68–134 PDF 

Calendar No. 157 

112TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! SENATE 1st Session 112–75 

ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS 

BILL, 2012 

SEPTEMBER 7, 2011.—Ordered to be printed 

Mrs. FEINSTEIN, from the Committee on Appropriations, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany H.R. 2354] 

The Committee on Appropriations, to which was referred the bill 

(H.R. 2354) making appropriations for energy and water development and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 

2012, and for other purposes, reports the same to the Senate with 

an amendment and recommends that the bill as amended do pass. 

New obligational authority 

Total of bill as reported to the Senate .................... $32,765,568,000 

Amount of 2011 appropriations ............................... 31,789,895,000 

Amount of 2012 budget estimate ............................ 36,575,809,000 

House allowance ....................................................... 30,224,061,000 

Bill as recommended to Senate compared to— 

2011 appropriations .......................................... ∂975,673,000 

2012 budget estimate ........................................ ¥3,810,241,000 

House allowance ................................................ ∂2,541,507,000 
(2) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Purpose ..................................................................................................................... 4 

Summary of Estimates and Recommendations ..................................................... 4 

Title I: 

Department of Defense—Civil: Department of the Army: 

Corps of Engineers—Civil: 

General Investigations ....................................................................... 22 

Construction, General ........................................................................ 28 

Flood Control, Mississippi River, and Tributaries .......................... 36 

Operation and Maintenance, General .............................................. 38 

Regulatory Program ........................................................................... 55 

Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program ......................... 55 

Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies .......................................... 56 

General Expenses ............................................................................... 56 

Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) .......... 57 

General Provisions—Corps of Engineers—Civil .............................. 00 

Title II: 

Department of the Interior: 

Central Utah Project Completion Account .............................................. 60 

Bureau of Reclamation: 

Water and Related Resources ........................................................... 61 

Central Valley Project Restoration Fund ......................................... 71 

California Bay-Delta Restoration ...................................................... 72 

Policy and Administration ................................................................. 72 

Indian Water Rights Settlements ..................................................... 73 

San Joaquin Restoration Fund ......................................................... 73 

General Provisions—Department of the Interior .................................... 73 

Title III: 

Department of Energy: 

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy ............................................... 77 

Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability ............................................ 80 

Nuclear Energy .......................................................................................... 80 

Fossil Energy Research and Development .............................................. 84 

Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves ............................................... 85 

Strategic Petroleum Reserve .................................................................... 85 

Strategic Petroleum Account .................................................................... 85 

Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve ..................................................... 86 

Energy Information Administration ........................................................ 86 

Non-Defense Environmental Cleanup ..................................................... 86 

Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund .. 87 

Science ........................................................................................................ 88 

Nuclear Waste Disposal ............................................................................ 95 

Advanced Research Projects Agency—Energy ........................................ 96 

Innovative Technology Loan Guarantee Program .................................. 96 

Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loan Program ............. 97 

Better Buildings Pilot Loan Guarantee Initiative .................................. 97 

Departmental Administration .................................................................. 97 

Office of the Inspector General ................................................................ 98 

Weapons Activities .................................................................................... 98 

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation ........................................................... 107 

Naval Reactors .......................................................................................... 112 

Office of the Administrator ....................................................................... 113 

Defense Environmental Cleanup ............................................................. 113 

Other Defense Activities ........................................................................... 116 

Power Marketing Administrations: 

Operation and Maintenance, Southeastern Power Administration ................................................................................................... 117 
Page

3 

Title III—Continued 

Department of Energy—Continued 

Power Marketing Administrations—Continued 

Operation and Maintenance, Southwestern Power Administration ................................................................................................... 117 

Construction, Rehabilitation, Operation and Maintenance, Western Area Power Administration .................................................... 117 

Falcon and Amistad Operations and Maintenance Fund ............... 117 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission: Salaries and Expenses ......... 118 

General Provisions—Department of Energy ........................................... 141 

Title IV: 

Independent Agencies: 

Appalachian Regional Commission .......................................................... 142 

Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board ................................................. 142 

Delta Regional Authority .......................................................................... 142 

Denali Commission ................................................................................... 142 

Northern Border Regional Commission ................................................... 142 

Southeast Crescent Regional Commission .............................................. 142 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission .............................................................. 142 

Office of Inspector General ................................................................ 144 

Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board .................................................. 145 

Office of the Federal Coordinator for Alaska Natural Gas Transportation Projects ........................................................................................ 145 

Title V: General Provisions ..................................................................................... 146 

Title VI: Emergency Supplemental Funding for Disaster Relief ......................... 147 

Compliance With Paragraph 7, Rule XVI, of the Standing Rules of the 

Senate ................................................................................................................... 149 

Compliance With Paragraph 7(c), Rule XXVI, of the Standing Rules of the 

Senate ................................................................................................................... 149 

Compliance With Paragraph 12, Rule XXVI, of the Standing Rules of the 

Senate ................................................................................................................... 150 

Budgetary Impact of Bill ......................................................................................... 156 

Comparative Statement of Budget Authority ........................................................ 157 
(4) 

PURPOSE 

The purpose of this bill is to provide appropriations for the fiscal 

year 2012 beginning October 1, 2011, and ending September 30, 

2012, for energy and water development, and for other related purposes. It supplies funds for water resources development programs 

and related activities of the Department of the Army, Civil Functions—U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ Civil Works Program in title 

I; for the Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Reclamation in 

title II; for the Department of Energy’s energy research activities, 

including environmental restoration and waste management, and 

atomic energy defense activities of the National Nuclear Security 

Administration in title III; and for related independent agencies 

and commissions, including the Appalachian Regional Commission, 

Delta Regional Authority, Denali Commission, and the Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission in title IV. 

SUMMARY OF ESTIMATES AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

The fiscal year 2012 budget estimates for the bill total 

$36,539,809,000 in new budget (obligational) authority. The recommendation of the Committee totals $31,625,000,000. This is 

$4,889,809,000 below the budget estimates and $57,000,000 below 

the enacted appropriation for the current fiscal year. 

The Committee recommendation also includes $1,044,568,000 in 

additional funding for disaster relief. 

SUBCOMMITTEE HEARINGS

The Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water held 

three sessions in connection with the fiscal year 2012 appropriation 

bill. Witnesses included officials and representatives of the Federal 

agencies under the subcommittee’s jurisdiction. 

The recommendations for fiscal year 2012 therefore, have been 

developed after careful consideration of available data. 

VOTES IN THE COMMITTEE

By a vote of 29 to 1 the Committee on September 7, 2011, recommended that the bill, as amended, be reported to the Senate. 
(5) 

TITLE I 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE—CIVIL 

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—CIVIL

INTRODUCTION

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is made up of approximately 

35,000 civilian and 650 military members that perform both military and Civil Works functions. The military and civilian engineers, scientists and other specialists work hand in hand as leaders 

in engineering and environmental matters. The diverse workforce 

of biologists, engineers, geologists, hydrologists, natural resource 

managers, and other professionals meets the demands of changing 

times and requirements as a vital part of America’s Army. 

The Corps’ mission is to provide quality, responsive engineering 

services to the Nation including: 

—Planning, designing, building, and operating water resources 

and other Civil Works projects (Navigation, Flood Control, Environmental Protection, Disaster Response, et cetera); 

—Designing and managing the construction of military facilities 

for the Army and Air Force (Military Construction); and 

—Providing design and construction management support for 

other Defense and Federal agencies (Interagency and International Services). 

The Energy and Water bill only funds the Civil Works missions 

of the Corps of Engineers. Approximately 23,000 civilians and 

about 290 military officers are responsible for this nationwide mission. 

While the Corps Civil Works programs impact all 50 States and 

virtually every citizen of our Nation, they are a relatively minor 

part of the Federal budget. Funding for the Corps comprised a little over 0.13 percent of the total Federal budget for fiscal year 

2011. 

OVERVIEW AND ANALYSIS OF THE FISCAL YEAR 2012 BUDGET REQUEST

The fiscal year 2012 budget request for the Corps of Engineers 

is composed of $4,609,000,000 in new budget authority including a 

proposed $22,000,000 rescission. This is a decrease of $308,000,000 

from the fiscal year 2011 request. The budget request is 

$284,213,000 less than the fiscal year 2011 enacted amount. The 

budget request assumes a $22,000,000 rescission that was included 

as a part of the fiscal year 2011 enacted bill. The administration 

has not proposed a budget amendment to close this $22,000,000 

gap. Therefore the Committee will refer to the Corps’ budget request as $4,631,000,000 throughout this report. 
6 

The tradition of this bill has been that virtually all funding for 

the Corps of Engineers is designated to specific studies/projects. 

The administration’s budget request for fiscal year 2012 continues 

this tradition. The four major study/project accounts (General Investigations, Construction, General, Mississippi River and Tributaries, and Operation and Maintenance) comprise $4,108,000,000 of 

the administration’s overall budget request of $4,631,000,000 for 

the Corps of Engineers. Only $309,198,000 of the budget request in 

these four accounts is considered as programmatic funding. That is 

about 7.5 percent of the funding proposed in these accounts. The 

remainder of the $3,798,802,000 proposed in the four major accounts is divided among 876 individual line item studies or projects 

proposed by the administration. As the Corps of Engineers has no 

inherent programmatic authorities under which the organization 

was created, all of these individual studies and projects are intended to be specifically authorized by Congress and specifically 

funded through appropriations acts. 

This Committee continues to believe that Members of Congress 

are best positioned to know the unique needs of their individual 

States and congressional districts. In past years, Congress, exercising their prerogatives under the Constitution would have added 

projects and studies to the administration’s request to ensure that 

the Nation’s water resource needs were met. As the four major 

study/project accounts in the Corps are comprised of individual line 

items of studies or projects, the Committee usually added line 

items for studies or projects that were not included in the administration’s budget request or, alternatively, increased funding to 

items requested by the administration to accelerate the project delivery process on those items. 

The line items that were added by Congress in previous years 

were authorized and vetted in a public process in the same manner 

as those line items that the administration included in their request. The difference between the items added by Congress and 

those included by the administration is that the administration applied a number of supplemental criterion for budgeting a study or 

project that the authorizations for these studies or projects does not 

require. Establishment of budget criteria was, and continues to be, 

an administrative prerogative. It should be understood that this 

criteria is established not necessarily to meet the Nation’s water 

resource needs, but rather to help the administration decide which 

needs they choose to include in their budget request. History has 

shown that this criteria is extremely flexible depending on what an 

administration wants to fund in a given year. This Committee does 

not believe that this budget criteria, established by the administration without input from the public or Congress, has any more validity than the criteria that the Congress has used in the past to decide which projects to fund. 

Due to the vagaries of the administration’s budget criteria, the 

Congress has provided the consistency in funding for items within 

the Corps of Engineers budget. Corps of Engineers projects generally have two definitive points where Congress can decide the 

Federal commitment to a water resources development project. The 

first point is when an item is being studied. By providing the initial study funding, the Congress is making a tacit commitment that 
7 

it intends to see the study process through to completion. By the 

same token when a project is authorized for construction and receives its initial construction funding, that is a commitment that 

the Congress intends to see the project through to completion. That 

is why so few ‘‘new’’ studies and projects have been funded in recent years. Congress has acknowledged the tight fiscal environment 

by not creating tremendous outyear obligations for the Corps with 

new work. 

The administration used to adhere to these two definitive starting points as well in their budget process, but that has changed in 

recent years. There are numerous examples of projects or studies 

that are included in the budget request in a given year or for several years in a row and then suddenly, due to changed budgeting 

criteria, they are not included. 

Nearly all studies and projects are cost shared. That means a 

local sponsor has contractually agreed to provide a proportionate 

non-Federal share to match the Federal funds appropriated. When 

these projects are not provided either through the budget or an appropriations act, the work is deferred until funding is appropriated. 

This inconsistent funding, increases project costs, defers the 

projects benefits to the national economy and plays havoc with the 

non-Federal entities’ financing plans for a projects and studies. 

Traditionally, Congress has provided the consistency for studies 

and projects undertaken by the Corps of Engineers through congressionally directed spending by maintaining the commitments to 

local sponsors and insuring consistent levels of funding for the 

projects or studies that were initiated or funded in appropriation 

acts. 

A few examples will illustrate this point of this inconsistent 

budgeting. 

Congress added initial construction funding for St. Louis flood 

protection in fiscal year 2008. This project was not proposed by the 

administration because it did not meet their budgetary criteria. Yet 

the administration included this project in their fiscal year 2009 

and fiscal year 2010 budget and completed the project because 

their criteria for those years allowed it to be budgeted. Had Congress not initiated this project, it is unclear when it might have 

made it into the administration’s budget request. 

Initial funding for the Ozark-Jeta Taylor and Whitney Lake Powerhouse rehabilitations were added by Congress in fiscal year 2004. 

In fiscal year 2005, they were included in the administration budget request. In fiscal year 2006, neither was included in the budget 

request. In fiscal year 2007, neither was included in the administration budget request, but Whitney Lake was funded in the fiscal 

year 2007 work plan when the administration decided how the fiscal year 2007 continuing resolution funding would be administered. 

In fiscal year 2008, Ozark was included in the budget but Whitney 

was excluded. In fiscal year 2009, Ozark was in the budget request 

and Whitney was out. In fiscal year 2010–2012, both were excluded 

from the budget request. The Corps informed the Committee that 

the termination costs for the Ozark contract would exceed 

$20,000,000 in fiscal year 2011. Yet, the administration managed 

to include funding under the continuing resolution for fiscal year 

2011 to avoid this termination even though this was not an item 
8 

that was budgeted for. In the cases of both Whitney and Ozark, 

Congress consistently provided needed funding through Appropriation Acts since they were initiated. 

A final example is the Chicago Sanitary Ship Canal Dispersal 

Barrier. This project was initiated by Congress in fiscal year 2003. 

In fiscal year 2004 it was included in the budget request and funded by Congress at more than the administration requested. In fiscal year 2005, it was not included in the budget request but was 

funded by Congress. In fiscal year 2006 it was not in the budget 

request and no funding was provided. However, it has been requested and funded in every year from fiscal year 2007–2012. This 

is the main barrier designed to keep Asian carp out of the Great 

Lakes. How could a project as important as this be treated so inconsistently in the administration’s budget request? 

In fiscal year 2011 Congress was not able to provide the usual 

level of funding oversight and consistency because of the decision 

by Congress to forgo congressionally directed spending. Instead the 

administration was required to submit a work plan detailing how 

they would spend the funding provided by Congress. The administration primarily funded their budget requests with the funding included in the various accounts. With the additional funding that 

Congress included, the administration chose to fund a number of 

the line items that were funded in the fiscal year 2010 Energy and 

Water Development Appropriations Act but not in the fiscal year 

2011 budget request. However, many items funded in fiscal year 

2010 were suspended. The General Investigations Program is proposed at $104,000,000 for fiscal year 2012. This is a decrease of $22,746,000 from the fiscal year 2011 enacted amount. This account funds the 

preauthorization studies necessary to determine the Federal interests in a water resource problem or need. The Construction, General account is proposed at $1,480,000,000 

for fiscal year 2012. The 85 line items proposed for the construction, general account can be broken down as follows: 

—Dam safety activities $436,700,000 (29.5 percent); 

—Environmental compliance activities comprise $202,800,000 

(13.7 percent); 

—Flood control and storm damage reduction activities comprise 

$243,500,000 (16.5 percent); 

—Coastal or deep draft navigation activities comprise 

$110,900,000 (7.5 percent); 

—Inland and shallow draft navigation activities comprise 

$157,400,000 (10.6 percent); 

—Ecosystem or environmental restoration activities comprise 

$272,600,000 (18.4 percent); and 

—An additional $56,100,000 is proposed for national programs 

(3.8 percent). 

This is a decrease of $133,822,000 from the fiscal year 2011 enacted amount. This account funds post authorization studies and 

physical construction of authorized projects. 

The Mississippi River and Tributaries account is proposed at 

$152,000,000 and includes two rescissions totaling $58,000,000 that 

are no longer available. The actual amount requested when disregarding these rescissions is $210,000,000. This account funds 
9 

studies, construction and operation and maintenance activities 

along the Mississippi River and designated tributaries from Cape 

Giradeau, Missouri to the Gulf of Mexico. 

The Operation and Maintenance account is proposed at $2,314,000,000. This is a decrease of $51,759,000 from the fiscal 

year 2011 enacted amount. This account funds post authorization 

studies of operating projects, maintenance of Federal facilities and 

Federal operation of facilities where authorized by law. The Regulatory Program is proposed at $196,000,000 for fiscal year 2012. This is an increase of $6,380,000 over the fiscal year 

2011 enacted amount to this program that provides the funding for 

the Corps nationwide regulatory roles primarily under section 404 

of the Clean Water Act and section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors 

Act of 1899. 

The Committee is disappointed that funding for the Formerly 

Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program [FUSRAP] proposed at 

$109,000,000 was cut by $20,740,000 from the fiscal year 2011 enacted amount of $129,740,000. This program was transferred to the 

Corps from the Department of Energy, because the Committee was 

concerned with management and cost issues of the program within 

the Energy Department. This is a program that is being well-managed by the Corps and should have stable, adequate budget resources to continue these radiological clean-up activities. This decrease in funding will further stretch out the clean-up of these 

sites. 

The Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies account is proposed 

at $27,000,000 for fiscal year 2012. These funds are proposed for 

readiness and preparedness activities for the Corps of Engineers. 

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

is proposed as a separate account for $6,000,000. This is $1,010,000 

more than provided in fiscal year 2011. The Committee continues 

to believe that the Assistant Secretary’s office should be funded in 

the Defense appropriations bill. However, until such time as this 

account can be reintegrated into that bill, the Committee agrees 

that the office should be funded as a separate account. The Assistant Secretary’s duties encompass much more than the Civil Works 

functions of the Corps of Engineers and the budget needs of the office should be addressed separately. The General Expenses [GE] account is proposed at $185,000,000 

for fiscal year 2012. This is approximately the same as the fiscal 

year 2011 enacted amount. With inflation, this is a cut to the management and oversight functions of the headquarters of the Corps. 

The Committee notes that the Corps operates one of the most efficient headquarters staffs in the National Capital region. Only 

about 3.5 percent of their staffing is at headquarters as opposed to 

10 percent or more for comparable agencies in the National Capital 

region. 

THE NATION’S WATERWAY SYSTEM

The Nation’s waterway system constructed, operated, and maintained by the Corps is an incredibly versatile and interconnected 

system providing vital linkages to other modes of transportation as 

well as providing benefits to the national economy of more than 

$7,000,000,000 through transportation savings over other available 
10 

modes of transportation. This system has been developed over the 

past 200 years and is starting to show its age. Whether it is lock 

chambers that are long past their design life or lock chambers that 

need to be enlarged to handle increased traffic or harbor and channel projects that need to be deepened or enlarged to handle contemporary vessel sizes, a major recapitalization of this infrastructure 

is needed, particularly if the Nation is to meet the President’s goal 

of doubling exports in the next 5 years. Unfortunately only about 

18 percent of the administration’s proposed construction budget is 

dedicated to navigation projects. Despite whatever other efforts 

may be underway to meet this goal, the budget request for the 

Corps for improvements and maintenance of the waterway system 

falls woefully short. It is hard for this Committee to understand 

how exports can be doubled without improvements and adequate 

maintenance to the projects that provide for the transit and the 

exit points for these commodities. 

INLAND WATERWAYS TRUST FUND

The Committee is deeply trouble by the lack of progress on finding a solution to the funding shortfalls in the Inland Waterways 

Trust Fund. This fund provides one-half the costs of construction 

and rehabilitation of locks and dams on the Inland Waterways System. The system moves nearly 600 million tons of cargo annually. 

To move that amount of cargo on the Nation’s highways would require an additional 24 million trucks or 5.456 million rail cars. 

Moving these same commodities by rail or truck would cost billions 

more in fuel costs as well as generating millions of tons of pollution. The Inland Waterways System includes 238 lock chambers— 

138 of which have been in operation for more than 50 years. Modernization of this system is critical if the Nation expects to continue to benefit from this highly fuel efficient and low pollution 

transportation link. 

The previous administration notified this Committee when they 

submitted the fiscal year 2008 budget (February 2007) that there 

was a looming problem with the amount of revenues available in 

the Inland Waterways Trust Fund and that a legislative proposal 

would be forthcoming to address the situation. That legislative proposal was not presented to Congress until April 2008. In the fiscal 

year 2009 budget (February 2008) the previous administration proposed a lockage user fee to replace the current fuel tax as a mechanism to enhance revenues in the trust fund. This lockage fee was 

roundly criticized as being developed without any input from navigation users and was rejected by Congress. Unfortunately the administration assumed these revenues as a part of their fiscal year 

2009 budget request which overstated the amount of funding available for cost sharing with these projects. Budgeted items could not 

be funded without these assumed revenues leading to curtailment 

of the work planned for fiscal year 2009. For fiscal year 2010–2012, 

the current administration did not make that assumption. Rather 

they aligned their budget request to account for expected revenues 

to be generated by the trust fund in the given budget year. This 

severely curtailed the funding available for modernization of the 

system. However, the budget request has still discussed the lockage 

fee proposal as a way to enhance revenues in the trust fund. 
11 

In fiscal year 2010 this Committee recommended that waterway 

users, the Corps and the appropriate authorizing committees 

should work together to find a solution to this funding issue. A 

working group consisting of a combination of Corps of Engineers 

navigation, economics and engineering experts and Inland Waterways User Board members from industry, worked diligently for 

over a year to develop a 20-year capital investment strategy for the 

Inland Waterways System. The proposal they developed not only 

enhanced revenues in the trust fund, but also provided a schedule 

to prioritize the work over a 20-year period. The plan was submitted to the Congress and the administration last year. 

In December 2010, the administration provided their views on 

the capital investment strategy. While the administration noted 

the efforts of the working group, it found fault with virtually every 

facet of the strategy. While the Committee recognizes that implementation of some of the proposals in the overall strategy would 

have been problematic, the Committee believes that the strategy 

could have been further modified to develop a plan that was acceptable to all parties. Unfortunately, the overall tone of the administration response was dismissive of the working group’s efforts. This 

is especially disappointing since a number of members of the working group were employees of the administration. The administration’s response to the strategy further decided to bring in extraneous issues to the Trust Fund discussion concerning operation and 

maintenance costs. Those issues may need to be addressed, but not 

in the scope of determining an investment strategy to recapitalize 

the Inland Waterways System. 

We are now in the fifth budget cycle, since this problem was 

identified with no solutions on the horizon. The Committee remains 

committed to cost shared solutions to modernizing the Nation’s Inland Waterways System. The Committee recognizes that this system, constructed over the last 100 years, is critical to our national 

economy. However, the current financing model for the Inland Waterways System is barely providing for minimal improvements to 

the current system, much less the modernization required if the 

system is to remain a low cost mode of transportation. The Committee urges all of the parties involved (including the administration) to reassemble and commit to finding a solution that can be 

proposed as a part of the fiscal year 2013 budget submission. 

The Inland Waterways System is far too important to allow it to 

continue to languish with inadequate funding and crumbling infrastructure. The Committee is willing to wait for a while longer to 

see if all of the appropriate parties are willing to fulfill their responsibilities to resolve this issue. If not, this Committee will be 

forced to act in some manner to address the serious funding shortfalls in modernizing this system. 

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE FUNDING FOR INLAND WATERWAYS

The administration segregates the Inland Waterways System 

into at least two parts for budgeting purposes. Those that are designated as ‘‘low use’’ are given considerably lower budget priority 

for maintenance dollars than the remainder of the system. But is 

the administration really saving money by segregating the projects 

in this manner? The ‘‘low use’’ waterways move more than 50 mil-
12 

lion tons annually. That obviously pales in comparison to the 

roughly 550 million tons moved on the ‘‘high use’’ waterways. However, these 50 million tons of cargo would still have to be moved 

somehow, if they are not moved by water transportation. The only 

other candidates are truck and rail. It would require 2 million 

trucks or 455,000 rail cars to move the same amount of cargo that 

can be moved on 33,500 barges. The shipping costs to the national 

economy to move the same commodities to the same destinations 

would likely increase by at least $500,000,000 by rail or 

$1,500,000,000 by truck. The costs cited do not even begin to include the costs to the economy of the increased pollution, the likely 

increase in transportation fatalities or other costs that are incurred. If maintenance of all ‘‘low use’’ projects were fully funded, 

the Corps budget would be increased by less than $200,000,000. 

Therefore the Committee has to ask, where are the savings? 

The Committee urges the administration to reconsider this shortsighted budgetary decision in future budget submissions. 

HARBOR MAINTENANCE TRUST FUND

The administration has discussed a proposal as a part of the fiscal year 2012 budget request to expand the authorized uses of the 

Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund [HMTF] so that its receipts are 

available to finance the Federal share of efforts carried out by several agencies in support of commercial navigation through the Nation’s ports. No legislative proposal to provide for this expansion 

has been forthcoming from the administration. The administration 

asserts that work that other Federal agencies perform at our Nation’s ports would be more appropriately charged to the HMTF 

rather than the general treasury. However current law limits funds 

in the HMTF to be used only for maintenance of waterways and 

harbors. 

Available revenue from the 0.125 percent tax on the value of im- ports at designated harbors amounts to roughly $1,500,000,000 annually. These revenues can be utilized for maintenance on more 

than 1,500 ports, harbors and waterways. Current expenditures for 

maintenance of commercial waterways and ports average about 

one-half of the revenue generated. This imbalance has led to a surplus in the HMTF of roughly $6,000,000,000. However, the Committee is concerned that if the administration’s proposal was implemented, the current surplus in the HMTF would be rapidly exhausted. The funds deposited in the HMTF are available through 

appropriations provided by this Committee. As such, these appropriations are subject to the same budget authority cap that all 

other appropriated funds in this bill are subject to. To appropriate 

more funds for maintenance of these projects would require the 

Committee to cut funding elsewhere within the bill in order to stay 

within the budget authority cap. With all of the competing demands on funding from this Committee, it is impossible to find sufficient funds to fully expend revenues that are generated by the 

HMT. 

There are at least two potential solutions to providing more funding for these projects. One would be for the authorizing committees 

to modify the HMTF so that it is not subject to appropriation by 

this Committee. In other words, the revenues would flow directly 
13 

to the projects through whatever mechanism was legislated. The 

second potential solution would be for the administration to increase the amount of funding from the HMTF included in their 

budget request. This could, if the increase did not result in a corresponding decrease elsewhere in the bill, lead to a higher allocation cap for the bill allowing the Committee to dedicate more budget authority to these items. Absent either of these solutions, the 

Committee has provided some additional funding for maintenance 

of projects subject to the HMT. However, the Committee recognizes 

that these additional funds are insufficient to dredge all eligible 

projects to their authorized widths and depths. 

DAM SAFETY

The Committee notes that dam safety related activities in fiscal year 2012 comprise more than $436,000,000 or 29.5 percent of the 

administration’s $1,480,000,000 CG request. That is a significant 

part of the construction budget and has been consistent for the last 

several years while overall construction funding has declined. The 

Committee is concerned that with the downward trends in administration budgets that there will be no room in the budget for anything but safety improvements at Corps facilities. 

The Committee does not dispute the need for these dam safety 

improvements. When most of these projects were built, they were 

located in very rural or remote areas with low population density. 

In the intervening years, populations have exploded around these 

projects placing many more people at risk. Failure of these structures could potentially wipe out entire communities that have 

grown-up in the valleys below these projects. 

The Committee is concerned that sometimes the desire to keep 

the public informed about dam safety risks outstrips the available 

engineering data. A prime case of this is a project that reportedly 

needed immediate fixes of approximately $50,000,000 and the public was told that the ultimate fix was estimated at more than 

$500,000,000. This created tremendous public angst as to how and 

when this project would be repaired. However, when all of the engineering data was available, it was determined that the ultimate fix 

was less than $50,000,000. The Corps is to be commended for a solution that was so cost effective versus earlier estimates. However, 

a lot of angst could have been averted if the Corps had been more 

circumspect in when and how the information was shared. 

LEVEE SAFETY

Hurricane Katrina was for the Corps was what the Teton Dam 

failure was for the Bureau of Reclamation—the first time a major 

structure designed and constructed by the agencies had failed and 

cost lives. Reclamation became a pioneer in dam safety over the intervening 30 years since the Teton Dam failure and continue to upgrade their structures across the west. The Corps seems to be on 

a similar albeit accelerated track since Hurricane Katrina. 

One positive outcome from the tragedy of Hurricane Katrina was 

that the public became more aware of the levees that protect their 

communities. This new awareness resulted in an examination of 

the conditions of these projects. Concurrent with this new awareness was the Federal Emergency Management Agency map mod-
14 

ernization program for flood insurance rate maps. With this remapping came the issue of certification of existing levees and the need 

to determine how safe these levees are. All of these factors have 

combined to cause a great deal of uncertainty. 

While the Committee would like to believe that engineered structures will never fail, the reality is that all engineered structures 

have the potential for failure if the right set of circumstances happen at the right time. The Corps’ own analysis of the levee failures 

in New Orleans indicate that the failure mode that occurred was 

not unknown to the Corps. However, the Corps’s designers did not 

account for that failure mode, because it was not thought that type 

of failure could occur at that location. 

Risk is inherent in any man-made structure and the Corps is 

charged with balancing that risk with the costs of the risk reduction measures. The cost for risk-free protection is more than the 

Nation has been willing to consider for any project. There are always trade-offs. This is especially true with flood control structures. There is always a larger flood, or an unknown or unaccounted for failure mode that can cause the structure to fail. The 

Committee looks to the Corps to build structures to protect people 

based on the risks that they may face and to communicate the residual risk that people protected by these structure still face. It 

should be understood that while the structures mitigate risk, they 

do not eliminate it. 

The Committee fully supports the Corps efforts on levee safety. 

However, the Committee is concerned that the costs to repair levees may be overwhelming to local interests. The Committee is not 

suggesting that the Corps should back away from its safety culture, 

only that there should be checks and balances to ensure that recommendations are not blindly made in the name of safety without 

determining if the recommendations actually provide cost effective 

safety improvements. The Committee encourages the Corps when 

working with communities on levee issues to be cognizant of the 

costs for proposed fixes and the community’s ability to fund the repairs. 

The Committee is concerned about what it believes is an overly 

broad reading of the definition of levees provided in section 9002 

of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007. While the definition includes ‘‘structures along canals that constrain water flows 

and are subject to more frequent water loadings but that do not 

constitute a barrier across a watercourse’’ the Committee does not 

believe that the intent was that the Corps should be setting the 

standards for irrigation canals or canals that convey water for 

power projects. Water in these canals can be shut off in relatively 

short period of time as opposed to a canal failure in a flood situation. Also, the Federal agencies responsible for these canals have 

active safety programs in-place and Corps efforts would be duplicative. The Committee encourages the Committee on Levee Safety to 

provide categorical exclusions for these canal systems. 

THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER FLOOD OF 2011

This year, the greatest flood in the history of the Mississippi 

River proved that the Mississippi River and Tributaries System 

could withstand and manage epic flows, and the most critical as-
15 

pect of the 2011 event was what did not happen because the system performed as designed. 

Runoff from a snowpack three times greater than normal combined with rainfall 10 times greater than average spread out over 

a 200,000-square-mile area within the Mississippi River’s watershed and produced the Great Flood of 2011. 

Even though there was water in historic proportions, significant 

economic losses and plenty of pain and disruption for many people, 

the real story was the non-event: a massive, even unprecedented, 

discharge that was passed from north of Cairo, Illinois, to the Gulf 

of Mexico without major catastrophe. 

This was a non-story due solely to the foresight of the Federal 

Government acting in close partnership with State and local officials after what some have called the worst natural disaster to 

strike the United States—the 1927 flood. 

The 1927 disaster which claimed 500 lives, left 600,000 people 

homeless and created a pathway of destruction 80 miles wide and 

1,000 miles long, flooding more than 26,000 square miles, or 16.6 

million acres of land. 

After this massive flood, it was apparent to thoughtful observers 

that the previous ‘‘levees only’’ approach to containing the Mississippi River was ill-conceived. Under the leadership of the Chief 

of Engineers, Major General Edgar Jadwin, a plan was developed 

and submitted for approaching flood control on the Mississippi 

River and its tributaries which is unprecedented in its scope and 

foresight. Here are a few significant excerpts from Jadwin’s report: 

‘‘The plan heretofore pursued has been the construction of levees 

high enough and strong enough to confine all of the flood waters 

within the river channels. The levees that have been constructed 

are not sufficiently high for such floods as are now predicted. The 

cost of raising and strengthening them sufficiently to carry extreme 

floods would greatly exceed the cost of the plan proposed. Furthermore, the extent of the disaster which follows a crevasse increases 

greatly as the flood is forced to higher stages by confinement wholly within the levee system. The loss of life and property in the recent great flood in the alluvial valley followed the breaking of the 

levees which reclaimed the land for the use of man. This reclamation had been pushed so far that insufficient room was left in the 

river for the passage of the unprecedented volume of flood water. 

The levees must be strengthened but a halt must be called on further material increase in their heights and the consequent threat 

to the inhabitants of the areas they are built to protect. 

‘‘Man must not try to restrict the Mississippi River too much in 

extreme floods. The river will break any plan which does this. It 

must have the room it needs, and to accord with its nature must 

have the extra room laterally. 

‘‘The plan recommended provides the requisite space for the passage of floods, and levees of adequate strength to withstand them, 

so that should a flood recur of the magnitude of the flood just experienced, the maximum of record, it would be passed out to the gulf 

without danger to life in the alluvial valley, and without damage 

to property except in the floodways allotted for its passage.’’ 
16 

As faulty as the ‘‘levees only’’ plan was for flood protection in the 

Lower Mississippi River Valley, it was recognized that the levees 

had contributed to making the lower valley an inhabitable area, a 

major contributor to the Nation’s economic security and providing 

one of the world’s great producers of food and fiber. 

The Jadwin plan had four major components working together in 

a complementary fashion: 

—Levees; 

—Floodways; 

—Channel improvements to increase the river’s carrying capacity 

at a given stage; and 

—Backwater improvements, including use of backwater areas to 

store water until it can be safely released. 

Levees had to be set back to reduce bottlenecks and where that 

was not practical floodways were created—reconnecting the river to 

its natural floodplains in today’s parlance. The Corps developed a 

comprehensive, systems approach for managing floods on the river. 

A systems approach was necessary because many features and 

components had to work together in a coordinated fashion for the 

overall plan to function. This was decades before comprehensive 

watershed planning was proposed for other rivers and streams. 

Long before the Dutch developed their ideas for ‘‘room for the river’’ 

or other advocates proposed letting ‘‘rivers run free’’, the Chief of 

Engineers was recommending space for rivers in 1927 while as a 

practical matter including levees and other features too. 

The Jadwin plan was adopted into law in the 1928 Flood Control 

Act and the major components of the resulting project, the Mississippi River and Tributaries [MR&T] project, remain largely unchanged today. 

The epic floodwaters experienced in the valley this year surpassed even the Great Flood of 1927 in many locations. The Corps 

of Engineers’ response required using every flood control resource 

within the Mississippi River watershed, the third largest in the 

world, to shave height from historic crest levels during the flood’s 

most dangerous hours. 

Reservoirs and lakes along the Ohio, Missouri, and upper Mississippi Rivers were filled to capacity and exceeded many historic 

levels to help keep the water from overtopping the Mississippi 

River and Tributaries System’s flood control structures. 

Still, the reservoirs were not enough to stem the steadily rising 

river. Fortunately other safety valves had been built into the system. Floodways in Missouri and Louisiana were operated to lower 

peak stages at various points in the river to ensure that levees 

were not overtopped. While operating these floodways led to loss of 

property and livelihood, the damages were minimized as these 

areas were designed to flood, rather than having levees overtopped 

and flooding in an uncontrolled manner. 

The floodways served their design purposes. Over a 3-day period, 

activation of the Birds Point-New Madrid Floodway reduced the 

forecasted crest near Hickman, Kentucky, by 3.8 feet and prevented the river from overtopping Federal levees protecting cities 

and towns in Illinois, Kentucky, Missouri, and Tennessee. The operation of both the Morganza and Bonnet Carre ́ Floodways resulted 

in a 2.5-foot lowering of the river’s forecasted crest at New Orleans 
17 

and Baton Rouge, protecting a 200-mile-long corridor of people and 

the Nation’s commerce. History was made with the opening of the 

Morganza spillway because it represented the first time three 

floodways had been operated simultaneously. 

During this flood, the Corps worked closely with the U.S. Coast 

Guard to ensure navigation safety as well as the integrity of flood 

control structures. Even though navigation was constrained at 

times, the channel improvements along the river were a critical 

part of the flood control system during this historic event. Without 

river bend cutoffs, dikes, and revetments, the high water would 

have overwhelmed levees and floodwalls and the communities they 

protect. From Cairo to Baton Rouge, flood stage records were broken; however, where channel improvements were made—at Memphis, Helena, and Arkansas City—river crests stayed well below 

prior record levels. 

As waters from the upper Mississippi and Ohio Rivers gathered 

below the confluence at Cairo, Illinois, on May 3, the river grew to 

monstrous proportions with flows of more than 2.3 million cubic 

feet per second, equal to 25 times the amount of water flowing over 

Niagara Falls. During the peak of the flood at Memphis, the Mississippi River was more than 8 miles wide. Between May 3 and 

May 19, the river inundated 6.8 million acres of farmland in unprotected areas between Cape Girardeau, Missouri, and the Head of 

Passes in Louisiana. These were areas which were designed to 

flood as a part of the Mississippi River and Tributaries project. Approximately 10,000 people were evacuated due to backwater flooding. 

Despite giving up some ground to allow the river to flex its 

power, the flood control system operated as designed and protected 

almost 10 million acres, thousands of homes, more than 4 million 

people and $200,000,000,000 of infrastructure from inundation. By 

operating the MR&T system as it was designed, including the 

floodways, the value of this investment to our Nation can be counted by what we haven’t lost: lives, critical infrastructure for the energy industry and more than $70,000,000,000 in damages to homes 

and businesses. 

This was despite flows near or above those experienced during 

the 1927 and 1937 floods. All the MR&T’s flood control features 

(floodways/spillways, backwater levees, channel improvements, levees/floodwalls, gates, pumps, reservoirs and relief wells) worked in 

concert to pass historic flows while accommodating the natural tendencies of the mighty Mississippi River. 

To date, over the 80 years since passage of the 1928 Flood Con- trol Act, the Nation has spent $13,000,000,000 toward the planning, construction, operation, and maintenance of the project and, 

to date, the Nation has received a 27-to-1 return on that investment, including $350,000,000,000 in flood damages prevented. Such 

astounding figures place the MR&T project among the most successful and cost-effective public works projects in the history of the 

United States. 

THE MISSOURI RIVER FLOOD AND OTHER FLOOD EVENTS OF 2011

The Mississippi River was not the only natural disaster that the 

Nation faced in 2011. Floods on the Red River of the North in 
18 

North Dakota and Minnesota, on the West Coast, in the Ohio Valley and on the Missouri River also caused major damages across 

the Nation. However, the scope of the Missouri River flood was second only to the Mississippi River flood of 2011 and the duration of 

the flooding along the Missouri River may be longer. 

Runoff into the Missouri River Basin above Sioux City, Iowa, 

during the month of June was the highest single runoff month 

since the Corps began keeping detailed records in 1898. The previous record monthly runoff was 13.2 million acre feet [MAF] in 

April of 1952. June 2011 runoff into the Missouri River Basin 

above Sioux City was 13.8 MAF, enough water to fill the Memorial 

Stadium in Lincoln, Nebraska, more than 9,700 times, or once 

every 1.5 minutes during the entire month. 

The May 2011 runoff into the Missouri River Basin above Sioux 

City was 10.5 MAF, the third highest single month of runoff since 

1898. The May and June combined runoff totaled 24.3 MAF, just 

short of the normal total annual runoff of 24.8 MAF. Runoff for the 

calendar year is projected to reach 57.7 MAF, approximately 230 

percent of normal. The previous record of 49 MAF was reached in 

1997. 

At the beginning of the runoff season, the Corps had evacuated 

all of the floodwaters from last year and the reservoirs were prepared to capture the expected 2011 runoff of 16.3 million acre feet. 

However, during May, the eastern half of Montana received between 300 and 400 percent of normal rainfall, more than a year’s 

worth of rain in some locations during a 2-week span. Portions of 

North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming received more than 

200 percent of normal rainfall. 

Heavy rain continued into June with significant areas of Montana and South Dakota receiving more than 200 percent of normal 

rainfall. Mountain snowpack, which typically peaks around April 

15, continued to accumulate until early May. To date, more than 

90 percent of that snowpack has melted and run off into the system. 

There are six lakes that comprise the main stem Missouri River 

System. The base of the annual flood control and multiple use pool 

storage is 56.8 MAF. As a system, the Missouri River reservoirs 

can store a total of 73.1 MAF of water. On March 1, the system 

storage level was 57.6 MAF, 0.8 MAF above the base of the annual 

flood control and multiple use pool. The additional water in the 

system was from early plains snowmelt runoff in February. 

The dams along the river allow the Corps to hold back floodwaters in various communities. With the upper basin reservoirs 

(Fort Peck, Garrison, and Oahe) providing nearly 85 percent of the 

flood control storage capacity, they store floodwaters until conditions downstream permit release. 

Fort Randall also contains a significant amount of flood control 

storage and serves a major role in reducing flood damages on the 

lower river. The remaining two reservoirs (Big Bend and Gavins 

Point), have very little flood control storage available and as a result function more as a pipeline regulating the releases from the 

upstream reservoirs. 

The system is protecting the public from unregulated flows. Unregulated flows—which occur when flood waters flow uncontrolled 
19 

in a spillway—would result in significantly more damage. In 2010 

alone, the system prevented $2,300,000,000 in flood damages and 

reduced peak river stages by 4 to 6 feet in various areas. Without 

the dams, some communities would otherwise have experienced 

flooding and damages similar to what the river historically yielded 

in the late 1940s and early 1950s. 

To deal with the onslaught of water, the Corps stepped up reservoir releases leading to record amounts of water downstream. 

Reservoir releases on the Missouri changed several times in the 

span of a few weeks, due to changing daily forecasts and increasing 

precipitation in Wyoming, Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota. The Corps released as much as 160,000 cubic feet per second 

from five of the six main stem dams, which resulted in much higher levels on the river downstream, on an earlier timeline than 

originally forecast. The releases from the reservoirs set new records 

and in most cases were more than double the previous records. 

Flooding started in late May and has been working its way 

through the Missouri River since that time. It is anticipated that 

flood stages and high water will extend well into the late summer 

and early fall of this year. 

Damages to Corps of Engineers, owned, operated or inspected infrastructure, both known and anticipated, due to all of these natural disasters is anticipated to exceed $3,000,000,000. 

PLANNING PROGRAM

The Committee is pleased that the Corps has taken an in depth 

review of its planning program and is trying to make it more responsive to the local sponsors and congress. One of the Committee’s 

major concerns was the inconsistent nature across the Corps concerning planning efforts. The Corps seems to have interpreted this 

as a desire to shorten the planning process. While that is a laudable goal, the Committee recognizes that some timeframes within 

the planning process are statutory and cannot be shortened and 

some studies require a more in-depth look. Items such as determining the future without project conditions and determining the 

array of alternatives that should be considered require careful evaluation. The Committee is more concerned with the inconsistency of 

the planning process across the Corps. Some districts seem rigid 

and overly bureaucratic in their approach to planning. Others are 

creative and accommodating to a fault. In large measure it depends 

on the culture of the Corps district and division. The Corps needs 

to continue to work on this. While a one-size-fits-all approach will 

not work due to the great variations in problems and needs 

throughout the country, more consistency as to how these problems 

and needs are evaluated should be the goal. The importance of 

these study reports cannot be overstated. They are the basis from 

which all of the Corps’ work is derived and Congress depends heavily on these planning reports to inform the decisionmaking process 

for authorizing and funding these infrastructure investments. The 

Committee will continue to monitor the progress of improving the 

consistency of the planning process. 
20 

CONTINUING CONTRACTS AND REPROGRAMMING

The Committee expects the Chief of Engineers to execute the 

Civil Works program generally in accordance with congressional direction. This includes moving individual projects forward in accordance with the funds annually appropriated. However, the Committee realizes that many factors outside the Corps’ control may 

dictate the progress of any given project or study. 

The Committee is retaining the reprogramming legislation provided in the fiscal year 2010 Energy and Water Development Act. 

NEW STARTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012

Due to continued declining budgets for the foreseeable future, the 

Committee has concluded that it would not be prudent to include 

any of the new starts proposed in the administration’s fiscal year 

2012 budget request because of the outyear requirements that 

would be incurred. This also includes the new starts that the administration proposed in fiscal year 2011 and included in their fiscal year 2012 budget as continuing projects. 

FLOOD CONTROL CREDITS

The Committee is concerned about the Secretary’s recent policy 

change concerning credits—particularly for flood control projects 

utilizing section 104 of Public Law 99–662. The Secretary, in a letter dated May 5, 2011, stated that her office will no longer consider 

applications for section 104 credit eligibility. The letter goes on to 

state that section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970, as amended 

by section 2003 of WRDA 2007, provides a more contemporary and 

comprehensive general authority for affording credit for non-Federal in-kind contributions that covers all water resources development projects. The Committee does not dispute that the Secretary 

has the right to set policy based on laws passed by Congress. However, the Committee believes that in this case, the law may not be 

as clear as perhaps it should have been. The Committee is concerned that under this revised crediting policy local projects that 

could reduce flood damages or improve flood protection might not 

be constructed in a timely matter by local interests because they 

are waiting on the Federal project to get to a stage such that credits can be considered under this new policy. Of particular concern 

are cases where local communities are trying to restore flood control projects to provide 100-year level of protection in order to avoid 

mandatory flood insurance requirements. The Committee does not 

believe it is the Secretary’s intent via this policy change to cause 

delays in constructing needed local flood control measures that 

would be integral to a Federal project. Therefore, the Committee 

urges the Secretary to consider requests for flood control credits on 

a case-by-case basis to ensure that legitimate credits that could be 

afforded under section 104 would still be eligible for inclusion in an 

eventual Federal project. 

LAKE TAHOE CROSS-CUT BUDGET

The Committee is aware that considerable funding is being expended by various Federal agencies to improve the water quality 

of Lake Tahoe. However, the Committee cannot tell whether the 
21 

various agencies are coordinating their efforts and putting these resources to their best uses. Therefore the Committee directs the 

Corps to prepare a cross-cut budget that displays the amounts of 

funding and the types of work being expended for the improvement 

of Lake Tahoe. The initial cross-cut budget for fiscal year 2012 

should be prepared and submitted to the House and Senate Appropriations Committees within 120 days of enactment of this act. 

Subsequent cross-cut budgets should be prepared and submitted 

concurrently with the annual budget submission by the Corps. 

SAVINGS AND SLIPPAGE

Savings and slippage [S&S] is a budgetary term that recognizes 

that nothing ever goes completely as planned. As Corps budgets 

are initiated some 22 months before they are presented to Congress 

a myriad of changes occur between this initial budget submission 

and when funds are actually appropriated. Projects speed up and 

slow down for a number of reasons. Hazardous wastes or a cultural 

resources site is discovered in the project right-of-way; a local sponsor may not have his cost share in-place; additional alternatives 

may need to be examined in a study; studies or even projects are 

terminated. All of these things lead to uncertainties which impact 

Corps’ budgets. 

When viewed in the historical context of annual Corps spending 

rates, reasonable percentages of S&S make sense as a way to accommodate additional projects needs, even if funding is insufficient 

and has been utilized by the Committee for the four major accounts. The Committee directs that the S&S amount in each subaccount initially be applied uniformly across all projects within the 

subaccounts. Upon applying the S&S amounts, normal reprogramming procedures should be undertaken to account for schedule slippages, accelerations, or other unforeseen conditions. 

CONGRESSIONALLY DIRECTED SPENDING

Congressionally directed spending has become synonymous with 

earmarks in recent debates, even for agencies such as the Corps of 

Engineers where the majority of the budget request is based on individual line item studies and projects. Due to this ongoing debate, 

the Committee has voluntarily refused all congressionally directed 

spending requests for fiscal year 2012. That means that the administration has total discretion as to how the funding that this Committee appropriates will be spent as it relates to individual studies 

and projects. The Committee has retained the traditional tables for 

each of the four major accounts delineating the 876 line items requested by the President in the budget request. Due to inadequacies in the administration’s budget request, the Committee has also 

inserted some additional line item funding under the nationwide 

heading for specific categories of studies or projects that the Committee feels are underrepresented in the administration’s budget 

request. The Corps has discretion within the guidelines provided in 

each account as to which line items this additional funding will be 

applied to. The Committee has not included any congressionally directed spending as defined in section 5(a) of rule XLIV of the 

Standing Rules of the Senate. 
22 

GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS

Appropriations, 2011 ............................................................................. $126,746,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ........................................................................... 104,000,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 104,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 125,000,000 

This appropriation funds studies to determine the need, engineering feasibility, economic justification, and the environmental 

and social suitability of solutions to water and related land resource problems; and for preconstruction engineering and design 

work, data collection, and interagency coordination and research 

activities. 

The planning program is the entry point for Federal involvement 

in solutions to the Nation’s water resource problems and needs. 

Unfortunately, the General Investigations [GI] account amount 

proposed in the budget is generally the same as what has been proposed in previous budgets. Nationwide studies and programs consume almost one-half of the administration’s GI request. This 

budget asserts that the Nation should concentrate scarce resources 

on completing studies but not carrying forward ongoing studies. 

The Committee has provided for a robust and balanced planning 

program for fiscal year 2012. However, no new starts are included 

in this recommendation. 

The first column represents the reconnaissance phase of the 

planning process. These studies determine if there is a Federal interest in a water resource problem or need and if there is a cost 

sharing sponsor willing to move forward with the study. The next 

column represents the feasibility phase of the study. These detailed 

cost-shared studies determine the selected alternative to be recommended to the Congress for construction. The third column represents the preconstruction engineering and design phase. These 

detailed cost-shared designs are prepared while the project recommended to Congress is awaiting authorization for construction. 

The Committee believes that by segregating the table in this 

manner, more attention will be focused on the various study 

phases, and a more balanced planning program will be developed 

by the administration. As the last two columns are generally cost 

shared, they demonstrate the commitment by cost-sharing sponsors 

to be a part of the Federal planning process. By the same token, 

it also shows the level of commitment of the Federal Government 

to these cost-sharing sponsors. 

The budget request and the recommended Committee allowance 

are shown on the following table: 
23 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Project title 

Budget estimate House allowance Committee recommendation 

RECON FEAS PED RECON FEAS PED RECON FEAS PED 

ALASKA 

MATANUSKA RIVER WATERSHED, AK .................................................................................................. ................ 100 ................ ................ 100 ................ ................ 100 ................YAKUTAT HARBOR, AK ........................................................................................................................ ................ 100 ................ ................ 100 ................ ................ 100 ................

CALIFORNIA 

CALIFORNIA COASTAL SEDIMENT MASTER PLAN, CA ......................................................................... ................ 900 ................ ................ 900 ................ ................ 900 ................COYOTE & BERRYESSA CREEKS, CA ................................................................................................. ................ ................ 500 ................ ................ 500 ................ ................ 500 LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CA ................................................................................................................ ................ 80 ................ ................ 80 ................ ................ 80 ................MALIBU CREEK WATERSHED, CA ....................................................................................................... ................ 210 ................ ................ 210 ................ ................ 210 ................SACRAMENTO AND SAN JOAQUIN COMPREHENSIVE BASIN STUDY, CA ............................................. ................ 300 ................ ................ 300 ................ ................ 300 ................SAC-SAN JOAQUIN DELTA ISLANDS AND LEVEES, CA ........................................................................ ................ 1,015 ................ ................ 1,015 ................ ................ 1,015 ................SAN PABLO BAY WATERSHED, CA ...................................................................................................... ................ 500 ................ ................ 500 ................ ................ 500 ................SOLANA BEACH, CA ............................................................................................................................ ................ 133 ................ ................ 133 ................ ................ 133 ................SUTTER COUNTY, CA .......................................................................................................................... ................ 339 ................ ................ 339 ................ ................ 339 ................UPPER PENITENCIA CREEK, CA .......................................................................................................... ................ 177 ................ ................ 177 ................ ................ 177 ................YUBA RIVER FISH PASSAGE, CA ........................................................................................................ 100 ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................

FLORIDA 

LAKE WORTH INLET, PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL ................................................................................. ................ 293 ................ ................ 293 ................ ................ 293 ................MILE POINT, FL ................................................................................................................................... ................ 50 ................ ................ 50 ................ ................ 50 ................

GEORGIA 

SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION, GA ................................................................................................. ................ ................ 600 ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................TYBEE ISLAND, GA ............................................................................................................................. ................ 200 ................ ................ 200 ................ ................ 200 ................

HAWAII 

ALA WAI CANAL, OAHU, HI ................................................................................................................. ................ 400 ................ ................ 400 ................ ................ 400 ................

ILLINOIS 

DES PLAINES RIVER, IL (PHASE II) .................................................................................................... ................ 500 ................ ................ 500 ................ ................ 500 ................ILLINOIS RIVER BASIN RESTORATION, IL ........................................................................................... ................ 400 ................ ................ 400 ................ ................ 400 ................INTERBASIN CONTROL OF GREAT LAKES—MISSISSIPPI RIVER AQ ................................................... ................ 3,000 ................ ................ 3,000 ................ ................ 3,000 ................
24 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Project title 

Budget estimate House allowance Committee recommendation 

RECON FEAS PED RECON FEAS PED RECON FEAS PED 

INDIANA 

INDIANA HARBOR, IN .......................................................................................................................... ................ ................ 300 ................ ................ 300 ................ ................ 300 

KANSAS 

TOPEKA, KS ........................................................................................................................................ ................ ................ 100 ................ ................ 100 ................ ................ 100 

LOUISIANA 

BAYOU SORREL LOCK, LA .................................................................................................................. ................ ................ 2,000 ................ ................ 2,000 ................ ................ 2,000 CALCASIEU LOCK, LA ......................................................................................................................... ................ 1,000 ................ ................ 1,000 ................ ................ 1,000 ................LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, LA ..................................................................... ................ 100 ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, LA ............................................................... ................ 10,845 5,400 ................ 10,845 5,400 ................ 10,845 5,400 

MARYLAND 

CHESAPEAKE BAY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, MD, PA, AND VA ............................................................ 250 ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................EASTERN SHORE, MID CHESAPEAKE BAY ISLAND, MD ...................................................................... ................ ................ 169 ................ ................ 169 ................ ................ 169 

MASSACHUSETTS 

PILGRIM LAKE, TRURO AND PROVINCETOWN, MA .............................................................................. ................ 113 ................ ................ 113 ................ ................ 113 ................

MINNESOTA 

MINNESOTA RIVER WATERSHED STUDY, MN AND SD (MINNESOTA RI .............................................. ................ 350 ................ ................ 350 ................ ................ 350 ................KANSAS CITYS, MO AND KS ............................................................................................................... ................ 330 ................ ................ 330 ................ ................ 330 ................MISSOURI RIVER DEGRADATION, MO ................................................................................................. ................ 600 ................ ................ 600 ................ ................ 600 ................

MONTANA 

YELLOWSTONE RIVER CORRIDOR, MT ................................................................................................ ................ 200 ................ ................ 200 ................ ................ 200 ................

NEW HAMPSHIRE 

MERRIMACK RIVER WATERSHED STUDY, NH AND MA ....................................................................... ................ 200 ................ ................ 200 ................ ................ 200 ................

NEW JERSEY 

DELAWARE RIVER COMPREHENSIVE, NJ ............................................................................................ ................ 290 ................ ................ 290 ................ ................ 290 ................
25 

HUDSON-RARITAN ESTUARY, HACKENSACK MEADOWLANDS, NJ ........................................................ ................ ................ 100 ................ ................ 100 ................ ................ 100 HUDSON-RARITAN ESTUARY, LOWER PASSAIC RIVER, NJ .................................................................. ................ 200 ................ ................ 200 ................ ................ 200 ................

NEW MEXICO 

RIO GRANDE BASIN, NM, CO, AND TX ............................................................................................... ................ 300 ................ ................ 300 ................ ................ 300 ................

NEW YORK 

HUDSON—RARITAN ESTUARY, NY AND NJ ........................................................................................ ................ 400 ................ ................ 400 ................ ................ 400 ................JAMAICA BAY, MARINE PARK AND PLUMB BEACH, NY ...................................................................... ................ ................ 170 ................ ................ 170 ................ ................ 170 WESTCHESTER COUNTY STREAMS, BYRAM RIVER BASIN, NY AND CT ............................................. ................ 200 ................ ................ 200 ................ ................ 200 ................

NORTH CAROLINA 

CURRITUCK SOUND, NC ..................................................................................................................... ................ 400 ................ ................ 400 ................ ................ 400 ................NEUSE RIVER BASIN, NC ................................................................................................................... ................ ................ 450 ................ ................ 450 ................ ................ 450 SURF CITY AND NORTH TOPSAIL BEACH, NC .................................................................................... ................ ................ 300 ................ ................ 300 ................ ................ 300 

NORTH DAKOTA 

FARGO, ND—MOORHEAD, MN ........................................................................................................... ................ ................ 12,000 ................ ................ 12,000 ................ ................ 12,000 RED RIVER OF THE NORTH BASIN, ND, MN, SD, AND MANITOBA, CANADA ...................................... ................ 433 ................ ................ 433 ................ ................ 433 ................

OREGON 

LOWER COLUMBIA RIVER ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, OR AND WA .................................................. ................ 300 ................ ................ 300 ................ ................ 300 ................WILLAMETTE RIVER ENVIRONMENTAL DREDGING, OR ....................................................................... ................ 250 ................ ................ 250 ................ ................ 250 ................WILLAMETTE RIVER FLOODPLAIN RESTORATION, OR ......................................................................... ................ 213 ................ ................ 213 ................ ................ 213 ................

PENNSYLVANIA 

SCHUYLKILL RIVER BASIN, WISSAHICKON CREEK BASIN, PA ............................................................ ................ 200 ................ ................ 200 ................ ................ 200 ................UPPER OHIO NAVIGATION STUDY, PA ................................................................................................. ................ 1,363 ................ ................ 1,363 ................ ................ 1,363 ................

PUERTO RICO 

CANO MARTIN PEN

 ̃

A, PR .................................................................................................................... ................ 100 ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................

SOUTH CAROLINA 

EDISTO ISLAND, SC ............................................................................................................................ ................ 100 ................ ................ 100 ................ ................ 100 ................

TEXAS 

BRAZOS ISLAND HARBOR, BROWNSVILLE CHANNEL, TX ................................................................... ................ 726 ................ ................ 726 ................ ................ 726 ................DALLAS FLOODWAY, UPPER TRINITY RIVER BASIN, TX ...................................................................... ................ 700 ................ ................ 700 ................ ................ 700 ................GIWW, HIGH ISLAND TO BRAZOS RIVER REALIGNMENTS, TX ............................................................ ................ 200 ................ ................ 200 ................ ................ 200 ................GUADALUPE AND SAN ANTONIO RIVER BASINS, TX ........................................................................... ................ 400 ................ ................ 400 ................ ................ 400 ................
26 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Project title 

Budget estimate House allowance Committee recommendation 

RECON FEAS PED RECON FEAS PED RECON FEAS PED 

LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN, TX ................................................................................................. ................ 425 ................ ................ 425 ................ ................ 425 ................NUECES RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, TX ............................................................................................... ................ 650 ................ ................ 650 ................ ................ 650 ................SABINE PASS TO GALVESTON BAY, TX ............................................................................................... ................ 200 ................ ................ 200 ................ ................ 200 ................

VIRGINIA 

CHOWAN RIVER, VA ............................................................................................................................ 124 ................ ................ 124 ................ ................ 124 ................ ................JOHN H. KERR DAM AND RESERVOIR, VA AND NC (SECTION 216) ................................................... ................ 365 ................ ................ 365 ................ ................ 365 ................LYNNHAVEN RIVER BASIN, VA ............................................................................................................ ................ ................ 300 ................ ................ 300 ................ ................ 300 UPPER RAPPAHANNOCK RIVER BASIN COMPREHENSIVE, VA ............................................................ ................ 200 ................ ................ 200 ................ ................ 200 ................

WASHINGTON 

MOUNT ST. HELENS, WA .................................................................................................................... ................ 225 ................ ................ 225 ................ ................ 225 ................PUGET SOUND NEARSHORE MARINE HABITAT RESTORATION, WA ..................................................... ................ 400 ................ ................ 400 ................ ................ 400 ................

SUBTOTAL, ITEMS UNDER STATES ........................................................................................ 474 31,675 22,389 124 31,475 21,789 124 31,475 21,789 

NATIONAL PROGRAMS 

ADDITIONAL INVESTIGATIONS ............................................................................................................. ................ ................ ................ ................ 3,650 ................ ................ ................ ................ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR ONGOING WORK: 

REMOTE COASTAL OR SMALL WATERSHEDS ............................................................................. ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ 2,000 ................SHORE PROTECTION .................................................................................................................. ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ 3,000 ................SMALL, REMOTE OR SUBSISTENCE NAVIGATION ....................................................................... ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ 1,500 ................FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION ..................................................................................................... ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ 11,000 ................ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION OR ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE ................................................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ 1,500 ................INLAND NAVIGATION .................................................................................................................. ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ 3,000 ................COASTAL AND DEEP DRAFT NAVIGATION .................................................................................. ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ 10,500 ................MULTI-PURPOSE ........................................................................................................................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ 4,000 ................

COORDINATION STUDIES WITH OTHER AGENCIES: 

ACCESS TO WATER DATA .......................................................................................................... ................ 350 ................ ................ 350 ................ ................ 350 ................COMMITTEE ON MARINE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS .............................................................. ................ 100 ................ ................ 100 ................ ................ 100 ................OTHER COORDINATION PROGRAMS: 

CALFED ............................................................................................................................. ................ 100 ................ ................ 100 ................ ................ 100 ................CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM ........................................................................................... ................ 75 ................ ................ 75 ................ ................ 75 ................
27 

COORDINATION WITH OTHER WATER RESOURCE AGENCIES ............................................ ................ 200 ................ ................ 200 ................ ................ 200 ................GULF OF MEXICO .............................................................................................................. ................ 100 ................ ................ 100 ................ ................ 100 ................INTERAGENCY AND INTERNATIONAL SUPPORT ................................................................. ................ 600 ................ ................ 600 ................ ................ 600 ................INTERAGENCY WATER RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT ........................................................... ................ 955 ................ ................ 955 ................ ................ 955 ................INVENTORY OF DAMS ....................................................................................................... ................ 400 ................ ................ 400 ................ ................ 400 ................LAKE TAHOE ..................................................................................................................... ................ 100 ................ ................ 100 ................ ................ 100 ................PACIFIC NW FOREST CASE ............................................................................................... ................ 10 ................ ................ 10 ................ ................ 10 ................SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS ................................................................................................. ................ 1,550 ................ ................ 1,550 ................ ................ 1,550 ................

PLANNING ASSISTANCE TO STATES ........................................................................................... ................ 5,000 ................ ................ 5,000 ................ ................ 5,000 ................

COLLECTION AND STUDY OF BASIC DATA: 

AUTOMATED INFORMATION SYSTEMS SUPPORT TRI-CADD ....................................................... ................ 350 ................ ................ 350 ................ ................ 350 ................COASTAL FIELD DATA COLLECTION ........................................................................................... ................ 1,000 ................ ................ 1,000 ................ ................ 1,000 ................ENVIRONMENTAL DATA STUDIES ............................................................................................... ................ 75 ................ ................ 75 ................ ................ 75 ................FLOOD DAMAGE DATA ............................................................................................................... ................ 220 ................ ................ 220 ................ ................ 220 ................FLOOD PLAIN MANAGEMENT SERVICES ..................................................................................... ................ 9,000 ................ ................ 9,000 ................ ................ 9,000 ................HYDROLOGIC STUDIES ............................................................................................................... ................ 250 ................ ................ 250 ................ ................ 250 ................INTERNATIONAL WATER STUDIES .............................................................................................. ................ 200 ................ ................ 200 ................ ................ 200 ................PRECIPITATION STUDIES ............................................................................................................ ................ 225 ................ ................ 225 ................ ................ 225 ................REMOTE SENSING/GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM SUPPORT ........................................... ................ 75 ................ ................ 75 ................ ................ 75 ................SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL INFORMATION CENTERS ............................................................... ................ 50 ................ ................ 50 ................ ................ 50 ................STREAM GAGING ........................................................................................................................ ................ 600 ................ ................ 600 ................ ................ 600 ................TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS ...................................................................................................... ................ 350 ................ ................ 350 ................ ................ 350 ................

RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ......................................................................................................... ................ 17,252 ................ ................ 17,252 ................ ................ 17,252 ................OTHER—MISCELLANOUS: 

INDEPENDENT PEER REVIEW ..................................................................................................... ................ 500 ................ ................ 500 ................ ................ 500 ................NATIONAL FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT PROGRAM ..................................................................... ................ 3,000 ................ ................ 3,000 ................ ................ 3,000 ................NATIONAL SHORELINE ............................................................................................................... ................ 175 ................ ................ 175 ................ ................ 175 ................PLANNING SUPPORT PROGRAM ................................................................................................. ................ 3,100 ................ ................ 3,100 ................ ................ 3,100 ................TRIBAL PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM .............................................................................................. ................ 1,000 ................ ................ 1,000 ................ ................ 1,000 ................WATER RESOURCES PRINCIPLES AND GUIDELINES .................................................................. ................ 500 ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................WATER RESOURCES PRIORITIES STUDY .................................................................................... ................ 2,000 ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................

SUBTOTAL, NATIONAL PROGRAMS ........................................................................................ ................ 49,462 ................ ................ 50,612 ................ ................ 83,462 ................

SAVINGS AND SLIPPAGE ..................................................................................................................... ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ¥11,850 ................

TOTAL .................................................................................................................................... 474 81,137 22,389 124 82,087 21,789 124 103,087 21,789 TOTAL, GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS ........................................................................................ 104,000 104,000 125,000 
28 

Englebright and Daguerre Point Dams (Yuba River), California.—No funding is included for this new item proposed in the 

fiscal year 2012 budget. 

Savannah Harbor Expansion, Georgia.—The Committee has not 

funded this item in the GI account as recommended by the administration. The Committee has transferred the budget request to the 

Construction, General account where the Committee has funded it 

every year since fiscal year 2009. 

Louisiana Coastal Comprehensive Study, Louisiana.—No funding 

is included for this new item proposed in the fiscal year 2012 budget. 

Chesapeake Bay Comprehensive Plan, Maryland, Virginia, Pennsylvania, New York, West Virginia, Delaware, and District of Columbia.—No funding is included for this new item proposed in the 

fiscal year 2012 budget. 

Cano Martin Pen ̃a, Puerto Rico.—No funding is included for this 

new item proposed in the fiscal year 2012 budget. 

Additional Funding for Ongoing Work.—The Committee recommendation includes additional funds above the budget request to 

continue ongoing studies. The Committee recommends that these 

funds be used to accelerate high priority flood control, storm damage reduction, navigation, and environmental restoration studies. 

The Committee recommends that priority in allocating these funds 

should be towards completing on-going studies or for accelerating 

studies which will enhance the Nation’s economic development, job 

growth and international competitiveness or for areas that have 

suffered recent natural disasters. 

The administration has complete discretion over how these funds 

are to be used. The intent of these funds is for ongoing work that 

either did not make it into the administration request or were inadequately budgeted for. While this additional funding is shown in 

the feasibility column, the Corps should utilize these funds in 

whichever phase of work that the funding should be applied to. 

Within 30 days of enactment, the Corps shall provide the House 

and Senate Appropriations Committees a work plan delineating 

how these funds are to be distributed and in which phase the work 

is being accomplished. 

Water Resources Principles and Guideline.—No funding is included for this new item first proposed in the fiscal year 2011 

budget and treated as a continuing item in the fiscal year 2012 

budget request. 

Water Resources Priorities Study.—No funding is included for 

this new item first proposed in the fiscal year 2009 budget. This 

item has never been funded but was treated as a continuing item 

in the fiscal year 2012 budget request. 

CONSTRUCTION, GENERAL

Appropriations, 2011 ............................................................................. $1,613,822,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ........................................................................... 1,480,000,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 1,565,191,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 1,610,000,000 

This appropriation includes funds for construction, major rehabilitation and related activities for water resources development 

projects having navigation, flood and storm damage reduction, 
29 

water supply, hydroelectric, environmental restoration, and other 

attendant benefits to the Nation. The construction and major rehabilitation for designated projects for inland and costal waterways 

will derive one-half of the funding from the Inland Waterways 

Trust Fund. Funds to be derived from the Harbor Maintenance 

Trust Fund will be applied to cover the Federal share of the 

Dredged Material Disposal Facilities Program. 

The administration request for the Construction, General account is $1,480,000,000, a decrease of $133,822,000 from the fiscal year 

2011 enacted amount. By the Committee’s estimate, less than 60 

percent of the needed funding is available in this account. Construction levels will slip due to constrained funding and benefits to 

the national economy will be deferred. The Committee is concerned 

that this lack of investment will inevitably lead to another Katrinastyle disaster somewhere in the Nation, whether it is a catastrophic failure on the Inland Waterways System or overwhelmed 

incomplete or damaged flood control or shore protection infrastructure. The aftermath of Hurricane Katrina should have taught us, 

if nothing else, that more robust investment before the fact would 

have led to considerably smaller payouts after the disaster. Yet, 

based on the budget requests in the intervening 6 years, it is obvious that no lesson has been learned. 

The Committee recommendation includes $1,610,000,000 in new 

budget authority for this account. The Committee recognizes that 

this is considerably less than the needs in the program, but is the 

best that can be accomplished in this constrained fiscal environment. 

The Committee deleted the new construction starts requested by 

the administration as sufficient funding does not exist in the current budget nor is there reasonable assurance that sufficient funds 

will be available in the future to accommodate these new items as 

well as ongoing work. 

Continuing Authorities Program [CAP].—The Continuing Authorities Program (projects which do not require specific authorizing legislation) includes projects for flood control (section 205), 

emergency streambank and shoreline protection (section 14), beach 

erosion control (section 103), mitigation of shore damages (section 

111), navigation projects (section 107), snagging and clearing (section 208), aquatic ecosystem restoration (section 206), beneficial 

uses of dredged material (section 204), and project modifications for 

improvement of the environment (section 1135). The Committee rejects the administration proposal to transfer funds from other sections of the CAP to only fund sections 205, 206 and 1135 for fiscal 

year 2012. The Corps has told the Committee on numerous occasions that there is a considerable backlog of ongoing work in all 

sections of the CAP program. For that reason the Committee is 

surprised that the administration would propose to carry over 

funding to fiscal year 2012 for this ill considered proposal when the 

funding proposed for carryover was previously provided to address 

this backlog. The Committee believes these funds should be expended for the CAP sections for which they were appropriated and 

should be executed as quickly as possible. The Committee continues to believe that the various sections of the CAP program provide a useful tool for the Corps to undertake small localized 
30 

projects without being encumbered by the lengthy study and authorization phases typical of most Corps projects. 

Even though there was no budget request for funding in the CAP 

program for fiscal year 2012, the Committee has included a total 

of $30,000,000 spread over the nine CAP sections for work in fiscal 

year 2012. The Committee believes that it was an imprudent and 

shortsighted decision by the administration to not propose any 

funding for this program. The Committee urges the administration 

to execute the program laid out by the Committee and include 

funding for this program in future budgets in the same manner as 

in the past. 

The budget request and the approved Committee allowance are 

shown on the following table: 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—CONSTRUCTION, GENERAL 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item Budget 

estimate 

House 

allowance 

Committee 

recommendation 

CALIFORNIA 

AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED (COMMON FEATURES), CA ........................ 25,548 23,149 25,548 

AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED (FOLSOM DAM MODIFICATIONS), CA ......... 21,000 19,028 21,000 

AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED (FOLSOM DAM RAISE), CA ........................ 1,000 906 1,000 

HAMILTON AIRFIELD WETLANDS RESTORATION, CA ................................... 8,250 7,475 8,250 

HAMILTON CITY, CA .................................................................................... 8,000 ........................ ........................

NAPA RIVER, SALT MARSH RESTORATION, CA ........................................... 9,500 8,607 9,500 

OAKLAND HARBOR (50 FOOT PROJECT), CA .............................................. 350 317 350 

SACRAMENTO DEEPWATER SHIP CHANNEL, CA ......................................... 3,500 3,171 3,500 

SACRAMENTO RIVER BANK PROTECTION PROJECT, CA ............................. 10,000 9,061 10,000 

SANTA ANA RIVER MAINSTEM, CA ............................................................. 20,500 18,575 20,500 

SANTA PAULA CREEK, CA ........................................................................... 2,078 1,882 2,078 

SOUTH SACRAMENTO COUNTY STREAMS, CA ............................................ 5,000 4,530 5,000 

SUCCESS DAM, TULE RIVER, CA (DAM SAFETY) ........................................ 18,000 18,000 18,000 

YUBA RIVER BASIN, CA .............................................................................. 2,000 1,812 2,000 

FLORIDA 

BREVARD COUNTY, CANAVERAL HARBOR, FL ............................................ 350 317 350 

DADE COUNTY, FL ...................................................................................... 15,202 13,774 15,202 

DUVAL COUNTY, FL .................................................................................... 100 90 100 

FORT PIERCE BEACH, FL ............................................................................ 350 317 350 

HERBERT HOOVER DIKE, FL (SEEPAGE CONTROL) .................................... 85,000 85,000 85,000 

JACKSONVILLE HARBOR, FL ........................................................................ 7,000 6,342 7,000 

MANATEE COUNTY, FL ................................................................................ 100 90 100 

NASSAU COUNTY, FL .................................................................................. 700 634 700 

SOUTH FLORIDA ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, FL ........................................ 162,724 130,000 162,724 

ST. JOHN’S COUNTY, FL ............................................................................. 350 317 350 

TAMPA HARBOR, FL .................................................................................... 3,000 2,718 3,000 

GEORGIA 

LOWER SAVANNAH RIVER BASIN, GA ......................................................... 45 40 45 

RICHARD B. RUSSELL DAM AND LAKE, GA AND SC .................................. 3,200 2,899 3,200 

SAVANNAH HARBOR DISPOSAL AREAS, GA AND SC .................................. 5,040 4,566 5,040 

SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION, GA ......................................................... ........................ 543 600 

ILLINOIS 

ALTON TO GALE ORGANIZED LEVEE DISTRICTS, IL AND MO ..................... 500 453 500 

CHAIN OF ROCKS CANAL, MISSISSIPPI RIVER, IL (DEF CORR) .................. 2,250 2,038 2,250 

CHICAGO SANITARY AND SHIP CANAL DISPERSAL BARRIER, IL ................ 13,500 21,805 24,065 

DES PLAINES RIVER, IL .............................................................................. 1,000 906 1,000 

EAST ST. LOUIS, IL ..................................................................................... 1,350 1,223 1,350 

LOCK AND DAM 27, MISSISSIPPI RIVER, IL (MAJOR REHAB) .................... 100 90 100 

MCCOOK AND THORNTON RESERVOIRS, IL ................................................ 12,000 10,873 12,000 

OLMSTED LOCKS AND DAM, OHIO RIVER, IL AND KY ................................ 150,000 135,915 150,000 
31 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—CONSTRUCTION, GENERAL—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item Budget 

estimate 

House 

allowance 

Committee recommendation 

UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER RESTORATION, IL, IA, MN, MO, AND ............... 18,150 16,445 18,150 

WOOD RIVER LEVEE, DEFICIENCY CORRECTION AND RECONSTRUCTION .. 830 752 830 

INDIANA 

LITTLE CALUMET RIVER, IN ........................................................................ 9,000 7,100 9,000 

IOWA 

MISSOURI RIVER FISH AND WILDLIFE RECOVERY, IA, KS, MO, ................. 72,888 72,888 72,888 

KANSAS 

TURKEY CREEK BASIN, KS AND MO ........................................................... 4,000 3,624 4,000 

KENTUCKY 

WOLF CREEK DAM, LAKE CUMBERLAND, KY .............................................. 132,000 132,000 132,000 

LOUISIANA 

LAROSE TO GOLDEN MEADOW, LA (HURRICANE PROTECTION) ................. 5,500 4,983 5,500 

LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, LA ....................... 10,620 ........................ ........................

MARYLAND 

ASSATEAGUE, MD ....................................................................................... 1,000 906 1,000 

CHESAPEAKE BAY OYSTER RECOVERY, MD AND VA ................................. 5,000 4,530 5,000 

POPLAR ISLAND, MD .................................................................................. 12,000 10,873 12,000 

MASSACHUSETTS 

MUDDY RIVER, MA ..................................................................................... 4,000 3,624 4,000 

MINNESOTA 

CROOKSTON, MN ........................................................................................ 1,250 1,132 1,250 

MISSOURI 

BLUE RIVER CHANNEL, KANSAS CITY, MO ................................................. 3,000 2,718 3,000 

CLEARWATER LAKE, MO ............................................................................. 32,900 32,900 32,900 

KANSAS CITYS, MO AND KS ....................................................................... 500 453 500 

MISSISSIPPI RIVER BETWEEN THE OHIO AND MISSOURI RIVERS .............. 7,320 6,632 7,320 

MONARCH—CHESTERFIELD, MO ................................................................ 1,351 1,224 1,351 

ST. LOUIS FLOOD PROTECTION, MO ........................................................... 100 90 100 

NEW JERSEY 

GREAT EGG HARBOR INLET AND PECK BEACH, NJ .................................... 500 453 500 

LOWER CAPE MAY MEADOWS, CAPE MAY POINT, NJ ................................. 7,650 6,931 7,650 

RARITAN BAY AND SANDY HOOK BAY (PORT MONMOUTH), NJ ................. 3,000 2,718 3,000 

RARITAN RIVER BASIN, GREEN BROOK SUB-BASIN, NJ ............................. 6,000 5,436 6,000 

NEW MEXICO 

RIO GRANDE FLOODWAY, SAN ACACIA TO BOSQUE DEL APACHE, ............ 10,000 9,061 10,000 

NEW YORK 

ATLANTIC COAST OF NYC, ROCKAWAY INLET TO NORTON POINT, NY ....... 100 90 100 

FIRE ISLAND INLET TO MONTAUK POINT, NY ............................................. 1,350 1,223 1,350 

LONG BEACH ISLAND, NY ........................................................................... 300 271 300 

NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY HARBOR, NY AND NJ .................................. 65,014 58,909 65,014 

OHIO 

DOVER DAM, MUSKINGUM RIVER, OH (DAM SAFETY ASSURANCE) ........... 5,000 5,000 5,000 

OKLAHOMA 

CANTON LAKE, OK ...................................................................................... 11,100 11,100 11,100 

OREGON 

COLUMBIA RIVER TREATY FISHING ACCESS SITES, OR AND WA ............... 2,000 1,812 2,000 
32 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—CONSTRUCTION, GENERAL—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item Budget 

estimate 

House 

allowance 

Committee recommendation 

LOWER COLUMBIA RIVER ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, OR AND WA .......... 4,200 3,805 4,200 

PENNSYLVANIA 

EMSWORTH LOCKS AND DAM, OHIO RIVER, PA ......................................... 3,000 3,000 3,000 

LOCKS AND DAMS 2, 3, AND 4, MONONGAHELA RIVER, PA ...................... 1,000 1,000 1,000 

PRESQUE ISLE PENINSULA, PA (PERMANENT) ........................................... 1,500 1,359 1,500 

PUERTO RICO 

PORTUGUES AND BUCANA RIVERS, PR ...................................................... 45,000 40,774 45,000 

RIO PUERTO NUEVO, PR ............................................................................ 7,000 6,342 7,000 

TENNESSEE 

CENTER HILL LAKE, TN .............................................................................. 78,700 78,700 78,700 

TEXAS 

BRAYS BAYOU, HOUSTON, TX .................................................................... 3,000 2,718 3,000 

HOUSTON—GALVESTON NAVIGATION CHANNELS, TX ................................ 600 543 600 

LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN (WHARTON/ONION), TX .......................... 5,000 ........................ ........................

VIRGINIA 

LEVISA AND TUG FORKS AND UPPER CUMBERLAND RIVER, VA, W .......... 5,000 4,530 5,000 

NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, CRANEY ISLAND, VA ......................... 27,400 24,827 27,400 

ROANOKE RIVER UPPER BASIN, HEADWATERS AREA, VA .......................... 1,075 974 1,075 

WASHINGTON 

COLUMBIA RIVER FISH MITIGATION, WA, OR, AND ID ............................... 128,405 128,405 128,405 

DUWAMISH AND GREEN RIVER BASIN, WA ................................................ 2,060 1,866 2,060 

LOWER SNAKE RIVER FISH AND WILDLIFE COMPENSATION, WA, .............. 1,500 1,500 1,500 

MOUNT SAINT HELENS SEDIMENT CONTROL, WA ...................................... 6,500 5,889 6,500 

MUD MOUNTAIN DAM, WA .......................................................................... 1,000 906 1,000 

WEST VIRGINIA 

BLUESTONE LAKE, WV ................................................................................ 70,000 70,000 70,000 

SUBTOTAL, PROJECTS ................................................................... 1,423,950 1,320,479 1,411,495 

NATIONAL PROGRAMS 

ADDITIONAL FLOOD AND COASTAL STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION .............. ........................ 124,600 ........................

ADDITIONAL NAVIGATION ............................................................................ ........................ 118,400 ........................

ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR ONGOING WORK: 

SHORE PROTECTION .......................................................................... ........................ ........................ 40,000 

FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION ............................................................. ........................ ........................ 50,000 

NAVIGATION ....................................................................................... ........................ ........................ 22,000 

MISCELLANEOUS ................................................................................ ........................ ........................ 7,000 

ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION OR COMPLIANCE PROJECTS ........... ........................ ........................ 15,000 

ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCURE PROJECTS .................................. ........................ ........................ 40,000 

HYDROPOWER PROJECTS .................................................................. ........................ ........................ 15,000 

AQUATIC PLANT CONTROL PROGRAM ......................................................... ........................ ........................ 4,000 

CONTINUING AUTHORITIES PROJECTS NOT REQUIRING SPECIFIC: 

AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION (SECTION 206) ........................ ........................ ........................ 5,000 

BENEFICIAL USES OF DREDGED MATERIAL (SECTIONS 20 ............... ........................ ........................ 3,000 

EMERGENCY STREAMBANK AND SHORELINE PROTECTION (SECTION) ............................................................................................. ........................ ........................ 2,000 

FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS (SECTION 205) ..................................... ........................ ........................ 5,000 

NAVIGATION MITIGATION PROJECT (SECTION 111) ........................... ........................ ........................ 2,500 

NAVIGATION PROGRAM (SECTION 107) ............................................. ........................ ........................ 3,000 

PROJECT MODIFICATIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT ............................................................................................. ........................ ........................ 5,000 

SHORE PROTECTION (SECTION 103) ................................................. ........................ ........................ 4,000 

SNAGGING AND CLEARING (SECTION 208) ....................................... ........................ ........................ 500 

DAM SAFETY AND SEEPAGE/STABILITY CORRECTION PROGRAM ............... 37,155 37,155 37,155 

EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION ..................................................................... 15,000 13,591 15,000 
33 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—CONSTRUCTION, GENERAL—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item Budget 

estimate 

House 

allowance 

Committee recommendation 

INLAND WATERWAYS USERS BOARD—BOARD EXPENSE ........................... 70 63 70 

INLAND WATERWAYS USERS BOARD—CORPS EXPENSE ........................... 825 747 825 

ESTUARY RESTORATION PROGRAM (PUBLIC LAW 106–457) ..................... 2,000 ........................ 2,000 

PERIODIC REVIEW OF BCRS ....................................................................... 1,000 906 1,000 

SUBTOTAL, NATIONAL PROGRAMS ................................................ 56,050 295,462 279,050 

SAVINGS AND SLIPPAGE ............................................................................. ........................ ........................ ¥80,545 

TOTAL, CONSTRUCTION GENERAL ................................................. 1,480,000 1,615,941 1,610,000 

Hamilton City, California.—No funding is included for this new 

item proposed in the fiscal year 2012 budget. 

Napa River, Salt Marsh Restoration, California.—This project 

was a new start construction project proposed by the administration as a part of the fiscal year 2010 budget. Congress agreed with 

this new start proposal and provided $100,000 for this project in 

the fiscal year 2010 conference report. A total of $17,250,000 was 

included in the work plan developed by the administration as directed in the fiscal year 2011 continuing resolution. An additional 

$9,500,000, the administration’s fiscal year 2012 request, is included in this report. 

However, it has come to the Committee’s attention that the administration has directed the Corps to only budget for the parts of 

the authorization that the administration supports and that no 

funds can be budgeted for parts of the project that the administration does not support. The Committee believes that if the administration did not support portions of the project as authorized, the 

project should have never been a part of the administration budget 

request, much less one of the administration proposals as a new 

start. The Committee believes that if the administration puts forth 

a project as a new start in their budget request, it should have the 

administration’s unqualified support and by definition, should have 

risen to the top of all other potential new starts available for the 

administration to choose from. If the authorization was flawed, in 

the administration’s view, then how could the project have risen to 

the top of the list? This is a clear case of the administration trying 

to budget for what they wish had been authorized, rather than 

what was actually authorized. 

The Committee’s position is that the administration (by budgeting) and Congress (by appropriating funds) has committed to the 

project as authorized in section 101(12) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 regardless of what the administration may 

have wanted. The project partnership agreement executed between 

the Government and the non-Federal sponsor delineates the project 

as authorized, not the project that the administration would like to 

have been authorized. Therefore, the Committee directs the Corps 

to utilize any unspent funds that have been previously provided for 

this project as well as those included in the administration’s fiscal 

year 2012 budget request, provided in this bill, for all of the authorized project features as appropriate to the current stage of con-
34 

struction. Further, the Committee directs that future budget submissions should not selectively budget for parts of this project, but 

should include all authorized project features as appropriate for the 

work planned for that budget request. 

Savannah Harbor Expansion, Georgia.—The administration 

budget request for this item that was proposed in the GI account 

has been moved to this account where it has been funded for the 

last 3 fiscal years. 

Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal Dispersal Barrier, Illinois.— After release of the fiscal year 2012 budget justifications, the Corps 

informed the Committee that the funding proposed in the O&M account for this project was actually needed in this account. The 

Committee has accommodated this change and provided no funding 

in the O&M account. 

Raritan and Sandy Hook Bay, Port Monmouth, New Jersey.—The 

Committee recommendation includes the budget request for this 

project as proposed by the administration even though the administration labeled this project as a ‘‘previously unfunded item’’ in their 

budget request. The Committee does not consider this as a new 

start as it was provided funding in the fiscal year 2010 Energy and 

Water Act. The Committee’s view is that since the Congress enacted the fiscal year 2010 bill and the President signed the bill into 

law, that this project has been initiated. 

Louisiana Coastal Area Ecosystem Restoration, Louisiana.—No 

funding is included for this new item first proposed in the fiscal 

year 2011 budget and treated by the administration as a continuing project in fiscal year 2012. 

Onion Creek, Lower Colorado River, Texas.—No funding is included for this new item first proposed in the fiscal year 2011 

budget and treated by the administration as a continuing project 

for fiscal year 2012. 

Norfolk Harbor, Craney Island, Virginia.—This project, much 

like the one mentioned previously, was a new start construction 

project proposed by the administration as a part of the fiscal year 

2010 budget. Congress agreed with this new start proposal and 

provided $100,000 for this project in the fiscal year 2010 conference 

report. $1,000,000 was included in the work plan developed by the 

administration as directed in the fiscal year 2011 continuing resolution. An additional $27,400,000, the administration’s fiscal year 

2012 request, is included in this report. 

However, it has come to the Committee’s attention that the administration has directed the Corps to only budget for the parts of 

the authorization that the administration supports and that no 

funds can be budgeted for parts of the project that the administration does not support. The Committee believes that if the administration did not support portions of the project as authorized, the 

project should have never been a part of the administration, budget 

request, much less one of the administration proposals as a new 

start. The Committee believes that if the administration puts forth 

a project as a new start in their budget request, it should have the 

administration’s unqualified support and by definition, should have 

risen to the top of all other potential new starts available for the 

administration to choose from. If the authorization was flawed, in 

the administration’s view, then how could the project have risen to 
35 

the top of the list? This is a clear case of the administration trying 

to budget for what they wish had been authorized, rather than 

what was actually authorized. 

The Committee’s position is that the administration (by budgeting) and Congress (by appropriating funds) has committed to the 

project as authorized in section 101(45) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 regardless of what the administration may 

have wanted. The project partnership agreement executed between 

the Government and the non-Federal sponsor delineates the project 

as authorized, not the project that the administration would like to 

have been authorized. Therefore, the Committee directs the Corps 

to utilize any unspent funds that have been previously provided for 

this project as well as those included in the administration’s fiscal 

year 2012 budget request, provided in this bill, for all of the authorized project features as appropriate to the current stage of construction. Further, the Committee directs that future budget submissions should not selectively budget for parts of this project, but 

should include all authorized project features as appropriate for the 

work planned for that budget request. 

Additional Funding for Ongoing Work.—The Committee recommendation includes additional funds above the budget request to 

continue ongoing projects and activities. The Committee recommends that these funds be used for flood control, storm damage 

reduction, navigation, environmental restoration, environmental infrastructure, and miscellaneous projects. The Committee recommends that priority in allocating these funds should be towards 

completing on-going projects, accelerating projects which will enhance the Nation’s economic development, job growth and international competitiveness or those where the local sponsor has the 

funding in-place for their share of the construction contemplated 

with the funds available. 

The administration has complete discretion over how these funds 

are to be used. The intent of these funds is for ongoing work that 

either did not make it into the administration request or were inadequately budgeted. Within 30 days of enactment, the Corps shall 

provide the House and Senate Appropriations Committees a work 

plan delineating how these funds are to be distributed and in 

which phase the work is being accomplished. 

Continuing Authorities Program.—For each Continuing Authorities Program [CAP] section, available funds shall be allocated utilizing this sequence of steps until the funds are exhausted: 

—capability-level funds for ongoing projects that have executed 

cost-sharing agreements for the applicable phase; 

—capability-level funds for projects that are ready for execution 

of new cost-sharing agreements for the applicable phase and 

for which Corps headquarters authorizes execution of the 

agreements; 

—funds, as permitted by Corps policies, for other projects previously funded for the applicable phase but not ready for execution of new cost-sharing agreements; and 

—funds as permitted by Corps policies, for projects not previously funded for the applicable phase. 

Funds shall be allocated by headquarters to the appropriate 

Field Operating Agency [FOA] for projects requested by that FOA. 
36 

If the FOA finds that the study/project for which funds were requested cannot go forward, the funds are to be returned to Corps 

headquarters to be reallocated based on the nationwide priority 

listing. In no case should the FOA retain these funds for use on 

a different project than the one for which the funds were requested 

without the explicit approval of the Corps’ headquarters. 

Within the step at which available funds are exhausted for each 

CAP section, funds shall be allocated to the projects in that section 

that rank high according to the following factors: high overall performance based on outputs; high percent fiscally complete; and 

high unobligated carry-in. Section 14 funds shall be allocated to the 

projects that address the most significant risks and adverse consequences, irrespective of phase or previous funding history. 

The Corps shall continue the ongoing process for suspending and 

terminating inactive projects. Suspended projects shall not be reactivated or funded unless the sponsor reaffirms in writing its support for the project and establishes its willingness and capability 

to execute its project responsibilities. 

In order to provide a mix of studies, design and construction 

within each CAP section, the Corps is directed to divide the funding generally 80/20 between the Design and Implementation and 

the Feasibility phases within each authority. The Chief of Engineers shall provide a report to the Committees on Appropriations 

within 30 days of enactment of this act detailing how funds will be 

distributed to the individual items in the various CAP sections for 

the fiscal year. The Chief shall also provide an annual report at the 

end of each fiscal year detailing the progress made on the backlog 

of projects. The report should include the completions and terminations as well as progress of ongoing work. 

The Corps may initiate new continuing authorities projects in all 

sections as funding allows. New projects may be initiated after an 

assessment is made that such projects can be funded over time 

based on historical averages of the appropriation for that section 

and after prior approval by the Committees on Appropriations. 

FLOOD CONTROL, MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, ARKANSAS, ILLINOIS, KENTUCKY, LOUISIANA, MISSISSIPPI, MISSOURI, AND TENNESSEE

Appropriations, 2011 ............................................................................. $241,906,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ........................................................................... 152,000,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 210,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 250,000,000 

This appropriation funds planning, construction, and operation 

and maintenance activities associated with water resource projects 

located in the lower Mississippi River Valley from Cape Girardeau, 

Missouri to the Gulf of Mexico. 

The budget request and the approved Committee allowance are 

shown on the following table: 
37 

MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item Budget 

estimate 

House 

allowance 

Committee recommendation 

MEMPHIS METRO AREA, STORM WATER MANAGEMENT STUDY, TN .......... 100 100 100 

SUBTOTAL, INVESTIGATIONS ......................................................... 100 100 100 

CONSTRUCTION 

CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT, AR, IL, KY, LA, MS, MO, AND TN ...................... 45,570 45,570 45,570 

MISSISSIPPI RIVER LEVEES, AR, IL, KY, LA, MS, MO, AND TN .................. 24,180 24,180 24,180 

ATCHAFALAYA BASIN, FLOODWAY SYSTEM, LA .......................................... 1,900 1,900 1,900 

ATCHAFALAYA BASIN, LA ............................................................................ 6,300 6,300 6,300 

SUBTOTAL, CONSTRUCTION .......................................................... 77,950 77,950 77,950 

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 

CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT, AR, IL, KY, LA, MS, MO, AND TN ...................... 61,230 61,230 61,230 

HELENA HARBOR, PHILLIPS COUNTY, AR ................................................... 122 122 122 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, AR ................................................... 189 189 189 

LOWER ARKANSAS RIVER, NORTH BANK, AR ............................................. 223 223 223 

LOWER ARKANSAS RIVER, SOUTH BANK, AR ............................................. 150 150 150 

MISSISSIPPI RIVER LEVEES, AR, IL, KY, LA, MS, MO, AND TN .................. 7,951 7,951 7,951 

ST. FRANCIS BASIN, AR AND MO ............................................................... 4,174 4,174 4,174 

TENSAS BASIN, BOEUF AND TENSAS RIVERS, AR AND LA ........................ 1,884 1,884 1,884 

WHITE RIVER BACKWATER, AR ................................................................... 896 896 896 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, IL .................................................... 110 110 110 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, KY ................................................... 60 60 60 

ATCHAFALAYA BASIN, FLOODWAY SYSTEM, LA .......................................... 1,468 1,468 1,468 

ATCHAFALAYA BASIN, LA ............................................................................ 8,918 8,918 8,918 

BATON ROUGE HARBOR, DEVIL SWAMP, LA .............................................. 42 42 42 

BAYOU COCODRIE AND TRIBUTARIES, LA .................................................. 48 48 48 

BONNET CARRE, LA .................................................................................... 2,145 2,145 2,145 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, LA ................................................... 697 697 697 

LOWER RED RIVER, SOUTH BANK LEVEES, LA .......................................... 377 377 377 

MISSISSIPPI DELTA REGION, LA ................................................................. 438 438 438 

OLD RIVER, LA ........................................................................................... 6,954 6,954 6,954 

TENSAS BASIN, RED RIVER BACKWATER, LA ............................................. 2,473 2,473 2,473 

GREENVILLE HARBOR, MS .......................................................................... 18 18 18 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MS .................................................. 109 109 109 

VICKSBURG HARBOR, MS ........................................................................... 32 32 32 

YAZOO BASIN, ARKABUTLA LAKE, MS ........................................................ 4,606 4,606 4,606 

YAZOO BASIN, BIG SUNFLOWER RIVER, MS .............................................. 185 185 185 

YAZOO BASIN, ENID LAKE, MS ................................................................... 4,386 4,386 4,386 

YAZOO BASIN, GREENWOOD, MS ............................................................... 807 807 807 

YAZOO BASIN, GRENADA LAKE, MS ........................................................... 4,511 4,511 4,511 

YAZOO BASIN, MAIN STEM, MS .................................................................. 1,019 1,019 1,019 

YAZOO BASIN, SARDIS LAKE, MS ............................................................... 5,687 5,687 5,687 

YAZOO BASIN, WILL M. WHITTINGTON AUXILARY CHANNEL, MS ............... 378 378 378 

YAZOO BASIN, YAZOO BACKWATER AREA, MS ........................................... 517 517 517 

YAZOO BASIN, YAZOO CITY, MS ................................................................. 731 731 731 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MO .................................................. 125 125 125 

WAPPAPELLO LAKE, MO .............................................................................. 4,167 4,167 4,167 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, TN ................................................... 60 60 60 

MEMPHIS HARBOR, MCKELLAR LAKE, TN .................................................. 1,394 1,394 1,394 

SUBTOTAL, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE ................................. 130,248 130,248 130,248 

REMAINING ITEMS 

COLLECTION AND STUDY OF BASIC DATA .................................................. 500 500 500 

MAPPING ..................................................................................................... 1,202 1,202 1,202 

ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR ONGOING WORK 

DREDGING ......................................................................................... ........................ ........................ 5,000 

FLOOD CONTROL ............................................................................... ........................ ........................ 25,000 

MISCELLANEOUS ................................................................................ ........................ ........................ 20,000 
38 

MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item Budget 

estimate 

House 

allowance 

Committee 

recommendation 

SUBTOTAL, REMAINING ITEMS ...................................................... 1,702 1,702 51,702 

SAVINGS AND SLIPPAGE ............................................................................. ........................ ........................ ¥10,000 

TOTAL, MISSISSIPPI RIVER & TRIBUTARIES .................................. 210,000 210,000 250,000 

Post-2011 Flood Studies.—The Committee recognizes that the 

Mississippi River and Tributaries project performed as designed 

during the 2011 flood, but also recognizes that the project has not 

yet been completed. The flooding that did occur within the project 

area could have been mitigated by remaining features yet to be 

constructed. The Committee directs the Secretary to provide a report to the Committee within 90 days of enactment of this act that 

describes the construction features that remain and the costs of 

those features, a report on the prior studies that proposed to make 

improvements to the system, and to evaluate, within existing authorities, the issue of backwater flooding that occurred in this 

year’s flood and what can be done in the future to mitigate this 

issue. 

Additional Funding for Ongoing Work.—The Committee recommendation includes additional funds above the budget request to 

continue ongoing studies projects or maintenance. The Committee 

recommends that these funds be used for flood control, navigation, 

water supply, ground water protection, waterfowl management, 

bank stabilization and environmental restoration work. The Committee recommends that priority in allocating these funds should 

be towards completing on-going work or for accelerating work 

which will enhance the region and Nation’s economic development, 

job growth and international competitiveness or for areas that have 

suffered recent natural disasters. 

The administration has complete discretion over how these funds 

are to be used. The intent of these funds is for ongoing work primarily along the Mississippi River tributaries that either did not 

make it into the administration request or were inadequately budgeted. While this additional funding is shown under remaining 

items, the Corps should utilize these funds in whichever phase of 

work that the funding is applied to. Within 30 days of enactment, 

the Corps shall provide the House and Senate Appropriations Committees a work plan delineating how these funds are to be distributed and in which phase the work is being accomplished. 

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, GENERAL

Appropriations, 2011 ............................................................................. $2,365,759,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ........................................................................... 2,314,000,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 2,368,925,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 2,360,000,000 

This appropriation funds operation, maintenance, and related activities at the water resources projects that the Corps operates and 

maintains. Work to be accomplished consists of dredging, repair, 

and operation of structures and other facilities, as authorized in 
39 

the various river and harbor, flood control, and water resources development acts. Related activities include aquatic plant control, 

monitoring of completed projects where appropriate, removal of 

sunken vessels, and the collection of domestic waterborne commerce statistics. 

Maintenance of our aging water infrastructure inventory gets 

more expensive every year, however, it is consistently underfunded. 

If this trend continues, the Corps will not be able to maintain expected levels of service at all of its projects. The Committee has 

maintained its tradition of supporting what the budget request 

terms as ‘‘low use harbors and waterways’’. The Committee recognizes the importance of these facilities and will continue to provide 

funding for them. The Committee is concerned about the general 

downward trend in the administration’s O&M request. Since fiscal 

year 2010, the administration’s budget proposal has decreased by 

$190,000,000 for operation and maintenance. The Committee understands that the O&M budget fluctuates from year to year due 

to periodic maintenance dredging requirements, however, the general trend should be for this budget to increase. Nearly 75 percent 

of the O&M budget consists of labor and dredging costs in most 

years. Labor costs rarely decrease for the Corps as it takes roughly 

the same amount of manpower to operate Corps projects on a yearly basis. That means that when the budget request is reduced as 

it is for fiscal year 2012, the only areas available to reduce are 

dredging and real maintenance items. 

This is the wrong trend for this program. The Corps is to be commended for managing to keep as much of their infrastructure operable as they have with the O&M budgets that have been put forward and enacted. The Committee urges the administration to 

commit to a more realistic budget for O&M in future fiscal years. 

The budget request and the Committee recommendation are 

shown on the following table: 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item Budget 

estimate 

House 

allowance 

Committee recommendation 

ALABAMA 

ALABAMA-COOSA COMPREHENSIVE WATER STUDY, AL ............................. 250 245 250 

ALABAMA RIVER LAKES, AL ........................................................................ 13,120 12,857 13,120 

BLACK WARRIOR AND TOMBIGBEE RIVERS, AL ......................................... 21,429 21,000 21,429 

GULF INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, AL ......................................................... 5,335 5,228 5,335 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, AL ................................................... 30 29 30 

MOBILE HARBOR, AL .................................................................................. 23,360 22,892 23,360 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, AL ............................................................ 100 98 100 

TENNESSEE-TOMBIGBEE WATERWAY WILDLIFE MITIGATION, AL ................ 1,847 1,810 1,847 

TENNESSEE-TOMBIGBEE WATERWAY, AL AND MS ..................................... 23,141 22,678 23,141 

WALTER F. GEORGE LOCK AND DAM, AL AND GA ..................................... 7,744 7,589 7,744 

ALASKA 

ANCHORAGE HARBOR, AK .......................................................................... 14,000 13,720 14,000 

CHENA RIVER LAKES, AK ........................................................................... 2,948 2,889 2,948 

DILLINGHAM HARBOR, AK .......................................................................... 987 967 987 

HOMER HARBOR, AK .................................................................................. 453 443 453 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, AK ................................................... 194 190 194 

NINILCHIK HARBOR, AK .............................................................................. 420 411 420 

NOME HARBOR, AK .................................................................................... 1,066 1,044 1,066 
40 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item Budget 

estimate 

House 

allowance 

Committee recommendation 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, AK ............................................................ 500 490 500 

ARIZONA 

ALAMO LAKE, AZ ........................................................................................ 1,758 1,722 1,758 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, AZ ................................................... 87 85 87 

PAINTED ROCK DAM, AZ ............................................................................ 1,307 1,280 1,307 

SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, AZ ............................................... 48 47 48 

WHITLOW RANCH DAM, AZ ......................................................................... 288 282 288 

ARKANSAS 

BEAVER LAKE, AR ...................................................................................... 5,784 5,668 5,784 

BLAKELY MT. DAM, LAKE OUACHITA, AR ................................................... 7,241 7,096 7,241 

BLUE MOUNTAIN LAKE, AR ......................................................................... 1,854 1,816 1,854 

BULL SHOALS LAKE, AR ............................................................................. 6,050 5,929 6,050 

DARDANELLE LOCK AND DAM, AR ............................................................. 7,914 7,755 7,914 

DEGRAY LAKE, AR ...................................................................................... 5,712 5,597 5,712 

DEQUEEN LAKE, AR .................................................................................... 1,687 1,653 1,687 

DIERKS LAKE, AR ....................................................................................... 1,421 1,392 1,421 

GILLHAM LAKE, AR ..................................................................................... 1,345 1,318 1,345 

GREERS FERRY LAKE, AR .......................................................................... 5,654 5,540 5,654 

HELENA HARBOR, PHILLIPS COUNTY, AR ................................................... 100 98 100 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, AR ................................................... 397 389 397 

MCCLELLAN-KERR ARKANSAS RIVER NAVIGATION SYSTEM, AR ................ 26,610 26,077 26,610 

MILLWOOD LAKE, AR .................................................................................. 2,558 2,506 2,558 

NARROWS DAM, LAKE GREESON, AR ......................................................... 4,342 4,255 4,342 

NIMROD LAKE, AR ...................................................................................... 2,182 2,138 2,182 

NORFORK LAKE, AR .................................................................................... 9,091 8,909 9,091 

OUACHITA AND BLACK RIVERS, AR & LA .................................................. 7,451 7,301 7,451 

OZARK-JETA TAYLOR LOCK AND DAM, AR ................................................. 6,064 5,942 6,064 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, AR ............................................................ 8 7 8 

CALIFORNIA 

BLACK BUTTE LAKE, CA ............................................................................. 2,337 2,290 2,337 

BUCHANAN DAM, HV EASTMAN LAKE, CA .................................................. 2,032 1,991 2,032 

CHANNEL ISLANDS HARBOR, CA ................................................................ 525 514 525 

COYOTE VALLEY DAM, LAKE MENDOCINO, CA ........................................... 3,647 3,574 3,647 

DRY CREEK (WARM SPRINGS) LAKE AND CHANNEL, CA ........................... 5,624 5,511 5,624 

FARMINGTON DAM, CA ............................................................................... 470 460 470 

HIDDEN DAM, HENSLEY LAKE, CA .............................................................. 2,272 2,226 2,272 

HUMBOLDT HARBOR AND BAY, CA ............................................................ 2,800 2,744 2,800 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, CA ................................................... 3,854 3,776 3,854 

ISABELLA LAKE, CA .................................................................................... 1,721 1,686 1,721 

LOS ANGELES COUNTY DRAINAGE AREA, CA ............................................. 5,083 4,981 5,083 

MARINA DEL REY, CA ................................................................................. 3,170 3,106 3,170 

MERCED COUNTY STREAMS, CA ................................................................ 399 391 399 

MOJAVE RIVER DAM, CA ............................................................................ 332 325 332 

MORRO BAY HARBOR, CA .......................................................................... 1,590 1,558 1,590 

NEW HOGAN LAKE, CA ............................................................................... 2,456 2,406 2,456 

NEW MELONES LAKE, DOWNSTREAM CHANNEL, CA .................................. 1,897 1,859 1,897 

OAKLAND HARBOR, CA ............................................................................... 8,755 8,579 8,755 

OCEANSIDE HARBOR, CA ........................................................................... 1,520 1,489 1,520 

PINE FLAT LAKE, CA ................................................................................... 3,291 3,225 3,291 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, CA ............................................................ 1,710 1,675 1,710 

RICHMOND HARBOR, CA ............................................................................ 8,146 7,983 8,146 

SACRAMENTO RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES (DEBRIS CONTROL), CA .............. 1,299 1,273 1,299 

SACRAMENTO RIVER SHALLOW DRAFT CHANNEL, CA ................................ 125 122 125 

SAN DIEGO HARBOR, CA ............................................................................ 3,800 3,724 3,800 

SAN FRANCISCO BAY DELTA MODEL STRUCTURE, CA ............................... 986 966 986 

SAN FRANCISCO HARBOR AND BAY, CA (DRIFT REMOVAL) ...................... 1,979 1,939 1,979 

SAN FRANCISCO HARBOR, CA .................................................................... 2,548 2,497 2,548 

SAN JOAQUIN RIVER, PORT OF STOCKTON, CA .......................................... 3,746 3,671 3,746 
41 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item Budget 

estimate 

House 

allowance 

Committee 

recommendation 

SAN PABLO BAY AND MARE ISLAND STRAIT, CA ....................................... 3,470 3,400 3,470 

SANTA ANA RIVER BASIN, CA .................................................................... 3,530 3,459 3,530 

SANTA BARBARA HARBOR, CA ................................................................... 2,040 1,999 2,040 

SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, CA ............................................... 1,648 1,615 1,648 

SUCCESS LAKE, CA .................................................................................... 2,564 2,512 2,564 

SUISUN BAY CHANNEL, CA ........................................................................ 2,770 2,714 2,770 

TERMINUS DAM, LAKE KAWEAH, CA ........................................................... 2,346 2,299 2,346 

VENTURA HARBOR, CA ............................................................................... 2,805 2,748 2,805 

YUBA RIVER, CA ......................................................................................... 97 95 97 

COLORADO 

BEAR CREEK LAKE, CO .............................................................................. 569 557 569 

CHATFIELD LAKE, CO .................................................................................. 1,269 1,243 1,269 

CHERRY CREEK LAKE, CO .......................................................................... 1,162 1,138 1,162 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, CO .................................................. 260 254 260 

JOHN MARTIN RESERVOIR, CO ................................................................... 2,629 2,576 2,629 

SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, CO ............................................... 740 725 740 

TRINIDAD LAKE, CO .................................................................................... 1,701 1,666 1,701 

CONNECTICUT 

BLACK ROCK LAKE, CT ............................................................................... 582 570 582 

COLEBROOK RIVER LAKE, CT ..................................................................... 641 628 641 

HANCOCK BROOK LAKE, CT ....................................................................... 376 368 376 

HOP BROOK LAKE, CT ................................................................................ 1,022 1,001 1,022 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, CT ................................................... 368 360 368 

LONG ISLAND SOUND DMMP, CT ............................................................... 1,000 980 1,000 

MANSFIELD HOLLOW LAKE, CT ................................................................... 672 658 672 

NORTHFIELD BROOK LAKE, CT ................................................................... 437 428 437 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, CT ............................................................ 850 833 850 

STAMFORD HURRICANE BARRIER, CT ........................................................ 463 453 463 

THOMASTON DAM, CT ................................................................................. 839 822 839 

WEST THOMPSON LAKE, CT ........................................................................ 686 672 686 

DELAWARE 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, DE ................................................... 15 14 15 

INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, DELAWARE RIVER TO CHESAPEAKE BAY ....... 18,648 18,275 18,648 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, DE ............................................................ 105 102 105 

WILMINGTON HARBOR, DE ......................................................................... 3,250 3,185 3,250 

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, DC .................................................. 154 150 154 

POTOMAC AND ANACOSTIA RIVERS, DC (DRIFT REMOVAL) ....................... 875 857 875 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, DC ........................................................... 40 39 40 

WASHINGTON HARBOR, DC ........................................................................ 25 24 25 

FLORIDA 

CANAVERAL HARBOR, FL ............................................................................ 5,150 5,047 5,150 

CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA, FL ..................................................... 15,063 14,761 15,063 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, FL ................................................... 1,350 1,323 1,350 

JACKSONVILLE HARBOR, FL ........................................................................ 6,500 6,370 6,500 

JIM WOODRUFF LOCK AND DAM, LAKE SEMINOLE, FL, AL, AND GA .......... 8,159 7,995 8,159 

OKEECHOBEE WATERWAY, FL ..................................................................... 2,008 1,967 2,008 

PALM BEACH HARBOR, FL ......................................................................... 2,850 2,793 2,850 

PANAMA CITY HARBOR, FL ......................................................................... 2,015 1,974 2,015 

PORT EVERGLADES HARBOR, FL ................................................................ 2,000 1,960 2,000 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, FL ............................................................ 1,575 1,543 1,575 

REMOVAL OF AQUATIC GROWTH, FL .......................................................... 3,750 3,675 3,750 

SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, FL ................................................ 32 31 32 

SOUTH FLORIDA ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, FL ........................................ 5,276 5,170 5,276 

TAMPA HARBOR, FL .................................................................................... 6,287 6,161 6,287 
42 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item Budget 

estimate 

House 

allowance 

Committee recommendation 

GEORGIA 

ALLATOONA LAKE, GA ................................................................................. 6,335 6,208 6,335 

APALACHICOLA, CHATTAHOOCHEE AND FLINT RIVERS, GA, AL AND .......... 638 625 638 

BRUNSWICK HARBOR, GA .......................................................................... 3,000 2,940 3,000 

BUFORD DAM AND LAKE SIDNEY LANIER, GA ............................................ 8,346 8,179 8,346 

CARTERS DAM AND LAKE, GA .................................................................... 7,722 7,567 7,722 

HARTWELL LAKE, GA AND SC ..................................................................... 10,549 10,338 10,549 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS, GA .................. 85 83 85 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, GA ................................................... 141 138 141 

J STROM THURMOND LAKE, GA AND SC .................................................... 9,786 9,590 9,786 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, GA ............................................................ 149 146 149 

RICHARD B RUSSELL DAM AND LAKE, GA, AND SC .................................. 7,305 7,158 7,305 

SAVANNAH HARBOR, GA ............................................................................. 17,452 17,102 17,452 

SAVANNAH RIVER BELOW AUGUSTA, GA .................................................... 85 83 85 

WEST POINT DAM AND LAKE, GA AND AL .................................................. 7,857 7,699 7,857 

HAWAII 

BARBERS POINT HARBOR, HI ..................................................................... 266 260 266 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, HI .................................................... 984 964 984 

NAWILIWILI HARBOR, HI ............................................................................. 250 245 250 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, HI ............................................................. 931 912 931 

IDAHO 

ALBENI FALLS DAM, ID ............................................................................... 1,404 1,375 1,404 

DWORSHAK DAM AND RESERVOIR, ID ....................................................... 2,695 2,641 2,695 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, ID .................................................... 312 305 312 

LUCKY PEAK LAKE, ID ................................................................................ 2,918 2,859 2,918 

SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, ID ................................................ 514 503 514 

ILLINOIS 

CALUMET HARBOR AND RIVER, IL AND IN ................................................ 3,983 3,903 3,983 

CARLYLE LAKE, IL ...................................................................................... 5,340 5,233 5,340 

CHICAGO HARBOR, IL ................................................................................. 2,158 2,114 2,158 

CHICAGO RIVER, IL .................................................................................... 523 512 523 

CHICAGO SANITARY AND SHIP CANAL DISPERSAL BARRIER, IL ................ 10,565 ........................ ........................

FARM CREEK RESERVOIRS, IL ................................................................... 432 423 432 

ILLINOIS WATERWAY (MVR PORTION), IL AND IN ....................................... 31,937 31,298 31,937 

ILLINOIS WATERWAY (MVS PORTION), IL AND IN ....................................... 2,181 2,137 2,181 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, IL .................................................... 1,945 1,906 1,945 

KASKASKIA RIVER NAVIGATION, IL ............................................................. 1,539 1,508 1,539 

LAKE MICHIGAN DIVERSION, IL .................................................................. 725 710 725 

LAKE SHELBYVILLE, IL ................................................................................ 6,865 6,727 6,865 

MISSISSIPPI RIVER BETWEEN MISSOURI RIVER AND MINNEAPOLIS .......... 49,748 48,753 49,748 

MISSISSIPPI RIVER BETWEEN MISSOURI RIVER AND MINNEAPOLIS .......... 23,582 23,110 23,582 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, IL ............................................................. 111 108 111 

REND LAKE, IL ............................................................................................ 5,436 5,327 5,436 

SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, IL ............................. 689 675 689 

INDIANA 

BROOKVILLE LAKE, IN ................................................................................ 1,155 1,131 1,155 

BURNS WATERWAY HARBOR, IN ................................................................ 176 172 176 

CAGLES MILL LAKE, IN ............................................................................... 1,087 1,065 1,087 

CECIL M. HARDEN LAKE, IN ....................................................................... 1,178 1,154 1,178 

INDIANA HARBOR, IN .................................................................................. 6,675 6,541 6,675 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, IN .................................................... 645 632 645 

J. EDWARD ROUSH LAKE, IN ...................................................................... 2,270 2,224 2,270 

MISSISSINEWA LAKE, IN ............................................................................. 1,231 1,206 1,231 

MONROE LAKE, IN ...................................................................................... 1,252 1,226 1,252 

PATOKA LAKE, IN ........................................................................................ 1,118 1,095 1,118 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, IN ............................................................. 185 181 185 

SALAMONIE LAKE, IN .................................................................................. 1,073 1,051 1,073 
43 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item Budget 

estimate 

House 

allowance 

Committee recommendation 

SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, IN ............................ 129 126 129 

IOWA 

CORALVILLE LAKE, IA ................................................................................. 4,298 4,212 4,298 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, IA .................................................... 552 540 552 

MISSOURI RIVER-SIOUX CITY TO THE MOUTH, IA, KS, MO, AND ............... 6,199 6,075 6,199 

RATHBUN LAKE, IA ..................................................................................... 2,184 2,140 2,184 

RED ROCK DAM AND LAKE RED ROCK, IA ................................................. 4,639 4,546 4,639 

SAYLORVILLE LAKE, IA ............................................................................... 5,275 5,169 5,275 

KANSAS 

CLINTON LAKE, KS ...................................................................................... 2,140 2,097 2,140 

COUNCIL GROVE LAKE, KS ......................................................................... 2,237 2,192 2,237 

EL DORADO LAKE, KS ................................................................................. 1,086 1,064 1,086 

ELK CITY LAKE, KS ..................................................................................... 871 853 871 

FALL RIVER LAKE, KS ................................................................................. 1,308 1,281 1,308 

HILLSDALE LAKE, KS .................................................................................. 849 832 849 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, KS ................................................... 339 332 339 

JOHN REDMOND DAM AND RESERVOIR, KS ............................................... 1,453 1,423 1,453 

KANOPOLIS LAKE, KS .................................................................................. 1,619 1,586 1,619 

MARION LAKE, KS ....................................................................................... 1,800 1,764 1,800 

MELVERN LAKE, KS .................................................................................... 2,068 2,026 2,068 

MILFORD LAKE, KS ..................................................................................... 2,073 2,031 2,073 

PEARSON-SKUBITZ BIG HILL LAKE, KS ...................................................... 1,323 1,296 1,323 

PERRY LAKE, KS ......................................................................................... 2,358 2,310 2,358 

POMONA LAKE, KS ...................................................................................... 2,371 2,323 2,371 

SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, KS ............................................... 150 147 150 

TORONTO LAKE, KS .................................................................................... 699 685 699 

TUTTLE CREEK LAKE, KS ............................................................................ 2,239 2,194 2,239 

WILSON LAKE, KS ....................................................................................... 1,607 1,574 1,607 

KENTUCKY 

BARKLEY DAM AND LAKE BARKLEY, KY AND TN ....................................... 10,091 9,889 10,091 

BARREN RIVER LAKE, KY ........................................................................... 2,362 2,314 2,362 

BIG SANDY HARBOR, KY ............................................................................ 1,655 1,621 1,655 

BUCKHORN LAKE, KY ................................................................................. 1,615 1,582 1,615 

CARR CREEK LAKE, KY .............................................................................. 1,765 1,729 1,765 

CAVE RUN LAKE, KY ................................................................................... 990 970 990 

DEWEY LAKE, KY ........................................................................................ 1,792 1,756 1,792 

FALLS OF THE OHIO NATIONAL WILDLIFE, KY AND IN ................................ 21 20 21 

FISHTRAP LAKE, KY .................................................................................... 1,969 1,929 1,969 

GRAYSON LAKE, KY .................................................................................... 1,515 1,484 1,515 

GREEN AND BARREN RIVERS, KY .............................................................. 2,280 2,234 2,280 

GREEN RIVER LAKE, KY ............................................................................. 2,222 2,177 2,222 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, KY ................................................... 865 847 865 

KENTUCKY RIVER, KY ................................................................................. 10 9 10 

LAUREL RIVER LAKE, KY ............................................................................ 1,589 1,557 1,589 

MARTINS FORK LAKE, KY ........................................................................... 1,224 1,199 1,224 

MIDDLESBORO CUMBERLAND RIVER BASIN, KY ........................................ 240 235 240 

NOLIN LAKE, KY .......................................................................................... 2,487 2,437 2,487 

OHIO RIVER LOCKS AND DAMS, KY, IL, IN, AND OH ................................. 33,561 32,889 33,561 

OHIO RIVER OPEN CHANNEL WORK, KY, IL, IN, OH, PA, AND WV ............. 5,582 5,470 5,582 

PAINTSVILLE LAKE, KY ................................................................................ 1,195 1,171 1,195 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, KY ............................................................ 7 6 7 

ROUGH RIVER LAKE, KY ............................................................................. 2,514 2,463 2,514 

TAYLORSVILLE LAKE, KY ............................................................................. 1,205 1,180 1,205 

WOLF CREEK DAM, LAKE CUMBERLAND, KY .............................................. 7,559 7,407 7,559 

YATESVILLE LAKE, KY ................................................................................. 1,135 1,112 1,135 

LOUISIANA 

ATCHAFALAYA RIVER AND BAYOUS CHENE, BOEUF AND BLACK, LA ......... 7,152 7,008 7,152 
44 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item Budget 

estimate 

House 

allowance 

Committee recommendation 

BAYOU BODCAU RESERVOIR, LA ................................................................ 2,057 2,015 2,057 

BAYOU LAFOURCHE AND LAFOURCHE JUMP WATERWAY, LA ..................... 1,191 1,167 1,191 

BAYOU PIERRE, LA ..................................................................................... 24 23 24 

BAYOU TECHE AND VERMILION RIVER, LA ................................................ 15 14 15 

BAYOU TECHE, LA ...................................................................................... 132 129 132 

CADDO LAKE, LA ........................................................................................ 220 215 220 

CALCASIEU RIVER AND PASS, LA ............................................................... 15,474 15,164 15,474 

FRESHWATER BAYOU, LA ........................................................................... 1,695 1,661 1,695 

GULF INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, LA ......................................................... 30,575 29,963 30,575 

HOUMA NAVIGATION CANAL, LA ................................................................. 885 867 885 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, LA ................................................... 814 797 814 

J. BENNETT JOHNSTON WATERWAY, LA ...................................................... 7,717 7,562 7,717 

MERMENTAU RIVER, LA .............................................................................. 1,250 1,225 1,250 

MISSISSIPPI RIVER OUTLETS AT VENICE, LA ............................................. 1,272 1,246 1,272 

MISSISSIPPI RIVER, BATON ROUGE TO THE GULF OF MEXICO, ................. 68,000 66,640 68,000 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, LA ............................................................ 60 58 60 

REMOVAL OF AQUATIC GROWTH, LA .......................................................... 200 196 200 

WALLACE LAKE, LA ..................................................................................... 239 234 239 

MAINE 

DISPOSAL AREA MONITORING, ME ............................................................. 1,050 1,029 1,050 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, ME .................................................. 117 114 117 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, ME ........................................................... 800 784 800 

SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, ME ........................... 20 19 20 

MARYLAND 

BALTIMORE HARBOR AND CHANNELS (50 FOOT), MD ............................... 13,879 13,601 13,879 

BALTIMORE HARBOR, MD (DRIFT REMOVAL) ............................................. 400 392 400 

CUMBERLAND, MD AND RIDGELEY, WV ..................................................... 150 147 150 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MD .................................................. 171 167 171 

JENNINGS RANDOLPH LAKE, MD AND WV .................................................. 1,955 1,915 1,955 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MD ........................................................... 500 490 500 

SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, MD .............................................. 64 62 64 

SUSQUEHANNA-HAVRE DE GRACE, MD ...................................................... 180 176 180 

WICOMICO RIVER, MD ................................................................................ 1,500 1,470 1,500 

MASSACHUSETTS 

BARRE FALLS DAM, MA .............................................................................. 687 673 687 

BIRCH HILL DAM, MA ................................................................................. 839 822 839 

BUFFUMVILLE LAKE, MA ............................................................................. 609 596 609 

CAPE COD CANAL, MA ............................................................................... 17,457 17,107 17,457 

CHARLES RIVER NATURAL VALLEY STORAGE AREA, MA ............................ 300 294 300 

CONANT BROOK LAKE, MA ......................................................................... 278 272 278 

EAST BRIMFIELD LAKE, MA ........................................................................ 558 546 558 

HODGES VILLAGE DAM, MA ........................................................................ 580 568 580 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MA .................................................. 437 428 437 

KNIGHTVILLE DAM, MA ............................................................................... 692 678 692 

LITTLEVILLE LAKE, MA ................................................................................ 643 630 643 

NEW BEDFORD FAIRHAVEN AND ACUSHNET HURRICANE BARRIER, .......... 446 437 446 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MA ........................................................... 1,100 1,078 1,100 

TULLY LAKE, MA ......................................................................................... 781 765 781 

WEST HILL DAM, MA .................................................................................. 686 672 686 

WESTVILLE LAKE, MA ................................................................................. 633 620 633 

MICHIGAN 

CHANNELS IN LAKE ST. CLAIR, MI ............................................................. 722 707 722 

CHARLEVOIX HARBOR, MI .......................................................................... 325 318 325 

DETROIT RIVER, MI .................................................................................... 5,817 5,700 5,817 

GRAND HAVEN HARBOR, MI ....................................................................... 743 728 743 

HOLLAND HARBOR, MI ............................................................................... 10 9 10 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MI ................................................... 200 196 200 
45 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item Budget 

estimate 

House 

allowance 

Committee recommendation 

KEWEENAW WATERWAY, MI ........................................................................ 12 11 12 

MUSKEGON HARBOR, MI ............................................................................ 700 686 700 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MI ............................................................ 600 588 600 

ROUGE RIVER, MI ....................................................................................... 960 940 960 

SAGINAW RIVER, MI ................................................................................... 550 539 550 

SEBEWAING RIVER, MI ............................................................................... 20 19 20 

ST. CLAIR RIVER, MI .................................................................................. 643 630 643 

ST. MARYS RIVER, MI ................................................................................ 26,031 25,510 26,031 

SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, MI ............................ 2,576 2,524 2,576 

MINNESOTA 

BIGSTONE LAKE-WHETSTONE RIVER, MN AND SD ..................................... 236 231 236 

DULUTH-SUPERIOR HARBOR, MN AND WI ................................................. 7,581 7,429 7,581 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MN .................................................. 377 369 377 

LAC QUI PARLE LAKES, MINNESOTA RIVER, MN ........................................ 611 598 611 

MINNESOTA RIVER, MN .............................................................................. 270 264 270 

MISSISSIPPI RIVER BETWEEN MISSOURI RIVER AND MINNEAPOLIS .......... 44,993 44,093 44,993 

ORWELL LAKE, MN ..................................................................................... 409 400 409 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MN ........................................................... 86 84 86 

RED LAKE RESERVOIR, MN ........................................................................ 163 159 163 

RESERVOIRS AT HEADWATERS OF MISSISSIPPI RIVER, MN ....................... 3,357 3,289 3,357 

SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, MN .......................... 452 442 452 

MISSISSIPPI 

BILOXI HARBOR, MS ................................................................................... 25 24 25 

EAST FORK, TOMBIGBEE RIVER, MS .......................................................... 258 252 258 

GULFPORT HARBOR, MS ............................................................................. 1,801 1,764 1,801 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MS .................................................. 70 68 70 

MOUTH OF YAZOO RIVER, MS .................................................................... 40 39 40 

OKATIBBEE LAKE, MS ................................................................................. 1,605 1,572 1,605 

PASCAGOULA HARBOR, MS ........................................................................ 5,655 5,541 5,655 

PEARL RIVER, MS AND LA ......................................................................... 133 130 133 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MS ........................................................... 82 80 82 

MISSOURI 

CLARENCE CANNON DAM AND MARK TWAIN LAKE, MO ............................ 6,330 6,203 6,330 

CLEARWATER LAKE, MO ............................................................................. 3,288 3,222 3,288 

HARRY S TRUMAN DAM AND RESERVOIR, MO .......................................... 7,801 7,644 7,801 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MO .................................................. 2,255 2,209 2,255 

LITTLE BLUE RIVER LAKES, MO ................................................................. 907 888 907 

LONG BRANCH LAKE, MO ........................................................................... 1,018 997 1,018 

MISSISSIPPI RIVER BETWEEN THE OHIO AND MISSOURI RIVERS .............. 25,571 25,059 25,571 

POMME DE TERRE LAKE, MO ..................................................................... 2,415 2,366 2,415 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MO ........................................................... 14 13 14 

SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, MO .............................................. 400 392 400 

SMITHVILLE LAKE, MO ................................................................................ 1,257 1,231 1,257 

STOCKTON LAKE, MO .................................................................................. 3,895 3,817 3,895 

TABLE ROCK LAKE, MO AND AR ................................................................ 7,082 6,940 7,082 

UNION LAKE, MO ........................................................................................ 7 6 7 

MONTANA 

FORT PECK DAM AND LAKE, MT ................................................................ 15,366 15,058 15,366 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MT .................................................. 200 196 200 

LIBBY DAM, MT .......................................................................................... 1,736 1,701 1,736 

SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, MT ............................................... 147 144 147 

NEBRASKA 

GAVINS POINT DAM, LEWIS AND CLARK LAKE, NE AND SD ....................... 7,434 7,285 7,434 

HARLAN COUNTY LAKE, NE ........................................................................ 2,722 2,667 2,722 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NE ................................................... 345 338 345 

MISSOURI RIVER-KENSLERS BEND, NE TO SIOUX CITY, IA ....................... 137 134 137 
46 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item Budget 

estimate 

House 

allowance 

Committee recommendation 

PAPILLION CREEK, NE ................................................................................ 835 818 835 

SALT CREEKS AND TRIBUTARIES, NE ......................................................... 1,267 1,241 1,267 

NEVADA 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NV ................................................... 185 181 185 

MARTIS CREEK LAKE, NV AND CA ............................................................. 954 934 954 

PINE AND MATHEWS CANYONS LAKES, NV ................................................ 304 297 304 

NEW HAMPSHIRE 

BLACKWATER DAM, NH .............................................................................. 644 631 644 

EDWARD MACDOWELL LAKE, NH ................................................................ 775 759 775 

FRANKLIN FALLS DAM, NH ......................................................................... 769 753 769 

HOPKINTON-EVERETT LAKES, NH ............................................................... 1,489 1,459 1,489 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NH .................................................. 91 89 91 

OTTER BROOK LAKE, NH ............................................................................ 653 639 653 

PORTSMOUTH HARBOR AND PISCATAQUA RIVER, NH ................................ 500 490 500 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, NH ........................................................... 250 245 250 

SURRY MOUNTAIN LAKE, NH ...................................................................... 735 720 735 

NEW JERSEY 

BARNEGAT INLET, NJ .................................................................................. 350 343 350 

COLD SPRING INLET, NJ ............................................................................. 360 352 360 

DELAWARE RIVER AT CAMDEN, NJ ............................................................. 15 14 15 

DELAWARE RIVER, PHILADELPHIA TO THE SEA, NJ, PA, AND DE .............. 21,410 20,981 21,410 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NJ ................................................... 238 233 238 

MANASQUAN RIVER, NJ .............................................................................. 300 294 300 

NEWARK BAY, HACKENSACK AND PASSAIC RIVERS, NJ ............................. 60 58 60 

PASSAIC RIVER FLOOD WARNING SYSTEMS, NJ ......................................... 570 558 570 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, NJ ............................................................ 1,575 1,543 1,575 

RARITAN RIVER TO ARTHUR KILL CUT-OFF, NJ .......................................... 65 63 65 

RARITAN RIVER, NJ .................................................................................... 60 58 60 

NEW MEXICO 

ABIQUIU DAM, NM ...................................................................................... 3,738 3,663 3,738 

COCHITI LAKE, NM ..................................................................................... 3,240 3,175 3,240 

CONCHAS LAKE, NM ................................................................................... 3,317 3,250 3,317 

GALISTEO DAM, NM .................................................................................... 938 919 938 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NM .................................................. 843 826 843 

JEMEZ CANYON DAM, NM .......................................................................... 1,155 1,131 1,155 

RIO GRANDE ENDANGERED SPECIES COLLABORATIVE PROGRAM, NM ..... 2,425 2,376 2,425 

SANTA ROSA DAM AND LAKE, NM .............................................................. 1,814 1,777 1,814 

SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, NM .............................................. 548 537 548 

TWO RIVERS DAM, NM ............................................................................... 1,053 1,031 1,053 

UPPER RIO GRANDE WATER OPERATIONS MODEL STUDY, NM .................. 1,312 1,285 1,312 

NEW YORK 

ALMOND LAKE, NY ...................................................................................... 696 682 696 

ARKPORT DAM, NY ..................................................................................... 354 346 354 

BAY RIDGE AND RED HOOK CHANNELS, NY .............................................. 60 58 60 

BLACK ROCK CHANNEL AND TONAWANDA HARBOR, NY ............................ 1,324 1,297 1,324 

BUFFALO HARBOR, NY ............................................................................... 950 931 950 

BUTTERMILK CHANNEL, NY ........................................................................ 60 58 60 

EAST RIVER, NY ......................................................................................... 130 127 130 

EAST SIDNEY LAKE, NY .............................................................................. 823 806 823 

FLUSHING BAY AND CREEK, NY ................................................................. 60 58 60 

HUDSON RIVER CHANNEL, NY .................................................................... 60 58 60 

HUDSON RIVER, NY (MAINTENANCE) ......................................................... 2,150 2,107 2,150 

HUDSON RIVER, NY (O & C) ...................................................................... 1,700 1,666 1,700 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NY ................................................... 959 939 959 

JAMAICA BAY, NY ....................................................................................... 3,360 3,292 3,360 

LITTLE SODUS BAY HARBOR, NY ............................................................... 5 4 5 
47 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item Budget 

estimate 

House 

allowance 

Committee recommendation 

MOUNT MORRIS DAM, NY .......................................................................... 2,861 2,803 2,861 

NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY CHANNELS, NY ........................................... 40 39 40 

NEW YORK HARBOR, NY ............................................................................ 6,558 6,426 6,558 

NEW YORK HARBOR, NY AND NJ (DRIFT REMOVAL) .................................. 9,200 9,016 9,200 

NEW YORK HARBOR, NY (PREVENTION OF OBSTRUCTIVE DEPOSIT .......... 1,100 1,078 1,100 

NEWTOWN CREEK, NY ................................................................................ 60 58 60 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, NY ............................................................ 1,990 1,950 1,990 

ROCHESTER HARBOR, NY .......................................................................... 5 4 5 

SOUTHERN NEW YORK FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS, NY ........................... 900 882 900 

SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, NY ........................... 642 629 642 

WHITNEY POINT LAKE, NY .......................................................................... 822 805 822 

NORTH CAROLINA 

B. EVERETT JORDAN DAM AND LAKE, NC .................................................. 1,833 1,796 1,833 

CAPE FEAR RIVER ABOVE WILMINGTON, NC .............................................. 806 789 806 

FALLS LAKE, NC ......................................................................................... 2,014 1,973 2,014 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NC .................................................. 261 255 261 

MANTEO (SHALLOWBAG) BAY, NC .............................................................. 1,000 980 1,000 

MOREHEAD CITY HARBOR, NC ................................................................... 5,900 5,782 5,900 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, NC ........................................................... 700 686 700 

ROLLINSON CHANNEL, NC .......................................................................... 50 49 50 

SILVER LAKE HARBOR, NC ......................................................................... 250 245 250 

W. KERR SCOTT DAM AND RESERVOIR, NC ............................................... 3,449 3,380 3,449 

WILMINGTON HARBOR, NC ......................................................................... 12,445 12,196 12,445 

NORTH DAKOTA 

BOWMAN HALEY, ND .................................................................................. 151 147 151 

GARRISON DAM, LAKE SAKAKAWEA, ND ..................................................... 10,519 10,308 10,519 

HOMME LAKE, ND ....................................................................................... 208 203 208 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, ND .................................................. 262 256 262 

LAKE ASHTABULA AND BALDHILL DAM, ND ............................................... 1,249 1,224 1,249 

PIPESTEM LAKE, ND ................................................................................... 702 687 702 

SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, ND ............................................... 137 134 137 

SOURIS RIVER, ND ..................................................................................... 351 343 351 

SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, ND ........................... 28 27 28 

OHIO 

ALUM CREEK LAKE, OH .............................................................................. 1,462 1,432 1,462 

BERLIN LAKE, OH ....................................................................................... 2,613 2,560 2,613 

CAESAR CREEK LAKE, OH .......................................................................... 1,599 1,567 1,599 

CLARENCE J. BROWN DAM, OH .................................................................. 1,274 1,248 1,274 

CLEVELAND HARBOR, OH ........................................................................... 9,665 9,471 9,665 

DEER CREEK LAKE, OH .............................................................................. 1,275 1,249 1,275 

DELAWARE LAKE, OH .................................................................................. 2,363 2,315 2,363 

DILLON LAKE, OH ....................................................................................... 1,354 1,326 1,354 

FAIRPORT HARBOR, OH .............................................................................. 1,000 980 1,000 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, OH .................................................. 610 597 610 

LORAIN HARBOR, OH .................................................................................. 1,056 1,034 1,056 

MASSILLON LOCAL PROTECTION PROJECT, OH .......................................... 29 28 29 

MICHAEL J. KIRWAN DAM AND RESERVOIR, OH ........................................ 1,356 1,328 1,356 

MISSISSIPPI FLOOD CONTROL, OH ............................................................. 1,993 1,953 1,993 

MOSQUITO CREEK LAKE, OH ...................................................................... 1,454 1,424 1,454 

MUSKINGUM RIVER LAKES, OH .................................................................. 12,381 12,133 12,381 

NORTH BRANCH KOKOSING RIVER LAKE, OH ............................................. 444 435 444 

PAINT CREEK LAKE, OH .............................................................................. 1,740 1,705 1,740 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, OH ........................................................... 305 298 305 

ROSEVILLE LOCAL PROTECTION PROJECT, OH ........................................... 35 34 35 

SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, OH ........................... 270 264 270 

TOLEDO HARBOR, OH ................................................................................. 5,982 5,862 5,982 

TOM JENKINS DAM, OH .............................................................................. 655 641 655 

WEST FORK OF MILL CREEK LAKE, OH ...................................................... 838 821 838 
48 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item Budget 

estimate 

House 

allowance 

Committee recommendation 

WILLIAM H HARSHA LAKE, OH .................................................................... 1,069 1,047 1,069 

OKLAHOMA 

ARCADIA LAKE, OK ..................................................................................... 591 579 591 

BIRCH LAKE, OK ......................................................................................... 987 967 987 

BROKEN BOW LAKE, OK ............................................................................. 2,058 2,016 2,058 

CANTON LAKE, OK ...................................................................................... 3,902 3,823 3,902 

COPAN LAKE, OK ........................................................................................ 1,420 1,391 1,420 

EUFAULA LAKE, OK ..................................................................................... 6,049 5,928 6,049 

FORT GIBSON LAKE, OK ............................................................................. 4,992 4,892 4,992 

FORT SUPPLY LAKE, OK ............................................................................. 1,089 1,067 1,089 

GREAT SALT PLAINS LAKE, OK ................................................................... 711 696 711 

HEYBURN LAKE, OK .................................................................................... 634 621 634 

HUGO LAKE, OK .......................................................................................... 1,549 1,518 1,549 

HULAH LAKE, OK ........................................................................................ 772 756 772 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, OK ................................................... 201 196 201 

KAW LAKE, OK ............................................................................................ 2,149 2,106 2,149 

KEYSTONE LAKE, OK ................................................................................... 7,071 6,929 7,071 

MCCLELLAN-KERR ARKANSAS RIVER NAVIGATION SYSTEM, OK ................ 6,827 6,690 6,827 

OOLOGAH LAKE, OK .................................................................................... 4,369 4,281 4,369 

OPTIMA LAKE, OK ....................................................................................... 32 31 32 

PENSACOLA RESERVOIR, LAKE OF THE CHEROKEES, OK .......................... 128 125 128 

PINE CREEK LAKE, OK ................................................................................ 1,254 1,228 1,254 

ROBERT S. KERR LOCK AND DAM AND RESERVOIR, OK ........................... 5,399 5,291 5,399 

SARDIS LAKE, OK ....................................................................................... 1,002 981 1,002 

SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, OK ............................................... 1,000 980 1,000 

SKIATOOK LAKE, OK .................................................................................... 1,767 1,731 1,767 

TENKILLER FERRY LAKE, OK ...................................................................... 4,055 3,973 4,055 

WAURIKA LAKE, OK ..................................................................................... 1,537 1,506 1,537 

WEBBERS FALLS LOCK AND DAM, OK ........................................................ 4,913 4,814 4,913 

WISTER LAKE, OK ....................................................................................... 1,231 1,206 1,231 

OREGON 

APPLEGATE LAKE, OR ................................................................................. 931 912 931 

BLUE RIVER LAKE, OR ............................................................................... 561 549 561 

BONNEVILLE LOCK AND DAM, OR AND WA ................................................ 6,640 6,507 6,640 

CHETCO RIVER, OR .................................................................................... 561 549 561 

COLUMBIA AND LOWER WILLAMETTE RIVERS BELOW VANCOUVER, .......... 24,378 23,890 24,378 

COLUMBIA RIVER AT THE MOUTH, OR AND WA ......................................... 12,857 12,599 12,857 

COLUMBIA RIVER BETWEEN VANCOUVER, WA AND THE DALLES, OR ....... 693 679 693 

COOS BAY, OR ........................................................................................... 4,793 4,697 4,793 

COQUILLE RIVER, OR ................................................................................. 298 292 298 

COTTAGE GROVE LAKE, OR ........................................................................ 1,299 1,273 1,299 

COUGAR LAKE, OR ..................................................................................... 1,682 1,648 1,682 

DETROIT LAKE, OR ..................................................................................... 830 813 830 

DORENA LAKE, OR ...................................................................................... 1,100 1,078 1,100 

ELK CREEK LAKE, OR ................................................................................. 60 58 60 

FALL CREEK LAKE, OR ............................................................................... 1,130 1,107 1,130 

FERN RIDGE LAKE, OR ............................................................................... 1,771 1,735 1,771 

GREEN PETER-FOSTER LAKES, OR ............................................................. 1,658 1,624 1,658 

HILLS CREEK LAKE, OR .............................................................................. 702 687 702 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS, OR .................. 20 19 20 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, OR .................................................. 575 563 575 

JOHN DAY LOCK AND DAM, OR AND WA .................................................... 4,394 4,306 4,394 

LOOKOUT POINT LAKE, OR ......................................................................... 1,835 1,798 1,835 

LOST CREEK LAKE, OR ............................................................................... 3,487 3,417 3,487 

MCNARY LOCK AND DAM, OR AND WA ...................................................... 5,309 5,202 5,309 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, OR ........................................................... 200 196 200 

ROGUE RIVER AT GOLD BEACH, OR .......................................................... 574 562 574 

SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, OR ............................................... 95 93 95 

SIUSLAW RIVER, OR ................................................................................... 551 539 551 
49 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item Budget 

estimate 

House 

allowance 

Committee 

recommendation 

SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, OR ........................... 7,400 7,252 7,400 

WILLAMETTE RIVER AT WILLAMETTE FALLS, OR ........................................ 104 101 104 

WILLAMETTE RIVER BANK PROTECTION, OR .............................................. 459 449 459 

WILLOW CREEK LAKE, OR .......................................................................... 685 671 685 

YAQUINA BAY AND HARBOR, OR ................................................................ 1,962 1,922 1,962 

PENNSYLVANIA 

ALLEGHENY RIVER, PA ............................................................................... 4,000 3,920 4,000 

ALVIN R. BUSH DAM, PA ............................................................................ 816 799 816 

AYLESWORTH CREEK LAKE, PA .................................................................. 384 376 384 

BELTZVILLE LAKE, PA ................................................................................. 1,473 1,443 1,473 

BLUE MARSH LAKE, PA .............................................................................. 2,891 2,833 2,891 

CONEMAUGH RIVER LAKE, PA .................................................................... 1,356 1,328 1,356 

COWANESQUE LAKE, PA ............................................................................. 2,446 2,397 2,446 

CROOKED CREEK LAKE, PA ........................................................................ 2,086 2,044 2,086 

CURWENSVILLE LAKE, PA ........................................................................... 893 875 893 

DELAWARE RIVER, PHILADELPHIA, PA TO TRENTON, NJ ............................ 1,095 1,073 1,095 

EAST BRANCH CLARION RIVER LAKE, PA .................................................. 1,660 1,626 1,660 

FOSTER JOSEPH SAYERS DAM, PA ............................................................. 898 880 898 

FRANCIS E WALTER DAM, PA ..................................................................... 1,216 1,191 1,216 

GENERAL EDGAR JADWIN DAM AND RESERVOIR, PA ................................. 400 392 400 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, PA ................................................... 1,101 1,078 1,101 

JOHNSTOWN, PA ......................................................................................... 80 78 80 

KINZUA DAM AND ALLEGHENY RESERVOIR, PA ......................................... 1,565 1,533 1,565 

LOYALHANNA LAKE, PA ............................................................................... 1,611 1,578 1,611 

MAHONING CREEK LAKE, PA ...................................................................... 2,005 1,964 2,005 

MONONGAHELA RIVER, PA ......................................................................... 17,018 16,677 17,018 

OHIO RIVER LOCKS AND DAMS, PA, OH, AND WV ..................................... 23,140 22,677 23,140 

OHIO RIVER OPEN CHANNEL WORK, PA, OH, AND WV .............................. 626 613 626 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, PA ............................................................ 120 117 120 

PROMPTON LAKE, PA .................................................................................. 623 610 623 

PUNXSUTAWNEY, PA ................................................................................... 63 61 63 

RAYSTOWN LAKE, PA .................................................................................. 4,507 4,416 4,507 

SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, PA ............................................... 46 45 46 

SCHUYLKILL RIVER, PA .............................................................................. 250 245 250 

SHENANGO RIVER LAKE, PA ....................................................................... 2,426 2,377 2,426 

STILLWATER LAKE, PA ................................................................................ 514 503 514 

SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, PA ........................... 112 109 112 

TIOGA-HAMMOND LAKES, PA ...................................................................... 2,752 2,696 2,752 

TIONESTA LAKE, PA .................................................................................... 2,421 2,372 2,421 

UNION CITY LAKE, PA ................................................................................. 390 382 390 

WOODCOCK CREEK LAKE, PA ..................................................................... 1,431 1,402 1,431 

YORK INDIAN ROCK DAM, PA ..................................................................... 883 865 883 

YOUGHIOGHENY RIVER LAKE, PA AND MD ................................................. 2,210 2,165 2,210 

PUERTO RICO 

SAN JUAN HARBOR, PR .............................................................................. 2,700 2,646 2,700 

RHODE ISLAND 

FOX POINT BARRIER, NARRANGANSETT BAY, RI ........................................ 558 546 558 

GREAT SALT POND, BLOCK ISLAND, RI ...................................................... 250 245 250 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, RI .................................................... 90 88 90 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, RI ............................................................. 450 441 450 

WOONSOCKET, RI ....................................................................................... 420 411 420 

SOUTH CAROLINA 

CHARLESTON HARBOR, SC ......................................................................... 13,841 13,564 13,841 

COOPER RIVER, CHARLESTON HARBOR, SC .............................................. 5,408 5,299 5,408 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, SC ................................................... 65 63 65 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, SC ............................................................ 875 857 875 
50 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item Budget 

estimate 

House 

allowance 

Committee recommendation 

SOUTH DAKOTA 

BIG BEND DAM, LAKE SHARPE, SD ............................................................ 8,285 8,119 8,285 

COLD BROOK LAKE, SD .............................................................................. 296 290 296 

COTTONWOOD SPRINGS LAKE, SD .............................................................. 222 217 222 

FORT RANDALL DAM, LAKE FRANCIS CASE, SD ......................................... 8,818 8,641 8,818 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, SD ................................................... 189 185 189 

LAKE TRAVERSE, SD AND MN .................................................................... 554 542 554 

OAHE DAM, LAKE OAHE, SD AND ND ......................................................... 10,318 10,111 10,318 

SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, SD ............................................... 84 82 84 

TENNESSEE 

CENTER HILL LAKE, TN .............................................................................. 6,020 5,899 6,020 

CHEATHAM LOCK AND DAM, TN ................................................................. 6,346 6,219 6,346 

CHICKAMAUGA LOCK, TENNESSEE RIVER, TN ............................................ 3,098 3,036 3,098 

CORDELL HULL DAM AND RESERVOIR, TN ................................................ 6,358 6,230 6,358 

DALE HOLLOW LAKE, TN ............................................................................. 5,925 5,806 5,925 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, TN ................................................... 34 33 34 

J. PERCY PRIEST DAM AND RESERVOIR, TN .............................................. 4,380 4,292 4,380 

OLD HICKORY LOCK AND DAM, TN ............................................................ 8,106 7,943 8,106 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, TN ............................................................ 8 7 8 

TENNESSEE RIVER, TN ............................................................................... 21,845 21,408 21,845 

WOLF RIVER HARBOR, TN .......................................................................... 109 106 109 

TEXAS 

AQUILLA LAKE, TX ...................................................................................... 1,081 1,059 1,081 

ARKANSAS-RED RIVER BASINS CHLORIDE CONTROL—AREA VI ............... 1,593 1,561 1,593 

BARDWELL LAKE, TX .................................................................................. 1,861 1,823 1,861 

BAYPORT SHIP CHANNEL, TX ..................................................................... 3,776 3,700 3,776 

BELTON LAKE, TX ....................................................................................... 3,516 3,445 3,516 

BENBROOK LAKE, TX .................................................................................. 2,464 2,414 2,464 

BRAZOS ISLAND HARBOR, TX .................................................................... 3,878 3,800 3,878 

BUFFALO BAYOU AND TRIBUTARIES, TX .................................................... 3,670 3,596 3,670 

CANYON LAKE, TX ...................................................................................... 3,580 3,508 3,580 

CEDAR BAYOU, TX ...................................................................................... 350 343 350 

CORPUS CHRISTI SHIP CHANNEL, TX ......................................................... 5,912 5,793 5,912 

DENISON DAM, LAKE TEXOMA, TX .............................................................. 6,939 6,800 6,939 

ESTELLINE SPRINGS EXPERIMENTAL PROJECT, TX .................................... 44 43 44 

FERRELLS BRIDGE DAM, LAKE O’ THE PINES, TX ...................................... 3,464 3,394 3,464 

FREEPORT HARBOR, TX .............................................................................. 4,796 4,700 4,796 

GALVESTON HARBOR AND CHANNEL, TX ................................................... 3,738 3,663 3,738 

GIWW, CHANNEL TO VICTORIA, TX ............................................................. 3,519 3,448 3,519 

GIWW, CHOCOLATE BAYOU, TX .................................................................. 500 490 500 

GRANGER DAM AND LAKE, TX .................................................................... 2,305 2,258 2,305 

GRAPEVINE LAKE, TX .................................................................................. 2,981 2,921 2,981 

GREENS BAYOU, TX .................................................................................... 800 784 800 

GULF INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, TX ......................................................... 24,277 23,791 24,277 

HORDS CREEK LAKE, TX ............................................................................ 1,635 1,602 1,635 

HOUSTON SHIP CHANNEL, TX ..................................................................... 18,188 17,824 18,188 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, TX ................................................... 1,343 1,316 1,343 

JIM CHAPMAN LAKE, TX ............................................................................. 1,586 1,554 1,586 

JOE POOL LAKE, TX .................................................................................... 1,956 1,916 1,956 

LAKE KEMP, TX ........................................................................................... 183 179 183 

LAVON LAKE, TX ......................................................................................... 3,062 3,000 3,062 

LEWISVILLE DAM, TX .................................................................................. 3,199 3,135 3,199 

MATAGORDA SHIP CHANNEL, TX ................................................................ 4,307 4,220 4,307 

NAVARRO MILLS LAKE, TX .......................................................................... 2,867 2,809 2,867 

NORTH SAN GABRIEL DAM AND LAKE GEORGETOWN, TX .......................... 2,447 2,398 2,447 

O C FISHER DAM AND LAKE, TX ................................................................ 1,802 1,765 1,802 

PAT MAYSE LAKE, TX ................................................................................. 1,211 1,186 1,211 

PROCTOR LAKE, TX .................................................................................... 3,526 3,455 3,526 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, TX ............................................................ 100 98 100 
51 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item Budget 

estimate 

House 

allowance 

Committee recommendation 

RAY ROBERTS LAKE, TX ............................................................................. 1,922 1,883 1,922 

SABINE-NECHES WATERWAY, TX ................................................................ 14,182 13,898 14,182 

SAM RAYBURN DAM AND RESERVOIR, TX ................................................. 5,045 4,944 5,045 

SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, TX ................................................ 242 237 242 

SOMERVILLE LAKE, TX ................................................................................ 3,246 3,181 3,246 

STILLHOUSE HOLLOW DAM, TX ................................................................... 2,087 2,045 2,087 

TEXAS CITY SHIP CHANNEL, TX ................................................................. 4,667 4,573 4,667 

TEXAS WATER ALLOCATION ASSESSMENT, TX ............................................ 100 98 100 

TOWN BLUFF DAM, B A STEINHAGEN LAKE, TX ......................................... 2,935 2,876 2,935 

WACO LAKE, TX .......................................................................................... 3,035 2,974 3,035 

WALLISVILLE LAKE, TX ................................................................................ 1,990 1,950 1,990 

WHITNEY LAKE, TX ..................................................................................... 5,397 5,289 5,397 

WRIGHT PATMAN DAM AND LAKE, TX ........................................................ 3,847 3,770 3,847 

UTAH 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, UT ................................................... 31 30 31 

SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, UT ............................................... 642 629 642 

VERMONT 

BALL MOUNTAIN, VT ................................................................................... 889 871 889 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, VT ................................................... 79 77 79 

NORTH HARTLAND LAKE, VT ....................................................................... 748 733 748 

NORTH SPRINGFIELD LAKE, VT ................................................................... 941 922 941 

TOWNSHEND LAKE, VT ................................................................................ 879 861 879 

UNION VILLAGE DAM, VT ............................................................................ 1,993 1,953 1,993 

VIRGINIA 

ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY—ACC, VA ....................................... 1,742 1,707 1,742 

ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY—DSC, VA ....................................... 1,156 1,132 1,156 

CHINCOTEAGUE INLET, VA .......................................................................... 600 588 600 

GATHRIGHT DAM AND LAKE MOOMAW, VA ................................................. 2,253 2,207 2,253 

HAMPTON ROADS, NORFOLK & NEWPORT NEWS HARBOR, VA (DRIF ........ 1,048 1,027 1,048 

HAMPTON ROADS, VA (PREVENTION OF OBSTRUCTIVE DEPOSITS) ............ 75 73 75 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, VA ................................................... 461 451 461 

JAMES RIVER CHANNEL, VA ....................................................................... 4,363 4,275 4,363 

JOHN H. KERR LAKE, VA AND NC .............................................................. 10,629 10,416 10,629 

JOHN W. FLANNAGAN DAM AND RESERVOIR, VA ....................................... 2,341 2,294 2,341 

NORFOLK HARBOR, VA ............................................................................... 11,050 10,829 11,050 

NORTH FORK OF POUND RIVER LAKE, VA .................................................. 486 476 486 

PHILPOTT LAKE, VA .................................................................................... 4,694 4,600 4,694 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, VA ............................................................ 902 883 902 

WASHINGTON 

CHIEF JOSEPH DAM, WA ............................................................................. 708 693 708 

EVERETT HARBOR AND SNOHOMISH RIVER, WA ........................................ 2,445 2,396 2,445 

GRAYS HARBOR, WA .................................................................................. 8,500 8,330 8,500 

HOWARD HANSON DAM, WA ....................................................................... 3,050 2,989 3,050 

ICE HARBOR LOCK AND DAM, WA ............................................................. 3,734 3,659 3,734 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS, WA .................. 70 68 70 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, WA .................................................. 730 715 730 

LAKE WASHINGTON SHIP CANAL, WA ......................................................... 10,553 10,341 10,553 

LITTLE GOOSE LOCK AND DAM, WA ........................................................... 2,062 2,020 2,062 

LOWER GRANITE LOCK AND DAM, WA ....................................................... 2,823 2,766 2,823 

LOWER MONUMENTAL LOCK AND DAM, WA ............................................... 2,172 2,128 2,172 

MILL CREEK LAKE, WA ............................................................................... 3,021 2,960 3,021 

MOUNT ST. HELENS SEDIMENT CONTROL, WA ........................................... 313 306 313 

MUD MOUNTAIN DAM, WA .......................................................................... 3,549 3,478 3,549 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, WA ........................................................... 516 505 516 

PUGET SOUND AND TRIBUTARY WATERS, WA ............................................ 995 975 995 

SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, WA ............................................... 453 443 453 

SEATTLE HARBOR, WA ................................................................................ 4,240 4,155 4,240 
52 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item Budget 

estimate 

House 

allowance 

Committee recommendation 

STILLAGUAMISH RIVER, WA ........................................................................ 271 265 271 

SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, WA ........................... 55 53 55 

TACOMA, PUYALLUP RIVER, WA ................................................................. 145 142 145 

THE DALLES LOCK AND DAM, WA AND OR ................................................ 3,236 3,171 3,236 

WEST VIRGINIA 

BEECH FORK LAKE, WV .............................................................................. 1,366 1,338 1,366 

BLUESTONE LAKE, WV ................................................................................ 2,039 1,998 2,039 

BURNSVILLE LAKE, WV ............................................................................... 2,695 2,641 2,695 

EAST LYNN LAKE, WV ................................................................................. 2,116 2,073 2,116 

ELKINS, WV ................................................................................................. 60 58 60 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, WV .................................................. 528 517 528 

KANAWHA RIVER LOCKS AND DAMS, WV ................................................... 12,401 12,152 12,401 

OHIO RIVER LOCKS AND DAMS, WV, KY, AND OH ..................................... 34,232 33,547 34,232 

OHIO RIVER OPEN CHANNEL WORK, WV, KY, AND OH .............................. 2,805 2,748 2,805 

R D BAILEY LAKE, WV ................................................................................ 2,407 2,358 2,407 

STONEWALL JACKSON LAKE, WV ................................................................ 1,064 1,042 1,064 

SUMMERSVILLE LAKE, WV .......................................................................... 2,692 2,638 2,692 

SUTTON LAKE, WV ...................................................................................... 2,587 2,535 2,587 

TYGART LAKE, WV ...................................................................................... 1,406 1,377 1,406 

WISCONSIN 

EAU GALLE RIVER LAKE, WI ....................................................................... 741 726 741 

FOX RIVER, WI ............................................................................................ 2,889 2,831 2,889 

GREEN BAY HARBOR, WI ........................................................................... 3,406 3,337 3,406 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, WI ................................................... 69 67 69 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, WI ............................................................ 288 282 288 

STURGEON BAY HARBOR AND LAKE MICHIGAN SHIP CANAL, WI .............. 19 18 19 

SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, WI ............................ 524 513 524 

WYOMING 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, WY .................................................. 55 53 55 

JACKSON HOLE LEVEES, WY ....................................................................... 1,014 993 1,014 

SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, WY ............................................... 111 108 111 

SUBTOTAL, ITEMS LISTED UNDER STATES .................................... 2,112,016 2,059,118 2,101,451 

NATIONAL PROGRAMS 

ADDITIONAL FLOOD AND STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION .............................. ........................ 10,400 ........................

ADDITIONAL NAVIGATION ............................................................................ ........................ 123,313 ........................

ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR ONGOING WORK: 

SMALL, REMOTE OR SUBSISTENCE HARBOR MAINTENANCE ............ ........................ ........................ 30,000 

INLAND NAVIGATION CHANNEL MAINTENANCE .................................. ........................ ........................ 15,000 

COMMERCIAL HARBOR MAINTENANCE .............................................. ........................ ........................ 55,000 

MISCELLANEOUS MAINTENANCE ........................................................ ........................ ........................ 34,000 

MULTI-PURPOSE PROJECT O&M ........................................................ ........................ ........................ 9,000 

INTERAGENCY PERFORMANCE EVALUATION TASK FORCE/HURRICANE ...... 6,000 2,450 6,000 

AQUATIC NUISANCE CONTROL RESEARCH ................................................. 690 676 690 

ASSET MANAGEMENT/FACILITIES AND EQUIP MAINT (FEM) ....................... 4,750 4,655 4,750 

BUDGET/MANAGEMENT SUPPORT FOR O&M BUSINESS PROGRAMS: 

STEWARDSHIP SUPPORT PROGRAM .................................................. 750 735 750 

PERFORMANCE-BASED BUDGETING SUPPORT PROGRAM ................. 4,000 3,920 4,000 

RECREATION MANAGEMENT SUPPORT PROGRAM ............................. 1,650 1,617 1,650 

OPTIMIZATION TOOLS FOR NAVIGATION ............................................ 392 384 392 

COASTAL AND OCEAN DATA SYSTEM ......................................................... 3,000 3,920 5,000 

COASTAL INLET RESEARCH PROGRAM ....................................................... 2,700 2,646 2,700 

RESPONSE TO CLIMATE CHANGE AT CORPS PROJECTS ............................ 5,000 4,900 5,000 

CULTURAL RESOURCES (NAGPRA/CURATION) ............................................ 4,500 4,410 4,500 

DREDGE MCFARLAND READY RESERVE ..................................................... 12,000 11,760 ........................

DREDGE WHEELER READY RESERVE ......................................................... 12,000 11,760 ........................

DREDGING DATA AND LOCK PERFORMANCE MONITORING SYSTEM .......... 1,150 1,127 1,150 

DREDGING OPERATIONS AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH [DOER] .......... 6,300 6,174 6,300 
53 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item Budget 

estimate 

House 

allowance 

Committee recommendation 

DREDGING OPERATIONS TECHNICAL SUPPORT PROGRAM [DOTS] ............. 2,820 2,763 2,820 

EARTHQUAKE HAZARDS REDUCTION PROGRAM ......................................... 270 264 270 

FACILITY PROTECTION [CISP] ..................................................................... 6,500 6,370 6,500 

FERC HYDROPOWER COORDINATION .......................................................... 3,000 2,940 3,000 

FISH & WILDLIFE OPERATING FISH HATCHERY REIMBURSEMENT ............. 3,800 3,724 3,800 

GREAT LAKES TRIBUTARY MODEL .............................................................. 1,080 1,058 1,080 

GLOBAL CHANGE SUSTAINABILITY .............................................................. 10,000 ........................ ........................

INLAND WATERWAY NAVIGATION CHARTS .................................................. 3,420 3,351 3,420 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED FEDERAL FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS ......... 26,780 26,244 26,780 

MONITORING OF COMPLETED NAVIGATION PROJECTS ............................... 3,920 3,841 3,920 

NATIONAL (LEVEE) FLOOD INVENTORY ....................................................... 21,000 20,580 21,000 

NATIONAL (MULTIPLE PROJECT) NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT ..... 4,230 4,145 4,230 

NATIONAL COASTAL MAPPING PROGRAM ................................................... 6,300 6,174 8,300 

NATIONAL DAM SAFETY PROGRAM (PORTFOLIO RISK ASSESSMENT .......... 15,000 14,700 15,000 

NATIONAL EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS PROGRAM [NEPP] ...................... 6,750 6,615 6,750 

NATIONAL PORTFOLIO ASSESSMENT FOR REALLOCATIONS ........................ 571 559 571 

PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT TECHNICAL SUPPORT ........................................ 300 294 300 

PROTECT, CLEAR, AND STRAIGHTEN CHANNELS ........................................ 50 49 50 

REMOVAL OF SUNKEN VESSELS ................................................................. 500 490 500 

WATERBORNE COMMERCE STATISTICS ...................................................... 4,771 4,675 4,771 

HARBOR MAINTENANCE FEE DATA COLLECTION ........................................ 825 808 825 

RECREATIONONESTOP [R1S] NATIONAL RECREATION RESERVATION ......... 65 63 65 

REGIONAL SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM ......................................... 1,800 1,764 4,100 

RELIABILITY MODELS PROGRAM FOR MAJOR REHAB ................................ 300 294 300 

SHORELINE USE PERMIT STUDY ................................................................ 250 245 250 

SUSTAINABILITY AND ENERGY (NEW) ......................................................... 12,300 ........................ ........................

WATER OPERATIONS TECHNICAL SUPPORT [WOTS] ................................... 500 490 500 

SUBTOTAL, REMAINING ITEMS ...................................................... 201,984 307,347 304,984 

REDUCTION FOR SAVINGS AND SLIPPAGE ................................................. ........................ ........................ ¥46,435 

TOTAL, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE ........................................ 2,314,000 2,366,465 2,360,000 

Dam Re-operation Studies.—As soon as practicable after the date 

of enactment of this act, the Secretary of the Army, acting through 

the Chief of Engineers, is encouraged to initiate and complete, on 

the most expedited basis practicable, a study to determine the feasibility and estimated water supply benefit of updating the operations and maintenance manuals for the dams in the State of California within the jurisdiction of the Sacramento and San Francisco 

office of the Corps of Engineers. 

Additional Funding for Ongoing Work.—The Committee recommendation includes additional funds above the budget request to 

continue ongoing projects and activities. The Committee is concerned that the administration criteria for navigation maintenance, 

does not allow small, remote, or subsistence harbors to properly 

compete for scarce navigation maintenance funds. The Committee 

urges the Corps to revise the criteria used for determining which 

navigation maintenance projects are funded to account for the economic impact that these projects provide to local and regional 

economies. The Committee recommends that priority in allocating 

these funds should be towards completing ongoing work maintaining harbors and shipping channels, particularly where there is a 

U.S. Coast Guard presence, or that will enhance national, regional, 

or local economic development, and promote job growth and inter-
54 

national competitiveness or for critical backlog maintenance activities. 

The administration has complete discretion over how these funds 

are to be used. The intent of these funds is for ongoing work that 

either did not make it into the administration request or were inadequately budgeted. Within 30 days of enactment, the Corps shall 

provide the House and Senate Appropriations Committees a work 

plan delineating how these funds are to be distributed and in 

which phase the work is being accomplished. 

Coastal Ocean Data System.—The administration proposed a line 

item called Coastal Data Information Program under the Operation 

and Maintenance account in the Press Book that accompanied the 

administration’s fiscal year 2011 budget request as a ‘‘previously 

unfunded item’’ commonly referred to as a new start. When the fiscal year 2011 budget justification sheets were delivered to the 

Committee, this line item was renamed Coastal Ocean Data System. The fiscal year 2012 budget request treated this as a continuing item for 2012 as Coastal Ocean Data System under the Operations and Maintenance account because the fiscal year 2011 appropriations process was not completed when the budget was released. Once the continuing resolution for fiscal year 2011 was enacted and the Corps prepared their work plan, the Corps included 

funding for this newly named item in the Investigations account 

under the traditional line item Coastal Field Data Collection. 

The Committee has reviewed the budget justifications for fiscal 

year 2011 and fiscal year 2012 and does not agree that this item 

should be designated as a new start. While the line item description is new, the work proposed appears to be similar, if not the 

same work as to what has traditionally been funded for this item 

regardless of the name. Therefore the Committee has included 

funding for this as a continuing item. Additional funding has been 

recommended for the maintenance of wave observations and expansion of the national wave monitoring network. The Committee 

notes the importance of accurate directional wave measurements to 

the success of coastal projects. 

Dredge Wheeler and McFarland Ready Reserve.—The Committee 

notes that $24,000,000 has been requested to keep these two 

dredges in ready reserve status in accordance with legislation provided in the Water Resources Development Acts of 1996 and 2007. 

These funds are intended to allow the dredges to be staffed and 

ready for periodic testing and utilization, if needed, based on very 

specific criteria. 

In this tight fiscal environment, the Committee does not believe 

that it is justifiable for $24,000,000 to be provided to the Corps for 

these vessels to sit at the dock. The fiscal year 2002 Energy and 

Water conferees commissioned a GAO study of the benefits and impacts of the minimum dredge fleet. That report, published in 

March 2003, stated that ‘‘Restrictions on the use of the Corps’ hopper dredge fleet, which began in fiscal year 1993, have imposed 

costs on the Corps’ dredging program, but have thus far not resulted in proven benefits. Most of the costs of the Corps’ hopper 

dredges are incurred regardless of how frequently the dredges are 

used. For example, the Corps’ placement of the Wheeler in ready 

reserve—55 annual workdays plus emergencies—reduced the ves-
55 

sel’s productivity by 56 percent but reduced costs by only 20 percent.’’ The Corps has yet to provide any documentation showing the 

benefits of the ready reserve of these dredges. 

In light of this report and the current economic climate, the Committee believes that it is prudent to fully utilize the capabilities of 

these dredges. The Committee recommends that rather than using 

the proposed $24,000,000 for keeping these vessels in a ready reserve status that these funds be used for actual dredging of navigation harbors and channels. Consequently, the Committee has included legislative language directing full utilization of these 

dredges. 

Global Change Sustainability.—No funding is included for this 

new item first proposed in the fiscal year 2011 budget. As it has 

not received any funding it is considered a new start and is ineligible for funding in fiscal year 2012. 

Sustainability and Energy.—No funding is included for this new 

item proposed in the fiscal year 2012 budget. 

REGULATORY PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2011 ............................................................................. $189,620,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ........................................................................... 196,000,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 196,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 193,000,000 

An appropriation of $193,000,000 is recommended for the regulatory program of the Corps of Engineers. 

This appropriation provides for salaries and costs incurred administering regulation of activities affecting U.S. waters, including 

wetlands, in accordance with the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 

33 U.S.C. section 401, the Clean Water Act of 1977 Public Law 95– 

217, and the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of 

1972 Public Law 92–532. 

The appropriation helps maintain program performance, protects 

important aquatic resources, and supports partnerships with States 

and local communities through watershed planning efforts. 

FORMERLY UTILIZED SITES REMEDIAL ACTION PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2011 ............................................................................. $129,740,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ........................................................................... 109,000,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 109,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 109,000,000 

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $109,000,000 to 

continue activities related to the FUSRAP in fiscal year 2005. 

The responsibility for the cleanup of contaminated sites under 

the Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program was transferred to the Army Corps of Engineers in the fiscal year 1998 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, Public Law 105– 

62. 

FUSRAP is not specifically defined by statute. The program was 

established in 1974 under the broad authority of the Atomic Energy Act and, until fiscal year 1998, funds for the cleanup of contaminated defense sites had been appropriated to the Department 

of Energy through existing appropriation accounts. In appropriating FUSRAP funds to the Corps of Engineers, the Committee 

intended to transfer only the responsibility for administration and 
56 

execution of cleanup activities at eligible sites where remediation 

had not been completed. It did not intend to transfer ownership of 

and accountability for real property interests that remain with the 

Department of Energy. 

The Corps of Engineers has extensive experience in the cleanup 

of hazardous, toxic, and radioactive wastes through its work for the 

Department of Defense and other Federal agencies. The Committee 

always intended for the Corps’ expertise be used in the same manner for the cleanup of contaminated sites under FUSRAP. The 

Committee expects the Corps to continue programming and budgeting for FUSRAP as part of the Corps of Engineers—Civil program. 

The Corps is directed to prioritize sites that are nearing completion. 

FLOOD CONTROL AND COASTAL EMERGENCIES

Appropriations, 2011 ............................................................................. ........................... 

Budget estimate, 2012 ........................................................................... $27,000,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 27,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 27,000,000 

The Committee has recommended $27,000,000 for the Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies account. This account provides funds 

for preparedness activities for natural and other disasters, response, and emergency flood fighting and rescue operations, hurricane response, and emergency shore protection work. It also provides for emergency supplies of clean water where the source has 

been contaminated or where adequate supplies of water are needed 

for consumption. 

GENERAL EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2011 ............................................................................. $184,630,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ........................................................................... 185,000,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 177,640,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 185,000,000 

This appropriation finances the expenses of the Office, Chief of 

Engineers, the Division Offices, and certain research and statistical 

functions of the Corps of Engineers. The Committee recommendation is $185,000,000. 

Executive Direction and Management.—The Office of the Chief of 

Engineers and 8 division offices supervise work in 38 district offices. 

Humphreys Engineer Center Support Activity.—This support center provides administrative services (such as personnel, logistics, 

information management, and finance and accounting) for the Office of the Chief of Engineers and other separate field operating activities. 

Institute for Water Resources.—This institute performs studies 

and analyses, and develops planning techniques for the management and development of the Nation’s water resources. 

Within the funds provided, the Institute for Water Resources is 

directed to submit to the Senate Appropriations Committee within 

180 days of enactment of this act, a vision on how the Nation 

should address the critical need for port and inland waterway modernization to accommodate the post-Panamax vessels that currently 
57 

transit the Suez Canal and will soon take advantage of the Panama Canal Expansion. Factors for consideration within the vision 

include the costs associated with deepening and widening deepdraft harbors; the ability of the waterways and ports to enhance 

the Nation’s export initiatives benefitting the agricultural and 

manufacturing sectors; the current and projected population trends 

that distinguish regional ports and ports which are immediately 

adjacent to large population centers; and the environmental impacts resulting from the modernization of inland waterways and 

deep-draft ports. 

United States Army Corps of Engineers Finance Center.—This 

center provides centralized support for all Corps finance and accounting. 

Office of Congressional Affairs.—The Committee believes that an 

Office of Congressional Affairs for the Civil Works Program would 

hamper the efficient and effective coordination of issues with the 

Committee staff and Members of Congress. The Committee believes 

that the technical knowledge and managerial expertise needed for 

the Corps headquarters to effectively address Civil Works authorization, appropriation, and headquarters policy matters resides in 

the Civil Works organization. Therefore, the Committee strongly 

recommends that the Office of Congressional Affairs not be a part 

of the process by which information on Civil Works projects, programs, and activities is provided to Congress. 

The Corps is reminded that General Expense funds are appropriated solely for the executive management and oversight of the 

Civil Works Program under the direction of the Director of Civil 

Works. 

OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE ARMY (CIVIL WORKS)

Appropriations, 2011 ............................................................................. $4,990,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ........................................................................... 6,000,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 5,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 5,000,000 

The Committee has recommended $5,000,000 for the Office of the 

Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) [OASA(CW)]. As has 

been previously stated, the Committee believes that this office 

should be funded through the Defense appropriations bill and directs the administration to budget for this office under the Department of Defense, Operation and Maintenance—Army account in future budget submissions. It is the Committee’s opinion that the traditional role of the ASA(CW) is to provide the Chief of Engineers 

advice about policy matters and generally be the political spokesperson for the administration’s policies; however, the Chief of Engineers is responsible for carrying out the program. This is underscored by the administration’s budget documents that state that 

the OASA(CW) provides policy direction and oversight for the civil 

works program and the Headquarters of the Corps provides executive direction and management of the civil works program. 

The Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works advises the 

Secretary of the Army on a variety of matters, including the Civil 

Works program of the Corps of Engineers. The Assistant Secretary 

is a member of the Army Secretariat with responsibilities, such as 
58 

participating in continuity of Government exercises that extend 

well beyond Civil Works. 

The Army’s accounting system does not track OMA funding of 

overhead or Army-wide support offices on the basis of which office 

receives support, nor would it be efficient or effective to do so for 

a 20-person office. Instead, expenses such as legal support, personnel services, finance and accounting services, the executive 

motor pool, travel on military aircraft, and other support services 

are centrally funded and managed on a department-wide basis. 

Transferring the funding for the expenses of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Works to a separate account has greatly complicated the Army’s accounting for such indirect and overhead expenses with no commensurate benefit to justify the change. The 

Committee does not agree that these costs should be funded in this 

bill and therefore has only provided funding for salaries and expenses as in previous years. 

GENERAL PROVISIONS—CORPS OF ENGINEERS—CIVIL

Section 101. The bill includes language concerning reprogramming guidelines. 

Section 102. The bill includes language prohibiting implementation of competitive sourcing or HPO. 

Section 103. The bill includes language concerning continuing 

contracts and the Inland Waterway Trust Fund. 

Section 104. The bill includes language concerning report notifications. 

Section 105. The bill includes a provision providing the Corps of 

Engineers authorization for emergency measures to exclude Asian 

carp from the Great Lakes. It should be noted that when considering this language for inclusion in this bill that the Committee did 

not consider hydrologic separation of the Great Lakes Basin from 

the Mississippi River Basin to be an emergency measure. The Committee believes that the issue of hydrologic separation should be 

fully studied by the Corps of Engineers and vetted by the appropriate congressional authorizing committees and specifically enacted into law rather than have implementation be attempted 

through this limited provision. 

Section 106. The bill includes language concerning funding transfers. 

Section 107. The bill includes language authorizing employees to 

serve on an International Commission. 

Section 108. The bill includes language concerning the utilization 

of the Revolving Fund for the acquisition of a building. 

Section 109. The bill includes language concerning the transfer 

of funds to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Section 110. The bill includes language concerning Federal 

dredges. 

Section 111. The bill includes language concerning Federal 

dredges. 

Section 112. The bill includes language concerning Federal 

dredges. 

Section 113. The bill includes language concerning a real property interest. 
59 

Section 114. The bill includes language concerning the deauthorization of a portion of a project. 

Section 115. The bill includes language concerning the utilization 

of the revolving fund for construction of facilities. 

Section 116. The bill includes language concerning disposition of 

acquired lands. 

Section 117. The bill includes language concerning dredge material disposal sites. 

Section 118. The bill includes language deauthorizing a portion 

of a project. 
(60) 

TITLE II 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

CENTRAL UTAH PROJECT COMPLETION ACCOUNT

Appropriations, 2011 ............................................................................. $31,940,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ........................................................................... 32,991,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 28,704,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 28,991,000 

The Committee recommendation for fiscal year 2012 to carry out 

the provisions of the Central Utah Project Completion Act totals 

$28,991,000. An appropriation of $25,441,000 has been provided for 

Central Utah project construction; $2,000,000 for fish, wildlife, and 

recreation, mitigation and conservation. The Committee recommendation provides $1,550,000 for program administration and 

oversight. Legislative language is included which allows up to $1,500,000 of 

the funds provided to be used for administrative costs. 

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, 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. 

BUREAU OF RECLAMATION

INTRODUCTION

The Bureau of Reclamation was established in 1902 with the primary mission of harnessing the western rivers that led to homesteading and the economic development in the west. Today, Reclamation has evolved into a contemporary water management 

agency. In addition to the traditional missions of bringing water 

and power to the west, Reclamation has developed and continues 

to develop, programs, initiatives, and activities that will help the 

Western States, Native American tribes, and others meet new 

water needs and balance the multitude of competing uses of water 

in the West. 

While Reclamation only has projects in the 17 Western States, 

their programs impact the entire Nation. Reclamation is the largest 

wholesaler of water in the country operating 348 reservoirs with a 

total storage capacity of 245 million acre-feet. Reclamation projects 
61 

deliver 10 trillion gallons of water to more than 31 million people 

each year, and provide 1 out of 5 Western farmers (140,000) with 

irrigation water for 10 million acres of farmland that produce 60 

percent of the Nation’s vegetables and 25 percent of its fruits and 

nuts. Reclamation manages, with partners, 289 recreation sites 

that have 90 million visits annually. 

OVERVIEW AND ANALYSIS OF THE FISCAL YEAR 2012 BUDGET REQUEST

The fiscal year 2012 budget request for the Bureau of Reclama- tion is composed of $1,018,389,000 in new budget authority. The 

budget request is $44,196,000 less than the fiscal year 2011 enacted amount. 

Unfortunately this budget proposal is woefully inadequate in 

funding the infrastructure needs. The Committee is particularly 

disappointed to see that rural water projects are greatly underfunded in this budget. In many cases the budget proposals for 

these projects are less than the inflation rate for the project. In 

other words, at this level of investment, these projects will never 

be completed because project costs are increasing faster than the 

amount recommended by the administration. 

The largest account in Reclamation’s budget is the Water and 

Related Resources account. The administration budget proposal includes $805,187,000 for this account. This is a decrease of 

$106,486,000, from the fiscal year 2011 enacted amount. 

The Central Valley Project Restoration Fund is proposed at $53,068,000 for fiscal year 2012. This is an increase of $3,154,000 

over the fiscal year 2011 enacted amount. This account is primarily 

funded from revenues collected from water and power customers. 

Levels of funding in this account are based on a 3-year rolling average of revenues collected. 

The California Bay-Delta Restoration account is proposed at $39,651,000 for fiscal year 2012. This is approximately the same as 

the fiscal year 2011 enacted amount. 

The Policy and Administration account is requested at 

$60,000,000, $1,078,000 less than the fiscal year 2011 enacted 

amount. 

WATER AND RELATED RESOURCES

Appropriations, 2011 ............................................................................. $911,673,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ........................................................................... 805,187,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 822,300,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 885,670,000 

An appropriation of $885,670,000 is recommended by the Committee for the Bureau of Reclamation. The water and related resources account supports the development, management, and restoration of water and related natural resources in the 17 Western 

States. The account includes funds for operating and maintaining 

existing facilities to obtain the greatest overall level of benefits, to 

protect public safety, and to conduct studies on ways to improve 

the use of water and related natural resources. Work will be done 

in partnership and cooperation with non-Federal entities and other 

Federal agencies. 

The Committee has divided underfinancing between the Resources Management subaccount and the Facilities Operation and 
62 

Maintenance subaccount. The Committee directs that the underfinancing amount in each subaccount initially be applied uniformly 

across all projects within the subaccounts. Upon applying the 

underfinanced amounts, normal reprogramming procedures should 

be undertaken to account for schedule slippages, accelerations, or 

other unforeseen conditions. 

CONGRESSIONALLY DIRECTED SPENDING

The budget for the Bureau of Reclamation consists of individual 

line items of projects. As presented by the President, the budget 

contains 204 specific line-item requests for directed spending by the 

administration. An additional 42 line-item requests for funding by 

the administration is for nationwide line items. All of these line 

items were specific requests by the administration to be funded in 

fiscal year 2012. They did not request these funds programmatically, they requested them for a specific project in a specific location for a specific purpose. 

Congressionally directed spending has become synonymous with 

earmarks in recent debates, even for agencies such as the Bureau 

of Reclamation where the majority of the budget request is based 

on individual line item studies and projects. Due to this ongoing 

debate, the Committee has voluntarily refused all congressionally 

directed spending requests for fiscal year 2012. That means that 

the administration has total discretion as to how the funding that 

this Committee appropriates will be spent as it relates to individual studies and projects. The Committee has retained the traditional table for the Water and Related Resources Account delineating the line items requested by the President in the budget request. Due to inadequacies in the administration’s budget request, 

the Committee has also inserted some additional line item funding 

under the Regional Programs heading for specific categories of 

studies or projects that the Committee feels are underrepresented 

in the administration’s budget request. Reclamation has discretion 

within the guidelines provided as to which line items this additional funding will be applied to. The Committee has not included 

any congressionally directed spending as defined in section 5(a) of 

rule XLIV of the standing rules of the Senate. 
63 

BUREAU OF RECLAMATION—WATER AND RELATED RESOURCES 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Project title 

Budget estimate House allowance Committee recommendation 

Resources 

management 

Facilities 

OM&R 

Resources 

management 

Facilities 

OM&R 

Resources 

management 

Facilities 

OM&R 

ARIZONA 

AK CHIN INDIAN WATER RIGHTS SETTLEMENT ACT PROJECT ............................................................................................................... .................. 12,706 .................. 12,489 .................. 12,706 COLORADO RIVER BASIN PROJECT—CENTRAL ARIZONA PROJECT ...................................................................................................... 6,589 436 6,476 428 6,589 436 COLORADO RIVER FRONT WORK AND LEVEE SYSTEM .......................................................................................................................... 2,049 .................. 2,014 .................. 2,049 ..................NORTHERN ARIZONA INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM .................................................................................................................................. 326 .................. 320 .................. 326 ..................PHOENIX METROPOLITAN WATER RECLAMATION AND REUSE PROJE .................................................................................................... 200 .................. 196 .................. 200 ..................SALT RIVER PROJECT ............................................................................................................................................................................. 646 230 635 226 646 230 SAN CARLOS APACHE TRIBE WATER SETTLEMENT ACT PROJECT ......................................................................................................... 335 .................. 329 .................. 335 ..................SIERRA VISTA SUBWATERSHED FEASIBILITY STUDY .............................................................................................................................. 463 .................. 455 .................. 463 ..................SOUTH/CENTRAL ARIZONA INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM ......................................................................................................................... 702 .................. 690 .................. 702 ..................WHITE MOUNTAIN APACHE TRIBE WATER RIGHTS QUANTIFICATION ..................................................................................................... .................. .................. 4,865 .................. .................. ..................YUMA-AREA PROJECTS .......................................................................................................................................................................... 1,576 19,378 1,549 19,048 1,576 19,378 

CALIFORNIA 

CACHUMA PROJECT ............................................................................................................................................................................... 622 625 611 614 622 625 CALLEGUAS MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT RECYCLING PROJECT .......................................................................................................... 1,452 .................. .................. .................. .................. ..................CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECTS: 

AMERICAN RIVER DIVISION, FOLSOM DAM UNIT/MORMON IS ...................................................................................................... 1,474 7,746 1,448 7,614 1,474 7,746 AUBURN-FOLSOM SOUTH UNIT ..................................................................................................................................................... 33 2,668 32 2,622 33 2,668 DELTA DIVISION ............................................................................................................................................................................ 7,304 5,377 7,179 5,285 7,304 5,377 EAST SIDE DIVISION ...................................................................................................................................................................... 1,358 2,754 1,334 2,707 1,358 2,754 FRIANT DIVISION ........................................................................................................................................................................... 1,738 3,246 1,708 3,190 1,738 3,246 

SAN JOAQUIN RESTORATION ................................................................................................................................................ .................. .................. .................. .................. 9,000 ..................

MISCELLANEOUS PROJECT PROGRAMS ......................................................................................................................................... 11,367 846 11,173 831 11,367 846 REPLACEMENTS, ADDITIONS, AND EXTRAORDINARY MAINTENANCE ............................................................................................ .................. 17,911 .................. 17,606 .................. 17,911 SACRAMENTO RIVER DIVISION ...................................................................................................................................................... 35,344 1,578 34,743 1,551 35,344 1,578 SAN FELIPE DIVISION .................................................................................................................................................................... 638 29 627 28 638 29 SAN JOAQUIN DIVISION ................................................................................................................................................................. 356 .................. 349 .................. 356 ..................SHASTA DIVISION .......................................................................................................................................................................... 378 7,766 371 7,633 378 7,766 TRINITY RIVER DIVISION ............................................................................................................................................................... 10,786 4,201 10,602 4,129 10,786 4,201 WATER AND POWER OPERATIONS ................................................................................................................................................. 917 8,002 901 7,865 917 8,002 WEST SAN JOAQUIN DIVISION, SAN LUIS UNIT ............................................................................................................................. 15,426 5,388 15,163 5,296 15,426 5,388 
64 

BUREAU OF RECLAMATION—WATER AND RELATED RESOURCES—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Project title 

Budget estimate House allowance Committee recommendation 

Resources 

management 

Facilities 

OM&R 

Resources 

management 

Facilities 

OM&R 

Resources 

management 

Facilities 

OM&R 

LONG BEACH AREA WATER RECLAMATION PROJECT ............................................................................................................................. 500 .................. 491 .................. 500 ..................LONG BEACH DESALINATION PROJECT .................................................................................................................................................. 500 .................. 491 .................. 500 ..................ORLAND PROJECT .................................................................................................................................................................................. .................. 709 .................. 696 .................. 709 SALTON SEA RESEARCH PROJECT ......................................................................................................................................................... 294 .................. 289 .................. 294 ..................SAN DIEGO AREA WATER RECLAMATION PROGRAM .............................................................................................................................. 2,485 .................. 2,442 .................. 2,485 ..................SAN JOSE AREA WATER RECLAMATION AND REUSE PROGRAM ............................................................................................................ 247 .................. 242 .................. 247 ..................SOLANO PROJECT ................................................................................................................................................................................... 1,323 2,382 1,300 2,341 1,323 2,382 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM ............................................................................................................................. 268 .................. 263 .................. 268 ..................VENTURA RIVER PROJECT ...................................................................................................................................................................... 344 41 338 40 344 41 

COLORADO 

ANIMAS-LA PLATA PROJECT, COLORADO RIVER STORAGE PARTIC ....................................................................................................... 11,504 1,249 11,308 1,227 11,504 1,249 COLLBRAN PROJECT .............................................................................................................................................................................. 217 1,461 213 1,436 217 1,461 COLORADO—BIG THOMPSON PROJECT ................................................................................................................................................. 275 10,859 270 10,674 275 10,859 COLORADO INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM ................................................................................................................................................. 344 .................. 338 .................. 344 ..................FRUITGROWERS DAM PROJECT .............................................................................................................................................................. 99 166 97 163 99 166 FRYINGPAN-ARKANSAS PROJECT ........................................................................................................................................................... 108 8,871 106 8,720 108 8,871 FRYINGPAN-ARKANSAS PROJECT—ARKANSAS VALLEY CONDUIT .......................................................................................................... 2,958 .................. 2,907 .................. 2,958 ..................GRAND VALLEY UNIT, CRBSCP, TITLE II ................................................................................................................................................ 209 1,351 205 1,328 209 1,351 LEADVILLE/ARKANSAS RIVER RECOVERY PROJECT ............................................................................................................................... .................. 4,652 .................. 4,572 .................. 4,652 LOWER COLORADO RIVER INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM ......................................................................................................................... 95 .................. 93 .................. 95 ..................MANCOS PROJECT .................................................................................................................................................................................. 67 120 65 117 67 120 PARADOX VALLEY UNIT, CRBSCP, TITLE II ............................................................................................................................................ 100 2,633 98 2,588 100 2,633 PINE RIVER PROJECT ............................................................................................................................................................................. 152 240 149 235 152 240 SAN LUIS VALLEY PROJECT ................................................................................................................................................................... 356 4,479 349 4,402 356 4,479 UNCOMPAHGRE PROJECT ....................................................................................................................................................................... 754 197 741 193 754 197 UPPER COLORADO RIVER OPERATIONS PROGRAM ................................................................................................................................ 256 .................. 251 .................. 256 ..................

IDAHO 

BOISE-AREA PROJECTS .......................................................................................................................................................................... 3,004 3,240 2,952 3,184 3,004 3,240 COLUMBIA AND SNAKE RIVER SALMON RECOVERY PROJECT ............................................................................................................... 17,830 .................. 17,526 .................. 17,830 ..................IDAHO INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM ........................................................................................................................................................ 59 .................. 57 .................. 59 ..................
65 

LEWISTON ORCHARDS PROJECT ............................................................................................................................................................ 1,086 30 1,067 29 1,086 30 MINIDOKA AREA PROJECTS .................................................................................................................................................................... 2,361 12,093 2,320 11,887 2,361 12,093 

KANSAS 

WICHITA PROJECT .................................................................................................................................................................................. 6 464 5 456 6 464 WICHITA PROJECT (EQUUS BEDS DIVISION) .......................................................................................................................................... 49 .................. 48 .................. 49 ..................

MONTANA 

CROW TRIBE WATER RIGHTS SETTLEMENT ........................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. 8,194 .................. .................. ..................FORT PECK RESERVATION/DRY PRAIRIE RURAL WATER SYSTEM ......................................................................................................... 493 .................. 484 .................. 493 ..................HUNGRY HORSE PROJECT ...................................................................................................................................................................... .................. 345 .................. 339 .................. 345 HUNTLEY PROJECT ................................................................................................................................................................................. 31 53 30 52 31 53 LOWER YELLOWSTONE PROJECT ............................................................................................................................................................ 534 15 524 14 534 15 MILK RIVER PROJECT ............................................................................................................................................................................. 327 1,421 321 1,396 327 1,421 MONTANA INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM ................................................................................................................................................... 50 .................. 49 .................. 50 ..................ROCKY BOYS/NORTH CENTRAL MT RURAL WATER SYSTEM ................................................................................................................. 493 .................. 484 .................. 493 ..................SUN RIVER PROJECT .............................................................................................................................................................................. 52 275 51 270 52 275 

NEBRASKA 

MIRAGE FLATS PROJECT ........................................................................................................................................................................ 13 110 12 108 13 110 

NEVADA 

LAHONTAN BASIN PROJECT (HUMBOLT, NEWLANDS, AND WASHOE ...................................................................................................... 4,209 3,022 4,137 2,970 4,209 3,022 LAKE TAHOE REGIONAL WETLANDS DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................................................................... 105 .................. 103 .................. 105 ..................LAKE MEAD/LAS VEGAS WASH PROGRAM .............................................................................................................................................. 493 .................. 484 .................. 493 ..................

NEW MEXICO 

AAMODT LITIGATION SETTLEMENT ACT .................................................................................................................................................. .................. .................. 9,240 .................. .................. ..................CARLSBAD PROJECT .............................................................................................................................................................................. 2,391 1,613 2,350 1,585 2,391 1,613 EASTERN NEW MEXICO INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM .............................................................................................................................. 47 .................. 46 .................. 47 ..................JICARILLA APACHE RURAL WATER SYSTEM ........................................................................................................................................... 496 .................. 487 .................. 496 ..................MIDDLE RIO GRANDE PROJECT .............................................................................................................................................................. 11,838 11,734 11,636 11,534 11,838 11,734 NAVAJO NATION INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM ......................................................................................................................................... 230 .................. 226 .................. 230 ..................NAVAJO-GALLUP WATER SUPPLY ........................................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. 24,375 .................. .................. ..................RIO GRANDE PROJECT ........................................................................................................................................................................... 1,010 4,027 992 3,958 1,010 4,027 RIO GRANDE PUEBLOS PROJECT ........................................................................................................................................................... 250 .................. 245 .................. 250 ..................SAN JUAN RIVER BASIN INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM ............................................................................................................................. 181 .................. 177 .................. 181 ..................SOUTHERN NEW MEXICO/WEST TEXAS INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM ...................................................................................................... 192 .................. 188 .................. 192 ..................TAOS PUEBLO INDIAN WATER RIGHTS SETTLEMENT ............................................................................................................................. .................. .................. 3,932 .................. .................. ..................TUCUMCARI PROJECT ............................................................................................................................................................................ 40 32 39 31 40 32 
66 

BUREAU OF RECLAMATION—WATER AND RELATED RESOURCES—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Project title 

Budget estimate House allowance Committee recommendation 

Resources 

management 

Facilities 

OM&R 

Resources 

management 

Facilities 

OM&R 

Resources 

management 

Facilities 

OM&R 

UPPER RIO GRANDE BASIN INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM ....................................................................................................................... 78 .................. 76 .................. 78 ..................

NORTH DAKOTA 

P–SMBP—GARRISON DIVERSION UNIT (NON-RURAL WATER) .............................................................................................................. 10,524 5,814 10,345 5,715 10,524 5,814 

OKLAHOMA 

ARBUCKLE PROJECT .............................................................................................................................................................................. 66 170 64 167 66 170 MCGEE CREEK PROJECT ........................................................................................................................................................................ 37 724 36 711 37 724 MOUNTAIN PARK PROJECT ..................................................................................................................................................................... 25 547 24 537 25 547 NORMAN PROJECT ................................................................................................................................................................................. 37 537 36 527 37 537 WASHITA BASIN PROJECT ...................................................................................................................................................................... 67 1,397 65 1,373 67 1,397 W.C. AUSTIN PROJECT ........................................................................................................................................................................... 56 604 55 593 56 604 

OREGON 

CROOKED RIVER PROJECT ..................................................................................................................................................................... 473 487 464 478 473 487 DESCHUTES PROJECT ............................................................................................................................................................................ 264 192 259 188 264 192 EASTERN OREGON PROJECTS ................................................................................................................................................................ 594 216 583 212 594 216 KLAMATH PROJECT ................................................................................................................................................................................. 16,726 1,883 16,441 1,850 16,726 1,883 OREGON INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM ..................................................................................................................................................... 59 .................. 57 .................. 59 ..................ROGUE RIVER BASIN PROJECT, TALENT DIVISION ................................................................................................................................. 354 325 347 319 354 325 TUALATIN PROJECT ................................................................................................................................................................................ 90 204 88 200 90 204 UMATILLA PROJECT ................................................................................................................................................................................ 446 2,461 438 2,419 446 2,461 

SOUTH DAKOTA 

LEWIS AND CLARK RURAL WATER SYSTEM ........................................................................................................................................... 493 .................. 484 .................. 493 ..................MID-DAKOTA RURAL WATER PROJECT ................................................................................................................................................... .................. 15 .................. 14 .................. 15 MNI WICONI PROJECT ............................................................................................................................................................................ 16,270 10,058 15,993 9,887 16,270 10,058 RAPID VALLEY PROJECT ......................................................................................................................................................................... .................. 93 .................. 91 .................. 93 

TEXAS 

BALMORHEA PROJECT ............................................................................................................................................................................ 43 14 42 13 43 14 CANADIAN RIVER PROJECT .................................................................................................................................................................... 52 85 51 83 52 85 
67 

LOWER RIO GRANDE WATER CONSERVATION PROJECT ......................................................................................................................... 49 .................. 48 .................. 49 ..................NUECES RIVER PROJECT ....................................................................................................................................................................... 17 601 16 590 17 601 SAN ANGELO PROJECT ........................................................................................................................................................................... 28 638 27 627 28 638 

UTAH 

HYRUM PROJECT .................................................................................................................................................................................... 166 136 163 133 166 136 MOON LAKE PROJECT ............................................................................................................................................................................ 10 61 9 59 10 61 NEWTON PROJECT .................................................................................................................................................................................. 53 106 52 104 53 106 NORTHERN UTAH INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM ....................................................................................................................................... 181 .................. 177 .................. 181 ..................OGDEN RIVER PROJECT ......................................................................................................................................................................... 214 215 210 211 214 215 PROVO RIVER PROJECT ......................................................................................................................................................................... 1,163 393 1,143 386 1,163 393 SANPETE PROJECT ................................................................................................................................................................................. .................. 10 .................. 9 .................. 10 SCOFIELD PROJECT ................................................................................................................................................................................ 301 49 295 48 301 49 SOUTHERN NEVADA/UTAH INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM .......................................................................................................................... 74 .................. 72 .................. 74 ..................SOUTHERN UTAH INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM ....................................................................................................................................... 206 .................. 202 .................. 206 ..................STRAWBERRY VALLEY PROJECT ............................................................................................................................................................. 354 34 347 33 354 34 WEBER BASIN PROJECT ......................................................................................................................................................................... 920 752 904 739 920 752 WEBER RIVER PROJECT ......................................................................................................................................................................... 65 62 63 60 65 62 

WASHINGTON 

COLUMBIA BASIN PROJECT .................................................................................................................................................................... 3,278 4,446 3,222 4,370 3,278 4,446 WASHINGTON AREA PROJECTS ............................................................................................................................................................... 388 46 381 45 388 46 WASHINGTON INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM ............................................................................................................................................. 59 .................. 57 .................. 59 ..................YAKIMA PROJECT ................................................................................................................................................................................... 824 5,608 809 5,512 824 5,608 YAKIMA RIVER BASIN WATER ENHANCEMENT PROJECT ........................................................................................................................ 8,940 .................. 8,788 .................. 8,940 ..................

WYOMING 

KENDRICK PROJECT ............................................................................................................................................................................... 117 4,231 115 4,159 117 4,231 NORTH PLATTE PROJECT ........................................................................................................................................................................ 255 1,964 250 1,930 255 1,964 SHOSHONE PROJECT .............................................................................................................................................................................. 75 883 73 867 75 883 WYOMING INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM ................................................................................................................................................... 20 .................. 19 .................. 20 ..................

SUBTOTAL, ITEMS UNDER STATES ........................................................................................................................................... 237,915 224,832 282,987 220,966 245,463 224,832 

REGIONAL PROGRAMS 

ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR ONGOING WORK: 

RURAL WATER ............................................................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. 21,000 ..................FISH PASSAGE AND FISH SCREENS .............................................................................................................................................. .................. .................. .................. .................. 4,000 ..................WATER CONSERVATION AND DELIVERY STUDIES AND PROJECTS AND ACTIVITIES ...................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. 8,000 ..................ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION AND COMPLIANCE ...................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. 5,000 ..................
68 

BUREAU OF RECLAMATION—WATER AND RELATED RESOURCES—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Project title 

Budget estimate House allowance Committee recommendation 

Resources 

management 

Facilities 

OM&R 

Resources 

management 

Facilities 

OM&R 

Resources 

management 

Facilities 

OM&R 

ADDITIONAL MAINTENANCE NEEDS ............................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. .................. 2,500 

COLORADO RIVER BASIN SALINITY CONTROL PROJECT—TITLE ........................................................................................................... .................. 11,519 .................. 11,323 .................. 11,519 COLORADO RIVER BASIN SALINITY CONTROL PROJECT—TITLE ........................................................................................................... 6,939 .................. 6,821 .................. 6,939 ..................COLORADO RIVER STORAGE PROJECT [CRSP], SECTION 5 ................................................................................................................... 3,551 4,469 3,490 4,393 3,551 4,469 COLORADO RIVER STORAGE PROJECT [CRSP], SECTION 8 ................................................................................................................... 4,039 217 3,970 213 4,039 217 COLORADO RIVER WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM .............................................................................................................. 729 .................. 716 .................. 729 ..................DAM SAFETY PROGRAM: 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR DAM SAFETY PROGRAM ............................................................................................................ .................. 1,600 .................. 1,600 .................. 1,600 INITIATE SAFETY OF DAMS CORRECTIVE ACTION ......................................................................................................................... .................. 63,587 .................. 63,587 .................. 63,587 SAFETY EVALUATION OF EXISTING DAMS ..................................................................................................................................... .................. 18,520 .................. 18,520 .................. 18,520 

EMERGENCY PLANNING AND DISASTER RESPONSE PROGRAM ............................................................................................................. .................. 1,300 .................. 1,277 .................. 1,300 ENDANGERED SPECIES RECOVERY IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM ......................................................................................................... 19,954 .................. 19,614 .................. 19,954 ..................ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION ....................................................................................................................................... 1,610 .................. 1,582 .................. 1,610 ..................EXAMINATION OF EXISTING STRUCTURES .............................................................................................................................................. .................. 9,167 .................. 9,011 .................. 9,167 FEDERAL BUILDING SEISMIC SAFETY PROGRAM ................................................................................................................................... .................. 1,400 .................. 1,376 .................. 1,400 GENERAL PLANNING ACTIVITIES ............................................................................................................................................................ 2,294 .................. 2,255 .................. 2,294 ..................INDIAN WATER RIGHTS SETTLEMENTS: 

TAOS ............................................................................................................................................................................................. .................. .................. .................. .................. 4,000 ..................AAMODT ........................................................................................................................................................................................ .................. .................. .................. .................. 9,400 ..................NAVAJO-GALLUP ............................................................................................................................................................................ .................. .................. .................. .................. 23,754 ..................WHITE MOUNTAIN APACHE ............................................................................................................................................................ .................. .................. .................. .................. 4,950 ..................CROW ............................................................................................................................................................................................ .................. .................. .................. .................. 8,336 ..................

LAND RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PROGRAM ......................................................................................................................................... 8,945 .................. 8,792 .................. 8,945 ..................LOWER COLORADO RIVER OPERATIONS PROGRAM ............................................................................................................................... 25,980 .................. 25,538 .................. 25,980 ..................MISCELLANEOUS FLOOD CONTROL OPERATIONS ................................................................................................................................... .................. 875 .................. 860 .................. 875 NATIVE AMERICAN AFFAIRS PROGRAM .................................................................................................................................................. 6,951 .................. 6,832 .................. 6,951 ..................NEGOTIATION AND ADMINISTRATION OF WATER MARKETING ................................................................................................................ 2,060 .................. 2,024 .................. 2,060 ..................OPERATION AND PROGRAM MANAGEMENT ............................................................................................................................................ 874 1,222 859 1,201 874 1,222 PICK-SLOAN MISSOURI BASIN PROGRAM (OTHER PICK SLOAN) ........................................................................................................... 3,137 40,449 3,083 39,761 3,137 40,449 POWER PROGRAM SERVICES ................................................................................................................................................................. 1,735 307 1,705 301 1,735 307 PUBLIC ACCESS AND SAFETY PROGRAM ............................................................................................................................................... 711 155 698 152 711 155 RECLAMATION LAW ADMINISTRATION .................................................................................................................................................... 2,258 .................. 2,219 .................. 2,258 ..................
69 

RECREATION AND FISH AND WILDLIFE PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION ..................................................................................................... 2,181 .................. 2,143 .................. 2,181 ..................RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT: 

DESALINATION AND WATER PURIFICATION PROGRAM .................................................................................................................. 986 1,100 .................. .................. 986 1,100 SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM ........................................................................................................................................ 10,108 .................. 9,936 .................. 10,108 ..................

RURAL WATER PROGRAM, TITLE I ......................................................................................................................................................... 2,000 .................. 1,966 .................. 2,000 ..................SITE SECURITY ACTIVITIES .................................................................................................................................................................... .................. 25,942 .................. 25,500 .................. 25,942 UNITED STATES/MEXICO BORDER ISSUES—TECHNICAL SUPPORT ....................................................................................................... 95 .................. 93 .................. 95 ..................WATERSMART PROGRAM: 

WATERSMART GRANTS (CHALLENGE GRANT IN 2010) ................................................................................................................. 18,500 .................. 10,798 .................. 18,500 ..................

COOPERATIVE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT .......................................................................................................................... 250 .................. .................. .................. 250 ..................WATER CONSERVATION FIELD SERVICES PROGRAM ........................................................................................................... 5,108 .................. 4,000 .................. 5,108 ..................

TITLE XVI WATER RECLAMATION/REUSE PROJECTS ...................................................................................................................... 23,616 .................. 16,138 .................. 23,616 ..................BASIN STUDIES ............................................................................................................................................................................. 6,000 .................. 4,000 .................. 6,000 ..................

SUBTOTAL, REGIONAL PROGRAMS ........................................................................................................................................... 160,611 181,829 139,272 179,075 249,051 184,329 

UNDERFINANCING .................................................................................................................................................................................. .................. .................. .................. .................. ¥12,005 ¥6,000 

TOTAL ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 398,526 406,661 422,259 400,041 482,509 403,161 TOTAL, BUREAU OF RECLAMATION ........................................................................................................................................... 805,187 822,300 885,670 
70 

Buried Metallic Water Pipe.—The Committee is aware of concerns regarding implementation and review of Reclamation’s Technical Memorandum [TM] 8140–CC–2004–1 (‘‘Corrosion Considerations for Buried Metallic Water Pipe’’). The Committee’s primary 

concern is that this TM may be applying different materials to different standards of reliability and potentially increasing project 

costs unnecessarily. The Committee understands that Reclamation 

contracted with the National Academy of Sciences in 2009 for an 

independent review of the TM. While the National Academy generally supported the TM, the Committee notes that the National 

Academy also recommended in their report (‘‘Review of the Bureau 

of Reclamation’s Corrosion Prevention Standards for Ductile Iron 

Pipe’’ (2009)) that Reclamation assemble data on pipeline reliability 

for all types of pipe specified in Table 2 of TM 8140–CC–2004–1 

along with the specified corrosion protection applied in the various 

soil types. Reclamation has yet to carry out this recommendation 

which has contributed to continued concerns and challenges to the 

TM. Therefore, the Committee directs Reclamation to use the TM 

as only one of the possible criterion for determinations on whether 

to deny funding or approve of a project or to disqualify any type 

of pipe from use in highly corrosive soils until it has assembled 

data on pipeline reliability as recommended by the National Academy and conducted an analysis of the performance of these types 

of pipe installed in the same or similar conditions. This analysis 

shall apply consistent standards of reliability and cost effectiveness 

over the life cycle of the project. 

Calleguas Municipal Water District Recycling Project, California.—No funding has been provided for this project as Reclamation apportioned sufficient funding to complete the authorized Federal share of the project. 

Indian Water Rights Settlements Account.—The Committee has 

chosen not to include a separate account for this work. The Committee recognizes that these are legal settlements with the affected 

tribes, however, believe it is prudent to keep these items within the 

Water and Related Resources Account. Beyond the actual water 

rights settlement funding, many of these settlements included construction components very similar to rural water projects funded 

elsewhere in this account. The Committee understands that due to 

the way the settlements were structured, that some of the discretionary funding may not be obligated in fiscal year 2012 and will 

be carried over into later years. The Committee urges Reclamation 

to minimize this practice to the extent practicable and within the 

confines of these settlements. To maintain the visibility of these 

projects, the Committee has included the five projects under the 

Regional Programs heading with a subheading called Indian Water 

Rights Settlements. 

San Joaquin Restoration Account.—The Committee has chosen 

not to include a separate account for this item. Rather it is being 

funded as a sub element under the Friant Division of the Central 

Valley Project. The Committee believes that this is prudent to keep 

these funds within the Water and Related Resources account maximizing the flexibility of the funding. 

Additional Funding for Water and Related Resources Work.—The 

Committee recommendation includes additional funds above the 
71 

budget request for Water and Related Resources studies, projects 

and activities. The Committee recommends that priority in allocating these funds should be to complete ongoing work, improve 

water supply reliability, improve water deliveries, tribal and nontribal water settlement studies, ecosystem restoration, enhance national, regional, or local economic development, promote job growth 

or for critical backlog maintenance activities. 

The administration has complete discretion over how these funds 

are to be used. The intent of these funds is for work that either 

did not make it into the administration request or were inadequately budgeted. Within 30 days of enactment, Reclamation shall 

provide the House and Senate Appropriations Committees a work 

plan delineating how these funds are to be distributed and in 

which phase the work is being accomplished. 

WaterSmart Program, Title XVI Water Reclamation/Reuse 

Projects.—The Committee is concerned that constrained budgets 

will severely impact the research and development vital to improvements in water recycling and desalination technologies’ development and applications. The Committee believes that only 

through enhanced Federal and non-Federal research partnerships 

can this situation be bridged. Therefore, the Bureau of Reclamation 

should consider how competitively procured cost-shared research on 

water reuse and desalination can be incorporated into this program. This would potentially allow qualified organizations with extensive experience in conducting research on water reuse and desalination to leverage the Bureau’s funding with other cost sharing 

partners. 

CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT RESTORATION FUND

Appropriations, 2011 ............................................................................. $49,914,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ........................................................................... 53,068,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 53,068,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 53,068,000 

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $53,068,000 for 

the Central Valley Project Restoration Fund. 

The Central Valley Project Restoration Fund was authorized in 

the Central Valley Project Improvement Act, title 34 of Public Law 

102–575. This fund was established to provide funding from project 

beneficiaries for habitat restoration, improvement and acquisition, 

and other fish and wildlife restoration activities in the Central Valley project area of California. Revenues are derived from payments 

by project beneficiaries and from donations. Payments from project 

beneficiaries include several required by the act (Friant Division 

surcharges, higher charges on water transferred to non-CVP users, 

and tiered water prices) and, to the extent required in appropriations acts, additional annual mitigation and restoration payments. 

The Central Valley Project Improvement Act, enacted into law in 

October 1992, established 34 activities to restore and enhance fish 

and wildlife habitats in California’s Central Valley and Trinity Basins. The act set up a Restoration Fund for the deposit of contributions from CVP water and power users to pay for those activities, 

along with contributions from the State of California, Federal appropriations, and other contributors. Unfortunately a number of 
72 

sources envisioned to contribute to this fund never materialized or 

funding is no longer available from those sources. 

Power users, in particular, are paying a much greater share than 

anyone anticipated. This has resulted in high CVP power costs, and 

unpredictable fee assessments on power agencies. The power users 

fees are unpredictable, since in low water years the water users 

pay very little and the power users make up the difference. The 

Restoration Fund collection in the early years of the act was the 

equivalent of adding $1 per megawatt hour to the cost of CVP 

power, but this has now increased to an average cost of approximately $11 per megawatt hour over the last 4 years. 

Since the fund was established in 1992 more than $1,400,000,000 

has been spent for restoration activities, but there has been little 

accountability on how effectively it has been used. There is very little assurance that the goals of the Restoration Fund will be met 

in the near future, such that the fees could be reduced under the 

statute. Therefore, the Committee urges the Commissioner to work 

with power users to determine a more predictable payment stream 

for power users and to develop measures to provide more accountability and transparency to the restoration process. Reclamation 

should provide a report to the Senate Appropriations Committee 

within 180 days of enactment of this act on actions they are taking 

in this regard. Further, a report covering the previous fiscal year 

activities should be incorporated into the budget justifications submitted with the President’s budget request starting in fiscal year 

2013. 

CALIFORNIA BAY-DELTA RESTORATION

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2011 ............................................................................. $39,920,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ........................................................................... 39,651,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 35,928,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 39,651,000 

The Committee recommendation includes an appropriation of 

$39,651,000 for the CALFED Bay-Delta Program. 

This account funds activities that are consistent with the 

CALFED Bay-Delta Program, a collaborative effort involving 18 

State and Federal agencies and representatives of California’s 

urban, agricultural, and environmental communities. The goals of 

the program are to improve fish and wildlife habitat, water supply 

reliability, and water quality in the San Francisco Bay-San Joaquin River Delta, the principle hub of California’s water distribution system. 

POLICY AND ADMINISTRATION

Appropriations, 2011 ............................................................................. $61,078,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ........................................................................... 60,000,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 60,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 60,000,000 

The Committee recommendation for general administrative expenses is $60,000,000. 

The policy and administrative expenses program provides for the 

executive direction and management of all reclamation activities, 
73 

as performed by the Commissioner’s offices in Washington, DC, 

Denver, Colorado, and five regional offices. The Denver office 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. 

INDIAN WATER RIGHTS SETTLEMENTS

Appropriations, 2011 ............................................................................. ........................... 

Budget estimate, 2012 ........................................................................... $51,483,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... ........................... 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. ........................... 

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $0 for the Indian Water Rights Settlements Account. 

This account was proposed as a part of the administration request to cover expenses associated with four Indian water rights 

settlements contained in the Claims Resolution Act of 2010 (Public 

Law 111–291), title X of the Omnibus Public Lands Management 

Act of 2009 (Public Law 111–11), and the White Mountain Apache 

Tribe Rural Water System Loan Authorization Act (Public Law 

110–390). Rather than create a new account as the budget request 

suggested, the Committee has chosen to provide this funding request under the Regional Programs section of the Water and Related Resources Account as similar work and funding has been previously provided in that account. 

SAN JOAQUIN RESTORATION FUND

Appropriations, 2011 ............................................................................. ........................... 

Budget estimate, 2012 ........................................................................... $9,000,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... ........................... 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. ........................... 

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $0 for the San 

Joaquin Restoration Fund Account. 

This account was proposed to implement the provisions described 

in the Stipulation of Settlement for the National Resources Defense 

Council et al. v. Rodgers lawsuit. Rather than provide discretionary 

funding in this account as the budget request suggested, the Committee has chosen to provide this funding request under the Central Valley Project, Friant Division of the Water and Related Resources Account as similar work and funding has been previously 

provided in that account. 

GENERAL PROVISIONS—DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Section 201. The bill includes language regarding Bureau of Reclamation Reprogramming. 

Section 202. The bill includes language regarding the San Luis 

Unit and the Kesterson Reservoir in California. 

Section 203. The bill includes language concerning a project cost 

ceiling increase. 

Section 204. The bill includes language concerning the desalination act. 

Section 206. The bill includes language concerning the Bay Delta 

Conservation Plan. 

Section 207. The bill includes language concerning groundwater 

banking. 
74 

Section 208. In 2009, the Bureau of Reclamation approved a total 

of 168 individual transfers among water contractors within the 

CVP. These transfers represented 435,286 acre feet of Federal contract water, most of which were accomplished with accelerated 

water transfer programs using programmatic environmental documentation. Reclamation’s accelerated transfer programs apply only 

to water transfers among CVP contractors within specifically defined geographic regions. This provision is not intended to affect existing accelerated water transfer programs that are carried out in 

compliance with all applicable Federal and State law. Instead, the 

provision is intended to strengthen Reclamation’s ability to facilitate appropriate water transfers between CVP contractors south of 

the Delta by applying key elements of the existing accelerated programs more broadly within the CVP. 

The provision subsumes within it the San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act and the Settlement, so that any proposed 

transfer under section (a) that would interfere with the Settlement 

Act, the Settlement or implementation of that Settlement would 

violate the new condition language in section (a) and would not be 

approved by the Secretary. 

The Committee understands that if transfers of water may take 

up capacity in the San Joaquin River channel it is the intent of the 

Committee that no transfers under this authority shall be approved 

if they would occupy capacity needed for interim flows or restoration flows under the Settlement. The intention is to preserve the 

Settlement, not to expand or diminish it and this provision does 

not modify or amend the rights and obligations of the parties to the 

Settlement. It also does not modify, amend or supersede the separate water transfer authorities in section 10010(e) of the Settlement Act. 

Section 209. This provision concerns the Friant prepayment for 

the San Joaquin River Settlement currently authorized for disbursement starting in 2019. The provision advances disbursement 

of these prepaid funds to 2014 and limits expenditure of these authorized mandatory funds to $40,000,000 per year. The provision 

changes no other provisions of the San Joaquin River Settlement. 
(75) 

TITLE III 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

The Committee recommends $25,548,976,000 for the Department of Energy. Within these funds, $11,050,000,000 is for the National 

Nuclear Security Administration [NNSA]. The Committee’s highest 

priority is accelerating breakthroughs in clean energy technologies 

to reduce the Nation’s dependence on foreign oil and developing 

carbon-free sources of energy that will change the way the United 

States produces and consumes energy. Increases to ARPA–E should 

accelerate the commercialization of these technologies and a shift 

of funding in the Office of Science toward goal-oriented research 

will focus limited investments. The Committee also provides credit 

subsidies for renewable loan guarantees to encourage the early 

commercial production and use of new or significantly improved energy efficient technologies. Moreover, the Committee recommends 

an increase of $528,000,000 above fiscal year 2011 enacted levels 

for NNSA to address critical national security missions. The increase would allow NNSA to stay on track to meet its goal of securing all vulnerable nuclear materials in 4 years to protect the 

United States against nuclear terrorism, continue modernizing the 

nuclear weapons complex consistent with the Nuclear Posture Review and New START Treaty, and develop a new reactor core for 

the OHIO-class submarine. 

EXASCALE INITIATIVE

The Committee supports the Department’s initiative to develop 

exascale computing—1,000 times more powerful than today’s most 

powerful computer. The Committee recommends $126,000,000 to 

support this initiative, which includes $90,000,000 for the Office of 

Science and $36,000,000 for the National Nuclear Security Administration. The Committee encourages the Office of Science and the 

National Nuclear Security Administration to continue collaborating 

on the development of exascale computing to take advantage of 

each other’s expertise and avoid duplication of effort. The Committee understands that the path to exascale computing will be extremely challenging and will require significant research and development breakthroughs. For example, an exaflop system made entirely out of today’s technology would probably cost 

$100,000,000,000, require $1,000,000,000 a year to operate, need 

its own dedicated power plant to power the computing system, and 

be very unreliable. Despite these challenges, the Department has 

set an ambitious goal of 2018 to deploy the first exascale system. 

The Committee directs the Department’s Undersecretary for 

Science and the National Nuclear Security Administration [NNSA] 

Administrator to submit within 120 days of enactment of this act, 

a joint, integrated strategy and program plan with estimated budg-
76 

et needs through 2018 on how the Office of Science’s Advanced Scientific Computing Research and NNSA’s Advanced Simulation and 

Computing programs will share responsibilities and coordinate research and development activities to reach exascale computing required for national security, energy, environmental, and other 

science missions and to retain the United States’ global leadership 

and competitiveness in advanced computing. 

PROJECT MANAGEMENT

In November 2010, the President’s Council of Advisors on Science 

and Technology recommended that the Secretary of Energy extend 

procedures used successfully in ARPA–E to all DOE energy programs. For example, ARPA–E uses a rigorous peer review process 

to select the most deserving projects and from conception to the 

award of the contract it only takes 6 to 8 months, much faster than 

other DOE energy programs. The Committee directs the Secretary 

of Energy within 120 days of enactment of this act to submit a report on how the Department will implement the Council of Advisors’ recommendation to extend ARPA–E processes and procedures 

to all DOE energy programs. 

REPROGRAMMING GUIDELINES

The Department of Energy is directed to operate in a manner 

fully consistent with the following reprogramming guidelines. A reprogramming request must be submitted to the Committees on Appropriations for consideration before any implementation of a reorganization proposal which includes moving previous appropriations 

between appropriation accounts. The Department is directed to inform the Committees promptly and fully when a change in program 

execution and funding is required during the fiscal year. To assist 

the Department in this effort, the following guidance is provided 

for programs and activities funded in the Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act. The Department 

is directed to follow this guidance for all programs and activities 

unless specific reprogramming guidance is provided for a program 

or activity. 

Definition.—A reprogramming includes the reallocation of funds 

from one activity to another within an appropriation, or any significant departure from a program, project, activity, or organization 

described in the agency’s budget justification as presented to and 

approved by Congress. For construction projects, a reprogramming 

constitutes the reallocation of funds from one construction project 

identified in the justifications to another project or a significant 

change in the scope of an approved project. 

Any reallocation of new or prior year budget authority or prior 

year deobligations must be submitted to the Committees in writing 

and may not be implemented prior to approval by the Committees 

on Appropriations. 
77 

ENERGY PROGRAMS

ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY

Appropriations, 2011 ............................................................................. 1 $1,825,641,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ........................................................................... 3,200,053,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 1,304,636,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 1,795,641,000 

1Does not include rescission of $30,000,000 under Public Law 112–10. 

The Committee recommendation is $1,795,641,000 for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. 

The Committee notes that the Energy Policy and Conservation 

Act of 1975 authorized the Department to issue efficiency standards for a list of products, and to date televisions are the only item 

for which DOE has failed to issue a standard. The Committee also 

notes that recent studies demonstrate that set top boxes consume 

$3,000,000,000 in electricity per year in the United States, and 66 

percent of that power is when the television is not on. The Committee directs the Secretary to initiate rulemaking processes to establish effective efficiency standards for electronic devices, including both televisions and set-top boxes, within 12 months. 

Hydrogen Technology.—The Committee recommends $98,000,000 

for hydrogen technology. The Committee recognizes the progress 

and achievements of the Fuel Cell Technologies program. The program has met or exceeded all benchmarks, and has made significant progress in decreasing costs and increasing efficiency and durability of fuel cell and hydrogen energy systems. Further, the 

Committee believes fuel cell and hydrogen energy systems for stationary, transportation and other motive, mobile and portable 

power applications have the potential to enable clean and efficient 

use of our domestic energy resources. The Committee affirms its 

support for stable and continued funding for these programs now 

and in the future. Within the available funds, the Committee recommends funding is provided for Technology Validation focused on 

passenger vehicle and hydrogen infrastructure applications, hydrogen fuels R&D, and for Market Transformation in early markets. 

Biomass and Biorefinery Systems R&D.—The Committee recommends $180,000,000 for biomass and biorefinery systems R&D. 

Within the available funds a total of $30,000,000 is for algae 

biofuels. 

Solar Energy.—The Committee recommends $290,000,000 for 

solar energy. The Committee encourages the Department of Energy 

to designate and fund, in fiscal year 2012, a center for solar energy 

innovation to be located in close proximity to high-quality solar resources and focused on promoting the integration of solar technologies and products into utility, building and commercial systems, and to improve their reliability, affordability and rapid deployment across the Southwest region and the United States. The 

Department of Energy shall continue to award funding for its Solar 

Demonstration Zone Project in recognition of the work needed to 

test, evaluate and develop innovative solar energy projects and the 

link such a zone could provide between DOE’s advanced technology 

development and utility-scale commercialization efforts. 

The Committee encourages the Department, in partnership with 

universities, to support the research and development of organic 
78 

photovoltaic cells for the advancement of developing alternative energy technologies. 

Wind Energy.—The recommendation is $80,000,000 for wind energy. The Committee supports the Department’s efforts to develop 

advanced offshore wind energy technologies, including freshwater, 

deepwater, shallow water, and transitional depth installations. 

Geothermal Technology.—The recommendation for geothermal 

technology is $34,000,000. The funds made available by this section 

shall be disbursed to the full spectrum of geothermal technologies 

as authorized by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 

2007 (Public Law 110–140) and the Department of Energy shall 

continue its support of comprehensive programs that support academic and professional development initiatives. The Committee directs the Department to make not less than $5,000,000 available 

to continue development and deployment of low-temperature geothermal systems. 

Water Power Energy R&D.—The Committee recommends 

$34,000,000 for water power. All funding provided is for marine 

and hydrokinetic technology research, development, and deployment. Within available funds, the Committee directs the Department to provide not less than $10,000,000 to build necessary infrastructure at marine and hydrokinetic industry testing sites designated by the Department as National Marine Renewable Energy 

Centers. Additionally, the Committee encourages the Department 

to provide not less than $15,000,000 in funding for competitive 

demonstrations of marine and hydrokinetic technologies and requests the Department consider reducing and/or waiving cost share 

requirements for small businesses. 

Vehicle Technologies.—The Committee recommends $319,157,000 

for vehicle technologies. The Energy Policy Act [EPAct] of 1992 requires that State, Federal and certain private fleets convert an increasing percentage of their vehicle fleets to alternative fuel vehicles [AFVs]. However, the EPAct 1992 provision does not contemplate the emergence of new alternative fuel vehicle technologies, so the definition of AFV does not include key electric drive 

technologies, such as hybrid electric and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles. To remedy this, ensuring that the EPAct 1992 fleet requirements reflected evolving technology options and provided covered 

fleets critical options in meeting their obligations under the law, 

the Energy Independence and Security Act [EISA] of 2007 amended 

the law. EISA expands the AFV definition to include electric drive 

vehicles (including hybrid and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles), infrastructure and other emerging technologies. To implement this 

change, DOE was directed to issue guidance no later than January 

31, 2009. To date, no guidance has been issued, which constrains 

the covered fleets’ ability to integrate electric drive vehicles into 

their fleets. The Committee directs DOE to move forward with due 

diligence and to provide a status report on the effort and a timeline 

for issuance. 

Funds provided to Vehicle Technology Deployment are to be used 

to expand the program’s activities in promoting the adoption and 

use of petroleum reduction technologies and practices by working 

with Clean Cities coalitions and their stakeholders on alternative 
79 

fuel and electric drive advanced technology vehicles and related 

fueling/charging infrastructure. 

Medium- and heavy-duty trucks consume roughly one-fifth of 

transportation fuels in the United States, and increasing the efficiency of these vehicles can lower the costs of land-based freight 

and the industries that depend on it, while greatly reducing the 

Nation’s dependence on imported oil. The SuperTruck program focuses on truck efficiency in a partnership between DOE and commercial vehicle and equipment manufacturers to conduct research 

and develop the next generation of more efficient engines and vehicles. At a time of overall constraints on resources for worthy initiatives, the Committee appreciates the Department continuing to set 

as a priority this high value public-partnership to develop advanced 

vehicle technologies that will improve the efficiency of mediumand heavy-duty commercial vehicles. 

Within available funds, $4,000,000 is provided for lightweight 

materials modeling and design for vehicle optimization. The Committee also recommends up to $5,000,000 from within available 

funds to commission a study from the National Academies to comprehensively examine market barriers that impede the commercial 

deployment of electric vehicles and supporting infrastructure. The 

study should incorporate input from stakeholders, including State 

utility commissions, electric utilities, automobile manufacturers, 

and local and Federal governmental entities with relevant missions. The study should include recommendations on the Federal 

role (including specific roles for different Federal agencies) in resolving the market barriers the study identifies. 

Further, within available funds up to $10,000,000 is made available to fund section 131 of the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act [EISA] to promote zero emission cargo transport in areas 

of severe nonattainment and severe traffic congestion. Eligible recipients must provide 1-to-1 matching funds. 

Building Technologies.—The Committee recommends 

$210,500,000 for building technologies. Within these funds, the 

Committee directs $12,000,000 to manufacturing improvements for 

general illumination LED lighting products that meet the efficiency 

requirements of section 321 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. 

The Committee urges the Department create a strategic plan to 

promote the use of geothermal heat pumps in both residential and 

commercial buildings; develop innovative technologies to enhance 

the use of geothermal heat pumps; and collect and disseminate information regarding the benefit of geothermal heat pumps. The Department is directed to report to the Committee within 6 months 

of enactment of this act on the progress of this effort. 

Industrial Technologies.—The Committee recommends 

$96,000,000 for industrial technologies. 

Federal Energy Management Program.—The Committee recommends $30,000,000 for the Federal Energy Management Program [FEMP]. 

Facilities and Infrastructure.—The Committee recommends 

$26,407,000 for facilities and infrastructure consistent with the 

budget request. 
80 

Program Direction.—The Committee recommends $165,000,000 

for program direction. 

Strategic Programs.—The Committee recommends $50,000,000 

for strategic programs. 

Weatherization Assistance Program.—The Committee provides 

$174,300,000. Of that amount, $3,000,000 is for training and technical assistance. 

Intergovernmental Activities.—The Committee provides 

$50,000,000 for State Energy Programs and $10,000,000 for Tribal 

Energy Activities. 

Use of Prior-Year Balances.—The Department is directed to use 

$26,364,000 of prior-year balances as proposed in the budget request. 

ELECTRICITY DELIVERY AND ENERGY RELIABILITY

Appropriations, 2011 ............................................................................. 1 $144,710,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ........................................................................... 237,717,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 139,496,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 141,010,000 

1Does not include rescission of $3,700,000 under Public Law 112–10. 

The Committee recommends $141,010,000 for Electricity Delivery 

and Energy Reliability. No funding is provided for the proposed 

new hub. The recommendation includes $27,000,000 for Clean Energy Transmission and Reliability with $17,000,000 of this going 

toward integration and $10,000,000 toward advanced modeling. 

The recommendation includes $24,000,000 for Smart Grid Research 

and Development with $4,000,000 of this for power electronics. 

The Committee recognizes the opportunities presented by the application and integration of smart grid technologies across all sectors of the economy, but particularly in the growing number of 

plug-in hybrid electric vehicles coming to market. The Department 

of Energy should ensure that the efforts within the Office of Electricity Delivery and Reliability and at the Vehicle Technologies Program are coordinated and focused on developing and deploying 

electric vehicle technologies that can help expedite grid-integration 

of clean and renewable power generation sources and those energy 

resources can be used effectively to meet peak daytime electricity 

demand. 

Within the funds appropriated to the Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability the Committee encourages it to accelerate its efforts to provide grants for regional transmission planning and technical assistance to entities that support or implement 

additional deployment of new renewable electricity generation in 

the Western and Eastern interconnections. 

NUCLEAR ENERGY

Appropriations, 2011 ............................................................................. 1 $732,124,000 

Budget Estimate, 2012 .......................................................................... 754,028,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 733,633,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 583,834,000 

1Does not include rescission of $6,300,000 under Public Law 112–10. 

The Committee recommends $583,834,000 for Nuclear Energy. 
81 

The events at the Fukushima-Daiichi facilities in Japan have resulted in a reexamination of our Nation’s policies regarding the 

safety of commercial reactors and the storage of spent nuclear fuel. 

These efforts have been supported by appropriations in this bill, 

and the Committee provides funding for continuation and expansion of these activities. 

While the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has found that spent 

nuclear fuel can be stored safely for at least 60 years in wet or dry 

cask storage beyond the licensed life of the reactor, the Committee 

has significant questions on this matter and is extremely concerned 

that the United States continues to accumulate spent fuel from nuclear reactors without a comprehensive plan to collect the fuel or 

dispose of it safely, and as a result faces a $15,400,000,000 liability 

by 2020. The Committee approved funding in prior years for the 

Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future [BRC], 

which was charged with examining our Nation’s policies for managing the back end of the nuclear fuel cycle and recommending a 

new plan. The BRC issued a draft report in July 2011 with recommendations, which is expected to be finalized in January 2012. 

The Committee directs prior existing funding, contingent on the renewal of its charter, to the BRC to develop a comprehensive revision to Federal statutes based on its recommendations, to submit 

to Congress for its consideration. 

The Committee directs the Department to develop and prepare 

to implement a strategy for the management of spent nuclear fuel 

and other nuclear waste within 3 months of publication of the final 

report of the Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future. The strategy shall reduce long-term Federal liability associated with the Department’s failure to pick up spent fuel from commercial nuclear reactors, and it should propose to store waste in a 

safe and responsible manner. The Committee notes that a sound 

Federal strategy will likely require one or more consolidated storage facilities with adequate capacity to be sited, licensed, and constructed in multiple regions, independent of the schedule for opening a repository. The Committee directs that the Department’s 

strategy include a plan to develop consolidated regional storage facilities in cooperation with host communities, as necessary, and 

propose any amendments to Federal statute necessary to implement the strategy. 

Although successfully disposing of spent nuclear fuel permanently is a long-term effort and will require statutory changes, the 

Committee supports taking near- and mid-term steps that can 

begin without new legislation and which provide value regardless 

of the ultimate policy the United States adopts. The Committee 

therefore includes funding for several of these steps in the Nuclear 

Energy Research and Development account, including the assessment of dry casks to establish a scientific basis for licensing; continued work on advanced fuel cycle options; research to assess disposal in different geological media; and the development of enhanced fuels and materials that are more resistant to damage in 

reactors or spent fuel pools. 

The Committee has provided more than $500,000,000 in prior 

years toward the Next Generation Nuclear Plant [NGNP] program. 

Although the program has experienced some successes, particularly 
82 

in the advanced research and development of TRISO fuel, the Committee is frustrated with the lack of progress and failure to resolve 

the upfront cost-share issue to allocate the risk between industry 

and the Federal Government. Although the Committee has provided sufficient time for these issues to be resolved, the program 

has stalled. Recognizing funding constraints, the Committee cannot 

support continuing the program in its current form. The Committee 

provides no funding to continue the existing NGNP program, but 

rather allows the Department to continue high-value, priority research and development activities for high-temperature reactors, in 

cooperation with industry, that were included in the NGNP program. 

NUCLEAR ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

The Committee recommends $291,667,000 for Nuclear Energy 

Research and Development. 

Use of Prior Existing Balances.—If the Secretary renews the 

charter of the Blue Ribbon Commission, the Department is directed 

to use $2,500,000 of prior existing balances appropriated to the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management to develop a comprehensive revision to Federal statutes based on its recommendations. The recommendation should be provided to Congress not 

later than March 30, 2012 for consideration. 

Nuclear Energy Enabling Technologies.—The Committee recommends $68,880,000 for Nuclear Energy Enabling Technologies, 

including $24,300,000 for the Energy Innovation Hub for Modeling 

and Simulation, $14,580,000 for the National Science User Facility 

at Idaho National Laboratory, and $30,000,000 for Crosscutting research. The Committee does not recommend any funding for Transformative research. The Committee recommends that the Department focus the Energy Innovation Hub on the aspects of its mission that improve nuclear powerplant safety. 

Light Water Reactor Small Modular Reactor Licensing Technical 

Support.—The Committee provides no funding for Light Water Reactor Small Modular Reactor Licensing Technical Support. 

Reactor Concepts Research, Development, and Demonstration.— 

The Committee provides $31,870,000 for Reactor Concepts Research, Development and Demonstration. Of this funding, 

$21,870,000 is for Advanced Reactor Concepts activities. The Committee does not include funding for the Next Generation Nuclear 

Plant Demonstration project. The Department may, within available funding, continue high-value, priority research and development activities for high-temperature reactor concepts, in cooperation with industry, that were conducted as part of the NGNP program. The remaining funds, $10,000,000, are for research and development of the current fleet of operating reactors to determine 

how long they can safely operate. 

Fuel Cycle Research and Development.—The Committee recommends $187,917,000 for Fuel Cycle Research and Development. 

Within available funds, the Committee provides $10,000,000 for the 

Department to expand the existing modeling and simulation capabilities at the national laboratories to assess issues related to the 

aging and safety of storing spent nuclear fuel in fuel pools and dry 

storage casks. The Committee includes $60,000,000 for Used Nu-
83 

clear Fuel Disposition, and directs the Department to focus research and development activities on the following priorities: 

—$10,000,000 for development and licensing of standardized 

transportation, aging, and disposition canisters and casks; 

—$3,000,000 for development of models for potential partnerships to manage spent nuclear fuel and high level waste; and 

—$7,000,000 for characterization of potential geologic repository 

media. 

The Committee provides funding for evaluation of standardized 

transportation, aging and disposition cask and canister design, 

cost, and safety characteristics, in order to enable the Department 

to determine those that should be used if the Federal Government 

begins transporting fuel from reactor sites, as it is legally obligated 

to do, and consolidating fuel. The Committee notes that the Blue 

Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future has, in its draft 

report, recommended the creation of consolidated interim storage 

facilities, for which the Federal Government will need casks and 

canisters to transport and store spent fuel. 

The Committee also requests that the Department revisit the 

recommendations of the 2006 National Academies report titled 

‘‘Going the Distance: the Safe Transport of Spent Nuclear Fuel and 

High-Level Radioactive Waste in the United States,’’ as recommended by the Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear 

Future in its draft report. The Committee shares the view of the 

Blue Ribbon Commission that ‘‘NAS recommendations that have 

not yet been implemented, for whatever reason, should be revisited 

and addressed as appropriate.’’ The Department is directed to report to the Committee within 90 days of enactment of this act on 

its plan to revisit these recommendations. 

The Committee further recommends $59,000,000 for the Advanced Fuels program. With the increased funding the Department 

is directed to give priority to developing enhanced fuels and cladding for light water reactors to improve safety in the event of accidents in the reactor or spent fuel pools. While the Committee acknowledges the value of engineering upgrades and regulatory enhancements to ensure the safety of the Nation’s current fleet of nuclear reactors following the disaster at Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi 

nuclear powerplant, it is becoming increasingly clear that failure of 

the nuclear fuel upon loss of coolant was the ultimate cause of the 

destruction of the Japanese reactors and the extensive environmental damage. The Committee continues to support the Department’s advanced fuels activities, in particular the ongoing coated 

particle fuel (deep burn) effort, and urges that special technical emphasis and funding priority be given to activities aimed at the development and near-term qualification of meltdown-resistant, accident-tolerant nuclear fuels that would enhance the safety of 

present and future generations of Light Water Reactors. Last, the 

Department is directed to report to the Committee, within 90 days 

of enactment of this act, on its plan for development of meltdownresistent fuels leading to reactor testing and utilization by 2020. 

International Nuclear Energy Cooperation.—The Committee recommends $3,000,000 for International Nuclear Energy Cooperation. 
84 

RADIOLOGICAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT

Space and Defense Infrastructure.—The Committee provides $69,888,000 for Space and Defense Infrastructure, including 

$15,000,000 for nuclear infrastructure at Oak Ridge National Laboratory. 

The Committee encourages the Department, within available 

funds, to provide the base infrastructure funding such that all strategic nuclear materials and engineering facilities are maintained in 

full compliance with Department of Energy operational and safety 

orders and directives for nuclear infrastructure and to ensure these 

facilities are capable of serving Department mission needs in nuclear research and development. 

Plutonium-238 Production Restart Project.—The Committee provides no funding for the Plutonium-238 Production Restart project. 

IDAHO FACILITIES MANAGEMENT

The Committee provides $136,000,000 for Idaho Facilities Management. 

FOSSIL ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

(INCLUDING RESCISSION)

Appropriations, 2011 ............................................................................. 1 $584,529,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ........................................................................... 452,975,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 476,993,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 2 445,471,000 

1Does not include rescission of $140,000,000 under Public Law 112–10. 

2Does not include proposed rescission of $187,000,000. 

The Committee recommends $445,471,000 for Fossil Energy Re- search and Development, including the use of $23,007,000 of prioryear balances as proposed in the request. This is $7,504,000 less 

than the budget request which reflects a reduction in program direction to fiscal year 2011 levels. The Committee also rescinds 

$187,000,000 in prior year funds. 

CCS and Power Systems.—The Committee recommends 

$291,358,000 for CCS and Power Systems, the same as the request. 

The Committee recognizes and encourages the Department of Energy to provide funding for regional carbon sequestration partnerships, including those that are seeking to identify geologic formations, using seismic reflection technology, suitable for carbon sequestration. Using computer modeling, investigations should assess 

the storage potential of underground reservoirs, the potential volume of carbon dioxide that can be stored, the effect of storing carbon dioxide in the reservoir, and the length of time carbon dioxide 

may be stored. Studies should also address how injecting carbon dioxide in underground reservoirs could increase the amount of natural gas that can be recovered from coalbed methane wells near 

the reservoirs. 

Program Direction.—The Committee recommends $151,729,000 

for program direction, which will remain available until September 

30, 2014. 

Other Programs.—The Committee recommends $16,794,000 for 

Plant and Capital Equipment; $7,897,000 for Fossil Energy Environmental Restoration; and $700,000 for Special Recruitment Pro-
85 

grams. Within available funds, the Committee directs the Department to continue the Risk Based Data Management System. The 

Committee directs the Department to continue funding methane 

hydrates research within the Office of Fossil Energy. 

NAVAL PETROLEUM AND OIL SHALE RESERVES

Appropriations, 2011 ............................................................................. 1 $22,954,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ........................................................................... 14,909,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 14,909,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 14,909,000 

1Does not include rescission of $2,100,000 under Public Law 112–10. 

The Committee recommends $14,909,000 for Naval Petroleum 

and Oil Shale Reserves, the same as the budget request. The Committee requests the Department provide a report on the Department’s obligations related to the reserves and a time-line for 

exiting from responsibility for the reserves. 

STRATEGIC PETROLEUM RESERVE

Appropriations, 2011 ............................................................................. 1 $209,441,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ........................................................................... 192,704,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 192,704,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 192,704,000 

1Does not include rescission of $86,300,000 under Public Law 112–10. 

The Committee recommends $192,704,000 for the operation of 

the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. The recommendation does not include the budget’s proposed rescission of $71,000,000 as that was 

already included in the fiscal year 2011 continuing resolution. 

The Committee notes that the Department has continued to ignore the statutory directive in Public Law 111–8 to submit a report 

to Congress regarding the effects of expanding the Reserve on the 

domestic petroleum market by April 27, 2009. The Department has 

not yet submitted the report, and continues to fail to meet other 

congressionally mandated deadlines without explanation or cause. 

Although now nearly 21⁄2 years delayed, the information requested 

in the report continues to be pertinent to policy decisions, and the 

Secretary is directed to submit the report as expeditiously as possible to the Committee. 

STRATEGIC PETROLEUM ACCOUNT

Appropriations, 2011 ............................................................................. ........................... 

Budget estimate, 2012 ........................................................................... ¥$250,000,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... ¥500,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. ¥500,000,000 

The fiscal year 2012 budget request proposes a non-emergency 

sale of oil valued at $500,000,000. The sale of oil will free up space 

in the reserve in order to conduct necessary maintenance. 
86 

NORTHEAST HOME HEATING OIL RESERVE

(INCLUDING RESCISSION)

Appropriations, 2011 ............................................................................. $10,978,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ........................................................................... 1 10,119,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 1 10,119,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 1 10,119,000 

1Does not include proposed rescission of $100,000,000. 

The Committee recommends $10,119,000 for the Northeast Home 

Heating Oil Reserve as requested. The Reserve was sold in early 

2011 to transition to low-sulfur heating oil. The budget request proposes, and the Committee supports, the cancellation of any excess 

revenues from the sale which is scored as a saving of $100,000,000. 

ENERGY INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION

Appropriations, 2011 ............................................................................. 1 $95,409,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ........................................................................... 123,957,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 105,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 105,000,000 

1Does not include rescission of $86,300,000 under Public Law 112–10. 

The Committee recommends $105,000,000 for the Energy Information Administration. The Committee notes that the Energy Information Administration has announced that it will not release 

the 2007 Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey 

[CBECS] due to data and sample flaws resulting from the survey 

method employed. The 2003 CBECS remains the most current survey of commercial building efficiency used as the baseline for The 

Energy Star program at U.S. EPA, the U.S. Green Building Council’s Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design [LEED] program, and Green Globes. In light of the age of the 2003 survey and 

the failure of the 2007 study, the Committee recommends that the 

Energy Information Administration complete a new Commercial 

Buildings Energy Consumption Survey during fiscal year 2012. 

NON-DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP

Appropriations, 2011 ............................................................................. 1 $224,350,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ........................................................................... 219,121,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 254,121,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 219,121,000 

1Does not include rescission of $900,000 under Public Law 112–10. 

The Committee’s recommendation for Non-Defense Environmental Cleanup is $219,121,000, the same as the budget request. 

Reprogramming Control Levels.—In fiscal year 2012, the Environmental Management program may transfer funding between operating expense funded projects within the controls listed below 

using guidance contained in the Department’s budget execution 

manual (DOE M 135.1–1A, chapter IV). All capital construction 

line item projects remain separate controls from the operating 

projects. The Committees on Appropriations in the House and Senate must be formally notified in advance of all reprogrammings, except internal reprogrammings, and the Department is to take no financial action in anticipation of congressional response. The Com-
87 

mittee recommends the following reprogramming control points for 

fiscal year 2012: 

—Fast Flux Test Reactor Facility Decontamination and Decommissioning; 

—Gaseous Diffusion Plants; 

—Small Sites; and 

—West Valley Demonstration Project. 

Internal Reprogramming Authority.—Headquarters Environmental Management may transfer up to $2,000,000, one time, between accounts listed above to reduce health and safety risks, gain 

cost savings, or complete projects, as long as a program or project 

is not increased or decreased by more than $2,000,000 in total during the fiscal year. 

The reprogramming authority—either formal or internal—may 

not be used to initiate new programs or to change funding levels 

for programs specifically denied, limited, or increased by Congress 

in the act or report. The Committee on Appropriations in the 

House and Senate must be notified within 30 days after the use of 

the internal reprogramming authority. 

Fast Flux Test Reactor Facility Decontamination and Decommissioning.—The Committee recommends $2,703,000. 

Gaseous Diffusion Plants.—The Committee recommends 

$100,588,000. 

Small Sites.—The Committee recommends $57,430,000. The 

Committee is aware of the lack of remediation activity at various 

DOE-sponsored facilities and small sites characterized as under the 

responsibility of DOE, such as national laboratories and small experimental nuclear research reactors. The Committee directs the 

Department to submit detailed action plans within 3 months of enactment of this act for remediating these sites and sponsored facilities. 

West Valley Demonstration Project.—The Committee recommends 

$58,400,000. 

URANIUM ENRICHMENT DECONTAMINATION AND DECOMMISSIONING

FUND

Appropriations, 2011 ............................................................................. 1 $506,984,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ........................................................................... 504,169,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 449,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 429,000,000 

1Does not include rescission of $9,900,000 under Public Law 112–10. 

The Committee’s recommendation is $429,000,000 to sustain 

cleanup activities at uranium enrichment facilities. Of the funds 

provided, $77,780,000 is recommended to the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant, $162,747,000 is recommended for the East Tennessee 

Technology Park, and $188,473,000 is recommended for the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant. With these funds and any transfers of uranium from the Department’s inventory, the Department 

is encouraged to maintain its current accelerated cleanup schedule 

at the Portsmouth site to the degree possible, consistent with the 

Committee’s direction below. The Department is also directed to 

consider all Federal sites in allocating services for cleanup resulting from any uranium transfers. 
88 

Although the Committee recognizes the use of uranium transfers 

to accelerate cleanup at Federal sites, the Committee expresses 

continued concern with the Department’s lack of oversight and 

transparency of this program. The Government Accountability Office [GAO] has twice found DOE’s administration of the program 

in violation of Federal law. According to GAO, the Department has 

violated the miscellaneous receipts statute, which requires Government agencies to deposit money received from any source into the 

Treasury. The Committee directs the Secretary to ensure the Department’s uranium transfer program is in compliance with Federal law. 

The Committee is also frustrated by the Department’s refusal to 

submit the program to congressional oversight. The Department 

continues to ignore the Committee’s requests to be notified of basic 

information about the program, such as the dates and amounts of 

uranium prior to the consummation of a transfer. Although the Department had previously requested to be allowed to voluntarily notify the Committee of information regarding the program, it has 

failed to do so, and the Committee accordingly includes language 

to codify notification requirements and expects the Department to 

adhere strictly to them. Because the Department is dealing with 

such significant sums of taxpayer dollars in an off-budget manner, 

it should expect Congress to scrutinize this program. 

The Committee also expresses concern about the Department’s 

market impact analyses required under the USEC Privatization 

Act prior to any sale or transfer of uranium. The scope of the previous market impact analysis included the calendar years of 2011, 

2012, and 2013. The price of uranium continues to be volatile, and 

attempting to make predictions months in advance—let alone 3 

years—is extremely speculative and may not justify a determination that certain transfers would not adversely affect the uranium 

industry. The Committee includes language to allow the Department to cover only 2 years in the future for each market impact 

analysis. 

Finally, the Committee includes a requirement for the Department to conduct an economic feasibility study on the re-enrichment 

of depleted uranium tailings that are located at Federal sites. Although there are currently 60,000 cylinders of depleted uranium located at Federal sites, the Department has no updated plan or 

timeline for either re-enriching high-assay tails or disposing of 

them. The Department is directed to consider the economic feasibility of re-enriching these materials, taking into account factors 

including safety, cost, national security, the costs of storage and 

disposal, and the enrichment capacity at domestic sites. The Department is directed to prepare and submit this economic feasibility study to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations prior to December 31, 2011. 

SCIENCE

Appropriations, 2011 ............................................................................. 1 $4,857,665,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ........................................................................... 5,416,114,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 4,800,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 4,842,665,000 

1Does not include rescission of $15,000,000 under Public Law 112–10. 
89 

The Committee recommends $4,842,665,000. The Committee believes this level of funding will maintain U.S. leadership in science 

and technology during a time of significant funding constraints. Investments in basic research will lead to new and improved energy 

technologies and the construction and operation of new, large-scale 

scientific facilities will be vitally important for many areas of 

science as well as private industry, such as pharmaceutical and 

aerospace companies. Funding for advanced computing will also position the United States to maintain international leadership in scientific computing and simulation over the next decade. 

Office of Science Priorities.—The Committee commends the Office 

of Science for identifying three clear priorities for basic scientific 

research: 

—the discovery and design of new materials for the generation, 

storage, and use of energy, 

—better understanding of microorganisms and plants for improved biofuels production, and 

—the development and deployment of more powerful computing 

capabilities to take advantage of modeling and simulation to 

advance energy technologies and maintain U.S. economic competitiveness. 

Office of Science Advisory Committee.—The Committee encourages the Office of Science to continue prioritizing within its broad 

scientific portfolio to help accelerate the discovery of new energy 

technologies for a clean energy future, especially during a time of 

fiscal constraints. The Committee also encourages the Office of 

Science to establish an advisory committee that would help the 

Secretary of Energy and the Director of the Office of Science 

prioritize among the different areas of basic research. An independent advisory committee for the Office of Science could provide 

valuable advice at a time of declining budgets on research priorities, determining the proper balance among the different disciplines, and what areas of basic research would best maintain U.S. 

scientific leadership and a technical workforce. 

Project Management.—While scientific exploration without useinspired goals is important to advancing science, innovation, and 

American intellectual property, Department of Energy funded research is ultimately centered on energy-focused goals. Within that 

context, most Office of Science research should have concrete goals, 

and most research should have measurable performance. The Department is therefore directed to create a performance ranking of 

all ongoing multi-year research projects across Basic Energy 

Sciences, Fusion Energy, High Energy Physics, Nuclear Energy, Biological and Environmental Research, and Advanced Supercomputing Research, including those at universities, national laboratories, Energy Frontier Research Centers, Energy Innovation Hubs 

and other recipients, by comparing current performance with original project goals. 

BASIC ENERGY SCIENCES

The Committee recommends $1,693,860,000 for Basic Energy 

Sciences. Of these funds, $151,400,000 is provided for construction 

activities as requested in the budget. The remaining $1,542,460,000 

is for research. Within the research funds provided, up to 
90 

$100,000,000 shall be used to support the 46 Energy Frontier Research Centers. The Committee encourages the Department to continue interim science and management reviews during these centers’ 5-year award period to maintain proper oversight and ensure 

that the centers continue to pursue fundamental research needed 

to accelerate breakthroughs in clean energy technologies. The Committee recommends $24,300,000 for the Fuels from Sunlight energy innovation hub and $20,000,000 for a new Hub for 

Batteries and Energy Storage. The Committee also recommends 

$10,000,000 for predictive modeling of internal combustion engines. 

In 2007, the engine company Cummins achieved a milestone in engine design by bringing a diesel engine to market solely with computer modeling. The diesel engine is being used in more than 

200,000 Dodge Ram pickup trucks. The only testing was after-thefact to confirm performance, which significantly reduced development time and cost. Building on this success, developing more advanced computer models for engines holds the promise of increasing the efficiency of current engines in the short to medium term 

by 50 percent for automobiles and 30 percent for trucks, which 

would reduce carbon emissions and the country’s dependence on 

foreign oil. This research would also demonstrate the feasibility of 

using renewable fuels, such as biofuels, in internal combustion engines. The Committee also recommends $37,000,000 for major items of equipment, including $11,500,000 for new instruments and 

$5,500,000 for a power upgrade at the Spallation Neutron Source 

at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, $8,000,000 for design and 

engineering work to enhance the capabilities of the Linac Coherent 

Light Source at SLAC, and $12,000,000 for equipment for the new 

National Synchrotron Light Source facility at Brookhaven. The 

Committee recommends no funding for upgrades to the Advanced 

Photon Source at Argonne National Laboratory or to build a new 

electron microscope. The Committee is concerned about outyear liabilities for major construction projects and upgrades to facilities at 

a time of flat or declining budgets. Upgrades to the Advanced Photon Source and the Linac Coherent Light Source both have estimated costs of over $300,000,000. The Office of Science should consider phasing these projects to reflect the highest priority or demonstrate how it can build both concurrently without significant impacts to basic research. 

The Committee recommends $20,000,000 for the Experimental 

Program to Stimulate Competitive Research [EPSCoR] to support 

science and technology programs in States that have historically 

received relatively less Federal research funding. 

The Committee directs the Office of Basic Energy Sciences [BES] 

to implement the recommendations in the April 2010 Basic Energy 

Sciences Advisory Committee report on ways to strengthen the link 

between basic research and industry. One of the report’s main conclusions was that more direct feedback, communication, and collaboration between industrial and BES scientists was needed to 

better identify scientific roadblocks to emerging clean energy technologies, address the scientific challenges, and transfer the results 

to industry for commercialization. BES-supported scientists need to 

be better informed of the detailed scientific issues facing industry 
91 

and industry more aware of BES capabilities and how to utilize 

them. 

The Committee understands that catalysis is the key enabling 

technology for transportation fuel production today and further advances in catalysis are required to develop advanced fuels from domestic sources that use the country’s existing energy infrastructure 

and are the lowest cost path to reducing oil imports. The Committee encourages the Office of Science to continue catalysis research. The Committee also encourages the Office of Science in 

partnership with universities to support research and development 

of novel device materials for alternative energy applications. 

The Committee encourages the Department of Energy in partnership with universities to support research and development of advanced nanostructure polymer-particle composite materials for improved ultra-capacitor devices. The Committee also encourages the 

Department to continue funding to support research and development needs of graduate and post-graduate science programs at Historically Black Colleges and Universities. 

BIOLOGICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH

The Committee recommends $621,823,000 for Biological and En- vironmental Research. The Committee recommends $295,079,000 

for climate and environmental sciences. The Committee recognizes 

the unique contributions of this program in advancing climate research. DOE has stationary and mobile facilities around the world 

that collect data on climate change and the world’s best high-performance computers to develop sophisticated climate models to help 

decisionmakers understand the impact of climate change. Despite 

advances in climate models, there is still uncertainty in predicting 

how climate change may impact future energy use, land use, food 

production, and water resources and affect regional stability. The 

Committee supports DOE’s efforts in improving the reliability and 

accuracy of climate models by resolving two major areas of uncertainty—the effect of clouds and aerosols on climate. The Committee 

encourages DOE to continue using data obtained from satellite sensors operated by other Federal agencies in addition to ground based 

data to produce the most accurate and reliable information for climate modeling. 

The Committee also supports research related to producing biomass-based biofuels to reduce the country’s dependence on fossilbased transportation fuels. The Committee understands that making efficient use of organic materials to make biofuels continues to 

be a major challenge. The Committee agrees that a top priority 

should be developing biomass feedstocks than can produce the most 

biomass at the least cost and take into account environmental factors, such as water consumption, competition with food production, 

and insect resistance. The Committee believes that synthetic biology, which involves designing new biological parts, devices and systems for specific purposes, will accelerate major breakthroughs not 

only in biofuels, but also in other important energy and environmental missions of the Department. The Committee directs the 

Secretary of Energy, not later than 9 months after enactment of 

this act, in consultation with other relevant Federal agencies, the 

academic community, research based nonprofit entities, and the 
92 

private sector, to submit a comprehensive synthetic biology plan for 

federally supported research and development activities that will 

support the energy and environmental missions of the Department 

and enable a competitive synthetic biology industry in the United 

States. The plan shall assess the need to create a database for synthetic biology information, the need and process for developing 

standards for biological parts, components, and systems, and funding requirements for implementing the plan. Within the funds provided, $20,000,000 shall be used for 

radiobiology to help determine health risks from exposures to low 

levels of ionizing radiation to properly protect radiation workers 

and the general public. The Fukushima Daiichi disaster in Japan 

is an opportunity to learn about the impacts of the disaster on 

human health and apply lessons learned to make more informed 

decisions on protection if a similar accident occurs in the future, including dose trip points for evacuation and shelter-in-place orders. 

Within the funds provided, $12,000,000 is to continue nuclear medicine research with human application. The Committee notes that 

DOE-funded nuclear medicine research has led to numerous 

achievements in patient care, such as cutting-edge nuclear medicine imaging and therapy procedures, including PET scans, that 

are crucial for identifying the presence of cancer in the body and 

cardiac stress tests to analyze heart function. 

ADVANCED SCIENTIFIC COMPUTING RESEARCH

The Committee recommends $441,619,000 for Advanced Scientific Computing Research. The Committee recommends 

$90,000,000 for the exascale initiative to spur U.S. innovation and 

increase the country’s ability to address critical national challenges. The Committee understands that exascale computing will 

help maintain U.S. industrial competitiveness. In particular, hightech industries such as transportation, aerospace, nuclear energy, 

and petroleum will increasingly rely on high-performance computing, especially when traditional experiments would be impossible, dangerous, or inordinately costly to perform. 

The Committee understands that the Department will have the 

lead Government role in computing research and development. The 

Department’s role in developing more advanced computing platforms is even more important with the elimination of the DARPA 

High Performance Computing program. For this reason, the Committee supports the budget request for the Leadership Computing 

Facilities, which will enable Oak Ridge and Argonne National Laboratories to move forward with upgrades to their Cray XT5 and 

IBM Glue Gene/P systems, respectively. These upgrades will ensure that they remain on track to be the most powerful supercomputers in the world and represent an important step in the Department’s research effort to develop the first exascale system. 

HIGH ENERGY PHYSICS

The Committee recommends $780,200,000 for High Energy Physics. With the shutdown of the Tevatron at Fermilab at the end of 

fiscal year 2011 and the successful operation of the most powerful 

energy particle collider in the world, the Large Hadron Collider in 

Switzerland, U.S. dominance of the energy frontier has come to an 
93 

end. However, the Committee understands that the United States 

has an opportunity to lead in the intensity frontier. Specifically, the 

United States has unique capabilities that should be exploited to 

develop a world-leading program of neutrino science to understand 

the role neutrinos play in the evolution of the universe and design 

new particle beams and highly sensitive detectors to advance this 

area of science. The Committee directs the Office of Science to submit a report not later than 180 days of enactment that lays out 

—the expected benefits of intensity frontier science, 

—a strategy for maintaining the U.S. lead, and 

—the funding needs over the next 10 years, including construction activities, of implementing the proposed strategy. 

The Committee provides no construction funds for the Long 

Baseline Neutrino Experiment. The Committee is concerned that 

this project is not mature enough for construction because a location for this experiment in an underground laboratory has not yet 

been selected and the decision of the National Science Foundation 

to discontinue construction funding for the Deep Underground 

Science and Engineering Laboratory in South Dakota has created 

uncertainty about the future of the project. In addition, the Office 

of Science has not yet selected a technology, which affects where 

the experiment can be located and total cost. 

The Committee also recommends $15,000,000 as requested— 

$10,000,000 from the High Energy Physics program and $5,000,000 

from the Nuclear Physics program—to support minimal, sustaining 

operations at the Homestake Mine in South Dakota. The Committee is aware of the National Science Foundation’s decision. 

However, the Committee encourages the Office of Science to examine cost-effective options for using the mine to stage critical experiments related to neutrino and dark matter research. 

The Committee understands that powerful new accelerator technologies created for basic science and developed by industry will 

produce particle accelerators with the potential to address key economic and societal issues confronting our Nation. However, the 

Committee is concerned with the divide that exists in translating 

breakthroughs in accelerator science and technology into applications that benefit the marketplace and American competitiveness. 

The Committee directs the Department to submit a 10-year strategic plan by June 1, 2012 for accelerator technology research and 

development to advance accelerator applications in energy and the 

environment, medicine, industry, national security, and discovery 

science. The strategic plan should be based on the results of the 

Department’s 2010 workshop study, Accelerators for America’s Future, that identified the opportunities and research challenges for 

next-generation accelerators and how to improve coordination between basic and applied accelerator research. The strategic plan 

should also identify the potential need for demonstration and development facilities to help bridge the gap between development and 

deployment. 

NUCLEAR PHYSICS

The Committee recommends $550,114,000 for Nuclear Physics. 

The Committee recommends $55,000,000 in construction funds for 

the Continuous Electron Beam Accelerator Facility, which the Nu-
94 

clear Physics Advisory Committee concluded was the highest priority for the Nation’s nuclear physics program. The Committee also 

recommends $24,000,000 for the Facility for Rare Isotope Beams. 

FUSION ENERGY SCIENCES

The Committee recommends $335,463,000 for Fusion Energy 

Sciences. The Department is directed to submit a 10-year plan, not 

later than 12 months after enactment of this act, on the Department’s proposed research and development activities in magnetic 

fusion under four realistic budget scenarios. The report shall (1) 

identify specific areas of fusion energy research and enabling technology development in which the United States can and should establish or solidify a lead in the global fusion energy development 

effort and (2) identify priorities for facility construction and facility 

decommissioning under each of the four budget scenarios. The Department is encouraged to use a similar approach adopted by the 

Particle Physics Project Prioritization Panel that developed a 10- 

year strategic plan for the Department’s high energy physics program. 

Of the $24,741,000 requested for the High Energy Density Laboratory Plasma program, $12,000,000 shall be spent on heavy-ion 

fusion, laser-driven fusion, and magneto-inertial fusion to be evenly 

distributed among these three areas of science. A recent Department of Energy report on scientific grand challenges for fusion energy sciences identified these three areas of research as critical toward advancing inertial fusion energy. In particular, the Committee does not understand why the Department would redirect 

funding for magnetized high-energy-density plasma research after 

the panel report found that this approach has the potential to significantly reduce power requirements compared to conventional inertial confinement fusion and could permit fusion development 

without building multi-billion dollar facilities. 

The Committee is concerned about the impact ITER will have on 

the domestic fusion energy budget. Based on DOE budget estimates, DOE will be requesting between $300,000,000 to 

$400,000,000 a year from fiscal years 2014 through 2016 to help 

build ITER. If current trends of declining or flat budgets continue, 

almost all of the fusion energy sciences budget will be consumed 

by ITER. The Committee encourages DOE to find a solution to this 

problem without compromising the scientific and technical expertise residing at U.S. universities, labs, and industrial partners. 

The Committee encourages the Office Fusion Energy Sciences 

Program to closely collaborate with the Office of Basic Energy 

Sciences, the Office of Advanced Scientific Computing Research, 

the Office of Nuclear Energy, and the National Nuclear Security 

Administration to address mutual needs for technology development in magnetic fusion, inertial fusion, and next-generation fission reactor concepts. One focus area of these collaborations should 

be on identifying, characterizing, and developing new materials 

that can endure the intense neutron and heat fluxes expected in 

these reactor environments. The Committee expects the Department to consider these nuclear technology needs as it develops its 

prioritization plan. 
95 

The Committee also encourages the fusion energy program take 

continue taking advantage of high performance computing to address scientific and technical challenges on the path to fusion energy. The Committee supports the Fusion Simulation Program to 

provide experimentally validated predictive simulation capabilities 

that are critical for ITER and other current and planned toroidal 

fusion devices. Given current and future budget constraints, the 

Committee views this initiative as critical to maintain U.S. world 

leadership in fusion energy in a cost-effective manner. 

SCIENCE LABORATORIES INFRASTRUCTURE

The Committee provides $136,800,000 to support infrastructure 

activities. Within these funds, $25,000,000 shall be used to accelerate excess facility clean up at the national laboratories, which 

may include remediation of seismically deficient buildings and 

areas in need of modernization. 

SAFEGUARDS AND SECURITY

The Committee provides $82,000,000 for Safeguards and Security 

activities. 

SCIENCE PROGRAM DIRECTION

The Committee provides $180,786,000 for the Office of Science 

Program Direction. No funds shall be used to hire new site office 

personnel, except for field staff at the Integrated Support Centers 

in Chicago and Oak Ridge. 

SCIENCE WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT

The Committee provides $20,000,000. Of these funds, up to 

$7,500,000 shall be available for the graduate fellowship program. 

The Committee encourages the Office of Science to monitor the impact of this program and demonstrate whether students continue 

to pursue careers in scientific and technical fields. The Committee 

commends the Office of Science for terminating student and teacher education programs that did not have clear program goals and 

were not effective in encouraging students to pursue careers in 

science, technology, engineering, and math. Limited resources will 

be better targeted to programs that are most effective in developing 

a skilled scientific and technical workforce to address energy, environmental, and national security challenges. As the Office of 

Science evaluates the impact of workforce development activities 

and makes changes to the program, the Committee urges the Office 

of Science to look at other uses for these funds, including the Distinguished Scientist program authorized in the America COMPETES bill. 

NUCLEAR WASTE DISPOSAL

Appropriations, 2011 ............................................................................. ( 1 ) 

Budget estimate, 2012 ........................................................................... ........................... 

House allowance .................................................................................... $25,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. ........................... 

1Does not include rescission of $2,800,000 under Public Law 112–10. 
96 

The Committee recommends no funding for the nuclear waste 

disposal program. 

ADVANCED RESEARCH PROJECTS AGENCY—ENERGY

Appropriations, 2011 ............................................................................. $179,640,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ........................................................................... 550,011,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 179,640,000 

Committee Recommendation ................................................................ 250,000,000 

The Committee recommends $250,000,000 for the Advanced Research Projects Agency–Energy [ARPA–E]. ARPA–E is responsible 

for funding high-risk research and development projects to meet 

long-term energy challenges. The Committee understands that 

ARPA–E is currently funding 121 projects. Given the high-risk nature of the research, the Committee understands that not all of 

them will be successful. However, if just a fraction of ARPA–E 

funded projects are successful in reaching the marketplace, the 

United States would benefit greatly by creating new industries and 

jobs, making energy technologies substantially more efficient and 

profitable, and accelerating the timeframe for achieving energy and 

security goals. The Committee is encouraged that private investors 

have provided $220,000,000 in additional funding to several 

projects to help accelerate development of new, promising technologies. For example, a $750,000 ARPA–E award to develop a 

compressed air energy storage system to help integrate renewable 

energy, such as wind, into the grid, attracted $12,000,000 in followon private funding. ARPA–E funding allowed a company to build 

an improved version of their technology that showed that their 

technology worked and has the potential to store electricity anywhere on the grid, which subsequently attracted private investment. 

INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY LOAN GUARANTEE PROGRAM

ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES

GROSS APPROPRIATION

Appropriations, 2011 ............................................................................. 1 $239,490,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ........................................................................... 1,098,000,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 198,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 238,000,000 

1Does not include rescission of $181,830,000 under Public Law 112–10. 

The Committee reiterates its support for the $8,000,000,000 in 

loan guarantee authority authorized in Public Law 110–161 for Advanced Fossil Energy Projects. The Committee recognizes the importance of carbon dioxide pipelines to advanced fossil energy 

projects such as advanced coal gasification and industrial gasification activities incorporating carbon capture and sequestration or 

other beneficial uses of carbon and the Department of Energy is 

authorized to consider associated costs of connected carbon pipelines as eligible under section 1703. 
97 

OFFSETTING RECEIPTS

Appropriations, 2011 ............................................................................. ¥$58,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ........................................................................... ¥38,000,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... ¥38,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. ¥38,000,000 

NET APPROPRIATION

Appropriations, 2011 ............................................................................. 1 $181,490,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ........................................................................... 1,060,000,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 160,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 200,000,000 

1Does not include rescission of $181,830,000 under Public Law 112–10. 

The Committee recommends $200,000,000 for the cost of renewable loan guarantees. 

ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY VEHICLES MANUFACTURING LOAN PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2011 ............................................................................. $9,978,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ........................................................................... 6,000,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 6,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 6,000,000 

The Committee recommends $6,000,000 for the Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loan Program. 

BETTER BUILDINGS PILOT LOAN GUARANTEE INITIATIVE

Appropriations, 2011 ............................................................................. ........................... 

Budget estimate, 2012 ........................................................................... $105,000,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... ........................... 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. ........................... 

The Committee recommends no funding for the Better Buildings 

Pilot Loan Guarantee Initiative. 

DEPARTMENTAL ADMINISTRATION

(GROSS)

Appropriations, 2011 ............................................................................. 1 $250,139,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ........................................................................... 240,623,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 63,374,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 237,623,000 

1Does not include rescission of $81,900,000 under Public Law 112–10. 

(MISCELLANEOUS REVENUES)

Appropriations, 2011 ............................................................................. ¥$119,501,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ........................................................................... ¥111,883,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... ¥111,883,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. ¥111,883,000 

NET APPROPRIATION

Appropriations, 2011 ............................................................................. 1 $130,638,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ........................................................................... 128,740,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... ¥48,509,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 125,740,000 

1Does not include rescission of $81,900,000 under Public Law 112–10. 

The Committee recommends $237,623,000 for Department Administration. 
98 

An Independent Review of DOE Oversight of National Laboratories.—DOE accomplishes most of its activities through a network 

of Government-owned, contractor-operated laboratories and facilities across the United States. In providing an appropriate level of 

oversight of these contractor-operated facilities, DOE must carefully balance the need to protect the Government’s interests while 

not overly burdening contractors or depriving them of the ability to 

operate most effectively and efficiently. The Committee notes that 

the National Laboratory Directors Council has expressed concerns 

about overly burdensome oversight and operational requirements. 

The Committee directs the Secretary of Energy to contract with 

National Academy of Public Administration [NAPA] for a study 

that assesses its processes for reviewing contractor performance, 

including performance metrics currently being used by DOE for 

that purpose, as well as assesses the validity and applicability of 

the findings and recommendations of the recent Laboratory Directors’ report. The Committee has included $1,000,000 within the 

funds available to carry out this activity. NAPA shall submit a report to the Committee with findings in the above areas and recommendations for improvement no later than 9 months after DOE 

has contracted with NAPA pursuant to this directive. 

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

Appropriations, 2011 ............................................................................. $42,764,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ........................................................................... 41,774,000 

House amount ........................................................................................ 41,774,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 41,774,000 

The Committee recommends $41,774,000 for the Office of the Inspector General. 

WEAPONS ACTIVITIES

Appropriations, 2011 ............................................................................. 1 $6,946,398,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ........................................................................... 2 7,629,716,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 2 7,131,993,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 7,190,000,000 

1Does not include rescission of $50,000,000 under Public Law 112–10. 

2Does not include proposed rescission of $40,332,000. 

The Committee recommends $7,190,000,000 for National Nuclear 

Security Administration’s [NNSA] Weapons Activities. The Committee recognizes the important contributions that advanced computing and experimental facilities have made in the last few years 

to the success of the stockpile stewardship program and to increase 

confidence in the safety, security, and reliability of the nuclear 

weapons stockpile. After investing billions of dollars over more 

than a decade, critical capabilities are in place to respond to nuclear weapons issues without underground nuclear weapons testing. Petascale computing capabilities allow weapons scientists and 

engineers to conduct weapons simulations with reasonable efficiency and resolution. In the past year, the Dual-Axis Radiographic 

Hydrodynamic Test facility at Los Alamos National Laboratory successfully completed four experiments that resolved a long open significant finding investigation, improved the basis for the assessment of several stockpile systems, and provided data to better understand multipoint safety options for possible use in future life ex-
99 

tension programs. The past year also marked the execution of the 

Barolo series of subcritical experiments at the U1a underground facility at the Nevada National Security Site. These experiments provided data on the behavior of plutonium driven by high explosives, 

which is critical to understanding primary implosions. The National Ignition Facility at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory 

also successfully completed its first set of weapon-relevant physics 

experiments to help validate computer models that resolved one of 

the most critical areas of uncertainty in assessing nuclear weapons 

performance. 

DIRECTED STOCKPILE WORK

The Committee recommends $1,804,882,000 for directed stockpile 

work. 

Life Extension Programs.—The Committee recommends 

$437,039,000 for the Life Extension Program. 

B61 Life Extension Program.—The Committee is concerned about 

NNSA’s plans to incorporate new safety and security features in 

the life extension version of the B61. The B61 life extension program will be the most ambitious and extensive refurbishment of a 

weapon system to date. For example, the B61 has three times as 

many major components that must be replaced as the W76. Further complicating matters is the ambitious timeframe for replacing 

these components before they reach the end of their life and affect 

weapon reliability. In a May 2011 study, the Government Accountability Office identified significant challenges in building the first 

refurbished weapon by 2017, including manufacturing critical materials and components, meeting production requirements, ensuring 

the quality of finished products, and coordinating the production of 

bomb components between NNSA and the Air Force. Adding to this 

ambitious scope of work, NNSA plans to incorporate untried technologies and design features to improve the safety and security of 

the nuclear stockpile. The Committee supports enhanced surety of 

weapon systems to avoid accidents and unauthorized use, but it 

should not come at the expense of long-term weapon reliability. 

New safety and security features should be incorporated in weapon 

systems when feasible, but the primary goal of a life extension program should be to increase confidence in warhead performance 

without underground nuclear testing. 

For these reasons, the Committee recommends $180,000,000 for 

the B61 life extension program, a reduction of $43,562,000. The 

Committee directs that: 

—the JASON group of scientific advisers submit a classified and 

unclassified assessment by February 1, 2012 to the House and 

Senate Appropriations Committees that determines whether 

proposed intrinsic nuclear warhead safety and security features for the B61 bomb will affect the long-term safety, security, reliability, and operation of the weapon, whether these 

surety features are justified when measured against the plausible range of deployment scenarios and threats likely to confront the future B61 stockpile, and the benefits outweigh the 

costs of installing such features; and 

—the Administrator of NNSA and the laboratory directors from 

Los Alamos, Livermore, and Sandia certify to the House and 
100 

Senate Appropriations Committees that the benefits of installing intrinsic safety and security features outweigh the costs 

and there are no less costly and effective alternatives to surety 

that can be accomplished without introducing intrinsic surety 

features in the B61 by March 1, 2012. 

In addition, when NNSA completes its Phase 6.2/6.2A study for 

the B61 life extension program, the Committee directs NNSA to 

submit to the Committee both a classified and unclassified report 

90 days after the completion of the study with: 

—a description of the safety and security features NNSA would 

add to a refurbished B61 and 

—a cost and benefit analysis of installing the proposed features 

in the warhead. 

The cost and benefit analysis should include: 

—the costs of science, technology, and engineering to install new 

safety and security features; 

—the costs of assessing the impact the new features may have 

on the performance of the nuclear explosive package at the national laboratories; 

—the extent to which the proposed safety and security features 

address specific safety and security concerns; and 

—why current safety and security features would not be sufficient. 

Stockpile Systems.—The Committee recommends $472,109,000. 

Of these funds, at least $175,000,000 shall be used for surveillance 

activities. The Committee commends NNSA for sustaining increased funding for surveillance activities in the fiscal year 2012 

request. The Committee encourages NNSA to continue developing 

and using non-destructive evaluation technologies to economically 

obtain greater quantities of assessment data while reducing warhead or component destruction. The Committee also recommends 

$26,000,000, a decrease of $25,087,000 below the request, for the 

planned W78 life extension program because of delays in completing the Phase 6.1 study. 

Weapons Dismantlement.—The Committee recommends 

$56,770,000 as requested. 

Stockpile Services.—The Committee recommends $838,964,000. 

Within these funds, at least $64,000,000 shall be used to support 

surveillance activities. The Committee understands that NNSA 

completed building the last W88 war reserve pits in fiscal year 

2011 and is preparing to transition to build the W87 pit. However, 

the Committee is concerned about NNSA’s ability to maintain a pit 

manufacturing capability during the transition. The Committee directs NNSA to provide a report to the Committee 90 days after enactment that: 

—describes how NNSA will maintain a pit manufacturing capability without manufacturing pits; 

—assesses the costs of maintaining a pit manufacturing capability without pit production; and 

—evaluates the costs of developing pit manufacturing capabilities 

for future requirements. 
101 

CAMPAIGNS

The Committee recommends $1,716,407,000 for NNSA Campaigns. 

Science Campaign.—The Committee recommends $347,055,000. 

Within these funds, at least $44,000,000 shall be used for plutonium and other physics experiments at Sandia’s Z facility. The 

Committee commends Sandia National Laboratory for successfully 

and safely performing two plutonium experiments at the refurbished Z facility. The Committee understands that these experiments yielded fundamentally new and surprising data about the 

behavior of plutonium at high pressure and this new data has been 

one of the most valuable contributions to the stockpile stewardship 

program. The Committee continues to strongly support the weapons physics activities at Sandia’s Z facility that are critical to sustaining a safe, secure, and effective nuclear stockpile. 

No funding shall be used to design, prepare, or execute a scaled 

experiment. The Committee is concerned that a scaled experiment, 

which is a type of subcritical experiment that uses plutonium pitlike designs, may not be needed for annual assessments of the current stockpile and a new program for scaled experiments may 

interfere with achieving the Nuclear Posture Review’s goals and 

schedule. In addition, the Committee is concerned that NNSA does 

not have the diagnostic equipment at the Nevada National Security 

Site to collect the necessary data for scaled experiments. Hundreds 

of millions of dollars and several years may be needed to install 

new radiographic capabilities to conduct scientifically meaningful 

scaled experiments. These costs are not included in budget projects 

for future years and the Committee is concerned that adding this 

additional requirement will come at the expense of higher priorities. The Committee directs NNSA to wait until the JASON study 

group completes its review of scaled experiments before making a 

decision on whether to proceed with scaled experiments. If NNSA 

decides to conduct scaled experiments, the Committee expects 

NNSA to submit a plan explaining the scientific value of scaled experiments for stockpile stewardship and meeting the goals of the 

Nuclear Posture Review, the costs of developing the capabilities for 

and conducting scaled experiments, and the impact on other stockpile stewardship activities under constrained budgets if scaled experiments are pursued. 

Engineering Campaign.—The Committee recommends 

$143,078,000 as requested. 

Inertial Confinement Fusion Ignition and High-Yield Campaign.—The Committee recommends $476,274,000 as requested. Within these funds, at least $62,500,000 and $48,000,000 shall be 

used for inertial confinement fusion activities at the University of 

Rochester’s Omega facility and Sandia National Laboratory’s Z facility, respectively. The Committee encourages NNSA to increase 

pulsed power capabilities at the Z facility by increasing available 

current and attainable pressures and radiation, especially for new 

radiographic capabilities. The Committee also recommends at least 

$5,000,000 as requested for the Naval Research Laboratory to continue operating laser facilities focused on laser plasma interactions, 

target hydrodynamics, and materials—issues which are important 
102 

for ignition. The Committee recognizes and supports the important 

work of medium scale laser facilities such as Trident at Los Alamos 

National Laboratory, Jupiter at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, and Nike at the Naval Research Laboratory to provide 

independent peer review of experiments at larger scale facilities, 

such as the National Ignition Facility, and help resolve scientific 

barriers to achieving ignition. 

The Committee recognizes the National Ignition Facility’s important contribution to resolving a critical stockpile stewardship issue 

related to radiation transport. Scientists used the National Ignition 

Facility to conduct non-ignition experiments, which do not require 

using the full capability of the facility, to achieve temperatures and 

pressures that exceeded any other facility and address one of the 

largest sources of uncertainty in calculating weapon performance. 

These experiments validated physics-based models and increased 

NNSA’s confidence in assessing the safety, security, and reliability 

of the stockpile. Despite this success, the Committee remains concerned about NNSA’s ability to achieve ignition—the primary purpose of constructing the facility—by the end of fiscal year 2012 

when the National Ignition Campaign ends and the facility should 

transition to regular ignition operations and pursues broad scientific applications. The Committee directs NNSA to establish an 

independent advisory board by January 1, 2012 that can evaluate 

experiments planned at the National Ignition Facility pre- and 

post-ignition, identify potential weaknesses with the experimental 

plan, and recommend, if necessary, alternative approaches to address scientific and technical challenges. The Committee also 

strongly supports the advisory committee’s role in setting a strategic direction for inertial confinement fusion and high-energy density physics research and determining how best to use current facilities to advance this scientific field. If the National Ignition Facility does not achieve ignition by the end of fiscal year 2012 using 

a cryogenically layered deuterium and tritium target that produces 

a neutron yield with a gain greater than 1, the Committee directs 

NNSA to submit a report by November 30, 2012 that (1) explains 

the scientific and technical barriers to achieving ignition, (2) the 

steps NNSA will take to achieve ignition with a revised schedule, 

and (3) the impact on the stockpile stewardship program. 

The Committee commends NNSA for taking the first steps in soliciting competitive bids for its full portfolio of target fabrication 

contracts. The Committee encourages NNSA to consider various 

criteria when awarding contracts, such as the extent to which the 

contract spurs innovation, lowers costs, reduces technical risk, and 

maintains a competitive multi-vendor market to avoid relying on 

one contractor for all future target fabrication needs. The Committee also encourages NNSA to take advantage of existing and 

presently underutilized fabrication capabilities to meet increased 

demands for targets rather than developing and building new infrastructure. The Committee also urges NNSA to develop a longterm plan that assesses the demand for targets for inertial confinement fusion facilities that support the stockpile stewardship program and identifies ways to meet that demand without significant 

cost increases. 
103 

Advanced Simulation and Computing.—The Committee recommends $625,000,000. High-performance computing underpins 

NNSA’s ability to scientifically resolve outstanding weapons performance issues, address material aging and compatibility challenges, conduct future life extension program activities, and rapidly 

address results from Significant Findings Investigations. As the 

stockpile continues to age, NNSA will require a thousandfold improvement over today’s modeling and simulation capability, commonly referred to as exascale. Therefore, of the funds provided, the 

Committee recommends $36,000,000 as requested for the exascale 

initiative. 

Readiness Campaign.—The Committee recommends 

$125,000,000 for the Readiness Campaign. Within these funds, no 

more than $60,000,000 shall be used for tritium production efforts. 

READINESS IN TECHNICAL BASE AND FACILITIES

The Committee recommends $2,170,546,000. The Committee is 

concerned about the escalating costs for two new nuclear facilities 

to handle plutonium and uranium. The new cost estimates for the 

Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement-Nuclear Facility 

at Los Alamos National Laboratory and the Uranium Processing 

Facility at Y–12 are two to three times more than previous estimates and constructions for these two facilities alone may exceed 

$12,000,000,000 over the next decade. An independent Corps of Engineers study that concluded that the cost range for the Uranium 

Processing Facility is between $6,500,000,000 and $7,500,000,000 

only adds to the Committee’s concerns. Since completing life extension programs to maintain the safety, security, and reliability of 

the stockpile is the highest priority and fiscal constraints will limit 

construction funding, the Committee directs NNSA to submit a 

contingency plan by February 1, 2012 that would identify the consequences to cost, scope, and schedule of delaying project implementation and the impact of sequencing construction of these two 

major facilities on stockpile requirements. 

The Committee supports NNSA’s decision to reach the 90 percent 

engineering design stage before establishing a project baseline and 

initiating construction of these two nuclear facilities. Initiating construction before designs are largely complete contributes to increased costs and schedule delays. The Committee also agrees with 

NNSA’s decision not to forward fund these projects until a project 

baseline has been established and Congress has a more complete 

understanding of the costs. 

The Committee encourages NNSA to develop a plan by the end 

of fiscal year 2012—consistent with NNSA’s May 2011 strategic 

plan—to create an open, unclassified research and development 

space known as the Livermore Valley Open Campus that would increase interactions and partnerships between Lawrence Livermore 

and Sandia/California National Laboratories as well as the private 

sector and academia. This type of campus would help Livermore 

and Sandia maintain leadership in science, technology, and engineering in a wide variety of areas, including high-performance computing, energy and environmental security, and cybersecurity, and 

attract the workforce needed to fulfill the laboratories’ NNSA mission. 
104 

Acquisition Strategy.—The Committee is concerned the Department took steps to implement a major new contracting strategy in 

the absence of complete information. Specifically, DOE was urged 

to await a Government Accountability Office review of the cost savings NNSA claimed it would achieve by combining the Management and Operations contracts at the Y–12 and Pantex production 

plants. GAO’s preliminary findings did not validate that these savings were achievable and GAO has informed the Committee that 

efficiencies could be achieved through existing contracting mechanisms. However, NNSA has decided to proceed anyway. Many critical activities are at stake as NNSA begins to implement the requirements of the Nuclear Posture Review and the New START 

Treaty, while a contract overhaul likely will cause significant disruption and put these activities at risk. While the Committee 

strongly supports efforts to implement administrative efficiencies 

at all NNSA sites, efficiencies will come about in large part when 

NNSA improves its oversight of contracts. 

Regardless of the outcome of the acquisition strategy, the Committee expects all efforts will be taken to ensure a minimum of disruption to work associated with the Uranium Processing Facility to 

keep this facility on time and on budget. 

Operations and Maintanance.—The Committee recommends 

$1,555,278,000 for the Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities 

Operations and Maintenance account. Of these funds: 

Operations of Facilities.—The Committee recommends 

$1,411,000,000. 

Program Readiness.—The Committee recommends the requested amount of $69,170,000. 

Material Recycle and Recovery.—The Committee recommends 

$80,000,000. 

Containers.—The Committee recommends the requested amount of $28,979,000 as requested. 

Storage.—The Committee recommends the requested amount of 

$30,289,000. 

Construction.—The Committee recommends $551,108,000. 

Project 12–D–301, TRU Waste Facilities, Los Alamos, New Mexico.—The Committee recommends $9,881,000 as requested to begin 

construction of a new transuranic waste facility to meet regulatory 

requirements of the State of New Mexico. 

Project 11–D–801, TA–55 Reinvestment Project, Los Alamos, New 

Mexico.—The Committee recommends $10,000,000 to begin the second phase of this effort to mitigate safety risks to workers identified by the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board. NNSA has unobligated funds that can be used to fund additional upgrades to the 

facility. 

Project 10–D–501, Nuclear Facility Risk Reduction, Y–12, Oak 

Ridge, Tennessee.—The Committee recommends $35,287,000 as requested to upgrade equipment and infrastructure in buildings 9212 

and 9204–2E for continued safe uranium operations until the new 

Uranium Processing Facility is operational. 

Project 09–D–404, Test Capabilities Revitalization Phase II, 

Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, New Mexico.—The 

committee recommends $25,168,000 as requested to refurbish nonnuclear capabilities, such as rocket sled tracks and mechanical 
105 

shock facilities, to test weapons components needed for the B61 

and future life extension programs. 

Project 08–D–802, High Explosive Pressing Facility, Pantex Plant, 

Amarillo, Texas.—The Committee recommends $66,960,000 as requested to build a new facility to make high explosive hemispheres 

for nuclear weapons that is more reliable and can meet the projected workload for life extension programs. 

Project 07–D–140, Project Engineering and Design [PED], Various 

Locations.—The Committee recommends $3,518,000 as requested 

to complete design work on the Transuranic Waste Facilities 

Project at Los Alamos National Laboratory. 

Project 06–D–141, PED, Uranium Process Facility, Y–12, Oak 

Ridge, Tennessee.—The Committee recommends $160,194,000 as 

requested. 

Project 04–D–125 Chemistry and Metallurgy Facility Replacement 

Project, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, New Mexico.—The Committee recommends $240,000,000. Within these 

funds, $35,000,000 is to complete equipment installation at the Radiological Laboratory, $125,000,000 is for design activities to reach 

90 percent design maturity by the end of the fiscal year, 

$40,000,000 is for long-lead procurements, and $40,000,000 is for 

site preparation. 

SECURE TRANSPORTATION ASSET

The Committee recommendation for the Secure Transportation 

Asset program is $251,272,000, the same as the budget request. 

NUCLEAR COUNTERTERRORISM INCIDENT RESPONSE

The Committee recommends full funding of the nuclear counterterrorism incident response program. The Committee provides 

$222,147,000 as requested. 

FACILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE RECAPITALIZATION

The Committee recommends $96,380,000 for Facilities and Infrastructure Recapitalization activities, consistent with the budget request. The Committee is concerned about an increasing backlog of 

deferred maintenance costs within NNSA’s nuclear weapons laboratories and production facilities. Based on a March 2011 NNSA 

assessment, deferred maintenance costs are expected to increase by 

$70,000,000 a year. The Facilities and Infrastructure Recapitalization Program has only reduced some of the backlog in deferred 

maintenance and this program will end in fiscal year 2013. To increase transparency in NNSA’s efforts to sustain existing physical 

infrastructure, the Committee directs NNSA to identify funds for 

maintenance and operations by site as separate line items under 

the Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities Account starting 

with the fiscal year 2014 budget submission. The sites include the 

three national security labs, the Y–12 National Security Complex, 

the Kansas City Plant, the Savannah River Site, and the Nevada 

National Security Site. The budget justification shall include an explanation of how NNSA plans to manage deferred maintenance 

costs, including ways NNSA will stabilize deferred maintenance for 

mission critical facilities and dispose of excess capacity. Further, 
106 

the budget shall include total deferred maintenance backlog and 

how much NNSA is spending at each site each year to reduce deferred maintenance. The Committee recommends using the Office 

of Science’s Science Laboratories Infrastructure budget information 

on deferred maintenance as a model. Further, the Committee is 

concerned by a recent Government Accountability Office finding 

that NNSA does not have accurate, reliable, or complete data on 

the condition and replacement value of its almost 3,000 weapons 

activities facilities. The Committee directs NNSA to develop standardized practices for assessing the condition of its facilities and review the sites’ methodologies for determining replacement value to 

ensure consistency, accuracy, and completeness through the complex. 

SITE STEWARDSHIP

The Committee recommends $90,000,000. The Committee supports NNSA’s efforts to consolidate and dispose of NNSA special 

nuclear material that is no longer required for the nuclear weapons 

mission. 

SAFEGUARDS AND SECURITY

The Committee recommendation for the Safeguards and Security 

Program is $828,366,000. 

Defense Nuclear Security Operations and Maintenance.—The 

Committee recommends $701,752,000. The Committee support 

NNSA’s efforts to reduce costs related to securing national laboratories and production sites while still maintaining effective physical 

security measures at each site. The Committee encourages NNSA 

to continue eliminating unnecessary costs while still protecting facilities’ assets and resources against theft, sabotage, and other 

criminal acts. 

Construction.—The Committee recommends $11,752,000 as requested. 

Project 08–D–701 Nuclear Materials Safeguards and Security Upgrades Project Phase II, Los Alamos, New Mexico.—The Committee 

recommends the requested level of $11,752,000 for this project. 

Cybersecurity.—The Committee recommends the full request of 

$126,614,000. 

SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, AND ENGINEERING CAPABILITY

The Committee recommends $10,000,000 for Science, Technology, 

and Engineering Capability activities. The Committee supports 

NNSA’s efforts to leverage its science, engineering, and technological expertise to work with the Defense Threat Reduction Agency and intelligence agencies to improve the Nation’s counterterrorism capabilities. The Committee also supports activities to build 

and sustain analytical capabilities at Los Alamos, Sandia, and 

Livermore to assess the nuclear and biological weapons capabilities 

of foreign adversaries to support the intelligence community. The 

Committee notes that $30,000,000 was provided in the 2009 Supplemental Appropriations Act to help build the technical capabilities for nuclear and biological weapons assessments. The Committee is concerned, however, that DOE’s Office of Intelligence is 
107 

not fully utilizing these newly constituted capabilities and sustaining the human talent needed to address national security 

issues. The Committee encourages DOE’s Office of Intelligence to 

further develop the analytical capabilities needed to fully utilize 

these improved scientific, technical, and engineering capabilities at 

the national security labs. 

DEFENSE NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION

(INCLUDING RESCISSION)

Appropriations, 2011 ............................................................................. 1 $2,318,653,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ........................................................................... 2 2,549,492,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 2 2,056,770,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 3 2,404,300,000 

1Does not include rescission of $45,000,000 under Public Law 112–10. 

2Does not include proposed rescission of $30,000,000. 

3Does not include proposed rescission of $21,000,000. 

The Committee recommends $2,383,300,000 for Defense Nuclear 

Nonproliferation, which includes a rescission of $21,000,000 of 

prior-year unobligated funds. The Committee commends NNSA for 

making significant progress in meeting the goal of securing all vulnerable nuclear materials within 4 years. In 2009, the Congressional Commission on the Strategic Posture of the United States 

found that ‘‘the surest way to prevent nuclear terrorism is to deny 

terrorist acquisition of nuclear weapons or fissile 

materials . . . An accelerated campaign to close or secure the 

world’s most vulnerable nuclear sites as quickly as possible should 

be a top national priority.’’ To that end, since April 2009, when 

President Obama announced the 4-year goal, NNSA has removed 

over 960 kilograms of highly enriched uranium—enough material 

for 38 nuclear weapons. NNSA has also removed all highly enriched uranium from six countries. One of these countries was 

Libya. Given the recent unrest in Libya, the presence of this dangerous nuclear material in an unstable part of the world would 

have increased the risk of nuclear terrorism. Removing highly enriched uranium from six countries in 2 years is much faster than 

one country a year NNSA has averaged in the last 13 years. Further, NNSA has completed security upgrades at 32 additional 

buildings in Russia containing weapons usable materials. The Committee encourages NNSA to continue its accelerated efforts to secure vulnerable nuclear materials. 

NONPROLIFERATION AND VERIFICATION RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

The Committee recommends $417,598,000 as requested to support investment in developing advanced nuclear detection technologies. Within available funds, $5,710,000 should be used for the 

Global Seismographic Network [GSN] Equipment Renewal project. 

The GSN, among other things, has 46 sites—the single largest contribution—that monitor compliance with the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty and could detect foreign nuclear tests. However, GSN equipment, such as sensors, is more than 15 years old, 

obsolete, and increasingly difficult to effectively maintain. The committee supports this one-time investment to purchase new equipment to sustain and maintain GSN’s critical monitoring activities. 
108 

The Committee supports research and development activities to 

develop new tools, technologies, techniques, and expertise to improve detection of nuclear weapons technology and special nuclear 

materials. However, the Committee is concerned that NNSA is not 

doing enough to transfer new technologies to its customers, including the Department of Homeland Security and intelligence agencies. The Committee encourages NNSA to develop better performance metrics that measure not only improvements in existing technologies but also the extent to which new technologies are adopted 

and used by its customers. NNSA should also be able to explain 

how the development of novel technologies reduced the threat to 

national security posed by nuclear weapon proliferation or detonation and the illicit trafficking of nuclear materials. 

The Committee also supports NNSA’s efforts to develop and build 

space based sensors to detect surface, atmospheric, or space nuclear detonations. However, the Committee is concerned that the 

requirements for these space based sensors have not changed since 

the Eisenhower administration and new capabilities may be required to detect illicit activities beyond just nuclear detonations. 

The Committee directs NNSA to work with U.S. Strategic Command, the Air Force, and other Department of Defense agencies to 

review the requirements for space based sensors, determine whether new requirements are needed to detect a broader and more diverse set of nuclear threats, the resource needs to implement new 

requirements, and the extent to which new space based sensors can 

increase capabilities at a lower cost than current technologies. 

The Committee also encourages NNSA to accelerate efforts to 

find alternatives to helium-3 for radiation detection technologies, 

especially portal monitors that are deployed at ports and border 

crossings to detect radiation and prevent the smuggling of nuclear 

material into the United States. The Committee is concerned that 

critical shortages of this gas may limit deployments of this critical 

technology. NNSA’s success in finding alternatives will benefit 

other Government agencies. 

NONPROLIFERATION AND INTERNATIONAL SECURITY

The Committee recommends $155,305,000. The Committee recommends $14,972,000, a reduction of $3,500,000, for the Global Initiative for Proliferation Prevention. The Committee believes that 

this program to assist weapons scientists in Russia and other countries needs to be reassessed. NNSA has not provided sufficient justification to the Committee on the continuing nonproliferation benefits of this program, especially the continuing threat posed by scientists in Russia and other countries who once worked on weapons 

of mass destruction programs, and whether improved economic conditions in these countries merit U.S. aid. The Committee directs 

NNSA to reassess this program and determine whether it is still 

needed based on the proliferation risk posed by weapons scientists 

in Russia and other countries. If the program is still needed, NNSA 

should develop a well-defined strategy to more effectively target the 

scientists of highest proliferation concern and have a clear exit 

strategy, including specific criteria to determine when specific 

countries are ready to graduate from the program. 
109 

INTERNATIONAL NUCLEAR MATERIALS PROTECTION AND COOPERATION

The Committee recommends $571,639,000. The Committee is encouraged by NNSA’s efforts in completing security upgrades at 213 

out of 229 buildings that store weapons usable nuclear material 

and warheads in Russia and other former Soviet countries. These 

upgrades directly support the U.S. effort to secure all vulnerable 

nuclear materials around the world within 4 years by securing 

warheads and weapons-exploitable nuclear materials at their 

source. The Committee is also encouraged by NNSA’s efforts in preventing and detecting the illicit transfer of nuclear materials by installing radiation detection equipment at 399 sites—365 borders, 

airports, and strategic ports and 34 megaports across the world. 

The Committee understands that materials protection, control, 

and accounting work in Russia will continue past fiscal year 2013— 

the original deadline for this program. The Committee supports 

continued cooperation between the United States and Russia, but 

the United States must receive an assurance from Russia that it 

will assume full responsibility for sustaining U.S.-provided nuclear 

security systems over the long term. The Committee directs NNSA 

to work with the State Department to request future spending 

plans from the Russian Government to have a clearer sense of Russian intentions on funding nuclear security programs. 

While NNSA has made considerable progress in securing Russian 

nuclear warheads and materials at numerous sites, the Committee 

believes more progress is needed in consolidating and reducing the 

number of locations in Russia with nuclear materials and phasing 

out the use of highly enriched uranium at Russian research reactors and related facilities. A recent Government Accountability Office report found that NNSA’s plans involved removing highly enriched uranium from 5 sites and 50 buildings by 2010, but it has 

only removed material from 1 site and 25 buildings. In addition, of 

the 71 highly enriched uranium-fueled research reactors and related facilities in Russia, only 3 have been shut down. The Committee believes accelerating material consolidation will provide a 

higher level of security at lower potential cost and reactor shut 

downs and conversion will reduce quantities of weapons-usable materials potentially accessible in Russia. 

The Committee understands that NNSA plans to establish Nuclear Security Centers of Excellence in China and India. The purpose of these centers is to help implement international efforts to 

lock down and remove vulnerable nuclear materials around the 

world and advance nuclear security best practices, research and development, and bilateral and regional initiatives. The U.S. role is 

limited to providing technical advice and equipment for nuclear 

safeguards and security. While China has taken concrete steps toward procuring land and developing a detailed design for building 

a center of excellence, the Committee is concerned about delays in 

establishing a center in India and how NNSA would use available 

funding to help develop and support the center. If by the end of 

third quarter of fiscal year 2012, NNSA, India, and other relevant 

international counterparts have not finalized an agreement that, 

among other things, specifies the overall cost estimate for the center, details how NNSA funding will be utilized to develop and sup-
110 

port the center, and spells out Indian and other international costsharing arrangements in support of the center, the Committee directs NNSA to reprogram the $7,000,000 for the Indian center to 

the Global Threat Reduction Initiative’s Nuclear and Radiological 

Material Removal program and notify the Committee as to how 

these funds have been reprogrammed. 

FISSILE MATERIALS DISPOSITION

The Committee recommends $751,489,000 to support the plutonium disposition program and construction projects. 

U.S. Surplus Fissile Materials Disposition.—The Committee recommends $250,435,000 including $224,000,000 for the U.S. plutonium disposition and $26,435,000 as requested for the U.S. uranium disposition programs. 

Construction.—The Committee recommends $500,054,000 to support construction of three facilities at Savannah River in South 

Carolina—the MOX Fuel Fabrication Facility [MFFF], the Waste 

Solidification Building, and the Pit Disassembly and Conversion 

[PDC] project. These facilities will dispose of at least 34 metric tons 

of plutonium by fabricating it into mixed oxide fuel for domestic 

nuclear reactors. The Committee remains concerned with the overall management of the U.S. plutonium disposition program. The 

Committee notes a history of rising costs and schedule delays in 

the construction of these major disposition facilities, and believes 

that further costs increases or delays in program implementation 

may result from several pending NNSA decisions to reconfigure key 

program elements. In particular, the Committee is concerned by 

the prolonged delay by NNSA and DOE in achieving a CD–1 decision on the consolidation of the Pit Disassembly and Conversion 

Facility and the Plutonium Preparation Project into a new Pit Disassembly and Conversion capability, a possible redesign of the PDC 

program to produce plutonium feedstock at a lower rate than currently planned, and a proposed redesign of MFFF to allow production of MOX fuel suitable for use in boiling water reactors and next 

generation light water reactors. The Committee further notes wavering interest and lack of firm commitments from U.S. utilities to 

irradiate MOX fuel in their reactors. For these reasons, the Committee directs NNSA to provide a report no later than December 

31, 2011 with: 

—updated cost and schedule estimates for both PDC and MFFF; 

—the anticipated startup date for both MFFF and PDC; 

—the sources of and strategy for providing plutonium feedstock 

in the gap period between start up of MFFF operations and 

availability of feedstock from PDC; 

—the status of agreements from U.S. utilities to irradiate MOX

fuel in their reactors, the deadline to obtain such agreements, 

and the status of contingency plans NNSA has developed 

should it fail to achieve such agreements with utilities; and 

—the timeframe for completing disposition of 34 metric tons of 

U.S. surplus plutonium. 

The Committee is aware that MFFF faced schedule delays and 

cost increased because of difficulties in identifying suppliers and 

subcontractors with the ability and experience to fabricate and install equipment that met strict quality assurance standards and re-
111 

quirements for nuclear work. The lack of experienced nuclear 

equipment suppliers resulted in a lack of competition for work and 

higher than expected bids. NNSA also had to station dedicated 

MOX facility quality assurance and engineering personnel at supplier and subcontractor stations to train personnel and ensure fabricated equipment and installations met requirements. Based on 

the lessons learned from this construction project and the large investment NNSA made to train nuclear equipment suppliers, the 

Committee directs NNSA to establish a working group that meets 

regularly composed of project managers and key management, acquisition, and procurement staff of MFFF and NNSA’s three other 

major construction projects—UPF, CMRR–NF, and PDC—to share 

lessons learned and help new construction projects stay on time 

and on budget. 

Project 99–D–143, Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility, Savannah River, South Carolina.—The Committee recommends 

$435,172,000. This increase represents a transfer of $50,000,000 

from Other Project Costs for the Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility to construction to keep construction on schedule and help install ventilation equipment, process piping, and electrical equipment and assemble and test gloveboxes. 

Project 99–D–141–02, Waste Solidification Building, Savannah 

River, South Carolina.—The Committee recommends full funding 

of $17,582,000 for this project. 

Project 99–D–141–01, Pit Disassembly and Conversion Facility, 

Savannah River, South Carolina.—The Committee recommends 

$47,300,000 because NNSA has not completed a study of alternatives or a conceptual design report with a new cost and schedule 

range that is required under DOE guidance before construction can 

begin. 

Russian Surplus Materials Disposition.—The Committee recommends $1,000,000, a reduction of $9,174,000. No funding shall 

be used to support research and development of the Gas TurbineModular Helium Reactor in Russia. The Committee understands 

that the United States committed $400,000,000, subject to future 

appropriations, to help Russia dispose of 34 metric tons of excess 

weapon-grade plutonium, but the Committee will not provide funding for this effort until NNSA can explain how the United States 

would spend the $400,000,000 and the milestones that Russia must 

meet before the United States releases any of those funds. 

GLOBAL THREAT REDUCTION INITIATIVE

The Committee recommends $508,269,000 as requested. The 

Committee recommends the full request of $148,269,000 for the reactor conversion program. The Committee supports NNSA’s efforts 

to accelerate the shut down or conversion of research reactors that 

use highly enriched uranium [HEU] around the world. HEU-fueled 

research reactors have some of the world’s weakest security measures and a determined terrorist could use HEU reactor fuel for a 

nuclear device. The Committee agrees that eliminating these HEU 

stockpiles should be a priority and directly supports efforts to secure vulnerable nuclear materials because once a reactor is converted or shut down, the HEU fuel can be shipped to the United 

States or Russia for permanent disposition and would no longer 
112 

pose a threat. Despite the slow progress in converting or shutting 

down HEU-fueled research reactors in Russia, the Committee commends NNSA for reaching agreements quickly with other countries, 

such as China and the Czech Republic, to convert or shut down 

their reactors. The Committee also supports related activities such 

as developing high density low enriched uranium fuel to convert 

high performance HEU-fueled reactors and developing a capability 

which does not currently exist in the United States to produce 

Moly-99—a medical isotope used in 16 million nuclear medicine 

procedures in the United States each year—with low enriched uranium. The Committee notes the significant achievement of South 

Africa’s ability to convert their reactor from HEU to low enriched 

uranium fuel to produce Moly-99 and that the United States received the first shipment of Moly-99 produced with low enriched 

fuel in December 2010. 

The Committee continues to support efforts to remove, dispose, 

and protect domestic nuclear and radiological materials. Nuclear 

and radiological materials are located at more than 2,500 facilities 

in the United States. Domestic stockpiles of nuclear and radioactive materials could be used by terrorist groups in an improvised 

nuclear device or a radiological dispersal device, or dirty bomb, in 

the United States. The Committee understands that the Department of Energy is responsible for disposing of many types of lowlevel radioactive materials because there are no commercial disposal options. The Committee commends the Department for reducing domestic public health and national security threats by recovering over 27,000 disused, unwanted and orphan sources in the 

United States and securing over 250 buildings. 

NAVAL REACTORS

Appropriations, 2011 ............................................................................. 1 $960,176,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ........................................................................... 1,153,662,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 1,030,600,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 1,100,000,000 

1Does not include rescission of $1,000,000 under Public Law 112–10. 

The Committee recommends $1,100,000,000 for Naval Reactors. 

In fiscal year 2010, NNSA began work on three significant projects: 

design of a reactor plant for new OHIO-class ballistic missile submarines, refueling of a land-based reactor prototype, and construction of a new spent fuel facility. Based on current projections, funding for these three projects will grow from $200,000,000 in fiscal 

year 2011 to over $600,000,000 in fiscal year 2015. In the current 

budget environment, the Committee is concerned that there may 

not be sufficient funds to fund all three projects concurrently. The 

Committee directs the Office of Naval Reactors to submit a contingency plan by February 1, 2012 that would sequence these three 

major projects. The plan should identify the highest priority 

project, justify which project or projects could be delayed, and explain the consequences to cost, scope, and schedule of delaying 

project implementation. 
113 

OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR

Appropriations, 2011 ............................................................................. 1 $398,993,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ........................................................................... 450,060,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 400,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 404,000,000 

1Does not include rescission of $5,700,000 under Public Law 112–10. 

The Committee recommends $404,000,000 for the Office of the 

Administrator. The Committee strongly supports NNSA’s efforts to 

improve Federal oversight of major nuclear construction projects, 

such as the Uranium Processing Facility and the Chemistry and 

Metallurgy Replacement Facility. The Committee believes NNSA 

must do more to build confidence it has the ability to execute large 

line item construction projects within budget and on schedule. 

DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP

Appropriations, 2011 ............................................................................. 1 $4,991,638,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ........................................................................... 5,406,781,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 4,937,619,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 5,002,308,000 

1Does not include rescission of $11,900,000 or transfer of $33,633,000 to the Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund under Public Law 112–10. 

The Committee recommendation for Defense Environmental 

Cleanup is $5,002,308,000. Within the total provided, the Department is directed to fund the Hazardous Waste Worker Training 

Program. 

Reprogramming Control Levels.—In fiscal year 2012, the Environmental Management program may transfer funding between operating expense funded projects within the controls listed below 

using guidance contained in the Department’s budget execution 

manual (DOE M 135.1–1A, chapter IV). All capital construction 

line item projects remain separate controls from the operating 

projects. The Committees on Appropriations in the House and Senate must be formally notified in advance of all reprogrammings, except internal reprogrammings, and the Department is to take no financial action in anticipation of congressional response. The Committee recommends the following reprogramming control points for 

fiscal year 2012: 

—Closure Sites; 

—Hanford Site; 

—Idaho National Laboratory; 

—NNSA Sites; 

—Oak Ridge Reservation; 

—Office of River Protection; 

—Savannah River Site; 

—Waste Isolation Pilot Plant; 

—Program Direction; 

—Program Support; 

—Technology Development and Deployment; 

—Safeguards and Security; and 

—All Capital Construction Line Items, regardless of site. 

Internal Reprogramming Authority.—The new reprogramming 

control points above obviates, in most cases, the need for internal 

reprogramming authority. However, at the few sites to which the 

internal reprogramming statute still applies, Environmental Man-
114 

agement site managers may transfer up to $5,000,000, one time, 

between accounts listed above to reduce health and safety risks, 

gain cost savings, or complete projects, as long as a program or 

project is not increased or decreased by more than $5,000,000 in 

total during the fiscal year. 

The reprogramming authority—either formal or internal—may 

not be used to initiate new programs or to change funding levels 

for programs specifically denied, limited, or increased by Congress 

in the act or report. The Committee on Appropriations in the 

House and Senate must be notified within 30 days after the use of 

the internal reprogramming authority. 

Environmental Management Reorganization.—The Department 

announced on July 8, 2011, its intention to change the reporting 

structure of the Office of Environmental Management, the Office of 

Legacy Management, and the Office of the Chief of Nuclear Safety 

so that these offices would report directly to the Under Secretary 

for Nuclear Security. According to the Department, this reorganization is meant to capitalize on the expertise that exists throughout 

the Department on project management, nuclear materials and 

waste, and nuclear safety and security. While the Committee 

shares the Department’s desire to improve EM project management 

and nuclear safety and security, confusion remains as to how the 

reorganization will impact day-to-day operations of EM and how 

specifically it will result in improved project management. The Department failed to provide sufficient advance notice of its plans and 

rationale for these plans, resulting in skepticism and frustration 

amongst DOE stakeholders. In addition, it is not clear how the 

Under Secretary for Nuclear Security—who is tasked with implementing an ambitious nuclear modernization effort—will be able to 

manage this additional, critical responsibility, without detracting 

from the NNSA mission. The Committee directs the Department to 

provide a detailed plan for implementation of the new EM management structure within 30 days of enactment of this act. 

Closure Sites.—The Committee recommends $5,375,000 for Closure Sites activities. 

Hanford Site.—The Committee recommends $953,252,000 for 

Richland Operations. The Committee is aware that the B Reactor 

has been identified as a National Historic Landmark and the Department of Energy has stated that the intent is preserving the reactor for public access. To ensure this intent is accomplished, the 

Committee believes that it is appropriate to use cleanup dollars for 

the maintenance and public safety efforts at the B Reactor. Funding for the Hazardous Materials Management and Emergency Response [HAMMER] facilities are provided for within available 

funds. 

Idaho National Laboratory.—The Committee recommends 

$384,499,000 for Idaho National Laboratory. 

NNSA Sites.—The Committee recommends $253,767,000 for 

NNSA sites. 

Oak Ridge Reservation.—The Committee recommends 

$202,509,000 for Oak Ridge Reservation. The amount provided includes $40,000,000 to downblend U–233 in Building 3019. It is expected this will be a 5-year effort with an annual requirement of 

$40,000,000. In view of the proximity of employees at Oak Ridge 
115 

National Laboratory to this highly contaminated facility, this work 

should be a high priority within the Environmental Management 

program. 

Office of River Protection.—The Committee recommends 

$1,207,000,000 for the Office of River Protection. 

Savannah River Site.—The Committee recommends 

$1,190,879,000 for the Savannah River site. 

H-Canyon.—The request for Savannah River proposes to place HCanyon into hot standby pending a determination by the Department to begin reprocessing spent fuel. The Committee is concerned 

by EM’s plan to meet its statutory requirements to maintain the 

facility in a high state of readiness. H-Canyon is a unique national 

capability for performing large scale chemical processing operations 

that would take considerable time and funding to reconstitute if 

lost. The Department should demonstrate it can adequately maintain the condition of the chemical processing areas while it deliberates on the disposition of spent nuclear fuel. Additionally, as the 

Department continues to analyze ways to address the back end of 

the fuel cycle, the Committee notes the supportive role that H-Canyon could play in research and development. 

The Committee also notes that with regards to its deliberations 

on spent nuclear fuel, H-Canyon appears to be the only available 

disposition path for nearly 14 metric tons of aluminum clad fuel 

currently residing at SRS and other sites around the complex. The 

decision not to process aluminum clad fuel may require the Department to spend millions of dollars to increase the storage space in 

L-basin to accommodate additional aluminum clad fuel. The indefinite storage of this material will be costly to the taxpayers and 

take budgetary focus away from other priorities at SRS and around 

the complex. The Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board noted its 

opinion that there are unintended safety consequences of 

orphaning this material in a letter to Secretary Chu. The Committee directs that within 90 days, the Department provide a report to the Senate and House Appropriations Committees, as well 

as the Senate and House Armed Service Committees on the disposition path for the 14 MT of aluminum clad fuel. 

Waste Isolation Pilot Plant.—The Committee recommends 

$200,000,000 for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant. The Committee 

notes the Department submitted a request for $28,771,000 in fiscal 

year 2012 to continue providing economic assistance to the State of 

New Mexico, even though the requirement to provide such payments under the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Land Withdrawal Act, 

as amended, was completed in fiscal year 2011. In light of the overall size of this grant relative to other State grants that EM makes, 

as well as other budget constraints, the Committee recommends no 

funding for making a voluntary payment under that act in fiscal 

year 2012. 

Program Direction.—The Committee recommends $321,628,000 

for program direction. 

Program Support.—The Committee recommends $20,380,000 for 

program support. 

Safeguards and Security.—The Committee recommends 

$252,019,000 for safeguards and security. 
116 

Technology Development and Deployment.—The Committee recommends $11,000,000 for technology development and deployment. 

The Department is encouraged to continue successful efforts with 

industry to transfer and demonstrate international technologies 

and approaches to the cleanup program. The Committee also encourages the Department to work with industry on initiatives 

which better support the transition of ideas and technology into 

practice. 

OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES

Appropriations, 2011 ............................................................................. 1 $788,420,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ........................................................................... 859,952,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 814,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 819,000,000 

1Does not include rescission of $3,400,000 under Public Law 112–10. 

The Committee recommendation is $819,000,000. The Committee 

provides no funding for acquisition workforce improvement because 

the Department did not provide sufficient justification to support 

this new program. 

The Committee recommends that the Department consider 

changes to the structure of this account. Activities not related to 

defense are included in this account, such as hearings on whistleblower complaints, health and safety investigations, and safeguards 

and security at Idaho National Laboratory for the Office of Nuclear 

Energy. Many of these activities belong in other accounts, such as 

Departmental Administration or Nuclear Energy, or as separate accounts. The Committee encourages the Department to work with 

the Appropriations Committees to better structure this account and 

provide a new account structure to the Committees by February 1, 

2012. 

Health, Safety and Security.—The Committee recommends 

$437,436,000 for the Office of Health, Safety, and Security, including $72,058,000 for Health and Safety programs and $263,378,000 

for Security programs. Within the Security programs funding, 

$186,699,000 is for Specialized Security Activities. 

Office of Legacy Management.—The Committee recommends 

$169,740,000, as requested. 

Idaho Sitewide Safeguards and Security.—The Committee recommends $93,350,000, a decrease of $5,150,000, for Idaho infrastructure for sitewide safeguards and security. 

Defense-Related Administrative Support.—The Committee recommends $114,332,000, a reduction of $4,504,000. 

Office of Hearings and Appeals.—The Committee provides 

$4,142,000 as requested. 

POWER MARKETING ADMINISTRATIONS

The Nation’s power marketing administrations shall make every 

effort to use available funds and borrowing authority, where applicable, to facilitate and fully develop renewable energy resources 

and related transmission capacity in their region, and to work in 

a coordinated fashion with each other and regional transmission 

authorities, public and private utilities, and other entities to reduce 

barriers to greater movement of electricity between regions and 
117 

interconnections to promote reliability and the delivery of affordable, clean power. 

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. Bonneville also exchanges and markets surplus power with Canada 

and California. The Committee recommends no new borrowing authority for BPA during fiscal year 2011. 

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, SOUTHEASTERN POWER

ADMINISTRATION

Appropriations, 2011 ............................................................................. ........................... 

Budget estimate, 2012 ........................................................................... ........................... 

House allowance .................................................................................... ........................... 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. ........................... 

For the Southeastern Power Administration, the Committee recommends no funding, the same as the budget request. 

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, SOUTHWESTERN POWER

ADMINISTRATION

Appropriations, 2011 ............................................................................. $13,050,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ........................................................................... 11,892,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 11,892,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 11,892,000 

For the Southwestern Power Administration, the Committee recommends $11,892,000, the same as the budget request. 

CONSTRUCTION, REHABILITATION, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, 

WESTERN AREA POWER ADMINISTRATION

Appropriations, 2011 ............................................................................. $108,963,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ........................................................................... 95,968,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 95,968,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 95,968,000 

For the Western Area Power Administration, the Committee recommends $95,968,000, the same as the budget request. 

FALCON AND AMISTAD OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE FUND

Appropriations, 2011 ............................................................................. $220,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ........................................................................... 220,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 220,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 220,000 

For the Falcon and Amistad Operating and Maintenance Fund, 

the Committee recommends $220,000 the same as the request. 
118 

FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2011 ............................................................................. $298,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ........................................................................... 304,600,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 304,600,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 304,600,000 

REVENUES APPLIED

Appropriations, 2011 ............................................................................. ¥$298,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ........................................................................... ¥304,600,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... ¥304,600,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. ¥304,600,000 

The proposed legislative language requires FERC to establish 

regulations which will assist States that choose to do so to develop 

technology-specific feed-in-tariff programs under the Public Utility 

Regulatory Policies Act of 1978. Such regulations will clarify for 

general applicability to all qualifying facilities findings that FERC 

made in a series of recent orders on issues related to California’s 

feed-in-tariff program for small (less than 20 MW), highly efficient 

combined heat and power facilities, at 132 FERC ¶ 61,047 (July 15, 

2010) (FERC Declaratory Order), 133 FERC ¶ 61,059 (October 21, 

2010) (FERC Clarification Order), and 134 FERC ¶ 61,044, (January 20, 2011) (FERC Rehearing Order). 
119 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Enacted Budget estimate House allowance Committee recommendation Committee recommendation compared to— Enacted Budget estimate House allowance 

ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY 

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy RDD&D: 

Hydrogen and fuel cell technologies ............................................................ 98,000 100,450 91,450 98,000 .......................... ¥2,450 ∂6,550 Biomass and Biorefinery Systems R&D ........................................................ 182,695 340,500 150,000 180,000 ¥2,695 ¥160,500 ∂30,000 Solar energy .................................................................................................. 263,500 457,000 166,143 290,000 ∂26,500 ¥167,000 ∂123,857 Wind energy ................................................................................................... 80,000 126,859 76,000 80,000 .......................... ¥46,859 ∂4,000 Geothermal technology .................................................................................. 38,003 101,535 38,000 34,000 ¥4,003 ¥67,535 ¥4,000 Water Power .................................................................................................. 30,000 38,500 50,000 34,000 ∂4,000 ¥4,500 ¥16,000 Vehicle technologies ...................................................................................... 300,000 588,003 254,000 318,798 ∂18,798 ¥269,205 ∂64,798 Building technologies .................................................................................... 210,500 470,700 150,000 210,500 .......................... ¥260,200 ∂60,500 Industrial technologies .................................................................................. 108,241 319,784 96,000 96,000 ¥12,241 ¥223,784 ..........................Federal energy management program .......................................................... 30,402 33,072 30,000 30,000 ¥402 ¥3,072 ..........................Facilities and infrastructure: 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory [NREL] ................................... 11,705 26,407 26,407 26,407 ∂14,702 .......................... ..........................Construction: 

08–EE–01 Energy systems integration facility National Renewal Energy Lab, Golden, Colorado ...................................... 39,295 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥39,295 .......................... ..........................

Subtotal, Facilities and infrastructure .............................. 51,000 26,407 26,407 26,407 ¥24,593 .......................... ..........................

Program direction .......................................................................................... 170,000 176,605 110,000 165,000 ¥5,000 ¥11,605 ∂55,000 Program support ........................................................................................... 32,000 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥32,000 .......................... ..........................Strategic programs ....................................................................................... .......................... 53,204 25,000 25,000 ∂25,000 ¥28,204 ..........................

Subtotal, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy RDD&D .................... 1,594,341 2,832,619 1,263,000 1,587,705 ¥6,636 ¥1,244,914 ∂324,705 

Weatherization and intragovernmental: 

Weatherization: 

Weatherization assistance ................................................................... 171,000 220,000 30,000 171,000 .......................... ¥49,000 ∂141,000 Training and technical assistance ...................................................... 3,300 3,000 3,000 3,300 .......................... ∂300 ∂300 Innovations in weatherization .............................................................. .......................... 97,000 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥97,000 ..........................

Subtotal ........................................................................................... 174,300 320,000 33,000 174,300 .......................... ¥145,700 ∂141,300 
120 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Enacted Budget estimate House allowance Committee recommendation Committee recommendation compared to— Enacted Budget estimate House allowance 

Other: 

State energy program grants ............................................................... 50,000 63,798 25,000 50,000 .......................... ¥13,798 ∂25,000 Tribal energy activities ........................................................................ 7,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 ∂3,000 .......................... ..........................

Subtotal ........................................................................................... 57,000 73,798 35,000 60,000 ∂3,000 ¥13,798 ∂25,000 Subtotal, Weatherization and intragovernmental ............................ 231,300 393,798 68,000 234,300 ∂3,000 ¥159,498 ∂166,300 

Floor amendments .................................................................................................. .......................... .......................... 3,800 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥3,800 Use of prior year balances .................................................................................... .......................... ¥26,364 ¥26,364 ¥26,364 ¥26,364 .......................... ..........................Rescission .............................................................................................................. ¥30,000 .......................... .......................... .......................... ∂30,000 .......................... ..........................

TOTAL, ENERGY EFFICENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY ........................... 1,795,641 3,200,053 1,308,436 1,795,641 .......................... ¥1,404,412 ∂487,205 

ELECTRICITY DELIVERY AND ENERGY RELIABILITY 

Research and development: 

Clean energy transmission and reliability .................................................... 26,000 60,817 20,000 27,000 ∂1,000 ¥33,817 ∂7,000 Smart grid research and development ......................................................... 29,000 45,000 33,813 24,000 ¥5,000 ¥21,000 ¥9,813 Energy storage .............................................................................................. 20,000 57,000 20,000 20,000 .......................... ¥37,000 ..........................Cyber security for energy delivery systems .................................................. 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 .......................... .......................... ..........................

Subtotal .................................................................................................... 105,000 192,817 103,813 101,000 ¥4,000 ¥91,817 ¥2,813 

Permitting, siting, and analysis ............................................................................ 6,000 8,000 8,000 7,000 ∂1,000 ¥1,000 ¥1,000 Infrastructure security and energy restoration ...................................................... 6,100 6,187 6,187 6,000 ¥100 ¥187 ¥187 Program direction ................................................................................................... 27,610 31,217 22,000 27,010 ¥600 ¥4,207 ∂5,010 Use of prior year balances .................................................................................... .......................... ¥504 ¥504 .......................... .......................... ∂504 ∂504 Rescission .............................................................................................................. ¥3,700 .......................... .......................... .......................... ∂3,700 .......................... ..........................

TOTAL, ELECTRICITY DELIVERY AND ENERGY RELIABILITY ...................... 141,010 237,717 139,496 141,010 .......................... ¥96,707 ∂1,514 
121 

NUCLEAR ENERGY 

Research and development: 

Nuclear energy enabling technologies .......................................................... 51,383 97,364 95,014 68,880 ∂17,497 ¥28,484 ¥26,134 Integrated university program ...................................................................... .......................... .......................... 5,000 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥5,000 LWR SMR licensing technical support .......................................................... .......................... 67,000 67,000 .......................... .......................... ¥67,000 ¥67,000 Reactor concepts RD&D ................................................................................ 168,535 125,000 136,986 31,870 ¥136,665 ¥93,130 ¥105,116 Fuel cycle research and development .......................................................... 187,615 155,010 132,000 187,917 ∂302 ∂32,907 ∂55,917 International nuclear energy cooperation ..................................................... 2,994 3,000 3,000 3,000 ∂6 .......................... ..........................

Subtotal .................................................................................................... 410,527 447,374 439,000 291,667 ¥118,860 ¥155,707 ¥147,333 

Infrastructure: 

Radiological facilities management: 

Space and defense infrastructure ....................................................... 46,906 49,902 44,014 64,902 ∂17,996 ∂15,000 ∂20,888 Research reactor infrastructure ........................................................... 4,808 4,986 4,986 4,986 ∂178 .......................... ..........................PU–238 production restart project ...................................................... .......................... 10,000 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥10,000 ..........................

Subtotal ........................................................................................... 51,714 64,888 49,000 69,888 ∂18,174 ∂5,000 ∂20,888 

INL facilities management: 

INL Operations and infrastructure ....................................................... 183,604 150,000 155,000 136,000 ¥47,604 ¥14,000 ¥19,000 

Subtotal ........................................................................................... 183,604 150,000 155,000 136,000 ¥47,604 ¥14,000 ¥19,000 Subtotal, Infrastructure ................................................................... 235,318 214,888 204,000 205,888 ¥29,430 ¥9,000 ∂1,888 

Program direction ................................................................................................... 86,279 93,133 92,000 86,279 .......................... ¥6,854 ¥5,721 

Subtotal, Nuclear Energy .......................................................................... 732,124 755,395 735,000 583,834 ¥148,290 ¥171,561 ¥151,166 

Use of prior year balances .................................................................................... .......................... ¥1,367 ¥1,367 .......................... .......................... ∂1,367 ∂1,367 Rescission .............................................................................................................. ¥6,300 .......................... .......................... .......................... ∂6,300 .......................... ..........................

TOTAL, NUCLEAR ENERGY ......................................................................... 725,824 754,028 733,633 583,834 ¥141,990 ¥170,194 ¥149,799 

FOSSIL ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT 

CCS and power systems: 

Carbon capture ............................................................................................. .......................... 68,938 68,938 68,938 ∂68,938 .......................... ..........................Carbon storage .............................................................................................. .......................... 115,477 115,477 115,477 ∂115,477 .......................... ..........................Advanced energy systems ............................................................................. .......................... 64,193 105,000 64,193 ∂64,193 .......................... ¥40,807 
122 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Enacted Budget estimate House allowance Committee recommendation Committee recommendation compared to— Enacted Budget estimate House allowance 

Cross-cutting research .................................................................................. .......................... 42,750 49,347 42,750 ∂42,750 .......................... ¥6,597 

Subtotal, CCS and power systems ........................................................... .......................... 291,358 338,762 291,358 ∂291,358 .......................... ¥47,404 

Fuels and Power Systems: 

Innovations for existing plants ..................................................................... 64,869 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥64,869 .......................... ..........................Advanced integrated gasification combined cycle ....................................... 52,894 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥52,894 .......................... ..........................Advanced turbines ........................................................................................ 30,920 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥30,920 .......................... ..........................Carbon sequestration .................................................................................... 142,057 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥142,057 .......................... ..........................Fuels .............................................................................................................. 11,976 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥11,976 .......................... ..........................Fuel cells ....................................................................................................... 49,835 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥49,835 .......................... ..........................Advanced research ........................................................................................ 47,614 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥47,614 .......................... ..........................

Subtotal, Fuels and power systems ......................................................... 400,165 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥400,165 .......................... ..........................

Natural Gas Technologies ...................................................................................... 1,996 .......................... 15,000 .......................... ¥1,996 .......................... ¥15,000 Program direction ................................................................................................... 151,729 159,233 120,847 151,729 .......................... ¥7,504 ∂30,882 Plant and Capital Equipment ................................................................................ 19,960 16,794 16,794 16,794 ¥3,166 .......................... ..........................Fossil energy environmental restoration ................................................................ 9,980 7,897 7,897 7,897 ¥2,083 .......................... ..........................Special recruitment programs ............................................................................... 699 700 700 700 ∂1 .......................... ..........................Use of prior year balances .................................................................................... .......................... ¥23,007 ¥23,007 ¥23,007 ¥23,007 .......................... ..........................Rescission .............................................................................................................. ¥140,000 .......................... .......................... ¥187,000 ¥47,000 ¥187,000 ¥187,000 

TOTAL, FOSSIL ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT .......................... 444,529 452,975 476,993 258,471 ¥186,058 ¥194,504 ¥218,522 

NAVAL PETROLEUM AND OIL SHALE RESERVES 

Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves .............................................................. 22,954 14,909 14,909 14,909 ¥8,045 .......................... ..........................Rescission .............................................................................................................. ¥2,100 .......................... .......................... .......................... ∂2,100 .......................... ..........................

TOTAL, NAVAL PETROLEUM AND OIL SHALE RESERVES ........................... 20,854 14,909 14,909 14,909 ¥5,945 .......................... ..........................

STRATEGIC PETROLEUM RESERVE 

Strategic Petroleum Reserve .................................................................................. .......................... 192,704 192,704 192,704 ∂192,704 .......................... ..........................
123 

Storage facilities development .............................................................................. 188,528 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥188,528 .......................... ..........................Management for SPR operations ........................................................................... 20,913 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥20,913 .......................... ..........................Rescission .............................................................................................................. ¥86,300 ¥71,000 .......................... .......................... ∂86,300 ∂71,000 ..........................

TOTAL, STRATEGIC PETROLEUM RESERVE ................................................ 123,141 121,704 192,704 192,704 ∂69,563 ∂71,000 ..........................

SPR PETROLEUM ACCOUNT .................................................................................... .......................... ¥250,000 ¥500,000 ¥500,000 ¥500,000 ¥250,000 ..........................CLEAN COAL TECHNOLOGY (RESCISSION) .............................................................. ¥16,500 .......................... .......................... .......................... ∂16,500 .......................... ..........................

NORTHEAST HOME HEATING OIL RESERVE 

Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve .................................................................... 10,978 10,119 10,119 10,119 ¥859 .......................... ..........................Rescission .............................................................................................................. .......................... ¥100,000 ¥100,000 ¥100,000 ¥100,000 .......................... ..........................

TOTAL, NORTHEAST HOME HEATING OIL RESERVE ................................... 10,978 ¥89,881 ¥89,881 ¥89,881 ¥100,859 .......................... ..........................

ENERGY INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION 

Energy Information Administration ........................................................................ 95,409 123,957 105,000 105,000 ∂9,591 ¥18,957 ..........................Rescission .............................................................................................................. ¥400 .......................... .......................... .......................... ∂400 .......................... ..........................

TOTAL, ENERGY INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION ...................................... 95,009 123,957 105,000 105,000 ∂9,991 ¥18,957 ..........................

NON-DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP 

Fast Flux Test Reactor Facility (WA) ...................................................................... 3,652 2,703 2,703 2,703 ¥949 .......................... ..........................Gaseous Diffusion Plants ....................................................................................... 99,302 100,588 97,588 100,588 ∂1,286 .......................... ∂3,000 Small sites ............................................................................................................. 63,730 57,430 55,930 57,430 ¥6,300 .......................... ∂1,500 

Subtotal, Small sites ................................................................................ 63,730 57,430 55,930 57,430 ¥6,300 .......................... ∂1,500 

West Valley Demonstration Project ........................................................................ 57,666 58,400 56,900 58,400 ∂734 .......................... ∂1,500 Floor amendment ................................................................................................... .......................... .......................... 41,000 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥41,000 Rescission .............................................................................................................. ¥900 .......................... .......................... .......................... ∂900 .......................... ..........................

TOTAL, NON-DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP ................................... 223,450 219,121 254,121 219,121 ¥4,329 .......................... ¥35,000 

URANIUM ENRICHMENT DECONTAMINATION AND DECOMMISSIONING FUND 

Oak Ridge ............................................................................................................... .......................... 182,747 182,747 162,747 ∂162,747 ¥20,000 ¥20,000 Paducah ................................................................................................................. .......................... 77,780 77,780 77,780 ∂77,780 .......................... ..........................
124 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Enacted Budget estimate House allowance Committee recommendation Committee recommendation compared to— Enacted Budget estimate House allowance 

Portsmouth ............................................................................................................. .......................... 243,642 188,473 188,473 ∂188,473 ¥55,169 ..........................Undistributed funds ............................................................................................... 506,984 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥506,984 .......................... ..........................Rescission .............................................................................................................. ¥9,900 .......................... .......................... .......................... ∂9,900 .......................... ..........................

TOTAL, UED&D FUND/URANIUM INVENTORY CLEANUP ............................. 497,084 504,169 449,000 429,000 ¥68,084 ¥75,169 ¥20,000 

SCIENCE 

Advanced scientific computing research ............................................................... 421,997 465,600 427,093 441,619 ∂19,622 ¥23,981 ∂14,526 Basic energy sciences: 

Research ........................................................................................................ 1,526,898 1,833,600 1,547,343 1,542,460 ∂15,562 ¥291,140 ¥4,883 Construction: 

07–SC–06 Project engineering and design [PED] National Synchrotron light source II [NSLS–II] .......................................................... 151,297 151,400 140,802 151,400 ∂103 .......................... ∂10,598 

Subtotal, Basic energy sciences ................................................. 1,678,195 1,985,000 1,688,145 1,693,860 ∂15,665 ¥291,140 ∂5,715 

Biological and environmental research: 

Biological systems science ........................................................................... 316,744 376,262 .......................... 326,744 ∂10,000 ¥49,518 ∂326,744 Climate and environmental sciences ........................................................... 295,079 341,638 .......................... 295,079 .......................... ¥46,559 ∂295,079 Research ........................................................................................................ .......................... .......................... 547,075 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥547,075 

Subtotal, Biological and environmental research .................................... 611,823 717,900 547,075 621,823 ∂10,000 ¥96,077 ∂74,748 

Fusion energy sciences program ........................................................................... 375,463 399,700 406,000 335,463 ¥40,000 ¥64,237 ¥70,537 High-energy physics: 

Research ........................................................................................................ 795,420 756,200 759,070 756,200 ¥39,220 .......................... ¥2,870 Construction: 

11–SC–40 Project engineering and design [PED] long baseline neutrino experiment, FNAL .................................................................... .......................... 17,000 15,810 .......................... .......................... ¥17,000 ¥15,810 11–SC–41 Project engineering and design [PED] muon to electron 

conversion experiment, FNAL ........................................................... .......................... 24,000 22,320 24,000 ∂24,000 .......................... ∂1,680 
125 

Subtotal ....................................................................................... .......................... 41,000 38,130 24,000 ∂24,000 ¥17,000 ¥14,130 Subtotal, High-energy physics .................................................... 795,420 797,200 797,200 780,200 ¥15,220 ¥17,000 ¥17,000 

Nuclear physics: 

Operations and maintenance ........................................................................ 504,186 539,300 512,000 495,114 ¥9,072 ¥44,186 ¥16,886 Construction: 

06–SC–01 Project engineering and design [PED] 12 GeV continuous 

electron beam accelerator facility upgrade, Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator facility (was project 07–SC–001), Newport News, Virginia .................................................................................. 35,928 66,000 40,000 55,000 ∂19,072 ¥11,000 ∂15,000 

Subtotal, Nuclear physics ........................................................... 540,114 605,300 552,000 550,114 ∂10,000 ¥55,186 ¥1,886 

Workforce development for teachers and scientists ............................................. 22,600 35,600 17,849 20,000 ¥2,600 ¥15,600 ∂2,151 Science laboratories infrastructure: 

Infrastructure support: 

Payment in lieu of taxes ...................................................................... 1,382 1,385 1,385 1,385 ∂3 .......................... ..........................Excess facility disposal ........................................................................ .......................... .......................... .......................... 25,000 ∂25,000 ∂25,000 ∂25,000 Oak Ridge landlord .............................................................................. 5,249 5,493 5,493 5,493 ∂244 .......................... ..........................

Subtotal ........................................................................................... 6,631 6,878 6,878 31,878 ∂25,247 ∂25,000 ∂25,000 

Construction: 

11–SC–71 Utility infrastructure modernization at TJNAF ................... .......................... .......................... .......................... 12,086 ∂12,086 ∂12,086 ∂12,086 12–SC–70 Science and user support building, SLAC ......................... .......................... 12,086 10,273 .......................... .......................... ¥12,086 ¥10,273 10–SC–70 Research support building and infrastructure modernization, SLAC ........................................................................................ 40,694 12,024 11,182 12,024 ¥28,670 .......................... ∂842 10–SC–71 Energy sciences building, ANL .......................................... 14,970 40,000 37,200 40,000 ∂25,030 .......................... ∂2,800 10–SC–72 Renovate science laboratory, Phase II, BNL ...................... 14,970 15,500 14,415 15,500 ∂530 .......................... ∂1,085 09–SC–72 Seismic life-safety, modernization and replacement of 

general purpose buildings Phase 2, PED/Construction, LBNL ........ 20,063 12,975 12,066 12,975 ¥7,088 .......................... ∂909 

09–SC–74, Technology and engineering development facilities PED, 

TJNAF ................................................................................................ 28,419 12,337 11,473 12,337 ¥16,082 .......................... ∂864 

Subtotal ....................................................................................... 119,116 104,922 96,609 104,922 ¥14,194 .......................... ∂8,313 Subtotal, Science laboratories infrastructure ............................. 125,747 111,800 103,487 136,800 ∂11,053 ∂25,000 ∂33,313 

Safeguards and security ........................................................................................ 83,786 83,900 83,900 82,000 ¥1,786 ¥1,900 ¥1,900 
126 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Enacted Budget estimate House allowance Committee recommendation Committee recommendation compared to— Enacted Budget estimate House allowance 

Science program direction: 

Science program direction ............................................................................ 202,520 216,863 .......................... 180,786 ¥21,734 ¥36,077 ∂180,786 Headquarters ................................................................................................. .......................... .......................... 78,028 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥78,028 Office of Science and Technical Information ............................................... .......................... .......................... 7,700 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥7,700 Field offices ................................................................................................... .......................... .......................... 94,272 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥94,272 

Subtotal, Science program direction ........................................................ 202,520 216,863 180,000 180,786 ¥21,734 ¥36,077 ∂786 Subtotal, Science ...................................................................................... 4,857,665 5,418,863 4,802,749 4,842,665 ¥15,000 ¥576,198 ∂39,916 

Rescission .............................................................................................................. ¥15,000 .......................... .......................... .......................... ∂15,000 .......................... ..........................Use of prior year balances .................................................................................... .......................... ¥2,749 ¥2,749 .......................... .......................... ∂2,749 ∂2,749 

TOTAL, SCIENCE ........................................................................................ 4,842,665 5,416,114 4,800,000 4,842,665 .......................... ¥573,449 ∂42,665 

NUCLEAR WASTE DISPOSAL 

Repository program ................................................................................................ .......................... .......................... 20,000 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥20,000 Program direction ................................................................................................... .......................... .......................... 5,000 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥5,000 Rescission .............................................................................................................. ¥2,800 .......................... .......................... .......................... ∂2,800 .......................... ..........................

TOTAL, NUCLEAR WASTE DISPOSAL .......................................................... ¥2,800 .......................... 25,000 .......................... ∂2,800 .......................... ¥25,000 

ADVANCED RESEARCH PROJECTS AGENCY-ENERGY 

ARPA-E projects ..................................................................................................... .......................... 521,943 80,000 .......................... .......................... ¥521,943 ¥80,000 Program direction ................................................................................................... .......................... 28,068 20,000 .......................... .......................... ¥28,068 ¥20,000 Undistributed funds ............................................................................................... 179,640 .......................... .......................... 250,000 ∂70,360 ∂250,000 ∂250,000 Floor amendment ................................................................................................... .......................... .......................... 79,640 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥79,640 

TOTAL, ADVANCED RESEARCH PROJECTS AGENCY-ENERGY .................... 179,640 550,011 179,640 250,000 ∂70,360 ¥300,011 ∂70,360 
127 

TITLE 17—INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY GUARANTEE PROGRAM 

Administrative operations ...................................................................................... 58,000 38,000 38,000 38,000 ¥20,000 .......................... ..........................Offsetting collection ............................................................................................... ¥58,000 ¥38,000 ¥38,000 ¥38,000 ∂20,000 .......................... ..........................Loan volume rescission .......................................................................................... ¥181,830 .......................... .......................... .......................... ∂181,830 .......................... ..........................Additional loan volume .......................................................................................... 11,830 360,000 .......................... .......................... ¥11,830 ¥360,000 ..........................Fed participation in title 17 loan guarantee projects .......................................... .......................... 500,000 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥500,000 ..........................Additional subsidy cost .......................................................................................... 169,660 200,000 160,000 200,000 ∂30,340 .......................... ∂40,000 

TOTAL, TITLE 17—INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY GUARANTEE PROGRAM ............................................................................................... ¥340 1,060,000 160,000 200,000 ∂200,340 ¥860,000 ∂40,000 

ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY VEHICLES MANUFACTURING LOAN PROGRAM 

Administrative expenses ........................................................................................ 9,978 6,000 6,000 6,000 ¥3,978 .......................... ..........................

BETTER BUILDINGS PILOT LOAN GUARANTEE INITIATIVE 

Cost of loan guarantees ........................................................................................ .......................... 100,000 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥100,000 ..........................Administrative costs .............................................................................................. .......................... 5,000 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥5,000 ..........................

TOTAL, BETTER BUILDINGS PILOT LOAN INITIATIVE .................................. .......................... 105,000 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥105,000 ..........................

DEPARTMENTAL ADMINISTRATION 

Administrative operations: 

Salaries and expenses: 

Office of the Secretary: 

Program direction ............................................................................ 5,380 5,030 5,000 5,030 ¥350 .......................... ∂30 

Total, Office of the Secretary ...................................................... 5,380 5,030 5,000 5,030 ¥350 .......................... ∂30 

Chief Financial Officer .................................................................................. 57,575 53,204 52,000 53,204 ¥4,371 .......................... ∂1,204 Management .................................................................................................. 68,636 62,693 60,000 62,693 ¥5,943 .......................... ∂2,693 Human capital management ........................................................................ 25,294 23,089 22,000 23,089 ¥2,205 .......................... ∂1,089 Chief Information Officer .............................................................................. 34,238 36,615 35,000 36,615 ∂2,377 .......................... ∂1,615 Congressional and intergovernmental affairs: 

Program direction ................................................................................. 4,428 4,690 4,500 4,690 ∂262 .......................... ∂190 

Subtotal, Congressional and intergovernmental affairs ................. 4,428 4,690 4,500 4,690 ∂262 .......................... ∂190 

Economic impact and diversity .................................................................... 4,279 5,660 5,660 5,660 ∂1,381 .......................... ..........................General Counsel ............................................................................................ 31,997 34,642 30,000 33,553 ∂1,556 ¥1,089 ∂3,553 Policy and international affairs .................................................................... 20,795 22,429 17,000 20,518 ¥277 ¥1,911 ∂3,518 
128 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Enacted Budget estimate House allowance Committee recommendation Committee recommendation compared to— Enacted Budget estimate House allowance 

Public affairs ................................................................................................ 4,129 3,801 3,500 3,801 ¥328 .......................... ∂301 Office of Indian energy policy and programs ............................................... 1,476 1,500 2,000 1,500 ∂24 .......................... ¥500 

Subtotal, Salaries and expenses .............................................................. 258,227 253,353 236,660 250,353 ¥7,874 ¥3,000 ∂13,693 

Program support: 

Minority economic impact .................................................................... 2,000 1,813 1,813 1,813 ¥187 .......................... ..........................Policy analysis and system studies ..................................................... 671 441 441 441 ¥230 .......................... ..........................Environmental policy studies ............................................................... 791 520 250 520 ¥271 .......................... ∂270 Climate change technology program (program support) .................... 5,500 5,482 2,500 5,482 ¥18 .......................... ∂2,982 Cybersecurity and secure communications ......................................... 32,072 21,934 21,934 21,934 ¥10,138 .......................... ..........................Corporate management information program ..................................... 8,333 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥8,333 .......................... ..........................Corporate IT program support [CIO] .................................................... .......................... 27,379 27,379 27,379 ∂27,379 .......................... ..........................Energy information technology services .............................................. 18,310 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥18,310 .......................... ..........................

Subtotal, Program support .............................................................. 67,677 57,569 54,317 57,569 ¥10,108 .......................... ∂3,252 Subtotal, Administrative operations ................................................ 325,904 310,922 290,977 307,922 ¥17,982 ¥3,000 ∂16,945 

Cost of work for others ................................................................................. 30,475 48,537 48,537 48,537 ∂18,062 .......................... ..........................Floor amendments ......................................................................................... .......................... .......................... ¥158,140 .......................... .......................... .......................... ∂158,140 

Subtotal, Departmental administration .................................................... 356,379 359,459 181,374 356,459 ∂80 ¥3,000 ∂175,085 

Funding from other defense activities .................................................................. ¥106,240 ¥118,836 ¥118,000 ¥118,836 ¥12,596 .......................... ¥836 

Total, Departmental administration (gross) ............................................. 250,139 240,623 63,374 237,623 ¥12,516 ¥3,000 ∂174,249 

Rescission .............................................................................................................. ¥81,900 .......................... .......................... .......................... ∂81,900 .......................... ..........................Miscellaneous revenues ......................................................................................... ¥119,501 ¥111,883 ¥111,883 ¥111,883 ∂7,618 .......................... ..........................

TOTAL, DEPARTMENTAL ADMINISTRATION (net) ........................................ 48,738 128,740 ¥48,509 125,740 ∂77,002 ¥3,000 ∂174,249 

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL .................................................................... 42,764 41,774 41,774 41,774 ¥990 .......................... ..........................
129 

TOTAL, ENERGY PROGRAMS ...................................................................... 9,181,665 12,596,391 8,248,316 8,615,988 ¥565,677 ¥3,980,403 ∂367,672 

ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES 

NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION WEAPONS ACTIVITIES 

Directed stockpile work: 

Life extension program: 

B61 Life extension program ................................................................. .......................... 223,562 278,562 180,000 ∂180,000 ¥43,562 ¥98,562 W76 Life extension program ................................................................ 248,249 257,035 255,000 257,039 ∂8,790 ∂4 ∂2,039 

Subtotal ........................................................................................... 248,249 480,597 533,562 437,039 ∂188,790 ¥43,558 ¥96,523 

Stockpile systems: 

B61 Stockpile systems ......................................................................... .......................... 72,396 72,396 72,396 ∂72,396 .......................... ..........................W76 Stockpile systems ........................................................................ .......................... 63,383 63,383 63,383 ∂63,383 .......................... ..........................W78 Stockpile systems ........................................................................ .......................... 109,518 99,518 84,000 ∂84,000 ¥25,518 ¥15,518 W80 Stockpile systems ........................................................................ .......................... 44,444 44,444 44,444 ∂44,444 .......................... ..........................B83 Stockpile systems ......................................................................... .......................... 48,215 48,215 48,215 ∂48,215 .......................... ..........................W87 Stockpile systems ........................................................................ .......................... 83,943 83,943 83,943 ∂83,943 .......................... ..........................W88 Stockpile systems ........................................................................ .......................... 75,728 75,728 75,728 ∂75,728 .......................... ..........................Undistributed balance .......................................................................... 646,203 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥646,203 .......................... ..........................

Subtotal ........................................................................................... 646,203 497,627 487,627 472,109 ¥174,094 ¥25,518 ¥15,518 

Weapons dismantlement and disposition: 

Operations and maintenance ............................................................... 57,909 56,770 56,770 56,770 ¥1,139 .......................... ..........................

Total, Weapons dismantlement and disposition ............................. 57,909 56,770 56,770 56,770 ¥1,139 .......................... ..........................

Stockpile services: 

Production support ........................................................................................ .......................... 354,502 300,441 310,000 ∂310,000 ¥44,502 ∂9,559 Research and development support ............................................................. .......................... 30,264 30,264 30,264 ∂30,264 .......................... ..........................R and D certification and safety .................................................................. .......................... 190,892 165,892 170,000 ∂170,000 ¥20,892 ∂4,108 Management, technology, and production .................................................... .......................... 198,700 193,000 188,700 ∂188,700 ¥10,000 ¥4,300 Undistributed balance ................................................................................... 932,998 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥932,998 .......................... ..........................Plutonium sustainment ................................................................................. .......................... 154,231 142,231 140,000 ∂140,000 ¥14,231 ¥2,231 

Subtotal .................................................................................................... 932,998 928,589 831,828 838,964 ¥94,034 ¥89,625 ∂7,136 

Subtotal, Directed stockpile work .................................................... 1,885,359 1,963,583 1,909,787 1,804,882 ¥80,477 ¥158,701 ¥104,905 
130 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Enacted Budget estimate House allowance Committee recommendation Committee recommendation compared to— Enacted Budget estimate House allowance 

Campaigns: 

Science campaign: 

Advanced certification ......................................................................... 76,495 94,929 19,400 40,000 ¥36,495 ¥54,929 ∂20,600 Primary assessment technologies ........................................................ 85,074 86,055 86,055 86,055 ∂981 .......................... ..........................Dynamic materials properties .............................................................. 96,237 111,836 96,984 110,000 ∂13,763 ¥1,836 ∂13,016 Advanced radiography .......................................................................... 23,410 27,058 23,594 26,000 ∂2,590 ¥1,058 ∂2,406 Secondary assessment technologies .................................................... 81,303 86,061 86,061 85,000 ∂3,697 ¥1,061 ¥1,061 

Subtotal ........................................................................................... 362,519 405,939 312,094 347,055 ¥15,464 ¥58,884 ∂34,961 

Engineering campaign: 

Enhanced surety ................................................................................... 42,148 41,696 41,696 41,696 ¥452 .......................... ..........................Weapons system engineering assessment technology ........................ 13,443 15,663 15,663 15,663 ∂2,220 .......................... ..........................Nuclear survivability ............................................................................ 19,665 19,545 19,545 19,545 ¥120 .......................... ..........................Enhanced surveillance ......................................................................... 65,676 66,174 66,174 66,174 ∂498 .......................... ..........................

Subtotal ........................................................................................... 140,932 143,078 143,078 143,078 ∂2,146 .......................... ..........................

Inertial confinement fusion ignition and high-yield campaign: 

Ignition ................................................................................................. 109,287 109,888 109,888 109,888 ∂601 .......................... ..........................NIF diagnostics, cryogenics, and experimental support ...................... 99,651 86,259 86,259 86,259 ¥13,392 .......................... ..........................Pulsed power inertial confinement fusion ........................................... 4,970 4,997 4,997 4,997 ∂27 .......................... ..........................Joint program in high-energy density laboratory plasmas ................. 3,992 9,100 4,000 9,100 ∂5,108 .......................... ∂5,100 Facility operations and target production ........................................... 259,701 266,030 266,030 266,030 ∂6,329 .......................... ..........................

Subtotal ........................................................................................... 477,601 476,274 471,174 476,274 ¥1,327 .......................... ∂5,100 

Advanced simulation and computing ........................................................... 610,995 628,945 616,000 625,000 ∂14,005 ¥3,945 ∂9,000 Readiness campaign: 

Stockpile readiness .............................................................................. 18,903 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥18,903 .......................... ..........................High explosives and weapon operations ............................................. 2,994 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥2,994 .......................... ..........................Nonnuclear readiness ........................................................................... 21,820 65,000 .......................... 65,000 ∂43,180 .......................... ∂65,000 Tritium readiness ................................................................................. 36,811 77,491 63,591 60,000 ∂23,189 ¥17,491 ¥3,591 
131 

Advanced design and production technologies ................................... 18,064 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥18,064 .......................... ..........................

Subtotal ........................................................................................... 98,592 142,491 63,591 125,000 ∂26,408 ¥17,491 ∂61,409 Subtotal, Campaigns ....................................................................... 1,690,639 1,796,727 1,605,937 1,716,407 ∂25,768 ¥80,320 ∂110,470 

Readiness in technical base and facilities [RTBF]: 

Operations of facilities: 

Operations of facilities ........................................................................ .......................... .......................... .......................... 1,411,000 ∂1,411,000 ∂1,411,000 ∂1,411,000 Kansas City Plant ................................................................................ 184,199 156,217 156,217 .......................... ¥184,199 ¥156,217 ¥156,217 Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory ............................................. 79,237 83,990 83,990 .......................... ¥79,237 ¥83,990 ¥83,990 Los Alamos National Laboratory .......................................................... 315,652 318,526 318,526 .......................... ¥315,652 ¥318,526 ¥318,526 Nevada Test Site .................................................................................. 79,917 97,559 97,559 .......................... ¥79,917 ¥97,559 ¥97,559 Pantex ................................................................................................... 121,011 164,848 164,848 .......................... ¥121,011 ¥164,848 ¥164,848 Sandia National Laboratory ................................................................. 116,685 120,708 120,708 .......................... ¥116,685 ¥120,708 ¥120,708 Savannah River Site ............................................................................ 91,850 97,767 97,767 .......................... ¥91,850 ¥97,767 ¥97,767 Y–12 Productions Plant ....................................................................... 218,715 246,001 246,001 .......................... ¥218,715 ¥246,001 ¥246,001 Institutional Site Support ..................................................................... 40,888 199,638 10,000 .......................... ¥40,888 ¥199,638 ¥10,000 

Subtotal ........................................................................................... 1,248,154 1,485,254 1,295,616 1,411,000 ∂162,846 ¥74,254 ∂115,384 

Program readiness ........................................................................................ 69,170 74,180 69,180 69,170 .......................... ¥5,010 ¥10 Material recycle and recovery ....................................................................... 69,910 85,939 75,639 80,000 ∂10,090 ¥5,939 ∂4,361 Containers ..................................................................................................... 27,808 28,979 28,979 28,979 ∂1,171 .......................... ..........................Storage .......................................................................................................... 24,028 31,272 31,272 30,289 ∂6,261 ¥983 ¥983 

Subtotal, Readiness in technical base and facilities ......................... 1,439,070 1,705,624 1,500,686 1,619,438 ∂180,368 ¥86,186 ∂118,752 

Construction: 

12–D–301 TRU waste facility project, LANL ....................................... .......................... 9,881 .......................... 9,881 ∂9,881 .......................... ∂9,881 11–D–801 TA–55 Reinvestment project II, LANL ................................ 19,960 19,402 19,402 10,000 ¥9,960 ¥9,402 ¥9,402 10–D–501 Nuclear facilities risk reduction Y–12 National security 

complex, Oakridge, Tennessee ......................................................... .......................... 35,387 35,387 35,387 ∂35,387 .......................... ..........................

09–D–404, Test capabilities revitalization II, Sandia National Laboratory, Albuquerque, New Mexico ................................................... .......................... 25,168 25,168 25,168 ∂25,168 .......................... ..........................08–D–802 High explosive pressing facility Pantex Plant, Amarillo, 

Texas ................................................................................................ 29,940 66,960 66,960 66,960 ∂37,020 .......................... ..........................

07–D–140 Project engineering and design [PED], various locations ................................................................................................. 4,990 3,518 3,518 3,518 ¥1,472 .......................... ..........................06–D–140 Project engineering and design [PED], various locations ................................................................................................. 3,992 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥3,992 .......................... ..........................
132 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Enacted Budget estimate House allowance Committee recommendation Committee recommendation compared to— Enacted Budget estimate House allowance 

06–D–141 Project engineering and design [PED], Y–12 Uranium 

Processing Facility, Oak Ridge, Tennessee ..................................... 114,786 160,194 160,194 160,194 ∂45,408 .......................... ..........................

04–D–125 Chemistry and metallurgy replacement project, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, New Mexico ........................ 224,550 300,000 200,000 240,000 ∂15,450 ¥60,000 ∂40,000 

Subtotal ....................................................................................... 398,218 620,510 510,629 551,108 ∂152,890 ¥69,402 ∂40,479 Subtotal, Readiness in technical base and facilities ................ 1,837,288 2,326,134 2,011,315 2,170,546 ∂333,258 ¥155,588 ∂159,231 

Secure transportation asset: 

Operations and equipment ........................................................................... 152,620 149,274 145,274 149,274 ¥3,346 .......................... ∂4,000 Program direction .......................................................................................... 94,929 101,998 98,002 101,998 ∂7,069 .......................... ∂3,996 

Subtotal .................................................................................................... 247,549 251,272 243,276 251,272 ∂3,723 .......................... ∂7,996 

Nuclear counterterrorism incident response .......................................................... 231,005 222,147 222,147 222,147 ¥8,858 .......................... ..........................Facilities and infrastructure recapitalization program ......................................... 93,296 96,380 96,380 96,380 ∂3,084 .......................... ..........................Site stewardship: 

Site stewardship ........................................................................................... 89,652 104,002 78,680 90,000 ∂348 ¥14,002 ∂11,320 Construction: 

11–D–601 Sanitary effluent reclamation facility LANL ...................... 14,970 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥14,970 .......................... ..........................

Subtotal, Site stewardship .............................................................. 104,622 104,002 78,680 90,000 ¥14,622 ¥14,002 ∂11,320 

Safeguards and security: 

Defense nuclear security ...................................................................... 661,602 711,105 679,105 690,000 ∂28,398 ¥21,105 ∂10,895 

Construction: 

08–D–701 Nuclear materials S&S upgrade project Los 

Alamos National Laboratory .......................................... 51,896 11,752 11,752 11,752 ¥40,144 .......................... ..........................

Subtotal, Defense nuclear security ........................... 713,498 722,857 690,857 701,752 ¥11,746 ¥21,105 ∂10,895 

Cybersecurity ........................................................................................ 123,348 126,614 126,614 126,614 ∂3,266 .......................... ..........................
133 

Total, Safeguards and security ....................................................... 836,846 849,471 817,471 828,366 ¥8,480 ¥21,105 ∂10,895 

Legacy contractor pensions .......................................................................... .......................... .......................... 147,000 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥147,000 Science, technology and engineering capability .......................................... 19,794 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥19,794 .......................... ..........................National security applications ...................................................................... .......................... 20,000 .......................... 10,000 ∂10,000 ¥10,000 ∂10,000 Rescission ..................................................................................................... ¥50,000 ¥40,332 ¥40,332 .......................... ∂50,000 ∂40,332 ∂40,332 

TOTAL, WEAPONS ACTIVITIES .................................................................... 6,896,398 7,589,384 7,091,661 7,190,000 ∂293,602 ¥399,384 ∂98,339 

DEFENSE NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION 

Nonproliferation and verification, R&D .................................................................. 360,986 417,598 346,150 417,598 ∂56,612 .......................... ∂71,448 

Subtotal, Nonproliferation & verification R&D ......................................... 360,986 417,598 346,150 417,598 ∂56,612 .......................... ∂71,448 

Nonproliferation and international security ........................................................... 147,494 161,833 161,833 155,305 ∂7,811 ¥6,528 ¥6,528 International nuclear materials protection and cooperation ................................. 571,994 571,639 496,465 571,639 ¥355 .......................... ∂75,174 Fissile materials disposition: 

U.S. plutonium disposition ............................................................................ 200,400 274,790 244,690 224,000 ∂23,600 ¥50,790 ¥20,690 U.S. uranium disposition .............................................................................. 25,985 26,435 16,435 26,435 ∂450 .......................... ∂10,000 Construction: 

MOX fuel fabrication facilities: 

99–D–143 Mixed oxide fuel fabrication facility, Savannah 

River, South Carolina ............................................................. 501,788 385,172 385,172 435,172 ¥66,616 ∂50,000 ∂50,000 

99–D–141–01 Pit disassembly and conversion facility, Savannah River, SC ......................................................................... 17,000 176,000 20,000 47,300 ∂30,300 ¥128,700 ∂27,300 99–D–141–02 Waste solidification building, Savannah River, 

SC ........................................................................................... 57,000 17,582 17,582 17,582 ¥39,418 .......................... ..........................

Subtotal, Construction ....................................................... 575,788 578,754 422,754 500,054 ¥75,734 ¥78,700 ∂77,300 Subtotal, U.S. fissle materials disposition ........................ 802,173 879,979 683,879 750,489 ¥51,684 ¥129,490 ∂66,610 

Russian surplus materials disposition ......................................................... 25 10,174 10,174 1,000 ∂975 ¥9,174 ¥9,174 

Total, Fissile materials disposition .......................................................... 802,198 890,153 694,053 751,489 ¥50,709 ¥138,664 ∂57,436 

Global threat reduction initiative .......................................................................... 435,981 508,269 388,269 508,269 ∂72,288 .......................... ∂120,000 Floor amendment ................................................................................................... .......................... .......................... 35,000 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥35,000 

Subtotal, Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation ............................................. 2,318,653 2,549,492 2,121,770 2,404,300 ∂85,647 ¥145,192 ∂282,530 
134 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Enacted Budget estimate House allowance Committee recommendation Committee recommendation compared to— Enacted Budget estimate House allowance 

Rescission .............................................................................................................. ¥45,000 ¥30,000 ¥30,000 ¥21,000 ∂24,000 ∂9,000 ∂9,000 

Subtotal, Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation ............................................. 2,273,653 2,519,492 2,091,770 2,383,300 ∂109,647 ¥136,192 ∂291,530 TOTAL, DEFENSE NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION ...................................... 2,273,653 2,519,492 2,091,770 2,383,300 ∂109,647 ¥136,192 ∂291,530 

NAVAL REACTORS 

Naval reactors development .................................................................................. 887,721 1,069,262 498,700 1,015,600 ∂127,879 ¥53,662 ∂516,900 OHIO replacement reactor systems development .................................................. .......................... .......................... 121,300 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥121,300 Naval reactors operations and infrastructure ....................................................... .......................... .......................... 332,100 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥332,100 Construction: 

10–D–903, Security upgrades, KAPL ............................................................ 399 100 100 100 ¥299 .......................... ..........................10–D–904, NRF infrastructure upgrades, Idaho .......................................... 499 12,000 12,000 12,000 ∂11,501 .......................... ..........................09–D–902, NRF Office Building #2 ECC upgrade, Idaho ............................ 3,992 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥3,992 .......................... ..........................08–D–190, Project engineering and design, Expended Core Facility M– 

290 recovering discharge station, Naval Reactor Facility, ID ................. 24,950 27,800 27,800 27,800 ∂2,850 .......................... ..........................

07–D–190, Materials research tech complex [MRTC] .................................. 2,695 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥2,695 .......................... ..........................

Subtotal, Construction .............................................................................. 32,535 39,900 39,900 39,900 ∂7,365 .......................... ..........................

Program direction ................................................................................................... 39,920 44,500 38,600 44,500 ∂4,580 .......................... ∂5,900 Rescission .............................................................................................................. ¥1,000 .......................... .......................... .......................... ∂1,000 .......................... ..........................

TOTAL, NAVAL REACTORS ......................................................................... 959,176 1,153,662 1,030,600 1,100,000 ∂140,824 ¥53,662 ∂69,400 

OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR 

Office of the Administrator .................................................................................... 398,993 450,060 420,000 404,000 ∂5,007 ¥46,060 ¥16,000 Rescission .............................................................................................................. ¥5,700 .......................... .......................... .......................... ∂5,700 .......................... ..........................Floor amendment ................................................................................................... .......................... .......................... ¥20,000 .......................... .......................... .......................... ∂20,000 

TOTAL, OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR ................................................... 393,293 450,060 400,000 404,000 ∂10,707 ¥46,060 ∂4,000 
135 

GENERAL PROVISION 

Section 309—Contractor Pay Freeze: 

Security .......................................................................................................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥27,300 ¥27,300 ¥27,300 ¥27,300 

TOTAL, NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION. ........................ 10,522,520 11,712,598 10,614,031 11,050,000 ∂527,480 ¥662,598 ∂435,969 

DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP 

Closure Sites: 

Closure sites administration ......................................................................... 175 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥175 .......................... ..........................Closure sites ................................................................................................. .......................... 5,375 5,375 5,375 ∂5,375 .......................... ..........................

Total, Closure sites ................................................................................... 175 5,375 5,375 5,375 ∂5,200 .......................... ..........................

Hanford Site: 

Central plateau remediation: 

Nuclear material stabilization and disposition PFP ............................ 69,102 48,458 68,458 68,458 ¥644 ∂20,000 ..........................Solid waste stabilization and disposition 2035 .................................. 128,038 143,897 143,897 143,897 ∂15,859 .......................... ..........................Soil and water remediation—groundwater vadose zone 2035 ........... 164,628 222,285 222,285 222,285 ∂57,657 .......................... ..........................Nuclear facility D&D—remainder of Hanford 2035 ............................ 139,640 56,288 56,288 56,288 ¥83,352 .......................... ..........................

Subtotal, Central plateau remediation ............................................ 501,408 470,928 490,928 490,928 ¥10,480 ∂20,000 ..........................

River corridor and other cleanup operations: 

Nuclear facility D&D river corridor closure project .................... 351,027 330,534 330,534 330,534 ¥20,493 .......................... ..........................Richland community and regulatory support ............................. 19,540 .......................... .......................... 19,540 .......................... ∂19,540 ∂19,540 SNF stabilization and disposition ............................................... 94,016 112,250 112,250 112,250 ∂18,234 .......................... ..........................

Subtotal, River corridor and other cleanup operations ......... 464,583 442,784 442,784 462,324 ¥2,259 ∂19,540 ∂19,540 Total, Hanford Site ................................................................. 965,991 913,712 933,712 953,252 ¥12,739 ∂39,540 ∂19,540 

Idaho National Laboratory: 

SNF stabilization and disposition—2012 .................................................... 7,900 20,114 20,114 18,000 ∂10,100 ¥2,114 ¥2,114 Solid waste stabilization and disposition .................................................... 169,760 165,035 165,035 165,035 ¥4,725 .......................... ..........................Radioactive liquid tank waste stabilization and disposition ....................... 136,850 110,169 110,169 110,000 ¥26,850 ¥169 ¥169 06–D–401, Sodium bearing waste treatment project, ID ............................ 12,500 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥12,500 .......................... ..........................Soil and water remediation—2012 .............................................................. 67,764 87,451 87,451 87,451 ∂19,687 .......................... ..........................Idaho community and regulatory support .................................................... 3,892 .......................... .......................... 4,013 ∂121 ∂4,013 ∂4,013 

Total, Idaho National Laboratory .............................................................. 398,666 382,769 382,769 384,499 ¥14,167 ∂1,730 ∂1,730 
136 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Enacted Budget estimate House allowance Committee recommendation Committee recommendation compared to— Enacted Budget estimate House allowance 

NNSA: 

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory ...................................................... .......................... 873 873 873 ∂873 .......................... ..........................NNSA Service Center/SPRU ........................................................................... .......................... 1,500 1,500 1,500 ∂1,500 .......................... ..........................Nevada .......................................................................................................... .......................... 63,380 61,380 63,380 ∂63,380 .......................... ∂2,000 Los Alamos National Laboratory ................................................................... .......................... 357,939 185,000 185,000 ∂185,000 ¥172,939 ..........................Sandia national Laboratory ........................................................................... .......................... .......................... .......................... 3,014 ∂3,014 ∂3,014 ∂3,014 

Undistributed funds ............................................................................. 309,041 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥309,041 .......................... ..........................

Total, NNSA sites and Nevada off-sites ......................................... 309,041 423,692 248,753 253,767 ¥55,274 ¥169,925 ∂5,014 

Oak Ridge Reservation: 

Building 3019 ............................................................................................... .......................... .......................... .......................... 40,000 ∂40,000 ∂40,000 ∂40,000 Nuclear facility D&D ORNL ........................................................................... .......................... 44,000 39,000 39,000 ∂39,000 ¥5,000 ..........................Nuclear facility D&D Y–12 ............................................................................ .......................... 30,000 30,000 30,000 ∂30,000 .......................... ..........................Nuclear facility D&D, East Tennessee Technology Park ............................... .......................... 100 100 100 ∂100 .......................... ..........................Soil and water remediation—offsites .......................................................... .......................... 3,000 3,000 3,000 ∂3,000 .......................... ..........................OR reservation community and regulatory support ...................................... .......................... .......................... .......................... 6,409 ∂6,409 ∂6,409 ∂6,409 Solid waste stabilization and disposition—2012 ........................................ .......................... 99,000 84,000 84,000 ∂84,000 ¥15,000 ..........................

Undistributed funds ............................................................................. 152,135 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥152,135 .......................... ..........................

Total, Oak Ridge Reservation .......................................................... 152,135 176,100 156,100 202,509 ∂50,374 ∂26,409 ∂46,409 

Office of River Protection: 

Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant: 

Waste treatment and immobilization plant 01–D–16 A–D ................ 379,418 363,000 363,000 363,000 ¥16,418 .......................... ..........................Waste treatment and immobilization plant 01–D–16 E ..................... 359,280 477,000 377,000 377,000 ∂17,720 ¥100,000 ..........................

Subtotal, Waste Treatment and Immobilation Plant ...................... 738,698 840,000 740,000 740,000 ∂1,302 ¥100,000 ..........................

Tank Farm activities: 

Rad liquid tank waste stabilization and disposition .......................... 396,900 521,391 408,000 467,000 ∂70,100 ¥54,391 ∂59,000 

Total, Office of River Protection ...................................................... 1,135,598 1,361,391 1,148,000 1,207,000 ∂71,402 ¥154,391 ∂59,000 
137 

Savannah River site: 

Cleanup and waste disposition: 

Savannah River community and regulatory support ........................... 17,230 .......................... .......................... 15,000 ¥2,230 ∂15,000 ∂15,000 

Site risk management operations: 

NM stabilization and disposition ......................................................... 261,302 235,000 235,000 235,000 ¥26,302 .......................... ..........................SNF stabilization and disposition ........................................................ 28,327 40,137 40,137 40,137 ∂11,810 .......................... ..........................Solid waste stabilization and disposition ........................................... .......................... 30,040 30,040 30,040 ∂30,040 .......................... ..........................Radioactive liquid tank waste stabilization and disposition .............. 631,122 710,487 667,081 658,722 ∂27,600 ¥51,765 ¥8,359 PE&D Glass Waste Storage Building #3 ............................................. .......................... .......................... .......................... 3,500 ∂3,500 ∂3,500 ∂3,500 

Construction: 

05–D–405 Salt waste processing facility, Savannah 

River ............................................................................... 234,403 170,071 170,071 170,071 ¥64,332 .......................... ..........................

Subtotal, Radioactive liquid tank waste .................. 865,525 880,558 837,152 832,293 ¥33,232 ¥48,265 ¥4,859 

Soil and water remediation ................................................................. .......................... 38,409 38,409 38,409 ∂38,409 .......................... ..........................

Subtotal, Site risk management operations ................................... 1,155,154 1,224,144 1,180,738 1,175,879 ∂20,725 ¥48,265 ¥4,859 Total, Savannah River site .............................................................. 1,172,384 1,224,144 1,180,738 1,190,879 ∂18,495 ¥33,265 ∂10,141 

Waste Isolation Pilot Plant: 

Operate WIPP ................................................................................................. .......................... 228,926 220,000 147,000 ∂147,000 ¥81,926 ¥73,000 Central Characterization Project ................................................................... .......................... .......................... .......................... 24,000 ∂24,000 ∂24,000 ∂24,000 Transportation ............................................................................................... .......................... .......................... .......................... 29,000 ∂29,000 ∂29,000 ∂29,000 

Undistributed funds ............................................................................. 215,714 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥215,714 .......................... ..........................

Total, Waste Isolation Pilot Plant .................................................... 215,714 228,926 220,000 200,000 ¥15,714 ¥28,926 ¥20,000 

Program direction ................................................................................................... 320,006 321,628 316,948 321,628 ∂1,622 .......................... ∂4,680 Program support .................................................................................................... 21,101 .......................... .......................... 20,380 ¥721 ∂20,380 ∂20,380 Community, regulatory and program support ....................................................... .......................... 91,279 89,779 .......................... .......................... ¥91,279 ¥89,779 Safeguards and Security ........................................................................................ 247,781 248,826 248,826 252,019 ∂4,238 ∂3,193 ∂3,193 

Safeguards and security ............................................................................... .......................... 248,826 248,826 .......................... .......................... ¥248,826 ¥248,826 

Undistributed funds ............................................................................. 247,781 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥247,781 .......................... ..........................

Total, Safeguards and Security ................................................................ 495,562 497,652 497,652 252,019 ¥243,543 ¥245,633 ¥245,633 

Technology development ........................................................................................ 19,413 32,320 10,000 11,000 ¥8,413 ¥21,320 ∂1,000 Uranium enrichment D&D fund contribution ......................................................... 33,633 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥33,633 .......................... ..........................

Subtotal, Defense Environmental Clean up ............................................. 5,239,419 5,658,988 5,189,826 5,002,308 ¥237,111 ¥656,680 ¥187,518 
138 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Enacted Budget estimate House allowance Committee recommendation Committee recommendation compared to— Enacted Budget estimate House allowance 

Use of prior year balances .................................................................................... .......................... ¥3,381 ¥3,381 .......................... .......................... ∂3,381 ∂3,381 Rescission .............................................................................................................. ¥11,900 .......................... .......................... .......................... ∂11,900 .......................... ..........................

TOTAL, DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEAN UP .......................................... 5,227,519 5,655,607 5,186,445 5,002,308 ¥225,211 ¥653,299 ¥184,137 

OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES 

Health, safety and security: 

Health, safety and security ........................................................................... .......................... 349,445 332,039 335,436 ∂335,436 ¥14,009 ∂3,397 Program direction .......................................................................................... .......................... 107,037 99,369 102,000 ∂102,000 ¥5,037 ∂2,631 

Undistributed funds ............................................................................. 426,933 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥426,933 .......................... ..........................

Total, Health, safety and security ................................................... 426,933 456,482 431,408 437,436 ∂10,503 ¥19,046 ∂6,028 

Office of Legacy Management: 

Legacy management ..................................................................................... 159,117 157,514 155,014 157,154 ¥1,963 ¥360 ∂2,140 Program direction .......................................................................................... 12,504 12,586 12,086 12,586 ∂82 .......................... ∂500 

Total, Office of Legacy Management ....................................................... 171,621 170,100 167,100 169,740 ¥1,881 ¥360 ∂2,640 

Defense-related activities: 

Infrastructure: 

Idaho sitewide safeguards and security ............................................. 77,550 98,500 93,350 93,350 ∂15,800 ¥5,150 ..........................

Defense related administrative support ................................................................ 106,240 118,836 118,000 114,332 ∂8,092 ¥4,504 ¥3,668 Office of hearings and appeals ............................................................................. 6,076 4,142 4,142 4,142 ¥1,934 .......................... ..........................Acquisition workforce improvement ....................................................................... .......................... 11,892 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥11,892 ..........................

Subtotal, Other Defense Activities ........................................................... 788,420 859,952 814,000 819,000 ∂30,580 ¥40,952 ∂5,000 

Rescission .............................................................................................................. ¥3,400 .......................... .......................... .......................... ∂3,400 .......................... ..........................

TOTAL, OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES ......................................................... 785,020 859,952 814,000 819,000 ∂33,980 ¥40,952 ∂5,000 TOTAL, ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES ......................................... 16,535,059 18,228,157 16,614,476 16,898,608 ∂363,549 ¥1,329,549 ∂284,132 
139 

POWER MARKETING ADMINISTRATIONS 1

SOUTHEASTERN POWER ADMINISTRATION: 

Operation and maintenance: 

Purchase power and wheeling ............................................................. 85,264 114,870 114,870 114,870 ∂29,606 .......................... ..........................Program direction ................................................................................. 7,638 8,428 8,428 8,428 ∂790 .......................... ..........................

Subtotal, Operation and maintenance ............................................ 92,902 123,298 123,298 123,298 ∂30,396 .......................... ..........................

Less alternative financing (PPW) ................................................................. ¥14,458 ¥14,708 ¥14,708 ¥14,708 ¥250 .......................... ..........................Offsetting collections .................................................................................... ¥78,444 ¥108,590 ¥108,590 ¥108,590 ¥30,146 .......................... ..........................

TOTAL, SOUTHEASTERN POWER ADMINISTRATION .................................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................

SOUTHWESTERN POWER ADMINISTRATION: 

Operation and maintenance: 

Operating expenses .............................................................................. 14,918 14,346 14,346 14,346 ¥572 .......................... ..........................Purchase power and wheeling ............................................................. 48,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 ∂2,000 .......................... ..........................Program direction ................................................................................. 27,432 31,889 31,889 31,889 ∂4,457 .......................... ..........................Construction ......................................................................................... 6,386 10,772 10,772 10,772 ∂4,386 .......................... ..........................

Subtotal, Operation and maintenance ............................................ 96,736 107,007 107,007 107,007 ∂10,271 .......................... ..........................

Less alternative financing ............................................................................ ¥13,818 ¥21,997 ¥21,997 ¥21,997 ¥8,179 .......................... ..........................Offsetting collections .................................................................................... ¥69,868 ¥73,118 ¥73,118 ¥73,118 ¥3,250 .......................... ..........................

TOTAL, SOUTHWESTERN POWER ADMINISTRATION ................................... 13,050 11,892 11,892 11,892 ¥1,158 .......................... ..........................

WESTERN AREA POWER ADMINISTRATION: 

Operation and maintenance: 

Construction and rehabilitation ........................................................... 109,887 110,449 110,449 110,449 ∂562 .......................... ..........................Operation and maintenance ................................................................ 50,526 72,863 72,863 72,863 ∂22,337 .......................... ..........................Purchase power and wheeling ............................................................. 542,510 471,535 471,535 471,535 ¥70,975 .......................... ..........................Program direction ................................................................................. 171,582 205,247 205,247 205,247 ∂33,665 .......................... ..........................Utah mitigation and conservation ....................................................... 7,569 3,375 3,375 3,375 ¥4,194 .......................... ..........................

Subtotal, Operation and maintenance ............................................ 882,074 863,469 863,469 863,469 ¥18,605 .......................... ..........................

Less alternative financing ............................................................................ ¥271,895 ¥266,207 ¥266,207 ¥266,207 ∂5,688 .......................... ..........................Offsetting collections (Public Law 108–477, Public Law 109–103) ........... ¥349,807 ¥306,541 ¥306,541 ¥306,541 ∂43,266 .......................... ..........................Offsetting collections (Public Law 98–381) ................................................. ¥3,879 ¥4,821 ¥4,821 ¥4,821 ¥942 .......................... ..........................Offsetting collections (for program direction) .............................................. .......................... ¥156,609 ¥156,609 ¥156,609 ¥156,609 .......................... ..........................
140 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Enacted Budget estimate House allowance Committee recommendation Committee recommendation compared to— Enacted Budget estimate House allowance 

Offsetting collections (for O&M) ................................................................... .......................... ¥33,323 ¥33,323 ¥33,323 ¥33,323 .......................... ..........................Offsetting collections (for program direction, O&M) .................................... ¥147,530 .......................... .......................... .......................... ∂147,530 .......................... ..........................

TOTAL, WESTERN AREA POWER ADMINISTRATION .................................... 108,963 95,968 95,968 95,968 ¥12,995 .......................... ..........................

FALCON AND AMISTAD OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE FUND: 

Operation and maintenance ......................................................................... 3,715 4,169 4,169 4,169 ∂454 .......................... ..........................Offsetting collections .................................................................................... ¥3,495 ¥3,949 ¥3,949 ¥3,949 ¥454 .......................... ..........................

TOTAL, FALCON AND AMISTAD O&M FUND ............................................... 220 220 220 220 .......................... .......................... ..........................TOTAL, POWER MARKETING ADMINISTRATIONS ......................................... 122,233 108,080 108,080 108,080 ¥14,153 .......................... ..........................

FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ................................................................. 298,000 304,600 304,600 304,600 ∂6,600 .......................... ..........................FERC revenues ....................................................................................................... ¥298,000 ¥304,600 ¥304,600 ¥304,600 ¥6,600 .......................... ..........................

GENERAL PROVISION 

Section 309—Contractor Pay Freeze: 

Non-Security .................................................................................................. .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥46,400 ¥46,400 ¥46,400 ¥46,400 

Total, General Provisions .......................................................................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥46,400 ¥46,400 ¥46,400 ¥46,400 GRAND TOTAL, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY ................................................ 25,838,957 30,932,628 24,970,872 25,548,976 ¥289,981 ¥5,383,652 ∂578,104 

(Total amount appropriated) ........................................................... (26,533,587 ) (31,173,960 ) (25,141,204 ) (25,930,676 ) (¥602,911 ) (¥5,243,284 ) (∂789,472 ) (Rescissions) .................................................................................... (¥694,630 ) (¥241,332 ) (¥170,332 ) (¥381,700 ) (∂312,930 ) (¥140,368 ) (¥211,368 ) 

1 Totals include alternative financing costs, reimbursable agreement funding, and power purchase and wheeling expenditures. Offsetting collection totals reflect funds collected for annual expenses, including power purchase and wheeling. 
141 

GENERAL PROVISIONS—DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

The following list of general provisions is recommended by the 

Committee. The recommendation includes several provisions which 

have been included in previous Energy and Water Appropriations 

Acts and new provisions as follows: 

Section 301. Language is included on unexpended balances. 

Section 302. Language is included on user facilities. 

Section 303. Language is included specifically authorizing intelligence activities pending enactment of the fiscal year 2012 Intelligence Authorization Act. 

Section 304. The Committee has included a provision related to 

5-year budgeting. 

Section 305. The Committee has included language related to 

loan guarantee co-pay. 

Section 306. Language is included related to the minor construction threshold. 

Section 307. The Committee has included language related to 

minor construction threshold. 

Section 308. The Committee has included a provision on mandatory funding. 

Section 309. Language is included related to contractor pay 

freeze. 

Section 310. The Committee has included a provision on lighting 

standards. 

Section 311. The Committee has included a provision on the barter of uranium. 

Section 312. The Committee has included a provision on the use 

of metering stations. 
(142) 

TITLE IV 

INDEPENDENT AGENCIES 

APPALACHIAN REGIONAL COMMISSION

Appropriations, 2011 ............................................................................. $68,263,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ........................................................................... 76,000,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 68,400,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 58,024,000 

Established in 1965, the Appalachian Regional Commission is an 

economic development agency composed of 13 Appalachian States 

and a Federal co-chair appointed by the President. For fiscal year 

2012, the Committee recommends $58,024,000 for the ARC. 

DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2011 ............................................................................. $23,203,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ........................................................................... 29,130,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 29,130,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 29,130,000 

The Committee recommends $29,130,000, for the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board. The Committee carries a provision requiring the Board to enter into an agreement with an inspector 

general office from another agency for such services. 

DELTA REGIONAL AUTHORITY

Appropriations, 2011 ............................................................................. $11,677,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ........................................................................... 13,000,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 11,700,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 9,925,000 

For the Delta Regional Authority, the Committee recommends 

$9,925,000. The Delta Regional Authority was established to assist 

the eight State Mississippi Delta Region in obtaining basic infrastructure, transportation, skills training, and opportunities for economic development. 

DENALI COMMISSION

Appropriations, 2011 ............................................................................. ¥$4,321,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ........................................................................... 11,965,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 10,700,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 9,077,000 

The Denali Commission is a Federal-State partnership responsible for promoting infrastructure development, job training, and 

other economic development services in rural areas throughout 

Alaska. For fiscal year 2012, the Committee recommends 

$9,077,000. 
143 

NORTHERN BORDER REGIONAL COMMISSION

Appropriations, 2011 ............................................................................. $1,497,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ........................................................................... 1,500,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 1,350,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 1,275,000 

The Committee recommends $1,275,000 for the Northern Border 

Regional Commission. 

SOUTHEAST CRESCENT REGIONAL COMMISSION

Appropriations, 2011 ............................................................................. $250,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ........................................................................... ........................... 

House allowance .................................................................................... 250,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 212,500 

The Committee recommends $212,500 for the Southeast Crescent 

Regional Commission. 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2011 ............................................................................. $1,043,208,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ........................................................................... 1,027,240,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 1,037,240,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 1,027,240,000 

REVENUES

Appropriations, 2011 ............................................................................. ¥$906,220,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ........................................................................... ¥899,726,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... ¥890,713,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. ¥899,726,000 

NET APPROPRIATION

Appropriations, 2011 ............................................................................. $136,988,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ........................................................................... 127,514,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 146,527,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 127,514,000 

The Committee recommendation for the Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission for fiscal year 2012 is $1,027,240,000. This amount is 

offset by estimated revenues of $899,726,000 resulting in a net appropriation of $127,514,000. 

National Academy of Sciences Study.—At the recommendation of 

the Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future, the 

Committee directs the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to contract 

with the National Academy of Sciences [NAS] for a study of the lessons learned from the Fukushima nuclear disaster. The study 

should assess: 

—the causes of the crisis at Fukushima; 

—the lessons that can be learned; 

—the lessons’ implications for conclusions reached in earlier NAS 

studies on the safety and security of current storage arrangements for spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste in the 

United States, including an assessment of whether the amount 

of spent fuel currently stored in reactor pools should be reduced; 
144 

—the lessons’ implications for commercial nuclear reactor safety 

and security regulations; and 

—the potential to improve design basis threats assessment. 

This study shall build upon the 2004 NAS study of storage issues 

and complement the other efforts to learn from Fukushima that 

have already been launched by the NRC and industry. The Committee directs the Commission to proceed with its own efforts to 

improve regulations as expeditiously as possible. From the funds 

made available to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Committee directs the Commission to transfer $2,000,000 to the National Academy of Sciences to undertake this study. The Committee 

expects the Commission to execute this transfer within 30 days of 

enactment of this act. The study should be conducted in coordination with the Department of Energy and, if possible, the Japanese 

Government. The Committee expects the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Department of Energy, and the Department of State 

to assist the National Academy of Sciences in obtaining the information it needs to complete this study in a timely manner. 

Beyond Design-basis Events.—In light of recent earthquakes that 

exceeded the design basis of nuclear power plants in both Japan 

and the United States, the Committee encourages the Commission 

to evaluate whether it would be appropriate for the Commission to 

oversee, evaluate and test licensee beyond-design-basis event management guidelines and mitigation strategies in a more comprehensive manner, especially with regard to seismic and flooding events. 

Mitigating the Impact of Earthquakes.—The Committee is concerned that risks to public health and safety exist due to a lack of 

understanding how critical nuclear energy infrastructure, particularly storage ponds and containers for spent nuclear fuel and 

waste, will respond to a catastrophic earthquake or kinetic impact 

event. The Committee directs the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

[NRC] to develop protocols for the use of existing domestic seismic 

testing facilities, including the National Science Foundation’s National Earthquake Engineering Simulation [NEES] program, to 

conduct tests on full-scale specimens of critical nuclear infrastructure, in order to validate related computer models and inform subsequent mitigation strategies. The NRC shall collaborate with 

NEES to submit a related plan and proposed budget to the Committee by January 23, 2012. 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

GROSS APPROPRIATION

Appropriations, 2011 ............................................................................. $10,858,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ........................................................................... 10,860,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 10,860,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 10,860,000 

REVENUES

Appropriations, 2011 ............................................................................. ¥$9,774,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ........................................................................... ¥9,774,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... ¥9,774,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. ¥9,774,000 
145 

NET APPROPRIATION

Appropriations, 2011 ............................................................................. $1,084,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ........................................................................... 1,086,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 1,086,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 1,086,000 

The Committee recommends a net appropriation of $1,086,000. 

NUCLEAR WASTE TECHNICAL REVIEW BOARD

Appropriations, 2011 ............................................................................. $3,883,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ........................................................................... 3,400,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 3,400,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 3,400,000 

The Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board was established to 

evaluate the scientific and technical validity of the Department of 

Energy’s nuclear waste disposal program. The Board reports its 

findings no fewer than two times a year to Congress and to the 

Secretary of Energy. For fiscal year 2012, the Committee recommends $3,400,000. 

OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL COORDINATOR FOR ALASKA NATURAL GAS

TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS

Appropriation, 2011 ............................................................................... $4,457,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ........................................................................... 4,032,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 4,032,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 1,000,000 

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. The Committee recommends $1,000,000. The Committee notes that only one joint venture is still pursuing the design and construction of a natural gas 

pipeline from Alaska to the Lower 48. This joint venture continues 

with extensive financial support from the State of Alaska. The 

Committee further notes that the Office of the Federal Coordinator 

is legally allowed to receive funding from the companies for its 

work. The Committee urges the agency to take greater advantage 

of this potential funding source as the work of the agency directly 

benefits the companies. 

GENERAL PROVISIONS 

Section 401. The Committee carries a provision related to spent 

nuclear fuel. 

Section 402. The Committee carries a provision related to design 

basis. 
(146) 

TITLE V 

GENERAL PROVISIONS 

The following list of general provisions are recommended by the 

Committee. 

Section 501. The provision prohibits the use of any funds provided in this bill from being used to influence congressional action. 

Section 502. The provision addresses transfer authority under 

this act. 

PROGRAM, PROJECT AND ACTIVITY

In fiscal year 2012, for purposes of the Balanced Budget and 

Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (Public Law 99–177), as 

amended, the following information provides the definition of the 

term ‘‘program, project of activity’’ for departments and agencies 

under the jurisdiction of the Energy and Water Development Appropriation bill. The term ‘‘program, project or activity’’ shall include the most specific level of budget items identified in the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Bill, 2012 and the report accompanying the bill. 

If a sequestration order is necessary, in implementing the Presidential order, departments and agencies shall apply any percentage 

reduction required for fiscal year 2012 pursuant to the provisions 

of Public Law 99–177 to all item specified in the report accompanying the bill by the Senate Committee on Appropriations in 

support of the fiscal year 2012 budget estimates as modified by 

congressional action. 
(147) 

TITLE VI 

EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL FUNDING FOR DISASTER 

RELIEF 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE—CIVIL 

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—CIVIL

Natural disasters have impacted a large part of the Nation this 

year. The Committee recognizes that some of these disasters are 

on-going such as the flood on the Missouri River as well as the 

flooding and devastation caused by Hurricane Irene in late August 

and early September. The Corps of Engineers has dutifully attempted to provide the Committee with information concerning 

damaged Federal flood control, storm damage, navigation and other 

infrastructure associated with these Federal projects as waters recede and the damages can be assessed. The funding provided under 

this title represents the verifiable damages provided by the Corps. 

The Committee recognizes that as the waters recede and additional 

damage assessments are made, that funding needs will increase. 

Those needs as they become known and verifiable will be addressed 

by the Committee at a later date. These funds are not earmarked 

and the Corps should utilize them for the highest priority disaster 

needs. 

MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES

The Mississippi River and Tributaries Project has suffered a 

record flood event, in many cases surpassing the 1927 and 1937 

floods. For only the second time ever and the first time since 1937, 

the Corps has had to operate the Birds Point-New Madrid 

Floodway. Because of the rarity of the use of this floodway, there 

is no structure to open or close. The Corps had to literally blow up 

sections of the levee in order to keep from overtopping levees on 

the Mississippi River. This floodway was designed as one of four 

floodways to help pass the project design flood on the Mississippi 

River. Floodways at Morganza and Bonnet Carre ́ in Louisiana were 

operated as well to ensure that levees were not overtopped in this 

reach of the river. 

While these structures operated as planned, repairs will be necessary. The Birds Point-New Madrid levee has to be rebuilt as well 

as damages to the structures at Morganza and Bonnet Carre ́ due 

to high flows and scouring. Numerous navigation structures that 

provide reliable navigation widths and depths on the Mississippi 

River were damaged by these unprecedented flows. Seepage under 

and through levees caused damages to the levees. Bank protection 

measures were impacted as well as tremendous amounts of silt de-
148 

posited in navigable harbors. Recreation facilities were, in some 

cases, obliterated by the torrent of water that inexorably raged 

downstream. 

All of these damages must be repaired if the Mississippi River 

and Tributaries project is to provide similar protection for future 

events. The Committee has included $890,177,300 to allow the 

Corps to address these repairs. Lessons learned from prior disasters should be put to use in making these repairs as expeditiously 

as possible. The Committee has also included language directing a 

report of the allocation and obligation of these funds within 60 days 

of enactment of this act. 

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

Projects that are part of the Mississippi River and Tributaries 

project were not the only items damaged by flood events. The flood 

on the Mississippi River moved tremendous amounts of sediment 

downstream clogging harbors and navigation channels. This sediment will have to be removed to restore the authorized widths and 

depths to these projects. Corps infrastructure has been damaged by 

high flows and scouring. Repairs to these facilities will have to be 

made if they are to provide similar functions in the future. The 

Committee has included $88,003,700 to allow the Corps to address 

these repairs. Lessons learned from prior disasters should be put 

to use in making these repairs as expeditiously as possible. The 

Committee has also included language directing a report of the allocation and obligation of these funds within 60 days of enactment 

of this act. 

FLOOD CONTROL AND COASTAL EMERGENCIES

The Corps participated in many flood fights alongside numerous 

local and State agencies. Most of these were successful. However, 

on the Missouri River, a few levees have failed that protect primarily agricultural lands. These levees will have to be rebuilt. 

Damages to levees and structures that are part of the Federal levee 

system that experienced damages due to seepage and erosion will 

have to be repaired if these levees are to reliably protect the areas 

from the next high water event. The Corps must take actions necessary to ensure that they are prepared for the inevitable natural 

disasters of the future. The Committee has included $66,387,000 

for the Corps to address these repairs and for other activities related to responding and preparing for natural disasters. Lessons 

learned from prior disasters should be put to use in making these 

repairs as expeditiously as possible. The Committee has also included language directing a report of the allocation and obligation 

of these funds within 60 days of enactment of this act. 
(149) 

COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 7, RULE XVI, OF THE 

STANDING RULES OF THE SENATE 

Paragraph 7 of rule XVI requires that Committee reports on general appropriations bills identify each Committee amendment to 

the House bill ‘‘which proposes an item of appropriation which is 

not made to carry out the provisions of an existing law, a treaty 

stipulation, or an act or resolution previously passed by the Senate 

during that session.’’ 

The Committee recommends funding for the following programs 

or activities which currently lack authorization for fiscal year 2012: 

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers: General Investigations; Construction, General; Mississippi River and Tributaries; Operations 

and Maintenance; Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program; 

Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation; 

Water and Related Resources; 

Department of Energy: Energy Conservation and Supply Activities: 

Office of Fossil Energy: Fossil Energy R&D, Clean Coal, Naval 

Petroleum and Oil Shale Research; 

Health, Safety and Security; 

Non-Defense Environmental Management; 

Office of Science; 

Department of Administration; 

National Nuclear Security Administration: Weapons Activities; 

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation; Naval Reactors; Office of the Administrator; 

Defense Environmental Management, Defense Site Acceleration 

Completion; 

Other Defense Activities; 

Defense Nuclear Waste Fund; 

Office of Security and Performance Assurance; 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission; 

Power Marketing Administrations: Southeastern, Southwestern, 

Western Area; and 

Energy Information Administration. 

COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 7(c), RULE XXVI, OF THE 

STANDING RULES OF THE SENATE 

Pursuant to paragraph 7(c) of rule XXVI, on September 7, 2011, 

the Committee ordered favorably reported en bloc the fiscal year 

2012 budget allocation a proposed by the Chairman, and a bill 

(H.R. 2112) making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2012, and for other 

purposes, with an amendment in the nature of a substitute; a bill 

(H.R. 2354) making appropriations for energy and water develop-
150 

ment and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 

2012, and for other purposes, with an amendment in the nature of 

a substitute; and a bill (H.R 2017) making appropriations for the 

Department of Homeland Security for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2012, and for other purposes, with an amendment in 

the nature of a substitute; provided, that each bill be subject to further amendment and that each bill be consistent with its spending 

allocations, by a recorded vote of 29–1, a quorum being present. 

The vote was as follows: 

Yeas Nays 

Chairman Inouye Mr. Johnson (WI) 

Mr. Leahy 

Mr. Harkin 

Ms. Mikulski 

Mr. Kohl 

Mrs. Murray 

Mrs. Feinstein 

Mr. Durbin 

Mr. Johnson (SD) 

Ms. Landrieu 

Mr. Reed 

Mr. Lautenberg 

Mr. Nelson 

Mr. Pryor 

Mr. Tester 

Mr. Brown 

Mr. Cochran 

Mr. McConnell 

Mr. Shelby 

Mrs. Hutchison 

Mr. Alexander 

Ms. Collins 

Ms. Murkowski 

Mr. Graham 

Mr. Kirk 

Mr. Coats 

Mr. Blunt 

Mr. Moran 

Mr. Hoeven 

COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 12, RULE XXVI, OF THE 

STANDING RULES OF THE SENATE 

Paragraph 12 of rule XXVI requires that Committee reports on 

a bill or joint resolution repealing or amending any statute or part 

of any statute include ‘‘(a) the text of the statute or part thereof 

which is proposed to be repealed; and (b) a comparative print of 

that part of the bill or joint resolution making the amendment and 

of the statute or part thereof proposed to be amended, showing by 

stricken-through type and italics, parallel columns, or other appropriate typographical devices the omissions and insertions which 

would be made by the bill or joint resolution if enacted in the form 

recommended by the Committee.’’ 
151 

In compliance with this rule, changes in existing law proposed to 

be made by the bill are shown as follows: existing law to be omitted 

is enclosed in black brackets; new matter is printed in italic; and 

existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in roman. 

TITLE 16—CONSERVATION 

CHAPTER 12H—PACIFIC NORTHWEST ELECTRIC POWER

PLANNING AND CONSERVATION

§ 839b. Regional planning and participation 

(a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(h) Fish and wildlife 

(1)(A) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(10)(A) * * * 

(B) The Administrator may make expenditures from such 

fund which shall be included in the annual or supplementary 

budgets submitted to the Congress pursuant to the Federal Columbia River Transmission System Act [16 U.S.C. 838 et seq.]. 

Any amounts included in such budget for the construction of 

capital facilities with an estimated life of greater than 15 years 

and an estimated cost of at least ø$1,000,000¿ $5,000,000 shall 

be funded in the same manner and in accordance with the 

same procedures as major transmission facilities under the 

Federal Columbia River Transmission System Act. 

TITLE 42—THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE 

CHAPTER 149—NATIONAL ENERGY POLICY AND PROGRAMS

SUBCHAPTER XV—INCENTIVES FOR INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES

§ 16512. Terms and conditions 

(a) In general 

Except for division C of Public Law 108–324 [15 U.S.C. 720 et 

seq.], the Secretary shall make guarantees under this or any 

other Act for projects on such terms and conditions as the Secretary determines, after consultation with the Secretary of the 

Treasury, only in accordance with this section. 

ø(b) Specific appropriation or contribution 

øNo guarantee shall be made unless— 

ø(1) an appropriation for the cost has been made; or 

ø(2) the Secretary has received from the borrower a payment in full for the cost of the obligation and deposited the 

payment into the Treasury.¿ 

ƒ(b) SPECIFIC APPROPRIATION OR CONTRIBUTION.— 

ƒ(1) IN GENERAL.— 

ƒ(A) an appropriation for the cost of the guarantee has 

been made; 
152 

ƒ(B) the Secretary has received from the borrower a 

payment in full for the cost of the guarantee and deposited 

the payment into the Treasury; or 

ƒ(C) a combination of one or more appropriations 

under subparagraph (A) and one or more payments from 

the borrower under subparagraph (B) has been made that 

is sufficient to cover the cost of the guarantee.≈ 

(b) SPECIFIC APPROPRIATION OR CONTRIBUTION.— (1) IN GENERAL.—No guarantee shall be made unless.— 

(A) an appropriation for the cost of the guarantee has 

been made; 

(B) the Secretary has received from the borrower a payment in full for the cost of the guarantee and deposited the 

payment into the Treasury; 

(C) a combination of one or more appropriations under 

subparagraph (A) and one or more payments from the borrower under subparagraph (B) has been made that is sufficient to cover the cost of the guarantee. 

* * * * * * * 

WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT, 1996, PUBLIC 

LAW 104–303 

TITLE III—PROJECT-RELATED 

PROVISIONS 

SEC. 333. PASSAIC RIVER, NEW JERSEY. 

Section 1148 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 

(100 Stat. 4254) is amended to read as follows: 

‘‘SEC. 1148. PASSAIC RIVER BASIN. 

‘‘(a) ACQUISITION OF LANDS.—The Secretary may acquire from 

willing sellers lands on which residential structures are located and 

that are subject to frequent and recurring flood damage, as identified in the supplemental floodway report of the Corps of Engineers, 

Passaic River Buyout Study, September 1995, at an estimated total 

cost of $194,000,000. ‘‘ø(b) RETENTION OF LANDS FOR FLOOD PROTECTION.—Lands 

acquired by the Secretary under this section shall be retained by 

the Secretary for future use in conjunction with flood protection 

and flood management in the Passaic River Basin.¿ 

(b) DISPOSITION OF ACQUIRED LAND.—The Secretary may transfer land acquired under this section to the non-Federal sponsor by 

quitclaim deed subject to such terms and conditions as the Secretary determines to be in the public interest. 

‘‘(c) COST SHARING.—The non-Federal share of the cost of carrying out this section shall be 25 percent plus any amount that 

might result from application of subsection (d). 

‘‘(d) APPLICABILITY OF BENEFIT-COST RATIO WAIVER AUTHORITY.—In evaluating and implementing the project under this section, the Secretary shall allow the non-Federal interest to participate in the financing of the project in accordance with section 
153 

903(c), to the extent that the Secretary’s evaluation indicates that 

applying such section is necessary to implement the project.’’. 

(e) FUNDS FOR LAND ACQUISITION.—Funds for acquiring such 

lands as are necessary in carrying out the requirements of this section and requirements as further recommended by the Secretary 

shall include funds as provided in subsection (c) and (d) of this section herein and also funds as previously appropriated with any and 

all such funds to be held by the Secretary for use in acquiring the 

requisite lands in proportion to the project cost sharing percentages. 

WATER DESALINATION ACT, 1996, PUBLIC LAW 104–298 

SEC. 8. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. 

(a) SECTION 3.—There are authorized to be appropriated to 

carry out section 3 of this Act $5,000,000 per year for fiscal years 

1997 through ø2011¿ 2016. Of these amounts, up to $1,000,000 in 

each fiscal year may be awarded to institutions of higher education, 

including United States-Mexico binational research foundations 

and interuniversity research programs established by the two countries, for research grants without any cost-sharing requirement. 

(b) SECTION 4.—There are authorized to be appropriated to 

carry out section 4 of this Act ø$25,000,000 for fiscal years 1997 

through 2011¿ $3,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2012 through 

2016. 

WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT, 2000, PUBLIC 

LAW 106–541 

TITLE V—MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS 

SEC. 529. LAS VEGAS, NEVADA. 

(a) DEFINITIONS.— * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(b) PARTICIPATION IN PROJECT.— * * * 

(1) IN GENERAL.— * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(3) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized to be appropriated ø$20,000,000¿ $30,000,000 to carry out 

this section. 
154 

FARM SECURITY AND RURAL INVESTMENT ACT, 2002, 

PUBLIC LAW 107–171 

TITLE II—CONSERVATION 

Subtitle F—Other Conservation Programs 

SEC. 2507. DESERT TERMINAL LAKES. 

(a) TRANSFER.— * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(b) PERMITTED USES.—øIn any case in which there are willing 

sellers¿ For the benefit of at-risk natural desert terminal lakes and 

associated riparian and watershed resources, in any case in which 

there are willing sellers or willing participants, the funds described 

in subsection (a) may be used— 

(1) to lease water; 

(2) to purchase land, water appurtenant to the land, and 

related interests øin the Walker River Basin in accordance 

with section 208(a)(1)(A) of the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, 2006 (Public Law 109–103; 119 Stat. 

2268)¿; and 

(3) for efforts consistent with researching, supporting, 

andconserving fish, wildlife, plant, and habitat resources øin 

the Walker River Basin¿. 

OMNIBUS PUBLIC LAND MANAGEMENT ACT, 2009, 

PUBLIC LAW 111–11 

TITLE X—WATER SETTLEMENTS 

Subtitle A—San Joaquin River Restoration 

Settlement 

PART I—SAN JOAQUIN RIVER RESTORATION 

SETTLEMENT ACT 

SEC. 10009. APPROPRIATIONS; SETTLEMENT FUND. 

(a) IMPLEMENTATION COSTS.— * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(c) FUND.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.— * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(2) AVAILABILITY.—All funds deposited into the Fund pursuant to subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) of paragraph (1) are 

authorized for appropriation to implement the Settlement and 

this part, in addition to the authorization provided in subsections (a) and (b) of section 10203, except that $88,000,000 

of such funds are available for expenditure without further appropriation; provided that after øOctober 1, 2019, all funds in 
155 

the Fund shall be available for expenditure without further appropriation.¿ October 1, 2014, all funds in the Fund shall be 

available for expenditure on an annual basis in an amount not 

to exceed $40,000,000 without further appropriation. 

ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT AND RELATED 

AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS, 2010, PUBLIC LAW 111–85 

TITLE II 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

GENERAL PROVISIONS—DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

SEC. 208. (a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(b)(1) The amount made available under subsection (a)(1) shall 

be— 

(A) * * * 

(B) allocated as follows: 

(i) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(iv) $10,000,000 for associated conservation and stewardship activities, including water conservation and management, watershed planning, land stewardship, habitat 

restoration, and the establishment of a local, nonprofit entity to hold and øexercise water rights¿ manage land, 

water appurtenat to the land, and related interests acquired by, and to achieve the purposes of, the Walker 

Basin Restoration Program. 

* * * * * * * 

(2)(A) øThe amount made available under subsection (a)(1) 

shall be provided to the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation¿ Any amount made available to the National Fish and 

Wildlife Foundation under subsection (a) shall be provided— 
156 

BUDGETARY IMPACT OF BILL 

PREPARED IN CONSULTATION WITH THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE PURSUANT TO SEC. 

308(a), PUBLIC LAW 93–344, AS AMENDED 

[In millions of dollars] 

Budget authority Outlays 

Committee 

allocation 

Amount 

of bill 

Committee 

allocation 

Amount 

of bill 

Comparison of amounts in the bill with Committee allocations 

to its subcommittees of amounts in the Budget Resolution 

for 2012: Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development: 

Mandatory ............................................................................ .................... .................... .................... ....................

Discretionary ........................................................................ 31,625 32,670 45,071 1 45,838 

Security ....................................................................... 11,050 11,050 NA NA 

Nonsecurity ................................................................. 20,575 21,620 NA NA 

Projections of outlays associated with the recommendation: 

2012 ..................................................................................... .................... .................... .................... 2 19,500 

2013 ..................................................................................... .................... .................... .................... 9,315 

2014 ..................................................................................... .................... .................... .................... 3,038 

2015 ..................................................................................... .................... .................... .................... 580 

2016 and future years ........................................................ .................... .................... .................... 181 

Financial assistance to State and local governments for 

2012 ......................................................................................... NA 71 NA 15 

1 Includes outlays from prior-year budget authority. 

2 Excludes outlays from prior-year budget authority. 

NA: Not applicable. 

Consistent with the funding recommended in the bill for disaster funding and in accordance with section 251(b)(2)(D) of the BBEDCA and 

section 106 of the Deficit Control Act of 2011, the Committee anticipates that the Budget Committee will file a revised section 302(a) allocation for the Committee on Appropriations reflecting an upward adjustment of $1,045,000,000 in budget authority plus associated outlays. 
157 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2011 appropriation Budget estimate House allowance Committee recommendation 

Senate Committee recommendation compared with (∂ or 

¥) 

2012 

appropriation Budget estimate House allowance 

TITLE I—DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE—CIVIL 

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY 

Corps of Engineers—Civil 

Investigations ......................................................................................................... 126,746 104,000 104,000 125,000 ¥1,746 ∂21,000 ∂21,000 Construction ........................................................................................................... 1,789,822 1,480,000 1,615,191 1,610,000 ¥179,822 ∂130,000 ¥5,191 

Rescission ..................................................................................................... ¥176,000 .......................... ¥50,000 .......................... ∂176,000 .......................... ∂50,000 

Subtotal .................................................................................................... 1,613,822 1,480,000 1,565,191 1,610,000 ¥3,822 ∂130,000 ∂44,809 

Mississippi River and tributaries .......................................................................... 263,906 210,000 210,000 250,000 ¥13,906 ∂40,000 ∂40,000 

Rescission ..................................................................................................... ¥22,000 ¥23,000 .......................... .......................... ∂22,000 ∂23,000 ..........................Rescission of emergency funding (Sec. 105) ............................................... .......................... ¥35,000 .......................... .......................... .......................... ∂35,000 ..........................

Subtotal .................................................................................................... 241,906 152,000 210,000 250,000 ∂8,094 ∂98,000 ∂40,000 

Operations and maintenance ................................................................................. 2,365,759 2,314,000 2,368,925 2,360,000 ¥5,759 ∂46,000 ¥8,925 Regulatory program ................................................................................................ 189,620 196,000 196,000 193,000 ∂3,380 ¥3,000 ¥3,000 FUSRAP ................................................................................................................... 129,740 109,000 109,000 109,000 ¥20,740 .......................... ..........................Flood control and coastal emergencies ................................................................. .......................... 27,000 27,000 27,000 ∂27,000 .......................... ..........................Expenses ................................................................................................................. 184,630 185,000 177,640 185,000 ∂370 .......................... ∂7,360 Office of Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) ....................................... 4,990 6,000 5,000 5,000 ∂10 ¥1,000 ..........................

Total, title I, Department of Defense—Civil ............................................ 4,857,213 4,573,000 4,762,756 4,864,000 ∂6,787 ∂291,000 ∂101,244 

Appropriations .................................................................................. (5,055,213 ) (4,631,000 ) (4,812,756 ) (4,864,000 ) (¥191,213 ) (∂233,000 ) (∂51,244 ) Rescissions ...................................................................................... (¥198,000 ) (¥23,000 ) (¥50,000 ) .......................... (∂198,000 ) (∂23,000 ) (∂50,000 ) Rescissions of emergency funding .................................................. .......................... (¥35,000 ) .......................... .......................... .......................... (∂35,000 ) ..........................
158 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2011 appropriation Budget estimate House allowance Committee recommendation 

Senate Committee recommendation compared with (∂ or 

¥) 

2012 

appropriation Budget estimate House allowance 

TITLE II—DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Central Utah Project Completion Account 

Central Utah project construction ......................................................................... .......................... 29,441 25,154 25,441 ∂25,441 ¥4,000 ∂287 Fish, wildlife, and recreation mitigation and conservation .................................. .......................... 2,000 2,000 2,000 ∂2,000 .......................... ..........................

Subtotal .................................................................................................... .......................... 31,441 27,154 27,441 ∂27,441 ¥4,000 ∂287 

Program oversight and administration .................................................................. .......................... 1,550 1,550 1,550 ∂1,550 .......................... ..........................Undistributed funding level ................................................................................... 31,940 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥31,940 .......................... ..........................

Total, Central Utah project completion account ...................................... 31,940 32,991 28,704 28,991 ¥2,949 ¥4,000 ∂287 

Bureau of Reclamation 

Water and related resources .................................................................................. 911,673 805,187 822,300 885,670 ¥26,003 ∂80,483 ∂63,370 Central Valley project restoration fund ................................................................. 49,914 53,068 53,068 53,068 ∂3,154 .......................... ..........................California Bay-Delta restoration ............................................................................ 39,920 39,651 35,928 39,651 ¥269 .......................... ∂3,723 Policy and administration ...................................................................................... 61,078 60,000 60,000 60,000 ¥1,078 .......................... ..........................Indian water rights settlements ............................................................................ .......................... 51,483 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥51,483 ..........................San Joaquin restoration fund ................................................................................ .......................... 9,000 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥9,000 ..........................

Rescission ..................................................................................................... .......................... .......................... ¥66,000 .......................... .......................... .......................... ∂66,000 

Subtotal .................................................................................................... .......................... 9,000 ¥66,000 .......................... .......................... ¥9,000 ∂66,000 Total, Bureau of Reclamation .................................................................. 1,062,585 1,018,389 905,296 1,038,389 ¥24,196 ∂20,000 ∂133,093 Total, title II, Department of the Interior ................................................. 1,094,525 1,051,380 934,000 1,067,380 ¥27,145 ∂16,000 ∂133,380 
159 

TITLE III—DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Energy Programs 

Energy efficiency and renewable energy ............................................................... 1,825,641 3,200,053 1,308,436 1,795,641 ¥30,000 ¥1,404,412 ∂487,205 

Rescission ..................................................................................................... ¥30,000 .......................... .......................... .......................... ∂30,000 .......................... ..........................

Subtotal .................................................................................................... 1,795,641 3,200,053 1,308,436 1,795,641 .......................... ¥1,404,412 ∂487,205 

Electricity delivery and energy reliability ............................................................... 144,710 237,717 139,496 141,010 ¥3,700 ¥96,707 ∂1,514 

Rescission ..................................................................................................... ¥3,700 .......................... .......................... .......................... ∂3,700 .......................... ..........................

Subtotal .................................................................................................... 141,010 237,717 139,496 141,010 .......................... ¥96,707 ∂1,514 

Nuclear energy ....................................................................................................... 732,124 754,028 733,633 583,834 ¥148,290 ¥170,194 ¥149,799 

Rescission ..................................................................................................... ¥6,300 .......................... .......................... .......................... ∂6,300 .......................... ..........................

Subtotal .................................................................................................... 725,824 754,028 733,633 583,834 ¥141,990 ¥170,194 ¥149,799 

Fossil energy research and development .............................................................. 584,529 452,975 476,993 445,471 ¥139,058 ¥7,504 ¥31,522 

Rescission ..................................................................................................... ¥140,000 .......................... .......................... ¥187,000 ¥47,000 ¥187,000 ¥187,000 

Subtotal .................................................................................................... 444,529 452,975 476,993 258,471 ¥186,058 ¥194,504 ¥218,522 

Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves .............................................................. 22,954 14,909 14,909 14,909 ¥8,045 .......................... ..........................

Rescission ..................................................................................................... ¥2,100 .......................... .......................... .......................... ∂2,100 .......................... ..........................

Subtotal .................................................................................................... 20,854 14,909 14,909 14,909 ¥5,945 .......................... ..........................

Strategic petroleum reserve ................................................................................... 209,441 192,704 192,704 192,704 ¥16,737 .......................... ..........................

Rescission ..................................................................................................... ¥86,300 ¥71,000 .......................... .......................... ∂86,300 ∂71,000 ..........................

Subtotal .................................................................................................... 123,141 121,704 192,704 192,704 ∂69,563 ∂71,000 ..........................

SPR petroleum account .......................................................................................... .......................... ¥250,000 ¥500,000 ¥500,000 ¥500,000 ¥250,000 ..........................Clean coal technology (rescission) ........................................................................ ¥16,500 .......................... .......................... .......................... ∂16,500 .......................... ..........................Northeast home heating oil reserve ...................................................................... 10,978 10,119 10,119 10,119 ¥859 .......................... ..........................

Rescission ..................................................................................................... .......................... ¥100,000 ¥100,000 ¥100,000 ¥100,000 .......................... ..........................

Subtotal .................................................................................................... 10,978 ¥89,881 ¥89,881 ¥89,881 ¥100,859 .......................... ..........................

Energy Information Administration ........................................................................ 95,409 123,957 105,000 105,000 ∂9,591 ¥18,957 ..........................

Rescission ..................................................................................................... ¥400 .......................... .......................... .......................... ∂400 .......................... ..........................
160 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2011 appropriation Budget estimate House allowance Committee recommendation 

Senate Committee recommendation compared with (∂ or 

¥) 

2012 

appropriation Budget estimate House allowance 

Subtotal .................................................................................................... 95,009 123,957 105,000 105,000 ∂9,991 ¥18,957 ..........................

Non-defense environmental clean up .................................................................... 224,350 219,121 254,121 219,121 ¥5,229 .......................... ¥35,000 

Rescission ..................................................................................................... ¥900 .......................... .......................... .......................... ∂900 .......................... ..........................

Subtotal .................................................................................................... 223,450 219,121 254,121 219,121 ¥4,329 .......................... ¥35,000 

Uranium enrichment decontamination and decommissioning fund ..................... 506,984 504,169 449,000 429,000 ¥77,984 ¥75,169 ¥20,000 

Rescission ..................................................................................................... ¥9,900 .......................... .......................... .......................... ∂9,900 .......................... ..........................

Subtotal .................................................................................................... 497,084 504,169 449,000 429,000 ¥68,084 ¥75,169 ¥20,000 

Science ................................................................................................................... 4,857,665 5,416,114 4,800,000 4,842,665 ¥15,000 ¥573,449 ∂42,665 

Rescission ..................................................................................................... ¥15,000 .......................... .......................... .......................... ∂15,000 .......................... ..........................

Subtotal .................................................................................................... 4,842,665 5,416,114 4,800,000 4,842,665 .......................... ¥573,449 ∂42,665 

Nuclear Waste Disposal ......................................................................................... .......................... .......................... 25,000 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥25,000 

Rescission ..................................................................................................... ¥2,800 .......................... .......................... .......................... ∂2,800 .......................... ..........................

Subtotal .................................................................................................... ¥2,800 .......................... 25,000 .......................... ∂2,800 .......................... ¥25,000 

Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy ......................................................... 179,640 550,011 179,640 250,000 ∂70,360 ¥300,011 ∂70,360 Innovative Technology Loan Guarantee Program ................................................... 58,000 38,000 38,000 38,000 ¥20,000 .......................... ..........................

Offsetting collection ...................................................................................... ¥58,000 ¥38,000 ¥38,000 ¥38,000 ∂20,000 .......................... ..........................Loan volume rescission ................................................................................. ¥181,830 .......................... .......................... .......................... ∂181,830 .......................... ..........................Additional loan volume ................................................................................. 11,830 360,000 .......................... .......................... ¥11,830 ¥360,000 ..........................Federal participation in Title 17 loan guarantee projects ........................... .......................... 500,000 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥500,000 ..........................Additional subsidy cost ................................................................................. 169,660 200,000 160,000 200,000 ∂30,340 .......................... ∂40,000 

Subtotal .................................................................................................... ¥340 1,060,000 160,000 200,000 ∂200,340 ¥860,000 ∂40,000 
161 

Advanced technology vehicles manufacturing loans program .............................. 9,978 6,000 6,000 6,000 ¥3,978 .......................... ..........................Better buildings pilot loan guarantee initiative: 

Loan guarantees ........................................................................................... .......................... 100,000 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥100,000 ..........................Administrative costs ..................................................................................... .......................... 5,000 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥5,000 ..........................

Subtotal .................................................................................................... .......................... 105,000 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥105,000 ..........................

Departmental administration ................................................................................. 250,139 240,623 63,374 237,623 ¥12,516 ¥3,000 ∂174,249 

Miscellaneous revenues ................................................................................ ¥119,501 ¥111,883 ¥111,883 ¥111,883 ∂7,618 .......................... ..........................

Net appropriation ...................................................................................... 130,638 128,740 ¥48,509 125,740 ¥4,898 ¥3,000 ∂174,249 

Rescission ..................................................................................................... ¥81,900 .......................... .......................... .......................... ∂81,900 .......................... ..........................

Subtotal .................................................................................................... 48,738 128,740 ¥48,509 125,740 ∂77,002 ¥3,000 ∂174,249 

Office of the Inspector General ............................................................................. 42,764 41,774 41,774 41,774 ¥990 .......................... ..........................

Total, Energy programs ............................................................................ 9,181,665 12,596,391 8,248,316 8,615,988 ¥565,677 ¥3,980,403 ∂367,672 

Atomic Energy Defense Activities 

National Nuclear Security Administration 

Weapons activities ................................................................................................. 6,946,398 7,629,716 7,131,993 7,190,000 ∂243,602 ¥439,716 ∂58,007 

Rescission ..................................................................................................... ¥50,000 ¥40,332 ¥40,332 .......................... ∂50,000 ∂40,332 ∂40,332 

Subtotal .................................................................................................... 6,896,398 7,589,384 7,091,661 7,190,000 ∂293,602 ¥399,384 ∂98,339 

Defense nuclear nonproliferation ........................................................................... 2,318,653 2,549,492 2,121,770 2,404,300 ∂85,647 ¥145,192 ∂282,530 

Rescission ..................................................................................................... ¥45,000 ¥30,000 ¥30,000 ¥21,000 ∂24,000 ∂9,000 ∂9,000 

Subtotal .................................................................................................... 2,273,653 2,519,492 2,091,770 2,383,300 ∂109,647 ¥136,192 ∂291,530 

Naval reactors ........................................................................................................ 960,176 1,153,662 1,030,600 1,100,000 ∂139,824 ¥53,662 ∂69,400 

Rescission ..................................................................................................... ¥1,000 .......................... .......................... .......................... ∂1,000 .......................... ..........................

Subtotal .................................................................................................... 959,176 1,153,662 1,030,600 1,100,000 ∂140,824 ¥53,662 ∂69,400 

Office of the Administrator .................................................................................... 398,993 450,060 400,000 404,000 ∂5,007 ¥46,060 ∂4,000 

Rescission ..................................................................................................... ¥5,700 .......................... .......................... .......................... ∂5,700 .......................... ..........................

Subtotal .................................................................................................... 393,293 450,060 400,000 404,000 ∂10,707 ¥46,060 ∂4,000 
162 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2011 appropriation Budget estimate House allowance Committee recommendation 

Senate Committee recommendation compared with (∂ or 

¥) 

2012 

appropriation Budget estimate House allowance 

General Provision 

Section 309—Contractor pay freeze: 

Security (rescission) ...................................................................................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥27,300 ¥27,300 ¥27,300 ¥27,300 

Total, National Nuclear Security Administration ...................................... 10,522,520 11,712,598 10,614,031 11,050,000 ∂527,480 ¥662,598 ∂435,969 

Environmental and Other Defense Activities 

Defense environmental cleanup ............................................................................. 4,991,638 5,406,781 4,937,619 5,002,308 ∂10,670 ¥404,473 ∂64,689 

(Transfer to Uranium enrichment decontamination and decommissioning 

fund) ......................................................................................................... (¥33,633 ) .......................... .......................... .......................... (∂33,633 ) .......................... ..........................

Rescission ..................................................................................................... ¥11,900 .......................... .......................... .......................... ∂11,900 .......................... ..........................

Subtotal .................................................................................................... 4,979,738 5,406,781 4,937,619 5,002,308 ∂22,570 ¥404,473 ∂64,689 

Other defense activities ......................................................................................... 788,420 859,952 814,000 819,000 ∂30,580 ¥40,952 ∂5,000 

Rescission ..................................................................................................... ¥3,400 .......................... .......................... .......................... ∂3,400 .......................... ..........................

Subtotal .................................................................................................... 785,020 859,952 814,000 819,000 ∂33,980 ¥40,952 ∂5,000 Total, Environmental and other defense activities .................................. 5,764,758 6,266,733 5,751,619 5,821,308 ∂56,550 ¥445,425 ∂69,689 Total, Atomic Energy Defense Activities ................................................... 16,287,278 17,979,331 16,365,650 16,871,308 ∂584,030 ¥1,108,023 ∂505,658 

Power Marketing Administrations 1

Operation and maintenance, Southeastern Power Administration ........................ 78,444 8,428 8,428 8,428 ¥70,016 .......................... ..........................

Offsetting collections .................................................................................... ¥78,444 ¥8,428 ¥8,428 ¥8,428 ∂70,016 .......................... ..........................

Subtotal .................................................................................................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................

Operation and maintenance, Southwestern Power Administration ....................... 82,918 45,010 45,010 45,010 ¥37,908 .......................... ..........................
163 

Offsetting collection ...................................................................................... ¥69,868 ¥33,118 ¥33,118 ¥33,118 ∂36,750 .......................... ..........................

Subtotal .................................................................................................... 13,050 11,892 11,892 11,892 ¥1,158 .......................... ..........................

Construction, rehabilitation, operation and maintenance, Western Area Power 

Administration ................................................................................................... 610,179 285,900 285,900 285,900 ¥324,279 .......................... ..........................

Offsetting collections .................................................................................... ¥497,337 ¥189,932 ¥189,932 ¥189,932 ∂307,405 .......................... ..........................Offsetting collection Colorado River Dam Fund ........................................... ¥3,879 .......................... .......................... .......................... ∂3,879 .......................... ..........................

Subtotal .................................................................................................... 108,963 95,968 95,968 95,968 ¥12,995 .......................... ..........................

Falcon and Amistad operating and maintenance fund ........................................ 2,568 4,169 4,169 4,169 ∂1,601 .......................... ..........................

Offsetting collections .................................................................................... ¥2,348 ¥3,949 ¥3,949 ¥3,949 ¥1,601 .......................... ..........................

Subtotal .................................................................................................... 220 220 220 220 .......................... .......................... ..........................Total, Power Marketing Administrations .................................................. 122,233 108,080 108,080 108,080 ¥14,153 .......................... ..........................

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

Salaries and expenses ........................................................................................... 298,000 304,600 304,600 304,600 ∂6,600 .......................... ..........................Revenues applied ................................................................................................... ¥298,000 ¥304,600 ¥304,600 ¥304,600 ¥6,600 .......................... ..........................

General Provision 

Section 309—Contractor pay freeze: 

Non security (rescission) ............................................................................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥46,400 ¥46,400 ¥46,400 ¥46,400 

Total, title III, Department of Energy ....................................................... 25,591,176 30,683,802 24,722,046 25,548,976 ¥42,200 ¥5,134,826 ∂826,930 

Appropriations .................................................................................. (26,285,806 ) (30,925,134 ) (24,892,378 ) (25,930,676 ) (¥355,130 ) (¥4,994,458 ) (∂1,038,298 ) Rescissions ...................................................................................... (¥694,630 ) (¥241,332 ) (¥170,332 ) (¥381,700 ) (∂312,930 ) (¥140,368 ) (¥211,368 ) 

TITLE IV—INDEPENDENT AGENCIES 

Appalachian Regional Commission ....................................................................... 68,263 76,000 68,400 58,024 ¥10,239 ¥17,976 ¥10,376 Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board ............................................................... 23,203 29,130 29,130 29,130 ∂5,927 .......................... ..........................Delta Regional Authority ........................................................................................ 11,677 13,000 11,700 9,925 ¥1,752 ¥3,075 ¥1,775 Denali Commission ................................................................................................ 10,679 11,965 10,700 9,077 ¥1,602 ¥2,888 ¥1,623 

Rescission ..................................................................................................... ¥15,000 .......................... .......................... .......................... ∂15,000 .......................... ..........................

Subtotal .................................................................................................... ¥4,321 11,965 10,700 9,077 ∂13,398 ¥2,888 ¥1,623 

Northern Border Regional Commission .................................................................. 1,497 1,500 1,350 1,275 ¥222 ¥225 ¥75 Southeast Crescent Regional Commission ............................................................ 250 .......................... 250 213 ¥37 ∂213 ¥37 
164 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2011 appropriation Budget estimate House allowance Committee recommendation 

Senate Committee recommendation compared with (∂ or 

¥) 

2012 

appropriation Budget estimate House allowance 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission: 

Salaries and expenses .................................................................................. 1,043,208 1,027,240 1,037,240 1,027,240 ¥15,968 .......................... ¥10,000 Revenues ....................................................................................................... ¥906,220 ¥899,726 ¥890,713 ¥899,726 ∂6,494 .......................... ¥9,013 

Subtotal .................................................................................................... 136,988 127,514 146,527 127,514 ¥9,474 .......................... ¥19,013 

Office of Inspector General ........................................................................... 10,858 10,860 10,860 10,860 ∂2 .......................... ..........................Revenues ....................................................................................................... ¥9,774 ¥9,774 ¥9,774 ¥9,774 .......................... .......................... ..........................

Subtotal .................................................................................................... 1,084 1,086 1,086 1,086 ∂2 .......................... ..........................Total, Nuclear Regulatory Commission .................................................... 138,072 128,600 147,613 128,600 ¥9,472 .......................... ¥19,013 

Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board ................................................................ 3,883 3,400 3,400 3,400 ¥483 .......................... ..........................Office of the Federal Coordinator for Alaska natural gas transportation projects .................................................................................................................... 4,457 4,032 4,032 1,000 ¥3,457 ¥3,032 ¥3,032 

Total, title IV, Independent agencies ....................................................... 246,981 267,627 276,575 240,644 ¥6,337 ¥26,983 ¥35,931 

Appropriations .................................................................................. (261,981 ) (267,627 ) (276,575 ) (240,644 ) (¥21,337 ) (¥26,983 ) (¥35,931 ) Rescissions ...................................................................................... (¥15,000 ) .......................... .......................... .......................... (∂15,000 ) .......................... ..........................

TITLE V—EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL FUNDING FOR 

DISASTER RELIEF 

Corps of Engineers—Civil: 

Construction, fiscal year 2011 (emergency) ................................................. .......................... .......................... 376 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥376 Mississippi River and tributaries, fiscal year 2011 (emergency) ................ .......................... .......................... 589,505 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥589,505 Operation and maintenance, fiscal year 2011 (emergency) ........................ .......................... .......................... 204,927 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥204,927 Flood control and coastal emergencies, fiscal year 2011 (emergency) ...... .......................... .......................... 233,876 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥233,876 

Subtotal, Corp of Engineers—Civil .......................................................... .......................... .......................... 1,028,684 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥1,028,684 
165 

Transfer from title XII, Public Law 111–5 (emergency) ........................................ .......................... .......................... ¥1,028,684 .......................... .......................... .......................... ∂1,028,684 Rescission of emergency appropriations (Public Law 111–5) .............................. .......................... .......................... ¥471,316 .......................... .......................... .......................... ∂471,316 

Total, Title V, Emergency supplemental for disaster relief ..................... .......................... .......................... ¥471,316 .......................... .......................... .......................... ∂471,316 

Emergency appropriations ............................................................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................Rescissions of emergency appropriations ....................................... .......................... .......................... (¥471,316 ) .......................... .......................... .......................... (∂471,316 ) 

TITLE VI—ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR DISASTER RELIEF 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE—CIVIL 

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY 

Corps of Engineers—Civil 

Mississippi River and tributaries (disaster relief category) ................................. .......................... .......................... .......................... 890,177 ∂890,177 ∂890,177 ∂890,177 Operations and maintenance (disaster relief category) ........................................ .......................... .......................... .......................... 88,004 ∂88,004 ∂88,004 ∂88,004 Flood control and coastal emergencies (disaster relief category) ........................ .......................... .......................... .......................... 66,387 ∂66,387 ∂66,387 ∂66,387 

Total, Title VI, Emergency supplemental for disaster relief .................... .......................... .......................... .......................... 1,044,568 ∂1,044,568 ∂1,044,568 ∂1,044,568 Grand total ............................................................................................... 31,789,895 36,575,809 30,224,061 32,765,568 ∂975,673 ¥3,810,241 ∂2,541,507 

Appropriations .................................................................................. (32,697,525 ) (36,875,141 ) (30,981,709 ) (32,102,700 ) (¥594,825 ) (¥4,772,441 ) (∂1,120,991 ) Disaster relief category ................................................................... .......................... .......................... .......................... (1,044,568 ) (∂1,044,568 ) (∂1,044,568 ) (∂1,044,568 ) Rescissions ...................................................................................... (¥907,630 ) (¥264,332 ) (¥286,332 ) (¥381,700 ) (∂525,930 ) (¥117,368 ) (¥95,368 ) Rescissions of emergency appropriations ....................................... .......................... (¥35,000 ) (¥471,316 ) .......................... .......................... (∂35,000 ) (∂471,316 ) 

1 Totals adjusted to net out alternative financing costs, reimbursable agreement funding, and power purchase and wheeling expenditures. Offsetting collection totals only reflect funds collected for annual expenses, excluding power purchase 

wheeling. 

Æ