66–950 

112TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1st Session 112–118 

ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS 

BILL, 2012 

JUNE 24, 2011.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of 

the Union and ordered to be printed 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN, from the Committee on Appropriations, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

together with 

ADDITIONAL VIEWS 

[To accompany H.R. 2354] 

The Committee on Appropriations submits the following report in 

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

30, 2012, and for other purposes. 

INDEX TO BILL AND REPORT 

Page Number 

Bill Report 

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

I. Department of Defense—Civil: 

Corps of Engineers—Civil .................................................................. 2 12 

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

Construction ................................................................................. 3 24 

Mississippi River and Tributaries .............................................. 5 32 

Operation and Maintenance ....................................................... 5 35 

Regulatory Program ..................................................................... 7 58 

Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program ................... 7 58 

Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies .................................... 8 59 

Expenses ....................................................................................... 8 59 

Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) ........ 59 

Administrative Provision ............................................................. 9 60 

General Provisions .............................................................................. 9 60 

II. Department of the Interior: 

Central Utah Project ........................................................................... 14 61 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
2 

Page Number 

Bill Report 

Central Utah Project Completion Account ................................ 14 61 

Bureau of Reclamation: 

Fiscal Year 2012 Budget Overview ............................................ ........ 62 

Water and Related Resources ..................................................... 15 63 

Central Valley Project Restoration Fund ................................... 16 69 

California Bay-Delta Restoration ............................................... 17 70 

Policy and Administration .......................................................... 18 70 

Administrative Provision ............................................................. 18 71 

General Provisions .............................................................................. 19 71 

III. Department of Energy: 

Energy Programs ................................................................................ 22 85 

Introduction ......................................................................................... ........ 72 

Committee Recommendations ............................................................ ........ 84 

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy ................................. 22 85 

Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability ............................... 22 94 

Nuclear Energy ............................................................................ 23 95 

Fossil Energy Research and Development ................................. 23 100 

Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves .................................. 24 102 

Strategic Petroleum Reserve ....................................................... 24 103 

SPR Petroleum Account .............................................................. 24 103 

Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve ........................................ 25 104 

Energy Information Administration ........................................... 26 105 

Non-Defense Environmental Cleanup ........................................ 26 105 

Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning 

Fund .......................................................................................... 26 106 

Science .......................................................................................... 27 107 

Nuclear Waste Disposal .............................................................. 27 115 

Advanced Research Projects Agency—Energy ........................... 28 116 

Title 17 Innovative Technology Loan Guarantee Program ...... 28 118 

Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loan Program 31 120 

Departmental Administration ..................................................... 31 120 

Office of Inspector General ......................................................... 32 121 

Atomic Energy Defense Activities: 

National Nuclear Security Administration: 

Weapons Activities ....................................................................... 32 126 

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation .............................................. 33 135 

Naval Reactors ............................................................................. 34 140 

Office of the Administrator ......................................................... 34 142 

Environmental and Other Defense Activities ................................... 35 142 

Defense Environmental Cleanup ................................................ 35 142 

Other Defense Activities ............................................................. 35 147 

Power Marketing Administrations: 

Bonneville Power Administration ............................................... 36 150 

Southeastern Power Administration .......................................... 36 150 

Southwestern Power Administration ......................................... 37 150 

Western Area Power Administration ......................................... 39 151 

Falcon and Amistad Operating and Maintenance Fund .......... 40 151 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ................................... 41 152 

Committee Recommendation .............................................................. ........ 152 

General Provisions .............................................................................. 42 187 

IV. Independent Agencies: 

Appalachian Regional Commission ................................................... 51 188 

Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board ........................................... 52 188 

Delta Regional Authority ................................................................... 52 188 

Denali Commission ............................................................................. 52 189 

Northern Border Regional Commission ............................................ 53 189 

Southeast Crescent Regional Commission ........................................ 53 190 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission ....................................................... 53 190 

Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board ........................................... 55 193 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
3 

Page Number 

Bill Report 

Federal Coordinator for Alaska Natural Gas Transportation 

Projects ............................................................................................. 55 193 

Tennessee Valley Authority ............................................................... ........ 193 

General Provision ................................................................................ 56 194 

V. Emergency Supplemental Funding for Disaster Relief ...................... ........ 194 

VI. General Provisions ............................................................................... ........ 194 

House of Representatives Report Requirements ..................................... ........ 195 

Additional Views of Norm Dicks and Peter Visclosky ............................ ........ 228 

SUMMARY OF ESTIMATES AND RECOMMENDATIONS

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

2012. The following table summarizes appropriations for fiscal year 

2011, the budget estimates, and amounts recommended in the bill 

for fiscal year 2012. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
4 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 01 here 66387A.083
5 

INTRODUCTION 

The Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill for fiscal 

year 2012 totals $30,638,727,000, $1,043,303,000 below the amount 

appropriated in fiscal year 2011 and $5,901,082,000 below the 

President’s budget request. 

Title I of the bill provides $4,768,406,000 for the programs of the 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, $88,807,000 below fiscal year 2011 

and $195,406,000 above the budget request. The fiscal year 2012 

budget request for the Corps of Engineers totals $4,573,000,000, including $58,000,000 of rescissions, of which $35,000,000 is from 

emergency funding. 

Title II provides $934,000,000 for the Department of the Interior 

and the Bureau of Reclamation, $160,525,000 below fiscal year 

2011 and $117,380,000 below the budget request. The Committee 

recommends $905,296,000 for the Bureau of Reclamation, 

$157,289,000 below fiscal year 2011 and $113,093,000 below the 

budget request. The Committee recommends $28,704,000 for the 

Central Utah Project, $3,236,000 below fiscal year 2011 and 

$4,287,000 below the budget request. 

Title III provides $24,740,746,000 for the Department of Energy, 

$850,430,000 below fiscal year 2011 and $5,943,056,000 below the 

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

NNSA Administrator, is $10,599,031,000, $76,511,000 above fiscal 

year 2011 and $1,113,567,000 below the request. This reduction is 

offset by $70,332,000 in rescinded prior-year funds, resulting in a 

total program increase of approximately $146,843,000 over fiscal 

year 2011. 

The Committee recommends $4,800,000,000 for the Office of 

Science, $1,304,636,000 for renewable energy and energy efficiency 

programs; $733,633,000 for nuclear energy programs; and 

$476,993,000 for fossil energy research and development. 

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

$5,599,740,000, $100,532,000 below fiscal year 2011 and 

$530,331,000 below the budget request. An additional maximum of 

$150,000,000 from proceeds is directed for cleanup activities, resulting in a total program level of $5,749,740,000. 

Funding for the Power Marketing Administrations is provided at 

the requested levels. 

Title IV provides $266,575,000 for several Independent Agencies, 

$19,594,000 above fiscal year 2011 and $1,052,000 below the budget request. Net funding for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is 

$136,527,000, $461,000 below fiscal year 2011 and $9,013,000 

above the request. Funding for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

Inspector General is provided in addition to these sums. 

Title V provides $1,028,684,400 of emergency funding for the 

Corps of Engineers to respond to and to repair damages caused by 

the flood and storm events of 2011. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
6 

DEFICIT REDUCTION

According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO), 

the President’s fiscal year 2012 budget request for the federal government would increase publicly-held debt from $10.4 trillion, 69 

percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), in 2011, to $20.8 trillion, 

87 percent of GDP, at the end of 2021. Expenditures to cover interest on the debt would nearly quadruple over that period. Disturbingly, CBO found that the President’s budget request for fiscal year 

2012 would actually depress the nation’s economic output. This 

does not represent an economic strategy to place this country on a 

more sustainable path. 

The Committee recognizes that our nation needs an economic 

plan which reduces government expenditures while freeing American innovation from oppressive regulation and our markets from 

distorting government involvement. Accordingly, the Committee’s 

overall spending level for fiscal year 2012 is $1.019 trillion, a $30 

billion reduction from fiscal year 2011, and a $121 billion reduction 

from the President’s budget request. As a portion of that overall reduction, the Committee recommendation for the Energy and Water 

Development bill, excluding flood assistance, is $1.1 billion, or 3 

percent, below the fiscal year 2011 level, and nearly $6 billion, or 

16 percent, below the President’s request. 

NATIONAL DEFENSE PROGRAMS

The origins of the Department of Energy are in the Manhattan 

Project and the development of the first atomic bomb, and the 

Committee considers the Department’s national defense programs, 

run by the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), to be 

its core mandate. Although having the funding for nuclear weapons 

and naval reactors in the Department of Energy instead of the Department of Defense has been, at times, complicated, the Committee supports the clear civilian control of these most destructive 

of capabilities that this arrangement affords. 

The Committee recommendation is strongly supportive of the 

President’s proposals to selectively increase investments in the national defense accounts: Weapons Activities, Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation, and Naval Reactors. Our nation’s defense rests on a 

strong nuclear deterrent, and as our stockpile ages, investments 

needed to keep these weapons reliable, safe, and secure will likely 

grow. At the same time, the Committee supports the Administration’s efforts to prohibit the spread of fissile materials overseas. 

Since the fall of the Soviet Union, the United States government 

has made great strides in limiting the potential spread of fissile 

materials, but much more is left to be done. Finally, our country’s 

strategic triad depends on our ballistic missile submarines, which 

are supported through the Naval Reactors account. 

Each of these accounts is critical to our nation’s defense. However, taxpayer funding will continue to be limited, and it is incumbent upon the experts at the National Nuclear Security Administration to give their best guidance and feedback to their partners 

at the Department of Defense, Department of State, and other 

countries regarding the most cost-effective opportunities to meet 

these defense imperatives. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
7 

SUPPORTING AMERICAN COMPETITIVENESS

Several of the agencies funded in this recommendation—the Department of Energy, the Army Corps of Engineers, and the Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission, in particular—have critical roles in supporting the American economy. While the Committee remains supportive of their work, it is increasingly concerned that the balance 

between private sector innovation and public sector intervention 

has tilted too much toward the public sector. It is also concerned 

that the role and actions of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

(NRC) are more politicized today than ever before. 

Report on Opportunities for Domestic Manufacturers.—The Committee requests a study to show what manufactured products are 

purchased on a regular basis by or on behalf of the Department of 

Energy and are not currently manufactured in the United States. 

An interim report is required no later than 180 days after enactment of this Act, with the final study submission no later than 365 

days after enactment of this Act. The final study is to be shared 

with the President’s Manufacturing Council, the Manufacturing 

Extension Partnership Administrator and the Committee. 

The Department of Energy hosts research and development in its 

laboratories, supports innovation by academia and industry, and 

provides market incentives to promote clean energy and energy 

independence. The President, in his State of the Union speech, emphasized the importance of continued work on clean energy technology research and development for American competitiveness. 

The Committee strongly agrees. 

However, the Committee was concerned to see very little in the 

President’s request to justify nearly $2 billion in increased funding 

to support the President’s pledges. Simply increasing funding for a 

worthy objective does not in itself constitute a success. Instead of 

such massive, unjustified increases, the Committee’s recommendation includes funding for inherently governmental functions, such 

as basic science, and highly-leveraged, limited government involvement in the marketplace. Appropriations are focused on long-term 

research and early-stage development, and high-risk, high-reward 

programs, areas which have the potential to bring great benefits to 

society, but in which the private sector finds little incentive to invest. Additionally, the recommendation reduces funding for large 

research and development accounts with little, if any, track-record 

of rewarding achievement and terminating failures. Instead, funding is redirected to more accountable projects and programs. 

While the budget message of the President emphasizes generating jobs and improving American competitiveness, the budget request for the Corps of Engineers, which can contribute to significant progress towards both goals, is reduced substantially from fiscal year 2011. The budget message also claims progress toward the 

goal of doubling U.S. exports by 2014 and states that the budget 

request supports ‘‘. . . rebuilding America’s infrastructure so that 

U.S. companies can ship their products and ideas from every corner 

in America to anywhere in the world.’’ The 2007 Commodity Flow 

Survey, conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau and the Bureau of 

Transportation Statistics, indicates that 35 percent of goods by 

value and 73 percent by tonnage are exported via water transportation. Yet the fiscal year 2012 budget request reduces funding for 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
8 

navigation maintenance and improvements by five percent from 

the fiscal year 2011 budget request and almost 14 percent from fiscal year 2010. The Committee recommendation begins to correct 

this deficiency. 

The Committee has long supported nuclear power as a significant 

contributor to the nation’s energy mix. America’s reactor fleet has 

not grown for decades while other nations forged ahead with new 

reactor construction, and critical manufacturing capabilities have 

begun to move overseas. This bill supports Nuclear Energy activities that will help the nation regain its position as the industry’s 

leading innovator—and as its leading manufacturer. The tragedy at 

the Fukushima Daiichi power plant provides important lessons for 

reactor safety, but the Committee believes nuclear power should 

and will continue to safely meet a significant portion of our energy 

needs in the future. This bill takes strides to make reactors even 

safer by funding programs that demonstrate the next generation of 

reactors employing inherently safe designs. 

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is charged with overseeing the safety of our current nuclear reactors fleet and responsible development of additional nuclear power in the United States. 

Nuclear power is a critically important part of this nation’s energy 

mix, and the tragic events following the earthquake and tsunami 

in Japan in 2011 show how important a strong safety regime is to 

protect public health. Now, more than ever, this country needs 

strong, objective regulatory oversight for the nuclear energy sector. 

Unfortunately, the Commission has recently suffered from several events which have eroded the agency’s reputation for non-partisan leadership and oversight for the nuclear sector. For example, 

Chairman Jaczko’s close-out of the Yucca Mountain license application review process, in direct contravention of the NRC’s Atomic 

Safety Licensing Board, shows a disregard for both congressional 

direction and technical expertise. Additionally, the Chairman’s assumption of emergency powers to respond to the Japanese nuclear 

crisis was a questionable use of authorities provided to respond to 

crises with immediate, direct potential impacts on the United 

States. As a result, this recommendation includes greater congressional control over the actions of the NRC, including new budgetary control points. The Committee strongly urges the NRC to 

take whatever steps necessary to regain its reputation for nonpartisan oversight and regulation. 

PROJECT AND PROGRAM MANAGEMENT

Financial management has been a core concern of this Committee for many years, driven largely by repeated project overruns 

at the Department of Energy and questionable accounting practices 

at the Army Corps of Engineers. As the federal budget continues 

to adjust in the coming years to the nation’s financial situation, 

taxpayer dollars must be increasingly targeted to the highest performing projects and programs. At this point, the Committee has 

no confidence that either agency has the capability to ensure this 

is being done. 

The Department of Energy has been on the Government Accountability Office’s ‘‘high-risk list’’ for project management for over two 

decades, due mostly to cost overruns and schedule delays for large 

construction projects. The Department has made some progress in 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
9 

recent years to address the causes of these deficiencies, but major 

construction projects, especially for the National Nuclear Security 

Administration (NNSA), are still facing significant cost increases. 

The Committee’s concern is not limited to the NNSA, however, 

nor is it limited to construction projects. For instance, budget and 

timeline estimates for the Waste Treatment and Immobilization 

Project within the Defense Environmental Cleanup account continue to escalate, and the GAO has recently released a report criticizing the Department’s management of the B61 Life Extension 

Program. Within the Office of Science, the Committee has little insight into the success or failure of billions of dollars in basic science 

grants, a deficit of information which this report begins to address. 

The Committee will continue to work with the Department, and 

with outside entities that can provide additional perspective, to improve management and oversight. 

Accounting problems persist at the Corps of Engineers, as well. 

The Department of Defense Inspector General has repeatedly reported that the Corps has pervasive internal control weaknesses related to its financial reporting process. For instance, in November 

2010 the Inspector General found that the quality of the financial 

management and oversight at the Corps is so poor that the Inspector General had concerns about whether the Corps would be able 

to continue the annual audit process. The Inspector General went 

on to note that entity-wide financial management weaknesses effectively prevent the Corps from producing accurate and complete financial information, which could result in significant 

misstatements. In March 2011 the Inspector General similarly 

found that internal controls over Recovery Act funding were not effective, leading to inadequate transparency and accountability of 

expenditures. 

The Committee is deeply concerned that the Corps does not have 

its finances managed suitably well even to allow for outside auditors to identify instances of waste, fraud, or abuse. Moreover, the 

Corps has been made aware of its financial mismanagement over 

time and has refused to take definitive action to make improvements. If the Corps wants to assure the Committee that its budget 

request truly represents the highest priority projects, these deficiencies must be corrected. In fiscal year 2012, the Committee requires the Corps to undertake an initiative to improve financial 

management. The Committee requires periodic reporting on all 

major facets of the initiative, as well as cooperation with an independent audit by the Government Accountability Office. 

COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT INITIATIVES

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

taxpayer dollars is unacceptable. The Committee has used hearings, reviews by the Government Accountability Office, the Committee on Appropriations’ Surveys and Investigations staff, and its 

annual appropriations Act, including the accompanying report, to 

promote strong oversight of the agencies under its jurisdiction, 

with an emphasis on the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), 

the Bureau of Reclamation, and the Department of Energy. 

The recommendation carries out the Committee’s responsibility 

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


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
10 

and identifies numerous inadequacies in the justification provided 

in the President’s budget request for fiscal year 2012. Instead of 

the massive spending increases proposed by the Administration, 

the Committee proposes a more responsible approach which prioritizes investments based on performance and demonstrated return 

of value to the taxpayer, reduces costs, limits administrative overhead, promotes efficiency, targets funding to meet core requirements, and improves transparency. For both the Army Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation, the Committee’s oversight 

activities emphasize transparency in development of the budget request and prioritization of projects. For the Department of Energy, 

the Committee’s oversight activities emphasize proper multi-year 

planning and justification of the total costs of all proposed initiatives. A summary of the major oversight efforts in the bill is provided below: 

Agency/account Requirement 

Army Corps of Engineers/Overall ............. Initiative to improve financial management, including reporting requirements 

Army Corps of Engineers/Overall ............. Development of five-year comprehensive plan 

Army Corps of Engineers/Overall ............. Reprogramming authority set in statute 

Army Corps of Engineers/Overall ............. Emergency funds to remain at headquarters until funds are to be obligated 

Army Corps of Engineers/Overall ............. Establishes discretionary structure to complete ongoing projects 

Army Corps of Engineers/Overall ............. Reports on use of emergency flooding funding 

Army Corps of Engineers/Investigations .. Report on project prioritization plan 

Army Corps of Engineers/Construction .... Report on project prioritization plan 

Army Corps of Engineers/Operation and 

Maintenance.

Report on project prioritization plan 

Army Corps of Engineers/Expenses ......... Outyear plan on workforce needs 

Bureau of Reclamation/Overall ................ Improved format for communicating dam safety risk 

Bureau of Reclamation/Overall ................ Reassessment of Rural Water Programs 

Bureau of Reclamation/Overall ................ National Academies study on buried metallic water pipe 

Bureau of Reclamation/Overall ................ Five-year comprehensive plan 

Bureau of Reclamation/Overall ................ Reprogramming authority set in statute 

Department of Energy/Overall .................. Report on opportunities for domestic manufacturers 

Department of Energy/Overall .................. Report on progress toward multi-year budgeting 

Department of Energy/Overall .................. Payment of audit costs from only program direction funds 

Department of Energy/Overall .................. Prohibition on drawing funds from programs for unrelated initiatives 

Department of Energy/Overall .................. Prohibition on committing future-year funds 

Department of Energy/Overall .................. Prohibition on funding or initiating new activities not funded by the Congress 

Department of Energy/Overall .................. Monthly Financial Balances Report 

Department of Energy/Overall .................. Report on awards and announcements for non-competitive contracts 

Department of Energy/Overall .................. Report on inventory of educational activities 

Department of Energy/Overall .................. Additional reporting on status of contractor employee pension plans 

Department of Energy/Overall .................. Reprogramming authority formally set in statute 

Department of Energy/Energy Efficiency 

and Renewable Energy (EERE).

Report on redirection of funding from appropriated activities for other purposes 

Department of Energy/EERE .................... Open competition and report on technical merits of wind demonstration projects 

Department of Energy/EERE .................... Payment of all committed funds before awarding additional geothermal grants 

Department of Energy/EERE .................... National Academies study on market barriers and federal role for electric vehicles 

Department of Energy/EERE .................... Performance plan and status report on Building Systems Energy Innovation Hub 

Department of Energy/EERE .................... Performance plan on Critical Materials Energy Innovation Hub 

Department of Energy/EERE .................... Weatherization waiver authority to increase funding efficiency 

Department of Energy/Electricity Delivery 

and Energy Reliability (EDER).

Report on coordination of grid modeling activities across programs 

Department of Energy/EDER .................... Report on government-wide coordination for cyber security research 

Department of Energy/Nuclear Energy ..... National waste repository workforce and archiving plan 

Department of Energy/Nuclear Energy ..... Performance plan and status report on Energy Innovation Hub 

Department of Energy/Nuclear Energy ..... Report on small modular reactor performance plan 

Department of Energy/Nuclear Energy ..... Report on investment criteria for program priorities 

Department of Energy/Nuclear Energy ..... Requirement to preserve data and records from Yucca Mountain program 

Department of Energy/Nuclear Energy ..... Report on inventory of all international activities 

Department of Energy/Nuclear Energy ..... Report on competition for research and development funds 

Department of Energy/Fossil Energy ........ Report on panel recommendations for hydraulic fracturing 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
11 

Agency/account Requirement 

Department of Energy/Naval Petroleum 

Reserves.

Long-term management plan for transitioning RMOTC to self-sustaining facility 

Department of Energy/Non-Defense Environmental Cleanup.Plan on cleanup of small sites and remaining liabilities 

Department of Energy/Uranium Enrichment D&D Fund.Directs use of miscellaneous proceeds 

Department of Energy/Science ................. Report on effectiveness of STEM education programs 

Department of Energy/Science ................. Report on exascale computing targets and program plan 

Department of Energy/Science ................. Performance plan and report on Fuels from Sunlight Energy Innovation Hub 

Department of Energy/Science ................. Performance plan on Batteries and Energy Storage Energy Innovation Hub 

Department of Energy/Science ................. Performance plan and status report on Energy Frontier Research Centers 

Department of Energy/Science ................. Performance assessment of multi-year research projects 

Department of Energy/Science ................. Plan for transition of medical applications research to appropriate agency 

Department of Energy/Science ................. Evaluation of BioEnergy Research Centers 

Department of Energy/Science ................. Report on prioritization of magnetic fusion energy research activities 

Department of Energy/Science ................. Assessment of alternatives for deep underground science laboratory 

Department of Energy/Science ................. Ten-year plan for science graduate fellowships 

Department of Energy/Nuclear Waste 

Disposal.

Directs completion of Yucca Mountain license application process 

Department of Energy/Nuclear Waste 

Disposal.

Options for development of interim storage capacity for high-level nuclear waste 

Department of Energy/ARPA-Energy ........ Report on guidelines for project risk profile 

Department of Energy/ARPA-Energy ........ Project progress report and performance interim assessment 

Department of Energy/Title 17 Loan 

Guarantee Program.

Notification requirements for awards 

Department of Energy/NNSA .................... Development of formal guidance to collect financial information from contractors 

Department of Energy/NNSA .................... Plan to increase the domestic supply of helium–3 

Department of Energy/Weapons Activities New reporting requirements for early life extension activities 

Department of Energy/Weapons Activities Directs separate reporting of legacy contractor pension costs 

Department of Energy/Weapons Activities Report on status of the workforce 

Department of Energy/Weapons Activities Report on footprint reduction 

Department of Energy/Weapons Activities Directs report on options to improve the safety of transporting nuclear weapons 

Department of Energy/Weapons Activities Limits funding for B61 Life Extension Program pending new reporting 

Department of Energy/Weapons Activities Plan to ensure the supply of tritium 

Department of Energy/Weapons Activities Report on aircraft capabilities needed to conduct emergency response activities 

Department of Energy/Defense Nuclear 

Nonproliferation.

Evaluation of the effectiveness of radiation portal monitoring 

Department of Energy/Defense Nuclear 

Nonproliferation.

Updated plan for Russian Surplus Materials Disposition 

Department of Energy/Naval Reactors .... Separate funding for OHIO-replacement research and development 

Department of Energy/Naval Reactors .... Directs transition to budgeting for research and development by ship platform 

Department of Energy/Naval Reactors .... Separate funding for infrastructure and operations 

Department of Energy/Naval Reactors .... Multi-year infrastructure recapitalization plan 

Department of Energy/Defense Environmental Cleanup.National Academies study on potential uses of H-Canyon 

Department of Energy/Defense Environmental Cleanup.Semi-annual report on status of Waste Treatment Plant 

Department of Energy/Defense Environmental Cleanup.Requirement to certify the safety of cleanup program 

Department of Energy/Defense Environmental Cleanup.Evaluation of costs to resolve safety concerns of Waste Treatment Plant 

Department of Energy/Defense Environmental Cleanup.Report on lessons learned from Recovery Act projects 

Department of Energy/Defense Environmental Cleanup.Report on projects funded within operations and maintenance accounts 

Department of Energy/Other Defense Activities.Annual report on independent health, safety and security oversight activities 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission .............. Prohibits funding to close out Yucca Mountain license application 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission .............. Limitations on reprogramming funding 

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

Nuclear Regulatory Commission .............. Report on pre-application activities of advanced reactors 

Tennessee Valley Authority ...................... Inspector General audit and inspection reports 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
12 

TITLE I—CORPS OF ENGINEERS—CIVIL 

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—CIVIL

INTRODUCTION

The Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act funds 

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

This program is responsible for activities in support of coastal and 

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

water supply and disaster preparedness and response. The Corps 

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

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

the Civil Works program. 

BENEFITS OF WATER RESOURCE INVESTMENTS

Through its Civil Works program, the Corps of Engineers manages water resource investments that provide substantial and myriad economic and social benefits to the nation. For example, 41 

states, including all states east of the Mississippi River, are served 

by the 926 coastal, Great Lakes, and inland harbors and 12,000 

miles of commercial inland channels maintained by the Corps. In 

2009, the value of foreign commerce handled at ports totaled 

$1.156 trillion. By volume, more than 2.2 billion tons of cargo were 

handled by U.S. ports and waterways (858.9 million tons inbound 

from foreign sources, 494.8 million tons outbound, and 857.1 million tons domestic). Nearly three-quarters of this volume consisted 

of crude oil, petroleum products, coal and coke, and food and farm 

products. 

The 692 dams managed by the Corps and the roughly 11,750 

miles of levees built or controlled by the Corps reduce the risk of 

flooding to people, businesses and other public infrastructure investments. In fact, Corps projects prevented damages of $29.5 billion in 2009 alone. Between 1928 and 2009, each inflation-adjusted 

dollar invested in these projects prevented $7.17 in damages. 

Corps recreation sites host 370 million visits per year, representing 20 percent of all visits to federal recreation areas. Most 

Corps recreation sites are at lakes, more than 90 percent of which 

are located within 50 miles of a metropolitan statistical area. Onethird of all U.S. freshwater lake fishing occurs at Corps sites, including 20,000 fishing tournaments each year. In total, visitors 

spend $18 billion annually at Corps recreation sites. This activity 

supports 350,000 full- and part-time jobs. 

The Corps ranks first among U.S. hydropower producers with 24 

percent of U.S. hydropower capacity, or three percent of total U.S. 

electric capacity. The 350 generating units owned and operated by 

the Corps generate 68 billion kilowatt-hours annually and approximately $4 billion in annual gross revenue. 

Corps lakes have a total capacity of 329.2 million acre-feet of 

storage, of which 9.76 million acre-feet is authorized for municipal 

and industrial water supply. The total investment in municipal and 

industrial water supply storage is $1.5 billion. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
13 

Much of this existing infrastructure is old and in need of increased attention just to maintain the current level of benefits to 

the nation. For example, the average age of navigation lock chambers is 58 years, including 138 of 238 at more than 50 years old. 

Additional benefits could be achieved through improvements to existing assets and development of new assets. 

FISCAL YEAR 2012 BUDGET REQUEST OVERVIEW AND ANALYSIS

The fiscal year 2012 budget request for the Civil Works program of the Corps of Engineers totals $4,573,000,000, a decrease of 

$284,213,000, or 5.9 percent, from fiscal year 2011. After accounting for one-time rescissions in the fiscal year 2012 budget request 

and the Fiscal Year 2011 Continuing Appropriations Act, the request is a decrease of $424,213,000 from current levels. As in previous years, most of the reduction is in the Construction account. 

Increases are requested only for the Flood Control and Coastal 

Emergencies, Regulatory, and Office of the Assistant Secretary of 

the Army for Civil Works accounts. 

This level of investment, as with previous budget requests, is not 

reflective of the Corps’ importance to the national economy, jobs, 

and international competitiveness. While the Committee is firmly 

committed to addressing the nation’s deficit problem, the Committee urges the Administration to take into account while developing its budget request the extraordinary economic benefits of the 

projects historically funded in the Corps accounts. Investments in 

the water resource infrastructure discussed above, particularly 

navigation infrastructure, not only provide short-term economic 

benefits by directly creating jobs, but also provide the foundation 

necessary for long-term economic growth. 

Deep-draft Navigation.—The scheduled opening of an expanded 

Panama Canal in 2014 has prompted a move toward larger ships 

requiring deeper drafts. The United States already is losing shipping capacity because the Corps is not fully funded to maintain the 

current authorized depths of ports and waterways. The nation risks 

losing further shares of the cargo market to Canada and Mexico if 

we are not prepared with deep-draft capacity sufficient to support 

these vessels. 

The proposed reduction in funding for maintenance of deep-draft 

navigation is particularly perplexing since the Harbor Maintenance 

Trust Fund (HMTF), which is intended to fund 100 percent of the 

maintenance dredging requirements of coastal and Great Lakes 

ports, will have an estimated balance of more than $6.1 billion at 

the beginning of fiscal year 2012. The budget request does not propose drawing down the balance to address unmet dredging needs, 

and, in fact, proposes to use less than one-half the estimated receipts for fiscal year 2012 for maintenance dredging. Also included 

in the budget request is a proposal to expand the activities eligible 

for reimbursement from the HMTF, although no specific details 

have been provided to date. The Committee strongly opposes any 

attempt to divert this revenue from the purposes for which it was 

collected, namely maintenance dredging. Also, in general, for the 

top 59 ports, the Corps is only able to maintain authorized depths, 

only within the middle half of the channel, 33 percent of the time. 

The fiscal year 2012 budget request is unlikely to improve that statistic. It is clear, therefore, that this proposal to expand HMTF 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
14 

uses is not based on a lack of need for funds for existing eligible 

dredging activities. 

Inland Navigation.—Rather than attempting to fix a problem 

that does not exist with the HMTF, the Administration’s time 

would be better spent working with industry and the Congress to 

develop a viable solution to the lack of adequate investment in the 

inland waterways system. The previous Administration, in its fiscal 

year 2008 budget request, noted the depletion of accumulated balances in the Inland Waterways Trust Fund (IWTF). The fiscal year 

2009 budget proposed a shift from the existing diesel tax to a lockage fee as the revenue source of the IWTF. That proposal was developed with no stakeholder input and was soundly rejected by the 

navigation industry. 

In April 2010, the Inland Waterways Users Board approved and 

forwarded to the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works 

its own proposal for addressing the needs of the inland system. 

That industry proposal was developed with technical assistance 

from the Corps but no Administration involvement. The Corps is 

in the process of implementing some of the project management 

recommendations, but the Administration rejected many of the 

other recommendations as attempts to shift current cost-share requirements from the IWTF to the general treasury. 

The Committee continues to support the only prudent budgetary 

option under these circumstances—that of limiting investment to 

no more than annual revenue. This decision is not without cost or 

risk, however. With each fiscal year that passes with no legislative 

changes to provide additional funding, costs go up for projects delayed or deferred and the chance of one or more significant failures 

of the aging infrastructure increases. The Committee encourages 

the Administration to work with industry and the appropriate committees of the Congress to develop an equitable solution to this 

problem as soon as possible. 

Recreation.—In April 2010, the President established the America’s Great Outdoor Initiative to ‘‘develop a 21st Century conservation and recreation agenda.’’ In February 2011, a report with recommendations on how to accomplish these goals was issued. Unfortunately, these recommendations focus more on acquiring new federal lands and funding city parks than on maintaining or expanding recreation opportunities at existing federal sites. The fiscal year 

2012 budget request for the Corps reduces funding for recreation 

by $21,000,000, or 12 percent, from the fiscal year 2011 budget request. This reduction will necessitate park closures or other reductions in services at Corps parks, which provide the only recreational opportunity available to some of the population. 

Hydropower.—The President has discussed a goal of generating 

80 percent of our nation’s electricity from clean energy sources by 

2035. Existing federal hydropower infrastructure is aging and in 

need of re-capitalization to maintain current levels of power generated. The study conducted in response to section 1834 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 identified significant additional hydropower 

potential at existing Corps facilities that could feasibly be developed. Yet the fiscal year 2012 budget request reduces hydropower 

funding by $25,000,000, or 12 percent, from the fiscal year 2011 request. The Committee is somewhat encouraged by the fact that the 

Corps is working with the Power Marketing Administrations and 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
15 

private interests to explore alternative financing options. The Committee also supports continued cooperation with other agencies, including the Department of Energy, to develop improved technologies to better use this valuable domestic source of energy. 

Budget Criteria.—According to the Administration, the Corps 

budget request is a performance-based budget developed using objective performance criteria. Within the Investigations account, 

funding was allocated based on continuing the ‘‘highest performing 

studies and design,’’ but the Committee has been unable to ascertain what objective measures qualify a study as high-performing. 

Construction funds were allocated based on a mix of factors including severity of dam safety problems, benefit-to-cost ratio, riskto-life index, Endangered Species Act compliance, and cost-effective 

restoration of a nationally or regionally significant aquatic ecosystem. Operation and Maintenance funds were allocated based on 

a mix of factors including tonnage movements, risk and consequences assessment, and visitation at recreation sites. It is entirely unclear, though, how any of these factors were ranked or 

weighted during development of the budget. Most concerning is the 

fact that these metrics were applied almost exclusively to those 

studies and projects proposed for funding in a previous budget request. In other words, the hundreds of studies and projects previously funded by congressional direction were not even eligible to 

compete for inclusion in the President’s budget. While this exclusion is not new this year, or even with this Administration, it nevertheless casts significant doubt on the true objectivity of the budget development process. 

Account Details.—The budget request for the Investigations ac- count is $104,000,000, $22,746,000 below fiscal year 2011. The request assumes initiation of the two proposed new starts in the fiscal year 2011 budget and proposes funding for four additional new 

studies. Funding is included to complete six planning, engineering 

and design phases, all within the Louisiana Coastal Area Ecosystem Restoration authorization. 

The budget proposes $1,480,000,000 for the Construction account, a decrease of $133,822,000 from fiscal year 2011, or a decrease of $309,822,000 after accounting for a one-time rescission in 

fiscal year 2011. Full funding is requested for the most critical dam 

safety projects and for meeting legal requirements, such as Biological Opinions. Approximately $154,000,000 is requested for inland 

waterway construction and rehabilitation, an amount constrained 

by the amount of anticipated revenues to the IWTF. No new funding is proposed for the Continuing Authorities Program. The budget request assumes initiation of the two new starts proposed in the 

fiscal year 2011 budget and contains funding for one additional 

new project. Funding is requested to complete three projects. 

The budget request proposes $152,000,000, including a one-time 

rescission of $58,000,000, for the Mississippi River and Tributaries 

account, a decrease of $89,906,000 from fiscal year 2011. Public 

Law 112–10, the Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing 

Appropriations Act, 2011, included the rescission of $22,000,000 of 

the $58,000,000 rescission proposed in the fiscal year 2012 budget 

request. The Committee understands that the remainder of the 

proposed rescission, which is emergency funding, was used to respond to flooding in the Mississippi River basin. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
16 

The fiscal year 2012 Operation and Maintenance account is pro- posed at $2,314,000,000, a reduction of $51,759,000 from the current year. The budget request assumes initiation of the one new 

start activity proposed in the fiscal year 2011 budget request and 

proposes one additional new start activity. 

Proposed funding for the Regulatory Program account is $196,000,000, an increase of $6,380,000 from fiscal year 2011. The fiscal year 2012 budget request is $109,000,000 for the Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program account, a decrease 

of $20,740,000 from the current level. 

The budget request includes $27,000,000 for the Flood Control 

and Coastal Emergencies account. No funding was appropriated in 

fiscal year 2011. This funding primarily is for preparedness activities, with $4,000,000 proposed for expansion of the Silver Jackets 

program. 

The Expenses and Office of Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works are proposed at $185,000,000 and $6,000,000, an increase of $370,000 and $1,010,000 respectively, from fiscal year 

2011. 

The budget request also includes authorization language on 

issues of varying urgency. This continues the more recent trend of 

the executive branch ignoring the established legislative authorization process in favor of piecemeal authorizations on the appropriations bill. By not working with the congressional authorizing committees on authorization matters, the Corps misses the opportunity 

to address policy and project matters in a more deliberative and 

comprehensive fashion. The Committee supports the intent of the 

authorization provisions included in the budget request, including 

the acquisition of property for the Engineer Research and Development Center laboratory facilities in New Hampshire, but the Committee includes only the most critical and time-sensitive provisions 

of the budget request in this bill. 

FIVE-YEAR COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING

Historically, the Committee has encouraged the Administration 

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

the Energy and Water Development jurisdiction, particularly the 

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

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

projects have been initiated, the Administration will request responsible annual funding levels for them through completion. 

The executive branch has traditionally been unwilling to project 

five-year horizons for projects it has not previously supported 

through the budget process. The uncertainty caused by year-to-year 

federal planning leaves too many non-federal sponsors unable to 

make informed decisions regarding local funding. It would be beneficial for the Congress, the Administration, and project partners to 

have a comprehensive plan to outline requirements for all projects 

that have received an appropriation to date. The Committee would 

welcome a dialogue to reach a mutually-agreeable way to comprehensively plan for all initiated projects. 

FLOODPLAIN MAPPING AND LEVEE CERTIFICATIONS

Communities from around the country have expressed concern 

and frustration with the process by which the Federal Emergency 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
17 

Management Agency (FEMA) is updating floodplain maps and the 

treatment of levees within that process. The Committee supports a 

concerted effort by the Corps to provide proactive information on 

levees within its jurisdiction and to be an active partner with communities around the nation as they seek to certify their levees by 

producing an inventory of all levees, both federal and non-federal, 

within the next year. Additionally, the Committee encourages the 

Corps to develop and submit to the appropriate congressional committees a legislative proposal addressing any statutory impediments to providing such assistance with levee certifications. The 

Committee will continue to scrutinize the floodplain mapping process and the role the Corps plays in that process. 

CONGRESSIONAL DIRECTION AND REPROGRAMMING

To ensure that the expenditure of funds in fiscal year 2012 is 

consistent with congressional direction, to minimize the movement 

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

a legislative provision outlining the circumstances under which the 

Corps of Engineers may reprogram funds. 

MANAGEMENT OF EMERGENCY FUNDS

In response to pressing national emergencies caused by natural 

and other disasters, the Congress has provided the Corps with billions of dollars in supplemental emergency funding, excluding Recovery Act funds, over the past five years. While some of those 

funds were designated for certain projects and areas, other funds 

were provided without congressional direction based on Corps estimates of funding needs due to extreme events. Much to the dismay 

of the Committee, the Corps continues to carry over hundreds of 

millions of dollars in emergency funds. It is understandable that 

some larger or more complex structural repairs may take time to 

plan, design, and construct. The level of unobligated funds, however, seems to be in excess of what would be expected from that 

type of situation. 

Damage caused to Corps facilities, and other work the Corps 

must carry out in responding to disasters, should be the only factor 

the Corps considers when determining capability for supplemental 

funding. When the Corps expresses capability for emergency funding and does not expend those funds in a timely manner, the only 

conclusion the Committee can reach is that the Corps includes in 

its estimates activities that are not pressing needs and, therefore, 

should be addressed in the annual budget request. 

Given the recent experiences with the Corps management of 

emergency funding, the Committee directs the Corps to restructure 

its emergency funding financial management. First, the Corps shall 

only express capability for emergency funding for projects that are 

a direct result of disasters that occur. Second, Corps Headquarters 

is prohibited from dispersing emergency funds to the field until capability is shown and funds must be obligated. If the field does not 

obligate funds within 60 days of the funds being sent to the field, 

Headquarters is directed to redirect those funds for use in other regions of the country where emergency activities require immediate 

funding. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
18 

NEW STARTS

The Administration proposes a combined reduction of 

$208,327,000 from Investigations, Construction, and Operation and 

Maintenance from fiscal year 2011 and a reduction of $693,000,000 

(excluding emergency funding) from fiscal year 2010, the last time 

the Committee provided any new starts. While the Committee 

strongly supports additional investment in water resource projects, 

the funding limitations set forth by the Administration present the 

Committee with a difficult choice between starting new authorized 

projects in the Corps and only funding those projects that are ongoing in an effort to complete them. Faced with this difficult choice, 

the Committee has determined that prioritizing ongoing projects is 

the only responsible course of action and, therefore, recommends no 

new starts in any account in fiscal year 2012. 

The Committee notes that the budget request seems to define a 

new start as any project, study or activity not previously included 

in the President’s budget request for a particular account. That is 

not how the Committee defines a new start. If a project or study 

was funded in a particular account in an appropriations Act within 

the previous three fiscal years, it is not a new start. Additionally, 

if funding for an established activity that will remain substantively 

unchanged is transferred from one account to another, it is not a 

new start. 

FORMAT OF FUNDING PRIORITIES

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

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

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

definition encompasses project-level funding not requested by the 

President. Following that vote, the Committee has reviewed the 

historical format of appropriations for the Corps to see if there is 

a more transparent way to highlight programmatic priorities without abandoning congressional oversight responsibilities. This report 

includes a modification to the format used in previous years. 

As in previous years, the Committee lists in report tables the 

studies, projects and activities within each account requested by 

the President along with the Committee-recommended funding 

level. This year, to advance its programmatic priorities, the Committee has included additional funding for certain categories of 

projects. Also included are criteria by which the Corps is to evaluate and select specific projects to fund within those allocations. The 

Corps is directed to report to the Committee, within 45 days of enactment of this Act, on its final spending plan for fiscal year 2012. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
19 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a total of $4,768,406,000 for the 

Corps of Engineers, $88,807,000 below fiscal year 2011 and 

$195,406,000 above the request. After accounting for one-time rescissions in fiscal year 2011 of $198,000,000, proposed rescissions 

of $58,000,000 in the request and a one-time rescission for fiscal 

year 2012 of $50,000,000, the recommendation is $236,807,000 

below fiscal year 2011 and $187,406,000 above the request. 

A table summarizing the fiscal year 2011 enacted appropriation, 

the fiscal year 2012 budget request, and the Committee-recommended levels is provided below. 

[Dollars in thousands] 

Account FY 2011 

enacted 

FY 2012 

request 

Committee 

recommended 

Investigations .............................................................................................. $126,746 $104,000 $104,000 

Construction ................................................................................................ 1,789,822 1,480,000 1,615,941 

Rescission .......................................................................................... ¥176,000 — ¥50,000 

Mississippi River and tributaries ............................................................... 263,906 210,000 210,000 

Rescission .......................................................................................... ¥22,000 ¥58,000 — 

Operation and Maintenance ....................................................................... 2,365,759 2,314,000 2,366,465 

Regulatory program .................................................................................... 189,620 196,000 196,000 

FUSRAP ........................................................................................................ 129,740 109,000 109,000 

Flood control and coastal emergencies ...................................................... — 27,000 27,000 

Expenses ..................................................................................................... 184,630 185,000 185,000 

Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works .................. 4,990 6,000 5,000 

Total, Corps of Engineers—Civil .............................................. 4,857,213 4,573,000 4,768,406 

INVESTIGATIONS

Appropriation, 2011 ............................................................................ $126,746,000 

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

Recommended, 2012 ........................................................................... 104,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2011 .................................................................... ¥22,746,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ................................................................ — 

This appropriation funds studies to determine the need for, the 

engineering and economic feasibility of, and the environmental and 

social suitability of solutions to water and related land resource 

problems; preconstruction engineering and design; data collection; 

interagency coordination; and research. 

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

$22,746,000 below fiscal year 2011 and the same as the budget request. 

The budget request for this account, and the approved Committee allowance, are shown on the following table: 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
20 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 16 here 66387A.001
21 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 17 here 66387A.002
22 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 18 here 66387A.003
23 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 19 here 66387A.004
24 

Savannah Harbor Expansion, Georgia.—The Committee notes 

that funding for Savannah Harbor Expansion, GA, is provided in 

the Construction account, as in previous years. 

Additional Investigations.—The fiscal year 2012 budget request 

does not reflect the extent of need for project studies funding. The 

Corps has numerous studies initiated that will be suspended under 

the limits of the budget request. These studies could lead to 

projects with significant economic benefits, particularly by increasing national competitiveness through marine transportation improvements and by avoiding damages caused by flooding and coastal storms. While the Committee is unable to increase Investigations funding overall, the Committee is able to provide additional 

funding for ongoing project studies by finding savings elsewhere in 

the account. The Corps is directed to allocate the ‘‘Additional Investigations’’ funds to feasibility and preconstruction, engineering and 

design activities for ongoing navigation and flood and coastal storm 

damage reduction project studies. No funds may be used to initiate 

new studies. Further, none of these funds may be used to alter any 

existing cost-share requirements. The Corps shall report to the 

Committee, within 45 days of enactment of this Act, on project-specific allocations. 

Planning Program Modernization.—The Committee is aware that 

the Corps has undertaken a planning modernization effort, including a National Planning Pilot Program of approximately seven to 

nine pilot studies to help test, develop and refine improvements to 

the planning process. The Committee encourages the Corps to continue to focus on mechanisms to streamline project studies and increase the cost-effectiveness of federal planning investments. 

Flood Risk Reduction Assistance to State and Local Governments.—The Committee includes the requested amounts for the 

Floodplain Management Services and the national Flood Risk Management Program. Through these programs, the Corps provides 

technical assistance to communities looking to better manage flood 

risk. The Committee encourages the Corps to explore additional 

ways of providing recommendations and guidance on reducing flood 

risk to state and local governments, particularly those communities 

with aging infrastructure. 

CONSTRUCTION

(INCLUDING RESCISSION OF FUNDS)

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

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

Recommended, 2012 ........................................................................... 1,565,941,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2011 .................................................................... ¥47,881,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ................................................................ +85,941,000 

This appropriation funds construction, major rehabilitation, and 

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

reduction, or aquatic ecosystem restoration benefits to the nation. 

Portions of this account are funded from the Harbor Maintenance 

Trust Fund and the Inland Waterways Trust Fund. 

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,565,941,000, 

$47,881,000 below fiscal year 2011 and $85,941,000 above the 

budget request. After accounting for a one-time rescission in fiscal 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
25 

year 2011 of $176,000,000 and the rescission of $50,000,000 in this 

bill, the recommendation is $173,881,000 below fiscal year 2011 

and $135,941,000 above the budget request. 

The budget request for this account and the approved Committee 

allowance are shown on the following table: 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
26 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 03 here 66387A.005
27 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 22 here 66387A.006
28 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 23 here 66387A.007
29 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 04 here 66387A.008
30 

South Florida Ecosystem Restoration, Florida.—For several years 

now, funding for Everglades restoration has constituted more than 

10 percent of the total Construction account budget request. While 

the Committee continues to support funding for Everglades restoration, this share of funding is not sustainable or equitable, particularly as overall Construction funding trends downward. The Committee provides a total of $130,000,000 for restoration projects in 

the Everglades, a reduction of $32,724,000 from the President’s 

budget request. This funding level is still eight percent of the total 

construction account. This reduction is based on the amount of savings from fiscal year 2011 plus the funding the unlikely to be obligated in fiscal year 2012 due to schedule delays. 

Savannah Harbor Expansion, Georgia.—The President’s budget 

request includes funding for the Savannah Harbor Expansion, 

Georgia project in the Investigations account. As in previous fiscal 

years, however, the Committee includes that funding in the Construction account. 

Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal Dispersal Barrier, Illinois.— The budget request includes funding for Chicago Sanitary and Ship 

Canal Dispersal Barrier in both the Construction and Operation 

and Maintenance accounts. Since the submission, however, the 

Corps informed the Committee that the entire amount is needed in 

the Construction account and no funding is needed in the Operation and Maintenance account. The Committee has accommodated 

this shift in account funding. 

Additional Construction.—The fiscal year 2012 budget request 

does not reflect the extent of funding needed for Corps projects 

under construction. The Corps has ongoing, authorized Construction projects that would cost tens of billions of dollars to complete, 

yet it has requested a mere fraction of the funding necessary to 

complete those projects. The Corps is directed to allocate the ‘‘Additional Navigation’’ and ‘‘Additional Flood and Coastal Storm Damage Reduction’’ funds to specific ongoing projects based on the following set of criteria: 

• number of jobs created directly by the funded activity; 

• high project benefit-to-cost ratio; 

• ability to obligate the funds allocated within the fiscal 

year, including consideration of the ability of the non-federal 

sponsor to provide any required cost-share; 

• ability to complete the project, separable element, or 

project phase within the funds allocated; 

• for flood and coastal storm damage reduction, 

—population at risk; and 

—economic activity or public infrastructure at risk; and 

• for navigation, number of jobs or level of economic activity 

to be supported by completion of the project, separable element, or project phase. 

No funds may be used to start new projects. Funds may not be 

used for projects in the Continuing Authorities Program. Further, 

none of these funds may be used to alter any existing cost-share 

requirements. 

The Corps shall report to the Committee, within 45 days of enactment of this Act, on project-specific allocations, including an explanation for each allocation. This report shall include the project 

rankings based on these criteria. No funds shall be obligated for 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
31 

any project under this program which has not already been justified in such a report. 

Continuing Authorities Program (CAP).—The inability of the 

Corps to effectively and efficiently implement the Continuing Authorities Program is a source of regular frustration to the Committee. For a program that historically accounts for less than 10 

percent of the funds provided to the Construction account, the 

Committee is deeply troubled by the amount of time it is required 

to spend on oversight of the program and management of the 

Corps. 

The Committee has worked with the Corps since 2006 to make 

changes to how the Committee funds the program in an effort to 

eliminate barriers to program execution. Despite all of those 

changes, though, the Corps had nearly $300,000,000 in carryover 

funds from fiscal year 2010 to 2011. The Fiscal Year 2011 Continuing Appropriations Act rescinded $100,000,000 from this program. Based on Corps estimates of funds to be obligated in fiscal 

year 2011, the Committee believes there will still be sufficient carryover into fiscal year 2012 to sustain the program. Therefore, consistent with the budget request, the Committee provides no new 

funds for the Continuing Authorities Program. Since the Corps has 

not yet informed the Committee of amounts by section expected to 

be carried over into fiscal year 2012 in light of the rescission, the 

Committee is unable to approve or disapprove the proposal to reprogram funds from Sections 14, 103, 107, and 208 to the remaining sections. 

For fiscal year 2012, the Committee directs the Corps to continue 

to fund the Continuing Authorities Program based on the nationwide prioritization of projects using the criteria set forth below. 

The Corps shall hold CAP funds at Headquarters until the need for 

a project is determined. If funds for that project cannot be used at 

the district level, the district immediately shall send those funds 

back to Headquarters for reassignment. Under no circumstances 

shall the Corps initiate new projects in Section 205, 206, or 1135. 

New projects may be initiated in the remaining sections 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 approval by the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations. 

The Corps shall prioritize CAP projects nationwide based on the 

following criteria, listed in order of priority: 

Priorities for Design and Implementation (D&I) Phase: 

1. D&I work for continuing projects that have executed 

Project Partnership Agreements (PPAs). 

2. D&I funding for projects approved by Corps Headquarters 

to execute a PPA. 

3. D&I work that does not require executed agreements (e.g. 

continuing or pre-PPA design) for ongoing projects. 

4. D&I funding for projects with approved Feasibility Reports moving into D&I. 

Priorities for Feasibility Phase: 

1. Feasibility phase funding for projects with executed Feasibility Cost-Sharing Agreement (FCSA). 

2. Feasibility phase funding for projects approved by Corps 

Headquarters to execute a FCSA. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
32 

3. Feasibility phase work which does not require a FCSA for 

ongoing projects. 

4. Feasibility phase funding for initiations or restarts. 

Remaining funds, if any, may be allocated to additional projects 

in accordance with the aforementioned priorities, except that all 

funds for Section 14 projects shall be allocated to the most urgently 

needed projects. 

The Corps is directed to maintain a split of approximately 80– 

20 percent between the Design and Implementation (D&I) phase 

and the Feasibility phase within each authority. This split should 

be considered a guideline only, as there may be specific circumstances that require a slightly different weighting. 

MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES

Appropriation, 2011 ............................................................................ $241,906,000 

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

Recommended, 2012 ........................................................................... 210,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2011 .................................................................... ¥31,906,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ................................................................ +58,000,000 

This appropriation funds planning, construction, and operation 

and maintenance activities associated with projects to reduce flood 

damage in the lower Mississippi River alluvial valley below Cape 

Girardeau, Missouri. 

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $210,000,000, 

$31,906,000 below fiscal year 2011 and $58,000,000 above the 

budget request. After accounting for a one-time rescission in fiscal 

year 2011, the recommendation is $53,906,000 below fiscal year 

2011. The budget request includes a rescission of $58,000,000 for 

funds that are no longer required for their intended purposes. Of 

this proposed rescission, however, $23,000,000 was included in the 

Fiscal Year 2011 Continuing Appropriations Act, and the Committee understands that the balance is being used to support the 

response to recent flooding in the Mississippi River basin. 

The budget request for this account and the approved Committee 

allowance are shown on the following table: 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
33 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 28 here 66387A.009
34 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 29 here 66387A.010
35 

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

Appropriation, 2011 .......................................................................... $2,365,759,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ..................................................................... 2,314,000,000 

Recommended, 2012 ......................................................................... 2,366,465,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2011 .................................................................. +706,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 .............................................................. +52,465,000 

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

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

collection of domestic, waterborne commerce statistics. Portions of 

this account are financed through the Harbor Maintenance Trust 

Fund. 

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $2,366,465,000, $706,000 above fiscal year 2011 and $52,465,000 above the budget 

request. 

The budget request for this account and the approved Committee 

allowance are shown on the following table: 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
36 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 31 here 66387A.011
37 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 32 here 66387A.012
38 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 33 here 66387A.013
39 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 34 here 66387A.014
40 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 35 here 66387A.015
41 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 36 here 66387A.016
42 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 37 here 66387A.017
43 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 38 here 66387A.018
44 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 39 here 66387A.019
45 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 40 here 66387A.020
46 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 41 here 66387A.021
47 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 42 here 66387A.022
48 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 43 here 66387A.023
49 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 44 here 66387A.024
50 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 45 here 66387A.025
51 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 46 here 66387A.026
52 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 47 here 66387A.027
53 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 48 here 66387A.028
54 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 49 here 66387A.029
55 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 05 here 66387A.030
56 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 06 here 66387A.031
57 

Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal Dispersal Barrier, Illinois.— 

The recommendation includes funding for this project solely in the 

Construction account, due to updated requirements submitted by 

the Corps subsequent to the submission of the fiscal year 2012 

budget request. 

Additional Operation and Maintenance.—As discussed earlier in 

the report, the fiscal year 2012 budget request does not fund operation, maintenance and rehabilitation of our nation’s aging infrastructure sufficiently to ensure continued competitiveness in a global marketplace. Federal navigation channels maintained at only a 

fraction of authorized dimensions, and navigation locks and hydropower facilities well beyond design life all result in economic inefficiencies and risks of infrastructure failure, which cause substantial 

economic losses. The Committee believes that investing in operation, maintenance, and rehabilitation of infrastructure today will 

save taxpayers vast sums of money in the future. The Committee 

provides funds for ‘‘Additional Flood and Coastal Storm Damage 

Reduction’’ and ‘‘Additional Navigation’’ activities. The Corps is directed to allocate these funds based on the following set of criteria: 

• number of jobs created directly by the funded activity; 

• high benefit-to-cost ratio or high cost-effectiveness; 

• ability to obligate the funds allocated within the fiscal 

year; 

• ability to complete the project, separable element, or 

project phase within the funds allocated; 

• risk of imminent failure or closure of the facility; 

• for flood and coastal storm damage reduction, 

—population at risk; and 

—economic activity or public infrastructure at risk; and 

• for navigation, 

—number of jobs or level of economic activity to be supported by completion of the project, separable element, or 

project phase; and 

—revenues collected for the purpose of the activity. 

No funds may be used to start new projects or programs. Further, none of these funds may be used to alter any existing costshare requirements. 

The Committee recognizes the importance of small harbors and 

waterways to regional and local economies. While federal activities 

must be focused on the greatest national benefits, especially in this 

tight budgetary climate, the Corps should give consideration to the 

needs of these smaller projects, particularly those with national defense or public health and safety importance, in order to develop 

a reasonable and equitable allocation under this account. 

The Corps shall report to the Committee, within 45 days of enactment of this Act, on project-specific allocations, including an explanation for each allocation. This report shall include the project 

rankings based on these criteria. No funds shall be obligated for 

any project under this program which has not already been justified in such a report. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
58 

REGULATORY PROGRAM

Appropriation, 2011 ............................................................................ $189,620,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ....................................................................... 196,000,000 

Recommended, 2012 ........................................................................... 196,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2011 .................................................................... +6,380,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ................................................................ — 

This appropriation provides funds to administer laws pertaining 

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

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

to review and process permit applications, ensure compliance on 

permitted sites, protect important aquatic resources, and support 

watershed planning efforts in sensitive environmental areas in cooperation with states and local communities. 

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $196,000,000, 

$6,380,000 above fiscal year 2011 and the same as the budget request. 

FORMERLY UTILIZED SITES REMEDIAL ACTION PROGRAM (FUSRAP)

Appropriation, 2011 ............................................................................ $129,740,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ....................................................................... 109,000,000 

Recommended, 2012 ........................................................................... 109,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2011 .................................................................... ¥20,740,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ................................................................ — 

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

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

The Congress transferred FUSRAP from the Department of Energy to the Corps of Engineers in fiscal year 1998. In appropriating 

FUSRAP funds to the Corps of Engineers, the Committee intended 

to transfer only the responsibility for administration and execution 

of cleanup activities at FUSRAP sites where the Department had 

not completed cleanup. The Committee did not transfer to the 

Corps ownership of and accountability for real property interests, 

which remain with the Department. The Committee expects the 

Department to continue to provide its institutional knowledge and 

expertise to ensure the success of this program and to serve the nation and the affected communities. 

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $109,000,000, 

$20,740,000 below fiscal year 2011 and the same as the request. 

The Committee continues to support the prioritization of sites, especially those that are nearing completion. Within the funds provided in accordance with the budget request, the Corps is directed 

to complete the Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study of the 

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

appropriate, to proceed expeditiously to a Record of Decision and 

initiation of any necessary remediation in accordance with the 

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


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
59 

FLOOD CONTROL AND COASTAL EMERGENCIES

Appropriation, 2011 ............................................................................ $— 

Budget estimate, 2012 ....................................................................... 27,000,000 

Recommended, 2012 ........................................................................... 27,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2011 .................................................................... +27,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ................................................................ — 

This appropriation funds planning, training, and other measures 

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

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

and storm damage reduction projects. The requested amount is the 

base funding necessary for preparedness activities. 

The Committee regrets the loss of livelihood and property due to 

the recent flooding in the Mississippi River region and notes that 

billions more in losses would be sustained each year were it not for 

the flood control infrastructure the Corps has developed and maintains in the region. The Committee strongly encourages the Corps 

to develop detailed and specific requests, in a timely fashion, for 

needed funding to respond to the recent flooding in the Mississippi 

River region and to keep the Committee updated should these 

needs change. 

The Committee recommends $27,000,000 for this account, 

$27,000,000 above fiscal year 2011 and the same as the budget request. 

EXPENSES

Appropriation, 2011 ............................................................................ $184,630,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ....................................................................... 185,000,000 

Recommended, 2012 ........................................................................... 185,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2011 .................................................................... +370,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ................................................................ — 

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

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

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $185,000,000, 

$370,000 above fiscal year 2011 and the same as the budget request. The Committee requests that the Corps evaluate its current 

workforce model in light of the reduction in appropriated resources 

since fiscal year 2010 and provide an outyear plan to the Committee not later than 180 days following enactment of the Act. 

OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE ARMY FOR CIVIL WORKS

Appropriation, 2011 ............................................................................ $4,990,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ....................................................................... 6,000,000 

Recommended, 2012 ........................................................................... 5,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2011 .................................................................... +10,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ................................................................ ¥1,000,000 

The Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works oversees the 

Civil Works budget and policy, whereas the Corps’ executive direcVerDate Mar 15 2010 07:41 Jun 25, 2011 Jkt 066950 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR118.XXX HR118

jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
60 

tion and management of the Civil Works program are funded from 

the Expenses account. 

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $5,000,000, 

$10,000 above fiscal year 2011 and $1,000,000 below the budget request. 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISION

The bill includes an administrative provision allowing for the 

purchase or hire of passenger motor vehicles. 

GENERAL PROVISIONS, CORPS OF ENGINEERS—CIVIL 

(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

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

except in certain circumstances. 

The bill continues a provision prohibiting the use of funds for 

any A–76 or High Performing Organizations competitive sourcing 

actions. 

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

Act to carry out any contract that commits funds beyond the 

amounts appropriated for that program, project, or activity. 

The bill continues a provision prohibiting the award of continuing contracts for any project for which funds are derived from 

the Inland Waterways Trust Fund until such time as a long-term 

mechanism to enhance revenues sufficient to meet the cost-sharing 

requirements is enacted. 

The bill continues a provision requiring the submission of any 

Chief’s report to the appropriate committees of the Congress. 

The bill contains a provision allowing the Corps to implement actions to prevent aquatic nuisance species from dispersing into the 

Great Lakes by way of any hydrologic connection between the 

Great Lakes and the Mississippi River Basin. 

The bill contains a provision authorizing the transfer of funds 

from the Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies account to the 

Construction account in order to continue progress on the Greater 

New Orleans Hurricane and Storm Damage Risk Reduction System. 

The bill contains a provision authorizing the transfer of up to 

$3,800,000 to the Fish and Wildlife Service to mitigate for fisheries 

lost due to Corps of Engineers projects. 

The bill contains a provision prohibiting funds from being used 

to implement revised guidance on determining jurisdiction under 

the Clean Water Act. 

The bill contains a provision prohibiting funds from being used 

to relocate, or study the relocation of, any regional division headquarters located at a military installation. 

The bill contains a provision to expand existing authorization to 

receive and use funds provided by non-federal sponsors and to require congressional notification of use of such authority. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
61 

TITLE II—DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

CENTRAL UTAH PROJECT

CENTRAL UTAH PROJECT COMPLETION ACCOUNT

Appropriation, 2011 ............................................................................ $31,940,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ....................................................................... 32,991,000 

Recommended, 2012 ........................................................................... 28,704,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2011 .................................................................... ¥3,236,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ................................................................ ¥4,287,000 

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

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

Project by the Central Utah Water Conservancy District. The Act 

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

recreation mitigation and conservation; establishes an account in 

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

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

prohibits delegation of those responsibilities to the Bureau of Reclamation. 

The Committee recommendation for fiscal year 2012 to carry out 

the Central Utah Project is $28,704,000, $3,236,000 below fiscal 

year 2011 and $4,287,000 below the request. Within the funds recommended, the following amounts are provided for the Central 

Utah Water Conservation District by activity, as outlined in the 

budget request: 

Utah Lake Drainage Basin Delivery System ................................... $14,200,000 

Water Conservation Measures .......................................................... 10,000,000 

Total, Central Utah Water Conservation District .................... 24,200,000 

The Committee recommendation includes the requested amount 

of $2,000,000 for deposit into the Utah Reclamation Mitigation and 

Conservation Account for use by the Utah Reclamation Mitigation 

and Conservation Commission. These funds, as proposed in the 

budget request, are to be used to implement the fish, wildlife, and 

recreation mitigation and conservation projects authorized in Title 

III of Public Law 102–575; and to complete mitigation measures 

committed to in pre–1992 Bureau of Reclamation planning documents, as follows: 

Provo River/Utah Lake Fish and Wildlife ................................ $600,000 

Diamond Fork Fish and Wildlife ............................................... 400,000 

Duchesne/Strawberry Rivers Fish and Wildlife ....................... 500,000 

CRSP/Statewide Fish, Wildlife and Recreation ....................... 300,000 

Section 201(a)(1) Mitigation Measures ..................................... 200,000 

Total, Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation 

Commission .......................................................................... 2,000,000 

For program oversight and administration, the Committee recommends $1,550,000, the same as the budget request. For fish and 

wildlife conservation programs, the Committee provides $954,000, 

the same as the budget request. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
62 

BUREAU OF RECLAMATION

FISCAL YEAR 2012 BUDGET OVERVIEW

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

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

the American public. Since its establishment by the Reclamation 

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

facilities that have contributed to sustained economic growth and 

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

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

continues to develop authorized facilities to store and convey new 

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

the 17 western states. Reclamation maintains 476 dams and 348 

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

These facilities deliver water to more than 31 million people for 

municipal, rural, and industrial uses and to one of every five western farmers resulting in approximately 10 million acres of irrigated 

land that produces 60 percent of the nation’s vegetables and 25 

percent of its fruits and nuts. Reclamation also is the nation’s second largest producer of hydroelectric power, generating, on average, 40 billion kilowatt hours of electricity each year from 58 power 

plants. In addition, its facilities provide substantial flood control, 

recreation, and fish and wildlife benefits. 

As Reclamation’s large impoundments and appurtenant facilities 

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

and rehabilitating Reclamation infrastructure continues to grow, 

yet Reclamation has not budgeted funding sufficient to implement 

a comprehensive program to reduce its maintenance backlog. At 

the same time, Reclamation is increasingly relied upon to provide 

water supply to federally-recognized Indian tribes through water 

settlements, rural communities through its Title I Rural Water 

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

be challenging and requires active participation and leadership on 

the part of Reclamation and its technical staff. 

The fiscal year 2012 budget request for the Bureau of Reclamation totals $1,018,389,000. The Committee recommendation totals 

$905,296,000, $157,289,000 below fiscal year 2011 and 

$113,093,000 below the budget request. 

A table summarizing the fiscal year 2011 enacted appropriation, 

the fiscal year 2012 budget request, and the Committee recommendation is provided below. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
63 

[Dollars in thousands] 

Account FY 2011 

enacted 

FY 2012 

request 

Committee recommended 

Water and Related Resources .......................................................................... $911,673 $805,187 $822,300

Central Valley Project Restoration Fund ........................................................... 49,914 53,068 53,068 

California Bay-Delta Restoration ...................................................................... 39,920 39,651 35,928 

Policy and Administration ................................................................................. 61,078 60,000 60,000 

Indian Water Rights Settlements ..................................................................... — 51,483 — 

San Joaquin River Restoration Fund ................................................................ — 9,000 ¥66,000,000 

Total, Bureau of Reclamation .................................................................. 1,062,585 1,018,389 905,296,000 

WATER AND RELATED RESOURCES

(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

Appropriation, 2011 ............................................................................ $911,673,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ....................................................................... 805,187,000 

Recommended, 2012 ........................................................................... 822,300,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2011 .................................................................... ¥89,373,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ................................................................ +17,113,000 

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

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

related natural resources. 

For fiscal year 2012, the Committee recommends $822,300,000, 

$89,373,000 below fiscal year 2011 and $17,113,000 above the 

budget request. Included in the Committee recommendation is 

funding for certain Indian Water Rights Settlements proposed for 

funding under a separate account in the President’s budget request. 

No funding is included for the San Joaquin River Restoration 

Fund, which the President’s request also proposed as a new separate account. Adjusted for these proposed new accounts, the recommendation is $43,370,000 below the budget request. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
64 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 59 here 66387A.032
65 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 60 here 66387A.033
66 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 61 here 66387A.034
67 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 62 here 66387A.035
68 

Title XVI Program.—The budget request proposes funneling most 

of the funding for Title XVI water reclamation and reuse projects 

through a Commissioner’s Office grant program. Unlike most traditional grant programs, however, each Title XVI project has been 

authorized individually. There is a well-known, finite universe of 

projects that may be funded. The Committee is concerned that this 

type of grant program simply creates an unnecessary administrative burden for project sponsors without providing any additional 

substantive or administrative benefits. If nothing else, it is clear 

that requesting funding for a grant program is less transparent 

than requesting funding for individual projects. 

Calleguas Municipal Water District Recycling, CA.—Funding is 

not included for the Calleguas Municipal Water District Title XVI 

project, since funding was awarded in fiscal year 2011 to reach the 

limit of authorized federal assistance. 

Dam Safety.—The Committee is committed to providing the resources necessary to ensure safe operation of Reclamation’s numerous dams. The information provided in the budget request and justification is insufficient to make an independent judgment of the 

adequacy of the budget request. The Committee encourages Reclamation to develop a more transparent format for communicating 

to the Congress the condition of Reclamation dams, the levels of investment needed to address any structural problems, and the criteria used to prioritize work. 

Indian Water Rights Settlements.—The budget request proposes 

a new appropriations account for four new and one existing Indian 

water rights settlements. The Committee strongly supports funding 

to uphold federal commitments to the Indian Nations set out in 

these settlements. The Committee is not convinced, however, that 

a separate appropriations account is necessary to uphold these 

commitments. In fact, the budget request left funding for certain 

Indian settlement requirements in the Water and Related Resources account. Therefore, the Committee includes funding proposed for the new settlements in Water and Related Resources as 

well. 

Rural Water Programs.—While the budget request includes funding for rural water systems associated with the proposed Indian 

Water Rights Settlements account, funding for existing rural water 

projects, some of which also benefit Tribes, is practically eliminated. The Committee directs Reclamation to reassess the allocation of funding among these projects, taking into consideration equity concerns and the ability to use the funds in this fiscal year, 

as well as any legal obligations. Within 60 days of enactment of 

this Act and consistent with the reprogramming requirements established in this Act, Reclamation shall report to the Committee on 

any changes in allocation among the rural water projects. 

San Joaquin River Restoration Fund.—The budget request proposes an account separate from the Water and Related Resources 

account for discretionary funding of San Joaquin River Restoration 

activities. When asked by the Committee, Reclamation acknowledged that implementation would not be affected by which account 

included funding. The Committee sees no compelling reason to create yet another project-specific appropriations account, and, therefore, includes San Joaquin River Restoration within the Water and 

Related Resources account, although no funding is provided. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
69 

Arthur Bowman Dam.—The Committee supports efforts by the 

Bureau of Reclamation to increase hydropower capacity at its facilities. The study conducted in response to section 1834 of the Energy 

Policy Act of 2005 identified significant additional hydropower potential at existing facilities that could feasibly be developed. Since 

funding is not currently available to pursue all such opportunities, 

it would seem unnecessary for the Reclamation to compete with 

private sector interests at any particular location. The Committee, 

therefore, prohibits Reclamation from using any funds provided in 

this Act to proceed with the development of federal hydropower at 

Arthur Bowman Dam located in Crook County, Oregon. Reclamation may, however, proceed with the development of non-federal hydropower at Arthur Bowman Dam, as requested. 

Buried Metallic Water Pipe.—The Committee has become aware 

of several concerns regarding implementation and review of Reclamation’s Technical Memorandum 8140–CC–2004–1 (‘‘Corrosion 

Considerations for Buried Metallic Water Pipe’’). Specifically, the 

Committee is concerned that Reclamation’s use of this memorandum may be holding different materials to different standards 

of reliability and increasing project costs unnecessarily. Therefore, 

Reclamation should not use the memorandum as the sole basis to 

deny funding or approval of a project or to disqualify any material 

from use in highly corrosive soils. Additionally, the Committee directs Reclamation to follow the recommendation of the National 

Academy of Sciences to assemble data on pipeline reliability for all 

types of pipe specified in Table 2 of Technical Memorandum 8140– 

CC–2004–1 along with the specified corrosion protection applied in 

the various soil types (‘‘Review of the Bureau of Reclamation’s Corrosion Prevention Standards for Ductile Iron Pipe’’ (2009)). Further, Reclamation shall contract with the National Academy of 

Sciences to evaluate all of these materials along with the specified 

corrosion protection applied in the various soil types. This review 

should also include an analysis of the economics, cost-effectiveness 

and life-cycle costs associated with the various materials under 

evaluation. 

CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT RESTORATION FUND

Appropriation, 2011 ............................................................................ $49,914,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ....................................................................... 53,068,000 

Recommended, 2012 ........................................................................... 53,068,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2011 .................................................................... +3,154,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ................................................................ — 

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

habitat restoration, improvement and acquisition, and other fish 

and wildlife restoration activities in the Central Valley area of 

California. Resources are derived from donations, revenues from 

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

mitigation and restoration payments collected on an annual basis 

from project beneficiaries. For fiscal year 2012, the Committee recommends $53,068,000, $3,154,000 above fiscal year 2011 and the same as the budget request. Within this amount, the Committee provides funding for 

programs and activities according to the Administration’s request. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
70 

The Committee notes that the increase for this account in the 

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

CALIFORNIA BAY-DELTA RESTORATION

(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

Appropriation, 2011 ............................................................................ $39,920,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ....................................................................... 39,651,000 

Recommended, 2012 ........................................................................... 35,928,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2011 .................................................................... ¥3,992,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ................................................................ ¥3,723,000 

The California Bay-Delta Restoration account funds the federal 

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

and federal partnership (CALFED). Federal participation in this 

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

For fiscal year 2012, the Committee recommends $35,928,000, 

$3,992,000 below fiscal year 2011 and $3,723,000 below the budget 

request. Within this amount, the Committee provides funding for 

programs and activities proportionate to the Administration’s request. 

POLICY AND ADMINISTRATION

Appropriation, 2011 ............................................................................ $61,078,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ....................................................................... 60,000,000 

Recommended, 2012 ........................................................................... 60,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2011 .................................................................... ¥1,078,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ................................................................ — 

The Policy and Administration account provides for the executive 

direction and management of all Reclamation activities, as performed by the Commissioner’s office in Washington, D.C.; the Technical Service Center in Denver, Colorado; and, in five regional offices. The Denver and regional offices charge individual projects or 

activities for direct beneficial services and related administrative 

and technical costs. These charges are covered under other appropriations. For fiscal year 2012, the Committee recommends 

$60,000,000, $1,078,000 below fiscal year 2011 and the same as the 

budget request. 

The Committee previously has directed the Administration to 

produce a five-year plan that serves the public interest by providing visibility into Reclamation’s future plans and spending. To 

date, Reclamation has failed to provide that plan to the Committee. 

The Committee once again directs the Administration to fulfill the 

Committee’s request to provide an adequate and useful five-year 

plan. 

The Committee expects that the five-year plan will include the 

following: (1) a funding scenario which reflects the Administration’s 

expenditure ceilings, including inflation for the out-years; (2) a list 

of active projects, as defined by a project receiving funding in the 

previous three years, for which funding is not proposed in the plan; 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
71 

(3) a full accounting of all rural water, Tribal water settlement, 

and Title XVI projects that are currently authorized, the total authorization, the balance to complete, and total appropriations to 

date; (4) an estimate of the total cost of extraordinary and emergency operation and maintenance to address the backlog of project 

needs due to the aging of Reclamation infrastructure; and, (5) an 

explanation of the methodology used in determining the project allocations, together with the direction provided to field offices in the 

preparation of the five-year plan. 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISION

The bill includes an administrative provision allowing for the 

purchase of passenger motor vehicles. 

GENERAL PROVISIONS, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

(INCLUDING RESCISSION OF FUNDS)

The bill contains a provision regarding the circumstances that 

the Bureau of Reclamation may reprogram funds. 

The bill continues a provision regarding the San Luis Unit and 

the Kesterson Reservoir in California. 

The bill contains a provision permanently rescinding mandatory 

funds from the San Joaquin River Restoration Fund. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
72 

TITLE III—DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

INTRODUCTION 

Funds recommended in Title III provide for all Department of 

Energy programs, including Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Nuclear Energy, Fossil Energy, Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves, the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, the Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve, 

the Energy Information Administration, Non-Defense Environmental Cleanup, the Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and 

Decommissioning Fund, Science, Nuclear Waste Disposal, the Advanced Research Projects Agency—Energy, Innovative Technology 

Loan Guarantee Program, Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing Loans Program, Departmental Administration, Office of the 

Inspector General, the National Nuclear Security Administration 

(Weapons Activities, Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation, Naval Reactors, and the Office of the Administrator), Defense Environmental Cleanup, Other Defense Activities, the Power Marketing 

Administrations, and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Department of Energy has requested a total budget of $30,683,802,000, including a rescission of $241,332,000, as estimated by the Congressional Budget Office, in fiscal year 2012 to 

fund programs in its four primary mission areas: science, energy, 

environment, and national security. The overall Department of Energy budget request is $5,092,626,000 above fiscal year 2011 and 

includes significant increases to renewable energy programs and 

national defense mission areas, as well as to Science and the Loan 

Guarantee Program. 

The Committee recommends a number of significant changes to 

the fiscal year 2012 budget request, driven primarily by budgetary 

realities and poor justification by the Administration on its rationale for these proposed increases. The mission of the Department of 

Energy remains crucial to the nation’s security, both in terms of 

the activities directly related to the defense mission as well as our 

energy security. The Department is also the primary supporter of 

energy-related basic science research. The Committee has provided 

funds for these crucial activities. 

The total funding recommended for the Department of Energy is 

$24,740,746,000, $850,430,000 below fiscal year 2011 and 

$5,943,056,000 below the budget request. 

MAJOR COMMITTEE CONCERNS

Over the past year, it has become clear that our nation’s financial pressures are forcing a reevaluation of the size and role of government in society. Far from exempt from this dynamic, the Department of Energy should be leading the discussion. The Department is responsible for keeping our nuclear stockpile safe and reliable, driving improvements in our energy sector and supporting innovative research in the basic sciences. Leadership at the Department of Energy has been eager to put funding toward new ideas, 

but it has been less able to articulate a strategic direction for the 

investment of taxpayer dollars and build a national consensus on 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
73 

a way forward. The fiscal year 2012 budget request is an example 

of this problem. While it proposes billions of dollars in additional 

‘‘clean energy’’ research and development, it provides little justification for these increases. At the same time, the request proposes 

slashing investment into areas such as Fossil Energy Research and 

Development which are critical to our energy sector. The Committee urges the Department to take a more proactive role in working with the Congress to develop a consensus national energy policy. 

In light of today’s fiscal challenges, the Department must confront longstanding management issues and make difficult decisions 

to prioritize limited resources among its programs. To more effectively use public funding, the Department must minimize waste 

across the agency through management improvements, elimination 

of underperforming or unnecessary activities, and strong oversight 

of grant programs that are susceptible to abuse. The Department 

must also use objective metrics to guide its portfolio by putting systems in place that measure the performance of its research and development programs, and by directing funds towards programs that 

yield the greatest results. The Department should seriously consider offsetting any proposed new programs by eliminating underperforming programs. This recommendation includes requirements 

to help support such changes. 

The United States faces an unprecedented global race to lead tomorrow’s energy sector. With scarce federal dollars available, the 

Department must strategically invest its funds to support areas, 

such as basic science, where the private sector has little incentive 

to invest, and in high-performing areas where benefits can be clearly shown. Other nations are investing heavily in research, infrastructure and the use of new energy sources to advance their global 

position as innovators and manufacturers of the next generation of 

energy technologies. While the United States has led the world in 

research and entrepreneurial innovation for the better part of the 

last century, the nation must continue investing wisely in innovation and growing its pool of innovators in order to continue this 

leadership and keep the next generation of research, manufacturing and clean energy jobs in America. The Department of Energy is entrusted to make these critical investments and the Committee will continue to apply strong oversight to ensure that the 

Department is a good steward of public funding as it acts to meet 

the nation’s energy challenges, thereby assuring America’s innovation leadership in the 21st century. 

CONGRESSIONAL DIRECTION

Article I, section 9 of the United States Constitution states ‘‘No 

money shall be drawn from the Treasury but in consequence of Appropriations made by law’’. The Committee has reminded the Department of this constitutional provision during budget hearings 

because of the repeated disregard for congressional direction in the 

execution of appropriations law. In previous years, the Department 

has on various occasions ignored the clear intent of the Congress, 

seeking to satisfy Administration desires rather than congressional 

mandates. This was most apparent in the implementation of the 

Fiscal Year 2011 Continuing Appropriations Act, under which the 

Department proposed to begin new programs never before justified 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
74 

to the Congress, eliminate programs with strong, bi-partisan congressional support, and otherwise proceed to fulfill Administration 

desires at the expense of long-standing comity between the 

branches. The Committee expects the Department to support the 

full implementation of congressional direction, and has included 

new provisions to ensure that any ambiguity regarding Committee 

intent is eliminated. 

For the first time, the Committee carries the Department’s reprogramming authority in statute to ensure that the Department 

carries out its programs consistent with congressional direction. 

This reprogramming authority is established at the program, 

project or activity level, whichever is the most specific level included in the table detailing the Committee’s recommendations for 

the Department of Energy’s various accounts. Further, for those activities specified in the report which are below the level of the detail table, no deviation from the specified levels shall be made by 

the Department. The Committee also prohibits new starts not funded by the Congress and includes other direction to improve public 

oversight of the Department’s actions. 

Each year, the Congress specifies annual funding levels for accounts, programs, and specific activities within the agency. The 

Committee is concerned that the Department engages in practices 

that contravene congressional direction for these funding levels by 

regularly redirecting a percentage of program budgets to other purposes. While law requires that 2.8 percent of extramural research 

and development activities be redirected to Small Business Innovation Research and Small Business Technology Transfer grants, an 

additional portion of funding is often siphoned off for activities that 

are not legally required. The redirection of funds for audits and Administration initiatives is of particular concern. 

The Department charges the cost of Financial Statement and Defense Contract Audit Agency audits to individual activities within 

program offices. Further, many Department program offices charge 

these costs to a small number of activities that, in many cases, 

were appropriated at specific levels. For example, audit costs for 

the entire $220,000,000 Biomass and Biorefinery Systems program 

in fiscal year 2010 were charged to the Algae subprogram, the only 

activity specified by the Congress in the Biomass program. This 

distribution of audit charges is arbitrary at best and appears at 

times to intentionally contravene congressional direction. As audit 

costs are part of program oversight, the Department is directed to 

pay such costs entirely from program direction funding. 

The Department also frequently funds Presidential, Secretarial, 

and senior management initiatives by redirecting funds away from 

purposes directed by the Congress. The Department funds many of 

these Administration initiatives by ‘‘taxing’’ various programs that 

may or may not be related to the initiative. This practice takes 

funding from purposes for which they were appropriated, and the 

Department shall follow congressional direction by only charging 

programs related to the leadership initiatives they are funding. 

The Committee is concerned with the Department’s lack of transparency and respect for congressional direction, and the recommendation includes language within the Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy account, where the problem may be most pervasive, requiring reporting on these practices within that account. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
75 

FINANCIAL REPORTING

The Committee expects improved transparency in reporting financial data for annual appropriations. The Department has demonstrated increased transparency in reporting the execution of the 

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, as well as other focused 

efforts, such as exposing significant liabilities arising from contractor-managed pension plans. Yet, the Department cannot currently account for the status of each fiscal year’s annual appropriations at the project level. It has difficulty producing timely execution data for appropriated and apportioned funding. This does not 

support the Secretary’s commitment to transparency to the taxpayer and the Congress, and leaves no way for the public to hold 

the Department accountable for the progress of each year’s funding. 

The Committee directs the Department to move as quickly as possible to improve its financial and accounting processes for annual 

appropriations. 

The Committee directs the Department to provide a monthly Financial Balances Report to the Committee, with the first delivered 

not later than 180 days following the enactment of this Act. The 

report should provide, for each program at the congressional control level as specified in the table in this report detailing the Committee’s recommendations for the Department’s various accounts, 

the following balances: total available (prior and current year); unobligated; unobligated but committed; and obligated, uncosted. To 

the extent possible, data should be provided both in summary form 

and by the fiscal year the funding was appropriated. Emergency 

funding, including American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funding, should be displayed separately. 

The Committee recognizes the Department of Energy’s efforts to 

produce a strategic plan for the agency in order to align missions 

with strategies necessary to ensure our nation’s security and energy independence. Though this initiative was delayed by over two 

years, the Committee will closely examine the Department’s adherence to this plan to ensure the Department is able to plan and execute its budget in a way that advances its long-term priorities. 

To better support the attainment of long-term goals, the Committee urges the Department to lay the groundwork for financial 

policy and budgetary decisions by producing a meaningful and comprehensive multi-year budget and presenting it to Congress in the 

President’s budget request. The Department should look to the National Nuclear Security Administration and the Department of Defense for models of formulation and execution of multi-year budgets 

in order to formulate its own budgetary estimates over a five-year 

planning period. Upon 180 days after enactment, the Department 

shall provide a report to the House and Senate Appropriations 

Committees on its progress in developing an actionable five-year 

budget and describe the actions it has taken to prepare its program 

offices to formulate their respective budgetary priorities in that 

timeframe. 

MANAGEMENT OF NUCLEAR SPENT FUEL AND DEFENSE WASTE

The nation’s nuclear spent fuel and defense waste currently resides at over 100 sites in 39 states. While the Committee is assured 

that this material is safe and secure where it is currently stored, 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
76 

the tragic events in Japan highlight that it is impossible to prepare 

for every exigency. Consolidation of this material in a single site 

that provides enhanced safety and security will improve public 

comfort with nuclear power, reduce potential safety and security 

risk, and fulfill the federal government’s obligation under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 to assume responsibility of spent 

fuel. 

The will of the Congress, expressed through law, is that this consolidation site is Yucca Mountain. The Administration has unilaterally decided upon a path to close the Yucca Mountain license application process, a decision which, if allowed, would waste over two 

decades of study and a public investment of over $15 billion, plus 

tens of billions in additional fines and penalties. The Committee 

strongly opposes the Administration’s plans and includes funding 

in this recommendation under ‘‘Nuclear Waste Disposal’’ and the 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission to continue the license application. 

Similarly, the Continuing Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2011 

includes $10,000,000 for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to 

continue the license application. This fiscal year 2011 funding, and 

the fiscal year 2012 recommendation, shall not be used to terminate the license application process, and this recommendation includes a general provision to this effect. This general provision also 

prohibits the Department or the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

from using funds in this Act for activities that would irrevocably 

remove Yucca Mountain from consideration as a potential repository in the future. 

The scientific community and the public have now had two years 

to understand the implications of the Administration’s actions to 

close Yucca Mountain. As time goes on, the extent of the Administration’s disregard for sound science and the public’s hard-earned 

dollars becomes clearer. Already, multiple lawsuits in federal court 

have been filed against the Administration on the policy itself. Additionally, utilities have successfully sued the Administration for 

$2.2 billion in damages because the government has failed to live 

up to its obligations under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. The Department of Energy now estimates that taxpayers will have to pay 

nearly $16.2 billion in damages by 2020, and an additional $500 

million for each year after 2020 that the Department does not fulfill its legal obligations. 

The Administration’s misguided policy is also adding to requirements to the Department of Energy’s budget and posing risks to 

our national security. In March 2011 the Government Accountability Office released a report showing that, in addition to the tens 

of billions of dollars in liabilities, and the more than $15 billion in 

lost investments, the Administration’s policy could result in nearly 

$1 billion in additional storage costs incurred by the Department 

of Energy, tens of millions of dollars in fines, and potential national 

security implications if the naval reactors mission in Idaho is put 

at risk. 

Finally, the single document that could provide the Administration with a scientific basis for its position had been blocked from 

being released by political appointees at the Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, although all indications are that the staff work necessary for the report had been completed for months. Volume Three 

of the Safety Evaluation Report Related to Disposal of High-level 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
77 

Radioactive Wastes in a Geologic Repository at Yucca Mountain, 

Nevada, was due in late 2010. However, until recently the Administration had successfully blocked its release with the explanation 

that Yucca Mountain was no longer its policy position. Fortunately, 

by majority vote the Commissioners at the Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission were able to overcome this partisan obstructionism, 

and the full report has now been provided to key congressional 

committees. Until that report is released to the public and its findings can be incorporated into the national debate over spent fuel, 

however, the taxpayer will receive virtually no benefit from the $15 

billion invested to date, and critical information that has the potential to significantly move forward this country’s plans for spent nuclear fuel will be lost. 

Put simply, the Administration’s anti-Yucca Mountain stance has 

no scientific basis, is wasting billions of taxpayer dollars, and may 

be illegal. The Committee rejects the Administration’s plans to 

shut down the Yucca Mountain license application process and includes funds in the recommendation to continue the process. Once 

the full merits of this site are understood, and not before, the nation should determine whether to move forward with full construction of the site. 

Reporting Requirement: National Waste Repository Workforce and 

Archiving Plan.—The Office of Nuclear Energy assumes the Department’s responsibilities under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, as 

well as activities and staff involving the Yucca Mountain project. 

Within 60 days of the enactment of this Act, the Department shall 

submit a report on its plans to retain the federal and contractor expertise on geological waste repositories and archive all scientific 

documentation relating to the project. This plan will help ensure 

the significant public investment and the scientific knowledge 

gained from the Yucca Mountain project will be available to serve 

future waste repository efforts. 

RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVES

Science leadership, technology innovation, and the creation of intellectual property have made the United States the leading world 

economy for much of recent history. Amid daunting energy challenges and intense global economic competition, America’s innovation engine is more critical than ever to the nation’s long-term economic strength and national security. The Department’s energy research and development programs help to drive innovation and ensure the nation’s leadership for future generations. 

And yet, another goal—reining in the record-high national debt— 

is likewise critical to the nation’s long-term economic security, and 

the federal government cannot responsibly support any programs 

with unbridled spending. While this bill provides robust funding for 

core science and energy research programs given overall fiscal constraints, funds are limited and the Committee must ensure they 

are spent as effectively as possible. Providing funding for its own 

sake does not serve the American public or its national interests, 

and this year the Committee begins transforming the Department’s 

energy programs to measure success not by dollars, but by innovation. 

The Department of Energy and its laboratories grew out of the 

Manhattan Project, a landmark research and development initiaVerDate Mar 15 2010 07:41 Jun 25, 2011 Jkt 066950 PO 00000 Frm 00077 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR118.XXX HR118

jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
78 

tive with the singular purpose of producing the first atomic bomb. 

An extraordinary example of scientific achievement and technical 

innovation, the Manhattan Project demanded strict isolation from 

the public, focused on a single, measurable outcome, and served a 

single customer: the federal national defense organization. While 

much of the Department’s current form evolved from the culture, 

institutions and research programs established during this wartime effort and its aftermath, the agency’s modern-day energy mission calls for diverse, long-term efforts requiring intimate cooperation with the private sector and integration with existing energy 

infrastructure. 

The Department’s present-day energy challenges are consequently distinct from those faced 70 years ago, and the research 

and institutional models inherited from those seminal years must 

evolve accordingly. While the Department’s original goal was singular, today’s goals are many. And while the original accomplishments were easily measured, today’s are more subtle and difficult 

to quantify. The Department must therefore choose programs and 

research models that most effectively lead to private sector innovation in this new context—an ongoing task that will require measurement of program performance to ensure the optimal mix of research models, and performance measurement of individual 

projects to ensure those models are used effectively. Only unprecedented levels of transparency, measurement, and accountability 

can ensure the effective use of limited federal funding. This bill 

takes that responsibility seriously by requiring new program measurement requirements, the use of milestones and performance targets, and the termination of underperforming projects. 

Performance Measurement of New Research Models.—The Committee has long supported research and development activities at 

the national laboratories, in single-investigator research groups, 

and through industry grants funded through the Department’s 

basic and applied energy research and development programs. In 

the past several years, the Department proposed several novel research models, including the BioEnergy Research Centers (BRCs), 

Energy Frontier Research Centers (EFRCs), the Advanced Research Projects Agency—Energy (ARPA–E) and Energy Innovation 

Hubs. The Committee has supported these new research initiatives 

with caution, noting the merits of trying promising new models but 

cautioning that it is prudent and fiscally responsible to frame this 

process as trial experimentation. The Department cannot, for example, greatly expand the number of EFRCs beyond the initial 46 

awarded in 2009 until it sees demonstrated success from these centers. 

The unbiased assessment of each new research model is essential 

to inform good funding decisions in future years, and the Department must put in place sufficient oversight and performance measurement plans from the outset. More than simply measuring 

whether these programs meet superficial timeline milestones, the 

Department must understand the data collection necessary to determine whether it is achieving superior results through each new 

program compared to the results it could achieve through other 

uses of funds. While the Committee has urged such oversight, the 

Department has delivered no plan laying out how it will define or 

measure success for each new program. To begin addressing this 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
79 

troubling shortcoming, the report directs the Department to establish performance targets and to report on current performance and 

success rates across many of these new research areas. These performance targets will serve as the benchmark for evaluation as the 

Committee determines which programs to continue and which to 

terminate in future years. 

For example, for each Energy Innovation Hub funded in this bill, 

the Committee requires targets and status reports for future fiscal 

years that will inform evaluations of each Hub and of the Hub 

model at-large. For the BioEnergy Research Centers and Energy 

Frontier Research Centers, the Committee requires similar targets 

to aid in their upcoming five-year evaluations at the end of fiscal 

years 2012 and 2013, respectively. For ARPA–E, the Committee requires a report on the performance of each award in order to better 

understand success rates for a program that specifically funds 

high-risk projects. These reports will be instrumental in guiding 

the Department and the Committee towards choosing the programs 

that best use limited taxpayer funds. 

Transparency and Accountability.—Regardless of the eventual 

success or failure of the Energy Innovation Hub and EFRC models, 

they have one inherent advantage over incumbent research models 

used within the science and applied research programs: a higher 

level of transparency making clear the award, recipient, term 

length, and purpose of each center. 

Basic Energy Science research serves as a useful case study. Of the $854.7 million proposed in the fiscal year 2012 request for 

Basic Energy Science research, more than 81 percent is neither for 

Hubs nor EFRCs, but for research grants of assorted sizes and 

types at a variety of institutions. While the Committee strongly 

supports the Basic Energy Sciences research areas, it is difficult to 

measure the performance of these activities and to understand 

their demands on out-year funding. As a first step towards increased accountability within that program, this report directs the 

Department to perform an evaluation of Basic Energy Science research activities and to terminate the lowest-performing awards. 

The Committee urges the Department to propose means by which 

it can further increase the transparency of these activities and hold 

them accountable for high performance. 

Limited-Term Awards.—The BioEnergy Research Centers, Energy Frontier Research Centers and Energy Innovation Hubs were 

all granted as five-year initial awards. The Committee reiterates 

that these awards were not intended to create permanent federallyfunded research centers, but rather were intended to be limitedterm efforts with discrete goals. Only the most successful centers 

should be renewed, and any ineffective centers should be terminated as soon as possible. The Committee’s requirements provided 

in this bill establishing research targets and requiring performance 

assessments will help in those evaluations when these research 

centers reach the end of their awards over the next three fiscal 

years. 

Quadrennial Technology Review.—In response to the President’s 

Council of Advisors on Science and Technology report, ‘‘Accelerating the Pace of Change in Energy Technologies Through an Integrated Federal Energy Policy,’’ the Department has initiated a 

Quadrennial Technology Review (QTR). The Committee believes 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
80 

the Department is responsible for guiding the policy, regulatory, 

and technological choices needed to change our energy production, 

distribution, and consumption to meet long-term economic, environmental, and security goals. The Committee encourages the Department to include in the QTR an assessment of how its investments 

in science and applied energy research and development programs 

are serving that responsibility and will influence energy prices and 

supplies consistent with national goals. The QTR should also include an assessment of policy, regulatory, technological, and economic barriers that inhibit meeting our national energy goals. 

Mortgaging Future-Year Funds.—The Committee remains concerned that the Department’s budgeting practices provide little 

flexibility to respond to change. It has become a regular practice for 

the Department’s energy programs to provide partial funding in 

each fiscal year for multi-year awards. This approach of mortgaging future fiscal year funding ties up program budgets with 

commitments for past awards, and often leaves only a small percentage of each program’s budget for new awards. 

In fiscal year 2012, for example, the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy must pay nearly $750 million in commitments to prior awards, leaving less than 43 percent of total funding 

in fiscal year 2012 for new awards and national laboratory activities. Within this account, the Geothermal Technologies program 

has committed $62,510,000 in fiscal year 2012—a staggering 140 

percent of its fiscal year 2010 appropriation—to pay past awards. 

At the fiscal year 2012 level of $38,000,000, the Geothermal Technologies program has essentially forced itself to pause for nearly 

two years while it pays down its past commitments, hampering its 

ability to adjust to changing needs and market conditions. Further, 

the Department announced the ‘‘L Prize’’ competition for solid state 

lighting in 2008 without allocating funds to support it. While program managers may feel such an action allowed them to administer the prize competition at no cost, the announcement spurred 

private sector investment and created a real commitment to fund 

the prize in future years. 

While both the Advanced Research Projects Agency—Energy and 

the Office of Nuclear Energy fully fund all multi-year awards and 

therefore avoid mortgaging out-year funds, the practice of mortgaging future funds extends to most of the Department’s energy research programs. Nearly 70 percent of the Office of Fossil Energy’s 

fiscal year 2012 request is spoken for by commitments to past 

awards, and only 7 percent of the Office of Science’s fiscal year 

2012 request of $5,416,114,000 is free for new competitive awards. 

Program managers may feel that the practice of partially funded 

multi-year awards allows them to fund more activities within a 

given annual budget, but the Committee believes this practice assumes funds that simply do not exist. At best, partial funding of 

awards can severely limit the Department’s flexibility to adjust its 

programs from year to year, and at worst it creates commitments 

in future years that the Department cannot guarantee. 

To end this practice, maintain the Department’s credibility, increase the energy programs’ transparency and flexibility, and improve the financial posture of the Department, the recommendation 

includes a general provision prohibiting any new projects, programs, or activities within the Department’s energy accounts that 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
81 

are not fully funded by the Congress. An exception is provided for 

major capital projects. The Department overall is prohibited from 

starting any new projects not funded by the Congress. Finally, the 

recommendation includes new reporting requirements to enable the 

Department to improve its transparency to the American taxpayer. 

CONTRACT COMPETITION

In fiscal year 2004 the Congress mandated the competition of all 

management and operating contracts, some of which had not been 

competed in over 50 years. The Committee continues to believe 

that competition of contracts is in the national interest where there 

is expressed interest on the part of private companies, non-profits 

or universities. While the Committee does not support competition 

simply for competition’s sake, the Department seems to have a 

built-in bias toward extending contracts rather than opening them 

to competition. 

The accompanying bill does not mandate competition; however, 

the Department is directed to report to the Committees on Appropriations at least 60 days before the award and 10 days prior to 

announcement of a non-competitive management and operating 

contract. In such a case, the Secretary shall submit a report notifying the Committees of such an award and setting forth, in detail, 

the substantive reasons competition is not in the national interest. 

The Committee is also concerned with the NNSA’s plans to combine the management and operating contracts at Y–12 and Pantex. 

In order to build support for this consolidation, the NNSA must be 

able to substantiate the nearly $900 million it has claimed would 

be saved by merging the two contracts. To date, it has been unable 

to do so, and recently the Governmental Accountability Office informed the Committee that it has been largely unable to validate 

the claimed savings. 

EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITIES

The Department is prohibited from funding fellowship and scholarship programs in fiscal year 2012 unless they appeared in the fiscal year 2012 congressional budget request justification documents 

and are supported in this bill. Any new or ongoing such programs 

that the Department wishes to fund in fiscal year 2013 must be detailed in the fiscal year 2013 budget request documents. 

Further, the Department is directed to report to the Committee, 

not later than 90 days after enactment of this Act, a comprehensive 

listing of educational activities at the Department funded with fiscal year 2012 appropriations, including all fellowships, scholarships, workforce training programs, and primary and secondary 

school activities. For each activity, the report shall include the fiscal year 2012 funding level, purpose, outyear mortgages, and Department account and program within which the activity resides. 

DEPARTMENTAL PENSION LIABILITIES

While the Department has taken laudable steps to increase the 

transparency of its contractor employee defined benefit pension 

plans, the Committee remains concerned by the limited steps the 

Department has taken to mitigate the rising costs of these plans 

and the wide variability in benefits still permitted across the difVerDate Mar 15 2010 07:41 Jun 25, 2011 Jkt 066950 PO 00000 Frm 00081 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR118.XXX HR118

jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
82 

ferent DOE sites. Reform must be vigorously pursued to contain 

the continued growth in base operating costs and prevent the erosion of funding available to support core activities. 

The Department also must do more to properly budget for these 

costs. While the cost of each plan will always be an estimate based 

on economic and financial assumptions, the Department has demonstrated weak performance in estimating its needs for the budget 

year. In fiscal year 2010, the Department originally projected its 

total pensions cost would be $1,164,151,000, but ended up only 

needing $526,689,000 to meet its obligations. In fiscal year 2011, 

the costs were estimated to be $1,129,046,000, yet now it appears 

only $903,200,000 will be needed, even after allowing some plans 

to pay above the minimum requirements. 

The Committee is concerned that valuable taxpayer dollars are 

being requested for costs that do not materialize. With budgets 

trending downwards, available funding must be used to protect priorities where they provide the greatest benefit to the taxpayer. 

Therefore, the Committee will not support requests for funding in 

excess of the requirements under the Employee Retirement Income 

Security Act of 1974 and related laws. In order to ensure the Department is not budgeting for more than is required, the Department is directed to report the status of each contractor defined benefit pension plan in its budget request, including the percentage 

that each plan is funded at the time of the budget submission and 

the anticipated funding level the request will provide. 

MANAGEMENT OF DEFENSE REQUIREMENTS

The Committee has committed to provide the necessary investment in our stockpile and infrastructure to ensure our national defense requirements are fully met and the recommendation fulfills 

this commitment. Given budget realities, however, the Committee 

is concerned by the major increases in the base operating costs of 

the NNSA’s activities coupled with the large investments the 

NNSA needs to provide enhanced capabilities. These enhancements 

are driven by new defense requirements established by the Department of Defense. Both the Department of Defense and the NNSA 

must understand that Committee support for additional investments will depend on increased insight into Administration efforts 

to restrain costs while ensuring requirements are properly determined, and then met. 

New requirements have been set both by official, public documents such as the 2010 Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) report as 

well as other internal planning processes. The NPR, for instance, 

contained some new requirements for full scope life extension activities that will require extensive development of new technologies 

to support warhead enhancements, such as those for safety, security and maintainability, as well as larger, more capable production 

facilities which support uranium and plutonium operations. Internally, the desire to minimize maintenance requirements of deployed nuclear weapons is driving the need to design a new generation of gas transfer systems, for which DOE will incur significant 

costs to produce higher levels of tritium. Similarly, the pursuit of 

an expensive acquisition program to replace the OHIO-Class ballistic missile submarine drives DOE’s requirements to undertake 

an aggressive $1.2 billion research and development effort by 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
83 

Naval Reactors to produce a life of the ship core, as well as another 

$1.2 billion investment to demonstrate the design on DOE’s prototype reactors. Internally, the Navy’s aircraft carrier defueling 

schedule is driving a need for large scale investments in DOE’s 

spent fuel infrastructure at Naval Reactors Facility in Idaho. 

The Committee is unclear to what extent the Department of Defense understands the full costs of these requirements before they 

are set. As with any major defense investment, the Administration 

should be able to demonstrate that requirements are only set with 

full consideration of the resource implications of meeting those requirements. Failure to consider these implications could have serious ramifications to the health of the overall enterprise. The cost 

to add technology enhancements to warheads undergoing life extension activities, such as those for safety, security and maintainability, must not force out all available funding to maintain the 

rest of the stockpile. Similarly, the cost to construct the two new 

nuclear facilities at Los Alamos National Laboratory and the Y–12 

National Security Complex must not force out all available funding 

to maintain the rest of the infrastructure. As costs increase for construction projects, less money will be available for life extension 

programs. The converse is also true. 

The Department must show leadership to ensure that this type 

of analysis is incorporated into DOE-DOD joint decision-making, 

particularly at the pivotal moment when decisions are being made 

to determine the ultimate scope of those requirements. Process improvements are hampered by the dearth of available cost data for 

NNSA activities. The NNSA’s budget structure is excessively complex and DOE’s financial management systems do not collect information on the costs it incurs. Without accurate data on the full cost 

of activities, there can be no reliable way to estimate new costs. 

The Committee recommendation takes immediate action to simplify 

cost accounting for individual defense requirements within NNSA 

accounts and to make these costs more transparent to external 

oversight. 

The rising cost of the NNSA’s programmatic activities comes at 

an exceptionally difficult time, when our nation’s economic crisis is 

forcing spending reductions across all areas of government. The 

only plausible way to build capabilities while still meeting basic defense needs in a constrained budget environment is to undertake 

aggressive cost reduction efforts, and a more detailed understanding of the true costs will facilitate the implementation of 

these cost reduction strategies. The Committee cannot afford to 

waste valuable taxpayer funding on management inefficiencies, and 

the importance of modernization argues firmly for concrete improvements in the way the NNSA does business. The Committee 

directs the NNSA to seek qualitative improvements in the processes for determining the overall requirements governed jointly by 

the Department of Defense and the Department of Energy through 

the Nuclear Weapons Council. It is incumbent upon the experts at 

the NNSA to provide a range of options which would meet defense 

requirements and to ensure that a range of alternatives are considered, taking into account the DOE resource implications of each alternative. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
84 

REPROGRAMMING GUIDELINES

The Committee requires the Department to inform the Committee promptly and fully when a change in program execution and 

funding is required during the fiscal year. For the first time, the 

Department’s reprogramming requirements are detailed in statute. 

To assist the Department in this effort, the following guidance is 

provided for programs and activities funded in the Energy and 

Water Development Appropriations Act. 

Definition.—A reprogramming includes the reallocation of funds 

from one activity to another within an appropriation, or a departure of $2,000,000 or 10 percent, whichever is less, from a program, 

project, or activity, whichever is the most specific, included in the 

table detailing the Committee’s recommendations for the Department’s various accounts. For construction projects, a reprogramming constitutes the reallocation of funds from one construction 

project identified to another project or a change of $2,000,000 or 10 

percent, whichever is less, in the scope of an approved project. Further, for those activities specified in the report which are below the 

level of the detail table, no deviation from the specified levels shall 

be made by the Department. 

Criteria for reprogramming.—A reprogramming should be made 

only when an unforeseen situation arises, and then only if delay of 

the project or the activity until the next appropriations year would 

result in a detrimental impact to an agency program or priority. A 

reprogramming may also be considered if the Department can show 

that significant cost savings can accrue by increasing funding for 

an activity. Mere convenience or preference should not be factors 

for consideration. A reprogramming may not be employed to initiate new programs, or to change program, project, or activity allocations specifically denied, limited, or increased by the Congress in 

the Act or report. 

Reporting and approval procedures.—The Committee has provided statutory language to define reprogramming guidelines. In 

recognition of the security missions of the Department, the legislative provision allows the Secretary and the Administrator of the 

National Nuclear Security Administration to jointly waive the reprogramming restriction by certifying to the Committees on Appropriations it is in the nation’s security interest to do so. Any reallocation of new or prior-year budget authority must be submitted 

to the Committees in writing and may not be implemented prior 

to approval by the Committees on Appropriations. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS 

The Committee’s recommendations for Department of Energy 

programs in fiscal year 2012 are described in the following sections. 

A detailed funding table which determines reprogramming baselines is included at the end of this title. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
85 

ENERGY PROGRAMS 

ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY

Appropriation, 2011 ............................................................................ $1,795,641,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ....................................................................... 3,200,053,000 

Recommended, 2012 ........................................................................... 1,304,636,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2011 .................................................................... ¥491,005,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ................................................................ ¥1,895,417,000 

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy programs include research, development, demonstration and deployment activities advancing energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies, as 

well as federal energy assistance programs. Renewable energy research, development, demonstration and deployment activities include biomass and biorefinery systems, geothermal technology, hydrogen and fuel cell technology, water power, solar energy, and 

wind energy technologies. Energy efficiency activities include reducing the energy consumption of vehicle, building and industrial 

technologies, and the Federal Energy Management Program. Federal energy assistance programs include weatherization assistance, 

state energy programs, the international renewable energy program, and tribal energy activities. The Committee recommends a total of $1,304,636,000 for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, $491,005,000 below fiscal year 

2011 and $1,895,417,000 below the budget request. After accounting for a one-time rescission of $30,000,000 in fiscal year 2011 and 

the use of $26,364,000 in prior-year balances in this bill, the recommendation is $494,641,000 below fiscal year 2011. 

Reporting Requirement.—It has come to the Committee’s attention that a significant fraction of the funding directed in previous 

appropriations reports to specified Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy activities has been diverted by Department management to other purposes in recent years. In some cases, as much as 

12 percent of the funding directed by the Congress for an activity 

has been diverted. While 2.8 percent of funding for research and 

development activities is redirected by law to Small Business Innovation Research and Small Business Technology Transfer (SBIR/ 

STTR) grants, any additional redirection of funds to overhead or 

other purposes contravenes congressional direction. The Department is therefore directed to report to the Committee, not later 

than March 1, 2012, for each funding level directed in this report 

for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy activities: (1) the 

exact quantity of funds allocated by the Department in fiscal year 

2012 for the activity, and (2) an accounting of any differences between the funding levels specified by the Congress and amounts allocated by the Department, including amounts and purposes of 

funds redirected to other 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. 

ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY RESEARCH, 

DEVELOPMENT, DEMONSTRATION, AND DEPLOYMENT

The Committee recommends $1,263,000,000 for energy efficiency 

and renewable energy research, development, demonstration, and 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
86 

deployment programs, $331,341,000 below fiscal year 2011 and 

$1,569,619,000 below the budget request. 

Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technologies.—The Hydrogen and Fuel 

Cell Technologies program advances technologies that use fuel cells 

and hydrogen energy carriers for both transportation and stationary purposes. The Committee recommends $91,450,000, 

$6,550,000 below fiscal year 2011 and $9,000,000 below the budget 

request. 

Biomass and Biorefinery Systems RD&D.—Along with electric, 

fuel-cell, and natural gas vehicles, biofuels grown from non-food 

crops or algae are one of a small handful of means by which the 

nation can lower its dependence on imported oil in the long run. 

The Biomass and Biorefinery Systems RD&D program develops 

and demonstrates technologies to convert biomass crops to fuels, 

chemicals, heat and power. The Committee recommends 

$150,000,000 for Biomass and Biorefinery Systems R&D, 

$32,695,000 below fiscal year 2011 and $190,500,000 below the 

budget request. 

Increased demand by the energy sector for food crops can put upward pressure on crop prices, disrupting other industries and increasing food prices domestically and abroad. The Department is 

directed to conduct only research, development, and demonstration 

activities advancing technologies that produce fuels and electricity 

from biomass and crops that could not otherwise be used as food. 

The Committee supports efforts to develop cellulosic feedstocks and 

directs the Department to consider a broad portfolio of options, including biofuels sources such as the non-food components of biomass sorghum. As part of this effort, the Committee encourages the 

Department to continue research, development, testing, and evaluation to improve the biomass quantity and quality of bioenergy 

grasses in order to efficiently, sustainably, and cost-effectively develop lignocellulosic biomass into biofuels. 

The Committee also supports efforts to develop other advanced 

feedstocks, such as algae, that can be cultivated on marginal land 

or other unconventional locations. The Committee encourages the 

Department to explore approaches and technologies for the development of renewable power and fuels from a real-world mixture of 

household and urban waste, such as yard waste, and rural waste, 

such as agricultural residues. 

The budget request proposes $150,000,000 to fund the first cellulosic biofuels reverse auction administered by the Department of 

Energy. The Committee is concerned that this program would provide production subsidies to already-completed or fully-funded biorefinery facilities—more than 80 percent of which were built with 

Department of Energy grants. Further, nearly 30 percent of eligible 

production capacity would use existing competitive technologies 

that are neither advanced nor use cellulosic feedstock. As such, the 

auction would be unlikely to advance biofuel technologies or make 

them more competitive in the long run, and could risk prematurely 

forcing an immature product into the market. Further, without advancing biofuel technologies, a per-barrel subsidy such as the reverse auction would only make a lasting difference in petroleum 

consumption with ever-increasing spending by the Department in 

future years. The proposed program therefore would be both inefVerDate Mar 15 2010 07:41 Jun 25, 2011 Jkt 066950 PO 00000 Frm 00086 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR118.XXX HR118

jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
87 

fective and fiscally unsustainable, and the recommendation includes no funds for the cellulosic biofuels reverse auction. 

Solar Energy.—The Solar Energy program funds applied research, development, and demonstration of both photovoltaic and 

concentrating solar technologies to reduce the cost of solar power 

to economically competitive levels. The Committee recommends 

$166,143,000 for Solar Energy, $97,357,000 below fiscal year 2011 

and $290,857,000 below the budget request. 

The Committee supports the Department’s existing solar energy 

research, development, demonstration, and deployment activities. 

The Committee encourages the Department to include in these efforts disruptive solar energy utilization technologies, fabrication 

methods that yield ultra-low cost solar cells, technologies for ultrahigh efficiency solar cells, technologies designed to simulate the operation of solar cells, and other methods to yield advanced science 

and engineering approaches to solar cells. 

The recommendation includes no funding for Solar Demonstration Zone projects, as the Department has adequate facilities at its 

existing laboratories to test novel concentrating solar power configurations and has demonstrated its ability to fund large concentrating solar power and other demonstration projects without limiting itself to using a pre-determined demonstration site. Further, 

if demonstration projects are identified that are compellingly innovative and too risky for the private sector investment alone, they 

should be openly competed to more than one eligible site. 

The Committee is aware of the significant cost and efficiency advantages solar films can provide to thin film and crystalline silicon 

modules, and encourages the Department to expand the funding of 

solar films research and development to support the development 

of a cross-cutting advanced solar films program to improve the costeffectiveness of solar technologies. 

Wind Energy.—The Wind Energy program funds research and 

development to improve the reliability and decrease the cost of 

wind power. The Committee recommends $76,000,000 for Wind Energy, $4,000,000 below fiscal year 2011 and $50,859,000 below the 

budget request. 

To date, the Department has focused primarily on land-based 

wind power while devoting very little funding to improve offshore 

systems. The United States has in excess of 40 gigawatts of landbased wind power, but off-shore wind generation has not been 

widely demonstrated and represents an untapped and potentially 

large energy source. As such, the Committee supports a balanced 

program seeking to improve both land-based and off-shore systems 

and supports the Department’s request to increase funds for offshore wind research and development. Further, offshore wind 

farms in deeper waters avoid local and commercial impacts possible 

in areas closer to shorelines, and the Committee encourages the 

Department to focus on deepwater wind technologies that are currently too expensive for widespread deployment. 

Any demonstration projects should be openly competed to all interested locations, and shall be substantially more technically advanced than other projects funded by the private sector. Prior to 

announcing an award for a demonstration project, the Department 

shall communicate to the Committee the specific technical merits 

of the selected project that differentiate it from the other applicants 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
88 

and that make it too risky to be supported by private sector funding alone. 

Geothermal Technology.—Ground heat is a potentially large 

source of domestic energy that could be broadly tapped for power 

generation, heating, and cooling. The Committee recommends 

$38,000,000 for geothermal technology, $3,000 below fiscal year 

2011 and $63,535,000 below the budget request. 

The U.S. Geological Survey has identified more than 120,000 

megawatts of untapped potential from low-temperature geothermal 

resources. The Committee directs the Department to continue advancing technologies that can exploit this vast resource through 

continued research and development in the Low Temperature and 

Co-Produced Resources Program. 

The Department has indicated that partial awards for multi-year 

grants in past years have committed the Geothermal Technologies 

program to $62,510,000 of commitments in fiscal year 2012. Given 

that the program’s funding level was $44,000,000 and $38,003,000 

in fiscal years 2010 and 2011, respectively, the Committee is concerned that the Department has severely overcommitted itself with 

awards that assumed future funding levels well above its current 

level. 

This and all energy research and development programs at the 

Department would be well-served by adjusting grants and activities 

each year to match the evolving technology landscape—and could 

do so only by minimizing mortgages on future year funds. However, 

if the Department commits future-year funding, the program must, 

first and foremost, meet those past commitments. The Committee 

therefore directs the Department to use Geothermal Technologies 

fiscal year 2012 funds to only pay mortgages on past awards. The 

program may not announce new funding opportunities until its remaining mortgages for future years are less than half of the overall 

appropriation it receives in fiscal year 2012. 

Water Power.—The Committee recommends $50,000,000 for 

Water Power research and development, $20,000,000 above fiscal 

year 2011 and $11,500,000 above the budget request, to include 

$25,000,000 for marine and hydrokinetic research, development, 

and demonstration, and $25,000,000 for conventional hydropower 

research and development. 

The Committee continues to encourage the Department’s research, development and demonstration of marine and hydrokinetic 

renewable energy systems. These nascent technologies are largely 

experimental, and the Department should support American industry and laboratories as they compete in this rapidly evolving and 

high-risk market. 

The budget request also proposes to devote roughly half of the 

Water Power program to conventional hydropower, including the 

deployment of higher-efficiency turbines and installation of turbines at unpowered dams. The Committee strongly supports better 

usage of our hydropower resources at existing facilities and dams. 

However, the entities that own these facilities—the Army Corps of 

Engineers, Bureau of Reclamation, and private sector entities— 

should be responsible for making these investments, and this recommendation includes funds for the Corps and the Bureau for 

these activities. The Committee directs no funds to the deployment 

of turbine upgrades or efficiency upgrades by the Department of 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
89 

Energy at existing hydropower facilities, thereby keeping the program consistent with the Department’s core mandate to develop 

and advance new energy science and technologies. 

Vehicle Technologies.—Transportation accounts for approximately 

two-thirds of the petroleum used in the United States, and the Vehicle Technologies program aims to lower this critical sector’s dependence on imported oil through advancements that increase the 

fuel efficiency of vehicles and develop new vehicles not reliant on 

petroleum-based fuels. The Committee recommends $254,000,000 

for Vehicle Technologies, $46,000,000 below fiscal year 2011 and 

$334,003,000 below the budget request. The budget request proposes $229,000,000 for Vehicle Tech- nologies Deployment, including more than $200,000,000 for new activities to be focused entirely on electric vehicle deployment 

through local and state grants. The Department proposes to use 75 

percent of the proposed budget to fund charging points in public, 

commercial, and residential locations. Within today’s federal budgetary constraints, the vast majority of charging points must ultimately be funded by municipalities, customers, and the private sector. Further, utilities, automobile manufacturers, and other businesses are actively experimenting with a variety of policies and 

business models in the rapidly evolving electric vehicle infrastructure landscape. As such, a federal injection of funding for charging 

points risks disrupting this ongoing experimentation and may 

crowd out businesses marketing to new or prospective drivers of 

electrified vehicles. The Committee, however, recognizes that significant policy and procedural barriers exist at the state, utility 

regulator, and local levels that can slow or prevent the purchase 

of electric vehicles and the installation of charging points. The Committee therefore recommends $26,510,000 for Vehicle 

Technologies Deployment, of which no funding is provided for 

charging points. The Committee instead recommends up to 

$3,000,000 from available funds for the Department to commission 

the National Academies to conduct a study, with input from state 

utility commissions, electric utilities, automobile manufacturers, selected local governments with recent electric vehicle infrastructure 

experience, and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, to 

identify the market barriers slowing the purchase of electric vehicles and hindering the deployment of supporting infrastructure. 

The report shall recommend what roles, if any, should be played 

by the federal government to mitigate those barriers, and shall 

identify what federal agencies, including the Department of Energy, would be most effective in those roles. Finally, the study shall 

identify how the Department can best utilize the data on electric 

vehicle usage already being collected by the Department. 

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 Committee is concerned the 

Department’s budget request proposes to terminate or delay commitments to grants for the SuperTruck program, which focuses on 

truck efficiency. The Committee supports the termination of underperforming grants that are failing to meet targets, as continued investment in such projects wastes taxpayer dollars. However, the 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
90 

Department has not pointed to any level of underperformance by 

grantees within the SuperTruck program, but instead the proposed 

termination seems to be an arbitrary withdrawal from commitments to make room for the Department’s political and policy priorities of the day. If the Department continues to mortgage large 

amounts of future year appropriations—which can hamper the 

agency’s ability to adjust its policy priorities—it should be prepared 

to meet those past financial commitments if projects continue to 

meet performance goals. Further, the Department should be prepared to terminate failing projects with due cause. If it determines 

projects are underperforming, the Department should clearly explain deficiencies to grantees. Consistent with this policy, the Committee expects that the Department will meet commitments to 

prior awards within the SuperTruck program, as it has not communicated any evidence of failure to meet performance targets. 

The recommendation includes $28,244,000 for Lightweight Materials Technology, $2,000,000 above the budget request, to support 

activities that advance lightweight materials, including carbon 

composites and other materials. Innovations in lightweight materials can increase the efficiency for all vehicle types, including electric drive vehicles and those powered by petroleum-based fuels, 

biofuels, and hydrogen fuels. 

Building Technologies.—Buildings consume more than 40 percent 

of energy nationwide, and the Building Technologies program seeks 

to reduce energy consumption by increasing the efficiency of building systems as well as the appliances and devices used within 

them. The Committee recommends $150,000,000 for Building Technologies, $60,500,000 below fiscal year 2011 and $320,700,000 

below the request. 

The recommendation includes $24,300,000, the same as the request, for the third year of the Energy Efficient Building Systems 

Design Energy Innovation Hub. The Department is directed to deliver to the Committee, not later than 60 days after enactment of 

this Act, a report detailing: the current status of the Hub, including 

number of employees and status of the Hub’s final offices and other 

facilities; all milestones originally set forth for the Hub, including 

those for the end of fiscal years 2010 and 2011; the Hub’s current 

performance in meeting those milestones; the Hub’s milestones for 

fiscal years 2012, 2013 and 2014; and the specific milestones and 

performance criteria that the Hub must meet in order to be considered for a second five-year term. 

The recommendation includes no funds for the Race to the Green 

grant program. 

The recommendation includes $25,832,000 for lighting research 

and development, the same as the budget request, to continue advancing solid state lighting technologies. While these high-efficiency lighting options are still too expensive to compete in the general lighting market, solid state lighting has the potential to substantially reduce energy consumption from lighting while cutting 

energy bills for consumers and businesses. In its fiscal year 2010 

report, the Committee encouraged the Department to fund research 

aiming to lower manufacturing costs, and the Committee continues 

to support this research in conjunction with core technology and 

product development research within this program. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
91 

The Department has previously announced the Bright Tomorrow 

Lighting Prize, or ‘‘L Prize,’’ which offers both a monetary prize 

and federal procurement and other benefits to the first organization that manufactures highly-efficient solid state general purpose 

light bulbs meeting various technical requirements. While private 

sector investment has been committed as a result of this announcement, the Department has not, to date, allocated funding for this 

prize nor has it requested funding in the fiscal year 2010, 2011, or 

2012 budget requests. The Committee strongly opposes the Department announcing funding opportunities when those funds have not 

yet been made available by the Congress. In the case of the L 

Prize, the Department risks damaging its credibility and misleading the private sector if an entrant qualifies for the prize and 

the Department cannot pay the full implied award due to a lack 

of advanced allocation of funding. To prevent this practice in the 

future, the Committee includes a general provision in this bill prohibiting announcements in advance of appropriations. To ensure 

that the Department meets commitments already promised for the 

L Prize, the Committee recommendation includes $10,000,000, 

from within available Building Technologies funds and in addition 

to funds recommended for lighting research and development, for 

the Bright Tomorrow Lighting Prize to fund previously-announced 

prizes for competitions specified in section 655 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. 

The Committee supports ongoing Solar Heating and Cooling research and development activities within the Building Technologies 

program. These technologies are among the most clean, reliable, 

and cost-effective technologies that can be used to reduce utility 

bills and energy consumption for homes and businesses. 

The Committee is concerned that the Office of Energy Efficiency 

and Renewable Energy does not have a coherent program to conduct research, development, and demonstration of geothermal heat 

pumps. The Committee directs the Department to consider and develop a strategic plan to develop innovative geothermal heat pump 

technologies; promote their use in both residential and commercial 

applications; advise the Assistant Secretary on policy matters that 

affect consumers and manufacturers of geothermal heat pumps; receive, analyze, collect, and disseminate publicly available data and 

information; and carry out other applicable responsibilities. The 

Department is to report back within 180 days of enactment of this 

Act on its progress. 

Industrial Technologies.—The Industrial Technologies program 

funds research and development to increase the efficiency of industrial processes across a variety of industries. The Committee recommends $96,000,000, $12,241,000 below fiscal year 2011 and 

$223,784,000 below the budget request. 

The recommendation includes $34,000,000 for Next Generation 

Materials, $66,784,000 below the request. 

Within available funds for Next Generation Materials, the recommendation includes $20,000,000 for the Energy Innovation Hub 

for Critical Materials, the same as the budget request. Recognizing 

the criticality of rare earth materials in clean energy technologies 

such as wind power, electric vehicles, and energy efficient lighting, 

the Committee urges the Hub to, in part, work towards advancing 

and rebuilding a rare earth materials supply chain within the 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
92 

United States that includes the production of rare earth minerals, 

oxides, metals, alloys, and permanent magnets. The Department is 

directed to deliver to the Committee, not later than 90 days after 

enactment of this Act, a report detailing: a timeline for selecting 

an awardee; draft organizational and research milestones for the 

end of fiscal years 2012 through 2016; and specific criteria the Hub 

must meet to be considered for extension beyond the initial five 

year term. The report must also identify how the Hub will work 

with the Advanced Research Projects Agency—Energy (ARPA–E) to 

ensure work on critical materials between the two programs is not 

redundant if ARPA–E chooses to issue awards in this area. 

The recommendation includes $44,205,000 for Next Generation 

Manufacturing Processes, $84,795,000 below the request. Within 

available funds, the recommendation includes not less than 

$4,205,000 for improvements in production in the steel industry. 

The Committee is concerned that the reorganization of the Industrial Technologies program will negatively impact Combined Heat 

and Power activities, and the Committee urges the Department to 

continue support for this important program. The recommendation 

for Next Generation Manufacturing Processes includes $25,000,000 

for Combined Heat and Power, the same as the budget request, of 

which no less than one-fourth of the funding is for research and development activities for small-scale systems that can be used in 

residential and small commercial settings. 

With nearly three-quarters of industrial energy use consumed by 

fuel-fired systems tied to either steam systems or process heating 

equipment, the Department is encouraged to continue to look into 

improvements in mechanical insulation. Advances in this area have 

the potential to yield significant energy savings for the industrial 

and commercial segments. The recommendation includes $17,795,000 for Industrial Technical Assistance, $57,205,000 below the request. 

While developing innovative manufacturing techniques for energy technologies is critical for the nation to compete in the rapidly 

evolving energy sector, the Department’s proposed Manufacturing 

Energy Systems program is redundant with manufacturing research and development activities across the Department’s technology-specific programs. Energy sector manufacturing spans a 

broad spectrum of often-unrelated technologies and manufacturing 

processes, and it is not evident that a single program could be effective in its attempt to cover that spectrum. Each Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy program houses expertise on its 

technology area and is more capable of administering manufacturing research and development programs than one centralized 

manufacturing program would be. The Department has not provided sufficient information to address these concerns, nor has it 

provided sufficient evidence of planning to assure the Committee 

that funds would be used well. The recommendation includes no 

funding for Manufacturing Energy Systems, and the Committee 

continues to encourage the Department to invest in manufacturing 

research and development within each Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy program. 

Federal Energy Management Program.—The Federal Energy 

Management Program seeks to mitigate energy costs of the federal 

government by assisting federal agencies in reducing their energy 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
93 

usage. The Committee recommends $30,000,000, $402,000 below 

fiscal year 2011 and $3,072,000 below the budget request. 

Facilities and Infrastructure.—The Committee recommends 

$26,407,000 for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Facilities 

and Infrastructure, $24,593,000 below fiscal year 2011 and the 

same as the budget request. 

Program Direction.—Program Direction provides funding for Department staff to manage and oversee the Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy programs. The Committee recommends 

$110,000,000 for program direction, $60,000,000 below fiscal year 

2011 and $66,605,000 below the budget request. 

Strategic Programs.—The Committee recommends $25,000,000 

for Strategic Programs, formerly named Program Support, 

$7,000,000 below fiscal year 2011 and $28,204,000 below the budget request. The recommendation includes $8,000,000 for the International program, $2,000,000 below the budget request, to include 

$2,000,000 for the U.S.-Israel energy cooperative agreement. 

FEDERAL ENERGY ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS

The Committee recommends a total of $68,000,000 for federal energy assistance programs, $163,300,000 below fiscal year 2011 and 

$325,798,000 below the budget request. 

Weatherization Assistance.—The Committee recommends 

$33,000,000 for the Weatherization Assistance Program, 

$141,300,000 below fiscal year 2011 and $287,000,000 below the 

budget request, of which $3,000,000 is for training and technical 

assistance. 

At current rates of spending, the Weatherization Assistance Pro- gram will have an estimated $1.5 billion in unspent funding from 

the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) for 

use in fiscal year 2012. Recognizing that some states will have 

spent all ARRA funds by the beginning of fiscal year 2012 while 

others will have remaining ARRA funds through much or all of the 

fiscal year, the recommendation includes statutory language allowing the Secretary to waive the allocation formula in order to adjust 

its distribution of funds in fiscal year 2012. In the event that the 

Secretary executes this waiver, the Department is directed to (1) 

use the existing weatherization formula as a baseline for calculating allocations; (2) reduce the allocation for states that have sufficient ARRA funds to supplement regular appropriations during 

fiscal year 2012; and (3) increase the allocation for states that have 

little or no ARRA funding remaining for use in fiscal year 2012. 

Given current spending rates of ARRA funds, the recommendation 

provides sufficient appropriations and flexibility such that all 

states should have funds in fiscal year 2012 approximately equivalent to their fiscal year 2010 allocations. 

State Energy Program.—The Committee recommends 

$25,000,000 for the State Energy Program, $25,000,000 below fiscal 

year 2011 and $38,798,000 below the budget request, all of which 

shall be for formula grants. 

Tribal Energy Activities.—The Committee recommends 

$10,000,000 for tribal energy projects, $3,000,000 above fiscal year 

2011 and the same as the budget request, to continue providing assistance to tribes for developing sustainable and economical energy 

solutions for their communities. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
94 

ELECTRICITY DELIVERY AND ENERGY RELIABILITY

Appropriation, 2011 ............................................................................ $141,010,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ....................................................................... 237,717,000 

Recommended, 2012 ........................................................................... 139,496,000 

Comparison:.

Appropriation, 2011 .................................................................... ¥1,514,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ................................................................ ¥98,221,000 

The Committee recommends $139,496,000 for Electricity Delivery 

and Energy Reliability, $1,514,000 below fiscal year 2011 and 

$98,221,000 below the budget request. After accounting for a onetime rescission of $3,700,000 in fiscal year 2011 and the use of 

$504,000 of prior-year balances in this bill, the recommendation is 

$4,710,000 below fiscal year 2011. 

The Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability program advances technologies and provides operational support to increase 

the efficiency, resiliency, and security of the nation’s electricity delivery system. The power grid employs aging technologies at a time 

when power demands, the deployment of new intermittent technologies, and rising security threats are imposing new stresses on 

the system. Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability aims to develop a modern power grid by advancing cyber security technologies, intelligent and high-efficiency grid components, and energy storage systems. 

Use of prior-year balances.—The Department is directed to use 

$504,000 of prior-year balances as proposed in the request. 

Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability Research and Development.—The Committee recommends $103,813,000 for Electricity 

Delivery and Energy Reliability Research and Development, 

$1,187,000 below fiscal year 2011 and $89,004,000 below the budget request. 

The Committee recommends $20,000,000 for Clean Energy 

Transmission and Reliability, $6,000,000 below fiscal year 2011 

and $40,817,000 below the budget request. The recommendation includes no funding for the Smart Grid Technology and Systems 

Hub. 

In the budget request, the Department proposes a new Advanced 

Modeling Grid Research program to develop systems for processing 

grid sensor data in order to provide better real-time monitoring 

and grid planning. The Committee notes that the Advanced Research Projects Agency—Energy also proposes to fund Electrical Infrastructure research, some of which may focus on software and 

other systems to actively control electricity transmission and distribution systems. The Committee is generally encouraged by the 

Department’s increasing coordination to ensure that cooperation— 

rather than redundancy—occurs among overlapping programs. The 

Committee therefore expects the Department to coordinate the 

grid-related activities across these two programs, and directs the 

Department to provide, not later than 180 days after enactment of 

this Act, a report outlining the activities relating to grid modeling 

in both Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability and the Advanced Research Projects Agency—Energy; any points of overlap 

between the two programs; and a cohesive vision for research and 

development across both program offices to advance grid modeling 

in a coordinated manner. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
95 

The Committee recommends $33,813,000 for Smart Grid Research and Development, $4,813,000 above fiscal year 2011 and 

$11,187,000 below the budget request; and $20,000,000 for energy 

storage research and development, the same as fiscal year 2011 

and $37,000,000 below the budget request. The Committee recommends $30,000,000 for cyber security for 

energy delivery systems research and development, the same as fiscal year 2011 and the budget request. As advanced electronics and 

information networks become increasingly integrated with the nation’s electric power systems, the Committee remains concerned 

that prevention methods keep pace with heightened risks of both 

cyber and physical attack. It is imperative that the Department of 

Energy collaborates with other federal agencies to maintain a holistic cyber security program that assesses risks to the national electricity infrastructure, sets preventative security standards, and develops and disseminates security technologies into the electricity 

delivery system through private sector entities. The Department 

shall report to the Committee not later than March 1, 2012, on its 

efforts to cooperatively work with other federal agencies and the 

private sector on risk assessment, grid security standards, development of risk mitigation measures, and deployment of those measures. The Department should also be prepared to update the Committee on the threat to the energy delivery systems not later than 

that date. 

Within the cyber security research program, the Department is 

encouraged to conduct full-scale testing to corroborate modeling 

and simulation of cyber attacks and develop mitigation approaches. 

Permitting, Siting and Analysis.—The Committee recommends 

$8,000,000, $2,000,000 above fiscal year 2011 and the same as the 

budget request. 

Infrastructure Security and Energy Restoration.—The Committee 

recommends $6,187,000, $87,000 above fiscal year 2011 and the 

same as the budget request. 

Program Direction.—The Committee recommends $22,000,000, 

$5,610,000 below fiscal year 2011 and $9,217,000 below the budget 

request. 

NUCLEAR ENERGY

Appropriation, 2011 ............................................................................ $725,824,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ....................................................................... 754,028,000 

Recommended, 2012 ........................................................................... 733,633,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2011 .................................................................... +7,809,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ................................................................ ¥20,395,000 

The Committee recommends $733,633,000 for Nuclear Energy, 

$7,809,000 above fiscal year 2011 and $20,395,000 below the budget request. After accounting for a one-time rescission of $6,300,000 

in fiscal year 2011 and the use of $1,367,000 of prior-year balances 

in this bill, the recommendation is $2,876,000 above fiscal year 

2011. 

Nuclear power currently generates 20 percent of America’s electricity and will continue to play a vital role in the future as a reliable and domestic source of energy. Nuclear Energy activities at 

the Department of Energy advance the next generation of safe, secure, and economic nuclear power options and contribute to the naVerDate Mar 15 2010 07:41 Jun 25, 2011 Jkt 066950 PO 00000 Frm 00095 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR118.XXX HR118

jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
96 

tion’s long-term leadership in the nuclear power industry in the 

United States and abroad. 

The events at the Fukushima Daiichi facilities in March of 2011 

reinforce the imperative to invest in the safety and security of the 

nation’s current fleet of nuclear power plants and facilities. In addition to contributing to that effort, the Nuclear Energy program ensures through research, development, and demonstration activities 

that future generations of nuclear power reactors are even safer 

and more resilient. 

The bill supports two programs, Small Modular Reactors (SMR) 

and the Next Generation Nuclear Plant (NGNP), that will demonstrate the next generation of passively-safe nuclear power. Due 

to their small size and other innovative features, these reactors can 

employ inherently safe designs that do not require active cooling in 

the unlikely event of backup and power grid failure. While the current fleet of American nuclear power plants are safe and governed 

by rigorous oversight, the SMR, NGNP, and other next generation 

designs supported by Nuclear Energy research will further increase 

the substantial safety margins of the nation’s nuclear power plants. 

National laboratories, universities, and U.S. industry all make 

important contributions to the development of domestic nuclear energy technologies and advanced reactors. However, the Committee 

notes that industry would be eligible to compete for less than 10 

percent of the total fiscal year 2012 budget request, and only one 

third of that small portion was made available for industry grants 

in fiscal year 2010. In order to foster collaboration among the Department’s laboratories and industry partners, to retain U.S. industrial involvement in nuclear energy, and to ensure that the best research groups for each activity carry out research on behalf of the 

Department, the Committee recommends that not less than 10 percent of the total appropriation for Nuclear Energy be fully and 

openly competed among national laboratories, universities, and 

U.S. industry. Further, the Department is directed to report to the 

Committee, not later than 90 days after enactment of this Act, a 

list of all Nuclear Energy activities funded in fiscal year 2012 and 

the instituion types eligible for each activity. The Department shall 

provide to the Committee an update for this report, not later than 

April 1, 2012, indicating the type of grantee(s) that ultimately received funding for each activity. 

Use of prior-year balances.—The Department is directed to use 

$1,367,000 of prior-year balances as proposed in the request. 

NUCLEAR ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

The Committee provides $439,000,000 for Nuclear Energy Research and Development, $28,473,000 above fiscal year 2011 and 

$8,374,000 below the request. 

Nuclear Energy Enabling Technologies.—For this program, which 

draws upon expertise in industry, academia, and the national laboratories to develop technologies that will support a wide variety 

of nuclear reactor designs, the Committee recommends 

$95,014,000, $43,631,000 above comparable activities in fiscal year 

2011 and $2,350,000 below the budget request. The recommendation includes $14,580,000 for the National Science User Facility at 

the Idaho National Laboratory, the same as the request. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
97 

The recommendation includes $24,300,000 within Nuclear Energy Enabling Technologies for the Modeling and Simulation Energy Innovation Hub, the same as the request. The Department is 

directed to deliver to the Committee, not later than 60 days after 

enactment of this Act, a report detailing: the current status of the 

Hub, including number of employees and status of the Hub’s final 

offices and other facilities; all milestones originally set forth for the 

Hub, including those for the end of fiscal years 2010 and 2011; the 

Hub’s current performance in meeting those milestones; the Hub’s 

milestones for fiscal years 2012, 2013 and 2014; and the specific 

milestones and performance criteria that the Hub must meet in 

order to be considered for a second five-year term. 

Integrated University Program.—The Committee recommends 

$5,000,000 to continue the Integrated University Program, which 

supports scholarships, fellowships, and educational opportunities 

for nuclear science, engineering, nonproliferation, and other fields 

in the highly-specialized field of nuclear energy. The Committee 

recommendation also includes funding for this program within the 

National Nuclear Security Administration and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Light Water Reactor Small Modular Reactor Licensing Technical 

Support.—The Committee recommends $67,000,000, the same as 

the request, to provide licensing and first-of-a-kind engineering 

support for two reactor designs and sites. The Committee notes the 

potential for significant advantages of small modular reactors when 

compared to conventional full-sized reactors and supports exploration of this avenue through both research and the licensing process. Further, within tight fiscal constraints, it is imperative that 

the Department identifies specific program goals and termination 

criteria for any new programs it initiates. The Department is therefore directed to provide to the Committee, not later than December 

15, 2011, a report including: specific annual milestones and expected federal costs for the SMR licensing program through completion of licensing for two designs; and the specific advantages 

that must be demonstrated in SMR designs to continue federal 

funding, including target metrics relating to expected capital cost, 

financing, safety, potential for a domestic supply chain, quantified 

private sector interest, and other areas identified by the Department that make the case for significant public benefits of and federal support for small modular reactors. 

Reactor Concepts Research, Development, and Demonstration.— 

The Committee recommends $136,986,000, $31,549,000 below fiscal 

year 2011 and $11,986,000 above the request. The recommendation 

includes $28,674,000 for Small Modular Reactors (SMR) Advanced 

Concepts Research and Development, the same as the request; and 

$25,000,000 for Light Water Reactor Sustainability, $3,616,000 

above the request. 

The recommendation also includes $63,572,000 for the Next Generation Nuclear Plant (NGNP) program, $14,000,000 above the request, for Phase 1 research and development and to support activities in preparation of a Phase 2 demonstration while the Committee awaits a Secretarial recommendation for the future of the 

project. The NGNP program seeks to develop and demonstrate nuclear technologies that can significantly increase the competitiveness of U.S industry by providing an alternative for process heat 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
98 

production. The Committee has strongly supported NGNP in prior 

years by providing over $500,000,000 for the program’s Phase 1 research, development, and conceptual design activities. Regardless 

of the ultimate decision for the Phase 2 demonstration project, the 

Committee expects that the Department will request adequate 

funds to ensure the reasonable completion of research and dissemination of knowledge produced by this considerable Phase 1 effort. 

Further, the Committee directs the Department to actively engage 

with industry in order to determine the best path forward for 

Phase 2. 

The Committee is concerned that, over the past decade, the Department has shifted priorities from Generation IV reactors with a 

focus on the Next Generation Nuclear Plant’s high temperature 

gas-cooled reactors with industrial applications, to the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership’s focus on reprocessing and fast reactor 

development to close the nuclear fuel cycle, to the new focus on 

Small Modular Reactors for electric power generation, in what appears to be a constant shifting of priorities that starts many initiatives and finishes none. To ensure disciplined choices for its reactor 

research, development, and demonstration programs, and to ensure 

that each program is chosen carefully and carried through to completion, the Department is requested to provide to the Committee 

a list of objective criteria that establish priorities for funding of reactor initiatives. These criteria should be chosen such that they (1) 

articulate and further the specific energy goals for the Office of Nuclear Energy, and (2) increase the likelihood that the office funds 

technological innovations that are ultimately commercialized in the 

nuclear industry. 

Fuel Cycle Research and Development.—The Committee recommends $132,000,000 for Fuel Cycle Research and Development, 

$55,615,000 below fiscal year 2011 and $23,010,000 below the request. 

From within available funds, the recommendation includes 

$36,000,000 for Used Nuclear Fuel Disposition, $1,249,000 below 

the budget request. The Committee directs that all documentation 

relating to Yucca Mountain, including technical information, 

records, and other documents, as well as scientific data and physical materials, be preserved. 

International Nuclear Energy Cooperation.—The Committee recommends $3,000,000, the same as the request, for International 

Nuclear Energy Cooperation. The Department is directed to report 

to the Committee, not later than March 1, 2012, an inventory of 

all international activities conducted in fiscal year 2012 across the 

Office of Nuclear Energy, including funding levels and the program 

or activity from which the funds are drawn. 

RADIOLOGICAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT

The Radiological Facilities Management program maintains safe 

and effective operation of the critical infrastructure that provides 

radioisotope power systems production capabilities for defense and 

space agency users. These outside users fund the Department’s 

operational, production, and research activities on a reimbursable 

basis. The Committee recommends $49,000,000, $2,714,000 below 

fiscal year 2011 and $15,888,000 below the request. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
99 

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. 

Space and Defense Infrastructure.—The Committee recommends 

$44,014,000, $2,892,000 below fiscal year 2011 and $5,888,000 

below the request. 

Plutonium–238 Production Restart Project.—The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) uses the vast majority 

of plutonium–238 (Pu–238) produced or procured by the federal 

government. The Committee remains concerned that the Administration continues to request equal funding from NASA and the Department of Energy for a project that primarily benefits NASA. The 

Committee provides no funds for this project, and encourages the 

Administration to devise a plan for this project that more closely 

aligns the costs paid by federal agencies with the benefits they receive. 

IDAHO FACILITIES MANAGEMENT

The Committee recommends $155,000,000, $28,604,000 below fiscal year 2011 and $5,000,000 above the request, for Idaho National 

Laboratory (INL) operations and infrastructure. Consistent with 

prior years, funds provided under this heading are intended to develop new capabilities; address Idaho facility management operations, maintenance and repair; support environmental compliance; 

provide for other necessary capital equipment purchases; and operate the laboratory’s new advanced post-irradiation examination capabilities. The recommendation also increases funding to accelerate 

the planning, acquisition and execution of identified improvements 

in safety system reliability; severe accident management and response capability; and revitalization of aging or obsolete equipment 

and instrumentation, monitoring and control systems at existing 

nuclear facilities. 

The Committee notes that $14,580,000 for the National Science 

User Facility previously funded within Idaho Facilities Management is funded within Nuclear Energy Enabling Technologies in 

fiscal year 2012, as proposed in the budget request. 

PROGRAM DIRECTION

The Committee recommends $92,000,000 for Program Direction, 

$5,721,000 above fiscal year 2011 and $1,133,000 below the budget 

request. The recommended increase is intended to support existing 

personnel, federal personnel transferred into the Office of Nuclear 

Energy from the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, 

as well as the other aspects of program direction. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
100 

FOSSIL ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

Appropriation, 2011 ............................................................................ $444,529,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ....................................................................... 452,975,000 

Recommended, 2012 ........................................................................... 476,993,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2011 .................................................................... +32,464,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ................................................................ +24,018,000 

The Committee recommends $476,993,000 for Fossil Energy Re- search and Development, $32,464,000 above fiscal year 2011 and 

$24,018,000 above the budget request. After accounting for a onetime rescission of $140,000,000 in fiscal year 2011 and the use of 

$23,007,000 in prior-year balances in the bill, the recommendation 

is $84,529,000 below fiscal year 2011. 

Fossil energy resources, such as coal and natural gas, power 

more than 70 percent of the nation’s homes and businesses and will 

continue to provide the majority of electricity generation for the 

foreseeable future. The Fossil Energy Research and Development 

program funds research, development, and demonstration activities 

to improve existing technologies and develop next-generation systems. At a time when fossil fuel power generation is expanding 

around the globe, these activities advance our nation’s position as 

a leader in fossil energy technologies and at the same time ensure 

that we use our domestic resources safely and efficiently. 

The budget request continues the Administration’s push to shift 

the focus of Fossil Energy Research and Development towards carbon capture and sequestration (CCS), and the Committee is concerned that this approach ignores opportunities to use the nation’s 

natural resources more efficiently, to ensure the nation’s economic 

strength by keeping power costs low, and ultimately to keep fossil 

fuel industry jobs in the United States and strengthen the role of 

the United States as a leader in this sector as other nations move 

quickly to expand their fossil energy base. The program should invest in a broad array of research avenues, rather than focusing on 

the single, narrow goal of carbon capture and sequestration. 

Further, the Committee remains concerned about the Administration’s approach to shift funds from certain advanced fossil energy materials research activities at a time when such activities 

show significant potential for cleaner and more efficient fuel combustion for electric power generation. As such, the Committee 

strongly encourages the Department to refocus its efforts on this 

research and apply the necessary funding to those activities. 

Use of prior-year balances.—The Department is directed to use 

$23,007,000 of prior-year balances as proposed in the request. 

CCS and Power Systems.—The Committee recommends 

$338,762,000 for CCS and Power Systems, $47,404,000 above the 

budget request. 

The Committee recommends $105,000,000 for Advanced Energy 

Systems, $40,807,000 above the budget request. Of this amount, 

the recommendation includes not less than $25,000,000 to continue 

the Department’s research, development, and demonstration of 

solid oxide fuel cell systems, which have the potential to substantially increase the efficiency of clean coal power generation systems, to create new opportunities for the efficient use of natural 

gas, and to contribute significantly to the development of alternative-fuel vehicles. The recommendation also includes $5,000,000 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
101 

for High Performance Materials, $4,027,000 above the request, and 

$10,000,000 for the Coal and Coal-Biomass to Liquids program. 

Within Gasification Systems, a subprogram of Advanced Energy 

Systems, the recommendation includes $8,000,000, the same as the 

budget request, to continue activities improving advanced air separation technologies. 

The Committee recommends $49,347,000 for Cross Cutting Research, $6,597,000 above the budget request. 

Natural Gas Technologies.—The Committee recommends 

$15,000,000 for Natural Gas Technologies, $13,004,000 above fiscal 

year 2011 and $15,000,000 above the budget request, not less than 

$10,000,000 of which is for the Department to continue gas hydrates research and development activities. 

The development and subsequent use of hydraulic fracturing, or 

‘‘fracking,’’ techniques and other advanced drilling methods have 

recently expanded domestic natural gas resources to include vast 

reserves in shale gas formations. These newly-available reserves 

have the potential to greatly strengthen the nation’s economic, energy, and environmental security, and we must use this resource 

fully while ensuring public health and safety. The Department of 

Energy, with its technical expertise, can contribute productively to 

this effort through collaborative partnerships with industry, states, 

and municipalities. 

On May 5, 2011, the Secretary of Energy announced a group of 

experts tasked with recommending best practices for natural gas 

hydraulic fracturing from shale gas formations. The Committee is 

concerned that the selected panel members will not adequately represent industry perspectives, and therefore will not foster a spirit 

of partnership among industry, environmental, and governmental 

parties. In order to strengthen these partnerships and industry 

support for any subsequent recommendations, no less than onethird of panel members should be industry representatives who actively work in the natural gas industry. Further, the Department 

is directed to provide to the Committee a list, resulting from panel 

deliberations, of specific recommendations for Department of Energy activities that can assist industry in improving hydraulic fracturing technologies, as well as their budgetary requirements for the 

current and future fiscal years. 

Program Direction.—Strong program oversight and management 

are critical to ensuring that taxpayer dollars are efficiently and appropriately spent. Across the Department’s basic science and applied energy research and development accounts, program direction 

ranges from 4 percent to 13 percent of total account funding in the 

budget request. By contrast, program direction for Fossil Energy 

Research and Development in the budget request is more than 35 

percent of total account funding. The Committee believes that management of this program can be done more efficiently, and that 

more of each taxpayer dollar spent on Fossil Energy Research and 

Development can go toward developing technology innovations. The 

Committee recommends $120,847,000 for Program Direction, 

$30,882,000 below fiscal year 2011 and $38,386,000 below the 

budget request. At this level, Fossil Energy program direction is 

more than 25 percent of total account funding—still a larger percentage than any other research and development energy program, 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
102 

but more in line with the norm and what should be necessary to 

cost-effectively oversee activities. 

Ultra-Deepwater and Unconventional Natural Gas and Other Petroleum Research Fund.—The recommendation does not include the 

legislative repeal of this fund and its programs, as proposed in the 

budget request. 

NAVAL PETROLEUM AND OIL SHALE RESERVES

Appropriation, 2011 ............................................................................ $20,854,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ....................................................................... 14,909,000 

Recommended, 2012 ........................................................................... 14,909,000 

Comparison:.

Appropriation, 2011 .................................................................... ¥5,945,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ................................................................ — 

The Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves no longer serve the 

national defense purpose envisioned in the early 1900’s, and consequently the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 

1996 required the sale of the Government’s interest in the Naval 

Petroleum Reserve 1 (NPR–1). To comply with this requirement, 

the Elk Hills field in California was sold to Occidental Petroleum 

Corporation in 1998. Following the sale of Elk Hills, the transfer 

of the oil shale reserves, and transfer of administrative jurisdiction 

and environmental remediation of the Naval Petroleum Reserve 2 

(NPR–2) to the Department of the Interior, the Department retains 

one Naval Petroleum Reserve property, the Naval Petroleum Reserve 3 (NPR–3) in Wyoming (Teapot Dome field). This is a stripper well oil field that the Department has maintained while it remained economically productive. The fiscal year 2012 budget request proposes to cease production at this field, based on projections that production costs will exceed revenues and to develop a 

plan for its sale or disposition. The budget request does not include 

funding for management of the Rocky Mountain Oilfield Testing 

Center (RMOTC) at NPR–3, proposing to allow only projects with 

fully reimbursable arrangements or which are fully funded by the 

Department’s Geothermal Technology Program. Funds are included 

in the budget request for continuing environmental and remediation work at Elk Hills and NPR–3. 

The Committee recommendation for the operation of the naval 

petroleum and oil shale reserves is $14,909,000, $5,945,000 below 

fiscal year 2011 and the same as the budget request. 

The Committee recognizes that the RMOTC operates as a fieldtesting facility for renewable and fossil fuel energy technologies, 

and, therefore, is a research facility similar to others operated by 

the Department of Energy. The Committee directs the Department 

to use $250,000 provided in fiscal year 2012 to develop a long-term 

management plan for the RMOTC that includes a transition to a 

self-sustaining facility and supports the use of unobligated funds 

from prior years, if available, to support the testing mission at the 

RMOTC until such transition is completed. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
103 

STRATEGIC PETROLEUM RESERVE

Appropriation, 2011 ............................................................................ $123,141,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ....................................................................... 121,704,000 

Recommended, 2012 ........................................................................... 192,704,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2011 .................................................................... +69,563,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ................................................................ +71,000,000 

The mission of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) is to store 

petroleum to reduce the adverse economic impact of a major petroleum supply interruption to the U.S. and to carry out obligations 

under the international energy program. The current capacity of 

the Reserve is 727 million barrels. The facility is at capacity and 

provides 75 days of net import protection for the United States 

economy. 

The Committee recommendation does not include the 

$71,000,000 rescission proposed in the budget request, as that was 

included in the Fiscal Year 2011 Continuing Appropriations Act. 

Therefore, the recommendation is $192,704,000, $69,563,000 above 

fiscal year 2011 and $71,000,000 above the budget request. After 

accounting for a one-time rescission in fiscal year 2011, the recommendation is $16,737,000 below fiscal year 2011. 

SPR PETROLEUM ACCOUNT

Appropriation, 2011 ............................................................................ $— 

Budget estimate, 2012 ....................................................................... ¥250,000,000 

Recommended, 2012 ........................................................................... ¥500,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2011 .................................................................... ¥500,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ................................................................ ¥250,000,000 

The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981 (P.L. 97–35) created the SPR Petroleum Account to fund all Strategic Petroleum 

Reserve (SPR) petroleum acquisitions, associated transportation 

costs, U.S. customs duties, terminal throughput charges and other 

related miscellaneous costs. The account also funds the incremental 

costs of withdrawal and transportation of oil during an emergency 

drawdown and sale. 

The fiscal year 2012 budget request proposes a non-emergency 

sale of oil valued at $500,000,000 from the reserve. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that the amount of revenue 

from this sale that will be realized in fiscal year 2012 is 

$250,000,000, while the remaining $250,000,000 would not be realized until fiscal year 2013. This limited drawdown will provide 

spare storage capacity necessary to complete the replacement of 

one storage cavern and to perform structural inspections required 

under state law on other caverns. 

Rather than depositing the revenues from the sale into the SPR 

Reserve Account for use in purchasing oil at a later date to refill 

the reserve, the budget proposes cancellation of the sale revenues. 

This ‘‘savings’’ is then used to offset spending elsewhere in the Department of Energy’s budget request. The Committee supports the 

actions necessary to ensure continued structural integrity at storage sites, but is concerned about the use of revenues for other purposes. The Committee’s acceptance of the proposal should not be 

viewed as a precedent or as support for future uses of SPR oil sales 

to mask Departmental spending. Language in the budget request 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
104 

is included to allow balances in the account to be used for the costs 

of this non-emergency sale. 

The budget request also includes a legislative proposal to rescind 

the authority to fill the reserve through royalty-in-kind. The Committee does not include this legislative proposal as the royalty-inkind program has been an important tool in filling the reserve to 

its current capacity. Instead, and in light of recommendations for 

improvements to the program made by the Government Accountability Office, the Committee includes a provision prohibiting the 

Secretary from using the royalty-in-kind authority to restock oil 

sold during this limited drawdown. The Committee also includes 

language to ensure that the Department is able to account for all 

revenue from this sale in fiscal year 2012. 

NORTHEAST HOME HEATING OIL RESERVE

(INCLUDING RESCISSION OF FUNDS)

Appropriation, 2011 ............................................................................ $10,978,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ....................................................................... ¥89,881,000 

Recommended, 2012 ........................................................................... ¥89,881,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2011 .................................................................... ¥100,859,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ................................................................ — 

The acquisition and storage of heating oil for the Northeast 

began in August 2000 when the Department of Energy, through 

the Strategic Petroleum Reserve account, awarded contracts for the 

lease of commercial storage facilities and acquisition of heating oil. 

The purpose of the Reserve is to assure home heating oil supplies 

for the northeastern states during times of very low inventories 

and significant threats to the immediate supply of heating oil. The 

Northeast Heating Oil Reserve was established as a separate entity 

from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve on March 6, 2001. The Reserve has contained up to 2 million barrels, with approximately 

one-half located in commercial facilities in New York Harbor and 

approximately one-half located in commercial facilities in New 

Haven, Connecticut, and the Providence, Rhode Island area. 

The entire Reserve was sold in February 2011, to begin the process of converting the reserves to ultra-low sulfur heating oil, as required by certain New England states and to prepare for new commercial storage leases. The Department intends to restock the Reserve with only 1 million barrels of distillate located only in New 

England, and the Committee includes language limiting the size of 

the reserve consistent with this plan. 

The budget request proposes cancellation of any excess revenues 

from the sale, valued at approximately $100,000,000. The Committee includes a rescission of the same amount. Although the Reserve will be reduced in size by 50 percent, the budget request is 

roughly the same as the fiscal year 2011 request due to the increased costs of commercial storage. 

After accounting for the one-time rescission of $100,000,000, the 

Committee recommendation for the Northeast Home Heating Oil 

Reserve is $10,119,000, $859,000 below fiscal year 2011 and the 

same as the budget request. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
105 

ENERGY INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION

Appropriation, 2011 ............................................................................ $95,009,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ....................................................................... 123,957,000 

Recommended, 2012 ........................................................................... 105,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2011 .................................................................... +9,991,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ................................................................ ¥18,957,000 

The Energy Information Administration (EIA) is a quasi-independent agency within the Department of Energy established to 

provide timely, objective, and accurate energy-related information 

to the Congress, the executive branch, state governments, industry, 

and the public. The Committee recommends $105,000,000 for the 

Energy Information Administration, $9,991,000 above fiscal year 

2011 and $18,957,000 below the budget request. After accounting 

for a one-time rescission of $400,000 in fiscal year 2011, the recommendation is $9,591,000 above fiscal year 2011. 

With the increases in funding over fiscal year 2011, the Department is directed to fund all data collection, releases, and reports 

on oil, natural gas, electricity, renewables, and coal; all previously 

funded international energy statistics; and all ongoing energy analysis efforts, before allocating funding to the energy consumption 

surveys. 

NON-DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP

Appropriation, 2011 ............................................................................ $223,450,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ....................................................................... 219,121,000 

Recommended, 2012 ........................................................................... 213,121,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2011 .................................................................... ¥10,329,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ................................................................ ¥6,000,000 

The Non-Defense Environmental Cleanup program includes 

funds to manage and cleanup sites used for civilian energy research and non-defense related activities. These past activities resulted in radioactive, hazardous and mixed waste contamination 

that requires remediation, stabilization, or some other action. The 

Committee recommendation for Non-Defense Environmental Cleanup is $213,121,000, $10,329,000 below fiscal year 2011 and 

$6,000,000 below the budget request. After accounting for a onetime rescission in fiscal year 2011 of $900,000, the recommendation 

is $11,229,000 below fiscal year 2011. 

Economic development.—None of the Non-Defense Environmental 

Management funds, including those provided in the Non-Defense 

Environmental Cleanup and Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund, are available for economic development activities. 

Small Sites and Sponsored Facilities.—The Committee is concerned about the lack of remediation activity taking place around 

the country at various Department sponsored facilities and small 

sites under the responsibility of the Department. Not later than 

November 15, 2011, the Department is directed to develop and report a detailed action plan on remediating these small sites and 

sponsored facilities. The plan should take into account, where appropriate, models for site cleanup performed by private sector and 

third party organizations which could be less expensive and faster 

than the traditional agency-led cleanup model. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
106 

URANIUM ENRICHMENT DECONTAMINATION AND DECOMMISSIONING

FUND

Appropriation, 2011 ............................................................................ $497,084,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ....................................................................... 504,169,000 

Recommended, 2012 ........................................................................... 449,000,000 

Maximum use of miscellaneous proceeds, 2012 ............................... 150,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2011 .................................................................... ¥48,084,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ................................................................ ¥55,169,000 

The Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund was established by the Energy Policy Act of 1992 to 

pay for the cleanup of gaseous diffusion plants at Piketon, Ohio; 

Paducah, Kentucky; and the East Tennessee Technology Park, in 

Oak Ridge, Tennessee. Title X of the 1992 Act also authorized use 

of a portion of the fund to reimburse private licensees for the federal government’s share of the cost of cleaning up uranium and 

thorium processing sites. The Committee recommends $449,000,000 

for activities funded from the Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund, $48,084,000 below fiscal year 

2011 and $55,169,000 below the budget request. After accounting 

for a one-time rescission in fiscal year 2011 of $9,900,000, the recommendation is $57,984,000 below fiscal year 2011. The bill permits the Department to collect an additional $150,000,000 by bartering uranium, resulting in a total program funding of 

$599,000,000. 

The Committee recommendation includes $77,780,000 for Paducah, $182,747,000 for Oak Ridge, and $188,473,000 for Portsmouth. 

In addition, a maximum of $150,000,000 may be made available 

through the Department’s uranium bartering arrangement with 

Portsmouth. Funding for administration, community and regulatory support previously provided under this appropriation for 

Portsmouth, Paducah and Oak Ridge has been transferred to Community, Regulatory, and Program Support under the Defense Environmental Cleanup appropriation as requested. 

While the Committee is supportive of fulfilling the federal government’s responsibility for cleaning up these sites, the Committee 

is greatly concerned with the proliferation of strategies the Department is using to attempt to augment appropriated funds. During 

fiscal year 2010, the Department improperly made use of 

$100,000,000 in proceeds from the sale of Department-owned uranium in order to fund cleanup of Department liabilities at Portsmouth despite a 2006 GAO finding that a similar arrangement had 

violated the miscellaneous receipts statute. In fiscal year 2011, the 

Department intends to further increase the amount of uranium 

bartered to derive another $150,000,000 in funding. Although not 

included in its budget request, the Department has announced 

plans to accrue in fiscal year 2012 just over $200,000,000 in additional funds for cleanup at Portsmouth through this mechanism. 

The bill includes a provision making the availability of proceeds 

from barter, transfer or sale of uranium subject to appropriations. 

The overall reduction in fiscal year 2012 appropriated funding 

takes into account the Department’s use of miscellaneous proceeds 

of up to $150,000,000 to fund cleanup at Portsmouth. The Committee has reduced the Department’s proposed use of proceeds by 

$50,000,000 noting that the Department has failed to adequately 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
107 

address concerns that its use of this process destabilizes the uranium markets. 

For fiscal year 2013, the Department is directed to request any 

proposed use of miscellaneous proceeds in its budget request. 

SCIENCE

Appropriation, 2011 ............................................................................ $4,842,665,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ....................................................................... 5,416,114,000 

Recommended, 2012 ........................................................................... 4,800,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2011 .................................................................... ¥42,665,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ................................................................ ¥616,114,000 

The Office of Science funds basic science research in support of 

the Department of Energy’s core energy-focused missions. Through 

science research in physics, biology, chemistry, and other fundamental science and technology disciplines, the Department pushes 

the limits of scientific understanding and helps to maintain the nation’s leadership in energy innovation. Through national laboratories, universities, and other partnerships, the Office of Science 

funds a significant portion of science research nationwide. 

Science research includes programs focusing on high energy 

physics, nuclear physics, biological and environmental research, 

basic energy sciences, advanced scientific computing, fusion energy 

sciences, maintenance and construction of science laboratory infrastructure, safeguards and security at the science laboratories, 

workforce development for teachers and scientists, and science program direction. 

The Committee recommendation is $4,800,000,000, $42,665,000 

below fiscal year 2011 and $616,114,000 below the budget request. 

After accounting for a one-time rescission of $15,000,000 in fiscal 

year 2011 and the use of $2,749,000 of prior-year balances in this 

bill, the recommendation is $54,916,000 below fiscal year 2011. 

Understanding that harnessing scientific and technological ingenuity has long been at the core of the nation’s prosperity, the Department has programs designed to increase the number of underrepresented minorities in science, technology, engineering, and 

mathematics (STEM) areas. The Committee encourages the Department to maintain this commitment by engaging in competitions supporting programs that increase the number of underrepresented college minorities in STEM fields. The Secretary of Energy shall submit a report to the Congress concurrent with the fiscal year 2013 budget request evaluating the effectiveness of this 

initiative. 

Use of prior-year balances.—The Department is directed to use 

$2,749,000 of prior-year balances as proposed in the request. 

ADVANCED SCIENTIFIC COMPUTING RESEARCH

The Advanced Scientific Computing Research program develops 

world-leading computing and networking capabilities in support of 

science and energy research. The Committee recommends 

$427,093,000 for Advanced Scientific Computing Research, 

$5,096,000 above fiscal year 2011 and $38,507,000 below the request. 

The Office of Science and the National Nuclear Security Administration fund the development and operation of the world’s fastest 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
108 

computing systems. These systems have consistently topped the list 

of the world’s fastest supercomputers. More than just symbolic, 

American leadership in supercomputing supports domestic worldleading weapons and scientific research while keeping the private 

sector at the leading edge of information technology. Global competition has become increasingly fierce, with the United States unseated from the top spot in late 2010. The Committee continues to 

support science activities in the United States that improve and develop the world’s fastest supercomputing systems. 

Exascale Computing.—Beyond short-term incremental improvements in leadership computing systems, the Department is currently conducting research into the development of an exaflop 

speed—or ‘‘exascale’’—computing platform that would run at three 

orders of magnitude faster than today’s fastest computing systems. 

The pursuit of computing capabilities at these speeds is crucial to 

maintaining U.S. leadership in the increasingly important field of 

high performance computing, and in the broader information technology industry. Further, exascale systems will enable new simulations and analyses not currently possible in basic science research, 

energy technology development and weapons science. As both the 

Office of Science and the National Nuclear Security Administration 

have vested interests in exascale computing, the Committee commends efforts to collaborate on exascale research across these two 

programs and encourages further coordination and collaboration. 

While the budget request proposes funding increases to accelerate exascale research and emphasizes its importance, the Department has not yet aggregated exascale research components into a 

coherent effort. Several Department national laboratories have 

stated target years for exascale prototypes and fully-operational 

exascale systems, but the Department has not stated any such 

timeframes, nor has it provided clear funding amounts for the 

exascale effort in the budget request. The Department is directed 

to provide to the Committee, not later than February 10, 2012, a 

report including its current target date for developing an operational exascale platform, interim milestones towards reaching that 

target, estimated total ranges of Department investment likely 

needed to hit those targets, and a complete listing of exascale activities included in the budget request broken out by program and 

activity with comparisons to the current year’s funding levels. 

The Committee is supportive of investment in the national laboratories to expedite the exascale initiative, but also recognizes 

that small technology companies frequently provide the breakthrough innovations that are needed to achieve the kind of lowpower, high-speed systems needed for exascale computing, particularly as the leap to exascale may require unconventional technology 

solutions. For this reason, the Committee encourages the Department not to limit its exascale efforts solely to national laboratories 

and the largest private sector organizations, but also to consider 

small companies and research organizations working on the cutting 

edge of computing technologies. 

BASIC ENERGY SCIENCES

Basic Energy Sciences supports research in materials science, 

chemistry, geoscience and bioscience to provide the foundations for 

future innovations in energy technologies and national security. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
109 

The Committee recommends $1,688,145,000 for Basic Energy 

Sciences, $9,950,000 above fiscal year 2011 and $296,855,000 below 

the request. 

The recommendation includes $24,300,000 for the third year of 

the Fuels from Sunlight Energy Innovation Hub. The Committee is 

encouraged that this Hub is aggressively partnering with Energy 

Frontier Research Centers and other Department-funded groups 

conducting research into catalysts, membranes, and other areas 

that can contribute to the Hub’s mission. The Department is directed to deliver to the Committee, not later than 60 days after enactment of this Act, a report detailing: the current status of the 

Hub, including number of employees and status of the Hub’s final 

offices and other facilities; all milestones originally set forth for the 

Hub, including those for the end of fiscal years 2010 and 2011; the 

Hub’s current performance in meeting those milestones; the Hub’s 

milestones for fiscal years 2012, 2013 and 2014; and the specific 

milestones and performance criteria that the Hub must meet in 

order to be considered for a second five-year term. 

Within available funds, the recommendation includes 

$20,000,000 to establish an Energy Innovation Hub for Batteries 

and Energy Storage. The Department is directed to deliver to the 

Committee, not later than 90 days after enactment of this Act, a 

report detailing: a timeline for selecting the awardee; draft organizational and research milestones for the end of fiscal years 2012 

through 2016; and specific criteria the Hub must meet to be considered for extension beyond the initial five-year term. The report 

must also identify how the Hub will work with other Department 

of Energy programs and activities focusing on batteries and energy 

storage, including any Energy Frontier Research Centers focusing 

on related research areas. 

From within available funds, the recommendation includes no 

funds to establish new Energy Frontier Research Centers (EFRCs), 

the same as the request. The Department first funded the existing 

EFRCs in fiscal year 2009, establishing 46 centers for initial fiveyear periods to research five areas of science that would enable energy innovation. The Committee supports the energy-focused missions of the centers, as well as the increased visibility, transparency and accountability they bring to research conducted within 

Basic Energy Sciences. As with other initiatives established for limited terms, such as the Energy Innovation Hubs and BioEnergy Research Centers, the Department should not assume that all, or 

even most, Energy Frontier Research Centers will be continued beyond their fifth year in fiscal year 2013. Rather, each EFRC will 

be required to demonstrate superior performance and results germane to the Department’s energy-focused mission in order to receive an extension beyond the initial five-year award. To prepare 

for that review process and to better inform the Committee on the 

performance of these centers, the Department is directed to provide 

to the Committee, not later than March 1, 2012, a report including 

the five-year research goals for each EFRC, each center’s current 

status towards reaching those goals, and the Department’s latest 

rating of each EFRC’s performance as they pass their half-way 

point and the Committee considers funding for the last year of the 

initial five-year awards. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
110 

The recommendation provides no funds, $8,520,000 below the request, for the Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research. 

The Department proposed in the fiscal year 2011 budget request, 

and again this year, to move gas hydrates research from the Office 

of Fossil Energy to the Office of Science. As the proposed activities 

remain largely unchanged, this activity is more appropriately and 

effectively located within the Office of Fossil Energy. As such, no 

funding is included in the recommendation for Basic Energy 

Sciences for the proposed new gas hydrates activity. 

Terminations of Underperforming Projects.—Basic Energy 

Sciences research often operates at the boundaries of human 

knowledge in pursuit of solutions to the Department’s energy challenges. In this mission-focused pursuit, projects can often fail, either due to deficiencies of the research team or simply due to unexpected obstacles encountered when confronting some of the most 

difficult scientific problems. When a multi-year project struggles to 

meet its goals, it is a difficult decision but may be the best use of 

taxpayer dollars to terminate the project. The Committee is concerned that this effective practice is not often implemented at the 

Department of Energy. 

The Committee is encouraged by one example, the Advanced Research Projects Agency—Energy, which is closely monitoring all 

projects and actively considering the termination of projects that 

fail to meet their challenging goals. However, the Committee is 

concerned that Basic Energy Sciences is not holding its research 

groups accountable in the same way, and that it is not terminating 

underperforming grants. 

Further, while a portion of Basic Energy Sciences research is 

awarded to known recipients with defined goals—for example, to 

Energy Frontier Research Centers and Energy Innovation Hubs— 

more than 80 percent of the $854,669,000 of research in the budget 

request for Basic Energy Sciences lacks transparency to the public 

and to the Congress. The Committee is concerned that, in light of 

this lack of transparency, research activities receiving federal funding are not being held accountable to achieve the goals that make 

Basic Energy Science so critical to American scientific expertise 

and energy innovation. 

While free scientific exploration without use-inspired goals is important to advancing science, innovation, and American intellectual 

property, research funded under Department of Energy programs 

is ultimately centered on its core energy-focused goals. Within that 

context, most 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, 

including those at universities, national laboratories, Energy Frontier Research Centers, Energy Innovation Hubs and other recipients, by comparing current performance with original project goals. 

The Department is directed to terminate the lowest-ranking 

awards within Basic Energy Sciences in the amount of $25,000,000, 

and to report to the Committee, not later than March 15, 2012, on 

the results of the ranking exercise and selected terminations. These 

terminations will ensure that taxpayer dollars go only to the highest-performing projects, and will serve as a first step towards inVerDate Mar 15 2010 07:41 Jun 25, 2011 Jkt 066950 PO 00000 Frm 00110 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR118.XXX HR118

jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
111 

creasing the accountability and effectiveness of the research in this 

important program. 

BIOLOGICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH

The Biological and Environmental Research program supports 

advances in energy technologies and related science through research into complex biological and environmental systems. The 

Committee recommends $547,075,000 for Biological and Environmental Research, $64,748,000 below fiscal year 2011 and 

$170,825,000 below the request. 

The Committee supports activities that align closely with the Department’s core missions and advance the nation’s leadership in intellectual property generation and energy innovation. Within Biological and Environmental Research, such mission-focused activities include plant and microbe biology research that can enable 

breakthrough innovations in energy technologies like next-generation biofuel production, as well as research in support of the Department’s ongoing site and facility cleanup responsibilities. 

To this end, the Committee supports the Department’s efforts to 

eliminate activities that do not align with core Departmental missions. While Office of Science research focusing on medical applications of an artificial retina has produced important advances, the 

Department cannot sustain the use of funds for such off-mission 

purposes. The recommendation includes no funds for this research 

line, the same as the request, and the Department is directed to 

report to the Committee, not later than December 15, 2011, on its 

strategy to transition this research to the National Institutes of 

Health or other appropriate federal entity. 

The Climate and Environmental Sciences program devotes the 

majority of its funding to areas not directly related to the core 

mandate of science and technology research leading to energy innovations. Further, climate research at the Department of Energy is 

closely related to activities carried out in other federal agencies and 

may be better carried out by those organizations. The Department 

proposes to eliminate medical research focused on human applications in order to direct limited funds to on-mission purposes, and 

the Department should apply the same principles to climate and 

atmospheric research. 

The Committee continues to support the goals of the Bioenergy 

Research Centers (BRCs), which conduct science research aiming to 

develop the next generation of economic fuels made from domestic 

plant sources that do not compete with the nations’ food supply. 

Successful breakthroughs at the BRCs could result in technologies 

that could leapfrog current incarnations of cellulosic biofuels and 

provide a path to substantially reducing the nation’s oil imports. 

However, these centers were never envisioned as permanent research institutions dependent on federal funding, but instead as 

temporary and targeted initiatives with five-year terms. In order to 

receive funding beyond fiscal year 2012, the fifth full year of funding, the Department will need to fully justify to the Committee 

each center’s performance. The Committee therefore directs the Department to provide to the Committee, not later than February 6, 

2012, a full evaluation of each Bioenergy Research Center, a comparison of each center’s achievements with the Department’s origiVerDate Mar 15 2010 07:41 Jun 25, 2011 Jkt 066950 PO 00000 Frm 00111 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR118.XXX HR118

jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
112 

nal targets, and the Department’s subsequent recommendation for 

extension or conclusion of each center. 

While the Department has increased collaboration between the 

Bioenergy Research Centers and its applied research and development programs, the Committee encourages greater integration and 

cooperation among these activities in order to more effectively advance biofuels solutions from the laboratories to commercial production. 

FUSION ENERGY SCIENCES

Fusion Energy Sciences conducts basic science research and experimentation seeking to harness nuclear fusion for energy production purposes. The Committee recommends $406,000,000 for fusion 

energy sciences, $30,537,000 above fiscal year 2011 and $6,300,000 

above the request. 

While the National Nuclear Security Administration performs inertial confinement fusion research for nuclear stockpile stewardship, the Office of Science has historically focused on magnetic confinement fusion and other related research. The Committee continues to strongly support magnetic confinement fusion research 

both as a source of American scientific leadership and expertise, 

and as a long-term effort to develop a clean energy alternative powered by domestic resources. As a result of the program’s sole focus 

on magnetic fusion energy, however, the Office of Science’s program 

does not have a broad framework for pursuing research avenues related to inertial fusion energy. In anticipation of achieving ignition 

at the National Ignition Facility—a critical milestone in the demonstration of inertial confinement fusion’s feasibility for energy production—the Department has commissioned a National Academies 

study assessing the prospects for power generation with inertial fusion energy and identifying obstacles and challenges that will assist in developing a research and development roadmap. The Committee supports this study and encourages the Department to move 

quickly upon completion of the report to determine a proposed path 

forward for inertial fusion energy in the event ignition is achieved. 

Further, the Committee remains concerned that research expertise may be lost while the Department awaits completion of the National Academies study, which is not due until July of 2012. The 

Committee urges the Department to fully evaluate existing research capabilities that do not fit easily within the existing weapons-focused inertial and energy-focused magnetic confinement fusion programs, such as krypton fluoride lasers and magneto-inertial fusion, but that may play important roles if an inertial fusion 

energy program moves forward in future years. The Department 

should take action to avoid irreversible losses in expertise in these 

areas before completion of the National Academies study. The budget request proposes $105,000,000 for ITER, the first 

full-scale test reactor for fusion energy. The Committee supports 

this project as an important step in the development of fusion energy and takes seriously the Department’s commitments to international collaborations. However, the Department of Energy’s required contribution to ITER is expected to increase substantially in 

the next several years, and the Committee is concerned that, while 

funding for ITER will yield important advances to domestic superconductor and other manufacturing capabilities, it may leave little 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
113 

budgetary room to continue supporting critical American fusion 

science expertise. Further, the Department has not preemptively 

indicated how it is planning for this impending budgetary challenge, nor has it created a clear prioritization of activities within 

Fusion Energy Sciences to guide tradeoffs when budgets are tight. 

The Department is therefore 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. 

HIGH ENERGY PHYSICS

The Committee recommends $797,200,000 for High Energy Physics, $1,780,000 above fiscal year 2011 and the same as the budget 

request. 

The United States led the world in high-energy particle physics 

for much of the twentieth century, most recently as the host of 

Fermilab’s Tevatron accelerator, which staged the world’s highestenergy particle collisions for several decades. As the Large Hadron 

Collider (LHC) at CERN ramps up operation as the world’s leading 

experimental site for high-energy collider physics, the Committee 

supports the Department of Energy’s significant ongoing contributions to this international collaboration probing the edges of scientific discovery on the nature of the universe. The Committee also 

supports the Department’s careful prioritization within this program and decision to invest in the so-called ‘‘intensity frontier’’ of 

high-energy physics—an area of science in which the United States 

can become a global leader. In a time marked by the need for fiscal 

restraint, the Department will be pressed to further prioritize between these two competing directions within High Energy Physics. 

The Deep Underground Science and Engineering Laboratory 

(DUSEL) has been an important component of the Department’s 

planning for the build-out of its neutrino and dark matter experimental capabilities. The decision by the National Science Foundation to discontinue funding for the underground laboratory has created additional uncertainty for program planning and delayed the 

Critical Decision 1 milestone for the Long Baseline Neutrino Experiment. As the Department weighs alternatives, the Committee cautions the Department against taking over the construction and 

long-term management of DUSEL. Adopting management of yet 

another laboratory site would add budgetary and management burdens to an already stressed program. However, the Committee supports the use of funding to maintain the viability of the DUSEL underground laboratory, including dewatering and maintaining security, in order to preserve it as an option while the Department 

weighs the alternatives. Further, the Department is directed to reVerDate Mar 15 2010 07:41 Jun 25, 2011 Jkt 066950 PO 00000 Frm 00113 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR118.XXX HR118

jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
114 

port to the Committee an assessment of alternatives to DUSEL and 

its recommendations for moving forward. 

NUCLEAR PHYSICS

The Committee recommends $552,000,000 for Nuclear Physics, 

$11,886,000 above fiscal year 2011 and $53,300,000 below the request. The recommendation includes $24,000,000 for the Facility 

for Rare Isotope Beams, $6,000,000 below the budget request. 

The Committee notes that the Nuclear Physics program has 

unique experimental capabilities for testing materials under 

irradiative environments. Materials stressed by intense radiation 

are important to many technologies, including nuclear fission and 

nuclear fusion. After the completion of the fusion energy experiment ITER, for example, the most significant technical obstacle to 

construction of a fully-operational demonstration fusion reactor is 

the development of containment materials that can withstand a 

sustained high flux of neutrons without significant degradation. 

The Committee encourages the Department to consider ways to 

strengthen productive cooperation between Nuclear Physics and 

other programs at the Department of Energy to better understand 

and develop materials that can withstand high levels of radiation. 

WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT FOR TEACHERS AND SCIENTISTS

The Committee recommends $17,849,000 for workforce development for teachers and scientists, $4,751,000 below fiscal year 2011 

and $17,751,000 below the request. 

Within the funds provided, up to $5,000,000 is for the graduate 

fellowship program to fund the existing cohort established in fiscal 

year 2010. The Department is directed to report to the Committee, 

not later than 90 days after enactment of this Act, a 10-year plan 

outlining the long-term objectives for this program, the number of 

simultaneous fellowships the Department plans to ultimately support under a flat-budget scenario for the Office of Science, and the 

funding needs under that plan. The plan shall also justify to the 

Committee why fellowships should be funded within the Office of 

Science when other agencies, in particular the National Science 

Foundation, are the primary federal entities for such purposes. 

SCIENCE LABORATORIES INFRASTRUCTURE

The Committee recommends $103,487,000 for Science Laboratories Infrastructure, $22,260,000 below fiscal year 2011 and 

$8,313,000 below the budget request. 

The Department is directed to consider payments to school districts nationwide that are eligible for Payments in Lieu of Taxes 

where the Department has not met its reimbursement obligations. 

SAFEGUARDS AND SECURITY

The Committee recommends $83,900,000, $114,000 above fiscal 

year 2011 and the same as the budget request, to meet safeguards 

and security requirements at Office of Science facilities. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
115 

SCIENCE PROGRAM DIRECTION

The Committee recommends $180,000,000 for Science Program Direction, $22,520,000 below fiscal year 2011 and $36,863,000 

below the request. 

NUCLEAR WASTE DISPOSAL

Appropriation, 2011 ............................................................................ ¥$2,800,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ....................................................................... — 

Recommended, 2012 ........................................................................... 25,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2011 .................................................................... +27,800,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ................................................................ +25,000,000 

The Committee recommendation includes $25,000,000, 

$27,800,000 more than fiscal year 2011 and $25,000,000 more than 

the request, to continue the Department of Energy’s congressionally-mandated activities to continue the Yucca Mountain license 

application activity. 

As discussed elsewhere in this report, the Administration’s attempts to shut down this activity are without scientific merit and 

are contrary to existing law and congressional direction. The Committee has included this funding to provide necessary expenses in 

the event that ongoing litigation requires the Administration to reconstitute its license application team. 

The Committee supports the good analytical work that the Blue 

Ribbon Commission on American’s Nuclear Future could contribute 

to the national dialogue surrounding nuclear power. While the 

Committee understands that the Commission is not a ‘‘siting commission,’’ the Commission does have an obligation to include in its 

analysis information gathered from decades of work on Yucca 

Mountain, and should be able to show how and why any of its proposed alternatives are better than the existing options. The Committee directs the Blue Ribbon Commission, as it has in the past, 

to include Yucca Mountain among the alternatives it is considering 

for the future of nuclear waste disposition in the United States. 

While disposition at Yucca Mountain and additional geological 

repositories must be part of this nation’s spent fuel disposition 

plan, this Administration’s political maneuvering has further delayed the opening of any such repository. In the meantime, this 

delay is increasing the liability of the U.S. government caused by 

its failure to fulfill the responsibilities laid out in the Nuclear 

Waste Policy Act of 1982, liabilities which must eventually be paid 

by the taxpayer. As discussed above, these liabilities may be as 

much as $16.2 billion by 2020 and $500 million more each year 

after. 

This Committee has long held the view that the federal government could demonstrate its capability to meet its contractual obligation under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act by addressing the spent 

fuel and other high-level nuclear waste at permanently shut-down 

reactors. Moreover, the Department of Energy, in a December 2008 

report prepared at the direction of the Committee, indicated that 

the interim storage of this material ‘‘would provide the Department 

an option in addition to Yucca Mountain to allow the Department 

to begin to meet its contractual obligations with the owners of commercial spent nuclear fuel. This option could prove beneficial 

should Yucca Mountain experience delays due to licensing, litigaVerDate Mar 15 2010 07:41 Jun 25, 2011 Jkt 066950 PO 00000 Frm 00115 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR118.XXX HR118

jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
116 

tion, lack of funding or other causes . . .’’ Clearly, the Administration’s Yucca Mountain approach has now caused such delays. 

Therefore, the Committee directs the Department to submit, with 

its fiscal year 2013 budget request, a plan containing options to develop interim storage capacity that would, as a priority matter, provide a means of consolidating the spent nuclear fuel and other high 

level waste present at permanently shut-down reactors. This plan 

should include a cost-benefit analysis comparing the options to the 

status quo. The Department should also submit to the appropriate 

Committees any legislation it determines necessary to facilitate the 

implementation of such plan. 

ADVANCED RESEARCH PROJECTS AGENCY—ENERGY

Appropriation, 2011 ............................................................................ $179,640,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ....................................................................... 550,011,000 

Recommended, 2012 ........................................................................... 100,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2011 .................................................................... ¥79,640,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ................................................................ ¥450,011,000 

The Advanced Research Projects Agency—Energy (ARPA–E) supports research aimed at rapidly developing energy technologies 

whose development and commercialization are too risky to attract 

sufficient private sector investment, but that are capable of significantly changing the energy sector to address our critical economic 

and energy security challenges. Projects funded by ARPA–E include such wide-ranging areas as production processes for transportation fuel alternatives that can reduce our dependence on imported oil, heating and cooling technologies with exceptionally high 

energy efficiency, and improvements in petroleum refining processes. The Committee recommends $100,000,000 for the Advanced 

Research Projects Agency—Energy, $79,640,000 below fiscal year 

2011 and $450,011,000 below the budget request. 

Personnel.—ARPA–E, launched in the first half of 2009, has been 

widely praised for its internal management and its effective collaboration with industry and academia. As the program transitions 

from infancy to maturity, it will experience significant management 

challenges as the first round of leadership personnel reaches the 

end of its term and it hires a second wave of management and program directors. This first wave of turnover will mark a significant 

test for ARPA–E as it transitions from its founding leadership, and 

the Committee will watch closely as the program navigates through 

the management and hiring challenges associated with organizational maturation. 

Further, the Administration has emphasized the importance of 

hiring leading technical experts to serve for limited terms as 

ARPA–E program directors, and it has had notable success assembling a strong leadership team known to be at the technical forefront of ARPA–E areas of focus. The Committee encourages the Department to apply lessons learned from ARPA–E’s program director 

strategy to other Department of Energy programs, and to evaluate 

whether term assignments of technical experts for program management positions are advantageous and practical in other Department program offices. 

Up-front Project Funding.—ARPA–E Recovery Act grants, the 

only grants awarded by the program to date, were fully funded 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
117 

with available appropriations in order to cover the entire cost of 

each 2–3 year grant. The Department has decided to fund ARPA– 

E projects in fiscal year 2012 in the same fashion by fully funding 

most new awards with fiscal year 2012 appropriations. The Committee supports this decision, as it will not create mortgages on 

funding in future years and will preserve the program’s flexibility 

to enter new technology areas each year rather than saddling the 

budget with commitments to past awards. 

Project Risk.—ARPA–E offers grants in a wide variety of technology areas, the majority of which are also addressed by other Department programs. The measure of project risk and the designation of specific technology challenges as ‘‘whitespace’’ not addressed 

in any other program are the sole criteria that differentiate ARPA– 

E projects from those in other offices—and that ultimately attempt 

to prevent redundancies across the Department. Project risk, however, is difficult to measure and quantify, and the Department has 

not set forth a plan for how it intends to do so more coherently 

than on a case-by-case basis. The Committee strongly encourages 

the Department to fund only projects that cannot otherwise attract 

private capital investment, and directs ARPA–E to provide to the 

Committee, not later than December 15, 2011, a definition of estimated project risk that guides the determination of what projects 

should be funded by ARPA–E and what are more appropriate for 

other Department programs. 

ARPA–E leadership has noted that failure of projects is endemic 

to the high risk level deliberately chosen by the program. The organization is accordingly considering the first terminations of projects 

that have not met performance standards. The Committee does not 

view a measured quantity of project terminations as a symptom of 

program failure, but rather as an indication that the program has 

chosen projects with an appropriately high level of risk. Further, 

the Committee views the termination of projects as a sign of strong 

program management capable of enforcing a commitment to use 

scarce federal funding effectively. 

Proposed Focus Areas.—The budget request proposes to focus on 

water power; novel ways to harness and store solar energy; advanced materials supporting nuclear and fossil energy; electric grid 

technologies; lighting, heating, cooling, and other building technologies; advances in energy-intensive materials production; nextgeneration battery research; fuel cells; and other areas. The Committee also supports ARPA–E’s proposal to focus on breakthrough 

natural gas technologies. These technologies, including the conversion of natural gas to liquid fuels and the production of natural gas 

from renewable sources, can lead to the widespread use of natural 

gas in the transportation sector and reduce the nation’s dependence 

on imported oil. 

Progress Report.—Only in its third calendar year of operation, 

ARPA–E is still an experimental research model for energy innovation and the Department must continue to closely evaluate the efficacy of the program. By its nature, some of the program’s projects 

will yield moderate successes, some projects will fail, and perhaps 

others will yield great success. However, the Department has not 

stated how it will measure the program’s overall success in the 

near-, mid- and long-term. The Department must determine the 

frequency with which ARPA–E projects should succeed in order to 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
118 

consider the overall program a success, and over what timeframe 

it expects the program to yield successes that significantly impact 

the energy marketplace and American competitiveness. The Committee looks forward to receiving a clear articulation by the Department of its measurement plan, project success rate targets, and 

market impact goals for ARPA–E. To help the Committee begin to 

gauge ARPA–E’s success rates, the Department is directed to provide, not later than February 10, 2012, a listing of all projects, including areas of focus; federal funding levels, private sector capital 

attracted before and after engagement with ARPA–E, and an assessment of project performance compared with ARPA–E’s project 

targets. The Committee acknowledges the tension between transparency and confidentiality for award recipients when ARPA–E reports on project metrics, and the Committee will work with ARPA– 

E to find the right balance. 

TITLE 17—INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY LOAN GUARANTEE PROGRAM

PROGRAM FUNDS

Appropriation, 2011 ............................................................................ ¥$340,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ....................................................................... 1,060,000,000 

Recommended, 2012 ........................................................................... 160,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2011 .................................................................... +160,340,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ................................................................ ¥900,000,000 

ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES

GROSS APPROPRIATION

Appropriation, 2011 ............................................................................ $58,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ....................................................................... 38,000,000 

Recommended, 2012 ........................................................................... 38,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2011 .................................................................... ¥20,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ................................................................ — 

OFFSETTING RECEIPTS

Appropriation, 2011 ............................................................................ ¥$58,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ....................................................................... ¥38,000,000 

Recommended, 2012 ........................................................................... ¥38,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2011 .................................................................... +20,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ................................................................ — 

The Loan Guarantee program under Title XVII of the Energy 

Policy Act of 2005 is a key component of the overall national effort 

to invest in an efficient and more reliable electricity system, as well 

as improved electric power transmission. 

The budget request for the Loan Guarantee program included 

$36,000,000,000 in additional authority for nuclear power projects; 

$200,000,000 in appropriated credit subsidy cost for innovative energy efficiency and renewable projects; and administrative expenses 

of $38,000,000, which are offset by fees collected pursuant to section 1702(h) of the Energy Policy Act. The Committee recommends 

$160,000,000, $160,340,000 above fiscal year 2011 and 

$900,000,000 below the budget request. This level includes 

$160,000,000 in appropriated credit subsidy cost; administrative 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
119 

expenses of $38,000,000, which are fully offset; and no additional 

authority for nuclear power plants. 

This Committee continues to strongly support the role of nuclear 

power in the United States. The tragedy in Japan highlights the 

potential for accidents and underscores the need for the safety improvements that the next generation of plants will incorporate. 

However, neither the track record of this program nor the current 

demand for projects supports the request for an additional 

$36,000,000,000 in nuclear plant loan authority. The Committee includes no additional authority for nuclear plan loan guarantee authority, noting that nearly $11,000,000,000 in previous authority 

remains, and will consider requests for additional authority in response to demand. 

The Administration’s request for appropriated credit subsidy 

costs for innovative energy efficiency and renewable projects is 

driven by the impending termination of funding provided for these 

purposes in Public Law 111–5, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. Of the $6,000,000,000 provided in that Act, 

approximately $730,000,000, or 12 percent, has been used over the 

last two years to support loans. Partially because of the slow administration of this program, $3,500,000,000 has been transferred 

to other programs since 2009. Today, more than $1,500,000,000 remains, all of which is set to expire at the end of fiscal year 2011. 

The private sector has invested hundreds of millions of dollars, 

in good faith, to qualify for this support program and over 

$14,000,000,000 in projects are in the pipeline. While the Committee provided authority and funding in Public Law 112–10, the 

Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations 

Act, 2011, to help sustain some of these projects, much of this investment is now in jeopardy due to the slow implementation of the 

program. The Committee strongly encourages the Department to 

consider available resources while issuing conditional loan commitments. The recommendation includes another $160,000,000 in appropriated subsidy to support these programs under the modified 

1703 authority contained in Public Law 112–10. The Committee directs the Department to give priority to those projects which received ‘‘continuation letters’’ in the event that the remaining Recovery Act credit subsidy is insufficient to support them. 

The Government Accountability Office has issued a series of reports identifying flaws in the program, including inconsistent treatment of applications. One of the most significant criticisms has 

been the lack of transparency with which credit subsidies are developed. In stark contrast to best practices in the private sector, 

the Administration keeps secret its assumptions and evaluations, 

leading to accusations of political manipulation. Since the Committee is itself denied access to this data, it is unable to provide 

appropriate oversight or evaluate the veracity of these claims. Accordingly, the bill includes legislative language requiring notification of the award, including the proposed subsidy cost, three business days prior to the award of a final or conditional commitment 

for any loan authority provided in the bill. 

The Committee does not include funding for the ‘‘Better Buildings Pilot Loan Guarantee Initiative for Universities, Schools and 

Hospitals,’’ a new Administration proposal. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
120 

ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY VEHICLES MANUFACTURING LOAN

PROGRAM

Appropriation, 2011 ............................................................................ $9,978,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ....................................................................... 6,000,000 

Recommended, 2012 ........................................................................... 6,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2011 .................................................................... ¥3,978,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ................................................................ — 

The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 established 

a direct loan program to support the development of advanced technology vehicles and associated components in the United States. 

The program provides loans to automobile and automobile part 

manufacturers for the cost of re-equipping, expanding, or establishing manufacturing facilities in the United States to produce advanced technology vehicles or qualified components, and for associated engineering integration costs. 

The Committee recommends $6,000,000 for the Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loan Program, $3,978,000 below 

fiscal year 2011 and the same as the budget request. The funds 

provided support administrative operations only. 

DEPARTMENTAL ADMINISTRATION

GROSS APPROPRIATION

Appropriation, 2011 ............................................................................ $168,239,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ....................................................................... 240,623,000 

Recommended, 2012 ........................................................................... 221,514,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2011 .................................................................... +53,275,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ................................................................ ¥19,109,000 

REVENUES

Appropriation, 2011 ............................................................................ ¥$119,501,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ....................................................................... ¥111,883,000 

Recommended, 2012 ........................................................................... ¥111,883,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2011 .................................................................... +7,618,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ................................................................ — 

NET APPROPRIATION

Appropriation, 2011 ............................................................................ $48,738,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ....................................................................... 128,740,000 

Recommended, 2012 ........................................................................... 109,631,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2011 .................................................................... +60,893,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ................................................................ ¥19,109,000 

The Committee recommendation for Departmental Administration is $221,514,000, $53,275,000 above fiscal year 2011 and 

$19,109,000 below the budget request. The recommendation for 

revenues is $111,883,000 as requested, resulting in a net appropriation of $109,631,000. After accounting for a one-time rescission 

of $81,900,000 in fiscal year 2011, the recommendation is 

$21,007,000 below fiscal year 2011. Funding recommended for Departmental Administration provides for general management and 

program support functions benefiting all elements of the Department of Energy, including the National Nuclear Security AdminisVerDate Mar 15 2010 07:41 Jun 25, 2011 Jkt 066950 PO 00000 Frm 00120 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR118.XXX HR118

jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
121 

tration. The account funds a wide array of Headquarters activities 

not directly associated with the execution of specific programs. 

Office of Indian Energy Policy and Programs.—The Committee 

recommends $2,000,000 for this office, $500,000 more than requested, to coordinate and implement energy management, conservation, education, and delivery systems for Native Americans. 

Office of the General Counsel.—The Committee has reduced funding for the Office of the General Counsel by $4,642,000 from the 

budget request to reflect the Committee’s disagreement with the 

General Counsel’s interpretation of congressional intent regarding 

Yucca Mountain. 

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

Appropriation, 2011 ............................................................................ $42,764,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ....................................................................... 41,774,000 

Recommended, 2012 ........................................................................... 41,774,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2011 .................................................................... ¥990,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ................................................................ — 

The Office of the Inspector General (OIG) performs agency-wide 

audit, inspection and investigative functions to identify and correct 

management and administrative deficiencies that create conditions 

for existing or potential instances of fraud, waste and mismanagement. The audit function provides financial and performance audits 

of programs and operations. The inspections function provides independent inspections and analyses of the effectiveness, efficiency, 

and economy of programs and operations. The investigative function provides for the detection and investigation of improper and illegal activities involving programs, personnel and operations. 

The Committee recommendation is $41,774,000, $990,000 below 

fiscal year 2011 and the same as the budget request. 

ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES 

The Atomic Energy Defense Activities programs of the Department of Energy in the National Nuclear Security Administration 

(NNSA) consist of Weapons Activities, Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation, Naval Reactors, and the Office of the Administrator; 

outside of the NNSA, these include Defense Environmental Cleanup and Other Defense Activities. Descriptions of each of these accounts are provided below. 

NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION 

The Department of Energy is responsible for enhancing U.S. national security through the military application of nuclear technology and reducing the global danger from the proliferation of 

weapons of mass destruction. The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), a semi-autonomous agency within the Department, carries out these responsibilities. Established in March 

2000 pursuant to Title 32 of the National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2000, the NNSA is responsible for the management and operation of the nation’s nuclear weapons complex, naval 

reactors and nuclear nonproliferation activities. Three offices within the NNSA carry out the Department’s national security mission: 

the Office of Defense Programs, the Office of Defense Nuclear NonVerDate Mar 15 2010 07:41 Jun 25, 2011 Jkt 066950 PO 00000 Frm 00121 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR118.XXX HR118

jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
122 

proliferation and the Office of Naval Reactors. The Office of the 

NNSA Administrator oversees all NNSA programs. 

Reprogramming authority.—For the first time, the Committee 

carries the Department’s reprogramming authority in statute to ensure that the Department carries out its programs consistent with 

congressional direction. This reprogramming authority is established at the program, project, or activity level, whichever is the 

most specific included in the table detailing the Committee’s recommendations for the Department of Energy’s various accounts. In 

recognition of the national security mission of the NNSA, the legislative language carries an exception to the reprogramming requirements that allows the Secretary of Energy and the Administrator 

of the NNSA to jointly waive the restriction. In granting the Secretary and the Administrator this authority, the Committee expects 

it to be used only in cases where a credible national security threat 

exists or in the case of a high-priority national security interest. 

Reporting requirements for early warhead life extension activities.—The Committee is concerned that the NNSA has failed to 

make needed improvements to its acquisition process for life extension programs, known as the Phase 6.x process. In its recent investigation into B61 life extension activities, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) found that current management practices are 

resulting in unrealistic schedule goals, and that the acquisition 

process needs to be revised to require that future life extension 

studies are properly scoped for the available time. The findings 

echo those previously reported in the GAO’s 2009 review of the 

W76 life extension program in which the GAO concluded that the 

NNSA established an unrealistic schedule for working through 

technical challenges and failed to fully implement its own guidance 

for managing the acquisition process. The impacts of past management failures are clear, since the W76 life extension program 

breached its cost growth thresholds early in the process and has 

still not achieved full production rates. 

The scope of the work planned to extend the life of the B61 is 

even greater than previous warhead life extensions, and the stockpile management plan indicates that follow-on life extensions are 

likely to be similar ‘‘full scope’’ refurbishments. The NNSA must 

take immediate steps to address its weak acquisition process for 

life extension activities to assure the Committee that it will be able 

to accomplish these tasks before approaching the end of the weapon’s service life or the service life of components that must be replaced. 

In particular, the NNSA must improve management of its early 

life extension activities, which are becoming more extensive efforts 

as component and production technology development activities are 

shifted forward to meet compressed schedules. As a result, the 

NNSA is spending considerable amounts to mature technologies 

and explore concepts in conjunction with the early phases of its life 

extension activities. These costs must be clearly accounted for in 

the budget request in order to ensure transparency. While a formal 

detailed Selected Acquisition Report is required by statute following formulation of a program baseline, the reporting for early 

life extension activities remains informal and lacks adequate detail 

on the full scope and costs of activities. In order for the Committee 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
123 

to consider full funding for warhead life extensions, the following 

information must be submitted with the budget request: 

1. Phase 6.1 Concept Study.—The NNSA should report the full 

scope of the conceptual design activities proposed, including an estimate of the total cost of the concept study and costs of any related 

technology maturation activities to be performed in conjunction 

with the study. 

2. Phase 6.2a Design Definition and Cost Study.—At the commencement of Phase 6.2a, the NNSA should provide a report on 

the military requirements established for the life extension effort 

and a preliminary estimate of the costs and schedule requirements 

for the life extension program. The report should include a description of any alternatives for warhead enhancements under consideration, such as those for safety, security or maintainability, along 

with a comparative assessment of the resource implications and 

technical risks of each alternative. The Committee is supportive of 

a broad exploration of design options, but expects the NNSA to develop a formal plan for maturing technologies associated with novel 

design concepts early in its acquisition process that is properly 

scoped to meet the cost and schedule requirements of the life extension program. If technology maturation is to be performed in conjunction with Phase 6.2a, the NNSA shall provide a formal technology maturation plan with targets for cost, schedule, and readiness level that must be met for selection in the baseline design. 

3. Phase 6.3 Development Engineering.—At the commencement 

of Phase 6.3, the NNSA should provide an interim report on the 

results of its design and cost study, including the alternative selected for the warhead baseline design, estimated cost and schedule 

range for the life extension program, and a formal cost benefit 

analysis for any enhancements to the warhead selected, such as 

those for safety, security or maintainability. If technology alternatives are selected that do not meet cost or readiness level targets 

established in the technology maturation plan or have not demonstrated a system/subsystem model or prototype in a relevant environment, the NNSA should provide a detailed risk mitigation 

plan to manage the continuation of maturation into its full scale 

engineering development phase in order to ensure that the overall 

cost and schedule targets for the life extension program will be 

met. All Phase 6.3 Development Engineering work must be included in the funding requested for the life extension program. Any 

early production costs to be incurred prior to Phase 4 Production 

Engineering should also be included in the total funding requested 

for the life extension program. 

Financial Management.—The Committee remains concerned by 

the NNSA’s financial management practices in accounting for the 

costs of its activities. The GAO recently released a report which 

concluded that the NNSA primarily bases its future-year budget requests on the extent to which prior-year budgets were sufficient to 

execute these activities. The GAO attributed the NNSA’s failure to 

accurately identify the total costs of its activities to the wide variability in how maintenance and operating contractors account for 

costs across the nuclear security enterprise. The budget request indicates that the NNSA intends to rely more heavily on its contractors to determine the costs of maintaining facilities, as the amount 

of maintenance directly funded is estimated to decrease by almost 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
124 

50 percent by fiscal year 2016. The NNSA cannot ensure it has a 

valid plan for modernization if it continues to pass on the responsibility for determining funding requirements onto its contractors. 

Continued requests to fund overhead activities that provide little 

transparency into where that funding is used do not improve the 

situation. The NNSA is directed to develop formal guidance for its 

contractors for the consistent collection of information on the total 

costs to operate and maintain its facilities and infrastructure. The 

NNSA should also develop a plan to consistently fund all facilities 

and infrastructure maintenance using direct funding mechanisms 

that can be tracked and reported by the Department’s accounting 

systems. 

Pensions.—Of the $4,100,000,000 added to the NNSA’s five year planning estimates for Weapons Activities, $1,100,000,000 was 

solely to accommodate a growth in contractor defined benefit pension costs. While some sites have instituted cost savings measures 

such as increasing employee contributions, these decisions are 

being made at the site level, which leads to considerable differences 

in the way the costs of individual defined benefit pension plans are 

being managed. The pay and benefits packages offered to contractor employees must be modernized to ensure rising costs do not 

adversely impact ongoing high priority programmatic activities. 

Among the fastest growing of these liabilities are the legacy University of California retirement plans. These employees worked at 

Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories when 

those laboratories were managed by the University of California. 

The latest estimates indicate that the cost of these two plans alone 

will be a quarter of the entire fiscal year 2012 pensions requirement for the NNSA. While the contractors for the Department’s 

sites are responsible for paying the costs of employee pensions 

under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 and 

related laws, the Department has, over the life of these contracts, 

included the pension costs as allowable and in doing so has assumed the long-term liability for reimbursement. In the fiscal year 

2012 budget request, the NNSA has requested incremental funding 

across Weapons Activities and Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation 

from funds made available for infrastructure and research and development activities to directly fund contributions to the University 

of California plans. This request serves to bury these large costs 

into multiple funding lines and could jeopardize infrastructure 

modernization and needed research and development activities if 

those costs continue to rise. The Committee recommends funding 

for the University of California pension plans in a separately identified line within Weapons Activities as a transparent and simplified solution. 

Report on Status of the Workforce.—The Administration’s strategy to invest heavily in stockpile work, experimental science and 

infrastructure in order to sustain the safety, security, and effectiveness of the nuclear deterrent means little without a dedicated 

workforce that possesses the necessary knowledge, education, 

skills, and competencies to accomplish the mission. The GAO recently found that the NNSA does not collect data on the status of 

its contractor workforce and relies primarily on its maintenance 

and operating contractors to sustain its personnel capabilities. 

While the maintenance and operating contractors may have the 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
125 

same national-level concerns at heart, they can only manage the 

workforce at a particular site and therefore cannot ensure the longterm survival of the needed skills across the enterprise. The NNSA 

must begin to work more closely with its contractors and develop 

integrated plans for managing its workforce. 

The NNSA should report to the Committee no later than 180 

days from enactment of this Act, an assessment of the status of its 

contractor workforce. The report should describe the number of personnel retained, hired, retired, and voluntarily or involuntarily separated by site over the last five years. It should describe policies 

and incentive programs of each contractor for recruiting and retaining personnel, including monetary and non-monetary incentives offered. The NNSA should further provide an assessment of performance in meeting the human capital needs at each site that is directly linked to the supporting workforce data it has collected and 

describe the path forward and milestones for implementing the 

GAO’s recommendation to develop an enterprise-wide contractor 

workforce baseline of the critical human capital skills, competencies, and size needed to effectively achieve its mission. 

Report on Footprint Reduction.—Despite promises for a leaner, 

more efficient and streamlined enterprise, the NNSA footprint has 

actually been growing over the past few years. Both the Uranium 

Processing Facility and the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research 

Replacement project will have more square footage than the legacy 

facilities they are meant to replace, and the High Explosive Pressing Facility will occupy nearly seven times the space of current operations. While new construction is adding footprint, no funding is 

planned for demolition activities beyond the completion of the Facilities and Infrastructure Recapitalization Program in 2013. Costs 

of demolition and decontamination work are not reported alongside 

new construction as required, nor are they integrated into the 30- 

year infrastructure priority lists. The costs of demolition and decontamination work are not being taken into account when making investment decisions and the timeline for demonstrating any savings 

in operating costs, as regularly described in the rationale for new 

facility construction, is being extended to the distant future. Since 

the NNSA is not meeting its requirement to demolish an equal 

amount of square footage for each amount added, the Committee 

questions whether there truly is a commitment to a leaner, more 

efficient nuclear security enterprise. 

In order to ensure adherence to the footprint reduction requirements, the NNSA shall report annually on its footprint reduction 

plans, including an accounting of the amount of square footage to 

be added or removed by facility and by site. It should account for 

existing banked excess square footage by site. Where facilities add 

square footage, the rationale for enlarging the footprint to conduct 

those operations should be clearly articulated and tied to a priority 

identified in the Stockpile Stewardship and Management Plan. 

Improving the Safety of Transporting Nuclear Weapons.—The 

Committee directs NNSA to undertake a study to investigate the 

feasibility and costs of enhancing the safety of transporting nuclear 

weapons where possible, and to report the results of this study to 

the Committee no later than June 1, 2012. 

Report on Options to Ensure the Supply of Helium-3.—The Committee is concerned by NNSA’s failure to manage the continued 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
126 

supply of helium-3 to meet national security needs of the nation. 

In addition to its national security missions, helium-3 is needed for 

medical and scientific research. The NNSA is directed to provide a 

report on its efforts to manage the supply of helium-3, including a 

full accounting of the existing supplies, anticipated production, and 

the full requirements of all government users supplied by NNSA’s 

stockpile. The report should explain the criteria currently used for 

allocating the scarce supply of helium-3 across the various users 

and identify where, and when, the gaps in meeting the full requirements will fall. Further, the NNSA should provide the Committee 

with an evaluation of potential options and their associated costs 

for increasing supplies to fully meet domestic needs, including consideration of increasing recycling of existing helium-3 or improving 

the efficiency of the helium-3 recovery operations at Savannah 

River. 

Contracting Reform.—Despite recent reforms, the NNSA remains 

on the GAO’s high risk list for fraud, waste, and abuse for contracting and project management. The Committee supports reforming contracting practices in those circumstances where it is possible 

to improve efficiency, prevent waste and save taxpayer dollars. In 

order to provide assurances that new strategies are to result in 

genuine improvement, the NNSA must be able to demonstrate that 

its decisions are backed by valid and verifiable quantitative data. 

The Committee remains concerned with the NNSA’s proposed contract consolidation of the Y–12 National Security Complex, the 

Pantex Plant, and Savannah River tritium work. The NNSA has 

provided no verifiable evidence of the $895 million in cost savings 

to justify a possible disruption of ongoing and essential infrastructure improvements at these sites. Without further supporting 

evidence, the Committee will continue to question the benefits of 

the merger. 

The Committee recommends $10,599,031,000 for the NNSA, 

$76,511,000 above fiscal year 2011, and $1,113,567,000 below the 

budget request. As requested, the recommendation includes the use 

of $70,332,000 in prior-year balances to offset total budget requirements. 

WEAPONS ACTIVITIES

(INCLUDING RESCISSION OF FUNDS)

Appropriation, 2011 ............................................................................ $6,896,398,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ....................................................................... 7,589,384,000 

Recommended, 2012 ........................................................................... 7,091,661,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2011 .................................................................... +195,263,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ................................................................ ¥497,723,000 

Weapons Activities provides funding to ensure the safety, security, reliability, and performance of the nation’s nuclear weapons 

stockpile. The activities funded under this appropriation include 

the maintenance and refurbishment of nuclear weapons to sustain 

confidence in their security, safety and reliability under the nuclear 

testing moratorium and arms reduction treaties. The Committee 

recommends $7,091,661,000 for Weapons Activities, $195,263,000 

above fiscal year 2011 and $497,723,000 below the budget request. 

After accounting for a one time rescission in fiscal year 2011 of 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
127 

$50,000,000 and the rescission of $40,332,000 of prior-year balances in this bill, the level is $185,595,000 above fiscal year 2011. 

The request for Weapons Activities is the second year of large increases requested in order to pursue the Administration’s strategy 

set forth in the 2010 Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) to maintain 

an aging stockpile through full scope life extension activities, to 

modernize the infrastructure and restore capabilities, and to address the immediate maintenance and production requirements of 

the stockpile. Despite the economic crisis, the modernization of the 

nuclear security infrastructure remains a major Committee priority 

and, therefore, the recommendation provides a three percent increase over the fiscal year 2011 level, and an 11 percent increase 

over pre-NPR levels. While this level provides the increases necessary to stay on track with the Administration’s infrastructure 

modernization and stockpile initiatives detailed in the NPR, the 

Committee also has a commitment to ensure that all taxpayer 

funds are used responsibly and that only the most cost-effective opportunities are being pursued to meet defense imperatives. The two 

major infrastructure projects planned may now cost as much as 

$12 billion to construct. The full costs of refurbishing warheads remain unclear. Even without modernization, the base costs of operating and maintaining the nuclear security enterprise continue to 

escalate, with pension costs alone estimated to rise 90 percent. 

Therefore, the Committee recommendation also upholds the 

Committee’s commitment to reduce waste and make government 

more efficient by recouping savings in security activities that are 

available due to completed projects and efficiency investments, by 

eliminating unnecessary activities that only provide marginal benefit, and by reducing overhead accounts that are driving an escalation in the base operating costs of the weapons enterprise. 

DIRECTED STOCKPILE WORK

The Committee recommends $1,909,787,000 for Directed Stockpile Work (DSW), $24,428,000 above fiscal year 2011 and 

$53,796,000 below the budget request. Directed Stockpile Work includes all activities that directly support weapons in the nuclear 

stockpile, including maintenance, research, development, engineering, certification, dismantlement, and disposal activities. The DSW 

account provides all direct funding for warhead life extension programs, which are designed to lengthen the service life of the existing nuclear weapons stockpile by providing new subsystems and 

components for each warhead as needed. 

The recommendation includes funding requested for the B61 Life 

Extension Program under the Readiness Campaign. The Committee is concerned that the NNSA is undertaking significant efforts to develop a component maturation framework that would 

manage a complex distribution of funding across multiple funding 

lines, a practice that would serve to mask the full costs of individual activities. Responsible stewardship of taxpayer dollars requires that the costs of individual acquisition programs are known 

and justified in the budget request. The NNSA should simplify how 

it budgets for these costs to improve transparency and management. 

B61 Life Extension Program.—The Committee recommends 

$278,562,000 to commence a life extension program for the B61 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
128 

bomb, $55,000,000 above the budget request. The recommendation 

moves back funding requested under Campaigns which had been 

associated with the B61 in the fiscal year 2011 request. No more 

than 50 percent of these funds shall be obligated until the NNSA 

meets the reporting requirements for phase 6.3 life extension activities detailed above. This reporting requires a cost-benefit analysis of any warhead enhancements, such as those for safety and security, as well as a technology maturation risk mitigation plan to 

manage the development of any components or production processes that have relatively low technology readiness levels. 

W76 Life Extension Program.—The Committee recommends 

$255,000,000, $6,751,000 above fiscal year 2011 and $2,035,000 

below the budget request, consistent with the total requirements 

identified in the last Selected Acquisition Report (SAR) submitted 

to the Committee for the W76. The Committee notes the NNSA has 

yet to update its SAR to reflect programmatic changes following 

the Nuclear Posture Review which would justify any adjustments 

to the baseline funding plan. 

Stockpile Systems.—The Committee recommends $487,627,000 

for Stockpile Systems, $158,576,000 below fiscal year 2011 and 

$10,000,000 below the budget request. The recommendation fully 

supports increases requested to perform the core maintenance activities of the stockpile which includes surveillance, assessment and 

limited life component exchange. The recommendation also includes an adjustment to account for delays in starting the W78 conceptual study. 

Within these funds, the Committee recommends $45,728,000 for 

W88 Stockpile Systems and $30,000,000 to commence a conceptual 

study for a minor refurbishment of the W88. The NNSA reports it 

will need over $400,000,000 to design and develop a new Arming, 

Fusing, and Firing assembly for the W88 which will also be used 

in the follow-on life extension of the W78. This work represents a 

larger scope and more costly activity than the modest replacement 

originally planned. Since this activity seeks to develop a new warhead component, the NNSA is directed to report separate funding 

for this activity within its request for maintaining the W88. 

Weapons Dismantlement and Disposition.—The Committee recommends $56,770,000, $1,139,000 below fiscal year 2011 and the 

same as the budget request. NNSA has formally committed to dismantle all weapons retired prior to 2009 by the end of 2022. The 

Committee notes that the NNSA has still not accounted for the additional costs to dismantle warheads retired due to stockpile reductions. The Committee expects the NNSA to develop a plan for these 

costs in its ten-year plan and to make the appropriate adjustments 

to its budget estimates. 

Production Support.—The Committee recommends $300,441,000 

for Production Support, $54,061,000 below the budget request. Production Support provides the base manufacturing capabilities to 

support the NNSA’s production mission. Base capability costs are 

relatively insensitive to reductions in the stockpile or ongoing production requirements. 

While production increases for the W76, limited life components, 

and dismantlements are provided in their respective funding lines, 

a large growth in the base production support overhead was not 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
129 

specified in the Nuclear Posture Review (NPR). Therefore, the recommendation provides funding consistent with the pre-NPR level. 

R&D Certification and Safety.—The Committee recommends 

$165,892,000 for R&D Certification and Safety, $25,000,000 below 

the budget request. R&D Certification and Safety provides the core 

capabilities for research and development efforts that are not attributable to a specific warhead system. The Committee does not 

support large increases for non-core activities that have not been 

justified as directly tied to stockpile requirements. 

CAMPAIGNS

Campaigns are focused on efforts involving the three weapons 

laboratories, the Nevada Test Site, the weapons production plants 

and selected external organizations to address critical capabilities 

needed to achieve program objectives. For Campaigns, the Committee recommends $1,605,937,000, $84,702,000 below fiscal year 

2011 and $190,790,000 below the budget request. The Committee 

commends the NNSA for its outstanding Stockpile Stewardship 

program and its considerable progress in furthering the science 

needed to maintain an aging nuclear weapons stockpile without nuclear testing. Stockpile Stewardship has produced a more rigorous 

scientific understanding of nuclear weapons phenomena than was 

ever understood when the stockpile relied primarily on nuclear 

testing for certification. 

Science Campaign.—For the Science Campaign, the Committee recommends $312,094,000, $50,425,000 below fiscal year 2011 and 

$93,845,000 below the budget request. Within these funds, 

$19,400,000 is recommended for the Advanced Certification subprogram to continue building the scientific basis for improving the 

weapons certification process. The activities under this subprogram 

were originally focused on addressing comments of the JASONs scientific advisory group on the ability to certify the Reliable Replacement Warhead. That program has been cancelled and the Administration has stated it does not intend to produce a new nuclear 

weapon. Therefore, it is unclear why such large increases are being 

requested and the recommendation provides funding consistent 

with the pre-NPR level. The NNSA should clarify the goals of the 

Advanced Certification subprogram and how they are related to 

current stockpile requirements. 

Engineering Campaign.—For the Engineering Campaign, the Committee recommends $143,078,000, $2,146,000 above fiscal year 

2011 and the same as the request. 

Inertial Confinement Fusion and High Yield Campaign.—The 

Committee recommendation provides $471,174,000 for the Inertial 

Confinement Fusion and High Yield Campaign, $6,427,000 below 

fiscal year 2011 and $5,100,000 below the budget request. Within 

these funds, $62,500,000 shall be for the Laboratory for Laser 

Energetics as requested. The recommendation includes $4,000,000 

for the Joint Program in High Energy Density Laboratory Plasmas, 

the same as fiscal year 2011 and $5,100,000 below the budget request. 

The Committee continues to support the National Ignition Facility (NIF) and urges the NNSA to maintain its schedule towards 

achieving fusion ignition. The Committee recommendation includes 

the full request to pursue ignition at NIF and to perform supVerDate Mar 15 2010 07:41 Jun 25, 2011 Jkt 066950 PO 00000 Frm 00129 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR118.XXX HR118

jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
130 

porting weapons-related experiments on its pulsed power facilities. 

The Committee notes that NIF is already contributing to stockpile 

stewardship through experiments which ensure the aging nuclear 

weapons stockpile continues to be safe, secure and effective without 

nuclear testing. 

Advanced Simulation and Computing Campaign.—The Committee recommends $616,000,000 for the Advanced Simulation and 

Computing (ASC) Campaign, $5,005,000 above fiscal year 2011 and 

$12,945,000 below the budget request. High performance computing underpins our nation’s nuclear stewards’ ability to scientifically resolve outstanding weapons performance issues, address 

material aging and compatibility challenges, and conduct warhead 

life extension program activities. The budget request includes a 

new initiative to pursue a jump to exascale computing speeds, a 

thousand-fold improvement over today’s modeling and simulation 

capability. The Committee recognizes that the request is part of a 

crosscutting endeavor with the Office of Science to maintain U.S. 

leadership in high performance computing. The Committee commends the Department’s effort for its collaborative approach to develop exascale computing, which will serve to complement the 

strengths of both offices and limit duplication. The Committee supports initiation of this endeavor within ASC, consistent with other 

national security requirements of the Campaign. However, undertaking such a major initiative will require considerable funding, 

and the NNSA has yet to tie the need for this level of computing 

to any specific requirements of the stockpile in its 20–year plan. 

Readiness Campaign.—The Committee recommends $63,591,000 

for the Readiness Campaign, $35,001,000 below fiscal year 2011 

and $78,900,000 below the budget request. The Committee recommends no funding for the B61 within Nonnuclear Readiness and 

has provided the funding requested for these activities within the 

B61 Life Extension Program. The Committee recommends 

$63,591,000 for Tritium Readiness, $26,780,000 above fiscal year 

2011 and $13,900,000 below the budget request. The NNSA continues to confront technical challenges in producing sufficient 

amounts of tritium to meet the requirements of the stockpile. Further, these technical barriers and the NNSA’s contracting procedures have led to poor program execution and the accumulation of 

large balances. The NNSA must be able to assure the Committee 

that the tritium requirements will be met and that appropriate 

contracting structures are in place. The Committee notes that instead of the requirements going down, the development of a new 

generation of gas transfer systems will require tritium production 

rates greater than three times the present rate. 

Reporting Requirement.—The Committee directs the NNSA to 

submit a report, within 180 days of enactment, on its plan to manage the supply and production of tritium to meet continuing stockpile needs, including the full range of costs to meet higher production levels. The NNSA should note any potential costs that are 

presently unfunded, such as increasing the numbers of production 

reactors or infrastructure needed to meet environmental and regulatory requirements. It should include a comparative analysis of 

available alternatives, including increasing tritium recovery 

through acceleration of weapons dismantlements. The report 

should clearly discuss the implications of reduced stockpile levels, 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
131 

new component designs, and options for strengthening contracting 

mechanisms in order to improve budget execution and conformance 

to GAO best practices. 

READINESS IN TECHNICAL BASE AND FACILITIES

The Committee recommends $2,011,315,000 for Readiness in 

Technical Base and Facilities (RTBF), $174,027,000 above fiscal 

year 2011 and $314,819,000 below the budget request. The Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities program provides funding for 

the operations, maintenance, and recapitalization of NNSA facilities and infrastructure. The Committee commends the NNSA for 

its work to improve facility conditions and to replace deteriorating 

legacy facilities long past the end of their service lives with new facilities that meet modern safety and environmental standards. Support for modernization of the nuclear security infrastructure will 

remain one of the top priorities of the Committee. The Committee’s 

recommendation fully supports the increases required for operations and maintenance and new construction. Reductions from the 

request are due to the transfer of pension funding to a separate activity within the appropriation and for delays that affect the funding needs of the new construction projects. 

While the importance of modernization is understood, the economic crisis requires that the NNSA proceed with its modernization activities in a responsible manner and the Committee is seriously concerned with the recent cost growth reported for construction of the Uranium Processing Facility (UPF) and the Chemistry 

and Metallurgy Research Replacement (CMRR) Project. The current price tag for UPF is projected between $4,200,000,000 and 

$6,500,000,000 and the CMRR Nuclear Facility is estimated to cost 

between $3,700,000,000 and $5,800,000,000. These are conceptually 

replacement facilities to make operations more safe and efficient, 

but construction will also enable the reconstitution of certain production capabilities that have been lost but are needed to meet the 

needs of an aging stockpile. Many gaps remain in the planning efforts, and basic capability requirements and acquisition strategies 

continue to be re-evaluated. Modernization will take several years 

and the considerable number of variables still at play argues 

against an excessively aggressive funding curve. The construction 

of the new major facilities must not force out available modernization funding for the rest of the nuclear security enterprise. Therefore, the Committee supports the adoption of cost reduction strategies to make construction more affordable and to curb continued 

cost escalation. Further, these projects will be closely monitored to 

ensure that prudent project management practices are followed, 

and the Committee is prepared to make adjustments to the funding 

profiles to ensure that taxpayer funds are not wasted. 

Operations of Facilities.—The Committee recommends 

$1,295,616,000 for Operations of Facilities, $47,462,000 above fiscal 

year 2011 and $189,638,000 below the budget request. This level 

supports the full amount requested for the operations and maintenance at all eight NNSA sites, supports the transition to new facilities at Kansas City, and addresses chronic underfunding in the 

budget request for Pantex, Y–12, and the Nevada National Security 

Site. The overall level is reduced from the request primarily due to 

the transfer of funding for legacy contractor pension plans to a sepVerDate Mar 15 2010 07:41 Jun 25, 2011 Jkt 066950 PO 00000 Frm 00131 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR118.XXX HR118

jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
132 

arate activity line and a reduction to Institutional Site Support activities. 

Program Readiness.—The Committee recommends $69,180,000 

for Program Readiness, $10,000 above fiscal year 2011 and 

$5,000,000 below the budget request. 

Material Recycle and Recovery.—The Committee recommends 

$75,639,000 for Material Recycle and Recovery, $5,729,000 above 

fiscal year 2011 and $10,300,000 below the request. The Committee 

notes that the NNSA requested additional funding to partially support higher production rates for life extension programs within this 

subprogram. Marginal production costs should be directly accounted for in the production costs of those systems rather than attributed to overhead accounts which provide little transparency. 

Construction.—The Committee recommends $510,629,000 for 

Construction, $112,411,000 above fiscal year 2011 and 

$109,881,000 below the request. 

Project 12–D–301, TRU Waste Facilities, Los Alamos National 

Laboratory.—The Committee recommends no funding for construction. This project has yet to obtain a permit from the State of New 

Mexico and does not meet the necessary requirements to start construction activities according to the Department’s project management instructions. Project engineering and design activities for this 

project are fully funded under Project 07–D–140. 

Project 11–D–801, TA–55 Reinvestment Project, Los Alamos National Laboratory.—The Committee recommends $19,402,000 as requested. 

Project 10–D–501, Nuclear Facilities Risk Reduction, Y–12 National Security Complex, Oak Ridge, TN.—The Committee recommends $35,387,000 as requested. 

Project 09–D–404, Test Capabilities Revitalization II, Sandia National Laboratory, Albuquerque, NM.—The Committee recommends 

$25,168,000 as requested. 

Project 08–D–802, High Explosive Pressing Facility, Pantex Plant, 

Amarillo, TX.—The Committee recommends $66,960,000 as requested. 

Project 07–D–140, Project Engineering & Design, various locations.—The Committee recommends $3,518,000 as requested. 

Project 06–D–141, Project Engineering & Design, Uranium Processing Facility, Y–12 National Security Complex, Oak Ridge, TN.— 

The Committee recommends $160,194,000 as requested. 

Project 04–D–125, Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement (CMRR), Los Alamos National Laboratory.—The Committee 

recommends $200,000,000, $100,000,000 below the budget request. 

The Committee fully supports the Administration’s plans to modernize the infrastructure, but intends to closely review the funding 

requests for new investments to ensure those plans adhere to good 

project management practices. The latest funding profile provided 

to the Committee indicates that over half the funding requested for 

the Nuclear Facility would be used to start early construction activities. The recommendation will support the full request for design activities, but does not provide the additional funding to support early construction. The NNSA is not prepared to award that 

project milestone since it must first resolve major seismic issues 

with its design, complete its work to revalidate which capabilities 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
133 

are needed, and make a decision on its contracting and acquisition 

strategies. 

SECURE TRANSPORTATION ASSET

The Secure Transportation Asset program provides for the safe, 

secure movement of nuclear weapons, special nuclear materials, 

and non-nuclear weapon components between military locations 

and nuclear weapons complex facilities within the United States. 

The Committee recommends $243,276,000, $4,273,000 below fiscal 

year 2011 and $7,996,000 below the budget request. The recommendation recoups savings from the federal employee pay freeze 

and the modernization of federal aircraft. 

NUCLEAR COUNTERTERRORISM INCIDENT RESPONSE

The Nuclear Counterterrorism Incident Response (NCTIR) program responds to and mitigates nuclear and radiological incidents 

worldwide. The Committee recommends $222,147,000, $8,858,000 

below fiscal year 2011 and the same as the request. 

The Committee notes that the business case supporting the request to replace and maintain a third 737–type aircraft within the 

request for Secure Transportation Asset at a cost of over 

$20,000,000 is driven by the need to maintain one dedicated aircraft in a 24/7 ready status in order to meet NCTIR program requirements. On average, only 80 flight hours a year are actually 

flown in support of nuclear incident response team requirements, 

partially because the NNSA’s fleet does not meet the full range and 

cargo capacity requirements to support deployment of those teams. 

For instance, emergency managers are currently forced to leave approximately 45 percent of their equipment behind and must make 

multiple fuel stops to get to their destination. The NNSA will incur 

costs of $78,000 for each hour of flight support for emergency response activities using aircraft that do not even support the full 

mission requirements of the program. 

Reporting requirement.—The Committee directs the NNSA to 

submit a report, within 180 days of enactment, on the aircraft 

transportation capabilities needed to carry out its incident response 

activities, including a description of activities over the past three 

years, number of deployments, number of personnel and pounds of 

equipment deployed per mission and whether NNSA aircraft or alternative means were used for transport where NNSA-owned aircraft was not suitable or available, such as for international deployments. The report should include an analysis of the feasibility, 

readiness implications and costs associated with other alternatives 

which may be more cost-effective or more suitable for meeting the 

range and cargo capacity requirements of the teams. 

FACILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE RECAPITALIZATION PROGRAM

The Facilities and Infrastructure Recapitalization Program 

(FIRP) was begun in fiscal year 2002 to reduce the deferred maintenance backlog that built up across the nuclear weapons complex. 

The Committee recommendation for FIRP is $96,380,000, 

$3,084,000 above fiscal year 2011 and the same as the request. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
134 

SITE STEWARDSHIP

Site Stewardship is composed of the following subprograms: Environmental Projects and Operations, Nuclear Materials Integration and the Energy Modernization and Investment Program. The 

Committee recommends $78,680,000, $25,942,000 below fiscal year 

2011 and $25,322,000 below the budget request. No funding is provided for the Energy Modernization and Investment Program. 

NNSA should integrate its sustainability and energy conservation 

goals into its overall infrastructure recapitalization efforts. 

The Committee notes that the mission of the Site Stewardship 

program is unfocused and that the five-year planning shows a large 

and unjustified growth for this activity. The responsibility to manage the maintenance and recapitalization of essential infrastructure belongs to the Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities program under the Office of Defense Programs and should not be delegated to other NNSA organizations. No funding is provided within 

Site Stewardship for conceptual design activities associated with 

the construction of a new NNSA Service Center Facility in Albuquerque, New Mexico. The NNSA may conduct conceptual design 

activities for this facility within Readiness in Technical Base and 

Facilities. 

SAFEGUARDS AND SECURITY

This program provides for all safeguards and security requirements for the NNSA. The Committee recommendation for Safeguards and Security Program is $817,471,000, $19,375,000 below 

fiscal year 2011 and $32,000,000 below the budget request. 

Defense Nuclear Security.—The Committee recommends 

$690,857,000 for Defense Nuclear Security, $22,641,000 below fiscal year 2011 and $32,000,000 below the request. Savings are 

available due to the completion of major construction funding requirements. 

The Committee is encouraged by the savings that have been generated by developing clear and consistent security requirements 

across the enterprise and by eliminating unnecessary costs. The request includes a significant increase to begin a multi-year reinvestment effort to upgrade the physical security infrastructure. 

However, a multi-year plan for upgrading the physical security 

infrastructure is not described in the overall infrastructure recapitalization plans. The NNSA should integrate its physical security 

upgrade projects into its overall plans to recapitalize the infrastructure and provide the Committee with a site by site description of 

the requested upgrades, total costs, and prioritized schedule. 

Project 08–D–701, Nuclear Materials Safeguards and Security 

Upgrade Project.—The Committee recommends $11,752,000 as requested. 

Cyber Security.—The Committee recommends $126,614,000 for 

Cyber Security, $3,266,000 above fiscal year 2011 and the same as 

the request. 

LEGACY CONTRACTOR PENSIONS

The Committee provides $147,000,000 for legacy contractor employee pensions. Legacy Contractor Pensions provides funding for 

payments into the legacy University of California contractor emVerDate Mar 15 2010 07:41 Jun 25, 2011 Jkt 066950 PO 00000 Frm 00134 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR118.XXX HR118

jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
135 

ployee defined benefit pension plans. The pensions of legacy national laboratory employees are an ongoing stewardship cost of the 

nuclear weapons complex. Funding for these plans was requested 

alongside infrastructure requirements within Readiness and Technical Base and Facilities and alongside research and development 

funding within Nonproliferation and Verification Research and Development within the Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation appropriation. The recommendation provides funding for these multiple requests in a single funding line as a simplified and more transparent solution to managing these costs. 

The recommendation takes into account significant savings that 

are now anticipated by the NNSA since the submission of the initial fiscal year 2012 estimates of $224,055,000 in the budget request. The NNSA shall keep the Committee informed of changes to 

pension estimates as fiscal year 2011 payments are finalized. 

NATIONAL SECURITY APPLICATIONS

The Committee recommends no funding for National Security 

Applications, $20,000,000 below the budget request. There is no 

clear requirement for these investments and no criteria provided 

whereby technologies would be considered appropriate for funding 

under this program. No performance measures have been developed to support a particular investment strategy. Maintenance of 

scientific and engineering capabilities of the nuclear security enterprise is the responsibility of the Office of Defense Programs. Additional capabilities that are needed should be clearly tied to stockpile requirements and integrated into the overall efforts to maintain a robust scientific nuclear security enterprise. 

FUNDING ADJUSTMENTS

Rescissions.—As requested, the Committee rescinds $40,332,000 

of prior-year balances to meet fiscal year 2012 needs as described 

above. 

DEFENSE NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION

(INCLUDING RESCISSION OF FUNDS)

Appropriation, 2011 ............................................................................ $2,273,653,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ....................................................................... 2,519,492,000 

Recommended, 2012 ........................................................................... 2,056,770,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2011 .................................................................... ¥216,883,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ................................................................ ¥462,722,000 

The Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation account includes funding 

for Nonproliferation and Verification Research and Development; 

Nonproliferation and International Security; International Nuclear 

Material Protection and Cooperation; Fissile Materials Disposition; 

and the Global Threat Reduction Initiative. 

The Committee’s recommendation for Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation is $2,056,770,000, $216,883,000 below fiscal year 2011 

and $462,722,000 below the budget request. After accounting for a 

one-time rescission of $45,000,000 in fiscal year 2011 and the rescission of $30,000,000 of prior-year balances in this bill, the recommendation is $231,883,000 below fiscal year 2011. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
136 

The recommendation fully supports the Administration’s four 

year goal to secure vulnerable nuclear material worldwide as an 

urgent national security need and priority of the Committee. These 

activities involve working cooperatively with countries around the 

world to secure at the source, remove to a more secure location, or 

return to the United States or Russia at-risk nuclear materials at 

research reactors, nuclear facilities, and other sites. The overall 

level recommended for Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation includes a 

reduction from the requested amount for the Pit Disassembly and 

Conversion Project, transfers the costs of legacy contractor employee pensions to Weapons Activities and recoups savings in lower 

priority activities that seek to incrementally lower threat levels 

over a longer period of time. 

NONPROLIFERATION AND VERIFICATION RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

The Nonproliferation and Verification Research and Development 

program conducts applied research, development, testing, and evaluation of science and technology for strengthening the United 

States response to threats to national security posed by the proliferation of nuclear weapons and special nuclear materials. The 

Committee recommends $346,150,000 for Nonproliferation and 

Verification Research and Development, $14,836,000 below fiscal 

year 2011 and $71,448,000 below the budget request. 

The Committee provides no funding for payments into the legacy 

University of California contractor employee defined benefit pension plans within Nonproliferation and Verification Research and 

Development, $71,448,000 below the request. The cost of pensions 

for legacy weapons workers at Lawrence Livermore and Los Alamos National Laboratories is not a nonproliferation and verification 

research and development activity. Requesting funding incrementally over two accounts masks the total costs of these liabilities. 

The Committee recommends funding for these costs in a separately 

identified budgetary line within Weapons Activities as an ongoing 

stewardship cost of the nuclear weapons stockpile. 

NONPROLIFERATION AND INTERNATIONAL SECURITY

The Committee recommendation provides $161,833,000 for Nonproliferation and International Security, $14,339,000 above fiscal 

year 2011 and the same as the budget request. 

INTERNATIONAL NUCLEAR MATERIALS PROTECTION AND COOPERATION

The International Nuclear Materials Protection and Cooperation 

(INMPC) program is designed to work cooperatively with Russia 

and the border states of the former Soviet Union, as well as other 

states, to secure weapons and weapons-usable nuclear material. 

The focus is to improve the physical security at facilities that possess or process significant quantities of nuclear weapons-usable 

materials that are of proliferation concern. Programmatic activities 

include installing monitoring equipment, conducting inventories of 

nuclear material, improving the Russian security culture and establishing a security infrastructure. Expanded border and port security programs have also installed radiation detection equipment 

around the world. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
137 

The Committee recommends $496,465,000 for INMPC activities, 

$75,529,000 below fiscal year 2011 and $75,174,000 below the 

budget request. The funding level fully supports all activities directly related to the four-year effort to secure vulnerable nuclear 

materials worldwide and makes adjustments to the longer term effort to install radiation detection equipment worldwide under Second Line of Defense (SLD). 

Second Line of Defense.—The Committee recommends 

$188,610,000, including $78,432,000 for core program activities and 

$110,178,000 for Megaports. With over $1,500,000,000 already 

spent to install radiation detectors around the world, the Committee is concerned that there are not adequate performance measures to gauge the effectiveness of this effort. The primary performance measure used by the NNSA is the number of detectors installed, but the true effectiveness of these detectors in preventing 

proliferation is largely dependent on how well individual countries 

employ these capabilities in their security operations. The Committee directs the NNSA to perform a study, either through survey 

or inspection, on how individual countries are employing these capabilities after they have been installed. The study should attempt 

to determine whether the equipment is being effectively employed 

and adequately maintained, including whether a sufficient volume 

of screening is being performed and whether ongoing training is 

being conducted by host countries to maintain proficiency. The 

NNSA should report the results of its study to the Committee 

which includes an overall assessment by country of the readiness 

levels to detect nuclear and radiological materials, as determined 

by the effectiveness of ongoing activities after the equipment has 

been installed. The report should also identify by country equipment that will continue to be maintained by the NNSA and the associated ongoing costs. 

FISSILE MATERIALS DISPOSITION

The Fissile Materials Disposition program consists of major construction projects, blend-down of surplus U.S. highly enriched uranium, and a renewed Russian Plutonium Disposition program. The 

Committee recommendation provides $694,053,000 for fissile materials disposition activities, $108,145,000 below fiscal year 2011 and 

$196,100,000 below the budget request. The Fissile Materials Disposition Program constitutes 35 percent of the funding requested 

for nuclear nonproliferation. As the costs of construction continue 

to escalate, the NNSA cannot necessarily plan on increases in the 

overall account to accommodate that cost growth. The threat posed 

by rising construction costs to the progress of core nonproliferation 

activities remains a major Committee concern. 

The U.S. Plutonium Disposition program was created to dispose 

of at least 34 metric tons of surplus weapons-usable plutonium by 

fabricating it into mixed oxide (MOX) fuel for use in civilian nuclear reactors. The costs of this program continue to escalate, with 

current estimates of as much as $9,700,000,000 just to construct 

the needed facilities. 

Even apart from the enormous cost growth, the NNSA has failed 

in several aspects of management for this program. First, the 

schedule for the project to supply plutonium oxide feedstock continues to slip, and it is becoming clear there may not be adequate 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
138 

feedstock quantities to keep up with the production schedule before 

that facility can be built. Secondly, the NNSA remains without any 

civilian customers for its MOX fuel. The NNSA’s strategy concentrates activities on expanding the use of MOX into more reactors at the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). However, TVA is unlikely to commit to expanding the use of MOX into its three 

Brown’s Ferry boiling-water reactors before a thorough assessment 

of the safety and performance of the MOX fuel in the boiling water 

reactors at Fukushima Daiichi has been conducted. Even without 

accounting for the Japanese nuclear disaster, the timelines are long 

to perform the work that must be done to assure industry and the 

public that the use of MOX will not present an unnecessary risk. 

The NNSA should focus on developing the sound technical basis 

that will be needed to provide those assurances, rather than hedging its bets on any single strategy. Ultimately, the success of the 

overall program hinges on its ability to attract civilian customers. 

With considerable investments already made, the NNSA must 

show leadership and prove it has not undertaken an expensive and 

wasteful program which will ultimately produce a fuel that industry does not want or that presents unnecessary risks that exceed 

any nonproliferation benefits. 

U.S. Plutonium Disposition.—The Committee provides $244,690,000, $44,290,000 above fiscal year 2011 and $30,100,000 

below the budget request. Within these funds, $15,500,000 is provided to continue the ARIES plutonium oxide production line under 

the Pit Disassembly and Conversion Project Other Project Costs. 

U.S. Uranium Disposition.—The Committee recommends 

$16,435,000, $9,550,000 below fiscal year 2011 and $10,000,000 

below the budget request, to account for the termination of blend 

down operations at Savannah River. 

Project 99–D–143, Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility, Savannah River, SC.—The Committee recommends $385,172,000 as requested. 

Project 99–D–141–01, Pit Disassembly and Conversion Facility, 

Savannah River, SC.—The Committee recommends $20,000,000, 

$156,000,000 below the budget request. After spending nearly 

$650,000,000 over eleven years, the NNSA has failed to even make 

a decision between constructing a new greenfield facility or recapitalizing existing facilities in order to supply feedstock to the MOX 

Fuel Fabrication Facility. Cost estimates have ballooned to as 

much as $4.5 billion, a ten-fold increase over original estimates, yet 

the Department will still not be ready to make a decision on its 

next milestone until next fiscal year. The Committee will not support wasting funds on extended deliberations, and will not support 

such large increases unless the milestone is finally awarded and a 

consistent plan to provide feedstock is developed. 

Project 99–D–141–02, Waste Solidification Building, Savannah 

River, SC.—The Committee recommends $17,582,000 as requested. 

Russian Surplus Materials Disposition.—The Committee recommends $10,174,000 as requested. Funding is provided to support 

research and development activities in order to endorse progress on 

the U.S.—Russia Plutonium Management and Disposition Agreement. However, the path forward remains unclear. The NNSA 

should provide an update on the status of the Russian Surplus Materials Disposition program per the recent modifications to the 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
139 

agreement with Russia, including updated planning assumptions 

for program schedule, costs and milestones. 

GLOBAL THREAT REDUCTION INITIATIVE

The Global Threat Reduction Initiative (GTRI) mission is to identify, secure, remove and facilitate the disposition of high-risk, vulnerable nuclear and radiological materials and equipment around 

the world. The Committee recommends $388,269,000 for GTRI activities, $47,712,000 below fiscal year 2011 and $120,000,000 below 

the request. The Committee recommendation preserves full funding 

for urgent efforts to secure and protect vulnerable nuclear materials worldwide. Funding for long-term reactor conversions is sustained near current levels, and domestic radiological activities are 

reduced or eliminated where they are redundant with the responsibilities of other federal agencies. 

Highly Enriched Uranium Reactor Conversion.—The Committee 

recommends $78,269,000 for Highly Enriched Uranium Reactor 

Conversion, $70,000,000 below the budget request. The recommended for the long-term goals to convert foreign reactors reflects an understanding that progress relies heavily on international cooperation, which is not yet assured. Considering the 

scope of activities planned, there has been limited progress to convert or shut down a total of 71 Russian research reactors. Only 

three Russian reactors have been verified as shut down and the 

NNSA is conducting conversion feasibility studies on an additional 

six reactors. However, there is still no agreement with Russia to 

convert those reactors after those studies are complete. In light of 

the limited progress, the Committee finds the NNSA’s timeline and 

scope for converting Russian reactors overly optimistic. Instead of 

relying on assumptions of future cooperation, the NNSA should 

work to establish a framework agreement with Russia to ascertain 

how many reactors Russia would consider converting. 

Domestic Activities.—The Committee recommends $21,000,000 

for Domestic Material Protection, $30,000,000 below the budget request. The Committee provides no funding for Domestic Radiological Material Removal, $20,000,000 below the budget request. 

Ensuring adequate security standards for the storage and disposal 

of domestic radiological materials is the responsibility of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. It is not appropriate to duplicate this 

mission or to subsidize private costs of meeting regulatory requirements. GTRI should instead focus on its core international mission. 

However, the NNSA has considerable expertise gained from securing materials internationally and should leverage this expertise 

through participation in joint domestic efforts where possible. 

FUNDING ADJUSTMENTS

Rescission.—As requested, the Committee rescinds $30,000,000 of 

prior-year balances to meet fiscal year 2012 needs as described 

above. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
140 

NAVAL REACTORS

Appropriation, 2011 ............................................................................ $959,176,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ....................................................................... 1,153,662,000 

Recommended, 2012 ........................................................................... 1,030,600,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2011 .................................................................... +71,424,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ................................................................ ¥123,062,000 

The Naval Reactors program is responsible for all aspects of 

naval nuclear propulsion from technology development through reactor operations to ultimate reactor plant disposal. The program 

provides for the design, development, testing, and evaluation of improved naval nuclear propulsion plants and reactor cores. These efforts are critical to ensuring the safety and reliability of operating 

naval reactor plants and to developing a replacement for the 

OHIO-class ballistic missile submarine. The Committee recommendation provides $1,030,600,000 for Naval Reactors, 

$71,424,000 above fiscal year 2011 and $123,062,000 below the 

budget request. 

The budget request for Naval Reactors seeks substantial growth 

to support an ambitious multi-year plan to replace aging facilities, 

grow the federal and contractor workforce, maintain a robust testing and development program, and build new capabilities to support changes to the system of defueling, transporting and storing 

spent fuel from aircraft carriers. By 2016, Naval Reactors projects 

its funding requests will increase to nearly $1,600,000,000, over 50 

percent above the fiscal year 2008 level. These plans indicate a rate 

of growth that exceeds that of the NNSA’s nuclear weapons program, which itself plans an aggressive, multi-decade modernization 

program. Yet, the thirty-year shipbuilding plan indicates the Navy 

will actually reduce its submarine fleet by ten fast attack and two 

ballistic missile submarines. 

With fewer naval reactors in the planning, supporting the Navy’s 

shipbuilding schedule does not appear to be the major cost driver. 

Rather, the proliferation of new infrastructure projects and the 

pursuit of more extensive research and development activities are 

driving significant growth in the base operating costs of the program. The Committee is concerned this unsustainable trajectory is 

starting at the worst possible time, when resources are increasingly 

scarce. Overcoming these challenges will require vigorous leadership and the identification of practical solutions for controlling 

costs. 

The recommendation includes new funding controls within the 

Naval Reactors appropriation to provide more transparency into 

how funding is being allocated to functional activities. The existing 

budget structure provides little insight into the funding requirements to develop individual reactor systems or how the scope of 

those activities compares to previous efforts. This lack of transparency hampers management and tracking of total costs related 

to a particular ship acquisition program across agencies. In its fiscal year 2013 request, Naval Reactors is directed to transition to 

budgeting by individual ship system, a change needed to improve 

transparency and enable cost comparisons for design, development, 

and operations of different reactor plant systems. Future funding 

requests for development activities should reflect separate funding 

for ongoing development of the VIRGINIA and FORD reactor sysVerDate Mar 15 2010 07:41 Jun 25, 2011 Jkt 066950 PO 00000 Frm 00140 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR118.XXX HR118

jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
141 

tems, prototype and test reactors operated by Naval Reactors, advanced reactor plant concepts, technical support of the operating 

fleet, and any other appropriate division of programmatic activities 

within its request for Naval Reactors Development. Tracking the 

large cost to develop a replacement for the OHIO-class ballistic 

missile submarine is a Committee priority, and the recommendation provides full funding for this activity in a separately controlled 

budget line. 

OHIO Replacement Reactor Systems Development.—The Committee recommends $121,300,000 for OHIO-Replacement Reactor 

Systems Development, the same as requested within Naval Reactors Development. Funding shall be used to support only the research and development work pertaining to the reactor and its associated equipment and fuel, and power generating systems. No 

funding shall be used to develop an electric drive motor, since funding for development of steam plant systems is provided separately 

under appropriations for the Department of Defense. 

Naval Reactors Development.—The Committee recommends 

$498,700,000 for Naval Reactors Development. Naval Reactors Development supports funding for Plant Technology, Reactor Technology and Analysis, and Materials Development and Verification. 

Funding requested within Naval Reactors Development for the 

OHIO-Replacement and for operations and infrastructure activities 

are now funded separately within the recommendation. 

Naval Reactors Operations and Infrastructure.—The Committee 

recommends $332,100,000 for Naval Reactors Operations and Infrastructure. Naval Reactors Operations and Infrastructure provides funding requested for Evaluation and Servicing, Advanced 

Test Reactor Operations and Test Support, and Facility Operations. 

Within these funds, $20,000,000 is provided to support conceptual 

design activities to recapitalize the aging spent fuel infrastructure 

at Naval Reactors Facility, Idaho. 

Reporting Requirement.—The Committee directs Naval Reactors 

to submit a report, within 180 days of enactment, on its ten-year 

facilities plan, including a project-by-project description of costs 

and major milestones; prioritization employed to support the funding profile and schedule; a description of the core capabilities needed; operations and maintenance cost savings or growth resulting 

from replacing facilities; the environmental remediation costs associated with recapitalization; and the project management controls 

in place to ensure projects are completed on-cost and on-schedule. 

Construction.—The Committee recommends $39,900,000 as requested. 

Program Direction.—The Committee recommends $38,600,000 for 

program direction, $1,320,000 below fiscal year 2011 and 

$5,900,000 below the budget request. During fiscal years 2010 and 

2011, the Committee supported increases to the Naval Reactors 

federal workforce to provide additional government oversight for 

the startup of multi-year programs. While those activities are ongoing, Naval Reactors is planning an additional 17 percent growth in 

the size of its federal workforce over the next five years. It is not 

clear why such a significant growth is required to carry out the 

continuing program. Rather than a permanent growth in the federal workforce, Naval Reactors should investigate alternative opVerDate Mar 15 2010 07:41 Jun 25, 2011 Jkt 066950 PO 00000 Frm 00141 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR118.XXX HR118

jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
142 

tions to meet short term workload requirements, such as the use 

of service support contractors. 

OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR

Appropriation, 2011 ............................................................................ $393,293,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ....................................................................... 450,060,000 

Recommended, 2012 ........................................................................... 420,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2011 .................................................................... +26,707,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ................................................................ ¥30,060,000 

The Office of the Administrator of the National Nuclear Security 

Administration (NNSA) provides corporate planning and oversight 

for Defense Programs, Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation and Naval 

Reactors, including the NNSA field offices in New Mexico, Nevada 

and California. The Committee recommendation is $420,000,000, 

$26,707,000 above fiscal year 2011 and $30,060,000 below the 

budget request. After accounting for a one-time rescission in fiscal 

year 2011 of $5,700,000, the recommendation is $21,007,000 above 

fiscal year 2011. The increase takes into account that the fiscal 

year 2011 level assumed significant prior-year balances were available to maintain federal employee workforce levels, and that these 

balances are no longer available to offset workforce requirements 

in fiscal year 2012. 

Support to Minority Colleges and Universities.—The Committee 

commends the NNSA for increasing its support within its request 

for the Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU) program. This program has relied on congressional action to maintain 

adequate funding levels. The Committee recommendation includes 

the requested amount of $6,000,000 for Weapons Activities, 

$3,000,000 for Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation, and $1,000,000 

for Naval Reactors to engage HBCUs, and further directs the engagement of Hispanic Serving Institutions and minority outreach 

at other colleges and universities in research areas directly supporting program activities. 

ENVIRONMENTAL AND OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES 

DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP

Appropriation, 2011 ............................................................................ $4,979,738,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ....................................................................... 5,406,781,000 

Recommended, 2012 ........................................................................... 4,937,619,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2011 .................................................................... ¥42,119,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ................................................................ ¥469,162,000 

The Defense Environmental Management (EM) program is responsible for identifying and reducing risks and managing waste at 

sites where the nation carried out defense-related nuclear research 

and production activities that resulted in radioactive, hazardous, 

and mixed waste contamination requiring remediation, stabilization, or some other cleanup action. The Committee’s recommendation for Defense Environmental Cleanup is $4,937,619,000, 

$42,119,000 below fiscal year 2011 and $469,162,000 below the 

budget request. After accounting for a one-time rescission in fiscal 

year 2011 of $11,900,000, the final transfer of $33,633,000 to the 

Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommission Fund in 

fiscal year 2011 and the use of prior-year balances of $3,381,000 in 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
143 

the bill, the recommendation is $17,005,000 below fiscal year 2011. 

Within the amounts provided, the Department is directed to fund 

hazardous waste worker training at $10,000,000. The fiscal year 2011 level included a contribution of $33,633,000 

into the Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning (UE D&D) fund which is no longer required in fiscal year 

2012. The overall level for Defense Environmental Cleanup preserves funding at the highest possible levels, a less than one percent programmatic reduction from fiscal year 2011 in order to meet 

the federal government’s legal obligations to cleanup defense nuclear waste. 

The Committee remains concerned with the overall cost of EM’s 

program and supports EM’s goal to reduce the legacy footprint by 

80 to 90 percent by the end of fiscal year 2015 to reduce operating 

costs. 

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 recommendation supports this proposal, but 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 must be able to demonstrate it can adequately 

maintain the condition of the chemical processing areas while it deliberates on the disposition of spent nuclear fuel. Since the Department of Energy does not have a good track record for coming to 

such decisions in a timely manner, it is imperative that EM find 

other missions, such as research and development activities, to exercise the capabilities of the H-Canyon Complex and for which HCanyon can serve as a unique testing platform. 

The Department is directed to provide funding to the National 

Academy of Sciences (NAS) to undertake an investigation of using 

H-Canyon’s chemical processing areas for conducting research and 

development activities or other appropriate chemical processing activities, and to produce a report on its findings, to be submitted not 

later than December 1, 2012. In particular, the NAS should evaluate possibilities for research and development that may provide 

novel solutions for the back end of the nuclear fuel cycle, in consideration of the Department’s continued lack of a disposition path for 

high-level nuclear waste. 

Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant.—The validated 

project baseline for construction of the Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant (WTP) planned on completing the WTP project 

and treating waste by 2019 at an annual appropriation level of 

$690,000,000. The budget request includes a modified baseline to 

accelerate funding for low level waste treatment activities and proposes to further consolidate project controls. Prior consolidation of 

project controls has led to poor reporting in the budget request and 

a lack of discipline in project planning, as the funding profiles for 

subprojects now appear to be a moving target. This weak project 

planning process, coupled with a continued failure to resolve major 

planning uncertainties and outstanding safety issues, has placed 

increased risk on the Department’s ability to successfully complete 

the project. The recommendation provides additional funding over 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
144 

the baseline amount in order to mitigate risk and address outstanding safety issues. The Committee notes the Department is 

considering further changes to its project plan, including restructuring its contract to remove scope. If WTP cannot be completed according to the performance baseline that was validated in 2006, 

which includes a set scope of work, the Committee expects the Department to perform a new independent cost estimate for the 

project in order to justify those performance plan modifications. 

The Committee is also seriously concerned by DOE’s continued 

failure to resolve outstanding safety concerns about the WTP 

raised by the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (DNFSB), 

the organization tasked by Congress to oversee nuclear safety at 

DOE. Engineering design issues already identified by the DNFSB 

are now accompanied by another finding, released in June 2011, on 

the safety culture at the WTP. The most recent report describes an 

environment where the professional exchange of views which a 

safety culture relies upon is discouraged and at times punished. 

For instance, technical experts in their field expressed that they 

could not provide opinions on the safety and validity of design decisions if those opinions would have budget and schedule implications. Further, DOE management actions following a series of dissident opinions from some of its technical experts who worked on 

the project have been broadly interpreted as retribution, adversely 

impacting the overall safety culture for this project. Among the 

safety issues raised by the experts included incorrect engineering 

assumptions that could have serious consequences, such as an inadvertent criticality accident, once the facility becomes operational. 

The Committee commends the DNFSB for their steadfast work 

to ensure the safe operation of the WTP, despite requests by the 

Secretary to halt their investigation into the safety culture at the 

facility. These revelations are both alarming and disturbing and 

should be interpreted by the Secretary of Energy as a call to action. 

Safety considerations must be first and foremost in technical decision making, particularly when the consequences of failure are severe. 

The Committee directs the Secretary to certify, within 90 days of 

enactment of this Act, the safety of its cleanup operations and 

projects managed by the Office of Environmental Management. 

This certification should include a report which provides a full assessment of each project, provides meaningful comparisons of safety and performance priorities for the projects, and identifies specific 

areas of improvement. This certification should not be a simple 

statement that DOE regulations are being adhered to, but should 

qualify whether the management dynamics in place effectively support the agency’s mission to protect public health and safety. Furthermore, the report should specifically address actions taken to 

improve the safety culture within the WTP project. 

Finally, the Department is directed to develop a total cost estimate of the funding required to perform the large-scale demonstration testing specifically recommended by the DNFSB to resolve the 

outstanding technical safety concerns. Not later than February 1, 

2012, EM should provide a report to the Committee on its estimate, 

including a preliminary plan on how these tests might be carried 

out and the impacts this testing would have on the overall project 

schedule and performance baseline. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
145 

Semi-Annual Reporting Requirement.—The Department is directed to submit semi-annual reports to the Committee on the 

progress of the WTP project, with the first report due no later than 

May 1, 2012. The report should include the baseline funding plan 

by subproject and clearly identify outstanding design and safety 

issues by subproject. 

Project Management.—Despite a number of management improvement initiatives and revision of the Department’s instructions, EM’s contract and project management functions remain on 

the GAO’s high-risk list of programs at risk for fraud, waste, abuse 

and mismanagement. While it will take time to determine if the 

management initiatives will translate to successful projects, the 

Department must take aggressive steps to more quickly gauge the 

success of its reforms, rather than adopt a wait-and-see approach. 

EM has demonstrated laudable success in implementing many of 

its projects under the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act. 

While these projects tend to be more defined, smaller in scope and 

have fewer technical issues than many of the projects EM is managing in its base program, their success demonstrates that consistent application of requirements, detailed performance reporting 

and disciplined management of project definition and scope can improve overall project performance at the Department. EM is directed to conduct an evaluation into the project management lessons learned for projects carried out under the Recovery Act and 

report the results of its investigation to the Committee, no later 

than 180 days after enactment of this Act. The evaluation should 

not simply focus on the problems encountered, but should identify 

best practices which led to positive performance. The report should 

provide the Committee with specific recommendations on how those 

lessons can and will be applied to management of ongoing and future projects. 

Report on Project Controls.—The Committee notes that there are 

a number of EM capital projects that are not being reported because they are being funded by operations and maintenance funding. It is not clear what criteria EM is using to distinguish a capital asset project from an operational project. DOE is directed to 

provide a report, no later than 90 days of enactment, of all projects 

with a total project cost greater than $10,000,000 that will be funded by EM during fiscal year 2012. The report should include a description of the performance baselines for cost and schedule for 

each project, and describe the overall rationale for managing these 

projects using operations and maintenance funding. 

Closure Sites.—The Committee recommendation provides 

$5,375,000, $5,200,000 above fiscal year 2011 and the same as the 

budget request. 

Hanford Site.—The Committee recommends $933,712,000, 

$32,279,000 below fiscal year 2011 and $20,000,000 above the 

budget request. Additional funding is provided to accelerate the 

demolition and disposition of the Plutonium Finishing Plant complex in order to realize the cost savings from footprint reduction 

more quickly and thereby save taxpayer dollars. An additional 

$20,338,000 for community and regulatory support at Hanford, 

funding previously appropriated in this activity in fiscal year 2011, 

is now provided under Community, Regulatory and Program Support as requested. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
146 

Idaho National Laboratory.—The Committee recommends 

$382,769,000, $15,897,000 below fiscal year 2011 and the same as 

the budget request. Funding provided in fiscal year 2011 for community and regulatory support at Idaho is now provided under 

Community, Regulatory and Program Support as requested. 

NNSA Sites.—The Committee recommendation provides 

$248,753,000, $60,288,000 below fiscal year 2011 and $174,939,000 

below the budget request. The Department has yet to develop a 

comprehensive plan for cleanup of legacy waste at Los Alamos National Laboratory. The total cost of cleanup remains uncertain, particularly for soil and groundwater remediation. The Department 

should focus on site planning to develop more detailed disposition 

and restoration strategies before significantly ramping up its cleanup activities there. 

Oak Ridge Reservation.—The Committee recommends 

$156,100,000, $3,965,000 above fiscal year 2011 and $20,000,000 

below the budget request. The Committee notes that only half of 

the Recovery Act funding awarded for Oak Ridge cleanup has been 

spent and this funding will sustain a substantial amount of ongoing cleanup activities during fiscal year 2012. The Committee directs the Department to prioritize and address safety issues associated with projects that pose the greatest risk to personnel and facilities through programs such as the Integrated Facilities Disposition Program. Funding provided in fiscal year 2011 for community 

and regulatory support at Oak Ridge is now provided under Community, Regulatory and Program Support as requested. 

Office of River Protection.—The Committee recommends 

$1,148,000,000, $12,402,000 above fiscal year 2011 and 

$213,391,000 below the budget request. The Committee recommendation includes an increase over the validated performance 

baseline funding plan for the Waste Treatment and Immobilization 

Plant (WTP) in order to mitigate risk and resolve outstanding safety issues. Within these funds, $408,000,000 is provided for tank 

waste stabilization and disposition, $11,100,000 above fiscal year 

2011 and $113,391,000 below the budget request. 

Project 01–D–16 A–D, Waste Treatment and Immobilization 

Plant.—The Committee recommends $363,000,000 as requested. 

Project 01–D–16 E, Pretreatment Facility, Waste Treatment and 

Immobilization Plant.—The Committee recommends $377,000,000, 

$100,000,000 below the budget request. 

Savannah River Site.—The Committee recommends 

$1,180,738,000 for cleanup at the Savannah River Site, $8,354,000 

above fiscal year 2011 and $43,406,000 below the budget request. 

Funding provided in fiscal year 2011 for community and regulatory 

support at Savannah River is now provided under Community, 

Regulatory and Program Support as requested. 

Project 05–D–405, Salt Waste Processing Facility, Savannah 

River.—The Committee recommends $170,071,000 as requested. 

Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP).—The Committee recommends 

$220,000,000, $4,286,000 above fiscal year 2011 and $8,926,000 

below the budget request. The recommended level corresponds to a 

reduction in planned work as a result of adjustments made for 

cleanup activities at Los Alamos National Laboratory. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
147 

Program Direction.—The Committee recommends $316,948,000, 

$3,058,000 below fiscal year 2011 and $4,680,000 below the budget 

request. 

Community, Regulatory and Program Support.—The Committee 

recommends $89,779,000, $1,500,000 below the budget request, in 

order to consolidate funding previously provided in the individual 

site funding allocations within Defense Environmental Cleanup 

and the Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund. The Committee expects EM to seek efficiencies as a 

result of the additional flexibility gained from consolidation. EM is 

directed to report funding by site in its budget request for Community, Regulatory and Program Support. 

Safeguards and Security.—The Committee recommends 

$248,826,000 for Safeguards and Security, $1,045,000 above fiscal 

year 2011 and the same as the budget request. While the recommendation accepts the request to consolidate funding under one 

control, EM is directed to report funding by site in its budget request for Safeguards and Security. 

Technology Development and Deployment.—The Committee recommends $10,000,000 for Technology Development and Deployment, $9,413,000 below fiscal year 2011 and $22,320,000 below the 

request. The Committee includes funds for the Department to continue successful cooperative efforts to transfer and demonstrate 

international technologies and approaches to the cleanup program. 

FUNDING ADJUSTMENTS

Use of Prior-Year Balances.—As requested, the Committee directs the use of $3,381,000 in prior-year balances to meet fiscal 

year 2012 needs as described above. 

OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES

Appropriation, 2011 ............................................................................ $785,020,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ....................................................................... 859,952,000 

Recommended, 2012 ........................................................................... 814,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2011 .................................................................... +28,980,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ................................................................ ¥45,952,000 

This account provides funding for the Office of Health, Safety 

and Security; Office of Legacy Management; Defense-Related Activities at Idaho National Laboratory; Defense Related Administrative Support; and the Office of Hearings and Appeals. Descriptions 

of each of these programs are provided below. The Committee recommendation for Other Defense Activities (ODA) totals 

$814,000,000, $28,980,000 above fiscal year 2011 and $45,952,000 

below the budget request. After accounting for a one-time rescission of $3,400,000 in fiscal year 2011, the recommendation is 

$25,580,000 above fiscal year 2011. No funds are provided as a new 

line for the Acquisition Workforce Improvement initiative. Funds 

continue to be appropriated for the acquisition workforce in existing accounts. 

HEALTH, SAFETY, AND SECURITY

The Office of Health, Safety and Security (HSS) develops programs and policies to protect the workers at the Department’s sites 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
148 

and facilities and the public, conducts independent oversight of performance and security, and integrates health, safety, and security 

policies across the Department, among other related functions. The 

Committee recommendation is $431,408,000, $4,475,000 above fiscal year 2011 and $25,074,000 below the budget request. The Committee believes that having an independent assessment capability 

at the Department is important and supports the role of HSS in 

the areas of nuclear safety, worker safety and health, safeguards 

and security, cyber security and emergency management. The Committee agrees that the responsibility for protecting workers, the 

public, the environment and national security assets rests with the 

Department’s line management organizations. However, it is critical that the Department preserve the HSS authority to independently assess Departmental compliance and performance, and to 

have access to and cooperation from all Departmental programs 

and facilities. 

With the number of major facilities under construction, it is particularly important that HSS fulfill its role to perform assessments 

on new facility designs. Because of the one of a kind nature of 

these facilities and the specialized technical expertise required to 

evaluate designs, the Committee encourages HSS to further develop its human capital base to ensure there are sufficient personnel with appropriate technical skills. The Committee notes the 

significant growth in the request for support services in its program direction line. While the use of support service contractors 

may be a practical and cost-effective way to augment personnel 

needs and provide specialized skills over a limited time period, 

HSS should focus more on building a core of personnel with the desired skills to maintain organizational knowledge and save costs 

over the long term. 

Annual Report on Independent Oversight Activities.—The Committee expects the Department to provide an annual report on the 

independent oversight activities of HSS, including progress on 

transforming the organization and building appropriate skill sets 

within the organization. The report should also clearly identify any 

gaps in its capabilities for conducting effective oversight. 

OFFICE OF LEGACY MANAGEMENT

The Office of Legacy Management provides long-term stewardship following site closure. The Committee recommends 

$167,100,000 for Legacy Management, $4,521,000 below fiscal year 

2011 and $3,000,000 below the budget request. 

The Committee directs that all documentation relating to Yucca 

Mountain, including technical information, records, and other documents, as well as scientific data and physical materials, be preserved. 

DEFENSE-RELATED ACTIVITIES AT IDAHO NATIONAL LABORATORY

The Committee recommendation includes $93,350,000, 

$15,800,000 above fiscal year 2011 and $5,150,000 below the budget request, to fund defense-related activities at Idaho National Laboratory. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
149 

DEFENSE-RELATED ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT

The Committee recommendation includes $118,000,000, 

$11,760,000 above fiscal year 2011 and $836,000 below the budget 

request, to provide administrative support for programs funded in 

the atomic energy defense activities accounts, including Departmental activities performed by offices including the Secretary, Deputy Secretary and Under Secretaries, the General Counsel, Chief 

Financial Officer, Human Resources, Congressional Affairs, and 

Public Affairs, which support the organizations and activities funded in the environmental and other defense activities accounts. 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

The Office of Hearings and Appeals is responsible for all of the 

Department’s adjudicatory processes, other than those administered by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. The Committee recommendation is $4,142,000, $1,934,000 below fiscal year 

2011 and the same as the budget request. 

ACQUISITION WORKFORCE IMPROVEMENT

The Committee recommendation supports the improvement of 

the Department’s acquisition and contracting workforce within the 

program offices and within the Office of Management. The Administration did not submit a comprehensive plan to justify a new, 

stand-alone initiative. Therefore, the Committee recommendation 

includes no funding for the acquisition workforce improvement initiative under Other Defense Activities, $11,892,000 below the budget request. The Committee fully supports a robust acquisition and 

contracting workforce and will work with the Department to provide program direction funding under the appropriate accounts to 

ensure proper oversight of the acquisition process. 

POWER MARKETING ADMINISTRATIONS 

Management of the federal power marketing functions was transferred from the Department of the Interior to the Department of 

Energy in the Department of Energy Organization Act of 1977 

(P.L. 95–91). These functions include the power marketing activities authorized under section 5 of the Flood Control Act of 1944 

and all other functions of the Bonneville Power Administration, the 

Southeastern Power Administration, the Southwestern Power Administration, and the power marketing functions of the Bureau of 

Reclamation that have been transferred to the Western Area Power 

Administration. 

All four power marketing administrations give preference in the 

sale of their power to publicly-owned and cooperatively-owned utilities. Further, all power marketing administrations except the Bonneville Power Administration are funded annually with appropriations. Operations of the Bonneville Power Administration are financed principally under the authority of the Federal Columbia 

River Transmission System Act (P.L. 93–454). Under this Act, the 

Bonneville Power Administration is authorized to use its revenues 

to finance the costs of its operations, maintenance, and capital construction, and to sell bonds to the Treasury if necessary to finance 

any additional capital program requirements. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
150 

Beginning in fiscal year 2011, power revenues from the Southeastern, Southwestern, and Western Area Power Administrations, 

which were previously classified as mandatory offsetting receipts, 

were reclassified as discretionary offsetting collections to directly 

offset annual expenses. 

BONNEVILLE POWER ADMINISTRATION FUND

The Bonneville Power Administration is the Department of Energy’s marketing agency for electric power in the Pacific Northwest. 

Bonneville provides electricity to a 300,000 square mile service 

area in the Columbia River drainage basin. Bonneville markets the 

power from federal hydropower projects in the Northwest, as well 

as power from non-federal generating facilities in the region, and 

exchanges and markets surplus power with Canada and California. 

Language is included to allow expenditures from the Bonneville 

Power Administration Fund for the Kootenai River Native Fish 

Conservation Aquaculture Program, Lolo Creek Permanent Weir 

Facility, and Improving Anadromous Fish production on the Warm 

Springs Reservation. 

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, SOUTHEASTERN POWER

ADMINISTRATION

Appropriation, 2011 ............................................................................ $— 

Budget estimate, 2012 ....................................................................... — 

Recommended, 2012 ........................................................................... — 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2011 .................................................................... — 

Budget estimate, 2012 ................................................................ — 

The Southeastern Power Administration (SEPA) markets hydroelectric power produced at 22 Army Corps of Engineers Projects in 

11 states in the southeast. Southeastern does not own or operate 

any transmission facilities, so it contracts to ‘‘wheel’’ its power 

using the existing transmission facilities of area utilities. 

The total program level for SEPA in fiscal year 2012 is 

$123,298,000, with $114,870,000 for purchase power and wheeling 

and $8,428,000 for program direction. The purchase power and 

wheeling costs will be offset by collections of $100,162,000, and annual expenses will be offset by collections of $8,428,000 provided in 

this Act. Additionally, SEPA has identified $14,708,000 in alternative financing for purchase power and wheeling. The net appropriation, therefore, is $0 in the recommendation and the budget request. 

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, SOUTHWESTERN POWER

ADMINISTRATION

Appropriation, 2011 ............................................................................ $13,050,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ....................................................................... 11,892,000 

Recommended, 2012 ........................................................................... 11,892,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2011 .................................................................... ¥1,158,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ................................................................ — 

The Southwestern Power Administration (SWPA) markets hydroelectric power produced at 24 Corps of Engineers projects in the 

six-state area of Arkansas, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Oklahoma, and Texas. SWPA operates and maintains 1,380 miles of 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
151 

transmission lines, along with supporting substations and communications sites. 

The Committee recommendation for the Southwestern Power Administration is a net appropriation of $11,892,000, equal to the 

budget request. The total program level for Southwestern in fiscal 

year 2012 is $107,007,000, including $14,346,000 for operation and 

maintenance expenses, $50,000,000 for purchase power and wheeling, $31,889,000 for program direction, and $10,772,000 for construction. Offsetting collections total $73,118,000, including 

$40,000,000 for purchase power and wheeling, $25,687,000 for program direction, and $7,431,000 for operation and maintenance. 

Southwestern estimates it will secure alternative financing from 

customers in the amount of $21,997,000. 

CONSTRUCTION, REHABILITATION, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, WESTERN AREA POWER ADMINISTRATION

Appropriation, 2011 ............................................................................ $108,963,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ....................................................................... 95,968,000 

Recommended, 2012 ........................................................................... 95,968,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2011 .................................................................... ¥12,995,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ................................................................ — 

The Western Area Power Administration is responsible for marketing the electric power generated by the Bureau of Reclamation, 

the Corps of Engineers, and the International Boundary and Water 

Commission. Western also operates and maintains a system of 

transmission lines nearly 17,000 miles long. Western provides electricity to 15 western states over a service area of 1.3 million square 

miles. 

The Committee recommendation for the Western Area Power Administration is a net appropriation of $95,968,000, equal to the 

budget request. The total program level for Western in fiscal year 

2012 is $863,469,000, which includes $110,449,000 for construction 

and rehabilitation, $72,863,000 for system operation and maintenance, $471,535,000 for purchase power and wheeling, 

$205,247,000 for program direction, and $3,375,000 for the Utah 

Mitigation and Conservation Fund. Offsetting collections include $496,473,000 for purchase power and wheeling and annual expenses, and the use of $4,821,000 of 

offsetting collections from the Colorado River Dam Fund (as authorized in P.L. 98–381). The inclusion of $266,207,000 of alternative financing identified by the Western Area Marketing Administration yields a net appropriation of $95,968,000. 

FALCON AND AMISTAD OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE FUND

Appropriation, 2011 ............................................................................ $220,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ....................................................................... 220,000 

Recommended, 2012 ........................................................................... 220,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2011 .................................................................... — 

Budget estimate, 2012 ................................................................ — 

Falcon Dam and Amistad Dam are two international water 

projects located on the Rio Grande River between Texas and Mexico. Power generated by hydroelectric facilities at these two dams 

is sold to public utilities through the Western Area Power Administration. The Foreign Relations Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
152 

1994 and 1995 created the Falcon and Amistad Operating and 

Maintenance Fund to defray the costs of operation, maintenance, 

and emergency activities. The Fund is administered by the Western 

Area Power Administration for use by the Commissioner of the 

U.S. Section of the International Boundary and Water Commission. 

The Committee recommendation is a net appropriation of $220,000, the same as the budget request. The total program level 

is $4,169,000, with $3,949,000 of offsetting collections applied toward annual expenses. 

FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation, 2011 ............................................................................ $298,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ....................................................................... 304,600,000 

Recommended, 2012 ........................................................................... 304,600,000 

Comparison 

Appropriation, 2011 .................................................................... +6,600,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ................................................................ — 

REVENUES

Appropriation, 2011 ............................................................................ ¥$298,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ....................................................................... ¥304,600,000 

Recommended, 2012 ........................................................................... ¥304,600,000 

Comparison 

Appropriation, 2011 .................................................................... ¥6,600,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ................................................................ — 

The Committee recommendation for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) is $304,600,000, $6,600,000 above fiscal 

year 2011 and the same as the budget request. Revenues for FERC 

are established at a rate equal to the budget authority, resulting 

in a net appropriation of $0. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION 

The Committee’s detailed funding recommendations for programs 

in Title III are contained in the following table. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
153 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 010 66387A.036
154 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 011 here 66387A.037
155 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 012 here 66387A.038
156 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 013 here 66387A.039
157 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 014 here 66387A.040
158 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 015 here 66387A.041
159 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 016 here 66387A.042
160 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 017 here 66387A.043
161 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 018 here 66387A.044
162 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 019 here 66387A.045
163 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 020 here 66387A.046
164 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 021 here 66387A.047
165 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 022 here 66387A.048
166 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 023 here 66387A.049
167 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 024 here 66387A.050
168 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 025 here 66387A.051
169 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 026 here 66387A.052
170 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 027 here 66387A.053
171 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 028 here 66387A.054
172 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 029 here 66387A.055
173 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 030 here 66387A.056
174 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 031 here 66387A.057
175 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 017 here 66387A.058
176 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 033 here 66387A.059
177 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 034 here 66387A.060
178 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 035 here 66387A.061
179 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 036 here 66387A.062
180 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 037 here 66387A.063
181 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 038 here 66387A.064
182 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 039 here 66387A.065
183 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 040 here 66387A.066
184 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 041 here 66387A.067
185 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 042 here 66387A.068
186 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 043 here 66387A.069
187 

GENERAL PROVISIONS, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS) 

The bill contains a provision prohibiting the use of funds for new 

programs or to prepare or initiate requests for proposals or other 

solicitations or arrangements, or for programs that have not yet 

been fully funded by the Congress; and providing that none of the 

funds may be available for obligation or expenditure through a reprogramming of funds except in certain circumstances. 

The bill continues a provision that prohibits the use of funds in 

this title to augment funding made available for severance payments, other benefits, or community assistance grants for employees of the Department of Energy, or to develop or implement a 

workforce restructuring plan that covers Department employees. 

The bill continues a provision that permits the transfer and 

merger of unexpended balances of prior appropriations with appropriation accounts established in this bill. 

The bill continues a provision restricting certain Bonneville 

Power Administration activities. 

The bill continues a provision directing the governance of user facilities. 

The bill continues a provision that authorizes intelligence activities of the Department of Energy for purposes of section 504 of the 

National Security Act of 1947. 

The bill continues a provision that establishes certain limitations 

and requirements with respect to the transfer of funds by the Secretary of Energy to reimburse the costs of defined benefits pension 

plans for contractor employees. 

The bill contains a provision that prohibits the use of funds in 

this title for capital construction of high hazard nuclear facilities, 

unless certain independent oversight is conducted. 

The bill contains a provision establishing estimated cost parameters for plant and construction activities for the purposes of sections 4703 and 4704 of the Atomic Energy Defense Act. 

The bill contains a provision that prohibits the use of funds provided in this title to approve critical decision–2 or critical decision– 

3 for certain construction projects, unless a separate independent 

cost estimate has been developed for that critical decision. 

The bill continues a provision that establishes certain notification 

requirements that must be fulfilled before any funds in this title 

may be used to make certain awards, allocations, agreements, or 

public announcements. 

The bill contains a provision prohibiting the use of funds to make 

a conditional loan guarantee award unless the Secretary of Energy 

notifies the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the 

House of Representatives at least three full business days in advance of such award. 

The bill contains a provision prohibiting the Department of Energy from enforcing any significant regulatory actions without providing 30 days notice to the Committee on Appropriations. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
188 

TITLE IV—INDEPENDENT AGENCIES 

APPALACHIAN REGIONAL COMMISSION

Appropriation, 2011 ............................................................................ $68,263,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ....................................................................... 76,000,000 

Recommended, 2012 ........................................................................... 68,400,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2011 .................................................................... +137,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ................................................................ ¥7,600,000 

The Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC) is a regional economic development agency established in 1965. It is comprised of 

the governors of the 13 Appalachian States and a federal co-chair 

appointed by the President. The Committee recommendation for 

the ARC is $68,400,000, $137,000 above fiscal year 2011 and 

$7,600,000 below the budget request. 

The ARC targets 50 percent of its funds to distressed counties or 

distressed areas in the Appalachian region. The Committee continues to believe this should be the primary focus of the ARC. 

DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD

Appropriation, 2011 ............................................................................ $23,203,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ....................................................................... 29,130,000 

Recommended, 2012 ........................................................................... 29,130,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2011 .................................................................... +5,927,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ................................................................ — 

The Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (DNFSB) was created by the fiscal year 1989 National Defense Authorization Act. 

The Board, composed of five members appointed by the President, 

provides advice and recommendations to the Secretary of Energy 

regarding public health and safety issues at the Department’s defense nuclear facilities. The DNFSB is responsible for reviewing 

and evaluating the content and implementation of the standards 

relating to the design, construction, operation, and the Department 

of Energy’s decommissioning of defense nuclear facilities. The Committee expects the DNFSB to continue to play a significant role in 

scrutinizing the Department’s safety and security activities, including the reform initiatives underway in the Department that may 

impact projects under its jurisdiction. 

The Committee recommendation for fiscal year 2012 is 

$29,130,000, $5,927,000 above fiscal year 2011 and the same as the 

request. 

DELTA REGIONAL AUTHORITY

Appropriation, 2011 ............................................................................ $11,677,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ....................................................................... 13,000,000 

Recommended, 2012 ........................................................................... 11,700,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2011 .................................................................... +23,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ................................................................ ¥1,300,000 

The Delta Regional Authority (DRA) is a federal-state partnership serving a 252-county/parish area in an eight-state region near 

the mouth of the Mississippi River. Led by a federal co-chair and 

the governors of each participating state, the DRA is designed to 

remedy severe and chronic economic distress by stimulating economic development and fostering partnerships that will have a 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
189 

positive impact on the region’s economy. The DRA seeks to help 

local communities leverage other federal and state programs, which 

are focused on basic infrastructure development, transportation improvements, business development and job training services. Under 

federal law, at least 75 percent of appropriated funds must be invested in distressed counties and parishes, with 50 percent of the 

funds earmarked for transportation and basic infrastructure improvements. 

For fiscal year 2012 the Committee recommends $11,700,000, 

$23,000 above fiscal year 2011 and $1,300,000 below the request. 

DENALI COMMISSION

Appropriation, 2011 ............................................................................ ¥$4,321,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ....................................................................... 11,965,000 

Recommended, 2012 ........................................................................... 10,700,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2011 .................................................................... +15,021,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ................................................................ ¥1,265,000 

The Denali Commission is a regional development agency established in 1998 to provide critical utilities, infrastructure, health 

services and economic support throughout Alaska. To ensure that 

local communities have a stake in Commission-funded projects, 

local cost-share requirements for construction and equipment have 

been established for both distressed and non-distressed communities. 

For the cost of the Commission’s operations in fiscal year 2012, 

the Committee recommends $10,700,000, $15,021,000 above fiscal 

year 2011 and $1,265,000 below the budget request. After accounting for a one-time rescission of $15,000,000 in fiscal year 2011, the 

recommendation is $21,000 above fiscal year 2011. 

NORTHERN BORDER REGIONAL COMMISSION

Appropriation, 2011 ............................................................................ $1,497,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ....................................................................... 1,500,000 

Recommended, 2012 ........................................................................... 1,350,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2011 .................................................................... ¥147,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ................................................................ ¥150,000 

The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (Public Law 

110–234) authorized the establishment of the Northern Border Regional Commission (NBRC) as a federal-state partnership intended 

to address the economic development needs of distressed portions 

of the four-state region of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont and 

New York. In the current fiscal year, the NBRC’s federal co-chair 

has taken preliminary steps to begin operations of the new Commission. The Committee has continued legislative language addressing the Commission’s administrative expenses. 

The Committee recommends $1,350,000 to support the Commission’s activities in fiscal year 2012, $147,000 below fiscal year 2011 

and $150,000 below the budget request. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
190 

SOUTHEAST CRESCENT REGIONAL COMMISSION

Appropriation, 2011 ............................................................................ $250,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ....................................................................... — 

Recommended, 2012 ........................................................................... 250,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2011 .................................................................... — 

Budget estimate, 2012 ................................................................ +250,000 

The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (Public Law 

110–234) authorized the establishment of the Southeast Crescent 

Regional Commission as a federal-state partnership intended to address the economic development needs of distressed portions of the 

southeastern United States not already served by a regional development agency. The Committee recommends $250,000 for operations of the commission in fiscal year 2012, the same as fiscal year 2011 and 

$250,000 above the budget request. 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

GROSS APPROPRIATION

Appropriation, 2011 ............................................................................ $1,043,208,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ....................................................................... 1,027,240,000 

Recommended, 2012 ........................................................................... 1,027,240,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2011 .................................................................... ¥15,968,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ................................................................ — 

REVENUES

Appropriation, 2011 ............................................................................ ¥$906,220,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ....................................................................... ¥899,726,000 

Recommended, 2012 ........................................................................... ¥890,713,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2011 .................................................................... +15,507,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ................................................................ +9,013,000 

NET APPROPRIATION

Appropriation, 2011 ............................................................................ $136,988,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ....................................................................... 127,514,000 

Recommended, 2012 ........................................................................... 136,527,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2011 .................................................................... ¥461,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ................................................................ +9,013,000 

The Committee recommendation for the Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) salaries and expenses for fiscal year 2012 is 

$1,027,240,000, $15,968,000 below fiscal year 2011 and the same as 

the request. The total amount of budget authority is offset by estimated revenues of $890,713,000, $15,507,000 less than fiscal year 

2011 and $9,013,000 less than the request. Including revenues, the 

net appropriation for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is 

$136,527,000. 

The recommendation includes $10,000,000 to be derived from the 

Nuclear Waste Fund, $10,000,000 above the request. This funding 

may only be used to continue the Yucca Mountain license application. A general provision is included to prohibit any funding in this 

bill from being used to bring the Yucca Mountain license application to a close until the Commission reverses the Atomic Safety 

and Licensing Board decision LBP–10–11. In addition, to improve 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
191 

consistency across accounts the Committee has established the salaries and other support costs of the Commissioners in legislative 

language. Further, the Committee carries language limiting the circumstances under which the NRC may reprogram funds. 

In order to improve transparency and accountability to the taxpayer, the Committee has determined that the NRC’s program 

lines will serve as control points for reprogramming notifications, 

as shown in the following table. 

The Committee recommendation will support the following activities: 

Nuclear Reactor Safety ...................................................................... $796,800,000 

Operating Reactors ..................................................................... 521,300,000 

New Reactors ............................................................................... 275,500,000 

Nuclear Materials & Waste Safety ................................................... 230,440,000 

Fuel Facilities .............................................................................. 55,200,000 

Nuclear Materials Users ............................................................. 92,100,000 

Spent Fuel Storage and Transportation .................................... 35,240,000 

Decommissioning and Low-Level Waste ................................... 37,900,000 

High-Level Waste Repository ..................................................... 10,000,000 

The United States has relied on the NRC to ensure the protection of the health, safety and security of the public and the environment. Throughout its history, the agency has conducted this 

work in an independent and professional manner and has thus enjoyed the strong and consistent support of the Congress and the 

trust of the general public. At no time has the need for such an 

agency, with such a reputation, been more important. The NRC 

must be able to continue to work effectively, and apolitically, to 

provide the public assurance that our nuclear plants, current and 

future, are safe and effective. 

However, in recent months, the Committee has become aware of 

issues that may be impacting the ability of the agency to function 

as intended by the Congress. By law, the Commission, headed by 

the Chairman, is charged with leading the agency on a collegial 

basis. Recent reports suggest that significant issues are not being 

decided by the Commission in the manner expected by the Congress and required by law—in some cases because the agency’s 

technical staff have been impeded from presenting issues for Commission review. There have also been suggestions that the work of 

the agency may have been influenced inappropriately by political 

considerations. 

Given the heavy workload of the agency and the need to assure 

its proper functioning in the face of the nation’s continuing and 

growing need for safe and reliable nuclear energy, the Committee 

finds these reports very troubling. As the head of the Commission, 

the Chairman has the responsibility to take whatever actions are 

necessary to remedy any appearance of partisanship or political interference in regulatory matters. 

The Yucca Mountain license application, and the Chairman’s unilateral use of ‘‘administrative means’’ to halt its consideration, are 

at the heart of this debate. The Congress has been clear both 

through legislation and through repeated votes that the Yucca 

Mountain license application process should be completed. The bill 

includes language to curb the use of ‘‘administrative means’’ to terminate programs. 

Small Modular Reactors.—The Committee expects the NRC to 

engage the Department of Energy on small modular reactors as the 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
192 

Department begins its engineering support program for the licensing of two small modular reactor designs. Through cooperation and 

active engagement, the NRC can help ensure that technical issues 

involved in licensing can be identified and resolved as early as possible. 

Integrated University Program.—From within available funds, 

the Committee recommends $15,000,000 to provide financial support for the university education programs relevant to the NRC 

mission, as the Commission continues to be reliant on a pipeline 

of highly trained nuclear engineers and scientists and benefits substantially from this university program. Not less than $5,000,000 

of this amount will be used for grants to support research projects 

that do not align with programmatic missions, but are critical to 

maintaining the discipline of nuclear science and engineering. 

Reporting Requirements.—The Committee directs the Commission to continue to provide semi-annual reports on the status of its 

licensing and other regulatory activities. 

Committee is encouraged by the ongoing pre-application activities for licensing of advanced reactors. The Committee requests 

that NRC submit a report no later than June 30, 2012 that includes the following as a minimum: 1) the anticipated advanced reactor licensing scope over the next one to two decades; 2) the overall R & D activities that should be conducted to support NRC reviews in anticipation of the advanced reactor licensing scope, including updating and extending national consensus standards; 3) 

the projected resource requirements for both experienced personnel 

and development facilities to support NRC for the anticipated scope 

of advanced reactor licensing; and 4) the overall plan for using and 

sharing the limited resources between industry and government including use of the facilities and personnel at the National Laboratories and elsewhere within government and within industry. 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

GROSS APPROPRIATION

Appropriation, 2011 ............................................................................ $10,858,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ....................................................................... 10,860,000 

Recommended, 2012 ........................................................................... 10,860,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2011 .................................................................... +2,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ................................................................ — 

REVENUES

Appropriation, 2011 ............................................................................ ¥$9,774,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ....................................................................... ¥9,774,000 

Recommended, 2012 ........................................................................... ¥9,774,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2011 .................................................................... — 

Budget estimate, 2012 ................................................................ — 

NET APPROPRIATION

Appropriation, 2011 ............................................................................ $1,084,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ....................................................................... 1,086,000 

Recommended, 2012 ........................................................................... 1,086,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2011 .................................................................... +2,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ................................................................ — 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
193 

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $10,860,000, $2,000 above fiscal year 2011 and the same as the budget request. 

Given the formula for fee recovery, the revenue estimate is 

$9,774,000, resulting in a net appropriation for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Inspector General of $1,086,000. 

NUCLEAR WASTE TECHNICAL REVIEW BOARD

Appropriation, 2011 ............................................................................ $3,883,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ....................................................................... 3,400,000 

Recommended, 2012 ........................................................................... 3,400,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2011 .................................................................... ¥483,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ................................................................ — 

The Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board (NWTRB) was established by the 1987 amendments to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act 

of 1982 to provide independent technical oversight of the Department of Energy’s nuclear waste disposal program. The Committee 

expects the NWTRB to be actively engaged with the Department, 

the Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future, and the 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission on issues involving nuclear waste 

disposal. The NWTRB should also provide support to the Department of Energy and Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s efforts to archive and preserve all Yucca Mountain-related documents and 

physical materials of scientific value. The Committee recommends an appropriation of $3,400,000 for the NWTRB in fiscal year 2012, $483,000 below fiscal year 2011 

and the same as the budget request. 

OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL COORDINATOR FOR ALASKA NATURAL GAS

TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS

Appropriation, 2011 ............................................................................ $4,457,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ....................................................................... 4,032,000 

Recommended, 2012 ........................................................................... 4,032,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2011 .................................................................... ¥425,000 

Budget estimate, 2012 ................................................................ — 

The Office of the Federal Coordinator for Alaska Natural Gas 

Transportation Projects was established as an independent agency 

in the Executive Branch on December 13, 2006, pursuant to the 

Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline Act of 2004. The Federal Coordinator 

is responsible for coordinating local, federal, and international activities for a natural gas transportation project, including facilitating the permitting process, as well as joint surveillance and 

monitoring of construction with the State of Alaska. A North American natural gas pipeline would be an important step towards energy independence for the United States, as it could deliver significant domestic natural gas supply to the lower 48 states. 

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $4,032,000 to 

support the activities of this office in fiscal year 2012, $425,000 

below fiscal year 2011 and the same as the budget request. 

TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY

Established in 1933, the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) was 

created as a Government-owned corporation for the coordinated development of water and power programs among seven states in the 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
194 

Tennessee Valley. The TVA finances its program primarily from 

proceeds available from current power operations and borrowings 

against future power revenues. 

NNSA Tritium Program.—The Committee directs the Tennessee 

Valley Authority to bill the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) on a quarterly basis for the work supporting the 

NNSA’s tritium program. 

Reports.—The Committee directs the Inspector General to forward copies of all audit and inspection reports to the Committee 

immediately after they are issued, and immediately make the Committee aware of any review that recommends cancellation of, or 

modification to, any major acquisition project or grant, or which 

recommends significant budgetary savings. The Inspector General 

is also directed to withhold from public distribution for a period of 

15 days any final audit or investigation report that was requested 

by the House Committee on Appropriations. 

GENERAL PROVISION, INDEPENDENT AGENCIES 

The bill contains a provision regarding the Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission that prohibits the obligation or expenditure of funds 

through a reprogramming of funds in this title except in certain 

circumstances. 

TITLE V—EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL FUNDING FOR 

DISASTER RELIEF 

(including transfers and rescission of funds) 

The Committee recommends $376,000 for ‘‘Army Corps of Engineers—Civil, Construction’’ to repair damages caused by the storm 

and flood events occurring in 2011. 

The Committee recommends $589,505,000 for ‘‘Army Corps of 

Engineers—Civil, Mississippi River and Tributaries’’ to repair damages caused by the storm and flood events occurring in 2011. 

The Committee recommends $204,927,000 for ‘‘Army Corps of 

Engineers—Civil, Operation and Maintenance’’ to repair damages 

caused by the storm and flood events occurring in 2011. 

The Committee recommends $233,876,400 for ‘‘Army Corps of 

Engineers—Civil, Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies’’ to repair damages caused by the storm and flood events occurring in 

2011. 

Beginning not later than one week after enactment of this Act, 

the Chief of Engineers shall provide a weekly report detailing the 

allocation and obligation of these funds to the Committees on Appropriation of the House of Representatives and the Senate. 

Funds for the Army Corps of Engineers in this section are made 

available by transfer from emergency funds appropriated for ‘‘Department of Transportation—Federal Railroad Administration— 

Capital Assistance for High Speed Rail Corridors and Intercity Passenger Rail Service’’ by title XII of Public Law 111–5. Remaining 

funds in excess of those transferred are rescinded. 

TITLE VI—GENERAL PROVISIONS 

The bill continues a provision that prohibits the use of funds provided in this Act to, in any way, directly or indirectly, to influence 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
195 

congressional action on any legislation or appropriation matters 

pending before the Congress, other than to communicate to Members of Congress as described in section 1913 of Title 18, United 

States Code. 

The bill continues a provision that prohibits the transfer of funds 

provided in this Act to any department, agency, or instrumentality 

of the United States Government, except pursuant to a transfer 

made by, or transfer authority provided in this Act or any other 

Act. 

The bill contains a provision prohibiting funds in this Act to be 

provided in contravention of section 6(b) of the Iran Sanctions Act. 

The bill contains a provision prohibiting funds in this bill from 

being used to close the Yucca Mountain license application process 

until a specific condition is met or for actions that would remove 

the possibility that Yucca Mountain might be an option in the future. 

The bill contains a provision requiring new federal hires to be 

vetted through the E-Verify Program. 

The bill contains a provision prohibiting funds for contracts or 

agreements with entities with unpaid Federal tax liabilities that 

have not entered into payment agreements to remedy the liability. 

The bill contains a provision prohibiting the government from entering into contracts or agreements with any corporation that was 

convicted of a felony criminal violation under any Federal law within the preceding 24 months. 

The bill contains a provision setting at $0 the amount that the 

proposed new budget authority in this recommendation exceeds the 

allocation made by the Committee on Appropriations under section 

302(b) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES REPORT REQUIREMENTS 

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

CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY

Pursuant to Section 6(e) of the rules of the Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives, the following statement 

is submitted regarding the specific powers granted to the Congress 

in the Constitution to enact the accompanying bill or joint resolution. 

The principal constitutional authority for this legislation is 

clause 7 of section 9 of article I of the Constitution of the United 

States (the appropriation power), which states: No Money shall be 

drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations 

made by Law . . . .’’ In addition, clause 1 of section 8 of article I 

of the Constitution (the spending power) provides: ‘‘The Congress 

shall have the Power . . . to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States . . . .’’ Together, these specific constitutional provisions establish the congressional power of the purse, granting the Congress the authority 

to appropriate funds, to determine their purpose, amount, and period of availability, and to set forth terms and conditions governing 

their use. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
196 

STATEMENT OF GENERAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

Pursuant to clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, the following is a statement of general performance goals and objectives for which this measure authorizes funding: 

The Committee on Appropriations considers program performance, including a program’s success in developing and attaining 

outcome-related goals and objectives, in developing funding recommendations. 

TRANSFER OF FUNDS

Pursuant to clause 3(f)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, the following is submitted describing the transfer of funds provided in the accompanying bill. 

TITLE I—CORPS OF ENGINEERS—CIVIL 

Under section 108, ‘‘General Provisions, Corps of Engineers— 

Civil’’, up to $100,000,000 of ‘‘Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies’’ funding appropriated in Public Law 109–234 and Public 

Law 110–252, and up to $75,000,000 of funding under the same 

heading appropriated in Public Law 110–28 and Public Law 110– 

329, may be transferred to the Construction’ account, consistent 

with cost share requirements. 

Under section 108, ‘‘General Provisions, Corps of Engineers— 

Civil’’, up to $3,800,000 of funds under the heading ‘Operation and 

Maintenance’ may be transferred to the Fish and Wildlife Service 

to mitigate for fisheries lost due to Corps projects. 

TITLE II—BUREAU OF RECLAMATION 

Under ‘‘Water and Related Resources’’, $10,698,000 is available 

for transfer to the Upper Colorado River Basin Fund and 

$6,136,000 is available for transfer to the Lower Colorado River 

Basin Development Fund. Such funds as may be necessary may be 

advanced to the Colorado River Dam Fund. The amounts of transfers may be increased or decreased within the overall appropriation 

under the heading. 

Under ‘California Bay Delta Restoration’, such sums as may be 

necessary to carry out authorized purposes may be transferred to 

appropriate accounts of other participating federal agencies. 

TITLE III—DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Under section 303, ‘General Provisions—Department of Energy’, 

unexpended balances of prior appropriations provided for activities 

in this Act may be transferred to appropriation accounts for such 

activities established pursuant to this title. Balances so transferred 

may be merged with funds in the applicable established accounts 

and thereafter may be accounted for as one fund for the same time 

period as originally enacted. 

Under section 308, ‘General Provisions—Department of Energy’, 

the Secretary of Energy may transfer up to one percent of specific 

appropriations to cover additional requirements for the Department’s pension obligations. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
197 

TITLE V—EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL FUNDING FOR 

DISASTER RELIEF 

Funds for the Army Corps of Engineers in the amount of 

$1,028,684,400 are made available by transfer from emergency 

funds appropriated for ‘‘Department of Transportation—Federal 

Railroad Administration—Capital Assistance for High Speed Rail 

Corridors and Intercity Passenger Rail Service’’ by title XII of Public Law 111–5. 

DISCLOSURE OF EARMARKS AND CONGRESSIONALLY DIRECTED

SPENDING ITEMS

Neither the bill nor the report contains any Congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined in 

clause 9 of rule XXI. 

CHANGES IN THE APPLICATION OF EXISTING LAW

Pursuant to clause 3(f)(1)(A) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the following statements are submitted 

describing the effect of provisions in the accompanying bill which 

directly or indirectly change the application of existing law. 

TITLE I—CORPS OF ENGINEERS 

Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, Investigations, providing for detailed studies and plans and specifications of projects prior to construction. 

Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, Investigations, stating that amounts for projects and activities be expended as specified in the text and tables in the accompanying report. 

Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, Construction, stating that funds can be used for the construction of river 

and harbor, flood and storm damage reduction, shore protection, 

aquatic ecosystem restoration, and related projects authorized by 

law, and for detailed studies and plans and specifications of such 

projects. 

Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, Construction, permitting the use of funds from the Inland Waterways Trust 

Fund and the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund. 

Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, Construction, rescinding prior-year funds that were not designated by the 

Congress as emergency funding. 

Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, Construction, stating that amounts for projects and activities be expended 

as specified in the text and tables in the accompanying report. 

Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, Mississippi River and Tributaries, permitting the use of funds from the 

Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund. 

Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, Mississippi River and Tributaries, stating that amounts for projects 

and activities be expended as specified in the text and tables in the 

accompanying report. 

Language has been included under the Corps of Engineers, Operation and Maintenance, stating that funds can be used for: The opVerDate Mar 15 2010 07:41 Jun 25, 2011 Jkt 066950 PO 00000 Frm 00197 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR118.XXX HR118

jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
198 

eration, maintenance, and care of existing river and harbor, flood 

and storm damage reduction, aquatic ecosystem restoration, and 

related projects authorized by law; providing security for infrastructure owned or operated by the Corps, including administrative 

buildings and laboratories; maintaining authorized harbor channels 

provided by a State, municipality, or other public agency that serve 

essential navigation needs of general commerce; surveying and 

charting northern and northwestern lakes and connecting waters; 

clearing and straightening channels; and removing obstructions to 

navigation. 

Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, Operation and Maintenance, permitting the use of funds from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund; providing for the use of funds from 

a special account for resource protection, research, interpretation, 

and maintenance activities at outdoor recreation areas; and allowing use of funds to cover the cost of operation and maintenance of 

dredged material disposal facilities for which fees have been collected. 

Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, Operation and Maintenance, providing that one percent of the total 

amount of funds provided for each of the programs, projects, or activities funded under the Operation and Maintenance heading shall 

not be allocated to a field operating activity until the fourth quarter of the fiscal year and permitting the use of these funds for 

emergency activities as determined by the Chief of Engineers to be 

necessary and appropriate. 

Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, Operation and Maintenance, stating that amounts for projects and activities be expended as specified in the text and tables in the accompanying report. 

Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, Expenses, regarding support of the Humphreys Engineer Support 

Center Activity, the Institute for Water Resources, the Engineer 

Research and Development Center, and the Finance Center. 

Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, Expenses, providing that funds are available for official reception and 

representation expenses. 

Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, Expenses, prohibiting the use of other funds in Title I of this Act for 

the activities funded in Expenses. 

Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, Expenses, permitting any Flood Control and Coastal Emergency appropriation to be used to fund the supervision and general administration of emergency operations, repairs, and other activities in response to any flood, hurricane or other natural disaster. 

Language has been included to provide for funding for the Office 

of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works. 

Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, Administrative Provision, providing for the purchase and hire of motor vehicles. 

Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, General 

Provisions, section 101, providing that none of the funds may be 

available for obligation or expenditure through a reprogramming of 

funds except in certain circumstances. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
199 

Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, General 

Provisions, section 102, prohibiting the use of funds provided under 

this Act or previous Acts for implementation of A–76 or High Performing Organizations competitive sourcing actions. 

Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, General 

Provisions, section 103, prohibiting the execution of any contract 

for a program, project or activity which commits funds in excess of 

the amount appropriated (to include funds reprogrammed under 

section 101) that remain unobligated. 

Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, General 

Provisions, section 104, prohibiting the award of a continuing contract for any project funded out of the Inland Waterway Trust 

Fund. 

Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, General 

Provisions, section 105, regarding submission of the Chief of Engineers Report to congressional committees. 

Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, General 

Provisions, section 106, requiring the Secretary of the Army to implement measures to prevent aquatic nuisance species from dispersing into the Great Lakes by way of any hydrologic connection 

between the Great Lakes and the Mississippi River Basin. 

Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, General 

Provisions, section 107, providing for transfer authority to the Construction account for specific projects. 

Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, General 

Provisions, section 108, providing for transfer authority to the Fish 

and Wildlife Service for mitigation for lost fisheries. 

Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, General 

Provisions, section 109, prohibiting funds from being used to implement revised guidance on determining jurisdiction under the Clean 

Water Act. 

Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, General 

Provisions, section 110, prohibiting funds from being used to relocate, or study the relocation of, any regional division headquarters 

located at a military installation. 

Language has been provided under Corps of Engineers, General 

Provisions, section 111, expanding existing authorization to receive 

and use funds provided by non-federal sponsors and requiring congressional notification of use of such authority. 

TITLE II—DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Language has been included under Bureau of Reclamation, 

Water and Related Resources, providing that funds are available 

for fulfilling federal responsibilities to Native Americans and for 

grants to and cooperative agreements with State and local governments and Indian tribes. 

Language has been included under Bureau of Reclamation, 

Water and Related Resources, allowing fund transfers within the 

overall appropriation to the Upper Colorado River Basin Fund and 

the Lower Colorado River Basin Development Fund; providing that 

such sums as necessary may be advanced to the Colorado River 

Dam Fund; providing that funds may be used for high priority 

projects carried out by the Youth Conservation Corps, as authorized by 16 U.S.C. 1706; and, transfers may be increased or decreased within the overall appropriation. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
200 

Language has been included under Bureau of Reclamation, 

Water and Related Resources, providing for funds to be derived 

from the Reclamation Fund or the special fee account established 

by 16 U.S.C. 4601–6a(i); that funds contributed under 43 U.S.C. 

395 shall be available for expenditure; and that funds advanced 

under 43 U.S.C. 397a for operation and maintenance of reclamation 

facilities are to be credited to the Water and Related Resources account and available for expenditure. 

Language has been included under Bureau of Reclamation, 

Water and Related Resources, stating that amounts for projects 

and activities be expended as specific in the text and tables in the 

accompanying report. 

Language has been included under Bureau of Reclamation, Central Valley Project Restoration Fund, directing the Bureau of Reclamation to assess and collect the full amount of additional mitigation and restoration payments authorized by section 3407(d) of 

Public Law 102–575. 

Language has been included under Bureau of Reclamation, Central Valley Project Restoration Fund, providing that none of the 

funds under the heading may be used for the acquisition or lease 

of water for in-stream purposes if the water is already committed 

to in-stream purposes by a court order adopted by consent or decree. 

Language has been included under Bureau of Reclamation, California Bay-Delta Restoration, permitting the transfer of funds to 

appropriate accounts of other participating federal agencies to 

carry out authorized programs; allowing funds made available 

under this heading to be used for the federal share of the costs of 

the CALFED Program management; making the use of any funds 

provided to the California Bay-Delta Authority for program-wide 

management and oversight activities subject to the approval of the 

Secretary of the Interior; and requiring that CALFED implementation be carried out with clear performance measures demonstrating 

concurrent progress in achieving the goals and objectives of the 

program. 

Language has been included under Bureau of Reclamation, Policy and Administration, providing that funds are to be derived from 

the Reclamation Fund and prohibiting the use of any other appropriation in the Act for activities budgeted as policy and administration. 

Language has been included under Bureau of Reclamation, Administrative Provision, providing for the purchase of motor vehicles 

for replacement. 

Language has been included under Bureau of Reclamation, General Provisions, section 201, providing that none of the funds may 

be available for obligation or expenditure through a reprogramming 

of funds except in certain circumstances. 

Language has been included under General Provisions, Department of the Interior, section 202, regarding the San Luis Unit and 

the Kesterson Reservoir in California. 

Language has been included under General Provisions, Department of the Interior, section 203, permanently rescinding mandatory funds from the San Joaquin River Restoration Fund. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
201 

TITLE III—DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Language has been included under Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy for the purchase, construction, and acquisition of plant 

and capital equipment. 

Language has been included under Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy waiving the allocation formula for the weatherization 

assistance program. 

Language has been included under Electricity Distribution and 

Energy Reliability for the purchase, construction, and acquisition of 

plant and capital equipment. 

Language has been included under Nuclear Energy for the purchase, construction, and acquisition of plant and capital equipment; 

and for the purchase of motor vehicles. 

Language has been included under Fossil Energy Research and 

Development for the acquisition of interest, including defeasible 

and equitable interest in any real property or any facility or for 

plant or facility acquisition or expansion, and for conducting inquiries, technological investigations, and research concerning the extraction, processing, use and disposal of mineral substances without objectionable social and environmental cost under chapter 240; 

30 U.S.C. 3 and 30 U.S.C. 1602 and 1603. 

Language has been included under Fossil Energy Research and 

Development, providing for the vesting of fee title or other real 

property interests acquired under project in any entity, including 

the United States. 

Language has been included under the Naval Petroleum and Oil 

Shale Reserves, permitting the use of unobligated balances. 

Language has been included under SPR Petroleum Account regarding the sale of petroleum products and the use of unobligated 

balances. 

Language has been included under SPR Petroleum Account prohibiting the use of royalty-in-kind authority for the purpose of refilling the Reserve from the sale authorized in this Act. 

Language has been included under Northeast Home Heating Oil 

Reserve rescinding funds associated with the sale of petroleum distillates and limiting the size of the Reserve. 

Language has been included under Non-Defense Environmental 

Cleanup for the purchase, construction, and acquisition of plant 

and capital equipment. 

Language has been included under the Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund limiting the amount 

that may be derived from certain types of barter, transfer or sale 

of uranium. 

Language has been included under Science providing for the purchase, construction, and acquisition of plant and capital equipment; 

and for the purchase of motor vehicles. 

Language has been included under Nuclear Waste Disposal providing funds to carry out the purposes of the Nuclear Waste Policy 

Act of 1982, to be derived from the Nuclear Waste Fund. 

Language has been included under Innovative Technology Loan 

Guarantee Program crediting fees collected pursuant to section 

1702(h) of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 in an amount equal to the 

appropriated amount as offsetting collections to this account and 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
202 

making fees collected under section 1702(h) in excess of the appropriated amount unavailable for expenditure until appropriated. 

Language has been included under Innovative Technology Loan 

Guarantee Program providing funds for the cost of loan guarantees 

under section 1703 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, and regarding 

the availability of these funds to certain submitted projects. 

Language has been included under Departmental Administration 

providing for the hire of passenger vehicles and for official reception and representation expenses. 

Language has been included under Departmental Administration 

providing, notwithstanding the provisions of the Anti-Deficiency 

Act, such additional amounts as necessary to cover increases in the 

estimated amount of cost of work for others, as long as such increases are offset by revenue increases of the same or greater 

amounts. This language has been carried in prior appropriations 

Acts. 

Language has been included under Departmental Administration, notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, and consistent with the authorization in Public Law 95–238, to permit the Department of Energy to use revenues to offset appropriations. The appropriations 

language for this account reflects the total estimated program 

funding to be reduced as revenues are received. This language has 

been carried in prior appropriations Acts. 

Language has been included under Weapons Activities for the 

purchase, construction, and acquisition of plant and capital equipment; and for the purchase of motor vehicles. 

Language has been included under Weapons Activities withholding funds until certain reporting requirements regarding the 

B–61 Life Extension Program are met. 

Language has been included under Weapons Activities rescinding 

funds that were not designated by the Congress as emergency 

funding. 

Language has been included under Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation for the purchase, construction, and acquisition of plant 

and capital equipment; and for the purchase of motor vehicles. 

Language has been included under Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation rescinding funds that were not designated by the Congress as emergency funding. 

Language has been included under the Office of the Administrator providing funding for official reception and representation 

expenses. 

Language has been included under Defense Environmental 

Cleanup for the purchase, construction, and acquisition of plant 

and capital equipment; and for the purchase of motor vehicles. 

Language has been included under Other Defense Activities for 

the purchase, construction, and acquisition of plant and capital 

equipment; and for the purchase of motor vehicles. 

Language has been included under Bonneville Power Administration Fund providing funding for official reception and representation expenses; approving funds for certain programs; and, precluding any new direct loan obligations. 

Language has been included under Southeastern Power Administration providing that, notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302 and 16 

U.S.C. 825s, amounts collected from the sale of power and related 

services shall be credited to the account as discretionary offsetting 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
203 

collections and remain available until expended for the sole purpose of funding the annual expenses of the Southeastern Power Administration; amounts collected to recover purchase power and 

wheeling expenses shall be credited to the account as offsetting collections and remain available until expended for the sole purpose 

of making purchase power and wheeling expenditures. 

Language has been included under Southwestern Power Administration providing funds for official reception and representation 

expenses. 

Language has been included under Southwestern Power Administration providing that, notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302 and 16 

U.S.C. 825s, amounts collected from the sale of power and related 

services shall be credited to the account as discretionary offsetting 

collections and remain available until expended for the sole purpose of funding the annual expenses of the Southwestern Power 

Administration; amounts collected to recover purchase power and 

wheeling expenses shall be credited to the account as offsetting collections and remain available until expended for the sole purpose 

of making purchase power and wheeling expenditures. 

Language has been included under Construction, Rehabilitation, 

Operation and Maintenance, Western Area Power Administration, 

providing funds for official reception and representation expenses. 

Language has been included under Western Area Power Administration providing that, notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, 16 U.S.C. 

825s, and 43 U.S.C. 392a, amounts collected from the sale of power 

and related services shall be credited to the account as discretionary offsetting collections and remain available until expended 

for the sole purpose of funding the annual expenses of the Western 

Area Power Administration; amounts collected to recover purchase 

power and wheeling expenses shall be credited to the account as 

offsetting collections and remain available until expended for the 

sole purpose of making purchase power and wheeling expenditures. 

Language has been included under Falcon and Amistad Operating and Maintenance Fund providing that, notwithstanding 68 

Stat. 255 and 31 U.S.C. 3302, amounts collected from the sale of 

power and related services shall be credited to the account as discretionary offsetting collections and remain available until expended for the sole purpose of funding the annual expenses of the 

hydroelectric facilities of those dams and associated Western Area 

Power Administration activities. 

Language has been included under Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission to permit the hire of passenger motor vehicles, to provide official reception and representation expenses, and to permit 

the use of revenues collected to reduce the appropriation as revenues are received. 

Language has been included under Department of Energy, General Provisions, section 301, prohibiting the use of funds for new 

programs or to prepare or initiate requests for proposals or other 

solicitations or arrangements, or for programs that have not yet 

been fully funded by the Congress; and providing that none of the 

funds may be available for obligation or expenditure through a reprogramming of funds except in certain circumstances. 

Language has been included under Department of Energy, General Provisions, section 302, prohibiting the use of funds to augment funding made available for severance payments or other benVerDate Mar 15 2010 07:41 Jun 25, 2011 Jkt 066950 PO 00000 Frm 00203 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR118.XXX HR118

jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
204 

efits or community assistance grants for employees of the Department of Energy, or to develop or implement a workforce restructuring plan that covers Department employees. 

Language has been included under Department of Energy, General Provisions, section 303, providing that unexpended balances of 

prior appropriations may be transferred and merged with new appropriation accounts established in this Act. 

Language has been included under Department of Energy, General Provisions, section 304, prohibiting the Administrator of the 

Bonneville Power Administration from entering into certain agreements to perform energy efficiency services outside the Administration’s territory. 

Language has been included under Department of Energy, General Provisions, section 305, requiring public notice of the availability of user facilities and full and open competition for the use 

of such facilities. 

Language has been included under Department of Energy, General Provisions, section 306, providing that funds for intelligence 

activities are deemed to be specifically authorized for purposes of 

section 504 of the National Security Act of 1947 during fiscal year 

2012 until enactment of the Intelligence Authorization Act for fiscal 

year 2012. 

Language has been included under Department of Energy, General Provisions, section 307, establishing certain limitations and requirements with respect to the transfer of funds by the Secretary 

of Energy to reimburse the costs of defined benefits pension plans 

for contractor employees. 

Language has been included under Department of Energy, General Provisions, section 308, prohibiting the use of funds for capital 

construction of high hazard nuclear facilities unless certain independent oversight is conducted. 

Language has been included under Department of Energy, General Provisions, section 309, establishing estimated cost parameters 

for plant and construction activities for the purposes of sections 

4703 and 4704 Atomic Energy Defense Act. 

Language has been included under Department of Energy, General Provisions, section 310, prohibiting the use of funds to approve 

critical decision–2 or critical decision–3 for certain construction 

projects, unless a separate independent cost estimate has been developed for that critical decision. 

Language has been included under Department of Energy, General Provisions, section 311, establishing certain notification requirements that must be fulfilled before any funds in this title may 

be used to make certain awards, allocations, agreements, or public 

announcements. 

Language has been included under Department of Energy, General Provisions, section 312, prohibiting the use of funds to make 

a final or conditional loan guarantee award unless the Secretary of 

Energy notifies the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate 

and the House of Representatives at least three full business days 

in advance of such award. 

Language has been included under Department of Energy, General Provisions, section 313, prohibiting the Department of Energy 

from enforcing any significant regulatory actions without providing 

notification. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
205 

TITLE IV—INDEPENDENT AGENCIES 

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

Language has been included under Delta Regional Authority allowing the expenditure of funds as authorized by the Delta Regional Authority Act without regard to section 382C(b)(2), 382F(d), 

382M and 382N of said Act. 

Language has been included under Denali Commission allowing 

the expenditure of funds notwithstanding section 306(g) of the 

Denali Commission Act of 1998, and providing for cost-share requirements for Commission-funded construction projects in distressed and non-distressed communities, as defined by section 307 

of the Denali Commission Act of 1998 (Division C, Title III, Public 

Law 105–277). 

Language has been included under Northern Border Regional 

Commission for expenditure as authorized by subtitle V of title 40, 

Untied States Code, without regard to section 15751(b). 

Language has been included under Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Salaries and Expenses that provides for salaries and other 

support costs for the Office of the Commission. Additional language 

provides for official representation expenses; derives funds from the 

Nuclear Waste Fund; and permits the use of revenues from licensing fees, inspections services, and other services for salaries and 

expenses. Funding is provided to support university research and 

development, and for a Nuclear Science and Engineering Grant 

Program. The appropriations language for this account reflects the 

total estimated program funding to be reduced as revenues are received. 

Language has been included under Office of Inspector General 

that provides for the use of revenues from licensing fees, inspections services, and other services for salaries and expenses. The appropriations language for this account reflects the total estimated 

program funding to be reduced as revenues are received. 

Language has been included under Office of the Federal Coordinator for Alaska Natural Gas Transportation Projects making 

funds received pursuant to section 802 of Public Law 110–140 in 

excess of the amounts specified unavailable for obligation until appropriated. 

Language has been included under Independent Agencies, General Provisions, section 401, establishing reprogramming requirements for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

TITLE V—EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL FUNDING FOR 

DISASTER RELIEF 

Language has been included rescinding funds made available in 

title XII of Public Law 111–5 for high speed rail. 

Language has been included transferring funds made available 

in title XII of Public Law 111–5 for high speed rail to specific accounts of the Corps of Engineers—Civil for emergency storm and 

flood damages. 

Language has been included requiring a weekly report on allocation and obligation of funds. 

Language has been included providing that amounts transferred 

under this heading are designated as an emergency requirement. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
206 

TITLE VI—GENERAL PROVISIONS 

Language has been included under General Provisions, section 

601, prohibiting the use of funds in this Act to influence congressional action on any legislation or appropriation matters pending 

before the Congress. 

Language has been included under General Provisions, section 

602, prohibiting the transfer of funds except pursuant to a transfer 

made by, or transfer authority provided in this or any other Act. 

Language has been included under General Provisions, section 

603, prohibiting funds in this Act to be provided in contravention 

of section 6(b) of the Iran Sanctions Act. 

Language has been included under General Provisions, section 

604, prohibiting funds in this Act from being used to close the 

Yucca Mountain license application process until a specific condition is met, or for actions that would remove the possibility that 

Yucca Mountain might be an option in the future. 

Language has been included under General Provisions, section 

605, requiring new federal hires to be vetted through the E-Verify 

Program. 

Language has been included under General Provisions, section 

606, prohibiting funds for contracts or agreements with entities 

with unpaid Federal tax liabilities that have not entered into payment agreements to remedy the liability. 

Language has been included under General Provisions, section 

607, prohibiting the government from entering into contracts or 

agreements with any corporation that was convicted of a felony 

criminal violation under any Federal law within the preceding 24 

months. 

Language has been included under General Provisions, section 608, setting at $0 the amount that the proposed new budget authority exceeds the allocation made by the Committee on Appropriations under section 302(b) of the Congressional Budget Act of 

1974. 

COMPLIANCE WITH RULE XIII, CL. 3(e) (RAMSEYER RULE) 

In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by the bill, 

as reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is printed in italics, 

existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in roman): 

SECTION 5 OF THE ACT OF JUNE 22, 1936 

AN ACT Authorizing the construction of certain public works on rivers and harbors 

for flood control, and for other purposes. 

FLOOD CONTROL ACT OF 1936

SEC. 5. That pursuant to the policy outlined in sections 1 and 3, 

the following works of improvement, for the benefit of navigation 

and the control of destructive flood waters and other purposes, are 

hereby adopted and authorized to be prosecuted, in order of their 

emergency as may be designated by the President, under the direction of the Secretary of War and supervision of the Chief of Engineers in accordance with the plans in the respective reports and 

records hereinafter designated: Provided, That penstocks or other 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
207 

similar facilities, adapted to possible future use in the development 

of adequate electric power may be installed in any dam herein authorized when approved by the Secretary of War upon the recommendation of the Chief of Engineers. Provided further, That the 

Secretary of War is authorized to receive from States and political 

subdivisions thereof, such funds as may be contributed by them for 

work, which includes planning and design, to be expended in connection with funds appropriated by the United States for any authorized øflood control or environmental restoration work¿ water 

resources development study or project whenever such work and expenditure may be considered by the Secretary of War, on recommendation of the Chief of Engineers, as advantageous in the 

public interest, and the plans for any reservoir project may, in the 

discretion of the Secretary of War, on recommendation of the Chief 

of Engineers, be modified to provide additional storage capacity for 

domestic water supply or other conservation storage, on condition 

that the cost of such increased storage capacity is contributed by 

local agencies and that the local agencies agree to utilize such additional storage capacity in a manner consistent with Federal uses 

and purposes: And provided further, That when contributions made 

by States and political subdivisions thereof, are in excess of the actual cost of the work contemplated and properly chargeable to such 

contributions, such excess contributions may, with the approval of 

the Secretary of War, be returned to the proper representatives of 

the contributing interests: Provided further, That the term ‘‘States’’ 

means the several States, the District of Columbia, the commonwealths, territories, and possessions of the United States, and Federally recognized Indian tribes. 

APPROPRIATIONS NOT AUTHORIZED BY LAW

Pursuant to clause 3(f) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 

Representatives, the following table lists the appropriations in the 

accompanying bill which are not authorized: 

[thousand dollars] 

Agency/Program Last Year of 

Authorization 

Authorization Level 

Appropriation in 

Last Year of 

Authorization 

Appropriation 

in this Bill 

Corps FUSRAP ...................................................................... (1) 109,000 

EERE Program Direction ...................................................... 2006 110,500 164,198 110,000 

Legacy Management ............................................................ 2004 29,547 29,705 167,100 

Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board ............................. 2011 28,640 23,203 29,130 

Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves ............................ 2011 23,614 20,854 14,909 

Non-Defense Environmental Cleanup: 

West Valley Demonstration ......................................... 1981 5,000 5,000 56,900 

Departmental Administration ............................................... 1984 246,963 185,682 109,631 

Atomic Energy Defense Activities: 

National Nuclear Security Administration: 

Weapons Activities ............................................. 2011 7,028,835 6,896,398 7,091,661 

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation ...................... 2011 2,667,167 2,273,653 2,056,770 

Naval Reactors ................................................... 2011 1,070,486 959,176 1,030,600 

Office of the Administrator ................................ 2011 448,267 393,293 420,000 

Defense Environmental Cleanup .......................................... 2011 5,588,039 4,979,738 4,937,619 

Other Defense Activities ...................................................... 2011 878,209 785,020 814,000 

Power Marketing Administrations: 

Southwestern ............................................................... 1984 40,254 36,229 11,892 

Western Area ............................................................... 1984 259,700 194,630 95,968 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
208 

[thousand dollars] 

Agency/Program Last Year of 

Authorization 

Authorization 

Level 

Appropriation in 

Last Year of 

Authorization 

Appropriation 

in this Bill 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission .......................................... 1985 460,000 448,200 137,613 

1 Program was initiated in 1972 and has never received a separate authorization 

RESCISSIONS

Pursuant to clause 3(f)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, the following table is submitted describing the 

rescissions recommended in the accompanying bill: 

Department or Activity Amount 

Corps of Engineers: Construction ...................................................................$50,000,000 

Bureau of Reclamation: San Joaquin River Restoration Fund .................... 66,000,000 

Department of Energy: Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve ...................100,000,000 

Department of Energy: Weapons Activities ................................................... 40,332,000 

Department of Energy: Nonproliferation ....................................................... 30,000,000 

Department of Transportation: Federal Railroad Administration (emergency) ............................................................................................................471,316,000 

COMPARISON WITH THE BUDGET RESOLUTION

Pursuant to clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives and section 308(a)(1)(A) of the Congressional 

Budget Act of 1974, the following table compares the levels of new 

budget authority provided in the bill with the appropriate allocation under section 302(b) of the Budget Act. 

BUDGETARY IMPACT OF FY 2012 ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS BILL PREPARED IN CONSULTATION WITH THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE PURSUANT TO SEC. 

308(a), PUBLIC LAW 93–344, AS AMENDED 

[In millions of dollars] 

302(b) allocation This bill 1

Budget 

authority Outlays Budget authority Outlays 

Comparison of amounts in the bill with Committee allocations 

to its subcommittees: Subcommittee on Energy and Water 

Development: 

Discretionary ......................................................................... 30,639 44,577 30,639 1 44,577 

Mandatory ............................................................................. 0 0 0 0 

1 Includes outlays from prior-year budget authority. 

FIVE-YEAR OUTLAY PROJECTIONS

Pursuant to section 308(a)(1)(B) of the Congressional Budget Act 

of 1974, the following table contains five-year projections prepared 

by the Congressional Budget Office of outlays associated with the 

budget authority provided in the accompanying bill: 

[In millions of dollars] 

Projection of outlays associated with the recommendation: 

2012 ........................................................................................................... 2 18,239 

2013 ........................................................................................................... 8,887 

2014 ........................................................................................................... 2,859 

2015 ........................................................................................................... 470 

2016 and future years .............................................................................. 158 2 Excludes outlays from prior-year budget authority. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
209 

ASSISTANCE TO STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS

Pursuant to section 308(a)(1)(C) of the Congressional Budget Act 

of 1974, the amount of financial assistance to State and local governments is as follows: 

[In millions of dollars] 

Budget Authority ............................................................................................ 84 

Outlays ............................................................................................................ 3 18 3 Excludes outlays from prior-year budget authority. 

FULL COMMITTEE VOTES

Pursuant to the provisions of clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the House 

of Representatives, the results of each rollcall vote on an amendment or on the motion to report, together with the names of those 

voting for and those voting against, are printed below: 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
210 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 029 here 66387A.085
211 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 030 here 66387A.086
212 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 031 here 66387A.087
213 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 032 here 66387A.088
214 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 033 here 66387A.089
215 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 034 here 66387A.090
216 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 035 here 66387A.072
217 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 036 here 66387A.073
218 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 037 here 66387A.074
219 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 038 here 66387A.075
220 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 039 here 66387A.076
221 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 040 here 66387A.077
222 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 041 here 66387A.078
223 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 042 here 66387A.079
224 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 043 here 66387A.080
225 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 044 here 66387A.081
226 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 045 here 66387A.082
227 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 046 here 66387A.084
228 

ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF NORM DICKS AND 

PETER VISCLOSKY 

We commend Chairman Rogers and Chairman Frelinghuysen for 

their efforts to assemble this bill in an inclusive manner. The bill 

funds critical water resource projects, supports science activities 

necessary to American competitiveness, and contributes to our national defense through vital weapons, naval reactor research and 

nonproliferation funding, all priorities that unite rather than divide 

us. Chairman Frelinghuysen has worked hard to incorporate the 

interests of Members from both parties. The Subcommittee’s allocation is $30,600,000,000, a decrease of 

$5,901,082,000 from the Administration’s budget request and 

$1,043,303,000 below the 2011 level. This allocation has necessitated severe cuts to crucial programs. While we truly appreciate 

the Chairman’s considerable efforts and recognize that difficult 

choices must be made to address the nation’s serious financial situation, this bill starkly illustrates the shortsighted nature of the 

spending cap set by the House budget. The allocation for Energy 

and Water is simply insufficient to meet the challenges posed by 

the economic downturn and to guarantee our national security. 

The cut-at-any-cost ideology has severely hindered our Committee’s ability to produce bills that adhere to principles of good governance. This bill contains inadequate funding levels for energy efficiency initiatives, the Army Corps and environmental cleanup, to 

name a few. These decisions sacrifice long-term investment needs 

for short-term gain. In 2005, when flooding devastated the city of 

New Orleans, the message was loud and clear: going forward we 

must protect vulnerable areas with sound infrastructure investments or risk greater humanitarian and fiscal repercussions. Since 

then, we’ve spent nearly the equivalent of three times the annual 

appropriation for the Corps rebuilding New Orleans. We did not 

make the proper initial investments and should have learned from 

that mistake. The funds needed to protect our communities and 

prepare for the future would be even further delayed under this 

bill. 

We commend the Chairman for increasing Corps funding by $195 

million above the President’s request, ensuring that some ongoing 

projects will not be terminated. We must invest in our infrastructure, and, even with the additional funds, the bill provides $89 million less than 2011 and $677 million less than FY 2010. Our ports, 

harbors, navigational channels, and locks continue to provide the 

foundation for long-term economic growth. At this funding level, we 

are not close to addressing the dredging backlog that plagues waterborne commerce in the United States. Currently, for the top 59 

ports in the U.S., the Corps is only able to maintain authorized 

depths within the middle half of the channel, one third of the time. 

Every day, this costs companies that rely on these ports and it 

serves as a major impediment to expanding their workforce. This 

is merely one of the reasons why, in 2009, the American Society 

of Engineers gave our nation’s dams, levees, and inland waterways 

grades of D or D¥. 

We support and appreciate the inclusion of emergency funding to 

respond to the historic flooding in the Mississippi and Missouri 

Rivers. Communities devastated by natural disasters deserve our 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
229 

full support. We are, however, disappointed that the Chairman 

chose to offset this funding by withdrawing critical support from 

high speed rail projects. 

We disagree with the notion that all funding for domestic emergency response should be offset immediately. In every year except 

two, since 1997, the Congress has recognized the need for emergency funds to respond to the impacts of natural disasters on the 

nation’s water resource infrastructure. Since 2001, the Congress 

has provided more than $24 billion to the Corps for this purpose. 

Leaving out the enormous cost of reconstruction of New Orleans 

and the surrounding area, nearly $5 billion was provided in that 

time frame for emergencies stemming from flooding. As we debate 

the long-term trajectory of taxes and spending in this nation, we 

cannot forgo actions necessary for the security and safety of our 

citizens. Yes, we must make difficult decisions that will impact the 

future of this nation, but we cannot allow those decisions to fall on 

the backs of those who have already suffered. Our country has 

rightly provided funding on an emergency basis for construction 

projects in Iraq and Afghanistan. We should have the fortitude to 

do the same to protect our citizens at home. 

According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the cost of 

the Frelinghuysen amendment to provide this funding was offset 

only in terms of budget authority (that is, authority to spend), but 

not in terms of actual outlays. This is because CBO expects that 

outlays from the new budget authority provided by the amendment 

will far exceed outlays that would have resulted from the budget 

authority it rescinds. In fact, CBO estimates that the amendment 

increases outlays resulting from the bill by a total of $1,029,000,000 

over 10 years. 

The bill continues the Subcommittee’s efforts over the years to 

improve program and project management at all of the agencies 

under its jurisdiction, honing provisions carried in the past and instituting others aimed at increased oversight. For example, the bill 

includes a requirement that independent cost estimates be completed at major milestones for projects with a total cost in excess 

of $100 million. A recent review of the Department’s cleanup-related construction projects by the Corps of Engineers paints a bleak 

picture of the management system and casts doubt on recent reforms intended to move the Department off the Government Accountability Office’s High Risk List, a list the Department has been 

on for the past 21 years. The Chairman has included a number of 

reporting requirements and statutory limitations that will contribute to increased transparency and improved management. We 

strongly support the Chairman’s action. 

The Science account, critical to the competitiveness of our nation, 

is essentially the same as that of 2011, not an insignificant 

achievement in light of the challenge this allocation provided. The 

bill also provides funds for the continuation of a promising new 

program, ARPA–E; that can also drive innovations to support our 

scientific competitiveness. 

While the bill includes appropriate funding for fossil and nuclear 

energy, we are disappointed that renewable energy programs in 

this bill are drastically reduced. We can debate whether our dependency on imported oil and other carbon fuels is an environmental problem or an economic problem. Either way, it clearly is 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
230 

a national security problem given the source of so much of our energy. We must expand the mix of our energy supply, we must use 

the energy supply we have more efficiently and we must transport 

it more efficiently. We have to make an investment to do that. We 

do not believe the allocation allows for the support necessary to advance our efforts on this front. 

Restoring the United States to a position of global leadership in 

clean energy is a critical national priority, with implications for our 

economic competitiveness, national security, and environmental 

legacy. This goal can only be achieved through widespread and 

large-scale deployment of clean energy technologies. With private 

equity investment not yet at pre-recession levels, we are pleased 

that the bill includes funds for renewable energy loans. This funding will ensure that companies who have spent millions in pursuit 

of a loan guarantee have an avenue to get such a loan and to help 

move our country toward a diversified energy portfolio in order to 

encourage their development on a broader and much-needed scale. 

We support the Chairman’s decision to provide increases to 

weapons and naval reactors only for the most critical of the activities within these accounts. The bill also includes a provision limiting the funds that can be spent on the B–61 life extension program until the Administrator of Nuclear Security submits the outcome of its Phase 6.2a design definition and cost study. Given the 

fact that the B–61 will be the most ambitious and extensive warhead refurbishment since the United States first began producing 

life extended nuclear weapons in 1999 and the recent findings of 

the Government Accountability Office questioning how the reliability of the weapon would be impacted, the Chairman wisely proceeds with caution on the life extension program. 

We note that the Nonproliferation account is significantly re- duced by more than $460,000,000 from the request. This is on top 

of the $360,000,000 cut from the request that was provided in 

2011. While we appreciate the Chairman’s work to preserve the 

most essential activities, the allocation results in a reduction in efforts to secure dangerous material. While nuclear material security 

spending was only about one-third of one percent of the total defense budget last year, the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) secured 800 bombs’ worth of nuclear material in 2010. 

Since April 2009, NNSA has overseen the removal of 120 bombs’ 

worth of highly enriched uranium from six countries, including the 

last bomb’s worth of material from Chile in the immediate aftermath of an earthquake. This is a remarkable return on investment. 

The proposed cut reduces our ability, in ways that may not be 

immediately evident, to counter the most serious threat confronting 

our national security: the threat of nuclear terrorism. For example, 

cuts proposed in the reactor conversion program will affect not only 

domestic reactor conversion, but urgent worldwide efforts as well. 

In order to convince countries to give up the Highly Enriched Uranium (HEU) associated with these reactors so it can be removed 

and secured, the U.S. must continue to work with countries that 

have already made political commitment, as well as set the example by converting its own reactors. We have made significant 

progress at home and abroad, but this program is a key to removing HEU from a number of countries and to reducing risk within 

our own borders. On domestic radiological source recovery and seVerDate Mar 15 2010 07:41 Jun 25, 2011 Jkt 066950 PO 00000 Frm 00230 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR118.XXX HR118

jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
231 

curity, NNSA has legislative authority for this program and is 

doing an outstanding job working not only with states, but coordinating with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Department of 

Homeland Security, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The 

cuts to the Second Line of Defense program will stop work in seven 

countries in high risk areas for trafficking, including the Caucasus 

and Central Asia. This program has provided equipment that has 

detected and supported the interdiction of nuclear material in 

Georgia twice during the past year. Continuing to work in these regions is addressing a real security threat. 

We are concerned that the funding the bill includes for Environmental Management (EM) activities is insufficient to meet the federal government’s legal obligations to clean up its defense nuclear 

waste. This program is critical to addressing the environmental 

legacies of the Cold War and the Manhattan Project. Given that 

EM’s portfolio is one of the nation’s largest environmental and financial liabilities, we have the responsibility to address the waste 

and contamination in the affected communities in a timely and 

competent manner. 

Lastly, we commend Chairman Frelinghuysen for the decision to 

provide funding for the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste disposal 

project and for including the provision to prohibit the use of funding to abandon the project. We agree that the Administration’s actions to close down the project run counter to the Nuclear Waste 

Policy Act Congress of 1982. 

As this bill moves forward, we hope to work with the majority 

to address these concerns. 

NORM DICKS. 

PETE VISCLOSKY. 

Æ 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS