```

[House Report 112-118]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

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
                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
        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.

                              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.

                           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.

                  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 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 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 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    Report on project
 Maintenance.                             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   Report on redirection of
 and Renewable Energy (EERE).             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         Report on coordination of grid
 Delivery and Energy Reliability (EDER).  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
Department of Energy/Naval Petroleum     Long-term management plan for
 Reserves.                                transitioning RMOTC to self-
                                          sustaining facility
Department of Energy/Non-Defense         Plan on cleanup of small sites
 Environmental Cleanup.                   and remaining liabilities
Department of Energy/Uranium Enrichment  Directs use of miscellaneous
 D&D Fund.                                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       Directs completion of Yucca
 Disposal.                                Mountain license application
                                          process
Department of Energy/Nuclear Waste       Options for development of
 Disposal.                                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       Notification requirements for
 Guarantee Program.                       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     Evaluation of the effectiveness
 Nonproliferation.                        of radiation portal monitoring
Department of Energy/Defense Nuclear     Updated plan for Russian
 Nonproliferation.                        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             National Academies study on
 Environmental Cleanup.                   potential uses of H-Canyon
Department of Energy/Defense             Semi-annual report on status of
 Environmental Cleanup.                   Waste Treatment Plant
Department of Energy/Defense             Requirement to certify the
 Environmental Cleanup.                   safety of cleanup program
Department of Energy/Defense             Evaluation of costs to resolve
 Environmental Cleanup.                   safety concerns of Waste
                                          Treatment Plant
Department of Energy/Defense             Report on lessons learned from
 Environmental Cleanup.                   Recovery Act projects
Department of Energy/Defense             Report on projects funded
 Environmental Cleanup.                   within operations and
                                          maintenance accounts
Department of Energy/Other Defense       Annual report on independent
 Activities.                              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
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                   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. One-third 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.
    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 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 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, risk-to-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 
account 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.
    The fiscal year 2012 Operation and Maintenance account is 
proposed 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 
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.

                               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-project-based 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.

                        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]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      FY 2011         FY 2012        Committee
                             Account                                  enacted         request       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:

    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 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:

    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 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.
          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:

                       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:

    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 
cost-share 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.

                           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).

                 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 direction 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.

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

    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.

                         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.

                         [Dollars in thousands]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 FY 2011      FY 2012       Committee
           Account               enacted      request      recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Water and Related Resources..     $911,673     $805,187         $822,300
Central Valley Project              49,914       53,068           53,068
 Restoration Fund............
California Bay-Delta                39,920       39,651           35,928
 Restoration.................
Policy and Administration....       61,078       60,000           60,000
Indian Water Rights                     --       51,483               --
 Settlements.................
San Joaquin River Restoration           --        9,000      -66,000,000
 Fund........................
    Total, Bureau of             1,062,585    1,018,389      905,296,000
     Reclamation.............
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      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.

    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.
    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. 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; (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.

                    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 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 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.

                          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, 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 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 
initiative 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 war-time 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 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 federally-funded research centers, but rather were 
intended to be limited-term 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 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 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 different 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 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.

                        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.

                            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 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 
ineffective 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 ultra-high 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 cost-effectiveness 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 land-based 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 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 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 
Technologies 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 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.
    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 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 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 
Program 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.

              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 one-time 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.
    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 nation'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.
    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 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.
    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.

                 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 
Research and Development, $32,464,000 above fiscal year 2011 
and $24,018,000 above the budget request. After accounting for 
a one-time 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 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 one-third 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, 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 
field-testing 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.

                      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 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-in-kind 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.

                   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 one-time 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.

      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 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 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 world-leading 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 low-power, 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. 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 five-year 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.
    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 increasing 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 original 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 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 highest-energy 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 report 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.

                       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, litigation, 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 
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; next-generation 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 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 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.

        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 Administration. The account funds 
a wide array of Headquarters activities not directly associated 
with the execution of specific programs.
    Office of Indian Energy Policy and Programs.--The Committee 
recommends $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 
Nonproliferation 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 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 
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 same 
national-level concerns at heart, they can only manage the 
workforce at a particular site and therefore cannot ensure the 
long-term 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 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 $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 
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 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 supporting 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, 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 separate 
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 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.

                            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 employee 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.
    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.
    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 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 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.

                             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 systems, 
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 
options 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 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 
H-Canyon 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 
H-Canyon 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 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.
    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.
    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.
    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 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.

                 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.
    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 
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 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.

                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.

                     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 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.

                 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 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 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.............................                --

    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 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 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.

         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.

      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 operation, maintenance, and care of existing river and 
harbor, flood and storm damage reduction, aquatic ecosystem 
restoration, and related projects authorized by law; providing 
security for infrastructure owned or operated by the Corps, 
including administrative buildings and laboratories; 
maintaining authorized harbor channels provided by a State, 
municipality, or other public agency that serve essential 
navigation needs of general commerce; surveying and charting 
northern and northwestern lakes and connecting waters; clearing 
and straightening channels; and removing obstructions to 
navigation.
    Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, 
Operation and Maintenance, permitting the use of funds from the 
Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund; providing for the use of funds 
from a special account for resource protection, research, 
interpretation, and maintenance activities at outdoor 
recreation areas; and allowing use of funds to cover the cost 
of operation and maintenance of dredged material disposal 
facilities for which fees have been collected.
    Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, 
Operation and Maintenance, providing that one percent of the 
total amount of funds provided for each of the programs, 
projects, or activities funded under the Operation and 
Maintenance heading shall not be allocated to a field operating 
activity until the fourth quarter of the fiscal year and 
permitting the use of these funds for emergency activities as 
determined by the Chief of Engineers to be necessary and 
appropriate.
    Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, 
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.
    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.
    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.

                    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 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 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 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.
    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.

                     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.

                      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 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 [flood 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]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                 Appropriation in
                  Agency/Program                    Last Year of  Authorization    Last Year of    Appropriation
                                                   Authorization       Level       Authorization    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
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                    Budget
                                                               authority     Outlays     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:

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

               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:

                   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 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 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 
reduced 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 security, 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.

                                  

```