate, 2016 ................................................................ ¥14,000,000 

The Energy Information Administration (EIA) is a quasi-independent agency within the Department of Energy established to 

provide timely, objective, and accurate energy-related information 

to the Congress, the executive branch, state governments, industry, 

and the public. The Committee recommends $117,000,000 for the 

Energy Information Administration, the same as fiscal year 2015 

and $14,000,000 below the budget request. 

NON-DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP

Appropriation, 2015 ............................................................................ $246,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ....................................................................... 220,185,000 

Recommended, 2016 ........................................................................... 229,193,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2015 .................................................................... ¥16,807,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ................................................................ +9,008,000 

Non-Defense Environmental Cleanup includes funds to manage 

and remediate sites used for civilian, energy research, and non-deVerDate Sep 11 2014 06:58 Apr 25, 2015 Jkt 094207 PO 00000 Frm 00100 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR091.XXX HR091

smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
101 

fense related activities. These past activities resulted in radioactive, hazardous, and mixed waste contamination that requires remediation, stabilization, or some other action. The Committee recommends $229,193,000 for Non-Defense Environmental Cleanup, 

$16,807,000 below fiscal year 2015 and $9,008,000 above the budget request. 

Small Sites.—The Committee recommends $61,715,000, 

$18,334,000 below fiscal year 2015 and $7,708,000 above the budget request. Within this amount, $9,500,000 is provided to commence a pilot project to decommission and decontaminate the 

Southwest Experimental Fast Oxide Reactor, as authorized by the 

Energy Policy Act of 2005. The Department recently conducted an 

assessment of the hazards and costs of decontaminating the site 

that indicates costs could reach as much as $80,400,000 depending 

on the extent of cleanup performed. The report further indicated 

that there is considerable uncertainty regarding the desired end 

state for the site and the Department is not a party to the resolution of such matters. Nevertheless, the costs and hazards associated with maintaining this vintage reactor site will continue to 

grow. To meet the intent of the authorized project while containing 

costs within the authorized amount of $16,000,000, the Department 

is directed to utilize innovative contracting strategies to demolish, 

dismantle, and dispose of contaminated above-grade structures for 

the purposes of minimizing annual site maintenance requirements 

until such time as the regulatory end state for the site is fully resolved by the responsible local stakeholders. 

The Committee commends the Department for its work to preserve cultural and sacred sites at the Santa Susana Field Laboratory in California and encourages the Department to continue 

working with the community and other federal, state, and local 

agencies to ensure that this portion of the property is preserved for 

future generations. 

Mercury Storage Facility.—The Committee recommends 

$1,300,000 for project planning, engineering, and design of a facility for the long-term storage of elemental mercury, as required by 

the Mercury Export Ban Act (MEBA) of 2008. MEBA required the 

Department of Energy to designate at least one facility capable of 

the long-term management and storage of domestic elemental mercury, but the Department has not met the deadlines required by 

the Act. The amounts provided allow the Department to perform 

the requisite environmental reviews and conduct other design and 

planning activities as needed to produce a record of decision. The 

Department is directed to provide to the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress not later than 180 days after the 

enactment of this Act a report on its preferred alternative, other 

alternatives that were considered, a rough order of magnitude cost 

estimate for new construction of a mercury storage facility if new 

construction is a feasible alternative, and an estimated fee structure to recover the costs of operations and/or construction of such 

facility. The report shall also identify whether there are any potential conflicts that may be encountered regarding competition with 

private sector disposal and storage facilities. 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
102 

URANIUM ENRICHMENT DECONTAMINATION AND DECOMMISSIONING

FUND

Appropriation, 2015 ............................................................................ $625,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ....................................................................... 542,289,000 

Recommended, 2016 ........................................................................... 625,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2015 .................................................................... – – – 

Budget estimate, 2016 ................................................................ +82,711,000 

The Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund was established by the Energy Policy Act of 1992 to 

pay for the cleanup of gaseous diffusion plants at Portsmouth, 

Ohio; Paducah, Kentucky; and the East Tennessee Technology 

Park, in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. The Committee recommends 

$625,000,000 for activities funded from the Uranium Enrichment 

Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund, the same as fiscal 

year 2015 and $82,711,000 above the budget request. 

Oak Ridge.—The Committee recommends $163,946,000, 

$3,952,000 below fiscal year 2015 and $9,711,000 above the budget 

request. 

Paducah.—The Committee recommends $193,652,000, 

$13,563,000 below fiscal year 2015 and $25,000,000 above the 

budget request. The Committee supports prompt development of a 

long-term strategy to decontaminate and decommission the Paducah gaseous diffusion plant. The Committee provides funding above 

the budget request to expedite deactivation activities that will minimize operating and maintenance costs while developing those end 

state plans. 

Portsmouth.—The Committee recommends $213,417,000, 

$607,000 below fiscal year 2015 and $48,000,000 above the budget 

request. 

Title X Uranium/Thorium Reimbursements.—The Committee 

recommends $32,959,000 to reimburse private licensees for the cost 

of cleaning up uranium and thorium processing sites in accordance 

with Title X of the Energy Policy Act of 1992, $22,959,000 above 

fiscal year 2015 and the same as the budget request. The budget 

request included funding for Title X activities for the first time 

since fiscal year 2008, despite escalating unpaid claims. Fulfilling 

the obligation to fully reimburse licensees is important to the 

health and safety of the affected communities. Moving forward, the 

Committee expects the Department to continue to provide sufficient 

resources within future budgets to reimburse licensees for approved 

claim balances. 

Uranium Transfers.—The Department has been considering 

ways to alternatively assess the impact of its uranium transfers to 

meet legislative requirements. Not later than 90 days after the enactment of this Act, the Department shall provide to the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress a report that includes all reports, analyses, data, and methodologies used to arrive 

at the latest Secretarial determination; any additional information 

that the Department determines should be considered when evaluating the impacts of its uranium transfers; a description of the 

legal authorities under which the Secretary transferred uranium in 

fiscal year 2015; and recommendations to minimize the impact of 

uranium transfers on the domestic uranium mining, conversion, 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
103 

and enrichment industries, including any actions that would require new authority for the Department to implement. 

SCIENCE

Appropriation, 2015 ............................................................................ $5,071,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ....................................................................... 5,339,794,000 

Recommended, 2016 ........................................................................... 5,100,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2015 .................................................................... +29,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ................................................................ ¥239,794,000 

The Office of Science funds basic science research across national 

laboratories, universities, and other research institutions in support of American innovation and the Department’s energy-focused 

missions. Through research in physics, biology, chemistry, and 

other science disciplines, these activities expand scientific understanding and secure the nation’s leadership in energy innovation. 

The Office of Science funds a significant portion of science research 

nationwide. 

The Science program office includes Advanced Scientific Computing Research, Basic Energy Sciences, Biological and Environmental Research, Fusion Energy Sciences, High Energy Physics, 

Nuclear Physics, Workforce Development for Teachers and Scientists, Science Laboratories Infrastructure, Safeguards and Security, and Program Direction. The Committee has placed a high priority on funding these activities in fiscal year 2016, given the private sector is not likely to fund research whose findings either have 

high non-commercial value or are not likely to be commercialized 

in the near or medium term. However, this work is vital to sustaining the scientific leadership of the United States and can provide the underpinnings for valuable intellectual property in the 

coming decades. 

The Committee recommendation is $5,100,000,000 for the Office 

of Science, $29,000,000 above fiscal year 2015 and $239,794,000 

below the budget request. 

The Committee recognizes the importance of workplace diversity 

in the Department of Energy’s National Laboratories. The Committee encourages the Department to continue to develop and 

broaden partnerships with minority serving institutions, including 

Hispanic Serving Institutions (HSI) and Historically Black Colleges 

and Universities (HBCUs). In particular, the Committee encourages programs involving undergraduate research experiences, high 

speed computing access and education, nonproliferation studies, 

and research inclusive of the social sciences. 

ADVANCED SCIENTIFIC COMPUTING RESEARCH

The Advanced Scientific Computing Research program develops 

and hosts some of the world’s fastest computing and network capabilities to enable science and energy modeling, simulation, and research. The Committee recommends $537,539,000 for Advanced 

Scientific Computing Research, $3,461,000 below fiscal year 2015 

and $83,455,000 below the budget request. 

Exascale Computing.—The Committee continues to support the 

exascale initiative, which seeks to develop the next generation of 

computing systems three orders of magnitude faster than today’s 

fastest systems. This decade-long effort is critical to enabling basic 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
104 

and energy-focused science research not previously possible and to 

maintaining the nation’s global leadership in computing technologies. However, the Committee is aware that many challenges 

still remain towards the development of exascale computing machines. The Department is directed to deliver to the Committees on 

Appropriations of both Houses of Congress not later than 180 days 

after the enactment of this Act a report on the plan for delivering 

exascale capabilities within the Office of Science. At a minimum, 

the report shall include an assessment of the technical challenges 

of exascale computing architecture and develop a plan for addressing these issues. The plan should take into account various budget 

scenarios when developing funding profiles. 

The Committee encourages the Department to support Highly Integrated Photonics to accelerate computing research leading to 

exascale computing while reducing computing energy consumption 

by a factor of 100 or more. The program is encouraged to work with 

small business entities to support these needed technology applications. 

The recommendation includes $99,000,000 for exascale activities 

within the Office of Science. 

High Performance Computing and Network Facilities.—In addition to the long-term exascale intiative, the Committee supports 

continued upgrade and operation of the Leadership Computing Facilities at Argonne and Oak Ridge National Laboratories and of the 

High Performance Production Computing capabilities at Lawrence 

Berkeley National Laboratory. These systems’ capabilities are a 

critical component of science and industrial research and development across the nation, and they should be maintained as worldleading facilities. The recommendation includes $77,000,000 for the 

Argonne Leadership Computing Facility; $101,000,000 for the Oak 

Ridge Leadership Computing Facility; and $76,000,000 for the National Energy Research Scientific Computing Center at Lawrence 

Berkeley National Laboratory. Within available funds, the recommendation includes $8,000,000 for the Computational Science 

Graduate Fellowship Program. 

Brain Initiative.—The Committee encourages the Department to 

work with the National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health on a national brain observatory to leverage its high 

performance computing capabilities in order to advance a deeper 

understanding of the brain and how it works. This collaboration 

will lead to novel brain imaging technologies and brain inspired 

computing applications that will improve the Department’s high 

performance computing capabilities and expertise. 

For mathematical, computational, and computer sciences research, the recommendation includes not less than $175,503,000. 

BASIC ENERGY SCIENCES

The Basic Energy Sciences program funds basic research in materials science, chemistry, geoscience, and bioscience. The science 

breakthroughs in this program enable a broad array of innovation 

in energy technologies and other industries critical to American 

economic competitiveness. The Committee recommends 

$1,770,306,000 for Basic Energy Sciences, $37,106,000 above fiscal 

year 2015 and $78,994,000 below the budget request. 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
105 

The program’s budget consists of funding for research, the operation of existing user facilities, and the design, procurement, and 

construction of new facilities and equipment. The long-term success 

of the program hinges on striking a careful balance among these 

three areas. However, the increasing level of research commitments 

and completion of new facilities make it difficult to adequately fund 

all three components of the Basic Energy Sciences program within 

existing budgetary constraints. The Committee strongly cautions 

the Department against assuming an ever-increasing budget when 

planning the balance among facility runtime, construction, and research funding. 

Research.—The Committee recommends $1,578,440,000 for Basic 

Energy Sciences research, $16,060,000 below fiscal year 2015 and 

$70,560,000 below the budget request. Within available funds, the 

recommendation provides $97,800,000 for Energy Frontier Research Centers. 

For materials science and engineering research, the rec- ommendation includes $377,085,000, of which $14,355,000 is for 

the Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research and 

$8,000,000 is for Computational Materials Sciences. All other activities within this subprogram are funded at the requested level, 

including $24,137,000 for the fourth year of the Batteries and Energy Storage Innovation Hub. 

For chemical sciences, geosciences, and biosciences, the recommendation includes $305,974,000. The recommendation includes 

the requested level of $15,000,000 for the Fuels from Sunlight Innovation Hub, which begins the first year of its second five-year 

term in fiscal year 2016. 

For scientific user facilities, the recommendation includes 

$895,381,000, of which $32,168,000 is for research; and $35,500,000 

is for major items of equipment. The recommendation includes 

$797,049,000 for facilities operations of the nation’s synchrotron radiation light sources, high flux neutron sources, and nanoscale 

science research centers, of which $245,419,000 is for the HighFlux Neutron Sources and $443,150,000 is for the Synchrotron Radiation Light Sources. 

Construction.—The Committee recommends $191,866,000 for 

Basic Energy Sciences construction, $53,166,000 above fiscal year 

2015 and $8,434,000 below the budget request. 

BIOLOGICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH

The Biological and Environmental Research program supports 

advances in energy technologies and related science through research into complex biological and environmental systems. The 

Committee recommends $538,000,000 for Biological and Environmental Research, $54,000,000 below fiscal year 2015 and 

$74,400,000 below the budget request. 

The Committee continues to support the Biological Systems 

Science subprogram, which focuses on the biology of plant and microbes with the ultimate goal of enabling future generations of 

biofuels from a variety of sustainable domestic biomass sources. In 

addition to reducing our nation’s dependence on petroleum-based 

fuels, the biofuels produced through this program’s science breakthroughs can lower the cost of, improve the sustainability of, and 

ease industry’s transition to those fuel alternatives. 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
106 

The recommendation includes $75,000,000 for the fourth year of 

the second five-year term of the three Bioenergy Research Centers, 

the same as fiscal year 2015 and the budget request. 

The Committee supports the Department’s funding for academia 

to perform climate model studies that include the collection and 

evaluation of atmospheric data from satellite observations obtained 

in cooperation with NASA. Satellite observations of the atmosphere 

within the context of the Earth as a global system provide information that is critical in the interpretation of earth-based observations. 

FUSION ENERGY SCIENCES

The Fusion Energy Sciences program supports basic research 

and experimentation aiming to harness nuclear fusion for energy 

production. The Committee recommends $467,600,000 for Fusion 

Energy Sciences, $100,000 above fiscal year 2015 and $47,600,000 

above the budget request. Within available funds, the recommendation provides not less than $69,500,000 for the National Spherical 

Torus Experiment (NSTX); not less than $80,000,000 for DIII–D; 

and not less than $18,000,000 for Alcator C–Mod. 

Research.—The Committee recommends $317,600,000 for the domestic fusion program, $100,000 above fiscal year 2015 and 

$47,600,000 above the budget request. The domestic fusion program is a critical component of United States science leadership 

and a necessary building block of any successful fusion project, including the ITER project. 

For the science subprogram, which advances the predictive understanding of plasma confinement, dynamics, and interactions 

with surrounding materials, the recommendation provides 

$188,860,000, of which $35,000,000 is for DIII–D Research; 

$6,145,000 is for Alcator C–Mod research; $12,000,000 is for International Research; $30,500,000 is for NSTX research; $17,500,000 

is for High Energy Density Laboratory Plasmas; $25,000,000 is for 

Theory; and $9,500,000 is for Scientific Discovery through Advanced Computing. 

For facilities operations, which support operation, maintenance, 

and modifications to the research equipment and diagnostics at the 

major U.S. fusion facilities, the recommendation provides 

$101,330,000, of which $45,000,000 is for DIII–D; $39,000,000 is for 

NSTX operations; and $11,855,000 is for Alcator C–Mod. 

For enabling research and development, which develops and continually improves the hardware, materials and technology incorporated into existing and next-generation fusion research facilities, 

the recommendation provides $27,410,000, of which $14,000,000 is 

for Materials Research. 

Construction.—The Committee recommends $150,000,000 for the 

U.S. contribution to the ITER project, the same as fiscal year 2015 

and the budget request. 

The Committee continues to believe the ITER project represents 

an important step forward for energy sciences and has the potential to revolutionize the current understanding of fusion energy. In 

2013, the third biennial management assessment report identified 

eleven management challenges that threaten the success of the 

ITER project. The Committee recognizes the continued efforts of 

the ITER organization in responding to these recommendations and 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
107 

expects that ITER’s new leadership will implement reforms in a 

timely manner. The success of ITER depends on making continued 

project management progress and the Committee includes funding 

for the ITER Council to continue its implementation efforts. Should 

the ITER Council fail to reform the project management culture, 

the Committee will be forced to reconsider its support for the international project. 

HIGH ENERGY PHYSICS

The High Energy Physics program supports fundamental research into the elementary constituents of matter and energy, and 

ultimately into the nature of space and time. The program focuses 

on particle physics theory and experimentation in three areas: the 

energy frontier, which investigates new particles and fundamental 

forces through high-energy experimentation; the intensity frontier, 

which focuses on rare events to better understand our fundamental 

model of the universe’s elementary constituents; and the cosmic 

frontier, which investigates the nature of the universe and its form 

of matter and energy on cosmic scales. The Committee recommends 

$776,000,000 for High Energy Physics, $10,000,000 above fiscal 

year 2015 and $12,000,000 below the budget request. 

Within available funds, the recommendation includes 

$22,000,000 for the Long Baseline Neutrino Facility (LBNF) and its 

alternatives, to include $4,000,000 for research and development 

and $18,000,000 for project engineering and design activities. The 

Committee recognizes the importance of this project to maintaining 

American leadership in the intensity frontier and to basic science 

discovery of neutrino and standard model physics. However, the 

Committee also recognizes that LBNF construction must be affordable under existing budgetary constraints. 

Research.—The Committee recommends $717,900,000 for High 

Energy Physics research, $11,100,000 below fiscal year 2015 and 

$14,000,000 below the budget request. 

The Committee strongly supports the Department’s efforts to advance the recommendations of the Particle Physics Prioritization 

Panel and urges the Department to maintain a careful balance 

among competing priorities and among small, medium, and large 

scale projects. 

For energy frontier experimental physics, the recommendation 

provides $154,555,000. The recommendation funds all activities 

within energy frontier experimental physics at the requested level. 

For intensity frontier experimental physics, the recommendation 

provides $246,196,000. Within available funds, the recommendation 

provides $55,924,000 for research; $157,572,000 for facility operations and experimental support, of which $135,100,000 is for 

Fermi Complex Operations and $15,000,000 is for Homestake 

Mine; and $32,700,000 for Projects, of which $10,200,000 is for the 

Muon g–2 Experiment and $18,500,000 is for Future Projects research and development. 

For cosmic frontier experimental physics, the recommendation 

provides $119,325,000. Within available funds, the recommendation 

provides $50,079,000 for Research; $10,545,000 for Facility Operations and Experimental Support; and $58,701,000 for Projects, of 

which $40,800,000 is for the Large Synoptic Survey Telescope CamVerDate Sep 11 2014 06:58 Apr 25, 2015 Jkt 094207 PO 00000 Frm 00107 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR091.XXX HR091

smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
108 

era and $15,800,000 is for the Second Generation Dark Matter experiments. 

For other subprograms that comprise the high energy physics 

program, the recommendation provides $60,317,000 for theoretical 

and computational physics; $115,369,000 for advanced technology 

research and development, of which $39,924,000 is for General Accelerators; and not less than $5,000,000 for Accelerator Stewardship. 

Construction.—The Committee recommends $58,100,000 for High 

Energy Physics construction, $21,100,000 above fiscal year 2015 

and $2,000,000 above the budget request. Within available funds, 

the recommendation includes $40,100,000 for the Muon to Electron 

Conversion Experiment. 

NUCLEAR PHYSICS

The Nuclear Physics program supports basic research into the 

fundamental particles that compose nuclear matter, how they 

interact, and how they combine to form the different types of matter observed in the universe today. The Committee recommends 

$616,165,000 for Nuclear Physics, $20,665,000 above fiscal year 

2015 and $8,435,000 below the budget request. 

Operations and Maintenance.—The Committee recommends 

$510,665,000 for Nuclear Physics Operations and Maintenance, 

$21,665,000 above fiscal year 2015 and $6,435,000 below the budget request. For medium energy nuclear physics, the recommendation provides $158,062,000, of which $100,170,000 is for operations 

at Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility to support 

runtime at the 12GeV Continuous Electron Beam Accelerator Facility. The Committee remains supportive of the advanced nuclear 

physics occurring at the facility and encourages a quick transition 

to operations once the detector upgrades are complete. For heavy 

ion nuclear physics, the recommendation provides $204,931,000, of 

which $168,500,000 is for operations at Brookhaven National Lab 

to support runtime at the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider. All activities within the low energy nuclear physics, nuclear theory, and 

isotope development and production for research and applications 

subprograms are funded at the requested level. 

Construction.—The Committee recommends $105,500,000 for Nuclear Physics construction, $1,000,000 below fiscal year 2015 and 

$2,000,000 below the request. The recommended level of funding 

includes $98,000,000 for the Facility for Rare Isotope Beams. 

WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT FOR TEACHERS AND SCIENTISTS

The Committee recommends $20,500,000 for workforce development for teachers and scientists, $1,000,000 above fiscal year 2015 

and the same as the budget request. 

SCIENCE LABORATORIES INFRASTRUCTURE

The Committee recommends $89,890,000 for Science Laboratories Infrastructure, $10,290,000 above fiscal year 2015 and 

$23,710,000 below the budget request. 

Construction.—The Committee recommends $60,000,000 for 

Science Laboratories Infrastructure construction, $6,010,000 below 

fiscal year 2015 and $8,910,000 below the request. 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
109 

SAFEGUARDS AND SECURITY

The Committee recommends $103,000,000 to meet safeguards 

and security requirements at Office of Science facilities, 

$10,000,000 above fiscal year 2015 and the same as the budget request. 

SCIENCE PROGRAM DIRECTION

The Committee recommends $181,000,000 for Science Program 

Direction, $2,700,000 below fiscal year 2015 and $6,400,000 below 

the request. 

NUCLEAR WASTE DISPOSAL

Appropriation, 2015 ............................................................................ $– – – 

Budget estimate, 2016 ....................................................................... – – – 

Recommended, 2016 ........................................................................... 150,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2015 .................................................................... +150,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ................................................................ +150,000,000 

The Committee recommendation includes $150,000,000 for Nuclear Waste Disposal, $150,000,000 above fiscal year 2015 and 

$150,000,000 above the budget request, to continue the Department of Energy’s statutorily required activities for the Yucca 

Mountain license application. Within available funds, the Department is directed to reestablish its capability to respond to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission during the adjudicatory process, and 

to otherwise fully support the Yucca Mountain licensing process. 

The recommendation includes support for affected units of local 

government who have formally consented to host Yucca Mountain. 

The Committee reiterates that the Administration’s repeated 

statements that Yucca Mountain is not a ‘‘workable option’’ ignores 

both the consent of the host community and the expressed intent 

of Congress. 

ADVANCED RESEARCH PROJECTS AGENCY—ENERGY

Appropriation, 2015 ............................................................................ $280,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ....................................................................... 325,000,000 

Recommended, 2016 ........................................................................... 280,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2015 .................................................................... – – – 

Budget estimate, 2016 ................................................................ ¥45,000,000 

The Advanced Research Projects Agency—Energy (ARPA-E) supports research aimed at rapidly developing energy technologies 

whose development and commercialization are too risky to attract 

sufficient private sector investment but are capable of significantly 

changing the energy sector to address our critical economic and energy security challenges. Projects funded by ARPA-E include such 

wide-ranging areas as production processes for transportation fuel 

alternatives that can reduce our dependence on imported oil, heating and cooling technologies with exceptionally high energy efficiency, and improvements in petroleum refining processes. 

The Committee recommends $280,000,000 for the Advanced Research Projects Agency—Energy, the same as fiscal year 2015 and 

$45,000,000 below the budget request. Within available funds, the 

recommendation provides $28,000,000 for Program Direction. 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
110 

TITLE 17 INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY LOAN GUARANTEE PROGRAM

ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES 

GROSS APPROPRIATION

Appropriation, 2015 ............................................................................ $42,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ....................................................................... 42,000,000 

Recommended, 2016 ........................................................................... 42,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2015 .................................................................... – – – 

Budget estimate, 2016 ................................................................ – – – 

OFFSETTING COLLECTIONS

Appropriation, 2015 ............................................................................ $¥25,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ....................................................................... ¥25,000,000 

Recommended, 2016 ........................................................................... ¥25,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2015 .................................................................... – – – 

Budget estimate, 2016 ................................................................ – – – 

NET APPROPRIATION

Appropriation, 2015 ............................................................................ $17,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ....................................................................... 17,000,000 

Recommended, 2016 ........................................................................... 17,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2015 .................................................................... – – – 

Budget estimate, 2016 ................................................................ – – – 

The Committee recommends administrative expenses of 

$42,000,000, the same as fiscal year 2015 and the budget request, 

which are offset by fees collected pursuant to section 1702(h) of the 

Energy Policy Act, for a final net appropriation of $17,000,000. 

ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY VEHICLES MANUFACTURING LOAN

PROGRAM

Appropriation, 2015 ............................................................................ $4,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ....................................................................... 6,000,000 

Recommended, 2016 ........................................................................... 6,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2015 .................................................................... +2,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ................................................................ – – – 

The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 established 

a direct loan program to support the development of advanced technology vehicles and associated components in the United States. 

The program provides loans to automobile and automobile part 

manufacturers for the cost of re-equipping, expanding, or establishing manufacturing facilities in the United States to produce advanced technology vehicles or qualified components, and for associated engineering integration costs. 

The Committee recommends $6,000,000 for the Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loan Program, $2,000,000 above 

fiscal year 2015 and the same as the budget request. The funds 

provided support administrative operations only. 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
111 

DEPARTMENTAL ADMINISTRATION

GROSS APPROPRIATION

Appropriation, 2015 ............................................................................ $245,142,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ....................................................................... 270,682,000 

Recommended, 2016 ........................................................................... 247,420,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2015 .................................................................... +2,278,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ................................................................ ¥23,262,000 

REVENUES

Appropriation, 2015 ............................................................................ $¥119,171,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ....................................................................... ¥117,171,000 

Recommended, 2016 ........................................................................... ¥117,171,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2015 .................................................................... +2,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ................................................................ – – – 

NET APPROPRIATION

Appropriation, 2015 ............................................................................ $125,971,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ....................................................................... 153,511,000 

Recommended, 2016 ........................................................................... 130,249,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2015 .................................................................... +4,278,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ................................................................ ¥23,262,000 

The Committee recommendation for Departmental Administration is $247,420,000, $2,278,000 more than fiscal year 2015 and 

$23,262,000 less than the budget request. The recommendation for 

revenues is $117,171,000 as requested, resulting in a net appropriation of $130,249,000. Funding recommended for Departmental 

Administration provides for general management and program support functions benefiting all elements of the Department of Energy, 

including the National Nuclear Security Administration. The account funds a wide array of Headquarters activities not directly associated with the execution of specific programs. 

Office of Indian Energy Policy and Programs.—The Committee 

recommends $16,000,000, to coordinate and implement energy 

management, conservation, education, and delivery systems for Native Americans. The Committee includes full funding for the Department’s request in this account rather than in a new account, 

as requested. 

Economic Impact and Diversity.—The recommendation includes 

$10,000,000 for Economic Impact and Diversity, $3,800,000 more 

than fiscal year 2015 and the same as the budget request. 

International Affairs.—The recommendation includes $13,000,000 

for International Affairs, the same as fiscal year 2015 and 

$10,600,000 less than the budget request. 

Office of Management.—The recommendation includes 

$64,598,000 for the Office of Management. The recommendation includes an increase of $1,652,000 for cost estimating. 

Office of Energy Policy and Systems Analysis.—The recommendation includes $31,297,000, $3,703,000 less than the budget request. 

The Committee includes requested funding to support the Quadrennial Energy Review. 

Working Capital Fund.—The Committee is concerned that the 

Department is not clearly reporting which programs, projects, or 

activities are paying into the Working Capital Fund. The ComVerDate Sep 11 2014 06:58 Apr 25, 2015 Jkt 094207 PO 00000 Frm 00111 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR091.XXX HR091

smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
112 

mittee already provides funding for the Working Capital Fund 

within funds for program direction in various accounts and is concerned that the practice of charging additional costs beyond those 

reported is duplicative, not transparent, and may not meet the intended purpose for which those funds were appropriated. Not later 

than 30 days after the enactment of this Act, the Department shall 

provide to the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of 

Congress a report of charges to each appropriation by program, 

project, or activity in fiscal years 2014, 2015, and 2016 for the 

Working Capital Fund. The report shall detail the Department’s 

existing legal authorities and enabling statutes that permit the Department to pay these expenses from the particular programs, 

projects, or activities identified. 

Renewable Fuel Standard.—Under section 211(o)(9)(B) of the 

Clean Air Act, a small refinery may petition the Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator for an exemption from the 

Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) on the basis that the refinery experiences a ‘‘disproportionate economic hardship’’ under the RFS. 

When evaluating a petition, the Administrator consults with the 

Secretary of Energy to determine whether a ‘‘disproportionate economic hardship’’ exists. According to the Department of Energy’s 

March 2011 Small Refinery Exemption Study, a ‘‘disproportionate 

economic hardship must encompass two broad components: a high 

cost of compliance relative to the industry average, and an effect 

sufficient to cause a significant impairment of the refinery operations.’’ The Committee directs the Secretary of Energy to clarify 

that if either of these two components exists, the Department shall 

at a minimum recommend to EPA a 50 percent waiver of RFS requirements for the petitioner. The Committee also directs the Secretary to seek small refinery comment before making changes to its 

scoring metrics for small refinery petitions for RFS waivers. 

Support for Ukraine.—In consideration of Russian aggression in 

Ukraine, the Committee directs the Department of Energy to examine the potential for leveraging its expertise in support of energy-related issues in Ukraine. Not later than 120 days after the 

enactment of this Act, the Department shall report to the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress on what technical assistance the Department could provide to Ukraine. 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

Appropriation, 2015 ............................................................................ $40,500,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ....................................................................... 46,424,000 

Recommended, 2016 ........................................................................... 46,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2015 .................................................................... +5,500,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ................................................................ ¥424,000 

The Office of Inspector General performs agency-wide audit, inspection, and investigative functions to identify and correct management and administrative deficiencies that create conditions for 

existing or potential instances of fraud, waste, and mismanagement. The audit function provides financial and performance audits 

of programs and operations. The inspections function provides independent inspections and analyses of the effectiveness, efficiency, 

and economy of programs and operations. The investigative funcVerDate Sep 11 2014 06:58 Apr 25, 2015 Jkt 094207 PO 00000 Frm 00112 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR091.XXX HR091

smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
113 

tion provides for the detection and investigation of improper and illegal activities involving programs, personnel, and operations. The Committee recommendation is $46,000,000, $5,500,000 more 

than fiscal year 2015 and $424,000 less than the budget request. 

To the extent possible, the Inspector General shall ensure the 

findings of its investigative reports are made available to the Committee and the public, particularly where revised versions of its reports may be required in order to protect privacy or remove other 

pieces of protected information that would otherwise limit distribution to internal Official Use Only. 

ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES 

The Atomic Energy Defense Activities programs of the Department of Energy in the National Nuclear Security Administration 

(NNSA) consist of Weapons Activities, Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation, Naval Reactors, and Federal Salaries and Expenses; 

outside of the NNSA, these include Defense Environmental Cleanup, Defense Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning, and Other Defense Activities. Descriptions of each of these 

accounts are provided below. 

NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION 

The Department of Energy is responsible for enhancing U.S. national security through the military application of nuclear technology and reducing the global danger from the proliferation of 

weapons of mass destruction. The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), a semi-autonomous agency within the Department, carries out these responsibilities. Established in March 

2000 pursuant to Title 32 of the National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2000, the NNSA is responsible for the management and operation of the nation’s nuclear weapons complex, naval 

reactors, and nuclear nonproliferation activities. 

WEAPONS ACTIVITIES

Appropriation, 2015 ............................................................................ $8,186,657,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ....................................................................... 8,846,948,000 

Recommended, 2016 ........................................................................... 8,713,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2015 .................................................................... +526,343,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ................................................................ ¥133,948,000 

Weapons Activities provides funding to ensure the safety, security, reliability, and effectiveness of the nation’s nuclear weapons 

stockpile without nuclear testing. The Committee’s recommendation simplifies the budget structure for Weapons Activities into four 

main elements: Directed Stockpile Work; Research, Development, 

Technology and Engineering; Infrastructure and Operations; and 

Security. The Committee recommends a fiscal year 2016 level of 

$8,713,000,000 for Weapons Activities, $526,343,000 above fiscal 

year 2015 and $133,948,000 below the budget request. 

DIRECTED STOCKPILE WORK

Directed Stockpile Work includes all activities that directly support weapons in the nuclear stockpile, including maintenance, research, development, engineering, certification, dismantlement, and 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
114 

disposal activities. The Committee recommends $3,354,296,000 for 

Directed Stockpile Work, $661,708,000 above fiscal year 2015 and 

$167,037,000 above the budget request. 

Life Extension Programs.—The Committee recommends full funding for the NNSA’s life extension programs, including the ongoing 

refurbishment efforts for the B61, W76, and W88 warheads. The 

Committee also recommends initiating a new life extension program for the W80 that will support development of a Long Range 

Standoff Missile (LRSO). While the Committee has not established 

a formal definition of what constitutes a ‘‘life extension program’’ 

compared to other major refurbishment efforts, the Committee will 

consider refurbishment work with the purpose of extending the life 

of an existing warhead with a total cost of greater than 

$1,000,000,000 to be a life extension program. The Committee is 

concerned about the aggressive schedule to accomplish the delivery 

of concurrent life extension programs for the B61 and W88 in the 

2020–2025 timeframe. Such peaks in the NNSA’s production lines 

are difficult and expensive to manage. The Committee encourages 

the NNSA to investigate work levelling strategies for the W88 that 

would help alleviate these pressures. 

W88 Life Extension Program.—The Committee recommends 

$220,176,000, $54,776,000 above fiscal year 2015 and the same as 

the budget request. In fiscal year 2015, initial development work 

for this program was funded under the title ‘‘W88 Alt 370’’. While 

the NNSA requested to continue designating this program as the 

W88 Alt 370, the size and scope of the work now planned for the 

W88 merits increased transparency and integrated management as 

part of a formal acquisition program. The NNSA is directed to integrate the costs of replacing limited life components concurrently 

with other refurbishment activities in its selected acquisition reports for the W88 life extension program. 

W80–4 Life Extension Program.—The Committee recommends 

$195,037,000, the same as the budget request. In fiscal year 2015, 

initial conceptual work for this program was funded at $9,418,000 

under the title ‘‘Cruise Missile Warhead Life Extension Study’’. 

While the recommendation provides the full funding amount requested for the W80–4, continued support for the NNSA’s requested schedule is contingent on the ability of the NNSA to meet 

the Committee-directed reporting requirements in a timely manner 

and on the synchronization of this work with the schedule for the 

LRSO in the budget for the Department of Defense. 

The Committee is concerned that the NNSA has already settled 

on two alternatives for the W80–4 that are more expensive than 

the B61 life extension program and will require funding peaks that 

will compete with other planned major multi-year programs and 

projects. The NNSA has a history of spending large amounts of 

funding to develop alternatives that are tabled in order to pursue 

a more affordable option. The NNSA must demonstrate it is able 

to overcome these past failures by changing the way it conducts its 

alternative analyses. To provide enhanced accountability for the alternatives being pursued and to ensure that other options were not 

prematurely excluded, the Committee directs the NNSA to task the 

JASONs Defense Advisory Group or another independent group to 

perform a red team assessment of the NNSA’s alternatives selected 

for the W80–4 life extension program. Not later than 180 days 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
115 

after the enactment of this Act, the red team should provide a report to the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress that identifies whether additional alternatives exist that 

might improve the affordability of the program and reduce overall 

programmatic risks. 

Research and Development Support.—The Committee recommends $41,059,000, $15,559,000 above fiscal year 2015 and 

$6,900,000 above the budget request. The recommendation includes 

funding above the budget request for maintenance of the nuclear 

testing heritage as requested within Program Readiness. 

Strategic Materials.—The Committee recommends $589,176,000, 

$589,176,000 above fiscal year 2015 and $174,217,000 above the 

budget request. The recommendation for Strategic Materials includes funding for uranium, plutonium and tritium sustainment activities that were requested as ‘‘Nuclear Materials Commodities’’. 

The recommendation further expands the request to specify funds 

for the management of nuclear materials to other materials of strategic significance by including funding requested for Material Recycling and Recovery, Storage, Nuclear Materials Integration, and 

other planning efforts within Strategic Materials Sustainment. 

Domestic Uranium Enrichment.—The Committee recommends 

$50,000,000, $47,200,000 below fiscal year 2015 and $50,000,000 

below the budget request. The bill contains a provision that provides special reprogramming authority of an additional $50,000,000 

subject to the Committee’s normal notification guidelines. The 

Committee is awaiting the results of a directed interagency study 

that will revalidate the tritium and low enriched uranium requirements to meet national security needs and that will identify a preferred approach to meeting those requirements. However, the goals 

of the demonstration project have been successfully met and there 

is little value to indefinitely operating the centrifuges if the Department cannot identify a near-term need to construct a national 

security train of centrifuges. The recommendation will provide 

flexibility to meet national security needs should decisive nearterm needs with a clear funding strategy be identified. 

RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TECHNOLOGY, AND ENGINEERING

The NNSA’s Research, Development, Technology, and Engineering (RDT&E) activities focus on the development and maintenance 

of critical capabilities, tools, and processes that support sciencebased stockpile stewardship and continued certification of the 

stockpile in the absence of underground nuclear testing. For 

RDT&E, the Committee recommends $1,774,174,000, $7,983,000 

above fiscal year 2015 and $2,329,000 below the budget request. 

The Committee supports maintaining a robust scientific enterprise that leverages the unique attributes of the national security 

laboratories as the foundation of a science-based stockpile stewardship program. The NNSA reduced funding for science and engineering activities in its budget request and the Committee is concerned 

that undercutting funding for such activities could undermine the 

long-term capability of the NNSA to maintain an aging nuclear 

stockpile. The NNSA is pursuing several unconventional and complex options for stockpile stewardship that will present significant 

certification challenges. Based on an independent review of these 

approaches that was directed by the Committee, it is apparent 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
116 

there are still significant scientific and engineering hurdles to overcome before such approaches can be adopted. The Committee will 

continue to favor stockpile proposals that are conservative and well 

understood in order to minimize the introduction of unnecessary 

risks into the stockpile. Nevertheless, the Committee supports continued funding to pursue experimental activities that will improve 

the basic fundamentals of weapons physics and advance concepts 

to improve safety, security, or maintainability. 

Science.—The Committee recommends $412,947,000, $856,000 

above fiscal year 2015 and $23,333,000 above the budget request. 

Within this amount, the recommendation provides increases above 

the request for Advanced Certification to better understand the 

properties of plutonium and to advance concepts for pit reuse. 

Within funding for Primary Assessment Technologies, the recommendation includes funding to expand predictive science capabilities to designs outside those in the current U.S. stockpile to enhance U.S. capabilities to assess foreign state weapons activities. 

Within Advanced Radiography, the recommendation includes no 

funding for new radiography capabilities at U1a. The NNSA did 

not provide a project data sheet with a multi-year funding plan as 

required by the Committee. 

Academic Alliances and Partnerships.—The Committee recommends $49,800,000 for Academic Alliances and Partnerships. 

Funding for these activities was requested within the Science and 

Site Stewardship programs. Within this amount, $33,300,000 is 

provided for the Stewardship Science Academic Alliance Program. 

The NNSA reduced funding for its university partnership program 

in its budget request by 7.5 percent. Undercutting these 

foundational partnerships will ultimately weaken the scientific 

base upon which the NNSA relies to certify the nuclear stockpile. 

Also within this amount, $16,500,000 is provided for the Minority 

Serving Institution Partnerships Program. The Committee supports 

the educational and research partnerships of the Department and 

encourages additional partnerships to be developed with minority 

serving institutions, including Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs), and Hispanic Serving Institutions (HSI) to ensure diversity within the next generation of scientists and researchers addressing nuclear security and environmental management 

issues. 

Inertial Confinement Fusion and High Yield.—The Committee 

recommends $511,050,000, $1,845,000 below fiscal year 2015 and 

$8,600,000 above the budget request. Within these funds, 

$68,000,000 is for the OMEGA Laser Facility at the University of 

Rochester, $322,500,000 is for the National Ignition Facility, and 

$7,000,000 is for the Naval Research Laboratory 

Advanced Simulation and Computing.—The Committee recommends $605,000,000, $7,000,000 above fiscal year 2015 and 

$18,006,000 below the budget request. 

Advanced Manufacturing.—The Committee recommends 

$113,800,000, $6,600,000 above fiscal year 2015 and $16,256,000 

below the budget request. Within this amount, $16,000,000 is provided for Additive Manufacturing. The budget request applied development of additive manufacturing capabilities holistically across 

the enterprise, but the Committee is concerned that such an approach reduces transparency into how well and how fast the NNSA 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
117 

is developing these advanced production technologies. In addition, 

the NNSA must apply a certain degree of integrated management 

to these efforts to promote a domestic contractor supplier base. The 

recommendation does not preclude the use or development of additive production technologies within funds for life extension programs or other areas where those costs are appropriately attributed to that effort. In addition, the Committee is concerned that 

the full scope of work requested within Advanced Manufacturing 

did not meet Congressional intent of the program. This activity is 

not intended to fund the production readiness costs of life extension 

programs that are in phase 6.3 and higher. Such costs should be 

managed and fully accounted for as part of the appropriate life extension program. 

INFRASTRUCTURE AND OPERATIONS

Infrastructure and Operations (formerly Readiness in Technical 

Base and Facilities) provides consolidated funding for the operations, maintenance, and recapitalization of NNSA facilities and infrastructure. The Committee recommends $2,228,164,000 for Infrastructure and Operations, $194,764,000 above fiscal year 2015 and 

$1,173,683,000 above the budget request. 

The recommendation eliminates duplication by consolidating the 

budget request for three separate infrastructure accounts (Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities, Infrastructure and Safety, 

and Site Stewardship) within the recommendation for Infrastructure and Operations. The recommendation further simplifies the 

budget structure by combining separately-identified funding lines 

for certain activities that did not have clear infrastructure-based 

performance goals. The Committee does not support changing the 

budget structure each year to conform to internal organizational 

changes and views this matter to be largely one of agency budget 

execution that has no relationship to the purpose for which funds 

are appropriated by the Congress. The Committee’s continued support for budget flexibility for maintenance and operations across 

the NNSA sites and for recapitalization projects is contingent on 

the NNSA’s willingness to provide the Committee with the information it needs to conduct proper oversight of these activities. 

Safety and Environmental Operations.—The Committee recommends $107,701,000 for the Nuclear Criticality Safety Program, 

Nuclear Safety Research and Development, Containers, and LongTerm Stewardship activities. The NNSA is directed to provide a 

funding table that details the funding amounts to be provided to 

each of these four program elements in future budget requests. 

Maintenance and Repair of Facilities.—The Committee recommends $277,000,000. The recommendation includes $50,000,000 

above the budget request to address the backlog of deferred maintenance across the NNSA’s nuclear security enterprise. Within this 

amount, $25,000,000 is for maintenance of the NNSA’s High-Risk 

Excess Facilities to improve the transparency of how much is being 

spent to indefinitely maintain these deteriorating facilities and to 

allow the Committee to better conduct oversight of the adequacy of 

the NNSA’s maintenance program. The NNSA is directed to provide a funding table that details the site splits for maintenance in 

future budget requests. 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
118 

Recapitalization.—The Committee recommends $352,524,000. 

Within this amount, $253,724,000 is provided for basic infrastructure projects to be executed by the Office of Infrastructure and 

Safety and $98,800,000 is provided for capability-based investments to be executed by the Office of Defense Programs. As a result of progress in establishing a planning basis to formulate and 

execute its recapitalization efforts, the Committee recommendation 

does not designate specific funding by individual recapitalization 

projects. Funding for Recapitalization is intended for projects that 

are clearly defined and ready to be executed. The recommendation 

does not include funds requested for ‘‘reserves’’ and ‘‘contingency’’ 

purposes since funds to meet emergent needs are provided within 

Operation of Facilities and Maintenance and Repair of Facilities. 

Construction.—The Committee recommends $660,149,000, 

$235,149,000 above fiscal year 2015 and $41,000 below the budget 

request. The Committee is concerned that there is little accountability for advancing construction projects at the early design 

stages and that advance funds are being requested to initiate new 

construction without providing the cost and schedule projections for 

which the NNSA is accountable. Without this information, the 

Committee cannot determine whether the projects requested are affordable and are being managed appropriately so that it may approve new start authority. Previously, the Committee funded initial 

project engineering and design (PED) in a separate project and 

then considered new start authority to proceed to construction at 

a later date when more information was available. In order to preserve the Committee’s ability to approve new start authority, the 

recommendation provides funds separately for PED and directs the 

NNSA to request funds separately for PED in future budget requests. The Committee will consider a request to initiate a new 

construction start when the Department is prepared to provide an 

accurate multi-year cost and schedule estimate with its budget request. 

16–D–140 Project Engineering and Design, Various Locations.— 

The Committee recommends $34,103,000. Within this amount, 

$18,105,000 is for Transuranic Liquid Waste Facility Design, 

$13,998,000 is for TA–55 Reinvestment Phase 3, and $2,000,000 is 

for the Y–12 Emergency Operations Center. The Committee shall 

consider separate new start authority to commence construction on 

these projects upon submission of a request that details the multiyear cost and schedule projections for each project. 

16–D–621 TA–3 Substation Replacement, LANL.—The Committee 

recommends $25,000,000, the same as the budget request. No funding is available for construction until the NNSA provides the details of its cost and schedule performance baseline. The recommendation for substation construction at Los Alamos National 

Laboratory does not constitute a new start for a similar planned replacement at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and the 

NNSA should request separate funding for this project in a future 

budget request. 

11–D–801 TA–55 Reinvestment Project, Phase 2, LANL.—The 

Committee recommends $3,903,000, the same as the budget request. The Committee notes that full funding was provided for this 

project in fiscal year 2015 and the funds requested in the fiscal 

year 2016 budget request are due to cost growth associated with 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
119 

project bids being significantly higher than the NNSA’s initial estimates. 

07–D–220 Radioactive Liquid Waste Treatment Facility, LANL.— The Committee recommends $11,533,000, the same as the budget 

request. The Committee notes that costs have grown to 

$82,694,000, an increase of $15,481,000 or 23 percent, since construction funds for the Low Level Liquid Waste Facility portion of 

this project were first requested and provided. The NNSA spent 

$28,443,000 advancing a design concept for this project that was 

determined to be unaffordable several years later. Furthermore, 

the Committee is concerned about this and other projects at Los Alamos because the NNSA’s contractor does not have a certified 

earned value management system against which performance can 

be appropriately tracked and managed. The NNSA is directed to 

provide to the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of 

Congress not later than 90 days after the enactment of this Act a 

report on the root causes of the cost growth of this project. 

06–D–141, Uranium Processing Facility (UPF), Y–12.—The Committee recommends $430,000,000, $95,000,000 above fiscal year 

2015 and the same as the budget request. Within this amount, 

$289,128,000 is for Project Engineering and Design and 

$140,872,000 is for Site Preparation. None of these funds shall be 

available for Site Preparation or other construction activities until 

the NNSA submits an independently-verified cost estimate for the 

entire scope of the project that details the cost and schedule targets 

for each planned subproject to the Committees on Appropriations 

of both Houses of Congress. 

The Committee is concerned that the NNSA has not fully addressed the root causes of its past project management failures for 

major construction projects. Few details have been solidified on the 

UPF project and the NNSA’s inability to lay out any of its plans 

in its budget request is indicative of the challenges that the NNSA 

faces in delivering this facility. The NNSA is deviating from the 

formal processes set out in DOE Order 413.3B for the reaffirmation 

of critical decision–1 and the project plans show significant funds 

being spent for construction activities before the project baseline is 

set and without formal approval from the acquisition executive, in 

this case the Deputy Secretary of Energy. Further, the NNSA conducted an internal peer review that indicated a potential for cost 

growth above the $6,500,000,000 cost target. The Committee will 

continue to closely monitor progress on the project to ensure these 

and other issues are being addressed. 

04–D–125, Chemistry and Metallurgy Research (CMR) Replacement Project, LANL.—The Committee recommends $155,610,000. 

Within this amount, $117,000,000 is provided for the RLUOB 

Equipment Installation, Phase 2 subproject and $38,610,000 is provided for the PF–4 Equipment Installation subproject. 

SECURITY

Defense Nuclear Security.—The Committee recommends 

$682,891,000 for Defense Nuclear Security, $46,768,000 above fiscal year 2015 and $50,000,000 above the budget request. 

The recommendation provides additional funding above the budget request to meet the lifecycle need to replace security cameras 

and to meet shortfalls anticipated in funding for protective forces 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
120 

at Y–12 and other NNSA sites. The NNSA shall keep the Committee informed as it analyzes the changes to its cost accounting 

structures for the combined contract at Y–12 and Pantex. 

Security Improvements Program.—The Committee recommends 

$35,000,000 to commence a Security Improvements Program that is 

intended to address the backlog of security projects that must be 

performed over the next several years. The NNSA has identified 

over $2,000,000,000 in security infrastructure upgrades that are 

needed, but the NNSA has not adequately prioritized these upgrades in its budget request. The Committee’s recommendation enhances the visibility of these efforts and ensures funding is available to meet these additional costs that are above and beyond the 

base operating and maintenance costs of the NNSA’s physical security program. To the extent possible, the NNSA should establish 

clear scope, cost, and schedule requirements by performing work as 

discrete projects. Projects with a total project cost greater than 

$10,000,000 that represent capability upgrades and new construction shall be performed as line-item construction in accordance 

with existing statutory requirements. Projects that are needed to 

replace, maintain, and improve the reliability of aging systems 

shall be conducted as operating projects to expedite delivery and 

reduce overall costs. 

The Committee is concerned that the NNSA terminated the Y– 

12 Security Improvements Project without completing the full scope 

of work planned. The budget request also defers improvements that 

are needed at the Pantex Plant. The NNSA shall ensure that these 

investments are prioritized in developing its multi-year plans for 

its Security Improvements Program. 

14–D–710 Device Assembly Facility Argus Installation Project.— 

The Committee recommends $13,000,000, the same as the budget 

request. 

Information Technology and Cyber Security.—The Committee 

recommends $157,588,000 for Information Technology and Cyber 

Security, $22,058,000 below fiscal year 2015 and the same as the 

budget request. 

Secure Transportation Asset.—The Committee recommends 

$232,000,000 for Secure Transportation Asset, $13,000,000 above 

fiscal year 2015 and $19,610,000 below the budget request. The 

budget request included a significant ramp up in the size of the 

federal workforce, but the NNSA has not provided any information 

to justify such an increase and reductions in the planned transport 

of mixed oxide feedstock will reduce requirements. 

LEGACY CONTRACTOR PENSIONS

The Committee provides $283,887,000 for payments into the legacy University of California contractor employee defined benefit 

pension plans, $23,171,000 below fiscal year 2015 and the same as 

the budget request. 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
121 

DEFENSE NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION

(INCLUDING RESCISSION OF FUNDS)

Appropriation, 2015 ............................................................................ $1,616,638,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ....................................................................... 1,940,302,000 

Recommended, 2016 ........................................................................... 1,907,606,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2015 .................................................................... +290,968,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ................................................................ ¥32,696,000 

The Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation account provides funding 

to programs of the National Nuclear Security Administration that 

prevent, counter, and respond to global nuclear threats, according 

to a revised budget structure for fiscal year 2016. The Committee’s 

recommendation for Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation is 

$1,907,606,000, $290,968,000 above fiscal year 2015 and 

$32,696,000 below the budget request. The recommended amount 

includes a rescission of $10,394,000 in prior-year unobligated balances. As requested, the recommendation includes funding for Nuclear Counterterrorism and Incident Response activities that were 

funded within Weapons Activities in fiscal year 2015. After accounting for this programmatic shift, the recommendation is 

$52,598,000 above the comparative level for these activities in fiscal year 2015. 

Continuing U.S. Nonproliferation Activities in Russia.—As in fiscal year 2015, the Committee recommendation provides no new 

funds to enter into contracts and agreements with Russia in fiscal 

year 2016. 

DEFENSE NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION

Funding for the Office of Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation is 

provided across five new programmatic areas: Global Material Security, Material Management and Minimization, Nonproliferation 

and Arms Control, Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation R&D, and 

Nonproliferation Construction. 

Global Material Security.—The Committee recommends 

$422,949,000 for Global Material Security, $3,802,000 below the 

budget request. The NNSA is directed to report separate funding 

for its domestic and international radiological material programs in 

its budget request. While the recommendation for Radiological Security provides funding for domestic and international activities 

within one reprogramming control point, continued support for this 

flexibility is contingent on the transparency of these activities in 

the NNSA’s budget justifications. 

Material Management and Minimization.—The Committee recommends $310,584,000 for Material Management and Minimization, $1,000,000 below the budget request. The recommendation 

does not include $1,000,000 for Russian Surplus Materials Disposition that is requested within International Plutonium Disposition. 

The NNSA should identify additional funding needed to close out 

these activities when submitting a Secretarial waiver for enduring 

nonproliferation activities in Russia. The Committee is concerned 

that the U.S. is subsidizing the cost of removing materials from 

high-income nations that do not need financial assistance to enhance the security of their nuclear materials. While there may be 

circumstances where it is in the national security interest to proVerDate Sep 11 2014 06:58 Apr 25, 2015 Jkt 094207 PO 00000 Frm 00121 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR091.XXX HR091

smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
122 

vide incentives for the removal of materials from high-income nations, the NNSA must improve the justification for such actions. 

The Committee is also concerned that foreign nuclear materials for 

which the U.S. has no direct responsibility are being transported 

to the U.S. without consideration of the full costs of management, 

storage, and eventual disposition. As requested, the recommendation includes $21,000,000 for material removal from high-income 

nations due to the unique security concerns associated with these 

particular materials. However, the NNSA is directed to offset the 

costs of removing these materials from prior-year balances of lower 

priority activities. The Committee cautions the NNSA in requesting 

funding for additional material removals without better accounting 

for the full costs of managing these materials and identifying a disposal path. 

Nonproliferation and Arms Control.—The Committee recommends $130,203,000 for Nonproliferation and Arms Control, 

$3,500,000 above the budget request. Additional funding above the 

budget request is provided to expedite processing of export applications. The current slow process for approving Part 810 specific authorization applications puts U.S. firms at a competitive disadvantage to nuclear exporters from other countries, diminishes U.S. influence on nuclear safety, security, and nonproliferation practices, 

and ultimately costs American jobs. Not later than 90 days after 

the enactment of this Act, the NNSA shall provide to the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress a report on its 

Part 810 Process Improvement Program that details its strategy for 

driving efficiencies within the U.S. interagency process for approving Part 810 specific authorizations. The report shall identify a 

goal for the timeframe in which a typical Part 810 specific authorization is processed, shall outline the implementation schedule for 

the Process Improvement Program, shall identify a funding plan to 

successfully implement the Process Improvement Program, shall 

include relevant data on the average timeframes achieved for Part 

810 specific authorizations during each of the past five years, and 

shall identify metrics that can be used to determine whether the 

program is achieving meaningful progress in reducing specific authorization processing times. 

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation Research and Development.— 

The Committee recommends $419,333,000 for Defense Nuclear 

Nonproliferation Research and Development, $25,932,000 above fiscal year 2015 and the same as the budget request. The Committee 

supports maintaining a vigorous research and development base at 

the national laboratories to further U.S. nonproliferation objectives. 

Nonproliferation Construction.—The Committee recommends 

$345,000,000 for the Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility project, 

the same as fiscal year 2015 and the budget request. The recommendation provides sufficient funding to sustain the current 

pace of construction on the MOX facility in fiscal year 2016 and includes a provision that prohibits the use of MOX funding to place 

the project in cold standby. The Department has conducted further 

analysis of the comparative costs of the MOX and downblending alternatives to dispose of surplus U.S. plutonium. While the costs of 

constructing the MOX facility appear to be conservatively estimated, that analysis does not provide a full accounting of the 

lifecycle costs for the alternative option to downblend and dispose 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
123 

of the material at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) or another disposal facility. For instance, the Department’s analysis does 

not account for the costs of operating and emplacing waste in WIPP 

for another twenty years beyond its current closure date of 2030. 

In addition, the Department estimates that, if authorized, the Department would need significant funding above the budget request 

to cancel the MOX project and pursue the downblending alternative in fiscal year 2016. Considering the high near term costs of 

either option, more accurate information on the full costs of the 

downblending option must be developed before such an alternative 

should be pursued. The Department is directed to conduct a comprehensive programmatic analysis of the full costs of downblending 

and disposing surplus U.S. plutonium at WIPP or another disposal 

facility and to provide a report on its findings to the Committees 

on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress not less than 18 

months after the enactment of this Act. If the MOX program 

should be continued, the Committee encourages exploring options 

for cost-sharing with other responsible international partners. 

NUCLEAR COUNTERTERRORISM AND INCIDENT RESPONSE

The NNSA’s Nuclear Counterterrorism and Incident Response 

programs respond to and mitigate nuclear and radiological incidents worldwide in order to defend the nation from the threat of 

nuclear terrorism. These activities were funded within Nuclear 

Counterterrorism Incident Response and Counterterrorism and 

Counterproliferation within Weapons Activities in fiscal year 2015. 

The Committee recommendation supports the request to align all 

NNSA funding to prevent, counter, and respond to nuclear proliferation and terrorism in one appropriation. The Committee recommends $234,390,000, $10,357,000 above fiscal year 2015 and the 

same as the budget request. 

LEGACY CONTRACTOR PENSIONS

The Committee provides $94,617,000 for payments into the legacy University of California contractor employee defined benefit 

pension plans, $8,292,000 below fiscal year 2015 and the same as 

the budget request. 

FUNDING ADJUSTMENTS

Rescissions.—The Committee rescinds $10,394,000 in unobligated 

prior-year balances that the Department reports will remain unobligated in fiscal year 2015 apportionment restrictions related to 

NNSA prior-year pensions funding. 

Use of prior-year balances.—The Committee directs the use of 

$18,076,000 in prior-year balances to offset the fiscal year 2016 

needs, as requested. The Committee further directs the use of an 

additional $21,000,000 in prior-year balances to offset the costs of 

the removal of nuclear materials from high-income nations. 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
124 

NAVAL REACTORS

Appropriation, 2015 ............................................................................ $1,234,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ....................................................................... 1,375,496,000 

Recommended, 2016 ........................................................................... 1,320,394,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2015 .................................................................... +86,394,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ................................................................ ¥55,102,000 

The Naval Reactors (NR) program is responsible for all aspects 

of naval nuclear propulsion from technology development through 

reactor operations to ultimate reactor plant disposal. The program 

provides for the design, development, testing, and evaluation of improved naval nuclear propulsion plants and reactor cores. The 

Committee’s recommendation for Naval Reactors is $1,320,394,000, 

$86,394,000 above fiscal year 2015 and $55,102,000 below the 

budget request. The Committee’s recommendation fully funds development of the OHIO-Replacement ballistic missile submarine 

and refueling of the S8G prototype, which is closely linked to the 

OHIO-Replacement. The Committee continues to provide funding 

separately for these high-priority activities. 

Ohio-Replacement Reactor Systems Development.—The Committee recommends $186,800,000, $30,700,000 above fiscal year 

2015 and the same as the budget request. 

S8G Prototype Refueling.—The Committee recommends 

$133,000,000, $6,600,000 above fiscal year 2015 and the same as 

the budget request. 

NR Development.—The Committee recommends $414,642,000, 

$3,462,000 above fiscal year 2015 and $29,758,000 below the budget request. 

Advanced Test Reactor.—Within the amounts for NR Development, $71,200,000 is provided for the Advanced Test Reactor (ATR) 

at Idaho National Laboratory. Ensuring continued safe operation of 

ATR is a high priority for the Committee. Naval Reactors and the 

Office of Nuclear Energy are working together to identify upgrades 

that are needed to ensure the safe and reliable operation of ATR 

until at least 2050. However, the Committee is concerned that the 

period of time that has passed since these planning activities were 

first initiated is resulting in an extended schedule for completion. 

Continued delays will only serve to increase costs and risks. The 

Committee directs Naval Reactors and the Office of Nuclear Energy 

to expedite resolution of any remaining issues and to provide an 

update of progress as soon as possible. 

Advanced Fuel Systems.—Naval Reactors is directed to develop 

and provide to the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses 

of Congress an outline of a conceptual research and development 

program for an advanced fuel system that could use low enriched 

uranium (LEU) fuel. Successful development of an LEU advanced 

fuel system could address several national-security concerns, including the continued supply of highly enriched uranium (HEU) 

dedicated for naval fuel that the Department of Energy says is sufficient until 2064. Potential conversion to LEU fuel in future generations of U.S. nuclear naval vessels could also reduce global risks 

of nuclear proliferation and nuclear terrorism by helping promote 

worldwide HEU minimization, a longstanding U.S. nonproliferation 

policy objective. The report should describe the goals, timeline, and 

annual budget requirements, including fuel fabrication and test irVerDate Sep 11 2014 06:58 Apr 25, 2015 Jkt 094207 PO 00000 Frm 00124 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR091.XXX HR091

smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
125 

radiation requirements, for carrying out such a development program. 

NR Operations and Infrastructure.—The Committee recommends 

$424,452,000, $34,452,000 above fiscal year 2015 and $20,744,000 

below the budget request. Within this amount, no less than 

$138,670,000 is provided for Research Reactor Facility Operations 

and Maintenance. 

Construction.—The Committee recommends $118,000,000, 

$4,680,000 above fiscal year 2015 and $3,100,000 below the budget 

request. No funding is provided to construct a simulation training 

facility that is primarily intended to meet Navy training needs because the training of Navy nuclear operators is a Navy rather than 

Department of Energy responsibility. Further, the Navy has alternative options available to meet its training needs that do not require new facility construction at Department of Energy facilities. 

If new construction at a Department of Energy site is preferred, 

NR is directed to seek out an appropriate investment arrangement 

with the Navy that will permit DOE facilities to be constructed to 

perform Navy missions on a reimbursable basis. 

Spent Fuel Handling Recapitalization Project.—The Committee 

recommends $86,000,000, $16,000,000 above fiscal year 2015 and 

the same as the budget request. 

FEDERAL SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation, 2015 ............................................................................ $370,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ....................................................................... 402,654,000 

Recommended, 2016 ........................................................................... 388,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2015 .................................................................... +18,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ................................................................ ¥14,654,000 

The Federal Salaries and Expenses account provides corporate 

planning and oversight for Defense Programs, Defense Nuclear 

Nonproliferation, and Naval Reactors, including the NNSA field offices in New Mexico, Nevada, and California. The Committee recommendation is $388,000,000, $18,000,000 above fiscal year 2015 

and $14,654,000 below the budget request. 

Corporate Project Management.—The Committee recommends 

$9,863,000, the same as fiscal year 2015 and $2,036,000 below the 

budget request. The NNSA should expedite establishing permanent 

federal capabilities for cost estimating and project management instead of relying on support service contracts to conduct its project 

oversight. 

ENVIRONMENTAL AND OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES 

DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP

Appropriation, 2015 ............................................................................ $5,000,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ....................................................................... 5,055,550,000 

Recommended, 2016 ........................................................................... 5,055,550,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2015 .................................................................... +55,550,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ................................................................ – – – 

The Defense Environmental Cleanup account provides funding 

for identifying and reducing risks and managing waste at sites 

where the nation carried out defense-related nuclear research and 

production activities that resulted in radioactive, hazardous, and 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
126 

mixed waste contamination requiring remediation, stabilization, or 

some other cleanup action. The Committee’s recommendation for 

Defense Environmental Cleanup is $5,055,550,000, $55,550,000 

above fiscal year 2015 and the same as the budget request. Within 

the amounts provided, the Department is directed to fund hazardous waste worker training at $10,000,000. 

The Committee encourages the Department to move forward 

with plans to establish the Manhattan Project National Park as 

outlined in Section 3039 of the National Defense Authorization Act 

of 2015. 

Hanford Site.—The Committee recommends $922,711,000 for the 

Richland site office, $18,289,000 below fiscal year 2015 and 

$78,874,000 above the budget request. The Department has made 

considerable progress cleaning up the River Corridor and reducing 

the overall footprint at Hanford. While the budget request proposes 

to reduce funds for Richland, the Committee is concerned that the 

Department’s strategy represents a change in the cleanup plans 

that have not been fully explained to stakeholders and that delays 

indefinitely the completion of some high hazard projects. Not later 

than 90 days after the enactment of this Act, the Department shall 

report to the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress on its plans for the Hanford site that clearly delineates goals 

and milestones over the next five years and that explains any deviations from agreements or other commitments previously made to 

the state and other stakeholders. 

For the Office of River Protection, the Committee recommends 

$1,268,000,000, $56,000,000 above fiscal year 2015 and 

$146,000,000 below the budget request. Within this amount, 

$578,000,000 is provided for Tank Farm Activities, $56,000,000 

above fiscal year 2015 and $71,000,000 below the budget request. 

The recommendation includes $41,000,000 for vapor implementation activities and $52,000,000 to meet milestones for single shell 

tank retrievals and installation of rainwater barriers. The recommendation defers funding for modifications needed for direct 

feed of the Waste Treatment Plant until the Department has provided more clarity on its multi-year cost and schedule plans. 

Waste Treatment Plant.—The recommendation provides 

$690,000,000 for construction of the Waste Treatment Plant (WTP) 

within three reprogramming controls for Subprojects A-D, the 

Pretreatment Facility, and the Low Activity Waste Pretreatment 

System project, a new facility that is part of the direct feed modifications to the WTP. Though the Department has made progress 

in resolving the WTP’s design problems through its proposal for direct feed, the Committee is concerned that the Department still 

does not have an overarching programmatic strategy to deliver the 

WTP, does not have a project baseline that is aligned with the contract structure, and has limited ability to monitor project performance because the contractor is no longer reporting earned value 

management system data against a resource-loaded schedule. The 

Committee does not support increasing the overall annual amount 

of funding for WTP construction until the Department has provided 

the Committee with a cost estimate to begin processing liquid 

waste and a clear schedule to accomplish that goal. In addition, the 

Department must account for its maintenance and operating costs 

and continued design and testing activities that are needed for the 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
127 

portions of the project that are delayed due to unresolved safetyrelated design issues. The Committee supports continued flat funding for the period of time that the Department needs to better refine its cost and schedule plans and provide those details to the 

Congress. 

Idaho National Laboratory.—The Committee recommends 

$390,783,000, $10,580,000 above fiscal year 2015 and $30,000,000 

above the budget request. The Committee is concerned that the 

budget request relies on a highly optimistic schedule for processing 

waste through the Integrated Waste Treatment Unit and is inadequate to support full tank waste processing operations through fiscal year 2016. While the Committee supports the Department’s decision to undertake a safe and careful approach to starting the facility, timely startup remains a high priority. The recommendation 

includes an additional $30,000,000 above the budget request to 

maintain funding for radioactive liquid tank waste disposition 

slightly below the fiscal year 2015 level while meeting other cleanup funding needs at the site. 

NNSA Sites.—The Committee recommends $246,251,000, 

$12,367,000 below fiscal year 2015 and $8,625,000 below the budget request. The recommendation makes use of high prior-year carryover that is a result of a halt in transuranic waste operations at 

Los Alamos National Laboratory. The Committee encourages the 

Department to expeditiously implement its new contract and federal oversight strategies to prevent further delays in coming to 

agreement on a cleanup plan for the laboratory. 

Oak Ridge Reservation.—The Committee recommends 

$197,953,000, $25,097,000 below fiscal year 2015 and $20,600,000 

above the budget request. 

U–233 Disposition Program.—The Committee recommends 

$35,895,000, $35,895,000 above fiscal year 2015 and $9,000,000 

above the budget request. The Committee remains concerned about 

the safety and security of legacy materials in Building 3019, an 

aging facility in the heart of the science campus. Progress on 

dispositioning canisters is stalled and the Department has failed to 

provide the Committee-directed report on its five-year programmatic plans in a timely manner. These multi-year plans are 

essential to demonstrating that the Department has prioritized reducing these risks appropriately. The Department should expedite 

building improvements needed to process these materials as it continues to negotiate plans for direct disposal. 

High-Risk Excess Facilities.—The Committee is concerned about 

the status of high-risk excess facilities at the Y–12 National Security Complex. In January 2015, the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) provided a facility disposition report that was 

directed by the Committee in fiscal year 2012 that identified the 

NNSA’s top-10 high risk facilities. The report indicated that at the 

top of that list are three 1940’s-era facilities located at the Y–12 

National Security Complex. The NNSA also reported that while 

NNSA and EM are working together to monitor the risks, there is 

no planned disposition date for the Y–12 facilities. EM has included 

these facilities in its Integrated Facilities Disposition Project 

(IFDP), but there is no visibility into how the IFDP is being managed and the project is not being conducted in accordance with 

DOE Order 413.3B. Not later than 180 days after the enactment 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
128 

of this Act, the Department shall provide to the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress a report that details the 

programmatic and project management strategy for the IFDP, its 

multi-year cost and schedule planning projections, and the options 

available for mercury remediation and waste disposal. The recommendation for Oak Ridge Nuclear Facilities D&D includes 

$3,000,000 above the budget request to accomplish these accelerated planning activities. 

Mercury Treatment Facility.—The Committee recommends 

$9,400,000 for the Outfall 200 Mercury Treatment Facility, the 

same as fiscal year 2015 and $2,600,000 above the budget request. 

Completion of this facility is necessary before major decommissioning progress can be made at Y–12 in order to mitigate the potential for additional mercury releases during demolition. The 

project is estimated to cost up to $370,000,000 and reducing funding in fiscal year 2016 would lead to further delays and higher 

costs. The Committee expects the Department to provide an update 

on its project plans once it awards critical decision–1. 

Savannah River Site.—The Committee recommends 

$1,191,543,000, $70,236,000 above fiscal year 2015 and $16,878,000 

below the budget request. Within this amount, an increase of 

$3,000,000 above the budget request is provided for Risk Management Operations to support the disposition of spent fuel from the 

High Flux Isotope Reactor. 

Salt Waste Processing Facility (SWPF).—The Committee recommends $194,000,000, $59,000,000 above fiscal year 2015 and the 

same as the budget request. The SWPF represents the critical path 

for meeting the Department’s long-term cleanup commitments at 

the site and therefore remains the Committee’s highest priority at 

Savannah River. The Committee is encouraged by the revision of 

the performance baseline for the project, which will provide the Department with the management tools it needs to monitor project 

performance. While the Committee does not endorse nor oppose the 

particular contracting strategy the Department pursued in its rebaseline negotiations, the Committee remains concerned that the 

Department was unsuccessful in its efforts to come to an agreement on a revised contract structure that might have reduced the 

risk of further cost growth and schedule slippage, considering the 

past problems experienced with keeping the project on track under 

the current contract. In the past, the Department has been reluctant to fully enforce the requirements of its contracts and has been 

slow to realize and react to challenges that might have an impact 

on project performance. Without a revised contract structure, the 

importance of the Department’s federal managers to utilize current 

authorities and enforce existing contract requirements becomes 

more pronounced. The Committee will continue to closely monitor 

progress of the project and hold the Department accountable for delivering the project on schedule and within budget. 

Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP).—The Committee recommends 

$285,857,000, $34,143,000 below fiscal year 2015 and $42,539,000 

above the budget request. While the Department has put together 

an aggressive plan for resuming waste emplacement operations at 

WIPP, the Committee is concerned that base funding is severely reduced in the budget request. Safely returning WIPP to full operations is one of the highest priorities for the Committee in the bill. 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
129 

Inadequately funding base operations and maintenance, as well as 

the transuranic waste operations at the generator sites within the 

Central Characterization Project, ultimately undermines the Department’s ability to address the root causes of the two incidents 

leading to the shutdown and to meet its transuranic waste commitments at other sites. 

Technology Development and Deployment.—The Committee recommends $14,000,000, the same as fiscal year 2015 and $510,000 

below the budget request. Within this amount, $2,000,000 is provided for the National Spent Fuel Program at Idaho National Laboratory. 

DEFENSE URANIUM ENRICHMENT

DECONTAMINATION AND DECOMMISSIONING

Appropriation, 2015 ............................................................................ $463,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ....................................................................... 471,797,000 

Recommended, 2016 ........................................................................... 471,797,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2015 .................................................................... +8,797,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ................................................................ – – – 

This account provides for a federal defense contribution into the 

Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning 

Fund. The Committee recommendation is $471,797,000, $8,797,000 

above fiscal year 2015 and the same as the budget request. The 

Committee recommendation does not include authorization of a legislative proposal to reinstate a tax on nuclear utilities. 

OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES

Appropriation, 2015 ............................................................................ $754,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ....................................................................... 774,425,000 

Recommended, 2016 ........................................................................... 767,570,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2015 .................................................................... +13,570,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ................................................................ ¥6,855,000 

The Other Defense Activities account provides funding for the 

Office of Environment, Health, Safety and Security; the Office of 

Independent Enterprise Assessments; the Office of Legacy Management; Specialized Security Activities; Defense Related Administrative Support; and the Office of Hearings and Appeals. The Committee recommendation for Other Defense Activities is 

$767,570,000, $13,570,000 above fiscal year 2015 and $6,855,000 

below the budget request. 

Environment, Health, Safety and Security.—The Committee recommends $183,798,000, $2,800,000 above fiscal year 2015 and the 

same as the budget request. 

Independent Enterprise Assessments.—The Committee recommends $73,534,000, the same as fiscal year 2015 and the budget 

request. It is critical to preserve the ability of the Department to 

conduct independent assessments of compliance and performance 

and that access to and cooperation from all Departmental programs 

is provided to the Office of Independent Enterprise Assessments. 

The Office of Independent Enterprise Assessments is directed to 

continue to provide an annual report of its oversight activities, 

findings, and recommendations for the previous fiscal year. 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
130 

Graded Security Posture.—Not later than 90 days after the enactment of this Act, the Department shall provide to the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress a report that 

outlines a schedule to update its Graded Security Posture to meet 

the latest threats. The Department has not yet demonstrated it has 

implemented the organizational reforms that are needed to provide 

effective security of special nuclear materials. In particular, the 

Committee is awaiting the results of a directed investigation of the 

need for structural reforms for providing security for the National 

Nuclear Security Administration sites. Reforming security practices 

continues to be a high priority for the Committee. 

Specialized Security Activities.—The Committee recommends 

$215,000,000, $11,848,000 above fiscal year 2015 and $6,855,000 

below the budget request. Within this amount, $2,000,000 is provided for innovative dynamic threat assessments at Idaho National 

Laboratory. 

Legacy Management.—The Office of Legacy Management provides long-term stewardship following site closure. The Committee 

recommends $167,180,000, $4,800,000 below fiscal year 2015 and 

the same as the budget request. The Committee supports the Office 

of Legacy’s Managements efforts to undertake creative reforms to 

limit the volatility of its liabilities for contractor employee defined 

benefit pension plans while preserving the commitments made to 

legacy employees. The Committee supports additional reforms that 

might further reduce risks to ongoing programmatic activities at 

the Department of Energy. 

Defense Related Administrative Support.—The Committee recommends $122,558,000, $3,722,000 above fiscal year 2015 and the 

same as the budget request, to provide administrative support for 

programs funded in the atomic energy defense activities accounts. 

Office of Hearings and Appeals.—The Office of Hearings and Appeals is responsible for all of the Department’s adjudicatory processes, other than those administered by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. The Committee recommends $5,500,000, the 

same as fiscal year 2015 and the budget request. 

POWER MARKETING ADMINISTRATIONS 

Management of the federal power marketing functions was transferred from the Department of the Interior to the Department of 

Energy in the Department of Energy Organization Act of 1977 

(P.L. 95–91). These functions include the power marketing activities authorized under section 5 of the Flood Control Act of 1944 

and all other functions of the Bonneville Power Administration, the 

Southeastern Power Administration, the Southwestern Power Administration, and the power marketing functions of the Bureau of 

Reclamation that have been transferred to the Western Area Power 

Administration. 

All four power marketing administrations give preference in the 

sale of their power to publicly-owned and cooperatively-owned utilities. Operations of the Bonneville Power Administration are financed principally under the authority of the Federal Columbia 

River Transmission System Act (P.L. 93–454). Under this Act, the 

Bonneville Power Administration is authorized to use its revenues 

to finance the costs of its operations, maintenance, and capital conVerDate Sep 11 2014 06:58 Apr 25, 2015 Jkt 094207 PO 00000 Frm 00130 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR091.XXX HR091

smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
131 

struction, and to sell bonds to the Treasury if necessary to finance 

any additional capital program requirements. 

Beginning in fiscal year 2011, power revenues from the Southeastern, Southwestern, and Western Area Power Administrations, 

which were previously classified as mandatory offsetting receipts, 

were reclassified as discretionary offsetting collections to directly 

offset annual expenses. The capital expenses of Southwestern and 

Western Area Power Administrations are appropriated annually. 

BONNEVILLE POWER ADMINISTRATION

The Bonneville Power Administration is the Department of Energy’s marketing agency for electric power in the Pacific Northwest. 

Bonneville provides electricity to a 300,000 square mile service 

area in the Columbia River drainage basin. Bonneville markets the 

power from federal hydropower projects in the Northwest, as well 

as power from non-federal generating facilities in the region, and 

exchanges and markets surplus power with Canada and California. 

Language is included to allow expenditures from the Bonneville 

Power Administration Fund for the Shoshone Paiute Trout Hatchery, the Spokane Tribal Hatchery, and the Snake River Sockeye 

Weirs. 

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, SOUTHEASTERN POWER

ADMINISTRATION

Budget estimate, 2016 ....................................................................... $– – – 

Appropriation, 2015 ............................................................................ – – – 

Recommended, 2016 ........................................................................... – – – 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2015 .................................................................... – – – 

Budget estimate, 2016 ................................................................ – – – 

The Southeastern Power Administration (SEPA) markets hydroelectric power produced at 22 Army Corps of Engineers Projects in 

11 states in the southeast. Southeastern does not own or operate 

any transmission facilities, so it contracts to ‘‘wheel’’ its power 

using the existing transmission facilities of area utilities. 

The total program level for SEPA in fiscal year 2016 is 

$90,500,000, with $83,600,000 for purchase power and wheeling 

and $6,900,000 for program direction. The purchase power and 

wheeling costs will be offset by collections of $66,500,000, and annual expenses will be offset by collections of $6,900,000. Additionally, SEPA has identified $17,100,000 in alternative financing for 

purchase power and wheeling. The net appropriation, therefore, is 

$0 in the recommendation and the budget request. 

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, SOUTHWESTERN POWER

ADMINISTRATION

Appropriation, 2015 ............................................................................ $11,400,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ....................................................................... 11,400,000 

Recommended, 2016 ........................................................................... 11,400,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2015 .................................................................... – – – 

Budget estimate, 2016 ................................................................ – – – 

The Southwestern Power Administration (SWPA) markets hydroelectric power produced at 24 Corps of Engineers projects in the 

six-state area of Arkansas, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, OklaVerDate Sep 11 2014 06:58 Apr 25, 2015 Jkt 094207 PO 00000 Frm 00131 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR091.XXX HR091

smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
132 

homa, and Texas. SWPA operates and maintains 1,380 miles of 

transmission lines, along with supporting substations and communications sites. 

The Committee recommendation for the Southwestern Power Administration is a net appropriation of $11,400,000, the same as the 

budget request. The total program level for Southwestern in fiscal 

year 2016 is $136,223,000, including $19,279,000 for operation and 

maintenance expenses, $73,000,000 for purchase power and wheeling, $31,932,000 for program direction, and $12,012,000 for construction. Offsetting collections total $98,961,000, including 

$6,023,000 for operations and maintenance, $63,000,000 for purchase power and wheeling, and $29,938,000 for program direction. 

Southwestern estimates it will secure alternative financing from 

customers in the amount of $25,862,000. 

CONSTRUCTION, REHABILITATION, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, WESTERN AREA POWER ADMINISTRATION

Appropriation, 2015 ............................................................................ $93,372,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ....................................................................... 93,372,000 

Recommended, 2016 ........................................................................... 93,372,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2015 .................................................................... – – – 

Budget estimate, 2016 ................................................................ – – – 

The Western Area Power Administration is responsible for marketing the electric power generated by the Bureau of Reclamation, 

the Corps of Engineers, and the International Boundary and Water 

Commission. Western also operates and maintains a system of 

transmission lines nearly 17,000 miles long. Western provides electricity to 15 western states over a service area of 1.3 million square 

miles. 

The Committee recommendation for the Western Area Power Administration is a net appropriation of $93,372,000, the same as the 

budget request. The total program level for Western in fiscal year 

2016 is recommended at $941,600,000, which includes $58,374,000 

for construction and rehabilitation, $80,901,000 for system operation and maintenance, $565,927,000 for purchase power and 

wheeling, and $236,398,000 for program direction. Offsetting collections include $567,155,000 for purchase power and wheeling and 

annual expenses, and the use of $7,344,000 of offsetting collections 

from the Colorado River Dam Fund (as authorized in P.L. 98–381). 

Western Area estimates it will secure alternative financing from 

customers in the amount of $273,729,000. 

FALCON AND AMISTAD OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE FUND

Appropriation, 2015 ............................................................................ $228,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ....................................................................... 228,000 

Recommended, 2016 ........................................................................... 228,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2015 .................................................................... – – – 

Budget estimate, 2016 ................................................................ – – – 

Falcon Dam and Amistad Dam are two international water 

projects located on the Rio Grande River between Texas and Mexico. Power generated by hydroelectric facilities at these two dams 

is sold to public utilities through the Western Area Power Administration. The Foreign Relations Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 

1994 and 1995 created the Falcon and Amistad Operating and 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
133 

Maintenance Fund to defray the costs of operation, maintenance, 

and emergency activities. The Fund is administered by the Western 

Area Power Administration for use by the Commissioner of the 

U.S. Section of the International Boundary and Water Commission. 

The budget request includes a proposal for authority to accept 

contributed funds in fiscal year 2016 for use in fulfilling duties associated with the Falcon and Amistad Dams. This authority would 

be equivalent to the authority used throughout the Western Area 

Power Administration to secure alternative financing. The Committee includes this proposal. 

The Committee recommendation is a net appropriation of 

$228,000, the same as the budget request. The total program level 

is $4,950,000, with $4,262,000 of offsetting collections applied toward annual expenses and $460,000 of alternative financing. 

FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation, 2015 ............................................................................ $304,389,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ....................................................................... 319,800,000 

Recommended, 2016 ........................................................................... 319,800,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2015 .................................................................... +15,411,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ................................................................ – – – 

REVENUES

Appropriation, 2015 ............................................................................ $¥304,389,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ....................................................................... ¥319,800,000 

Recommended, 2016 ........................................................................... ¥319,800,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2015 .................................................................... ¥15,411,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ................................................................ – – – 

The Committee recommendation for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) is $319,800,000, the same as the budget 

request. Revenues for FERC are established at a rate equal to the 

budget authority, resulting in a net appropriation of $0. 

The Committee is aware that concerns remain about the degree 

of consideration given by FERC to the rights and concerns of private property owners during the process for developing, reviewing, 

and approving shoreline management plans. The Committee reiterates its support for the expeditious development and implementation of innovative and mutually agreeable solutions to resolve conflicts among project purposes and private property at specific locations. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee’s detailed funding recommendations for programs 

in Title III are contained in the following table. 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
134 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSEInsert offset folio 006 here 93754A.041
135 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSEInsert offset folio 007 here 93754A.042
136 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSEInsert offset folio 008 here 93754A.043
137 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSEInsert offset folio 009 here 93754A.044
138 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSEInsert offset folio 010 here 93754A.045
139 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSEInsert offset folio 011 here 93754A.046
140 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSEInsert offset folio 012 here 93754A.047
141 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSEInsert offset folio 013 here 93754A.048
142 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSEInsert offset folio 014 here 93754A.049
143 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSEInsert offset folio 015 here 93754A.050
144 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSEInsert offset folio 016 here 93754A.051
145 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSEInsert offset folio 017 here 93754A.052
146 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSEInsert offset folio 018 here 93754A.053
147 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSEInsert offset folio 019 here 93754A.054
148 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSEInsert offset folio 020 here 93754A.055
149 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSEInsert offset folio 021 here 93754A.056
150 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSEInsert offset folio 022 here 93754A.057
151 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSEInsert offset folio 023 here 93754A.058
152 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSEInsert offset folio 024 here 93754A.059
153 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSEInsert offset folio 025 here 93754A.060
154 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSEInsert offset folio 026 here 93754A.061
155 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSEInsert offset folio 027 here 93754A.062
156 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSEInsert offset folio 028 here 93754A.063
157 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSEInsert offset folio 029 here 93754A.064
158 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSEInsert offset folio 030 here 93754A.065
159 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSEInsert offset folio 031 here 93754A.066
160 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSEInsert offset folio 032 here 93754A.067
161 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSEInsert offset folio 033 here 93754A.068
162 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSEInsert offset folio 034 here 93754A.069
163 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSEInsert offset folio 035 here 93754A.070
164 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSEInsert offset folio 036 here 93754A.071
165 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSEInsert offset folio 037 here 93754A.072
166 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSEInsert offset folio 038 here 93754A.073
167 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSEInsert offset folio 039 here 93754A.074
168 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSEInsert offset folio 040 here 93754A.075
169 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSEInsert offset folio 041 here 93754A.076
170 

GENERAL PROVISIONS—DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

(INCLUDING TRANSFER AND RESCISSIONS OF FUNDS)

The bill includes a provision that prohibits the use of funds provided in this title to initiate requests for proposals, other solicitations or arrangements for new programs or activities that have not 

yet been approved and funded by the Congress; requires notification or a report for certain funding actions; prohibits funds to be 

used for certain multi-year ‘‘Energy Programs’’ activities without 

notification; and prohibits the obligation or expenditure of funds 

provided in this title through a reprogramming of funds except in 

certain circumstances. 

The bill continues a provision that permits the transfer and 

merger of unexpended balances of prior appropriations with appropriation accounts established in this bill. 

The bill continues a provision that authorizes intelligence activities of the Department of Energy for purposes of section 504 of the 

National Security Act of 1947. 

The bill continues a provision that prohibits the use of funds in 

this title for capital construction of high hazard nuclear facilities, 

unless certain independent oversight is conducted, to account for a 

change in the Department of Energy’s organizational structure. 

The bill continues a provision that prohibits the use of funds provided in this title to approve critical decision-2 or critical decision3 for certain construction projects, unless a separate independent 

cost estimate has been developed for that critical decision. 

The bill continues a provision prohibiting the Office of Science 

from entering into multi-year funding agreements with a value of 

less than $1,000,000. 

The bill continues a provision restricting certain activities in the 

Russian Federation. 

The bill modifies a provision regarding management of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. 

The bill includes a provision that permits the reprogramming of 

funds. 

The bill includes a provision rescinding unobligated balances. 

TITLE IV—INDEPENDENT AGENCIES 

APPALACHIAN REGIONAL COMMISSION

Appropriation, 2015 ............................................................................ $90,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ....................................................................... 95,000,000 

Recommended, 2016 ........................................................................... 95,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2015 .................................................................... +5,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ................................................................ – – – 

The Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC) is a regional economic development agency established in 1965 by the Appalachian 

Regional Development Act (Public Law 89–4). It is comprised of the 

governors of the 13 Appalachian States and a federal co-chair appointed by the President. Each year, the ARC provides funding for 

several hundred projects in the Appalachian Region in areas such 

as business development, education and job training, telecommunications, infrastructure, community development, housing, and 

transportation. 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
171 

The Committee recommendation for the ARC is $95,000,000, 

$5,000,000 above fiscal year 2015 and the same as the budget request. 

To diversify and enhance regional business development, $10,000,000 is provided to continue the program of high-speed 

broadband deployment in distressed counties within the Central 

Appalachian region that have been most negatively impacted by 

the downturn in the coal industry. This funding shall be in addition to the 30 percent directed to distressed counties. Within available funds, the Committee directs $15,000,000 for 

activities in support of the POWER+ Plan. 

The ARC targets 50 percent of its funds to distressed counties or 

distressed areas in the Appalachian region. The Committee continues to believe this should be the primary focus of the ARC. 

DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD

Appropriation, 2015 ............................................................................ $28,500,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ....................................................................... 29,150,000 

Recommended, 2016 ........................................................................... 29,900,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2015 .................................................................... +1,400,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ................................................................ +750,000 

The Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (DNFSB) was created by the fiscal year 1989 National Defense Authorization Act. 

The Board, composed of five members appointed by the President, 

provides advice and recommendations to the Secretary of Energy 

regarding public health and safety issues at the Department’s defense nuclear facilities. The DNFSB is responsible for reviewing 

and evaluating the content and implementation of the standards 

relating to the design, construction, operation, and decommissioning of the Department of Energy’s defense nuclear facilities. 

The Committee expects the DNFSB to continue to play a significant role in scrutinizing the Department’s safety and security activities, including the reform initiatives underway in the Department that may impact projects under its jurisdiction. The Committee recommendation for fiscal year 2016 is $29,900,000, 

$1,400,000 above fiscal year 2015 and $750,000 above the budget 

request. 

In addition to its statutory responsibilities for providing independent advice and recommendations to the Secretary of Energy, 

the DNFSB plays a vital role in ensuring that issues of public 

health and safety at the Department of Energy’s defense nuclear 

facilities are disclosed to the Congress and the public. The DNFSB 

remains a small organization with only limited resources to investigate all potential matters of concern. In recent years, the DNFSB 

has ramped up work for reviewing new nuclear facility construction. The Committee commends the DNFSB for performing its reviews early on in the design process, a practice that will reduce 

costs. 

The recommendation includes funding above the budget request 

so that the DNFSB may conduct a comprehensive evaluation of the 

radioactive liquid waste tank and processing infrastructure and the 

tank maintenance and operating programs at Hanford and Savannah River to identify any safety issues that must be resolved to 

support extended operations. The Committee is concerned about 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
172 

the status of those systems in light of the indefinite delays in completing construction of the Waste Treatment Plant at Hanford and 

the new missions under consideration at Savannah River that will 

involve processing nuclear materials for an extended time. The Department of Energy has provided few details on its plans and strategies to safely operate those systems beyond the timeframes previously planned. The DNFSB is directed to provide a report on its 

findings and recommendations to the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress not later than 360 days after the 

enactment of this Act. 

DELTA REGIONAL AUTHORITY

Appropriation, 2015 ............................................................................ $12,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ....................................................................... 14,936,000 

Recommended, 2016 ........................................................................... 12,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2015 .................................................................... – – – 

Budget estimate, 2016 ................................................................ ¥2,936,000 

The Delta Regional Authority (DRA) is a federal-state partnership established by the Delta Regional Authority Act of 2000 (Public Law 106–554) that serves a 252-county/parish area in an eightstate region near the mouth of the Mississippi River. Led by a federal co-chair and the governors of each participating state, the DRA 

is designed to remedy severe and chronic economic distress by 

stimulating economic development and fostering partnerships that 

will have a positive impact on the region’s economy. The DRA 

seeks to help local communities leverage other federal and state 

programs, which are focused on basic infrastructure development, 

transportation improvements, business development, and job training services. Under federal law, at least 75 percent of appropriated 

funds must be invested in distressed counties and parishes, with 

50 percent of the funds earmarked for transportation and basic infrastructure improvements. 

For fiscal year 2016, the Committee recommends $12,000,000, 

the same as fiscal year 2015 and $2,936,000 below the budget request. 

DENALI COMMISSION

Appropriation, 2015 ............................................................................ $10,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ....................................................................... 10,000,000 

Recommended, 2016 ........................................................................... 10,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2015 .................................................................... – – – 

Budget estimate, 2016 ................................................................ – – – 

The Denali Commission is a regional development agency established by the Denali Commission Act of 1998 (Public Law 105–277) 

to provide critical utilities, infrastructure, health services, and economic support throughout Alaska. To ensure that local communities have a stake in Commission-funded projects, local cost-share 

requirements for construction and equipment have been established for both distressed and non-distressed communities. 

For the cost of the Commission’s operations in fiscal year 2016, 

the Committee recommends $10,000,000, the same as fiscal year 

2015 and the budget request. 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
173 

NORTHERN BORDER REGIONAL COMMISSION

Appropriation, 2015 ............................................................................ $5,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ....................................................................... 5,000,000 

Recommended, 2016 ........................................................................... 3,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2015 .................................................................... ¥2,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ................................................................ ¥2,000,000 

The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (Public Law 

110–234) authorized the establishment of the Northern Border Regional Commission (NBRC) as a federal-state partnership intended 

to address the economic development needs of distressed portions 

of the four-state region of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, and 

New York. The Committee has continued legislative language addressing the Commission’s administrative expenses. 

The Committee recommends $3,000,000 to support the Commission’s activities in fiscal year 2016, $2,000,000 below fiscal year 

2015 and the budget request. 

SOUTHEAST CRESCENT REGIONAL COMMISSION

Appropriation, 2015 ............................................................................ $250,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ....................................................................... – – – 

Recommended, 2016 ........................................................................... 250,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2015 .................................................................... – – – 

Budget estimate, 2016 ................................................................ +250,000 

The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (Public Law 

110–234) authorized the establishment of the Southeast Crescent 

Regional Commission as a federal-state partnership intended to address the economic development needs of distressed portions of the 

seven-state region in the southeastern United States not already 

served by a regional development agency. 

The Committee recommends $250,000 for operations of the commission in fiscal year 2016, the same as fiscal year 2015 and 

$250,000 above the budget request. 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation, 2015 ............................................................................ $1,003,233,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ....................................................................... 1,020,119,000 

Recommended, 2016 ........................................................................... 1,003,233,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2015 .................................................................... 0 

Budget estimate, 2016 ................................................................ ¥16,886,000 

REVENUES

Appropriation, 2015 ............................................................................ $¥885,375,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ....................................................................... ¥899,971,000 

Recommended, 2016 ........................................................................... ¥862,274,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2015 .................................................................... +23,101,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ................................................................ +37,697,000 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
174 

NET APPROPRIATION

Appropriation, 2015 ............................................................................ $117,858,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ....................................................................... 120,148,000 

Recommended, 2016 ........................................................................... 140,959,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2015 .................................................................... +23,101,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ................................................................ +20,811,000 

The Committee recommendation for the Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) salaries and expenses for fiscal year 2016 is 

$1,003,233,000, the same as fiscal year 2015 and $16,886,000 below 

the budget request. The total amount of budget authority is offset 

by estimated revenues of $862,274,000. Including revenues, the net 

appropriation for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is 

$140,959,000. 

The recommendation does not support the increase for salaries 

and expenses proposed in the budget request. The Committee directed the use of anticipated carryover balances in fiscal year 2015 

as the first step in returning the NRC to a budget that is more 

aligned with current regulatory and licensing needs. The fiscal year 

2016 recommendation accelerates the ‘‘right-sizing’’ proposed by the 

Project AIM report and provides $25,000,000 for the adjudication 

of the Yucca Mountain license application. The Committee directs 

that NRC apply any reduction in available resources to corporate 

support. Within available funds, not more than $9,500,000 is included for 

salaries, travel, and other support costs for the Office of the Commission. These salaries and expenses shall include only salaries 

and benefit and travel costs, and are not to include general and administrative and infrastructure costs. The Committee directs that 

these funds are to be jointly managed by the Commissioners, and 

the bill requires that the use and expenditure of these salaries and 

expenses shall only be by a majority vote of the Commission. The 

NRC shall continue to include a breakout and explanation of the 

Commission salaries and expenses in its annual budget requests. 

If the Commission wishes to change the composition of the funds 

requested for its salaries and expenses in future years, it must do 

so in an annual budget request or through a reprogramming. 

The recommendation directs $25,000,000 to continue adjudication 

of the Yucca Mountain license application. The Committee reiterates that the Administration’s refusal to move forward with the 

Yucca Mountain license application ignores current law and does 

not advance the Nation’s need for a permanent repository. The recommendation continues language prohibiting the Chairman of the 

NRC from terminating any program, project, or activity without 

the approval of a majority of the Commissioners. The NRC is directed to report to the Committees on Appropriations of both 

Houses of Congress, not later than January 5, 2017, on the plan 

to complete the license application and additional funding needs as 

necessary. In addition, the recommendation requires the NRC to 

notify and report to the Committees on Appropriations of both 

Houses of Congress on the use of emergency functions. 

NRC Right-Sizing.—The Committee is aware that the Commission is in the process of reviewing the recommendations of the both 

the Project AIM report and the independent review of corporate 

support directed by Congress. The Committee urges the CommisVerDate Sep 11 2014 06:58 Apr 25, 2015 Jkt 094207 PO 00000 Frm 00174 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR091.XXX HR091

smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
175 

sion to seek the input of key stakeholders in order to ensure that 

the NRC is structured in a way that ensures safety, is well-defined, 

reasonable, and able to adapt to changing realities, particularly the 

demands of emerging technologies and license application. The 

Committee directs the Commission to accelerate the schedule for 

the recommendations addressing planning and budgeting, to include any actions proposed to reduce the cost of corporate support. 

The NRC will report quarterly in fiscal year 2016 to the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress on all approved 

recommendations and the implementation actions undertaken. 

Rulemaking.—The Committee directs the Commission to reestablish the pre-2006 rulemaking process. The Commission’s decision to 

streamline the rulemaking process in fiscal year 2006 advances 

rulemaking farther than is appropriate prior to obtaining a decision from the Commission. The lack of early Commission engagement causes unnecessary expenditure of resources and limits the 

Commission’s ability to prioritize rulemaking activities, identify the 

cumulative effect of regulations, and evaluate the impact on licensees. In particular, the Commission should not waive the development and submission of rulemaking plans, the review by the Committee to Review Generic Requirements, and the review by the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards. Additionally, the Commission should not delegate Commission rulemaking responsibilities to NRC staff. The Committee directs the NRC to report on the 

actions taken to restore rulemaking discipline by January 5, 2016. 

The Committee further directs the NRC to list all rulemaking activities planned, to include their priority and schedule, in the annual budget request and the semi-annual report to Congress on licensing and regulatory activities. 

Budget Justifications.—The Committee directs that future budget justifications provide the following: previous fiscal year data 

based on the enacted level for that fiscal year not the level proposed in the previous year’s budget request; carryover balances 

spent in previous fiscal years and estimates for the current year. 

Integrated University Program.—From within available funds, 

the Committee recommends $15,000,000 to provide financial support for the university education programs relevant to the NRC 

mission, as the Commission continues to be reliant on a pipeline 

of highly trained nuclear engineers and scientists and benefits substantially from this university program. Not less than $5,000,000 

of this amount is to be used for grants to support research projects 

that do not align with programmatic missions, but are critical to 

maintaining the discipline of nuclear science and engineering. 

Reporting Requirements.—The Committee directs the Commission to continue to provide semi-annual reports on the status of its 

licensing and other regulatory activities. 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

GROSS APPROPRIATION

Appropriation, 2015 ............................................................................ $12,071,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ....................................................................... 12,136,000 

Recommended, 2016 ........................................................................... 12,136,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2015 .................................................................... +65,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ................................................................ – – – 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
176 

REVENUES

Appropriation, 2015 ............................................................................ $¥10,099,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ....................................................................... ¥10,060,000 

Recommended, 2016 ........................................................................... ¥10,060,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2015 .................................................................... +39,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ................................................................ – – – 

NET APPROPRIATION

Appropriation, 2015 ............................................................................ $1,972,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ....................................................................... 2,076,000 

Recommended, 2016 ........................................................................... 2,076,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2015 .................................................................... +104,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ................................................................ – – – 

The Committee recommends $12,136,000, $65,000 above fiscal 

year 2015 and the same as the budget request. Given the formula 

for fee recovery, the revenue estimate is $10,060,000, resulting in 

a net appropriation for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Inspector General of $2,076,000. 

The Committee has included $958,000 within this appropriation 

for the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board for the Board to 

procure Inspector General services from the Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission Inspector General. 

NUCLEAR WASTE TECHNICAL REVIEW BOARD

Appropriation, 2015 ............................................................................ $3,400,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ....................................................................... 3,600,000 

Recommended, 2016 ........................................................................... 3,600,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2015 .................................................................... +200,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ................................................................ – – – 

The Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board (NWTRB) was established by the 1987 amendments to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act 

of 1982 to provide independent technical oversight of the Department of Energy’s nuclear waste disposal program. The Committee 

expects the NWTRB to continue its active engagement with the Department and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on issues involving nuclear waste disposal. The Committee recommends $3,600,000 for the NWTRB. 

OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL COORDINATOR FOR ALASKA NATURAL GAS

TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS

Appropriation, 2015 ............................................................................ $– – – 

Budget estimate, 2016 ....................................................................... 1,000,000 

Recommended, 2016 ........................................................................... 1,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2015 .................................................................... +1,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2016 ................................................................ – – – 

The Office of the Federal Coordinator for Alaska Natural Gas 

Transportation Projects was established as an independent agency 

in the Executive Branch on December 13, 2006, pursuant to the 

Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline Act of 2004 (Public Law 108–324). 

The Federal Coordinator is responsible for coordinating local, federal, and international activities for a natural gas transportation 

project, including facilitating the permitting process, as well as 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
177 

joint surveillance and monitoring of construction with the State of 

Alaska. 

The Committee recommends $1,000,000 for the Office of the Federal Coordinator for Alaska Natural Gas Transportation Projects, 

$1,000,000 above fiscal year 2015 and the same as the budget request. 

GENERAL PROVISIONS—INDEPENDENT AGENCIES 

The bill continues a provision requiring the Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission to fully comply with Congressional requests for information. 

TITLE V—GENERAL PROVISIONS 

The bill continues a provision that prohibits the use of funds provided in this Act to, in any way, directly or indirectly influence congressional action on any legislation or appropriation matters pending before the Congress, other than to communicate to Members of 

Congress as described in section 1913 of Title 18, United States 

Code. 

The bill continues a provision consolidating the transfer authorities into and out of accounts funded by this Act. No additional 

transfer authority is implied or conveyed by this provision. For the 

purposes of this provision, the term ‘‘transfer’’ shall mean the shifting of all or part of the budget authority in one account to another. 

In addition to transfers provided in this Act or other appropriation 

Acts, and existing authorities, such as the Economy Act (31 U.S.C. 

1535), by which one part of the United States Government may 

provide goods or services to another part, the Act allows transfers 

using Section 4705 of the Atomic Energy Defense Act (50 U.S.C. 

2745). The first semiannual report required by subsection (c) shall 

be submitted not later than six months after the enactment of this 

Act. 

The bill continues a provision prohibiting funds in contravention 

of Executive Order No. 12898 of February 11,1994, regarding environmental justice. 

The bill continues a provision prohibiting funds in this Act from 

being used to close the Yucca Mountain license application process 

or for actions that would remove the possibility that Yucca Mountain might be an option in the future. 

The bill includes a provision that prohibits the use of funds to 

further implementation of components of the National Ocean Policy 

developed under Executive Order 13547. 

The bill includes a provision setting at $0 the amount that the 

proposed new budget authority in this recommendation exceeds the 

allocation made by the Committee on Appropriations under section 

302(b) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES REPORT REQUIREMENTS 

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


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
178 

STATEMENT OF GENERAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

Pursuant to clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, the following is a statement of general performance goals and objectives for which this measure authorizes funding: 

The Committee on Appropriations considers program performance, including a program’s success in developing and attaining 

outcome-related goals and objectives, in developing funding recommendations. 

TRANSFER OF FUNDS

Pursuant to clause 3(f)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, the following is submitted describing the transfer of funds provided in the accompanying bill. 

TITLE I—CORPS OF ENGINEERS—CIVIL 

Under section 104, ‘‘General Provisions, Corps of Engineers— 

Civil’’, $4,700,000 under the heading ‘‘Operation and Maintenance’’ 

may be transferred to the Fish and Wildlife Service to mitigate for 

fisheries lost due to Corps projects. 

TITLE II—BUREAU OF RECLAMATION 

Under ‘‘Water and Related Resources’’, $22,000 is available for 

transfer to the Upper Colorado River Basin Fund and $5,899,000 

is available for transfer to the Lower Colorado River Basin Development Fund. Such funds as may be necessary may be advanced 

to the Colorado River Dam Fund. The amounts of transfers may be 

increased or decreased within the overall appropriation under the 

heading. 

Under ‘‘California Bay Delta Restoration’’, such sums as may be 

necessary to carry out authorized purposes may be transferred to 

appropriate accounts of other participating federal agencies. 

TITLE III—DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Under section 302, ‘‘General Provisions—Department of Energy’’, 

unexpended balances of prior appropriations provided for activities 

in this Act may be transferred to appropriation accounts for such 

activities established pursuant to this title. Balances so transferred 

may be merged with funds in the applicable established accounts 

and thereafter may be accounted for as one fund for the same time 

period as originally enacted. 

DISCLOSURE OF EARMARKS AND CONGRESSIONALLY DIRECTED

SPENDING ITEMS

Neither the bill nor the report contains any congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined in 

clause 9 of rule XXI. 

CHANGES IN THE APPLICATION OF EXISTING LAW

Pursuant to clause 3(f)(1)(A) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the following statements are submitted 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
179 

describing the effect of provisions in the accompanying bill which 

directly or indirectly change the application of existing law. 

TITLE I—CORPS OF ENGINEERS 

Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, Investigations, providing for detailed studies and plans and specifications of projects prior to construction. 

Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, Construction, stating that funds can be used for the construction of river 

and harbor, flood and storm damage reduction, shore protection, 

aquatic ecosystem restoration, and related projects authorized by 

law, and for detailed studies and plans and specifications of such 

projects. 

Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, Construction, permitting the use of funds from the Inland Waterways Trust 

Fund and the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund. 

Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, Mississippi River and Tributaries, permitting the use of funds from the 

Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund. 

Language has been included under the Corps of Engineers, Operation and Maintenance, stating that funds can be used for: the operation, maintenance, and care of existing river and harbor, flood 

and storm damage reduction, aquatic ecosystem restoration, and 

related projects authorized by law; providing security for infrastructure owned or operated by the Corps, including administrative 

buildings and laboratories; maintaining authorized harbor channels 

provided by a State, municipality, or other public agency that serve 

essential navigation needs of general commerce; surveying and 

charting northern and northwestern lakes and connecting waters; 

clearing and straightening channels; and removing obstructions to 

navigation. 

Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, Operation and Maintenance, permitting the use of funds from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund; providing for the use of funds from 

a special account for resource protection, research, interpretation, 

and maintenance activities at outdoor recreation areas; and allowing use of funds to cover the cost of operation and maintenance of 

dredged material disposal facilities for which fees have been collected. 

Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, Operation and Maintenance, providing that one percent of the total 

amount of funds provided for each of the programs, projects, or activities funded under the Operation and Maintenance heading shall 

not be allocated to a field operating activity until the fourth quarter of the fiscal year and permitting the use of these funds for 

emergency activities as determined by the Chief of Engineers to be 

necessary and appropriate. 

Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, Expenses, regarding support of the Humphreys Engineer Support 

Center Activity, the Institute for Water Resources, the United 

States Army Engineer Research and Development Center, and the 

United States Army Corps of Engineers Finance Center. 

Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, Expenses, providing that funds are available for official reception and 

representation expenses. 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
180 

Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, Expenses, prohibiting the use of other funds in Title I of this Act for 

the activities funded in Expenses. 

Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, Expenses, permitting any Flood Control and Coastal Emergency appropriation to be used to fund the supervision and general administration of emergency operations, repairs, and other activities in response to any flood, hurricane or other natural disaster. 

Language has been included to provide for funding for the Office 

of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works. 

Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, General 

Provisions, section 101, providing that none of the funds may be 

available for obligation or expenditure through a reprogramming of 

funds except in certain circumstances. 

Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, General 

Provisions, section 102, prohibiting the execution of any contract 

for a program, project or activity which commits funds in excess of 

the amount appropriated (to include funds reprogrammed under 

section 101) that remain unobligated. 

Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, General 

Provisions, section 103, providing for transfer authority to the Fish 

and Wildlife Service for mitigation for lost fisheries. 

Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, General 

Provisions, section 104, prohibiting certain actions related to the 

definition of fill material or discharge of fill material for purposes 

of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. 

Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, General 

Provisions, section 105, prohibiting certain actions related to the 

definition of waters under the jurisdiction of the Federal Water 

Pollution Control Act. 

Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, General 

Provisions, section 106, prohibiting requirement of a permit for the 

discharge of dredged or fill material under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act for certain activities. 

Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, General 

Provisions, section 107, allowing the possession of firearms at 

water resources development projects under certain circumstances. 

Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, General 

Provisions, section 108, regarding certain dredged material disposal 

activities. 

TITLE II—DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Language has been included under Bureau of Reclamation, 

Water and Related Resources, providing that funds are available 

for fulfilling federal responsibilities to Native Americans and for 

grants to and cooperative agreements with State and local governments and Indian tribes. 

Language has been included under Bureau of Reclamation, 

Water and Related Resources, allowing fund transfers within the 

overall appropriation to the Upper Colorado River Basin Fund and 

the Lower Colorado River Basin Development Fund; providing that 

such sums as necessary may be advanced to the Colorado River 

Dam Fund; and, transfers may be increased or decreased within 

the overall appropriation. 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
181 

Language has been included under Bureau of Reclamation, 

Water and Related Resources, providing for funds to be derived 

from the Reclamation Fund or the special fee account established 

by 16 U.S.C. 6806; that funds contributed under 43 U.S.C. 395 by 

non-federal entities shall be available for expenditure; and that 

funds advanced under 43 U.S.C. 397a are to be credited to the 

Water and Related Resources account and available for expenditure. 

Language has been included under Bureau of Reclamation, 

Water and Related Resources, providing that funds may be used for 

high priority projects carried out by the Youth Conservation Corps, 

as authorized by 16 U.S.C. 1706. 

Language has been included under Bureau of Reclamation, Central Valley Project Restoration Fund, directing the Bureau of Reclamation to assess and collect the full amount of additional mitigation and restoration payments authorized by section 3407(d) of 

Public Law 102–575. 

Language has been included under Bureau of Reclamation, Central Valley Project Restoration Fund, providing that none of the 

funds under the heading may be used for the acquisition or lease 

of water for in-stream purposes if the water is already committed 

to in-stream purposes by a court order adopted by consent or decree. 

Language has been included under Bureau of Reclamation, California Bay-Delta Restoration, permitting the transfer of funds to 

appropriate accounts of other participating federal agencies to 

carry out authorized programs; allowing funds made available 

under this heading to be used for the federal share of the costs of 

the CALFED Program management; and requiring that CALFED 

implementation be carried out with clear performance measures 

demonstrating concurrent progress in achieving the goals and objectives of the program. 

Language has been included under Bureau of Reclamation, Policy and Administration, providing that funds are to be derived from 

the Reclamation Fund and prohibiting the use of any other appropriation in the Act for activities budgeted as policy and administration expenses. 

Language has been included under Bureau of Reclamation, Administrative Provision, providing for the purchase of motor vehicles 

for replacement. 

Language has been included under General Provisions, Department of the Interior, section 201, providing that none of the funds 

may be available for obligation or expenditure through a reprogramming of funds except in certain circumstances. 

Language has been included under General Provisions, Department of the Interior, section 202, regarding the San Luis Unit and 

the Kesterson Reservoir in California. 

Language has been included under General Provisions, Department of the Interior, section 203, regarding completion of certain 

feasibility studies. 

TITLE III—DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Language has been included under Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy for the purchase, construction, and acquisition of plant 

and capital equipment. 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
182 

Language has been included under Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability for the purchase, construction, and acquisition of 

plant and capital equipment. 

Language has been included under Nuclear Energy for the purchase, construction, and acquisition of plant and capital equipment; 

and for the purchase of motor vehicles. 

Language has been included under Fossil Energy Research and 

Development for the acquisition of interest, including defeasible 

and equitable interest in any real property or any facility or for 

plant or facility acquisition or expansion, and for conducting inquires, technological investigations, and research concerning the 

extraction, processing, use and disposal of mineral substances without objectionable social and environmental cost under 30 U.S.C. 3, 

1602 and 1603. 

Language has been included under the Naval Petroleum and Oil 

Shale Reserves, permitting the use of unobligated balances. 

Language has been included under Science providing for the purchase, construction, and acquisition of plant and capital equipment; 

and for the purchase of motor vehicles. 

Language has been included under Nuclear Waste Disposal for 

the acquisition of real property or facility construction or expansion. 

Language has been included under Innovative Technology Loan 

Guarantee Program crediting fees collected pursuant to section 

1702(h) of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 as offsetting collections to 

this account and making fees collected under section 1702(h) in excess of the appropriated amount unavailable for expenditure until 

appropriated. 

Language has been included under Innovative Technology Loan 

Guarantee Program prohibiting the subordination of certain interests. 

Language has been included under Departmental Administration 

providing for the hire of passenger vehicles and for official reception and representation expenses. 

Language has been included under Departmental Administration 

providing, notwithstanding the provisions of the Anti-Deficiency 

Act, such additional amounts as necessary to cover increases in the 

estimated amount of cost of work for others, as long as such increases are offset by revenue increases of the same or greater 

amounts. 

Language has been included under Departmental Administration, notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, and consistent with the authorization in Public Law 95–238, to permit the Department of Energy to use revenues to offset appropriations. The appropriations 

language for this account reflects the total estimated program 

funding to be reduced as revenues are received. 

Language has been included under Weapons Activities for the 

purchase, construction, and acquisition of plant and capital equipment; and for the purchase of motor vehicles. 

Language has been included under Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation for the purchase, construction, and acquisition of plant 

and capital equipment and other incidental expenses. 

Language has been included under Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation restricting the use of funds provided for a specific 

project. 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
183 

Language has been included under Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation rescinding funds that were not designated by the Congress as emergency funding. 

Language has been included under Naval Reactors for the purchase, construction, and acquisition of plant and capital equipment, 

facilities, and facility expansion. 

Language has been included under Federal Salaries and Expenses providing funding for official reception and representation 

expenses. 

Language has been included under Defense Environmental 

Cleanup for the purchase, construction, and acquisition of plant 

and capital equipment; and for the purchase of motor vehicles. 

Language has been included under Other Defense Activities for 

the purchase, construction, and acquisition of plant and capital 

equipment. 

Language has been included under Bonneville Power Administration Fund providing funding for official reception and representation expenses; approving funds for certain programs; and precluding any new direct loan obligations. 

Language has been included under Southeastern Power Administration providing funds for official reception and representation expenses. 

Language has been included under Southeastern Power Administration providing that, notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302 and 16 

U.S.C. 825s, amounts collected from the sale of power and related 

services shall be credited to the account as discretionary offsetting 

collections and remain available until expended for the sole purpose of funding the annual expenses of the Southeastern Power Administration; amounts collected to recover purchase power and 

wheeling expenses shall be credited to the account as offsetting collections and remain available until expended for the sole purpose 

of making purchase power and wheeling expenditures. 

Language has been included under Southwestern Power Administration providing funds for official reception and representation 

expenses. 

Language has been included under Southwestern Power Administration providing that, notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302 and 16 

U.S.C. 825s, amounts collected from the sale of power and related 

services shall be credited to the account as discretionary offsetting 

collections and remain available until expended for the sole purpose of funding the annual expenses of the Southwestern Power 

Administration; amounts collected to recover purchase power and 

wheeling expenses shall be credited to the account as offsetting collections and remain available until expended for the sole purpose 

of making purchase power and wheeling expenditures. 

Language has been included under Construction, Rehabilitation, 

Operation and Maintenance, Western Area Power Administration, 

providing funds for official reception and representation expenses. 

Language has been included under Construction, Rehabilitation, 

Operation and Maintenance, Western Area Power Administration 

providing that, notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, 16 U.S.C. 825s, 

and 43 U.S.C. 392a, amounts collected from the sale of power and 

related services shall be credited to the account as discretionary 

offsetting collections and remain available until expended for the 

sole purpose of funding the annual expenses of the Western Area 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
184 

Power Administration; amounts collected to recover purchase 

power and wheeling expenses shall be credited to the account as 

offsetting collections and remain available until expended for the 

sole purpose of making purchase power and wheeling expenditures. 

Language has been included under Falcon and Amistad Operating and Maintenance Fund providing that, notwithstanding 68 

Stat. 255 and 31 U.S.C. 3302, amounts collected from the sale of 

power and related services shall be credited to the account as discretionary offsetting collections and remain available until expended for the sole purpose of funding the annual expenses of the 

hydroelectric facilities of those dams and associated Western Area 

Power Administration activities. 

Language has been included under Falcon and Amistad Operating and Maintenance Fund providing that the Western Area 

Power Administration may accept a limited amount of contributions from the United States power customers of the Falcon and 

Amistad Dams for use by the Commissioner of the United States 

Section of the International Boundary and Water Commission for 

operating and maintenance of hydroelectric facilities. 

Language has been included under Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission to permit the hire of passenger motor vehicles, to provide official reception and representation expenses, and to permit 

the use of revenues collected to reduce the appropriation as revenues are received. 

Language has been included under Department of Energy, General Provisions, section 301, prohibiting the use of funds to prepare 

or initiate requests for proposals or other solicitations or arrangements for programs that have not yet been fully funded by the 

Congress; requiring notification and reporting requirements for certain funding awards; limiting the use of multi-year funding mechanisms; and providing that none of the funds may be available for 

obligation or expenditure through a reprogramming of funds except 

in certain circumstances. 

Language has been included under Department of Energy, General Provisions, section 302, providing that unexpended balances of 

prior appropriations may be transferred and merged with new appropriation accounts established in this Act. 

Language has been included under Department of Energy, General Provisions, section 303, providing that funds for intelligence 

activities are deemed to be specifically authorized for purposes of 

section 504 of the National Security Act of 1947 during fiscal year 

2016 until enactment of the Intelligence Authorization Act for fiscal 

year 2016. 

Language has been included under Department of Energy, General Provisions, section 304, prohibiting the use of funds for capital 

construction of high hazard nuclear facilities unless certain independent oversight is conducted. 

Language has been included under Department of Energy, General Provisions, section 305, prohibiting the use of funds to approve 

critical decision–2 or critical decision–3 for certain construction 

projects, unless a separate independent cost estimate has been developed for that critical decision. 

Language has been included under Department of Energy, General Provisions, section 306, requiring the Office of Science to fund 

up-front funding arrangements for less than $1,000,000. 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
185 

Language has been included under Department of Energy, General Provisions, section 307, prohibiting nonproliferation activities 

in the Russian Federation until certain reporting requirements are 

met. 

Language has been included under Department of Energy, General Provisions, section 308, prohibiting funds for certain activities 

related to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve without prior notification to the Congress and limiting the authority of the Secretary of 

Energy to establish regional petroleum product reserves. 

Language has been included under Department of Energy, General Provisions, section 310, rescinding certain funds that were not 

designated by the Congress as emergency funding. 

TITLE IV—INDEPENDENT AGENCIES 

Language has been included under Appalachian Regional Commission providing for the hire of passenger vehicles and allowing 

the expenditure of funds as authorized by subtitle IV of title 40, 

United States Code, without regard to section 14704. 

Language has been included under Delta Regional Authority allowing the expenditure of funds as authorized by the Delta Regional Authority Act without regard to section 382C(b)(2), 382F(d), 

382M and 382N of said Act. 

Language has been included under Denali Commission allowing 

the expenditure of funds notwithstanding section 306(g) of the 

Denali Commission Act of 1998, and providing for cost-share requirements for Commission-funded construction projects in distressed and non-distressed communities, as defined by section 307 

of the Denali Commission Act of 1998 (Division C, Title III, Public 

Law 105–277), and an amount not to exceed 50 percent for non-distressed communities. 

Language has been included under Northern Border Regional 

Commission for expenditure as authorized by subtitle V of title 40, 

United States Code, without regard to section 15751(b). 

Language has been included under Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Salaries and Expenses that provides for salaries and other 

support costs for the Office of the Commission, to be controlled by 

majority vote of the Commission. 

Language has been included under Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Salaries and Expenses that provides for official representation 

expenses and permits the use of revenues from licensing fees, inspections services, and other services for salaries and expenses to 

reduce the appropriation as revenues are received. Funding is provided to support university research and development, and for a 

Nuclear Science and Engineering Grant Program. 

Language has been included under Office of Inspector General 

that provides for the use of revenues from licensing fees, inspections services, and other services for salaries and expenses, notwithstanding section 3302 of title 31, United States Code, to reduce 

the appropriation as revenues are received. 

Language has been included under Office of the Federal Coordinator for Alaska Natural Gas Transportation Projects making 

funds received pursuant to section 802 of Public Law 110–140 in 

excess of the amount specified unavailable for obligation until appropriated. 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
186 

Language has been included under Independent Agencies, General Provisions, section 401, requiring the NRC to comply with certain procedures when responding to Congressional requests for information. 

TITLE V—GENERAL PROVISIONS 

Language has been included under General Provisions, section 

501, prohibiting the use of funds in this Act to influence congressional action on any legislation or appropriation matters pending 

before the Congress. 

Language has been included under General Provisions, section 

502, prohibiting the transfer of funds except pursuant to a transfer 

made by, or transfer authority provided in this or any other appropriations Act, or certain other authorities, and requiring a report. 

Language has been included under General Provisions, section 

503, prohibiting funds in contravention of Executive Order No. 

12898 of February 11, 1994, regarding environmental justice. 

Language has been included under General Provisions, section 

504, prohibiting funds in this Act from being used to close the 

Yucca Mountain license application process, or for actions that 

would remove the possibility that Yucca Mountain might be an option in the future. 

Language has been included under General Provisions, section 

505, prohibiting the use of funds to further implementation of components of the National Ocean Policy developed under Executive 

Order 13547. 

Language has been included under General Provisions, section 

506, setting at $0 the amount that the proposed new budget authority exceeds the allocation made by the Committee on Appropriations under section 302(b) of the Congressional Budget Act of 

1974. 

PROGRAM DUPLICATION

No provision of this bill establishes or reauthorizes a program of 

the Federal Government known to be duplicative of another Federal program, a program that was included in any report from the 

Government Accountability Office to Congress pursuant to section 

21 of Public Law 111–139, or a program related to a program identified in the most recent Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance. 

DIRECTED RULE MAKING

The bill does not direct any rule making. 

COMPLIANCE WITH RULE XIII, CL. 3(e) (RAMSEYER RULE) 

In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the Committee notes that the accompanying bill does not propose to repeal or amend a statute or part 

thereof. 

APPROPRIATIONS NOT AUTHORIZED BY LAW

Pursuant to clause 3(f) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 

Representatives, the following table lists the appropriations in the 

accompanying bill which are not authorized: 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
187 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSEInsert offset folio 139 here 93754A.040
188 

RESCISSIONS

Pursuant to clause 3(f)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, the following table is submitted describing the 

rescissions recommended in the accompanying bill: 

Department or Activity Amount 

Department of Energy: Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy ............. 16,677,000 

Department of Energy: Science ...................................................................... 4,717,000 

Department of Energy: Nuclear Energy ........................................................ 1,665,000 

Department of Energy: Fossil Energy Research and Development ............ 12,064,000 

Department of Energy: Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability ........... 900,000 

Department of Energy: Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation .......................... 10,394,000 

Department of Energy: Construction, Rehabilitation, Operation and 

Maintenance, Western Area Power Administration ................................. 4,832,000 

COMPARISON WITH THE BUDGET RESOLUTION

Pursuant to clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives and section 308(a)(1)(A) of the Congressional 

Budget Act of 1974, the following table compares the levels of new 

budget authority provided in the bill with the appropriate allocation under section 302(b) of the Budget Act. 

[In millions of dollars] 

302(b) Allocation This Bill 

Budget Authority Outlays Budget Authority Outlays 

Mandatory .............................................. n.a. n.a. 0 1 0 

Discretionary .......................................... 35,403 36,186 35,403 36,182 

1 Includes outlays from prior-year budget authority. 

FIVE-YEAR OUTLAY PROJECTIONS

Pursuant to section 308(a)(1)(B) of the Congressional Budget Act 

of 1974, the following table contains five-year projections prepared 

by the Congressional Budget Office of outlays associated with the 

budget authority provided in the accompanying bill: 

[In millions of dollars] 

Projection of outlays associated with the recommendation: 

2016 ...................................................................................................................................................... 1 20,605 

2017 ...................................................................................................................................................... 10,115 

2018 ...................................................................................................................................................... 3,461 

2019 ...................................................................................................................................................... 770 

2020 and future years .......................................................................................................................... 395 

1 Excludes outlays from prior-year budget authority. 

ASSISTANCE TO STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS

Pursuant to section 308(a)(1)(C) of the Congressional Budget Act 

of 1974, the amount of financial assistance to State and local governments is as follows: 

[In millions of dollars] 

Budget Authority ................................................................................................................................................... 108 

Outlays .................................................................................................................................................................. 1 22 

1 Excludes outlays from prior-year budget authority. 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
189 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSEInsert offset folio 46 here 93754A.086
190 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSEInsert offset folio 47 here 93754A.087
191 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSEInsert offset folio 48 here 93754A.088
192 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSEInsert offset folio 49 here 93754A.077
193 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSEInsert offset folio 50 here 93754A.078
194 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSEInsert offset folio 51 here 93754A.079
195 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSEInsert offset folio 52 here 93754A.080
196 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSEInsert offset folio 53 here 93754A.081
197 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSEInsert offset folio 54 here 93754A.082
198 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSEInsert offset folio 55 here 93754A.083
199 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSEInsert offset folio 56 here 93754A.084
200 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSEInsert offset folio 57 here 93754A.085
201 

ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF NITA LOWEY AND MARCY KAPTUR 

The President has requested a robust increase for this bill in Fiscal Year 2016, calling on Congress to provide the critical investments necessary to accelerate and sustain economic growth. His 

overall budget calls for investments in research, education, training, and infrastructure—all vitally important and all interconnected. 

The President has also called for the end of the mindless austerity of sequestration, urging this Congress to replace it with more 

targeted spending cuts, program integrity measures, and the closure of some outdated tax loopholes. The effects of sequestration 

were immense, and are still being felt. Critical training was postponed; investments were put-off; and research abruptly halted. It 

was a worst-case scenario that never should have happened and 

absolutely should never be repeated. 

Many of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have differences with the President on how we get there, but the art of 

compromise must be achieved again. Even the Republican Budget 

Resolution acknowledges the need for relief from sequestration, 

though it does so by using creative accounting and merely aspirational language. 

While the Murray-Ryan plan was not perfect, another similar 

budget deal is essential for FY16 and beyond. Without such an 

agreement this year, our appropriations process is deeply imperiled. The sequester-level caps also would put discretionary funding 

at its lowest level, adjusted for inflation, since 2006. We must 

again act to ensure reasonable allocations for the important programs and investments funded through the appropriations process. 

We commend Chairman Rogers and Chairman Simpson for their 

efforts to assemble this bill in an inclusive manner. The bill funds 

critical water resource projects, supports science activities necessary for American competitiveness, and contributes to our national defense through vital weapons, naval reactor research, and 

nonproliferation funding, all priorities that unite rather than divide 

us. Chairman Simpson has worked hard to incorporate the interests of Members from both parties. As a result, the bill is largely 

a reflection of priorities from both sides of the aisle. 

The subcommittee’s allocation is $35,403,000,000, a decrease of 

$633,063,000 from the Administration’s budget request and 

$1,201,000,000 above the 2015 level. The defense allocation is 

$1,040,000,000 above 2015, while the non-defense allocation is 

$161,000,000 above 2015. Within the constraints placed on the 

committee by the overall budget number, the allocation reflects a 

microcosm of the larger budget question on the appropriate balance 

between defense and non-defense activities. 

We commend the Chairman for increasing Corps of Engineers 

funding by $864,750,000 above the President’s inadequate request, 

ensuring that some ongoing projects will continue. The bill also 

provides approximately $1,178,000,000 for projects funded from the 

Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund, approximately $73,000,000 above 

2015. This funding will allow preventive and proactive investments 

necessary for the economy and the safety of American citizens. As 

we are reminded often by increasingly common weather events, we 

must begin adapting to changing conditions in the natural environVerDate Sep 11 2014 06:58 Apr 25, 2015 Jkt 094207 PO 00000 Frm 00201 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR091.XXX HR091

smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
202 

ment. The funding will also allow investments in the nation’s ports 

and waterways, which are critical to ensuring that American made 

goods can move to market, both domestically and abroad. We firmly believe that our underinvestment in infrastructure continues to 

hamper economic gains and prolongs the current employment crisis. 

The Corps of Engineers currently has a backlog of authorized 

projects in excess of $60,000,000,000, without including the deauthorization of $18,000,000,000 in the recent Water Resource Reform and Development Act. Limiting the figure to those projects 

currently budgeted, the balance to complete these ongoing projects 

is more than $20,000,000,000. While this bill ensures increased investment beyond that included in the budget request, we should be 

doing even more to build infrastructure and create jobs, not less. 

Federal support of water resource projects creates construction jobs 

and indirect economic benefits that encourage local businesses and 

individuals to embrace risk and make critical investments in their 

communities. The bill does not include funding for new projects. 

We must start investing in projects that meet tomorrow’s needs, 

not yesterday’s. 

The Science and ARPA–E accounts, critical to the competitiveness of our nation, are $29,000,000 above and equal to the level of 

funding provided in 2015 respectively. With a return on investment 

of 20 to 67 percent, publicly funded research grows our economy 

and helps the United States maintain its position as the global 

leader in innovation. If we truly wish to achieve energy independence and tackle the challenges posed by climate change, the federal 

government must continue to prioritize investments in cutting edge 

research at our national laboratories and universities along with 

supporting advancements in high-potential, high-impact energy 

technologies that are too early for private-sector investment. 

With regard to the applied energy programs at the Department 

of Energy, investments in energy technology programs are once 

again skewed too heavily toward fossil fuels. We must provide for 

critical research and development for the nuclear and fossil energy 

sectors that currently provide the bulk of our current electricity 

generation, but continued and sustained research and development 

programs in renewable energy are necessary and appropriate. Renewable energy has achieved cost competitiveness in some areas, 

yet further investment can drive down the costs of existing technology and provide breakthroughs in others. Investment in portfolio diversity remains necessary for the long term, particularly 

given the rapidly shifting energy outlook. The dramatic production 

increases in U.S. natural gas were enabled, in part, by technology 

developed by the Department of Energy. This expansion in production has resulted in a transformation of the nation’s energy exports 

impossible to foresee when the actual research and development investments were made in horizontal drilling technology. The United 

States can leverage its strength—innovation—to restore the United 

States to a position of global leadership in clean energy. This effort 

is a critical national priority, with implications for our economic 

competitiveness, national security, and environmental legacy. 

Our nation’s chief strategic vulnerability is its dependence on foreign energy imports and our lack of energy independence. The 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
203 

United States has spent $2,300,000,000,000 importing foreign petroleum since 2003. 

This represents thousands of dollars out of the pockets of every 

hard-working American spent, not in much-needed American job 

creation, but overseas, assisting our competitors in developing their 

economies and their energy futures. Our republic will not compete 

in the 21st Century and beyond if we further reduce investments 

in energy technology and innovation arena and cede the energy future to other countries. 

Nonproliferation programs are our first line of defense and the 

most cost-effective way to achieve the urgent goal of securing and 

reducing the amount of vulnerable bomb-grade material. The bill 

includes $1,918,000,000 for these critical programs, approximately 

$53,000,000 above 2015 after accounting for the movement of the 

counterterrorism and incident response program from weapons. 

The bill correctly prioritizes this funding, particularly in light of 

the recent suspension of nonproliferation work within Russia and 

an increase in irresponsible states and transnational actors seeking 

to harm. 

The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) has been 

plagued by breathtaking cost overruns and schedule delays, and 

the Chairman continues the strong oversight of the NNSA. While 

we understand the need to modernize a complex built substantially 

in the 1950’s, we continue to question whether the organization has 

the necessary tools and processes to continue to manage large increases to these activities year after year. 

We are concerned that the funding the bill includes for Environmental Management (EM) activities is insufficient to meet the federal government’s legal obligations to clean up its defense nuclear 

waste. This program is critical to addressing the environmental 

legacies of the Cold War and the Manhattan Project. Given that 

EM’s portfolio is one of the nation’s largest environmental and financial liabilities, we have the responsibility to address the waste 

and contamination in the affected communities in a timely and 

competent manner. While this was driven by a low defense allocation and budget request, the bill includes insufficient funding to 

meet commitments to the states and localities who provided so 

much when called upon. 

While the funding levels of the bill would be a basis for negotiation, the inclusion of controversial riders is an unnecessary diversion from our primary responsibility—ensuring that taxpayer funds 

are invested wisely in Federal programs which will contribute to 

the economic vitality of our Nation. We should not have to remind 

our Majority colleagues that similar provisions have imperiled passage of this bill in the past. This Administration has already been 

on record with veto threats over nearly identical language. 

Most concerning is the inclusion of four water riders which, 

taken together, risk protection of the world’s most precious resource: water. The first Clean Water Act provision prevents the 

Corps of Engineers from taking steps to clarify which waters are 

protected by the Clean Water Act, and keeps in place a widely-acknowledged state of confusion about the scope of the law’s pollution 

control programs. The second prevents the Corps of Engineers from 

using funds to ‘‘develop, adopt, implement, administer, or enforce 

any change’’ to regulations pertaining to the definitions of the 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
204 

terms ‘‘fill material’’ or ‘‘discharge of fill material’’ under the Clean 

Water Act. This rider would lock in industry loopholes, leaving 

many of our nation’s waterways vulnerable to harmful pollution. 

Finally, the bill includes provisions regarding agricultural exem 

ptions to the Clean Water Act and a prohibition of activities related 

to the National Ocean Policy. Including these provisions is a disappointment and does a disservice in our work, particularly given 

the water challenges facing many parts of our country. 

The inclusion of the rider allowing guns to be carried on all 

Corps of Engineers lands injects into the bill an unnecessarily partisan topic that is unwarranted. We disagree with the notion that 

reasonable limits on where guns can be carried are an infringement upon the Second Amendment. We see no need to contribute 

to an environment where guns are commonplace in recreational 

areas where families are trying to escape the pressures of everyday 

life. 

In spite of these concerns, we would like to reiterate our appreciation for the Chairman’s work with us on many issues, ensuring 

the Energy and Water Development Subcommittee continues its 

tradition of bipartisanship—the Subcommittee has operated collaboratively and effectively for many years and, within the constraints facing the bill, it addresses many of the interests we have 

expressed. Under the current Republican Budget Resolution, the 

Energy and Water bill’s allocation comes at the expense of critical 

investments in other Subcommittees. It is our firm hope that the 

Committee will be provided a sensible overall budget level which 

will provide a path forward for all of the FY16 Appropriations bills. 

We look forward to the day when allocations across all Subcommittees are returned to acceptable levels and to working with the 

Chairman and the members of this Committee to advance the process. 

NITA LOWEY. 

MARCY KAPTUR. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE