88–390 

113TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 2d Session 113–486 

ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS 

BILL, 2015 

JUNE 20, 2014.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of 

the Union and ordered to be printed 

Mr. SIMPSON, from the Committee on Appropriations, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

together with 

ADDITIONAL VIEWS 

[To accompany H.R. 4923] 

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, 2015, and for other purposes. 

INDEX TO BILL AND REPORT 

Page Number 

Bill Report 

Introduction ................................................................................................ — 5 

I. Department of Defense—Civil: — 14 

Corps of Engineers—Civil .................................................................. 2 14 

Investigations ............................................................................... 2 25 

Construction ................................................................................. 3 36 

Mississippi River and Tributaries .............................................. 4 43 

Operation and Maintenance ....................................................... 4 46 

Regulatory Program ..................................................................... 6 70 

Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program ................... 6 71 

Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies .................................... 6 72 

Expenses ....................................................................................... 6 72 

Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) 7 73 

General Provisions .............................................................................. 8 74 

II. Department of the Interior: 11 74 

Central Utah Project ........................................................................... 11 74 

Central Utah Project Completion Account ................................ 11 74 

Bureau of Reclamation: — 75 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
2 

Page Number 

Bill Report 

Water and Related Resources ..................................................... 12 77 

Central Valley Project Restoration Fund ................................... 13 86 

California Bay-Delta Restoration ............................................... 14 86 

Policy and Administration .......................................................... 14 87 

Bureau of Reclamation Loan Program Account ........................ 15 88 

Administrative Provision ............................................................. 15 88 

General Provisions .............................................................................. 15 88 

III. Department of Energy: 20 89 

Introduction ......................................................................................... — 89 

Committee Recommendations ............................................................ — 89 

Energy Programs: 20 94 

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy ................................. 20 94 

Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability ............................... 20 102 

Nuclear Energy ............................................................................ 21 104 

Fossil Energy Research and Development ................................. 21 107 

Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves .................................. 22 112 

Elk Hills School Lands Fund ...................................................... 22 112 

Strategic Petroleum Reserve ....................................................... 22 113 

Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve ........................................ 23 115 

Energy Information Administration ........................................... 23 115 

Non-Defense Environmental Cleanup ........................................ 23 115 

Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning 

Fund .......................................................................................... 24 116 

Science .......................................................................................... 24 117 

Nuclear Waste Disposal .............................................................. 25 124 

Advanced Research Projects Agency—Energy ........................... 25 124 

Title 17 Innovative Technology Loan Guarantee Program ...... 26 125 

Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loan Program 27 125 

Clean Coal Technology ................................................................ 27 126 

Departmental Administration ..................................................... 27 126 

Office of the Inspector General ................................................... 28 127 

Atomic Energy Defense Activities: 29 128 

National Nuclear Security Administration: 29 128 

Weapons Activities ....................................................................... 29 129 

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation .............................................. 29 139 

Naval Reactors ............................................................................. 30 145 

Office of the Administrator ......................................................... 31 147 

Environmental and Other Defense Activities ................................... 31 148 

Defense Environmental Cleanup ................................................ 31 148 

Other Defense Activities ............................................................. 32 152 

Power Marketing Administrations: — 153 

Bonneville Power Administration Fund ..................................... 32 153 

Operation and Maintenance, Southeastern Power Administration ....................................................................................... 33 154 

Operation and Maintenance, Southwestern Power Administration ....................................................................................... 34 154 

Construction, Rehabilitation, Operation and Maintenance, 

Western Area Power Administration ...................................... 35 155 

Falcon and Amistad Operating and Maintenance Fund .......... 37 155 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ........................................... 38 156 

Committee Recommendation .............................................................. — 157 

General Provisions .............................................................................. 39 191 

IV. Independent Agencies: 51 192 

Appalachian Regional Commission ................................................... 51 192 

Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board ........................................... 51 192 

Delta Regional Authority ................................................................... 51 193 

Denali Commission ............................................................................. 52 193 

Northern Border Regional Commission ............................................ 52 193 

Southeast Crescent Regional Commission ........................................ 52 194 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
3 

Page Number 

Bill Report 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission ....................................................... 52 194 

Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board ........................................... 54 197 

General Provisions .............................................................................. 55 197 

V. General Provisions 56 198 

House of Representatives Report Requirements ..................................... — 199 

Additional Views ........................................................................................ — 222 

SUMMARY OF ESTIMATES AND RECOMMENDATIONS

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

2015. The following table summarizes appropriations for fiscal year 

2014, the budget estimates, and amounts recommended in the bill 

for fiscal year 2015. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
4 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 01 here 87057A.001
5 

INTRODUCTION 

The Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill for fiscal 

year 2015 totals $34,010,000,000, $50,499,000 below the amount 

appropriated in fiscal year 2014 and $326,862,000 above the President’s budget request. Total defense funding is $17,150,000,000, 

$45,499,000 below the amount appropriated in fiscal year 2014 and 

$828,688,000 below the budget request. Total non-defense funding 

is $16,860,000,000, $5,000,000 below the amount appropriated in 

fiscal year 2014 and $1,155,550,000 above the budget request. After 

adjusting for the Department of Energy’s $463,000,000 legislative 

proposal, which the Committee rejects, total defense funding is 

$365,688,000 below the budget request, and total non-defense funding is $692,550,000 above the budget request. 

Title I of the bill provides $5,492,499,000 for the Civil Works program of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, $25,000,000 above fiscal 

year 2014 and $959,499,000 above the budget request. Total funding for activities eligible for reimbursement from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund is estimated at more than $1,100,000,000, 

more than $185,000,000 above the budget request. 

Title II provides $1,013,569,000 for the Department of the Interior and the Bureau of Reclamation, $99,529,000 below fiscal year 

2014 and $29,426,000 below the budget request. The Committee 

recommends $1,003,695,000 for the Bureau of Reclamation, 

$100,678,000 below fiscal year 2014 and $32,000,000 below the 

budget request for accounts traditionally within the Bureau of Reclamation. The Committee recommends $9,874,000 for the Central 

Utah Project, $1,149,000 above fiscal year 2014 and $2,574,000 

above the budget request. 

Title III provides $27,305,845,000 for the Department of Energy, 

$24,799,000 above fiscal year 2014 and $1,130,583,000 below the 

budget request. After adjusting for the Department’s $463,000,000 

legislative proposal, which the Committee rejects, the funding for 

the Department of Energy is $667,583,000 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 $11,361,570,000, $154,570,000 above fiscal year 

2014 and $296,430,000 below the budget request. 

Funding for energy programs within the Department of Energy, 

which includes basic science research and the applied energy programs, is $10,323,800,000, $112,996,000 above fiscal year 2014 and 

$269,090,000 below the budget request. The Committee recommends $5,071,000,000 for the Office of Science; $1,789,000,000 

for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy; $899,000,000 for Nuclear Energy; $593,000,000 for Fossil Energy; and $280,000,000 for 

the Advanced Research Projects Agency—Energy. 

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

$5,628,430,000, $202,158,000 below fiscal year 2014 and $6,742,000 

above the budget request. 

Funding for the Power Marketing Administrations is provided at 

the requested levels. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
6 

Title IV provides $312,367,000 for several Independent Agencies, 

$47,223,000 above fiscal year 2014 and $63,652,000 above the 

budget request. Net funding for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is $172,278,000, $49,062,000 above fiscal year 2014 and 

$50,000,000 above the budget request. 

OVERVIEW OF THE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommendation continues the strong investments in American infrastructure contained in the Consolidated 

Appropriations Act of 2014 (Division D of Public Law 113–76). The 

recommendation rejects the Administration’s ill-considered request 

to cut approximately $700 million from critical Army Corps of Engineers efforts to keep the nation’s rivers and ports dredged and to 

protect farmland and cities from flooding. Such a drastic reduction 

would have a deleterious impact on the nation’s economic competitiveness and flood defenses. The Committee strongly encourages 

the Administration to request a fiscal year 2016 budget that recognizes and supports these critical missions of the Corps of Engineers. 

The recommendation also includes significant support to ensure 

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

stability of the nation’s electrical infrastructure. This portfolio 

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

energy resources to strengthen American energy independence. The 

recommendation makes key investments in technologies to help our 

energy sector adjust to a challenging regulatory environment by 

supporting advances in efficiency and emissions reduction. 

Due to the limitation on defense funding contained in the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013 (Division A of Public Law 113–67), the 

Committee is unable to provide adequate support for all priorities 

within the National Nuclear Security Administration and other security-related programs funded by this recommendation. The Committee therefore continues its strong emphasis on maintaining the 

nuclear deterrent, including the nuclear weapons and naval reactors programs. To provide additional support for nuclear nonproliferation programs above the budget request, the recommendation redirects prior-year funding from stalled programs to be used 

for current priorities. 

NATIONAL DEFENSE PROGRAMS

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

within the limited resources available for fiscal year 2015, the recommendation provides robust support for the President’s proposals 

to modernize the nuclear weapons stockpile, increase investment in 

the NNSA’s infrastructure, prevent the proliferation of nuclear materials, and support the naval nuclear propulsion program within 

funding for Weapons Activities, Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation, 

and Naval Reactors. 

The recommendation continues the Committee’s strong support 

for the NNSA’s Weapons Activities. The Administration has embarked on a multi-year plan to modernize the nation’s nuclear 

weapons stockpile and its supporting infrastructure. Early formulaVerDate Mar 15 2010 06:12 Jun 21, 2014 Jkt 088390 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR486.XXX HR486

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
7 

tions of the modernization plan tended to focus on stretch goals for 

warhead life extension programs and major construction projects 

that were based on overly optimistic timelines and invalid cost assumptions. The NNSA’s failure to deliver on those promises has 

damaged the credibility of the organization. However, the fiscal 

year 2015 budget request is a positive development due to the increased emphasis on conservative strategies that are attainable, affordable, and ultimately more realistic. While there will continue to 

be debate on which specific programs should have higher priority 

and how those programs should be carried out, the NNSA must 

evolve to become more mission-oriented and focused on successfully 

carrying out its modernization plans to provide assurances that it 

will not fail in its stewardship of the nation’s nuclear weapons 

stockpile. With new leadership in place at the Department of Energy and the NNSA, there is an opportunity to accelerate this 

transformation. The Committee is encouraged by the engagement 

the Secretary has shown to date in reforming federal oversight at 

the Department. The Committee is hopeful that the new NNSA Administrator will continue to advance management reforms that 

have been set in motion. As the NNSA makes progress in resolving 

the inconsistencies between its goals for modernization and its ability to achieve those goals, the Committee will continue to hold the 

NNSA accountable for delivering its commitments on time and 

within budget. 

The recommendation fully funds the Administration’s budget request for Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation, while reprioritizing activities within the account to reinvigorate the nonproliferation research and development base of the national laboratories. The 

United States government has made great strides working with its 

global partners to limit the potential spread of fissile materials, but 

our national strategies must evolve with the changing geopolitical 

environment. There will be consequences to Russia’s recent behavior in Ukraine with respect to how the United States government 

engages with the Russian Federation. The Secretary of Energy 

must reevaluate the Department’s cooperative nuclear security activities to ensure those programs are effectively and measurably 

promoting our national security interests. At the same time, those 

programs must continue to make progress on preventing the spread 

of nuclear materials and technologies and adapt to meet the latest 

threats. 

The Committee strongly supports the strategic protection afforded by our country’s nuclear fleet, which is supported through 

the Naval Reactors account. The recommendation prioritizes strategic activities, such as the Ohio-class ballistic submarine replacement reactor program, while delaying infrastructure and technology development needs that, while also important, can be slightly deferred with no strategic repercussions. The Committee greatly 

appreciates the service of the members of our country’s armed 

forces and will continue to place the highest priority on support for 

them and their work. 

SUPPORTING AMERICAN COMPETITIVENESS

The agencies and programs funded by the recommendation are 

critical engines for the prosperity of the nation. The Army Corps 

of Engineers is responsible for keeping our federal waterways open 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
8 

for business. The Corps also has been instrumental in reducing the 

risk of flooding for much of this country’s food-producing lands. The 

Bureau of Reclamation, in typical water years, supplies reliable 

water to approximately ten percent of this country’s population and 

to much of its fertile agricultural lands. The Department of Energy 

has been at the forefront of developing intellectual property in energy sciences and other disciplines, the commercialization of new 

ideas, and improvements in energy supply and utilization. Working 

together, these agencies underpin the country’s economic competitiveness and energy security. 

As the agency responsible for our nation’s federal waterways, the 

Army Corps of Engineers maintains 926 coastal, Great Lakes, and 

inland harbors and 25,000 miles of commercial channels serving 41 

states. The maintenance of these commercial waterways is directly 

tied to the ability of this country to ship its manufactured and bulk 

products, as well as to compete with the ports of neighboring countries for the business of ships arriving from around the world. 

These waterways handled foreign commerce valued at more than 

$1,774,000,000,000 in 2012 alone. As a primary supporter of America’s waterway infrastructure, the Corps is ensuring that the nation has the tools to maintain a competitive edge in the global market. This recommendation provides significant funding above the 

budget request to ensure that the Corps has the necessary tools to 

continue to support America’s shipping infrastructure. 

The flood protection infrastructure that the Corps builds or 

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

other public infrastructure investments. In fact, the average annual damages prevented by Corps projects from 2003 to 2012 was 

$36,200,000,000. Between 1928 and 2012, each inflation-adjusted 

dollar invested in these projects prevented $7.90 in damages. The 

properties and investments protected by the Corps infrastructure 

would often be flooded without that infrastructure, destroying 

homes, businesses, and many valuable acres of cropland. 

The Bureau of Reclamation’s water infrastructure is a critical 

component of the agricultural productivity of this country. One of 

every five western farmers, representing approximately 10 million 

acres of irrigated land that produces 60 percent of the nation’s 

vegetables and 25 percent of its fruits and nuts, relies on these facilities for water. Additionally, more than 31 million people rely on 

these facilities for municipal, rural, and industrial uses. Without 

these dams and water supply facilities, American agricultural producers in the West would not be able to access safe water for their 

families and their businesses and many municipal and industrial 

users would face critical water shortages. 

The Department of Energy supports essential research that has 

helped keep America at the cutting-edge of science and technology 

innovation. Given the limited resources available this year, the recommendation places a higher priority on research that only the 

government is likely to do, research that advances our basic scientific understanding, and research that has commercialization 

possibilities only in the distant future. 

Research and development for technologies that are closer to 

commercialization, and thus that the private sector has more incentive to take up, receive less funding than in fiscal year 2014. However, the recommendation does continue a long-standing commitVerDate Mar 15 2010 06:12 Jun 21, 2014 Jkt 088390 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR486.XXX HR486

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
9 

ment by the Committee to the type of research that will improve 

American energy security and independence. The recommendations 

for Fossil Energy, Nuclear Energy, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, and the 

Advanced Research Projects Agency—Energy are balanced to improve the efficiency of existing forms of energy production, to develop new and innovative forms of energy for this nation’s longterm security and prosperity, and to help American manufacturing 

compete in the global marketplace. 

As noted in prior years, the Department has not been as successful ensuring that intellectual property developed with U.S. taxpayer funds benefits those same taxpayers. The Department still 

has no coherent and implementable strategy to track and improve 

domestic exploitation of Department-developed intellectual property. Without such a strategy, U.S. manufacturing will too frequently be forced to play ‘‘catch-up’’ with foreign competitors benefitting from ideas formed here in the U.S. The Committee strongly 

urges the Secretary to take more of a leadership role in improving 

U.S. manufacturing and domestic intellectual property retention. 

PROGRAM AND PROJECT MANAGEMENT

The Committee remains concerned about the Department of Energy’s oversight and management of its programs and projects, despite several policy, process, and organizational improvements that 

have been implemented over the past few years. While the Department has demonstrated noted progress in its ability to deliver 

small projects on schedule and within budget, the Department continues to struggle to keep its major construction projects on track. 

The Department has no baseline against which it can monitor 

progress on the full scope of its major environmental cleanup 

projects, the Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant and the 

Salt Waste Processing Facility. As a result, the Department is unable to provide to the Committee the anticipated cost and schedule 

for completing those projects. Of the ongoing major construction 

projects of the NNSA, the Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility 

and the Uranium Processing Facility are both facing serious challenges, and it has become clear that the Department may not have 

sufficient funds to complete these facilities in a timely manner. 

Even as the Department analyzes potential alternatives, the Committee is concerned that it may be repeating the mistakes of the 

past by relying on poor cost estimates and rushing to commence 

construction activities before planning activities are sufficiently 

mature. Of significant concern is the Department’s continued practice of avoiding enforcement of its own project management regulations. The Department’s lack of enforcement of its own standards 

has been found to be a root cause of its continued presence on the 

Government Accountability Office’s ‘‘high-risk list’’ for project management. The Department submitted a reprogramming request to 

the Committee to initiate a major recapitalization of its plutonium 

infrastructure at Los Alamos National Laboratory using operating 

funds, despite having formal requirements under DOE Order 

413.3B which clearly applied to the acquisition of those capital assets. The Committee will not support requests for capital investments that do not provide sufficient accountability for delivering 

those investments within budget and on schedule. The Committee 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
10 

expects the Department to not only monitor performance of its 

projects, but also ensure that its requirements are not being circumvented by simply redefining what scope of work is considered 

to be a ‘‘project.’’ The Committee also notes that the Department 

is continuing to allow programs to make capital investments using 

site indirect funds over which the Department has little visibility. 

While the Department is clearly struggling with how to consistently enforce its own regulations, the Committee notes that it has 

made some progress. The Secretary of Energy has proposed positive 

organizational changes that will enhance the authority of the Office 

of Management to oversee program and project performance and to 

enforce standards. The Committee supports this proposal and directs the Department to expedite measures to strengthen internal 

oversight while its organizational reforms are being carried out. 

The budget request also properly identifies capital projects carried 

out by the Office of Environmental Management to comply with 

statutory requirements. 

The Committee remains concerned about the management of the 

Department’s research and development activities, although it 

notes significant improvements from previous years. The Department has taken steps to ensure that taxpayer funding is only invested in programs with clear guidelines and expectations, and the 

Committee expects that the nascent reforms within the energy efficiency and renewable energy activities will help foster a culture in 

which projects are terminated when those expectations are not met. 

The Committee recognizes the improvements made by most of 

the Department to reduce ‘‘mortgages,’’ funding in any fiscal year 

promised to awards or agreements started in prior years. Energy 

Efficiency and Renewable Energy, once one of the greatest offenders, is now on par with Nuclear Energy and Fossil Energy, and the 

Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2014 included statutory language requiring the Office of Science to fully fund its multi-year 

awards valued at less than $1,000,000. Minimal mortgages allow 

these offices to ensure that new resources in any fiscal year are allocated to the highest value projects, rather than to previous years’ 

priorities. Program managers can actively manage their portfolios, 

ensuring that well-performing awardees are fully resourced without 

having to accommodate uncertainties about future-years’ budgets. 

The Committee’s concerns regarding program and project management are not limited to the Department of Energy. The Corps 

of Engineers has suffered several significant failings in recent 

years that have resulted in cost increases for projects, such as the 

massive cost escalation associated with the Olmsted Locks and 

Dam project. In some cases, the Administration has not requested 

authorization increases in time for the Congress to act before 

projects experience delays. The Committee enacted new requirements in fiscal year 2014 intended to address these problems, but 

to date—five months after enactment—the Corps has not complied 

with the Committee’s directions. In addition, the Committee notes 

that the Corps still has not submitted a complete work plan for fiscal year 2014, nor complied with several other oversight initiatives 

necessary to safeguard taxpayer dollars. As a result, the Committee provides additional direction regarding the Corps’ management of its programs and projects under the heading ‘‘Title I— 

Corps of Engineers—Civil.’’ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
11 

NATIONAL ENERGY POLICY

Unfortunately, this budget request once again fails to reflect a 

coherent energy policy or plan for this country. The President continues to highlight an ‘‘all of the above’’ energy portfolio in his 

speeches, but fails to present such a balanced approach in his 

budget requests. The fiscal year 2015 budget request, like its predecessors, instead seems more ideological than practical. The request makes cuts to fossil energy research and, to a much lesser 

extent, nuclear energy research—this country’s most important energy sources—in order to increase funding for energy efficiency and 

renewable energy programs by 22 percent. As attractive as renewable energy may be, it will supply only a mere fraction of this country’s energy needs over the next 50 years, and it presents considerable challenges to the nation’s existing electric power grid, given its 

increasing variability and uncertainty from supply and demand 

changes. 

At the same time, the Administration is moving forward with 

several regulations that will have a significant impact on energy 

use in the coming years and that reveal the inconsistencies of the 

Administration’s purported ‘‘all of the above’’ energy policy. The 

Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) proposed rules to regulate carbon pollution from new fossil-fueled electric power plants, 

first proposed in September 2013, and from existing fossil-fueled 

electric power plants, first proposed in June 2014, will have a significant impact on energy production, consumption, and reliability. 

Fossil fuels currently provide 82 percent of the energy used by the 

nation’s homes and businesses and will continue to provide for a 

majority of our energy needs in the coming years, yet the Administration has proposed to reduce the fossil energy research and development program to its lowest programmatic level since fiscal year 

2000. This program conducts the very research into carbon capture 

and storage technologies that will now be required for certain new 

fossil-fuel electric power plants given the EPA’s proposed rules on 

carbon pollution. Further inconsistencies can be seen in the Administration’s proposal to reduce core research funding for nuclear energy, which will continue to be a vital base load electricity source 

in future years, and the Administration’s willful disregard of the 

federal government’s legal responsibilities regarding Yucca Mountain, which has resulted in no disposition pathway for civilian 

spent nuclear fuel and defense waste resulting from the back end 

of the nuclear fuel cycle. Time and again this Administration has 

failed to put forward a strategic vision for a truly ‘‘all of the above’’ 

national energy policy that is sound both scientifically and economically. 

The Committee continues its long-standing support for the investment of taxpayer dollars across the spectrum of all technologies, as reflected in this recommendation, and supports a clearly articulated, consensus-based national energy policy that achieves 

the long-term strategic goals of energy security, independence, and 

prosperity for the nation. Such a vision will emphasize a balanced 

approach for all energy sources and include a long-term strategic 

vision of the nation’s fossil, nuclear, and renewable energy programs in the coming years, as well as the scientific and technical 

challenges to be overcome. The Committee encourages the new 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
12 

leadership of the Department of Energy to develop a consensus energy policy which is sound both scientifically and economically. 

This policy should support the budget request for fiscal year 2016. 

COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT INITIATIVES

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

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

Appropriations’ Surveys and Investigations staff, and its annual 

appropriations Act, including the accompanying report, to promote 

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

The recommendation continues the Committee’s responsibility to 

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

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

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

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

below: 

Agency/Account Requirement 

Army Corps of Engineers ............................................................. Report on 3x3x3 waiver process 

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

Army Corps of Engineers ............................................................. Report on impacts of revised Principles and Requirements 

Army Corps of Engineers ............................................................. Direction to prioritize ongoing studies and projects 

Army Corps of Engineers ............................................................. Comprehensive estimate for completing ongoing projects 

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

funds 

Army Corps of Engineers ............................................................. Guidance on 2015 Work Plan submission 

Army Corps of Engineers/Investigations ...................................... Direction on the Passaic River Main Stem Study 

Army Corps of Engineers/Construction ........................................ Guidance and reporting requirements on the Savannah

Harbor Expansion project 

Army Corps of Engineers/Construction ........................................ Report on distribution of Continuing Authorities Program 

Army Corps of Engineers/Operation and Maintenance ................ Report on status of Corps lands in the Lower Snake River 

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

Act 

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

site 

Army Corps of Engineers/Expenses .............................................. Plan and status updates on funding 2014 Authorizing legislation provisions 

Army Corps of Engineers/Expenses .............................................. Report on complying with ability to pay rule 

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

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

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

amounts 

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

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

Water Act 

Bureau of Reclamation/Water and Related Resources ............... Direction on Scoggins Dam, Tualatin Project 

Bureau of Reclamation/Policy and Administration ...................... Guidance on new scope of information for budget justifications 

Bureau of Reclamation/Policy and Administration ...................... Report on five year comprehensive spending plan 

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

Department of Energy .................................................................. Requirement for monthly financial balances report 

Department of Energy .................................................................. Report on Department’s Program Direction accounts 

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

old 

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

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


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
13 

Agency/Account Requirement 

Department of Energy .................................................................. Direction on funding fellowship and scholarship programs 

Department of Energy/Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Report on national lab capabilities for expanding battery 

performance 

Department of Energy/Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Direction on recycled paper segregated from municipal 

solid waste 

Department of Energy/Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Direction on supporting supply chain technology efforts for 

solar cells 

Department of Energy/Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Report on benefits of mechanical insulation maintenance 

and upgrade programs in federal facilities 

Department of Energy/Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Guidance on including CEMI Institutes in future budget 

justifications 

Department of Energy/Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Direction on building energy codes 

Department of Energy/Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Guidance on engagement for housing energy standards 

Department of Energy/Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability Report on resiliency and reliability of national power grid 

Department of Energy/Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability Report on workforce plan of future OER program 

Department of Energy/Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability Report on physical and cyber security of the grid 

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

Department of Energy/Nuclear ..................................................... Guidance on dry cask storage research and development 

Department of Energy/Nuclear ..................................................... Guidance on cost-share of advanced supercritical carbon 

dioxide demonstration projects funding 

Department of Energy/Fossil ........................................................ Report on liquefied natural gas export applications 

Department of Energy/Fossil ........................................................ Guidance on full-time equivalent information

Department of Energy/Fossil ........................................................ Guidance on efficiency of natural gas research 

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

Department of Energy/Fossil ........................................................ Report on unconventional fossil energy technologies 

Department of Energy/Non-Defense Environmental Cleanup ...... Report on spent nuclear fuel storage costs 

Department of Energy/UED&D ...................................................... Report on commencing decommissioning activities at Paducah 

Department of Energy/UED&D ...................................................... Guidance on funding for thorium/uranium reimbursements 

Department of Energy/Science ..................................................... Guidance on cash contributions to ITER 

Department of Energy/Title 17 ..................................................... Report on portfolio monitoring and risk management 

Department of Energy/Weapons ................................................... Prohibition on funding defined benefit pensions above requirements 

Department of Energy/Weapons ................................................... Report on improvements to future life extension programs 

Department of Energy/Weapons ................................................... Guidance on dedicated funding for stockpile certification 

Department of Energy/Weapons ................................................... Prohibition on funding for new reactor fueling agreements 

for reactors not producing tritium 

Department of Energy/Weapons ................................................... Consolidation of production-related technology development under Advanced Manufacturing Campaign 

Department of Energy/Weapons ................................................... Guidance on prioritization and reporting for NNSA infrastructure projects 

Department of Energy/Weapons ................................................... Analysis of alternatives for Albuquerque Complex

Department of Energy/Weapons ................................................... Report on acquisition plan for secure transportation asset 

Department of Energy/Weapons ................................................... Guidance on domestic nuclear emergency response 

Department of Energy/Weapons ................................................... Guidance on future domestic enriched uranium funds 

Department of Energy/Weapons ................................................... Analysis of alternatives for providing enriched uranium for 

national security purposes 

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

Department of Energy/Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation ............ Guidance on reinvestment in nonproliferation-related R&D 

Department of Energy/Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation ............ Prohibition on placing MOX plant in cold standby 

Department of Energy/Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation ............ Guidance on continued study of limited MOX alternatives 

Department of Energy/Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation ............ Requirement for independent verification of lifecycle cost 

estimate for MOX alternatives 

Department of Energy/Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation ............ Review of cost sharing agreement between EM and NNSA 

Department of Energy/Naval Reactors ......................................... Multi-year budget review of programmatic requirements 

Department of Energy/Defense Environmental Cleanup .............. Report on Hanford tank maintenance and upgrade requirements 

Department of Energy/Defense Environmental Cleanup .............. Guidance on progress at SPRU 

Department of Energy/Defense Environmental Cleanup .............. Review of cost sharing agreement between EM and NNSA 

Department of Energy/Defense Environmental Cleanup .............. Direction on developing a formal WIPP Recovery Plan 

Department of Energy/Defense Environmental Cleanup .............. Analysis of DOE spent fuel storage infrastructure 

Department of Energy/Other Defense Activities .......................... Report on oversight activities 

Department of Energy/Other Defense Activities .......................... Guidance on updating Graded Security Posture 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ....................................... Report on increased electricity costs and impacts 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ....................................... Report on plan to complete consideration of liquefied natural gas export applications 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
14 

Agency/Account Requirement 

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

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

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

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

cost estimates 

Department of Energy/General Provision ..................................... Notification requirements for uranium transfers 

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

Science 

Department of Energy/General Provision ..................................... Requirement for cost reporting for major warhead refurbishment programs 

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

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

notification requirements 

Department of Energy/General Provision ..................................... Limitation on LDRD activities 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission .................................................. Requirement on reporting unobligated funds allocations 

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

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

approval 

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

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

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

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

Nuclear Regulatory Commission .................................................. Report on input and regulatory analysis of 10 CFR Part 50 

or 52 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission .................................................. Report on National Framework recommendations 

Independent Agencies/General Provision ..................................... Reporting requirement on use of emergency authority 

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

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

action 

General Provision ......................................................................... Limitation and reporting requirement on funds that support a corporation convicted of a felony 

General Provision ......................................................................... Limitation and reporting requirement on funds that support a corporation with unpaid tax liabilities 

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

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

12898 

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

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. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
15 

FISCAL YEAR 2015 BUDGET REQUEST OVERVIEW AND ANALYSIS

The fiscal year 2015 budget request for the Civil Works program 

of the Corps of Engineers is $4,533,000,000, a decrease of 

$934,499,000 from fiscal year 2014. After adjusting for a proposed 

rescission of $28,000,000 of prior-year appropriations, the budget 

request represents a reduction from fiscal year 2014 of 

$906,499,000 (17%). Each of the four main project-based accounts 

would see a sharp decrease under the budget request. As in previous years, the largest dollar reduction is in the Construction account ($531,000,000), although the Investigations account sees the 

largest percentage reduction (36%). The Mississippi River and Tributaries and Operation and Maintenance accounts are reduced by 20 

percent and 9 percent, respectively. The budget request proposes to 

reduce funding for activities eligible for reimbursement from the 

Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund by more than $160,000,000 from 

fiscal year 2014. 

Although the Administration, on occasion, talks about the importance of infrastructure investment, the fiscal year 2015 budget request represents a different story entirely. Under the budget request, funding for both navigation and flood and storm damage reduction—the Committee’s two highest priorities for the Corps’ Civil 

Works program—is decreased significantly (20% and 16%, respectively). Investments in both of these mission areas not only provide 

short-term economic benefits by directly creating jobs, but also provide the foundation necessary for long-term economic growth. Further, in the case of flood and storm damage reduction, investment 

can prevent or reduce the costs of recovery from flood events. 

The Committee rejects the low priority placed on infrastructure 

in the budget request. Instead, the Committee allocates 

$868,832,000 above the budget request for additional investments 

in navigation and flood and storm damage reduction improvements. 

Budget Criteria.—According to the Administration, the Corps 

budget request is a performance-based budget developed using objective performance criteria. Besides that assertion, though, the 

budget development process remains considerably less than transparent. The request lists the general factors considered for allocating funds within each account, but does not detail how any of 

these factors were ranked or weighted during development of the 

budget. 

Perhaps most concerning is the fact that the budget metrics were 

not applied consistently to all previously funded projects. In other 

words, numerous ongoing studies and projects, previously funded 

by congressional direction, were not even eligible to compete for inclusion in the President’s budget with the only explanation the 

vague characterization of not being consistent with Administration 

policy. While this exclusion is not new this year, or even with this 

Administration, it nevertheless casts doubt on the true objectivity 

of the budget development process. 

Project Completions and Initiations.—The budget request for the 

Investigations account includes funding to complete a total of 34 

studies and project designs. Funding is requested for 10 new studies. The budget request for the Construction account includes funding to complete nine projects and to initiate one new project. It 

should be noted that the sizable number of budgeted completions 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
16 

is only possible due to the additional funding provided in previous 

fiscal years by the Congress. 

DEEP DRAFT NAVIGATION

The Committee remains mindful of the evolving infrastructure 

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

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

Investigations and construction of port projects, including the 

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

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

authorities. The operation and maintenance of these projects are 

federal responsibilities and are funded as reimbursements from the 

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

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

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

2015 is estimated to be approximately $8,500,000,000. 

Congress historically has appropriated more funding for HMTFrelated activities each year than is included in that year’s budget 

request. For fiscal year 2015, the Committee provides more than 

$1,100,000,000 for HMTF-related activities, an increase of more 

than $185,000,000 above the budget request. This substantial increase should allow the Corps to make progress on the backlog of 

dredging needs. 

The recently enacted Water Resources Reform and Development 

Act of 2014 (WRRDA) included provisions setting target annual appropriations levels for use of HMTF receipts and setting percentages of HMTF funding to be provided to various activities. The 

Committee remains committed to providing the maximum practicable amount of funding for HMTF-reimbursable activities consistent with annual allocations and after evaluating funding requirements for other priority activities within the Civil Works program. In fact, the Committee increased the amount appropriated 

for HMTF-reimbursable activities by more than $300,000,000 from 

fiscal year 2011 to this recommendation, even without statutory 

target levels. The Committee is in the process of evaluating how 

the prioritization provisions may be implemented and the expected 

results. Therefore, this recommendation continues the approach 

used in previous fiscal years, although changes may be necessary 

at a later date. 

INLAND WATERWAYS SYSTEM

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

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

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

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

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


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
17 

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

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

Capital improvements to the inland waterways system generally 

are funded 50 percent from the General Treasury and 50 percent 

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

and maintenance costs are funded 100 percent from the General 

Treasury. The IWTF is supported by a $0.20 per gallon tax on 

barge fuel. In recent years, the increasing rehabilitation and reconstruction needs and the escalating costs of those projects have far 

outstripped available revenues in the IWTF. In fact, over the past 

several years, the majority of available revenues have been allocated to just one project—the Olmsted Locks and Dam project. 

The recently enacted WRRDA reduced the portion of the costs of 

the Olmsted Locks and Dam project to be derived from the IWTF 

to 15 percent. This change means there will be revenues available 

for the required cost-share for some additional work on the inland 

waterways system. Funds from both the General Treasury and the 

IWTF are counted under overall discretionary spending limits, 

however, so the available revenues should not be considered free 

money or automatic allocations in any sense. The WRRDA provision does allow the Committee to consider the needs of the inland 

system along with the needs of other components of the Civil 

Works program; in previous years, the Committee was unable to 

even consider additional work on the inland system due to the lack 

of revenues available from the IWTF. 

For fiscal year 2015, the Committee provides the budget request 

of $169,032,000 for construction of the Olmsted Locks and Dam 

project and the Locks 2, 3, and 4, Monongahela River project, as 

well as $112,000,000 above the budget request for additional capital improvements to the inland waterways system. The Committee 

also allocates $45,000,000 above the budget request for additional 

operation and maintenance activities on the inland waterways. 

PLANNING MODERNIZATION

The Committee strongly supports efforts to reduce the length of 

time and the funding required to complete studies while maintaining quality analysis and an appropriate level of information for 

congressional authorization and funding decisions. The Corps is 

working to make these improvements through its SMART Planning 

process (commonly referred to as ‘‘3x3x3’’), which sets the goal of 

completing most feasibility studies within three years, for no more 

than $3,000,000, and with the decision document coordinated by 

three levels of the organization (headquarters, division, and district 

offices). 

The Committee is aware, however, that not all studies will fit 

within the 3x3x3 model and that the Corps has established a waiver process for such studies. The Corps shall report to the Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the 

Senate not later than 60 days after enactment of this Act on the 

details of the waiver process. This information shall include how 

the waiver process is managed across the three levels of the organization, how many waivers have been approved to date, the timeline 

from district request to approval for such waivers, ways the Corps 

is streamlining the waiver process so as not to delay unnecessarily 

studies that do not fit the 3x3x3 model, and any additional steps 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
18 

necessary to comply with related provisions in the recently enacted 

WRRDA. 

PERFORMANCE MEASURES

The Committee is pleased that the Corps included performance 

measures in the fiscal year 2015 budget justifications. The Committee is concerned, however, that these performance measures 

were not results-oriented; did not clearly demonstrate the extent to 

which performance reporting under 31 U.S.C. 1116 demonstrates 

that prior-year investments in programs, projects, and activities 

are tied to progress toward achieving performance and priority 

goals; and did not include estimates for how proposed investments 

will contribute to additional progress. The Committee encourages 

the Corps to continue improving its performance measures, including efforts to clarify the connections between individual performance measures and strategic goals and objectives, demonstrate how 

the funding requested is expected to affect performance measures, 

and avoid overly technical language or jargon. 

COMPLIANCE WITH REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

The fiscal year 2014 Act included several reporting requirements 

for the Corps of Engineers. Unfortunately, to date, the Corps has 

not complied with many of these directives. The Committee does 

not issue directives frivolously. The information sought through 

these reporting requirements is necessary to the Committee fulfilling its oversight responsibilities and to developing the fiscal year 

2015 and future year recommendations. The Committee continues 

to expect the Corps to submit all required reports. 

The following reports required in fiscal year 2014 have not been 

submitted as of the writing of this report or have been incomplete: 

(1) Work plan for additional funding—incomplete; 

—ratings system—incomplete; 

—summary of work to be completed with funding—not 

submitted; 

—list of and information on eligible but unfunded 

projects—not submitted; 

(2) New construction starts affordability analysis—incomplete; 

(3) Report on compensatory mitigation for critical infrastructure projects—not submitted; 

(4) Report on metrics suitable for use in evaluating aquatic 

ecosystem restoration projects—not submitted; 

(5) Comprehensive estimate related to ongoing construction 

projects—not submitted; 

(6) Plan for the oversight and management of 902 limit 

project modifications—not submitted; 

(7) List of projects with the potential to exceed 902 limits— 

not submitted; 

(8) Report on policy regarding coastal storm damage reduction projects—not submitted; and 

(9) Report on plan for allowing firearms on Corps lands—not 

submitted. 

To demonstrate clearly the extent of the Committee’s dissatisfaction with the Administration’s disregard of congressional direction, 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
19 

the recommendation reduces funding for the Office of the Assistant 

Secretary of the Army (Civil Works). 

SECTION 902 AUTHORIZATION LIMITS

As noted above, the Administration has not yet submitted the required plan for the oversight and management of section 902 authorized cost project modifications or the list of projects with the 

potential to exceed the 902 limit. The Committee is aware that the 

WRRDA included a few such project modifications and that the 

Corps currently is working on completing necessary reports for 

other projects expected to exceed the 902 limit. The Committee is 

prepared to consider additional project modifications as the Corps 

completes the reports and submits recommendations to the Congress. 

PRINCIPLES AND REQUIREMENTS

Concerns persist that the effort to update the Water Resources 

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

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

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

Corps shall continue to use the document dated March 10, 1983, 

and entitled ‘‘Economic and Environmental Principles and Guidelines for Water and Related Land Resources Implementation Studies’’ during the fiscal year period covered by the Energy and Water 

Development Appropriations Act for 2015. If Interagency Guidelines for implementing the March 2013 Principles and Requirements are finalized, the Corps shall be ready to report to the appropriate committees of the Congress not later than 120 days after 

finalization on the impacts of the revised Principles and Requirements and Interagency Guidelines. The Corps shall be prepared to 

explain the intent of each revision, how each revision is or is not 

consistent with section 2031 of the Water Resources Development 

Act of 2007, and the probable impact of each revision on water resources projects carried out by the Secretary including specific examples of application to at least one project from each main mission area of the Corps. 

NEW STARTS

Fiscal Year 2014 Implementation.—The Committee considers 

very carefully the decision of whether to provide funding for new 

starts each fiscal year. After three consecutive fiscal years with no 

new starts, the fiscal year 2014 Act allowed the Corps to initiate 

a limited number of new studies and new construction projects. Unfortunately, the Administration’s mismanagement of the fiscal year 

2014 authority leaves this Committee hesitant to provide similar 

authority in fiscal year 2015. Specifically, the fiscal year 2014 Act 

allowed for up to three new study starts where the benefits were 

primarily for environmental restoration. The Administration chose 

to combine two studies that had been proposed in the fiscal year 

2014 budget request into one reconnaissance study and select two 

additional studies to initiate. The Administration’s gaming of the 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
20 

statutory limit on new starts was made very clear with the submission of the fiscal year 2015 budget request, which split the combined reconnaissance study into two studies once again. A substantive argument for combining the two studies may have been 

persuasive had the studies remained combined or if the Administration had chosen only one other study to initiate. As circumstances stand, however, the Committee has no choice but to believe the Administration’s actions were nothing more than an effort 

to contravene clear congressional intent. Additionally, the fiscal 

year 2014 Act required the Corps to submit an out-year funding 

scenario to demonstrate the affordability of the new construction 

starts selected and the impact these selections would have on other 

ongoing construction projects. Ten weeks after announcing the new 

starts selected, the Administration submitted an analysis that fell 

far short of what was required. 

Fiscal Year 2015.—The budget request includes funding for ten 

new study starts, even as the Investigations account is reduced by 

36 percent from fiscal year 2014. The request also includes one new 

construction start, even as the Construction account is reduced by 

32 percent from fiscal year 2014. This proposed project has an estimated federal cost in excess of $2,200,000,000, yet the Administration provided no analysis to demonstrate its affordability, especially 

in context of a Construction program proposed at only 

$1,125,000,000 for work across the entire country. In light of the 

Administration’s mismanagement of the fiscal year 2014 new start 

authority and the lack of information to support the proposed new 

starts, the Committee recommends no new starts in any account in 

fiscal year 2015. The Corps is directed to prioritize ongoing studies 

and projects in an effort to complete them. The Administration 

should be aware that the Committee will remain disinclined to 

fund any new construction starts in the future without a clear understanding of the affordability of the proposed projects and the impacts to the schedule and cost of other projects in the construction 

program. This information will be necessary prior to allowing new 

starts, rather than after as in fiscal year 2014. 

FIVE-YEAR COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING

Comprehensive planning provides important information for 

more than just the evaluation of new starts. Historically, the Committee has encouraged the Administration to provide five-year investment plans for all the agencies within the Energy and Water 

Development jurisdiction. The five-year plan should be based on realistic assumptions of project funding needs. It is the Committee’s 

expectation that once projects have been initiated, the Administration will request responsible annual funding levels for them 

through completion. 

The executive branch has traditionally been unwilling to project 

five-year horizons for projects it has not previously supported 

through the budget process. Comprehensive planning is important 

for understanding future requirements of projects that have been 

supported through the budget process, as well. While this unwillingness to have a dialogue regarding additional investment might 

be reasonable under circumstances where there is no likelihood of 

additional investment, the Congress consistently has supported additional investment in the nation’s water resource infrastructure. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
21 

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 

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

The Committee notes that last year the Corps was directed to 

prepare a comprehensive estimate of the optimum timeline and 

funding requirements to complete each of the ongoing projects that 

received construction funding in any of fiscal years 2009, 2010, 

2011, 2012, or 2013, but were not slated by the Administration for 

construction funding in the fiscal year 2014 budget request. This 

report was to have been submitted not later than 90 days after enactment of the fiscal year 2014 Act. As of the writing of this report, 

the Committee still has not received this information. 

FORMAT OF FUNDING PRIORITIES

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

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

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

definition encompasses project-level funding not requested by the 

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

more transparent way to highlight programmatic priorities without 

abandoning congressional oversight responsibilities. The fiscal year 

2012 Act included a modification to the format used in previous 

years, and that format is continued for fiscal year 2015. As in previous years, the Committee lists in report tables the studies, 

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

allocations within these categories will be determined by the Corps 

based on further direction provided in this report. 

The Committee notes that one argument frequently made 

against congressional earmarks is that these activities are political 

decisions that divert funding to parochial concerns and away from 

national priorities. This argument assumes that funding decisions 

made within the executive branch are inherently objective and devoid of political influence. This argument and underlying assumption once again are proven false by the budget request for the 

Corps of Engineers. The fiscal year 2015 budget request includes 

projects previously funded only through congressional earmarks 

that the executive branch had determined were inconsistent with 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
22 

policy in the past. No identification or explanation of policy changes 

accompanies the budget request for these projects. 

ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR ONGOING WORK

As mentioned above, the budget request is woefully inadequate 

for meeting the critical water resources infrastructure needs of this 

nation. Numerous continuing studies and construction projects will 

be suspended or slowed, leaving many communities vulnerable to 

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

total of $916,599,000 above the budget request within the Investigations, Construction, Mississippi River and Tributaries, and Operation and Maintenance accounts for additional work that either 

was not included in the Administration’s request or was inadequately budgeted. The executive branch retains complete discretion over project-specific allocation decisions within the additional 

funds provided. 

A project or study shall be eligible for additional funding within 

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

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

or (2) it was previously funded and could reach a significant milestone or produce significant outputs in fiscal year 2015. None of the 

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

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

programs, or activities; to alter any existing cost-share requirement; or for projects in the Continuing Authorities Program. 

Funding associated with each category may be allocated to any 

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

list of subcategories is not meant to be exhaustive. 

Transparency in the Work Plan Development Process.—The Administration’s compliance—or more accurately, lack of compliance—with congressional direction regarding work plans in previous fiscal years is troubling. Specifically, in fiscal year 2014, the 

only component of the work plan the Administration submitted on 

time was the list of projects with funding allocations. Three weeks 

later, the Administration submitted a list of general factors and 

management controls considered when making allocation decisions, 

but this list clearly was not responsive to congressional direction 

to develop ratings systems for use in allocating additional funding 

to specific projects. As of the writing of this report, the Committee 

is still waiting for the remaining components of the fiscal year 2014 

work plan, including a summary of the work to be accomplished 

with each funding allocation and the information on eligible 

projects that were not funded. The order in which information has 

been submitted suggests that the Administration made project-specific funding decisions and only then half-heartedly attempted to 

justify those decisions. Under a truly transparent and performancebased process, the order of events would be reversed—the necessary analytical tools would be developed first and then projects 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
23 

would be evaluated using those tools in order to arrive at projectspecific funding allocations. 

The Committee expects considerable improvement in the quality 

and detail of information provided in fiscal year 2015 regarding the 

allocation of these additional funds. To assist the Administration in 

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

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

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

the methodology of these ratings systems, but shall consider giving 

priority to the factors discussed under the heading ‘‘Additional 

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

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

not be excluded from evaluation under these ratings systems for 

being ‘‘inconsistent with Administration policy.’’ 

Work Plan.—The fiscal year 2015 work plan shall be submitted 

in two phases. First, not later than 21 days after enactment of this 

Act, the Corps shall provide to the Committees on Appropriations 

of the House of Representatives and the Senate a detailed description of the ratings system(s) developed and used to evaluate studies 

and projects within each account, including the weighting given to 

each factor or criterion if multiple factors or criteria are used. This 

phase shall not include any results of project-specific evaluations, 

but only information on the methodology of the ratings system(s). 

To ensure compliance with this directive in fiscal year 2015, the 

Corps shall not allocate additional funds to any study or project nor 

issue a work allowance for any study or project receiving funding 

under this Act until the Committees provide written acknowledgement of the Corps’ compliance with this directive. To be clear, the 

Committee shall not attempt to reject, approve, or modify the ratings system(s) submitted, but rather simply shall indicate that the 

Corps has provided a sufficiently-detailed description to represent 

a transparent allocation process. 

Second, not earlier than 21 days and not later than 60 days after 

the Committees provide written acknowledgement of receipt of 

phase one of the work plan, the Corps shall provide to the Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the 

Senate phase two of the work plan, including the following information: 

(1) Delineation of how these funds are to be allocated; 

(2) A summary of the work to be accomplished with each allocation, including phase of work, as appropriate; 

(3) The results of each project-specific evaluation under the 

rating system(s); and 

(4) A list of all studies and projects that were considered eligible for funding but did not receive funding, including: 

a. an explanation of whether each study or project could 

have used funds in fiscal year 2015, 

b. whether the study or project was rated as highly or 

more highly than other studies or projects that did receive 

funding, and 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
24 

c. the specific reasons each study or project was considered as being less competitive for an allocation of funds. 

For any study or project excluded from funding for being ‘‘inconsistent with administration policy,’’ the work plan shall include a 

detailed explanation of why such study or project is inconsistent 

with administration policy. 

Full Allocation of Funds.—The Committee has provided additional funding in amounts consistent with estimates of additional 

capability for fiscal year 2015 that were provided by the Corps. As 

such, the Committee expects the Corps to allocate in the work plan 

all additional funds provided. If during development of the work 

plan, however, the Corps determines that capability estimates have 

changed such that not all funding can be obligated within the fiscal 

year, the Corps is directed to review capability estimates at least 

every other month and to allocate funds to studies and projects in 

accordance with the same general process as the initial work plan. 

The Corps shall not hold back funds for later allocation if there are 

any studies or projects that, during development of the initial work 

plan, are expected to be able to obligate the funds within the fiscal 

year. 

ASIAN CARP

The Committee remains concerned by the threat of aquatic nuisance species to the nation’s water bodies and recognizes the critical role of the Army Corps of Engineers in preventing, controlling, 

and managing the threat of Asian carp. The Committee notes that 

the Corps cooperates with other federal, state, and local government agencies through the Asian Carp Regional Coordinating Committee to execute a comprehensive strategy to deal with Asian carp. 

The Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 included permanent authority for the Corps to implement certain 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. Therefore, the recommendation does not include the annual provision included in 

previous years. 

CONGRESSIONAL DIRECTION AND REPROGRAMMING

To ensure that the expenditure of funds in fiscal year 2015 is 

consistent with congressional direction, to minimize the movement 

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

a legislative provision outlining the circumstances under which the 

Corps of Engineers may reprogram funds. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $5,492,499,000 for the Corps of Engineers, $25,000,000 above fiscal year 2014 and $959,499,000 above 

the budget request. The recommendation does not include the rescission of $28,000,000 of prior-year appropriations proposed in the 

budget request. 

A table summarizing the fiscal year 2014 enacted appropriation, 

the fiscal year 2015 budget request, and the Committee-recommended levels is provided below: 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
25 

(Dollars in thousands) 

Account FY 2014 enacted FY 2015 request Cmte. rec. 

Investigations .............................................................................................. $125,000 $80,000 $115,000 

Construction ................................................................................................ 1,656,000 1,125,000 1,704,499 

Mississippi River and tributaries ............................................................... 307,000 245,000 260,000 

Operation and maintenance ....................................................................... 2,861,000 2,600,000 2,905,000 

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

FUSRAP ........................................................................................................ 103,499 100,000 100,000 

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

Expenses ..................................................................................................... 182,000 178,000 178,000 

Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works .................. 5,000 5,000 2,000 

TOTAL, Program Level ............................................................... 5,467,499 4,561,000 5,492,499 

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

NET APPROPRIATION, Corps of Engineers—Civil ..................... 5,467,499 4,533,000 5,492,499 

INVESTIGATIONS

Appropriation, 2014 ............................................................................ $125,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2015 ....................................................................... 80,000,000 

Recommended, 2015 ........................................................................... 115,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2014 .................................................................... ¥10,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2015 ................................................................ +35,000,000 

This appropriation funds studies to determine the need for, the 

engineering and economic feasibility of, and the environmental and 

social suitability of solutions to water and related land resource 

problems; preconstruction engineering and design; data collection; 

interagency coordination; and research. 

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $115,000,000, 

$10,000,000 below fiscal year 2014 and $35,000,000 above the 

budget request. 

The budget request for this account and the approved Committee 

allowance are shown on the following table: 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
26 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 01 here 87057A.002
27 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 20 here 87057A.002
28 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 21 here 87057A.003
29 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 22 here 87057A.004
30 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 23 here 87057A.005
31 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 24 here 87057A.006
32 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 25 here 87057A.007
33 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 26 here 87057A.008
34 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 27 here 87057A.009
35 

Savannah Harbor Expansion, Georgia.—The Committee notes 

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

the Construction account, as in previous years. 

Passaic River Main Stem, New Jersey.—The Committee is very 

concerned with the Corps’ management of the Passaic River Main 

Stem study to date. This region experienced significant flooding 

from Hurricane Irene in 2011. In fact, the President and other Administration officials traveled to the area to promise federal assistance. Yet progress on this study has been hampered by a breakdown in coordination among the three levels of the organization 

(district, division, and headquarters), even though coordination is 

one of the three tenets of the Corps’ new 3x3x3 planning framework. The Committee directs the Corps to be prepared to brief the 

Committee not later than 14 days after enactment of this Act on 

a detailed plan and schedule for this study. 

Fiscal Year 2014 New Starts.—As explained in the Title I front 

matter, the budget request includes funding for four environmental 

restoration studies initiated in fiscal year 2014 even though only 

three new starts were authorized. The recommendation does not include funding for any of these four studies individually, but rather 

includes a line item under ‘‘Remaining Items’’ with funding to be 

allocated to three of these studies. The Corps retains complete discretion over which three studies to continue funding. The Administration shall not combine studies or in any other way attempt to 

continue funding in fiscal year 2015 for all four studies included in 

the budget request. No further work shall be done on the fourth 

study until such future time as it is selected as a new start. 

Additional Funding for Ongoing Work.—The Corps shall allocate 

the additional funding provided in this account in accordance with 

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

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

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

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

in allocating additional funds under this account, the Corps shall 

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

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

are for projects to address legal requirements. The executive 

branch retains complete discretion over methodology of the ratings 

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

Research and Development.—The Committee continues to support the Corps’ efforts to significantly improve the safety, efficiency, 

reliability, and cost of performing inspections of critical and aging 

infrastructure. The Committee is aware that innovative and technologically advanced methods of inspection that would assist in 

performing this vital mission, such as non-destructive testing 

(NDT) and non-destructive evaluation (NDE) techniques for the inspection of trunnion rods on dams, are being developed collaboratively by the Corps and the private sector. In order to accelerate 

the delivery and deployment of innovative technologies for infrastructure inspection, the Committee urges the Corps to prioritize 

funding for the validation of proven, high-payoff, innovative practices and technologies at the national level. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
36 

Water Resources Priorities Study.—No funding is included for 

this new item. 

CONSTRUCTION

Appropriation, 2014 ............................................................................ $1,656,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2015 ....................................................................... 1,125,000,000 

Recommended, 2015 ........................................................................... 1,704,499,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2014 .................................................................... +48,499,000 

Budget estimate, 2015 ................................................................ +579,499,000 

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 $1,704,499,000, 

$48,499,000 above fiscal year 2014 and $579,499,000 above the 

budget request. 

The budget request for this account and the approved Committee 

allowance are shown on the following table: 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
37 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 29 here 87057A.010
38 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 30 here 87057A.011
39 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 31 here 87057A.012
40 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 32 here 87057A.013
41 

Savannah Harbor Expansion, Georgia.—The budget request for 

this item that was proposed in the Investigations account has been 

moved to this account where it has been funded since it received 

a new construction start in fiscal year 2009. As such, the Corps is 

directed to consider the project an ongoing construction project. Additionally, in light of the project’s inclusion in the recently enacted 

WRRDA and the fact that the non-federal sponsor has significant 

funding available to begin work on its project responsibilities, the 

Committee anticipates the Corps will execute a project partnership 

agreement with the non-federal sponsor before the end of fiscal 

year 2014. If an agreement has not been signed by the date of enactment of this Act, the Corps shall report to the Committees on 

Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate not 

later than 14 days after enactment of this Act regarding the specific reasons for the delay, as well as a schedule for executing the 

agreement. Thereafter, the Corps shall provide weekly updates 

until such time as the agreement is executed. 

Additional Funding for Ongoing Work.—The Corps shall allocate 

the additional funding provided in this account in accordance with 

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

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

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

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

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

additional nonstructural flood control projects. When developing 

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

this account, the Corps shall consider the following: 

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

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

or local economic development; 

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

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

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

sponsor to provide any required cost-share; 

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

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

(6) for flood and storm damage reduction projects, 

—the population, economic activity, or public infrastructure at risk, as appropriate; and 

—the severity of risk of flooding or the frequency with 

which an area has experienced flooding; 

(7) for navigation projects, the number of jobs or level of economic activity to be supported by completion of the project, 

separable element, project phase, or useful increment of work; 

and 

(8) for Inland Waterways Trust Fund projects, the economic 

impact on the local, regional, and national economy if the 

project is not funded, as well as useful increments of work that 

can be completed within the funding provided in this line item. 

The executive branch retains complete discretion over methodology 

of the ratings system(s) and project-specific allocation decisions 

within the additional funds provided. 

Continuing Authorities Program (CAP).—The Committee continues to support all sections of the Continuing Authorities ProVerDate Mar 15 2010 06:12 Jun 21, 2014 Jkt 088390 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR486.XXX HR486

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
42 

gram. Funding is provided for eight CAP sections at a total of 

$56,800,000, an increase of $46,800,000 above the budget request, 

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

projects without the lengthy study and authorization process typical of most larger Corps projects. The management of the Continuing Authorities Program should continue consistent with direction provided in fiscal year 2014. This direction is restated here for 

convenience. 

For each CAP section, available funds shall be allocated utilizing 

this sequence of steps until the funds are exhausted: 

—capability-level funds for ongoing projects that have executed cost-sharing agreements for the applicable phase; 

—capability-level funds for projects that are ready for execution of new cost-sharing agreements for the applicable 

phase and for which Corps headquarters authorizes execution of the agreements; 

—funds, as permitted by Corps policies, for other projects 

previously funded for the applicable phase but not ready 

for execution of new cost-sharing agreements; and 

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

Funds shall be allocated by headquarters to the appropriate 

Field Operating Agency (FOA) for projects requested by that FOA. 

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

Corps’ headquarters to be reallocated based on the nationwide priority listing. In no case should the FOA retain these funds for use 

on a different project than the one for which the funds were requested without the explicit approval of the Corps’ headquarters. 

Within the step at which available funds are exhausted for each 

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

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

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

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

The Corps shall continue the ongoing process for suspending and 

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

to execute its project responsibilities. 

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

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

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

of the House of Representatives and the Senate not later than 30 

days after enactment of this Act detailing how funds will be distributed to the individual items in the various CAP sections for the fiscal year. The Chief shall also provide an annual report at the end 

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

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


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
43 

The Corps may initiate new continuing authorities projects in all 

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

assessment is made that such projects can be funded over time 

based on historical averages of the appropriation for that section 

and after prior approval by the Committees on Appropriations. 

MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES

Appropriation, 2014 ............................................................................ $307,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2015 ....................................................................... 245,000,000 

Recommended, 2015 ........................................................................... 260,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2014 .................................................................... ¥47,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2015 ................................................................ +15,000,000 

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 $260,000,000, 

$47,000,000 below fiscal year 2014 and $15,000,000 above the 

budget request. 

The budget request for this account and the approved Committee 

allowance are shown on the following table: 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
44 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 35 here 87057A.014
45 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 36 here 87057A.015
46 

Additional Funding for Ongoing Work.—The Corps shall allocate 

the additional funding provided in this account in accordance with 

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

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

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

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

and project-specific allocation decisions within the additional funds 

provided. 

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

Appropriation, 2014 ............................................................................ $2,861,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2015 ....................................................................... 2,600,000,000 

Recommended, 2015 ........................................................................... 2,905,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2014 .................................................................... +44,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2015 ................................................................ +305,000,000 

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

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

collection of domestic, waterborne commerce statistics. Portions of 

this account are financed through the Harbor Maintenance Trust 

Fund. 

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $2,905,000,000, 

$44,000,000 above fiscal year 2014 and $305,000,000 above the 

budget request. 

The budget request for this account and the approved Committee 

allowance are shown on the following table: 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
47 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 38 here 87057A.016
48 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 39 here 87057A.017
49 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 40 here 87057A.018
50 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 41 here 87057A.019
51 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 42 here 87057A.020
52 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 43 here 87057A.021
53 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 44 here 87057A.022
54 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 45 here 87057A.023
55 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 46 here 87057A.024
56 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 47 here 87057A.025
57 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 48 here 87057A.026
58 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 49 here 87057A.027
59 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 50 here 87057A.028
60 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 51 here 87057A.029
61 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 52 here 87057A.030
62 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 53 here 87057A.031
63 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 54 here 87057A.032
64 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 55 here 87057A.033
65 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 56 here 87057A.034
66 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 57 here 87057A.035
67 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 58 here 87057A.036
68 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 59 here 87057A.037
69 

Additional Funding for Ongoing Work.—The Corps shall allocate 

the additional funding provided in this account in accordance with 

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

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

giving priority to the following: 

(1) ability to complete ongoing work maintaining authorized 

depths and widths of harbors and shipping channels, including 

where contaminated sediments are present; 

(2) ability to address critical maintenance backlog; 

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

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

or local economic development, including domestic manufacturing capacity; 

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

international competitiveness; 

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

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

year; 

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

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

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

(10) for harbor maintenance activities, 

—total tonnage handled; 

—total exports; 

—total imports; 

—dollar value of cargo handled; 

—energy infrastructure and national security needs 

served; 

—designation as strategic seaports; 

—lack of alternative means of freight movement; 

—savings over alternative means of freight movement. 

The executive branch retains complete discretion over methodology 

of the ratings system(s) and project-specific allocation decisions 

within the additional funds provided. 

Small, Remote, or Subsistence Navigation.—Concerns persist 

that the Administration’s criteria for navigation maintenance do 

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

properly compete for scarce navigation maintenance funds. The 

Committee directs the Corps to provide an update to the Committee on its previous request that the Corps review the criteria 

used for determining which navigation projects are funded in order 

to develop a reasonable and equitable allocation for small, remote, 

or subsistence harbors and waterways under this account. 

Hopper Dredges.—The Water Resources Development Act of 1996 

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

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

procedures to ensure that private industry hopper dredge capacity 

is available to meet both routine and time-sensitive dredging 

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

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

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

encourages the Corps to maintain the federal commitment to the 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
70 

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

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

Lower Snake River Project.—The Committee is aware that the 

Walla Walla District and certain landowners adjacent to the project 

have been working together to resolve an issue regarding the use 

of Corps lands. The Committee encourages the Corps and the landowners to continue exploring all options, including potential land 

exchanges as necessary, to resolve this issue. The Committee directs the Corps to maintain the status quo use of these lands as 

long as good-faith efforts are being made to find resolution. The 

Corps shall provide to the Committees on Appropriations of the 

House of Representatives and the Senate not later than 180 days 

after enactment of this Act an update on the status of the situation, including any actions taken or planned as well as any legislative authority that may be needed to resolve the situation. 

Hydrilla.—Hydrilla is a submersed aquatic plant native to Asia 

that is now a serious nuisance plant in the United States. The 

Committee understands the challenges posed by the spread of 

hydrilla and supports ongoing work by the Corps to contain the 

spread of and treat the invasive species at existing Corps projects, 

including Walter F. George Lake in Alabama, Lake Seminole in 

Georgia, and the Tennessee Tombigbee Waterway in Mississippi. 

REGULATORY PROGRAM

Appropriation, 2014 ............................................................................ $200,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2015 ....................................................................... 200,000,000 

Recommended, 2015 ........................................................................... 200,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2014 .................................................................... – – – 

Budget estimate, 2015 ................................................................ – – – 

This appropriation provides funds to administer laws pertaining 

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

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

to review and process permit applications, ensure compliance on 

permitted sites, protect important aquatic resources, and support 

watershed planning efforts in sensitive environmental areas in cooperation with states and local communities. The Committee recommends an appropriation of $200,000,000, 

the same as fiscal year 2014 and the budget request. 

In fiscal year 2014, the Committee raised two issues in which the 

Corps in recent years has changed its interpretation of Clean 

Water Act requirements. Congress rejected both new interpretations. Unfortunately, the Committee continues to hear concerns on 

these issues, including communications from the Corps expressing 

no intention to adhere to congressional direction. The Committee 

directs the Corps to ensure that all field offices adhere in all instances to the interpretations directed by the Congress. The fiscal 

year 2014 direction is repeated here for emphasis and clarity. 

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

local economic development organizations have applied for permits 

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

denied or otherwise frustrated those efforts. Although the local orVerDate Mar 15 2010 06:12 Jun 21, 2014 Jkt 088390 PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR486.XXX HR486

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
71 

ganizations have established precedent by providing several examples of where similar applications were approved, the Corps now 

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

and other exact specifications of the proposed development in order 

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

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

neither the directive nor the authority for the Corps to assume 

such responsibilities. The Committee encourages the Corps to work 

with these permit applicants, and any others with similar applications, to reach a better balance between allowing desperately needed economic development while still safeguarding important environmental resources. 

In 1977, Congress made a deliberate policy choice to exempt ordinary farming, silviculture, ranching, and mining related activities 

from the requirements to obtain Clean Water Act permits when undertaken as normal activities to prepare and maintain land, roads, 

ponds, or ditches. A ‘‘recapture provision’’ also was included to provide reasonable limits on the scope of these statutory exemptions, 

but not to nullify the exemptions. Concerns have been raised that 

in recent years the Corps has changed its interpretation of these 

provisions to significantly reduce the application of the statutory 

exemptions. The Corps is directed to ensure that the original balance intended by statute is implemented by all field offices. 

Public Safety Projects.—The Committee continues to hear of public safety infrastructure projects that have been delayed due to excessive and repeated reviews. Many communities depend on these 

projects to protect residents from natural disasters. Considering 

the risk to life and other damages that these disasters inflict upon 

communities, it is in the public interest to have local governments 

mitigate for such harm. Therefore, the Committee encourages the 

Corps to keep in mind the public safety aspects of a project when 

considering permit applications and to pursue ways to shorten review times, including by performing reviews concurrently and 

eliminating duplicative reviews to the maximum extent practicable. 

FORMERLY UTILIZED SITES REMEDIAL ACTION PROGRAM (FUSRAP)

Appropriation, 2014 ............................................................................ $103,499,000 

Budget estimate, 2015 ....................................................................... 100,000,000 

Recommended, 2015 ........................................................................... 100,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2014 .................................................................... ¥3,499,000 

Budget estimate, 2015 ................................................................ – – – 

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 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
72 

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

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $100,000,000, $3,499,000 below fiscal year 2014 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, 2014 ............................................................................ $28,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2015 ....................................................................... 28,000,000 

Recommended, 2015 ........................................................................... 28,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2014 .................................................................... – – – 

Budget estimate, 2015 ................................................................ – – – 

This appropriation funds planning, training, and other measures 

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

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

and storm damage reduction projects. The Committee recommends $28,000,000 for this account, the 

same as fiscal year 2014 and the budget request. 

EXPENSES

Appropriation, 2014 ............................................................................ $182,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2015 ....................................................................... 178,000,000 

Recommended, 2015 ........................................................................... 178,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2014 .................................................................... ¥4,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2015 ................................................................ – – – 

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 $178,000,000, $4,000,000 below fiscal year 2014 and the same as the budget request. 

Enactment of the Water Resources Reform and Development Act 

of 2014 (WRRDA) provides the Corps with many new and amended 

authorities and directives for civil works projects, programs, and 

activities, including the Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act of 2014 (WIFIA). The Committee believes these new authorities will require specific appropriations prior to implementation, but has not had sufficient time to evaluate each provision for 

funding in fiscal year 2015. In the meantime, the Corps is directed 

to provide the Committee with notification prior to obligating funds 

for any provision not requiring specific appropriations, as well as 

monthly updates on the status of implementation guidance docuVerDate Mar 15 2010 06:12 Jun 21, 2014 Jkt 088390 PO 00000 Frm 00072 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR486.XXX HR486

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
73 

ments in draft and final form. Additionally, the Corps is directed 

to develop and submit to the Committee a detailed plan for how the 

WIFIA provisions, if funded, would be implemented. This plan 

shall discuss all aspects of implementation, including which types 

of projects would be eligible or prioritized; criteria for selecting specific projects for financing; the steps and general schedule of a potential application process; agency personnel and expertise needs; 

expected administrative costs; and measures necessary to ensure 

appropriate protections of federal tax dollars. Recognizing that the 

Corps has no prior experience with administering a loan or loan 

guarantee program, the Committee directs the Corps to consult 

with the Government Accountability Office and other federal agencies with similar authorities in order to avoid the problems that 

have occurred in other federal loan and loan guarantee programs. 

Ability To Pay Rule.—The Committee recognizes that Indian 

tribes do not always have the ability to pay the non-federal portion 

of costs for water resources development projects on Tribal land. 

Section 203 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 established the Tribal Partnership Program and directed that the costshare be subject to the non-federal interest’s ability to pay to be determined by the Secretary in accordance with procedures established by the Secretary. The Corps then drafted a rule, but to date 

the rule has not been finalized. The Committee encourages the 

Corps to finalize an ability to pay rule. Unless a rule has been finalized, the Committee directs the Corps to submit to the Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the 

Senate not later than 90 days after enactment of this Act an explanation of why the ability to pay rule has not yet been finalized and 

a schedule for finalizing the rule. 

OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE ARMY FOR CIVIL WORKS

Appropriation, 2014 ............................................................................ $5,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2015 ....................................................................... 5,000,000 

Recommended, 2015 ........................................................................... 2,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2014 .................................................................... ¥3,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2015 ................................................................ ¥3,000,000 

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 $2,000,000, $3,000,000 below fiscal year 2014 and the budget request. 

The Committee is concerned that the Administration has not 

been taking congressional direction seriously. As discussed earlier 

in this report, the Administration has missed numerous deadlines 

and provided insufficient detail in response to other requests for information included in the fiscal year 2014 Act. The Committee also 

has been dissatisfied with the delays and lack of substance in providing information requested during hearings and other communications, including information related to the regulatory program. 

For these reasons, the recommendation reduces funding for this account. The Assistant Secretary would be well-served to develop and 

implement a plan for improving responsiveness to the Committee’s 

concerns. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
74 

GENERAL PROVISIONS, CORPS OF ENGINEERS—CIVIL 

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

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

except in certain circumstances. 

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

Act to carry out any contract that commits funds beyond the 

amounts appropriated for that program, project, or activity. 

The bill continues a provision 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 authorizing the transfer of funds 

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

to Corps of Engineers projects. 

The bill makes permanent a provision prohibiting funds from 

being used to develop or implement changes to certain definitions 

for the purposes of the Clean Water Act. 

The bill makes permanent a provision prohibiting funds from 

being used to implement revised guidance on determining jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act. 

The bill contains a provision allowing the possession of firearms 

at water resources development projects under certain circumstances. 

TITLE II—DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

CENTRAL UTAH PROJECT

CENTRAL UTAH PROJECT COMPLETION ACCOUNT

Appropriation, 2014 ............................................................................ $8,725,000 

Budget estimate, 2015 ....................................................................... 7,300,000 

Recommended, 2015 ........................................................................... 9,874,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2014 .................................................................... +1,149,000 

Budget estimate, 2015 ................................................................ +2,574,000 

The budget requests the Central Utah Project as part of the Bureau of Reclamation. For purposes of comparison, the budget request is shown here. 

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 fiscal year 2015 budget request again proposes to repeal the 

statutory prohibition on delegation of responsibility and put oversight of the Central Utah Project under the Bureau of Reclamation. 

The Committee again rejects this proposal. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
75 

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

for the Central Utah Project Completion Account, which includes 

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

transfer to the Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Account for use by the Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Commission, and $1,300,000 for necessary expenses of the Secretary of the Interior. This appropriation is $1,149,000 above fiscal 

year 2014 and $2,574,000 above the budget request. 

BUREAU OF RECLAMATION

INTRODUCTION

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

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

the American public. Since its establishment by the Reclamation 

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

facilities that have contributed to sustained economic growth and 

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

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

continues to develop authorized facilities to store and convey new 

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

the 17 western states. Reclamation maintains 337 reservoirs with 

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

As Reclamation’s large impoundments and appurtenant facilities 

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

and rehabilitating Reclamation infrastructure continues to grow, 

yet Reclamation has not budgeted funding sufficient to implement 

a comprehensive program to reduce its maintenance backlog. At 

the same time, Reclamation is increasingly relied upon to provide 

water supply to federally-recognized Indian tribes through water 

settlements, rural communities through its Title I Rural Water 

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

be challenging and requires active participation and leadership on 

the part of Reclamation and its technical staff. 

DROUGHT CONDITIONS

Adding even greater challenges and consequences to Reclamation’s operational decisions, much of the Western United States has 

been experiencing harsh drought conditions over the past year or 

more. As of May 15, the entire State of California was in severe, 

extreme, or exceptional drought, with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Climate Prediction Center expecting 

conditions to at least persist if not intensify through midsummer. 

The first half of water year 2014 (October 2013–March 2014) was 

the third-driest in history statewide, behind only the periods ending in 1977 and 1924. 

The severity of the current drought coupled with Reclamation’s 

Central Valley Project operational decisions have serious consequences for a wide variety of reasons. Continued high temperatures are expected and could pose a risk of rapid depletion of reservoir storage, which stood at only 69 percent of average in midMay. For the first time, Reclamation has announced releases from 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
76 

Friant Dam to address contractual obligations with the San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors. Even with this historic action, 

these contractors and other contractors whose water supply is 

based on senior water rights have been allocated 75 percent or less 

of their contract supply. Many other agricultural water service contractors have been allocated no water at all. Considering the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture National Agricultural Statistics Service 

2012 state report estimated the market value of products from 

California farms as approaching $45 billion annually, the economic 

consequences of these allocations are disastrous. Even Municipal 

and Industrial water service contractors have been allocated only 

50 percent of their historic use, leading to water use restrictions in 

many communities. 

The Committee notes that the fiscal year 2015 budget request 

does not prioritize funding for those activities that will respond directly to the severity of drought conditions in California and other 

Reclamation states, including potential long-term solutions that 

can eliminate or mitigate drought’s impacts. Discussed most prominently in the budget justification materials are various components 

of the WaterSMART program, including two new programs related 

to comprehensive drought planning and resilient infrastructure. 

Unfortunately, Reclamation has provided very little detailed explanation of what these programs will accomplish and how they differ 

from existing programs. 

FISCAL YEAR 2015 BUDGET REQUEST AND COMMITTEE

RECOMMENDATION

The fiscal year 2015 budget request for the Bureau of Reclamation totals $1,042,995,000. After accounting for proposed changes in 

account structure, the request for activities funded under the Bureau of Reclamation in recent years is $1,035,695,000. The Committee recommendation totals $1,003,695,000, $100,678,000 below 

fiscal year 2014 and $32,000,000 below the adjusted budget request. 

A table summarizing the fiscal year 2014 enacted appropriation, 

the fiscal year 2015 budget request, and the Committee recommendation is provided below. 

[Dollars in thousands] 

Account FY 2014 

enacted 

FY 2015 

request Cmte rec. 

Water and Related Resources ................................................................................ $954,085 $760,700 $856,351 

Central Valley Project Restoration Fund ................................................................. 53,288 56,995 56,995 

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

Policy and Administration ....................................................................................... 60,000 59,500 53,849 

Indian Water Rights Settlements ........................................................................... – – – 90,000 – – – 

San Joaquin River Restoration Fund ...................................................................... – – – 32,000 – – – 

Central Utah Project Completion ............................................................................ – – – 7,300 – – – 

TOTAL, Bureau of Reclamation ...................................................................... 1,104,373 1,043,495 1,004,195

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

NET APPROPRIATION, Bureau of Reclamation ............................................... 1,104,373 1,042,995 1,003,695 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
77 

WATER AND RELATED RESOURCES

(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

Appropriation, 2014 ............................................................................ $954,085,000 

Budget estimate, 2015 ....................................................................... 760,700,000 

Recommended, 2015 ........................................................................... 856,351,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2014 .................................................................... ¥97,734,000 

Budget estimate, 2015 ................................................................ +95,651,000 

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 2015, the Committee recommends $856,351,000, 

$97,734,000 below fiscal year 2014 and $95,651,000 above the 

budget request. The Committee recommendation includes in this 

account certain Indian water rights settlements proposed for funding under a separate account in the President’s budget request. No 

funding is included for the San Joaquin River Restoration Fund, 

which the President’s request also proposed as a new separate account. Adjusted for this change in account structure, the recommendation is $26,349,000 below the budget request. 

The budget request for this account and the approved Committee 

allowance are shown on the following table: 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
78 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 68 here 87057A.038
79 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 69 here 87057A.039
80 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 70 here 87057A.040
81 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 71 here 87057A.041
82 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 72 here 87057A.042
83 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 73 here 87057A.043
84 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 74 here 87057A.044
85 

San Joaquin River Restoration Fund.—The budget request again 

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

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

Indian Water Rights Settlements.—The budget request again proposes a new appropriations account for certain Indian water rights 

settlements. As in prior fiscal years, however, the Committee includes funding for these settlements in the Water and Related Resources account. 

Central Valley Project Operation and Maintenance Rates.—The 

Central Valley Project is operationally and financially integrated, 

meaning construction and operation and maintenance costs are 

pooled across the system and allocated accordingly. The Committee 

strongly supports this model. During extraordinarily severe 

drought years—such as the current drought—in which very little 

water is delivered to Central Valley Project water contractors, however, this approach can lead to disproportionate operation and 

maintenance rates for the contractors that receive very little of 

their allocated water. Reclamation is encouraged to review its authorities to see if steps can be taken to help alleviate the impacts 

of these operation and maintenance rates during the current 

drought. 

Scoggins Dam, Tualatin Project, Oregon.—As part of its Dam 

Safety Program, Reclamation is working on a Corrective Action Alternatives Study (CAS) for Scoggins Dam, the main feature of the 

Tualatin Project. Working with local stakeholders, Reclamation is 

evaluating how water supply objectives, such as increased storage, 

may be coordinated with CAS implementation. The Committee supports such integrated efforts and directs Reclamation to submit legislative language to the appropriate congressional committees as 

soon as it becomes clear such authorization is necessary and advisable. 

Yakima River Basin Water Enhancement Project.—The Committee is aware of the Integrated Plan that has been developed by 

the Yakima River Basin Water Enhancement Project Working 

Group, including the Bureau of Reclamation, to address water storage and water supply needs for agriculture, fish, and municipalities 

within the Yakima River Basin in Central Washington. The Committee is supportive of the Plan and encourages the Bureau to 

move forward on implementing authorized components of the Plan. 

The State of Washington has made significant investments in the 

land acquisition components of the Integrated Plan. Therefore, instead of using the proposed federal Yakima River Basin Water Enhancement Project funding for land and water acquisition, Reclamation should use these dollars for additional investments in Integrated Plan water storage and supply reliability activities. 

WaterSMART Program, Title XVI Water Reclamation/Reuse 

Projects.—The Bureau of Reclamation’s Title XVI Water Reclamation and Reuse program is intended to help ensure the reliability 

of water supplies throughout the West. The Committee continues 

to hear from advocates of regional-scale projects. The Committee 

notes that Reclamation adjusted the parameters of its most recent 

funding opportunity to address these suggestions. Reclamation is 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
86 

encouraged to continue periodic reviews of this program to ensure 

the most effective results. 

CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT RESTORATION FUND

Appropriation, 2014 ............................................................................ $53,288,000 

Budget estimate, 2015 ....................................................................... 56,995,000 

Recommended, 2015 ........................................................................... 56,995,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2014 .................................................................... +3,707,000 

Budget estimate, 2015 ................................................................ – – – 

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 2015, the Committee recommends $56,995,000, 

$3,707,000 above fiscal year 2014 and the same as the budget 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, 2014 ............................................................................ $37,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2015 ....................................................................... 37,000,000 

Recommended, 2015 ........................................................................... 37,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2014 .................................................................... – – – 

Budget estimate, 2015 ................................................................ – – – 

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 2015, the Committee recommends $37,000,000, 

the same as fiscal year 2014 and the budget request. 

The recommendation includes funding consistent with the budget 

request for four feasibility studies associated with the water storage projects identified in section 103(d)(1) of the Water Supply, Reliability, and Environmental Improvement Act (Public Law 108– 

361). According to information received from Reclamation, no additional funding for these studies could be used in fiscal year 2015. 

The Committee notes that one study is expected to be completed 

by December 2014, another study by July 2015, and the schedules 

for the remaining two studies are uncertain subject to further funding participation by the non-federal sponsor. Reclamation is strongly encouraged to take necessary steps, including use of the shortest 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
87 

applicable process under the National Environmental Policy Act, to 

meet the established schedules. 

POLICY AND ADMINISTRATION

Appropriation, 2014 ............................................................................ $60,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2015 ....................................................................... 59,500,000 

Recommended, 2015 ........................................................................... 53,849,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2014 .................................................................... ¥6,151,000 

Budget estimate, 2015 ................................................................ ¥5,651,000 

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 2015, the Committee recommends 

$53,849,000, $6,151,000 below fiscal year 2014 and $5,651,000 

below the budget request. 

This reduction in funding is a direct result of Reclamation’s lack 

of responsiveness to congressional and statutory direction and to 

Committee information requests. The fiscal year 2012 joint explanatory statement provided direction regarding buried metallic water 

pipe. Reclamation chose to implement only certain pieces of that direction, so the fiscal year 2013 House report (House Report 112– 

462) and the fiscal year 2014 Act and explanatory statement included additional direction to Reclamation on this topic. The fiscal 

year 2014 language could not have been clearer that the status quo 

was unacceptable. Yet the status quo is exactly what was described 

in the report submitted by Reclamation. 

Lengthy response times and incomplete answers to Committee 

requests also have been concerns over the past few years. It often 

takes weeks for Reclamation to respond to what should be simple 

information requests. The lack of timely and pertinent information 

weakens the Committee’s ability to provide appropriate oversight. 

The Committee would like to believe it is not Reclamation’s intent 

to slow delivery of information to the Committee to avoid rigorous 

oversight, but rather is a problem easier to solve, such as being a 

result of an overly bureaucratic clearance process or similar administrative issue. The Committee welcomes a discussion with Reclamation on ways to improve the Committee’s access to information. 

The Committee remains concerned about the limited information 

regarding activities included in the annual budget request that is 

provided to the Committee. Particularly as new, large, and costly 

projects and programs are proposed for initiation, Reclamation 

must provide detailed analysis and explanation of how these commitments will be met in the future and the impacts to ongoing 

projects and programs. Without an understanding of out-year funding needs of activities in the budget request, for example, it is difficult for the Committee to evaluate the budget proposal and the 

prioritization of actions it represents. Reclamation is directed to 

work with the Committee to develop a mutually acceptable scope 

of information to be included in, or concurrent with, the standard 

budget justification materials provided to the Congress. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
88 

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 that 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, Indian water rights settlements, 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. 

BUREAU OF RECLAMATION LOAN PROGRAM ACCOUNT

(INCLUDING RESCISSION OF FUNDS)

Appropriation, 2014 ............................................................................ – – – 

Budget estimate, 2015 ....................................................................... $¥500,000 

Recommended, 2015 ........................................................................... ¥500,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2014 .................................................................... ¥500,000 

Budget estimate, 2015 ................................................................ – – – 

Under the Small Reclamation Projects Act of 1956 (Public Law 

84–984), loans and grants were made to non-federal organizations 

for construction or rehabilitation and betterment of small water resource projects. The Loan Program currently has an outstanding 

loan balance of approximately $42,000,000. The most recent discretionary appropriation to this account was in fiscal year 2002 for direct loans and in fiscal year 2004 for loan program administration. 

The fiscal year 2015 budget request proposes to cancel $500,000 in 

unobligated balances in this account. For fiscal year 2015, the 

Committee recommends a rescission of $500,000, the same as the 

budget request. Loan program administration costs can be accommodated using remaining carryover funds. 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISION

The bill includes an administrative provision allowing for the 

purchase of passenger motor vehicles. 

GENERAL PROVISIONS, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

The bill continues a provision regarding the circumstances in 

which the Bureau of Reclamation may reprogram funds. 

The bill continues a provision regarding the San Luis Unit and 

Kesterson Reservoir in California. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
89 

TITLE III—DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

INTRODUCTION 

Funds recommended in Title III provide for all Department of 

Energy programs, including Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, Nuclear Energy, 

Fossil Energy Research and Development, Naval Petroleum and 

Oil Shale Reserves, the Elk Hills School Lands Fund, 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 Management, Other Defense Activities, the Power Marketing Administrations, and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Department of Energy has requested a total budget in fiscal 

year 2015 of $28,436,428,000, as estimated by the Congressional 

Budget Office, to fund programs in its four primary mission areas: 

science, energy, environment, and national security. The Department of Energy budget request is $1,155,382,000 above fiscal year 

2014 and, once again, includes significant increases to renewable 

energy programs and national defense mission areas while proposing significant reductions to Fossil Energy Research and Development and, to a much lesser extent, Nuclear Energy. 

The Committee recommendation is $27,305,845,000 for the Department of Energy, $24,799,000 above fiscal year 2014 and 

$667,583,000 below the budget request after adjusting for the Department’s legislative proposal, which the recommendation does not 

include. The Committee’s recommendation recognizes the difficult 

budgetary realities faced for fiscal year 2015. It restructures the 

balance of the bill to ensure inherently federal responsibilities, 

such as national security, basic science activities, and environmental cleanup, are supported, while investing in long-term research to improve the efficiency of existing forms of energy production and to develop new and innovative forms of energy for the nation’s long-term energy independence and prosperity. The remaining resources are allocated to programs that can best address the 

threat of high gasoline and electricity prices and to those that help 

support American economic competitiveness in a global energy 

marketplace. 

CONGRESSIONAL DIRECTION

Article I, section 9 of the United States Constitution states ‘‘No 

money shall be drawn from the Treasury but in consequence of Appropriations made by law’’. 

The Committee continues the Department’s reprogramming authority in statute to ensure that the Department carries out its 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
90 

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 text or table 

detailing the Committee’s recommendation for the Department of 

Energy’s various accounts. The Committee also prohibits new 

starts through the use of reprogramming and includes other direction to improve public oversight of the Department’s actions. In addition, the recommendation continues a general provision specifying which transfer authorities may be used for accounts funded 

by this Act. 

FINANCIAL REPORTING

The Department is directed to continue to provide monthly Financial Balances Reports to the Committee. The reports should 

provide, for each program at the congressional control level as specified in the table in this Report an accounting of the following balances: total available (prior and current year); unobligated; unobligated but committed; and obligated, uncosted. Data should be provided both in summary form and by the fiscal year the funding was 

appropriated. Emergency funding, including any unspent American 

Recovery and Reinvestment Act balances, should be displayed separately within the Report. When submitting its monthly report to 

the Committee, the Department shall identify and provide an explanation for any use of the Department’s limited programming authority as provided under Section 301 of this Act. This direction 

shall apply to future fiscal years unless contradicted by the Committee. 

The Committee remains concerned over the lack of transparency 

in the Department’s use of program direction funds and has specified program direction funding in the bill for the relevant accounts. 

In order to address excessive prior-year balances in program direction accounts, the Committee has also limited the period of availability of all program direction funds for the Department of Energy. 

The Committee directs the Department to provide to the Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the 

Senate an annual Program Direction Report that includes details 

for expended amounts for salaries and benefits, travel, support 

services, other related expenses, and other relevant categories. This 

report should include program direction balances in summary form 

and by the fiscal year. 

In addition to the buildup of unexpended prior-year program direction balances, the Committee is concerned by the buildup of excessive prior-year balances that are greater than five years old. The 

Department of Energy has exceptional operational flexibility because the period of availability of most of its funding is not limited. 

However, the Department has not properly managed its prior-year 

balances to ensure that funds are expeditiously expended. Retaining these old balances places a cumbersome administrative burden 

on DOE programs and makes the Department’s financial management processes inefficient and unnecessarily complex. The bill contains a General Provision that eliminates unobligated balances 

older than five years from the Department’s science and energy 

programs. By rescinding these old balances, this General Provision 

will serve to eliminate approximately one hundred existing budget 

and reporting codes that the Department is continuing to maintain 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
91 

and report against. For future years, the Department should consider all balances greater than five years old effectively expired. 

The Department shall submit all remaining unexpended balances 

greater than five years old as an offset to its annual budget request. If there is a valid justification for retaining certain balances, 

the Department may submit a specific request to retain such balances as an exception to this general direction. 

MANAGEMENT OF SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL AND DEFENSE WASTE

Again this year, the Obama Administration continues its willful 

disregard for its legal responsibilities regarding Yucca Mountain. 

By unilaterally halting the Yucca Mountain High-Level Waste Geological Repository, the Administration has delayed fulfilling the 

federal government’s legal requirement to take responsibility for civilian spent nuclear fuel, increasing the financial penalties taxpayers must bear. The Department’s fiscal year 2013 Financial Report shows the estimated liability facing taxpayers is 

$25,100,000,000, an increase of $2,800,000,000 from the previous 

year and $9,800,000,000 since 2010, with $3,700,000,000 already 

paid by the Judgment Fund. This liability will continue to grow. In 

addition, high-level defense waste at sites across the country now 

have no disposition pathway, presenting the likelihood that the federal government will have to pay penalties to the states as deadlines for removal are missed. 

The credibility of the federal government has been further eroded 

by the blatant political maneuverings the Administration needed to 

skirt the law and halt the program. On August 13, 2013, the D.C. 

Circuit Court of Appeals definitively ruled that the Administration’s refusal to finish the Yucca Mountain license application was 

illegal. As a result, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has restarted the license application process and is scheduled to soon 

complete the final Safety Evaluation Report. The D.C. Circuit 

Court also unanimously ruled that the Department must stop collecting Nuclear Waste Fund fees ‘‘until such time as either the Secretary chooses to comply with the Nuclear Waste Policy Act as it 

is currently written, or until Congress enacts an alternative waste 

management plan.’’ 

Nevertheless, the Administration’s fiscal year 2015 budget request once again includes a proposal to implement the Department’s Strategy for the Management and Disposal of Used Nuclear 

Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste, which was informed by the 

Administration’s Blue Ribbon Commission that by its very charter 

did not examine the suitability of Yucca Mountain as a permanent 

repository. This strategy is estimated to cost $5,700,000,000 over 

the next ten years and proposes to reform the current funding arrangement for the Department’s nuclear waste fund management 

program. The Committee notes that the Department’s proposal has 

not been considered by Congress, yet the Administration included 

$79,000,000 in its fiscal year 2015 request for used nuclear fuel disposition, including activities necessary solely as a consequence of 

the Administration’s Yucca Mountain policy. The recommendation 

rejects these non-Yucca proposals and makes clear that any activities funded from the Nuclear Waste Fund must be in support of 

Yucca Mountain. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
92 

In addition, the recommendation provides $150,000,000 within 

Nuclear Waste Disposal to support the Yucca Mountain High-Level 

Waste Geological Repository and $55,000,000 within the Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission to support the continued adjudication of 

the Yucca Mountain license application. The Committee notes that 

geological repositories in addition to Yucca Mountain will be needed. If the Congress provides the authority for such repositories, as 

well as for a consensus-based siting process, the Committee will 

consider support for such activities at that time. In the meantime, 

the bill contains a prohibition on using funds to close the Yucca 

Mountain license application or to take actions that would irrevocably remove Yucca Mountain as an option for a repository. 

PROLIFERATION OF CENTERS

The Committee has for years expressed concern with the Department’s establishment of a variety of new research centers, or persistent, location-based grantees that receive funding across a number of years and that often require out-year commitments subject 

to appropriations. Examples include Energy Frontier Research 

Centers, Energy Innovation Hubs, and BioEnergy Research Centers. The Department has continued to add to this list by proposing 

at least one additional Clean Energy Manufacturing Innovation 

(CEMI) Institute in fiscal year 2015, in addition to the two to be 

established using fiscal year 2014 funding and the one already established using fiscal year 2013 funding—each for five-year 

awards. The Department is also proposing to renew two of its Energy Innovation Hubs for their second five-year terms. 

Unfortunately, the Administration continues to propose these 

new ideas without examining, or at least articulating, why existing 

programs are inadequate or underperforming. No offsets are offered 

within existing programs, and no policy prescriptions are offered. 

The Committee continues to support the ongoing review of all existing research centers and expects frequent and thorough updates as 

the Department considers their relative effectiveness and potential 

renewal or termination in future years. The Committee urges the 

Department to look at its programs as a portfolio of approaches to 

achieve results and to propose eliminating less effective programs 

and support mechanisms. 

While many of these centers have been proposed openly and established with congressional concurrence, several have been established or renewed over the years with little or no justification in 

the budget requests, including Manufacturing Demonstration Facilities and CEMI Institutes. Further, many centers have been 

funded perennially and lack a concrete goal after which they would 

be terminated. This practice has led to the proliferation of centers 

across many Departmental programs consuming program budgets 

and preventing prioritization of funds towards other higher-priority 

activities. Addressing this problem requires greater transparency, 

evaluation, and prioritization to ensure that only highly-effective 

centers closely aligned to program missions are funded. 

In fiscal year 2014, the Department was directed to submit to the 

Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives and 

the Senate a comprehensive list of all centers to be funded in the 

fiscal year, including the date of establishment, purpose, milestones, funding level in the fiscal year, total funding received to 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
93 

date, out-year mortgages, and expected termination date. The Department has yet to submit this list, so the Committee reiterates 

its previous direction. Furthermore, the Department is directed to 

explicitly include in future budget justifications all centers, hubs, 

institutes, facilities, and any other persistent, location-based grantee; their current and proposed funding levels; expected out-year 

commitments; and details on their programmatic and technical 

goals. 

EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITIES

The Department is prohibited from funding fellowship and scholarship programs in fiscal year 2015 unless the programs were explicitly included in the budget justification or funded within this 

recommendation. Any new or ongoing programs that the Department chooses to fund in fiscal year 2015 must be detailed in the 

fiscal year 2015 budget request documents. This direction shall be 

followed in future fiscal years unless contradicted by the Committee. 

Understanding that harnessing scientific and technological ingenuity has long been at the core of America’s prosperity, the Department of Energy has programs designed to increase the number of 

underrepresented minorities in the Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) area. The Committee strongly encourages the Department to maintain this commitment by engaging in competitions supporting programs, including within the energy sciences and nonproliferation and in partnership with the national laboratories, that increase the number of underrepresented 

college minorities in STEM fields. 

The Department has also recognized that beyond federal programs, there are successful initiatives being pursued by non-profit 

organizations that provide examples of best practices, including exposure to STEM education and career opportunities at all levels of 

education, financial assistance, one-on-one mentoring, and expanded participation in crucial research and development. The 

Committee encourages the Department to look for opportunities to 

leverage its investment with these non-profits. 

REPROGRAMMING AND TRANSFER GUIDELINES

The Committee requires the Department to inform the Committee promptly and in detail when a change in program execution 

and funding is required during the fiscal year. The Department’s 

reprogramming requirements are detailed in statute. To assist the 

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. The recommendation includes a general provision providing internal reprogramming authority to the Department, as long as no program, 

project, or activity is increased or decreased by more than 

$5,000,000 or 10 percent, whichever is less, compared to the levels 

in the text or table detailing the Committee’s recommendations for 

the Department’s various accounts. For construction projects, a reprogramming constitutes the reallocation of funds from one conVerDate Mar 15 2010 06:12 Jun 21, 2014 Jkt 088390 PO 00000 Frm 00093 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR486.XXX HR486

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
94 

struction project to another project or a change of $2,000,000 or 10 

percent, whichever is less, in the scope of an approved project. 

Criteria for Reprogramming.—A reprogramming should be made 

only when an unforeseen situation arises, and then only if delay of 

the project or activity until the next fiscal year would result in a 

detrimental impact to an agency program or priority. A reprogramming may also be considered if the Department can show that significant cost savings can accrue by increasing funding for an activity. Mere convenience or preference should not be a factor for consideration. A reprogramming may not be employed to initiate new 

programs, or to change program, project, or activity allocations specifically denied, limited, or increased by the Congress in the Act or 

report. 

Reporting and Approval Procedures.—In recognition of the security missions of the Department, the legislative guidelines allow 

the Secretary and the Administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration jointly to waive the reprogramming restriction 

by certifying to the Committees on Appropriations of the House of 

Representatives and the Senate that it is in the nation’s security 

interest to do so. The Department shall not deviate from the levels 

for activities specified in the report that are below the level of the 

detail table, except through the regular notification procedures of 

the Committee. No funds may be added to programs for which 

funding has been denied. Any reallocation of new or prior-year 

budget authority or prior-year de-obligations, or any request to implement a reorganization which includes moving previous appropriations between appropriations accounts must be submitted to 

the Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives 

and the Senate in writing and may not be implemented prior to approval by the Committees. 

Transfers.—As in fiscal year 2014, funding actions into or out of 

accounts funded by Title III of this Act may be made by transfer 

authorities provided only by this or other Appropriations Acts. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee’s recommendations for Department of Energy 

programs in fiscal year 2015 are described in the following sections. 

A detailed funding table is included at the end of this title. 

ENERGY PROGRAMS 

ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY

Appropriation, 2014 ............................................................................ $1,901,686,000 

Budget estimate, 2015 ....................................................................... 2,316,749,000 

Recommended, 2015 ........................................................................... 1,789,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2014 .................................................................... ¥112,686,000 

Budget estimate, 2015 ................................................................ ¥527,749,000 

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) programs include research, development, demonstration, and deployment activities advancing energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies, as well as federal energy assistance programs. The EERE 

program is divided into three portfolios: sustainable transportation, 

renewable energy, and energy efficiency. The sustainable transportation portfolio, which consists of the vehicles, bioenergy, and hyVerDate Mar 15 2010 06:12 Jun 21, 2014 Jkt 088390 PO 00000 Frm 00094 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR486.XXX HR486

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
95 

drogen and fuel cell programs, advances the development of plugin electric and other alternative vehicles, high-efficiency advanced 

combustion engines, and the replacement of oil with clean domestic 

transportation fuels. The renewable energy portfolio, which consists 

of the solar, wind, water, and geothermal programs, aims to develop innovative technologies to make renewable electricity generation cost competitive with traditional sources of energy. The energy 

efficiency portfolio, which consists of the advanced manufacturing, 

buildings, and federal energy assistance programs, seeks cost-effective solutions to reduce energy consumption in plants, buildings, 

and homes. 

The Committee recommends $1,789,000,000 for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, $112,686,000 below fiscal year 2014 and 

$527,749,000 below the budget request. 

For the purposes of allocating funding, the Committee encourages the Department to examine the feasibility of ultraconductive 

copper as an application-driven, crosscutting technology area, including funding to support prototype development and the scale-up 

of manufacturing with established experts within EERE. 

SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORTATION

The Vehicle, Bioenergy, and Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technologies programs fund activities that can reduce American exposure to future high oil prices. Research into cutting-edge technologies that will increase the fuel economy of gasoline and diesel 

fuel vehicles—the vast majority of today’s fleet—will allow Americans to spend less on fuel while traveling the same distance. Research into next-generation automotive and fuel cell technologies 

that power vehicles with domestic energy sources such as natural 

gas, electricity, biofuels, and hydrogen can likewise dramatically 

lower the impact of future high gas prices on Americans. The Committee recommends $557,500,000 for Sustainable Transportation, $57,822,000 below fiscal year 2014 and $147,683,000 

below the budget request. 

Vehicle Technologies.—The Committee recommends $277,500,000 

for Vehicle Technologies, $12,410,000 below fiscal year 2014 and 

$81,500,000 below the budget request. Within available funds, the 

recommendation includes $8,000,000 for the SuperTruck program, 

a cost-shared project with industry to design a heavy-duty Class 8 

truck with 50 percent improvement in overall freight efficiency. 

The Committee acknowledges the progress made towards the 

SuperTruck program’s goals, anticipates continued progress in fiscal year 2015, and supports the fulfillment of existing contracts to 

advance commercialization of truck technologies demonstrated by 

industry partners. The Committee encourages the Department to 

assess the achievements of the current program and whether additional measures should be identified to further advance fuel economy gains and to demonstrate the most promising technologies 

that incorporate both the long-haul and regional-haul segments. 

The recommendation provides $102,000,000 for Batteries and 

Electric Drive Technology, of which $40,800,000 is for advanced 

battery development. With additional funds above the request for 

advanced battery development, the Department is directed to expand high quality, independent, national laboratory performance 

testing and lifecycle diagnostic assessment activities, in order to 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
96 

validate and verify advanced battery performance under normal operating conditions. The Department is further directed to submit, 

not later than December 31, 2014, a report on its plan to utilize 

national laboratory capabilities to expand battery performance 

science capabilities for validation and to predict energy storage performance. 

The recommendation provides $27,900,000 for Outreach and De- velopment, of which $24,000,000 is for the Clean Cities program. 

No funding is provided for Advanced Fuel Vehicle Community 

Projects or the Transportation Electrification Program. 

For other subprograms within Vehicle Technologies, the rec- ommendation provides $34,500,000 for Vehicle and Systems Simulation and Testing, of which no funding is included for the grid 

integration initiative; $49,000,000 for Advanced Combustion Engines; $36,000,000 for Materials Technology; and $25,000,000 for 

Fuels Technology. 

The Committee encourages Vehicle Technologies to leverage the 

expertise of various experimental and computational collaborative 

programs among universities, national laboratories, and industry to 

develop sustainable technologies that will improve the overall fuel 

economy of heavy-duty transportation systems. 

Bioenergy Technologies.—The Committee recommends 

$180,000,000 for Bioenergy Technologies, $52,429,000 below fiscal 

year 2014 and $73,200,000 below the budget request. 

Within available funds, the recommendation includes 

$46,500,000 for Feedstocks, of which $30,000,000 is for research 

and development of biofuels from algae feedstocks; $90,500,000 for 

Conversion Technologies, of which no funding is included for a conversion incubator; $25,800,000 for Demonstration and Deployment, 

of which no funding is for the joint initiative with the Navy and 

the Department of Agriculture to develop commercial diesel and jet 

biofuels production capacity for defense purposes; and $11,000,000 

for Strategic Analysis and Crosscutting Sustainability. 

The Department is directed not to procure or use commonly recycled paper that is segregated from municipal solid waste for electricity generation or to make grants for renewable biofuels production to any facility that uses as a feedstock recycled paper that is 

segregated from municipal solid waste. For the purposes of allocating resources, the Department is encouraged to include biosolids 

derived from the municipal wastewater treatment process and 

other similar renewables within the definition of noncellulosic biomass. The Committee also encourages the Department to evaluate 

the potential for the conversion of degradables in combined trash 

to liquid- and gaseous-fuels, and chemical intermediates at distributed locations where optimal, in order to determine the national resource potential and the benefits of this approach compared to 

other approaches, including the densification of wastes to be transferred to centralized conversion facilities. 

The Committee notes that research, development, and demonstration of direct liquefaction of biomass via a pyrolysis event 

and the subsequent upgrading and cracking to renewable gasoline, 

diesel, and jet fuels is a high priority pathway to produce fuels 

from a range of biomass sources. The Committee supports the Department’s continued efforts to examine the testing of new catalysts, separations strategies, and engineering designs at the benchVerDate Mar 15 2010 06:12 Jun 21, 2014 Jkt 088390 PO 00000 Frm 00096 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR486.XXX HR486

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
97 

and pilot-scale to enable rapid evaluation of promising technologies. 

The Committee also notes that the oil content of algae is only approximately 25 percent of the total biomass of algae, yet efforts to 

date have predominantly focused on extracting and processing oil 

from algae. The Committee encourages the Department to examine 

the commercial potential for value added renewable products that 

are derived from biomass intermediates or a slipstream on the trajectory towards biofuels, which might include proteins, fish food, 

and other renewable chemicals. 

Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technologies.—The Committee recommends $100,000,000 for Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technologies, 

$7,017,000 above fiscal year 2014 and $7,017,000 above the budget 

request. 

Of the funding provided above the budget request, an additional $5,000,000 is for Technology Validation to conduct testing and 

analysis of fuel cells as industrial-scale energy storage devices, 

with validation and testing using full-scale testing and demonstration capabilities. To support this effort, the Committee recommends 

that the Department leverage national laboratory, university, and 

regional stakeholder partnerships and capabilities, including atscale grid infrastructure, modeling expertise, extreme environment 

testing capabilities, and public-private partnerships. The remaining 

$2,017,000 above the request is to support cost-shared advanced 

demonstration and deployment activities that validate commercial 

viability, including material handling equipment, ground support 

equipment, refrigerated trucks, auxiliary power units, and associated hydrogen infrastructure. 

RENEWABLE ENERGY

The Solar Energy, Wind Energy, Water Power, and Geothermal 

Technologies programs fund applied research, development, and 

demonstration to reduce the cost of renewable energy to economically competitive levels. Research into innovative technologies, such 

as photovoltaic and concentrating solar technologies, offshore wind, 

hydropower, and ground heat, can expand energy production from 

our domestic resources and reduce our dependence on foreign oil. 

The Committee recommends $369,500,000 for Renewable Energy, 

$80,292,000 below fiscal year 2014 and $151,800,000 below the 

budget request. 

Solar Energy.—The Committee recommends $178,000,000 for 

Solar Energy, $79,211,000 below fiscal year 2014 and $104,300,000 

below the budget request. Within available funds, the recommendation provides $37,000,000 for Concentrating Solar Power, of which 

$10,000,000 is for the joint Supercritical Transformational Electric 

Power (STEP) Generation program with the Offices of Fossil Energy and Nuclear Energy; $38,000,000 for Photovoltaic Research 

and Development; $39,500,000 for Systems Integration, of which no 

funding is included for the grid integration initiative; and 

$43,000,000 for Innovations in Manufacturing Competitiveness, of 

which $10,000,000 is for the Sunshot Incubator. 

Within the funds available for Innovations in Manufacturing 

Competitiveness, the Committee directs the Solar Technologies program to provide funding opportunities, as proposed in the budget 

request, that support U.S. equipment supply chain technology efVerDate Mar 15 2010 06:12 Jun 21, 2014 Jkt 088390 PO 00000 Frm 00097 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR486.XXX HR486

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
98 

forts, which will reduce the cost of manufacturing silicon photovoltaic cells by reducing the amount of raw material silicon needed 

to produce a solar cell while also increasing manufacturing efficiencies by removing manufacturing process steps to produce solar 

cells. 

Keeping American manufacturing competitive continues to be a 

major priority for the Committee across all technology areas, and 

the Committee encourages the Department to continue to prioritize 

solar manufacturing initiatives within this program and, to the extent possible within available funding, to explore crosscutting advanced solar films aimed at improving the cost-effectiveness of 

solar technologies. The Committee also recognizes the need to 

lower the cost of solar power products and installation for customers and requests that the Department work with interested 

stakeholders to achieve that end. 

Wind Energy.—The Committee recommends $107,000,000 for 

Wind Energy, $18,821,000 above fiscal year 2014 and $8,000,000 

below the budget request. Within available funds, the recommendation provides the requested level of $42,613,000 for the Offshore 

Wind Advanced Technology Demonstration Project; an additional 

$5,000,000 to continue research and development in support of the 

offshore demonstration project; and $500,000 for the Wind for 

Schools program. 

The Committee continues to support wind activities with large 

generation potential that rely on technology innovations that would 

not be developed by the private sector alone. To this end, the Committee supports an emphasis on offshore wind technologies that address the unique opportunities and issues across the nation’s waterways, such as high winds, icing, and deep water, rather than 

those technologies currently being considered by the private sector. 

Water Power.—The Committee recommends $38,500,000 for 

Water Power, $20,100,000 below fiscal year 2014 and $24,000,000 

below the budget request. Within available funds, the recommendation provides $19,000,000 for marine and hydrokinetic technologies 

and $19,000,000 for conventional hydropower, of which $3,960,000 

is for the purposes of Section 242 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. 

Geothermal Technologies.—The Committee recommends 

$46,000,000 for Geothermal Technologies, $198,000 above fiscal 

year 2014 and $15,500,000 below the budget request. Within available funds, the recommendation provides $27,000,000 for Enhanced 

Geothermal Systems, of which $21,000,000 is for site selection and 

characterization activities for the Frontier Observatory for Research in Geothermal Energy project. 

ENERGY EFFICIENCY

The Advanced Manufacturing, Building Technologies, Federal 

Energy Management, and Weatherization and Intergovernmental 

programs advance cost-effective solutions to reduce energy consumption through increased efficiency. Research into cutting-edge 

technologies that enhance manufacturing processes, develop advanced materials, and reduce energy use in buildings, homes, and 

factories can serve the national interest by greatly reducing our energy needs, while also giving American manufacturers an advantage to compete in the global marketplace. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
99 

The Committee recommends $644,000,000 for Energy Efficiency, $26,182,000 above fiscal year 2014 and $213,700,000 below the 

budget request. 

Within available funds for energy efficiency, the Committee directs the Department to work with its partner agencies and relevant industry partners to submit, not later than September 30, 

2015, a report on the potential benefits, cost savings, and reduced 

energy use of a mechanical insulation maintenance and upgrade 

program in federal facilities, as well as an evaluation of approaches 

for increasing the use of mechanical insulation in federal energy efficiency programs. 

Advanced Manufacturing.—The Committee recommends 

$206,000,000 for Advanced Manufacturing, $25,421,000 above fiscal 

year 2014 and $99,100,000 below the budget request. Within available funds, the recommendation provides not less than $4,205,000 

for improvements in the steel industry; not less than $20,000,000 

for combined heat and power activities relevant to industrial applications and energy savings in manufacturing processes; and not 

less than $500,000 to continue efforts furthering improvements in 

mechanical insulation. The Committee encourages the Department 

to continue to support technical assistance for combined heat and 

power demonstrations and deployments that support systems-level 

optimization, microgrids, and grid integration, as well as research 

and development into next-generation combined heat and power 

technologies. 

For subprograms within Advanced Manufacturing, the rec- ommendation provides $84,900,000 for Next Generation Manufacturing Research and Development Projects, of which $12,900,000 is 

for the Advanced Manufacturing Incubator; $28,500,000 for Industrial Technical Assistance; and $92,500,000 for Advanced Manufacturing Research and Development Facilities, of which $25,000,000 

is for the fourth year of funding for the Critical Materials Energy 

Innovation Hub, $10,000,000 is for the Manufacturing Demonstration Facility and the Carbon Fiber Test Facility, $1,500,000 is for 

the joint additive manufacturing pilot institute with the Department of Defense, and $56,000,000 is for four Clean Energy Manufacturing Innovation (CEMI) Institutes. The Department may use 

up to $6,000,000 of funding provided under Research and Development Projects to support operations of the Manufacturing Demonstration Facility and the Carbon Fiber Test Facility, should additional funding be needed. 

The Committee notes that CEMI Institutes constitute the largest 

funding activity within Advanced Manufacturing’s fiscal year 2015 

budget request, yet the Department has provided scant justification 

on its proposed research topics or mission needs. For example, the 

Department requests $155,500,000 for CEMI Institutes in fiscal 

year 2015 to establish ‘‘at least one new Clean Energy Manufacturing Innovation Institute,’’ in addition to the two to be established using fiscal year 2014 funds and one already established 

using fiscal year 2013 funds, with the balance of the request presumably to forward fund existing CEMI Institutes or to establish 

additional CEMI Institutes not enumerated in the request. The recommendation supports the establishment of one new CEMI Institute in fiscal year 2015, in addition to the three established using 

fiscal years 2013 and 2014 funding. Should the Department proVerDate Mar 15 2010 06:12 Jun 21, 2014 Jkt 088390 PO 00000 Frm 00099 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR486.XXX HR486

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
100 

pose funding for additional CEMI Institutes in the future, the Committee directs that all future budget justifications include a specific 

research topic associated with a CEMI Institute, which will provide 

the Committee with the necessary transparency to evaluate and 

prioritize funding to ensure that only highly-effective centers closely aligned with Advanced Manufacturing program missions are 

funded. 

The Committee is aware that efficiency is a key focus in the upcoming Advanced Manufacturing Office motors survey study. The 

Department is encouraged to investigate efficiencies that will be 

derived from electric propulsion systems, which the Committee recognizes can equate to significant national annual energy savings on 

the magnitude of $100,000,000,000. 

The Committee is also aware that the U.S. represents the largest 

market for lithium metal, a near critical material with national security and advanced manufacturing applications. The U.S. military 

relies on primary lithium batteries to provide power for communication devices, countermeasure devices, global positioning systems, guidance systems, missiles, torpedoes, guided artillery, and 

fuses. Lithium metal is also essential in fuel-efficient aircraft bodies, medical devices, and as a means to produce organometallics, 

which are used in manufacturing eco-friendlier tires, widely used 

drugs, superior fungicides, recyclable polymer materials, and grid 

energy storage devices. The Committee notes that the U.S. domestic supply and technology position of lithium metal is on a downward trend relative to China and Russia should U.S. domestic supply not increase by 2020. The Committee directs the Department 

to examine the impact federal investment may have in strengthening our availability and usage of lithium, including low-sodium 

lithium metal. 

Building Technologies.—The Committee recommends 

$165,000,000 for Building Technologies, $12,974,000 below fiscal 

year 2014 and $46,700,000 below the budget request. Within available funds, up to $15,000,000 is to continue high value research 

into energy efficient building systems with national application, 

should the Department determine additional work to be merited. 

Prior to execution of these funds, the Department shall ensure that 

the research has clear and measurable goals with realistic timeframes to improve the energy efficiency of buildings and submit the 

research plan to the Committees on Appropriations of the House of 

Representatives and the Senate. 

Furthermore, the recommendation includes $14,000,000 for the 

Building America program, the same as the request, and 

$6,000,000 for research and development activities for small scale 

combined heat and power systems that can be used for residential 

and small commercial settings. 

For the subprograms within Building Technologies, the recommendation provides $28,000,000 for Commercial Buildings Integration; $55,862,000 for Emerging Technologies, of which 

$25,800,000 is for solid state lighting and, in addition to funds recommended for lighting research and development, $5,000,000 is for 

the second Bright Tomorrow Lighting Prize, or ‘‘L Prize,’’ which offers both a monetary prize and federal procurement and other benefits to the first organization that manufactures highly-efficient 

PAR38 halogen replacement lamps meeting various technical reVerDate Mar 15 2010 06:12 Jun 21, 2014 Jkt 088390 PO 00000 Frm 00100 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR486.XXX HR486

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
101 

quirements; $40,438,000 for Equipment and Buildings Standards; 

and $23,000,000 for Residential Buildings Integration. The recommendation provides no funding within Building Technologies for 

the grid integration initiative. 

Consistent with current policy, the Department is directed not to 

advocate, promote, or discourage the adoption or inclusion of a particular building energy code or code provision, other than the technical and economic analysis work required by statutory mandate, 

or to provide funding to private third parties or non-governmental 

organizations that engage in this type of advocacy. 

The Committee is aware that the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 assigned the Department the role to develop energy efficiency standards for manufactured housing, a responsibility which had previously been assumed by the Department of 

Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The Committee directs 

the Department to work closely with HUD, industry, and tenant 

groups to ensure that any proposed standards take equally into account the up-front cost of housing and life cycle operating costs. 

In June 2010, the Department of Energy amended the existing 

energy conservation standards for residential water heaters. The 

Committee is concerned that efficiency standards for large-capacity 

water heaters, scheduled to take effect in April 2015, would endanger the long-term sustainability of more than 250 voluntary demand response programs in 34 states. These programs reduce energy use during peak hours, improve the integration of renewable 

energy resources, and lower energy costs for consumers. The Committee is aware of bipartisan agreement in both chambers to create 

a new classification for certain grid-enabled residential water heaters that are intended for use as part of an electric thermal storage 

or demand response program and that would be exempt from this 

final rule. The Committee continues to track progress of this bipartisan legislation and directs the Department to work with stakeholders to allow for the continued manufacture and use of grid-enabled water heaters. 

Federal Energy Management Program.—The Committee recommends $20,000,000 for the Federal Energy Management Program, $8,265,000 below fiscal year 2014 and $16,200,000 below the 

budget request. 

Weatherization and Intergovernmental Programs.—The Committee recommends $253,000,000 for Weatherization and Intergovernmental Programs, $22,000,000 above fiscal year 2014 and 

$51,700,000 below the budget request. 

The recommendation provides $200,000,000 for Weatherization 

Assistance Grants, all of which is for formula grants; $3,000,000 for 

Training and Technical Assistance; and $50,000,000 for the State 

Energy Program. The recommendation includes no funding for 

Clean Energy and Economic Development Partnerships or for competitive awards within the Weatherization Assistance Program to 

develop and test financing models to support energy efficiency retrofits. The recommendation includes the Tribal Energy Program in 

Departmental Administration. 

Social Cost of Carbon.—The Committee understands that the 

Government Accountability Office (GAO) is currently reviewing the 

process the Administration used to develop estimates to calculate 

the social cost of carbon. The Committee believes that the Office of 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
102 

Information and Regulatory Affairs should not allow any regulations to be finalized using the Technical Support Document: Technical Update of the Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact 

Analysis Under Executive Order 12866, Interagency Working 

Group on Social Cost of Carbon, United States Government, May 

2013 until public comments on the document have been evaluated, 

the GAO report has been submitted and reviewed, and any necessary changes to the technical support document are incorporated. 

CORPORATE SUPPORT

The Program Direction, Strategic Programs, and Facilities and 

Infrastructure budgets provide the necessary resources for program 

and project management across all of EERE’s technology programs, 

for the adoption of technologies to market, and for the operation 

and upkeep of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory. 

The Committee recommends $218,000,000 for Corporate Support 

programs, $13,554,000 below fiscal year 2014 and $19,779,000 

below the budget request. 

Program Direction.—The Committee recommends $150,000,000 

for Program Direction, $12,000,000 below fiscal year 2014 and 

$10,000,000 below the budget request. 

Strategic Programs.—The Committee recommends $12,000,000 

for Strategic Programs, of which $2,000,000 is for the U.S.-Israel 

energy cooperative agreement and $2,000,000 is for the joint industrial scale integrated energy systems research and development effort with the Office of Nuclear Energy. 

Facilities and Infrastructure.—The Committee recommends 

$56,000,000 for Facilities and Infrastructure, of which $26,000,000 

is for Operations and Maintenance and $30,000,000 is for Facility 

Management. 

ELECTRICITY DELIVERY AND ENERGY RELIABILITY

Appropriation, 2014 ............................................................................ $147,306,000 

Budget estimate, 2015 ....................................................................... 180,000,000 

Recommended, 2014 ........................................................................... 160,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2014 .................................................................... +12,694,000 

Budget estimate, 2015 ................................................................ ¥20,000,000 

The Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability program advances technologies and provides operational support to increase 

the efficiency, resilience, and security of the nation’s electricity delivery system. The power grid employs aging technologies at a time 

when power demands, the deployment of new intermittent technologies, and rising security threats are imposing new stresses on 

the system. The Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability aims to develop a modern power grid by advancing cyber security technologies, intelligent and high-efficiency grid components, 

and energy storage systems. 

The Committee recommends $160,000,000 for Electricity Delivery 

and Energy Reliability, $12,694,000 above fiscal year 2014 and 

$20,000,000 below the budget request. 

Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability Research and Development.—The Committee recommends $109,500,000 for Electricity 

Delivery and Energy Reliability Research and Development, 

$3,800,000 above fiscal year 2014 and $11,900,000 below the budgVerDate Mar 15 2010 06:12 Jun 21, 2014 Jkt 088390 PO 00000 Frm 00102 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR486.XXX HR486

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
103 

et request. Within available funds, the recommendation provides 

$32,700,000 for Clean Energy Transmission and Reliability, of 

which $5,000,000 is for the Energy Systems Predictive Capability 

activity; $14,600,000 for Smart Grid; $15,200,000 for Energy Storage; and $47,000,000 for cyber security for energy delivery systems, 

of which $5,000,000 is to continue development of the industryscale electric grid test bed. 

Within available funds for Energy Storage, the Committee encourages the Department to continue examining evolving battery 

technologies when funding research and development and pilot programs on the basis of long lifecycle and low capital and maintenance costs, with the battery system able to provide grid storage 

of energy that can be drawn on by demand. 

The Committee recognizes the value an independent assessment 

may have to verify, criticize, and reinforce key issues within the 

Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability’s mission to 

support the nation’s electricity delivery system. Within available 

funds for Clean Energy Transmission and Reliability, up to 

$1,000,000 shall be for the Department to contract with an appropriate organization, such as the National Research Council, to conduct a national level comprehensive study on the future resilience 

and reliability of the nation’s electric power transmission and distribution system. At a minimum, the report should include technological options for strengthening the capabilities of the nation’s 

power grid; a review of federal, State, industry, and academic research and development programs; and an evaluation of cyber security for energy delivery systems. Not later than September 30, 

2015, the Department shall submit the findings to the Committees 

on Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate. 

Infrastructure Security and Energy Restoration (ISER).—The 

Committee recommends $16,000,000 for Infrastructure Security 

and Energy Restoration, $8,000,000 above fiscal year 2014 and 

$6,600,000 below the budget request. Within available funds, the 

recommendation provides $8,000,000 for the ISER activity and 

$8,000,000 for the Operational Energy and Resilience (OER) program, of which all funding shall be to support construction of the 

Energy Resilience and Operations Center within the Department’s 

Washington, D.C. headquarters. The Committee notes that physical 

construction of this strategic operations center will take approximately one year and must be completed before equipment installation may take place. The recommendation provides no funding for 

dedicated staff for the OER program, about which the Committee 

reiterates its concerns of the Department’s intent to embed staff 

within each of the ten Federal Emergency Management Agency 

(FEMA) regions. The Committee directs the Department to submit 

not later than February 1, 2015, a strategic workforce plan, including out-year budget costs, for a modified OER program in which 

staff is not embedded into the FEMA regional offices. The Committee further directs any funding for staff be included in Program 

Direction in future budget submissions. 

The Committee directs the Department to submit not later than 

three months after enactment of this Act a report on its efforts to 

support the physical and cyber security of the electricity grid. The 

report should include the following: an analysis of the North American Electric Reliability Corporation physical security standards deVerDate Mar 15 2010 06:12 Jun 21, 2014 Jkt 088390 PO 00000 Frm 00103 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR486.XXX HR486

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
104 

veloped in response to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s March 7, 2014, order, as well as areas for improvement, if 

necessary; the Department’s plans to better understand and respond to the correlation of threats against physical infrastructure, 

operational technology systems, and informational technology systems of the electricity grid; the Department’s efforts to reach out 

to and incorporate the private sector; and whether the Department 

should have a larger role to assist owners of critical infrastructure 

to develop the necessary capabilities to provide security to the nation’s electricity grid. 

NUCLEAR ENERGY

Appropriation, 2014 ............................................................................ $889,190,000 

Budget estimate, 2015 ....................................................................... 863,386,000 

Recommended, 2015 ........................................................................... 899,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2014 .................................................................... +9,810,000 

Budget estimate, 2015 ................................................................ +35,614,000 

Nuclear power generates approximately one-fifth of the nation’s 

electricity and will continue to be an important base-load energy 

source in the future. The Department of Energy’s Nuclear Energy 

program invests in research, development, and demonstration activities that develop the next generation of clean and safe reactors, 

further improve the safety of our current reactor fleet, and contribute to the nation’s long-term leadership in the global nuclear 

power industry. 

The Committee recommends $899,000,000 for Nuclear Energy, 

$9,810,000 above fiscal year 2014 and $35,614,000 above the budget request. 

NUCLEAR ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

The Committee provides $483,500,000 for Nuclear Energy Re- search and Development, $5,130,000 below fiscal year 2014 and 

$15,614,000 above the budget request. 

Nuclear Energy Enabling Technologies.—The Committee recommends $101,000,000 for Nuclear Energy Enabling Technologies, 

$29,870,000 above fiscal year 2014 and $22,754,000 above the 

budget request. Within available funds, the recommendation provides $14,000,000 for Crosscutting Technology Development; 

$26,200,000 for Nuclear Energy Advanced Modeling and Simulation, of which funding above the request is for additional support 

of the advanced computational tools and methods developed by various Nuclear Energy programs; $24,300,000 for the first year of the 

second five-year term of the Energy Innovation Hub for Modeling 

and Simulation; and $36,500,000 for the National Science User Facility, of which funding above the request is to complete the installation of advanced post-irradiation examination equipment at the 

Irradiated Materials Characterization Laboratory. 

Integrated University Program.—The Committee recommends 

$5,000,000 to continue the Integrated University Program, which is 

critical to ensuring the nation’s nuclear science and engineering 

workforce in future years. 

Small Modular Reactor (SMR) Licensing Technical Support.— 

The Committee recommends $54,500,000 for SMR Licensing Technical Support, $55,500,000 below fiscal year 2014 and $42,500,000 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
105 

below the budget request. The Committee directs that all fiscal 

year 2015 funding within this program is to support the second 

award for an SMR design. The Committee is aware that the need 

for fiscal year 2015 funding for the first award under the SMR Licensing Technical Support program may change throughout the 

year and will consider additional funding according to developments. 

Reactor Concepts Research, Development, and Demonstration.— The Committee recommends $138,000,000 for Reactor Concepts Research, Development, and Demonstration, $25,000,000 above fiscal 

year 2014 and $37,460,000 above the budget request. Within available funds, the recommendation provides $35,000,000 for Light 

Water Reactor Sustainability, of which $12,700,000 is to support 

advanced safety methods development and the risk informed safety 

margin characterization methodology; $2,000,000 for the joint industrial scale integrated energy systems research and development 

effort with the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy; 

and $101,000,000 for Advanced Reactor Concepts to include the following activities: $33,000,000 is for research of the fuel and graphite qualification program for the High Temperature Gas Reactor; 

$12,500,000 is for the further development of two performancebased advanced reactor concepts, of which $7,500,000 is for industry-only competition of two performance-based advanced reactor 

concepts and $5,000,000 is for the national laboratories selected to 

work with the awardees to perform the work required by the 

awardees to meet the goals of the awards; and $7,000,000 is for an 

advanced test/demonstration reactor planning study by the national laboratories, industry, and other relevant stakeholders of 

such a reactor in the U.S. The study will evaluate advanced reactor 

technology options, capabilities, and requirements within the context of national needs and public policy to support innovation in 

nuclear energy. The recommendation funds other activities within 

Advanced Reactor Concepts at the requested level and accepts the 

Department’s proposal to consolidate Advanced SMR Research and 

Development with Advanced Reactor Concepts. 

Fuel Cycle Research and Development.—The Committee recommends $182,000,000 for Fuel Cycle Research and Development, 

$4,500,000 below fiscal year 2014 and $7,100,000 below the budget 

request. Within available funds, the recommendation provides 

$60,100,000 for the Advanced Fuels Program to continue implementation of accident tolerant fuels development, of which 

$12,000,000 is for additional support of feasibility studies for accident tolerant light water reactor fuels and $5,000,000 is for additional support of capability development of transient testing, including test design, modeling, and simulation. 

The recommendation provides $55,000,000 for Used Nuclear Fuel 

Disposition (UNFD), $5,000,000 below fiscal year 2014 and 

$24,000,000 below the budget request. The budget request for 

UNFD is organized into two distinct activities: $49,000,000 for research and development activities to enable storage, transportation, 

and disposal of used nuclear fuel and wastes generated by existing 

and future nuclear cycles, and $30,000,000 for integrated waste 

management system activities to lay the groundwork and develop 

options for decision makers on the design of an integrated waste 

management system. The recommendation provides $55,000,000 for 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
106 

UNFD research and development activities, $25,000,000 above fiscal year 2014 and $6,000,000 above the budget request. Within 

available funds, the Committee directs the Department to support 

research and development of advanced sensors, online monitoring, 

and other non-destructive evaluation and examination technologies 

to ensure long-term dry cask storage integrity. Of the funding provided above the budget request for UNFD research and development, $6,000,000 is to support activities to design and certify a rail 

car or cars for use with licensed and anticipated transportation 

casks. No funding is provided for integrated waste management 

system activities. 

RADIOLOGICAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT

The Committee recommends $5,000,000 for Radiological Facilities Management, $20,000,000 below fiscal year 2014 and the same 

as the budget request, to support the continued operation of U.S. 

research reactors by providing research reactor fuel services and 

maintenance of fuel fabrication equipment. 

IDAHO FACILITIES MANAGEMENT

The Committee recommends $206,000,000 for Idaho Facilities 

Management, $9,440,000 above fiscal year 2014 and $20,090,000 

above the budget request. 

INL Operations and Infrastructure.—The Committee recommends $200,631,000 for INL Operations and Infrastructure, 

$20,469,000 above fiscal year 2014 and $20,090,000 above the 

budget request. Of the funds provided above the budget request, 

the recommendation provides an additional $5,000,000 for nuclear 

facility and support systems major maintenance; $6,000,000 for Advanced Test Reactor (ATR) safety margin improvement preliminary 

design and estimating; $4,000,000 for ATR evaporation pond liner 

replacement; and $3,000,000 for the replacement of windows, manipulators, and process equipment at the Hot Fuel Examination 

Facility. 

Construction.—The Committee recommends $5,369,000 for Construction, $11,029,000 below fiscal year 2014 and the same as the 

request, for design and construction of the Remote-Handled LowLevel Waste Disposal Project, a joint project with Naval Reactors. 

IDAHO SITEWIDE SAFEGUARDS AND SECURITY

The Committee recommends $104,000,000 for Idaho Sitewide 

Safeguards and Security, $10,000,000 above fiscal year 2014 and 

the same as the budget request. The recommendation continues to 

fund this activity out of the Nuclear Energy account, as proposed 

in the budget request, and not out of Other Defense Activities, as 

it was prior to fiscal year 2014. 

SUPERCRITICAL TRANSFORMATIONAL ELECTRIC POWER GENERATION

The Committee recommends $27,500,000 for the Supercritical 

Transformational Electric Power (STEP) Generation Initiative, 

$27,500,000 above fiscal year 2014 and the same as the budget request, to develop and scale up advanced supercritical carbon dioxide Brayton Cycle energy conversion technologies to pre-commercial 

pilot demonstration to facilitate commercial development. This is a 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
107 

joint initiative with the Office of Fossil Energy and the Solar Energy program within the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable 

Energy. 

The Committee directs that any demonstration funding be to 

support a partnership with commercial channel partners to develop 

a pilot-scale supercritical carbon dioxide demonstration facility for 

temperatures greater than 700 degrees Celsius and that has broad 

applicability to fossil, nuclear, and solar heat sources. The Department may modify the cost-share ratio in accordance with the Energy Policy Act of 2005 as well as the temperature requirement 

upon certification the operating parameters have broad applicability to fossil, nuclear, and solar heat sources that achieve the 

high performance characteristics afforded by supercritical carbon 

dioxide cycles. The Committee encourages the Office of Nuclear Energy to utilize the expertise already developed within the Office of 

Fossil Energy’s turbine program, which has experience in similar 

conversion work and component development. 

FOSSIL ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

Appropriation, 2014 ............................................................................ $562,065,000 

Budget estimate, 2015 ....................................................................... 475,500,000 

Recommended, 2015 ........................................................................... 593,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2014 .................................................................... +30,935,000 

Budget estimate, 2015 ................................................................ +117,500,000 

Fossil energy resources, such as coal, oil, and natural gas, provide approximately 82 percent of all energy used by the nation’s 

homes and businesses and will continue to provide for the majority 

of our needs for the foreseeable future. The Fossil Energy Research 

and Development program funds research, development, and demonstration activities to improve existing technologies and to develop 

next-generation systems in the full spectrum of fossil energy areas. 

At a time when fossil fuel power generation is expanding around 

the globe and gas prices remain at historically high levels, the activities funded within this program advance our nation’s position as 

a leader in fossil energy technologies and ensure that we use the 

full extent of our domestic resources safely and efficiently. 

The Committee recommends $593,000,000 for Fossil Energy Research and Development, $30,935,000 above fiscal year 2014 and 

$117,500,000 above the budget request. 

Once again, the budget request proposes severe reductions to the 

Office of Fossil Energy’s coal program and requests funding be focused on carbon capture and storage technologies and projects. This 

focus underemphasizes two areas critical to our nation’s energy future: the efficient use of existing fossil energy resources and the 

full, safe, and responsible use of untapped domestic resources. The 

Committee recommendation increases funding in these areas to improve the efficiency of power generation and to bolster efforts that 

can help protect Americans from future high gasoline and diesel 

prices. In addition to securing the domestic energy sector and protecting consumers and businesses from future increases in electricity and gas prices, technological advances in these areas will 

help American industry compete in the booming global marketplace 

for fossil energy technologies. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
108 

Liquefied Natural Gas Export Applications.—The Committee remains concerned about the backlog of liquefied natural gas export 

applications at the Department of Energy. To date, applications for 

export to non-free trade agreement (FTA) countries have been 

prone to lengthy delays, with only seven of 33 applications approved to date and multiple applications pending at the Department for more than two years. On May 29, 2014, the Department 

proposed to discontinue conditional approvals of applications for export to non-FTA countries and instead make final public interest 

determinations only after the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission conducts environmental reviews under the National Environmental Policy Act. It is unclear whether these proposed changes 

would accelerate the Department’s adjudication of applications or 

make them susceptible to further bureaucratic delays. The Committee continues to support a clearly communicated, timely process 

to reach an appropriate determination on each application and reiterates its previous direction to the Department, as first required in 

House Report 113–135 and referenced by the fiscal year 2014 Act, 

to submit to the Committees on Appropriations of the House of 

Representatives and the Senate not later than one month after enactment of this Act its plan to complete consideration of all applications filed with the Department. 

Carbon Utilization Technologies.—The Committee encourages the 

Office of Fossil Energy to examine the feasibility of carbon utilization technologies in addition to its work on enhanced oil recovery, 

such as projects that utilize large volumes of carbon dioxide in the 

production of algae. The Committee urges the Office of Fossil Energy to coordinate with the Bioenergy Technologies program within 

the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy in areas of 

mutual interest, such as algae production. 

COAL—CCS AND POWER SYSTEMS

The Committee recommends $412,000,000 for Coal Carbon Cap- ture and Storage (CCS) and Power Systems, $19,664,000 above fiscal year 2014 and $134,593,000 above the budget request. The 

Committee notes the Department improperly requested 

$25,000,000 for a natural gas carbon capture and storage demonstration project within the coal program; subprogram totals referenced within this report reflect that proposal as if it were made 

within the Natural Gas Technologies program. The Department is 

directed to use funds within the coal program only for coal research 

and development, with the exception of the Supercritical Transformational Electric Power Generation program, which has applications to all high-temperature fossil heat sources. 

The Committee encourages the Department to establish university partnerships to support ongoing fossil energy programs, to promote broader research into CCS technologies, and to expand its 

technology transfer efforts. The Department has previously funded 

several university-based CCS projects and can build on an established research base to support ongoing research and to address 

the wider implementation of CCS technologies. 

The Committee is aware that the Fossil Energy program supports research for all coal types, including lignite, which presents 

unique technical challenges due to its higher moisture content and 

lower heating value than other varieties of coal. The Committee enVerDate Mar 15 2010 06:12 Jun 21, 2014 Jkt 088390 PO 00000 Frm 00108 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR486.XXX HR486

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
109 

courages the Department to continue supporting projects that advance technology development for power sources that use lignite as 

a primary feedstock. 

Carbon Capture.—The Committee recommends $90,000,000 for 

Carbon Capture, $2,000,000 below fiscal year 2014 and $13,000,000 

above the budget request. Within available funds, the recommendation provides $12,000,000 for pre-combustion capture systems and 

$78,000,000 for post-combustion capture systems, of which funding 

above the request is for additional support of bench-scale and pilot 

projects. 

Carbon Storage.—The Committee recommends $100,000,000 for 

Carbon Storage, $8,900,000 below fiscal year 2014 and $19,916,000 

above the budget request. Within available funds, the recommendation provides $13,500,000 for Geologic Storage Technologies; 

$10,000,000 for Monitoring, Verification, Accounting, and Assessment; $2,000,000 for Carbon Use and Reuse; $8,500,000 for Carbon 

Sequestration Science; and $66,000,000 for Storage Infrastructure, 

of which not less than $6,000,000 is for additional support of enhanced oil recovery (EOR) technologies and projects, which can advance American industry and clean fossil energy power generation 

while increasing domestic oil production. 

The Committee encourages the Department to expand its support 

for carbon dioxide EOR technologies beyond the current scope and 

urges the Department to support the demonstration and deployment of promising, next-generation technologies at mature oil 

fields. 

Advanced Energy Systems.—The Committee recommends 

$107,000,000 for Advanced Energy Systems, $7,500,000 above fiscal 

year 2014 and $56,000,000 above the budget request. Within available funds, the recommendation provides $30,000,000 for Advanced 

Combustion Systems, of which funding above the request is for additional support of pressure gain reduction, chemical looping, and 

pressurized combustion technologies and projects; $27,000,000 for 

Gasification Systems, of which $8,000,000 is for the Advanced Air 

Separation Program to continue activities improving advanced air 

separation technologies; $15,000,000 for Hydrogen Turbines; 

$5,000,000 for coal-biomass to liquids activities, which seek to 

produce liquid fuels from blends of domestic coal and biomass resources with reduced emissions and land and water use through integration of carbon capture and other technologies; and $30,000,000 

for Solid Oxide Fuel Cells, which have the potential to increase 

substantially the efficiency of clean coal power generation systems, 

to create new opportunities for the efficient use of natural gas, and 

to contribute significantly to the development of alternative-fuel vehicles. 

Crosscutting Research.—The Committee recommends $50,000,000 

for Crosscutting Research, $8,075,000 above fiscal year 2014 and 

$14,708,000 above the budget request. Within available funds, the 

recommendation provides $25,000,000 for Coal Utilization Science; 

$1,500,000 for Energy Analyses; $3,900,000 for University Training 

and Research; and $18,500,000 for Plant Optimization Technologies, of which $5,000,000 is for the Advanced Ultrasupercritical 

Program to identify, test, qualify, and develop domestic suppliers 

capable of producing components from high temperature materials 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
110 

and $7,000,000 is for water management research and development. 

National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) Coal Research 

and Development.—The Committee recommends $50,000,000 for 

NETL Coal Research and Development, $11,000 below fiscal year 

2014 and $15,969,000 above the budget request. The Committee 

notes that this program was funded within Program Direction prior 

to fiscal year 2012. The Department is directed to continue including in the budget request all full-time equivalent employee information within this program, as it does under Program Direction. 

The recommendation includes $15,000,000 for the Department to 

continue its activities to economically recover rare earth elements 

from coal and coal byproduct streams, such as fly ash, coal refuse, 

and aqueous effluents, pending the submission of findings on the 

feasibility of rare earth element recovery from coal and, if determined feasible, a multi-year research and development program as 

directed in House Report 113–135 and referenced by the fiscal year 

2014 Act. 

Supercritical Transformational Electric Power (STEP) Generation 

Program.—The Committee recommends $15,000,000 within Fossil 

Energy for the STEP program, a joint initiative with the Office of 

Nuclear Energy and the Solar Energy program within the Office of 

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy to spur the development 

of the necessary designs, materials, components, operation and control systems, sensors, and understanding and characterization for 

large-scale supercritical carbon dioxide power conversion. 

The supercritical carbon dioxide Brayton cycle energy conversion 

system transforms heat energy through use of a supercritical fluid 

medium with no condensation rather than through steam and 

water and offers the possibility of higher cycle efficiency over steam 

turbines by increasing turbine inlet temperatures. Within the Fossil Energy program, higher inlet temperatures and materials development are already underway to develop ultrasupercritical steam 

turbines at 700 degrees Celsius in conjunction with coal power 

plants. At this inlet temperature, the supercritical carbon dioxide 

cycle-based plant systems offer the potential for efficiency improvements of up to four percent compared to steam systems. 

The approach to develop supercritical carbon dioxide-based power 

conversion is crosscutting except for the difference in heat sources 

and, thus, the inlet temperatures expected. Currently, only fossil 

heat sources have achieved the desired high temperature inlet conditions necessary to achieve significant thermal efficiency gains afforded by supercritical carbon dioxide cycles. The Committee, therefore, has included $15,000,000 for the Office of Fossil Energy to 

support the technology development of supercritical carbon dioxidebased power conversion from fossil heat sources, as well as 

$10,000,000 for the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy to support the technology development of supercritical carbon 

dioxide-based power conversion from solar energy. The Committee 

has also included direction within Nuclear Energy requiring the 

Department to ensure that a pilot demonstration project takes advantage of the current availability of high-temperature fossil heat 

sources. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
111 

NATURAL GAS TECHNOLOGIES

The Committee recommends $22,600,000 for Natural Gas Technologies, $2,000,000 above fiscal year 2014 and $37,400,000 below 

the budget request. 

Research.—The Committee recommends $22,600,000 for Natural 

Gas Technologies Research. Within available funds, the recommendation provides $12,700,000 for research into the cost-effective and responsible extraction of methane hydrates, a vast but 

currently inaccessible resource whose total energy reserves rival 

those from all other known fossil fuels combined; $5,200,000 for the 

Risk Based Data Management System; and $4,700,000 for midstream natural gas infrastructure research and development. The 

Committee directs that any funding for midstream natural gas infrastructure research and development be to enhance the deliverability efficiency of natural gas. 

Other than its support for the Risk Based Data Management 

System, the recommendation provides no funding for the joint research effort with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and 

the United States Geological Survey (USGS) into hydraulic fracturing technologies. The Committee notes the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2014 restricted certain fiscal year 2014 funding for 

this collaborative research effort pending submission of a finalized 

interagency research plan to the Committees on Appropriations of 

the House of Representatives and the Senate. The Department has 

not yet submitted this plan, which will allow the Committee to understand why the Department of Energy has allocated funding for 

this joint research effort the last two fiscal years despite no funding being allocated by the EPA and significantly reduced funding 

being allocated by the USGS. The Committee directs the Department to submit this plan as previously directed. The Committee 

further reiterates its previous direction that any funding in the 

area of hydraulic fracturing, including any funding to support the 

proposed joint effort with EPA and USGS, is for research into hydraulic fracturing technologies that aims both to improve the economics and recoverability of reserves and to address the health, 

safety, and environmental risks of shale gas extraction. 

Natural Gas Carbon Capture and Storage Demonstration 

Project.—The recommendation includes no funding for a Natural 

Gas Carbon Capture and Storage demonstration project. 

UNCONVENTIONAL FOSSIL ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES

The Committee recommends $13,000,000 for Unconventional Fossil Energy Technologies, $2,000,000 below fiscal year 2014 and 

$13,000,000 above the budget request. Within available funds, the 

recommendation provides not less than $12,500,000 for activities to 

improve the economic viability, safety, and environmental responsibility of offshore exploration and production in challenging conditions, of exploration and production from unconventional natural 

gas and other petroleum resources, and of production by small producers; and up to $500,000 for the Department to assess the technical landscape of scalable energy conversion technologies, such as 

gas-to-liquid or solid-to-liquid conversions or electrical power generation, for use on unconventional and underutilized energy resources such as stranded, sour, and hindered gas; anaerobic diVerDate Mar 15 2010 06:12 Jun 21, 2014 Jkt 088390 PO 00000 Frm 00111 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR486.XXX HR486

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
112 

gester wastes; small coal and waste coal streams; municipal treatment plants; and municipal solid waste. The Department is directed to report its findings to the Committees on Appropriations 

of the House of Representatives and the Senate not later than six 

months after enactment of this Act. 

NAVAL PETROLEUM AND OIL SHALE RESERVES

Appropriation, 2014 ............................................................................ $20,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2015 ....................................................................... 19,950,000 

Recommended, 2015 ........................................................................... 19,950,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2014 .................................................................... ¥50,000 

Budget estimate, 2015 ................................................................ – – – 

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 2015 budget request supports continued implementation of the disposition plan for NPR–3 as recommended in a 

June 2013 report. Fiscal year 2015 activities include disposal 

through competitive sale and continued environmental remediation. 

The Committee recommendation for the operation of the naval 

petroleum and oil shale reserves is $19,950,000, $50,000 below fiscal year 2014 and the same as the budget request. 

ELK HILLS SCHOOL LANDS FUND

Appropriation, 2014 ............................................................................ – – – 

Budget estimate, 2015 ....................................................................... $15,579,815 

Recommended, 2015 ........................................................................... 15,579,815 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2014 .................................................................... +15,579,815 

Budget estimate, 2015 ................................................................ – – – 

Payment to the State of California through the Elk Hills school 

lands fund was part of the settlement associated with the sale of 

the Naval Petroleum Reserve Number 1 (NPR–1). Under the settlement, payments to the State are to total nine percent of the net 

proceeds of the sale. Payments to date have totaled $299,520,000. 

Final equity for the sale of NPR–1 was settled in fiscal year 2011, 

allowing the Department and the State to agree on the amount of 

a final payment. 

The Committee recommendation for the final payment is 

$15,579,815, the same as the budget request. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
113 

STRATEGIC PETROLEUM RESERVE

Appropriation, 2014 ............................................................................ $189,400,000 

Budget estimate, 2015 ....................................................................... 205,000,000 

Recommended, 2015 ........................................................................... 205,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2014 .................................................................... +15,600,000 

Budget estimate, 2015 ................................................................ – – – 

The mission of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) is to store 

petroleum to reduce the adverse economic impact of a major petroleum supply interruption to the U.S. and to carry out obligations 

under the international energy program. The capacity of the Reserve is 727 million barrels. The current inventory is approximately 691 million barrels or approximately 111 days of net import 

protection for the United States economy. Operational activities, 

however, will leave approximately 59 million barrels unavailable 

for drawdown, thereby reducing the U.S. net import protection to 

102 days. Additionally, damage at one storage tank reduces the 

drawdown rate to 4.25 million barrels per day from 4.4 million barrels per day. 

The Committee recommendation for the Strategic Petroleum Re- serve is $205,000,000, $15,600,000 above fiscal year 2014 and the 

same as the budget request. The funding increase above fiscal year 

2014 is primarily for the major maintenance program to address 

aging infrastructure and the deferred maintenance backlog. 

In March 2014, the Department announced it would be conducting the first test drawdown and sale since 1990. This test sale 

of 5 million barrels was said to be necessary in light of significant 

changes in the system, including pipeline expansions, construction 

of new infrastructure, reversed flow of existing pipelines, and increased use of domestic crude oil terminals. The Committee looks 

forward to reviewing all information learned from this test sale 

once the Department’s detailed explanation of the test, required by 

statute, is received. Based on original bids, the Department estimates as much as $495,000,000 in revenues from this test sale will 

be deposited in the SPR Petroleum Account. 

In May 2014, the Secretary announced, as part of the President’s 

Climate Action Plan, the creation of the first federal regional refined petroleum product reserve. This reserve is to contain gasoline 

and be located in the Northeast United States. It is described as 

enabling a more secure and resilient energy infrastructure, building on lessons learned from Superstorm Sandy. Fuel acquisition 

and commercial storage service contracts for 4.5 years will be funded through the SPR Petroleum Account, using receipts from the 

March 2014 test sale. The Department has indicated it is conducting a series of regional fuel resiliency studies and, based on the 

results, may consider additional regional refined petroleum product 

reserves. 

The Committee acknowledges that a test drawdown sale may 

provide useful information in light of changes in the crude oil system. The Committee also acknowledges that the concept of regional 

refined petroleum product reserves may have merit and deserves 

further consideration. The timing of these announcements, the use 

of receipts from the test sale rather than appropriated funds, and 

the lack of prior consultation with the Congress, however, is extremely concerning. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
114 

The SPR has been focused on creating and maintaining a supply 

of emergency crude oil. The Department’s own web site explains 

that only crude oil is stored in the Reserve because ‘‘. . . in preparing the 1977 SPR Plan for development of the Reserve, an analysis of the U.S. refining industry indicated that the industry was 

robust and had the refining capacity to satisfy the major portion 

of the nation’s demand for petroleum products. This continues to be 

true today—over 30 years later. The U.S. petroleum import dependency is overwhelmingly crude oil, not refined products. In addition, crude oil is cheaper to acquire, store and transport than refined products. Crude oil quality does not degrade over time as do 

refined products and crude oil provides flexibility in responding to 

fluctuations in refined product market needs; whereas, refined 

products are expensive to maintain and are subject to changes in 

specifications mandated by environmental legislation.’’ To date, the 

Department has not provided any analysis to contradict this explanation or justify a change in course for the SPR. 

The Department has conceded that certain management and 

oversight functions associated with the newly announced regional 

reserve will need to be funded through the annual appropriations 

process. The Committee assumes that storage costs beyond the initial 4.5 years will need to be funded through the annual appropriations process also. Based on current estimates, these costs may represent an increase in funding requirements of 5 percent of the total 

SPR annual appropriation. For all these reasons, the creation of 

new regional refined petroleum product reserves constitutes significant policy and budgetary changes that the Department should 

have discussed with the Congress prior to making a public announcement and taking administrative action. 

The recommendation includes a general provision requiring the 

Department to provide the Committees on Appropriations of the 

House of Representatives and the Senate with advance notification 

of any test drawdown and sale or exchange of petroleum products 

from the SPR. The information required will enable the Committees to ensure that future test sales are conducted solely for the 

purpose of testing the drawdown and sales processes and not to 

generate funds outside the annual appropriations process for use 

by the Department for activities not specifically approved by the 

Congress. 

The general provision also prohibits the Department from using 

any funds remaining from revenues generated by the March 2014 

test sale for the purchase of any petroleum product other than 

crude oil, since that is the petroleum product that was sold. The 

Committee strongly believes the Congress must be a partner in 

such a significant policy and budgetary decision as expanding the 

location or types of petroleum product stored in the SPR. The Committee expects that if the Department completes regional fuel resiliency studies and determines that additional regional refined petroleum product reserves are advisable, then the Department will provide the analysis to the Congress, engage the appropriate committees in discussions over details, and include any necessary funding 

in subsequent budget requests. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
115 

NORTHEAST HOME HEATING OIL RESERVE

(INCLUDING RESCISSION OF FUNDS)

Appropriation, 2014 ............................................................................ $8,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2015 ....................................................................... 1,600,000 

Recommended, 2015 ........................................................................... 1,600,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2014 .................................................................... ¥6,400,000 

Budget estimate, 2015 ................................................................ – – – 

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 contains one million barrels of Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel 

(ULSD), with approximately one-half located in commercial facilities in Boston, Massachusetts and approximately one-half located 

in commercial facilities in Groton, Connecticut. This reserve is the 

equivalent of three to four days of emergency stocks in New England. 

The Committee recommendation for the Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve is $1,600,000, $6,400,000 below fiscal year 2014 

and the same as the budget request. After accounting for a rescission of $6,000,000 of prior-year unobligated balances in the recommendation and the use of $6,000,000 in prior-year balances in 

the budget request, the fiscal year 2015 program level is $400,000 

below fiscal year 2014 and the same as the budget request. 

ENERGY INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION

Appropriation, 2014 ............................................................................ $117,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2015 ....................................................................... 122,500,000 

Recommended, 2015 ........................................................................... 120,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2014 .................................................................... +3,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2015 ................................................................ ¥2,500,000 

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 $120,000,000 for the 

Energy Information Administration, $3,000,000 above fiscal year 

2014 and $2,500,000 below the budget request. 

NON-DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP

Appropriation, 2014 ............................................................................ $231,765,000 

Budget estimate, 2015 ....................................................................... 226,174,000 

Recommended, 2015 ........................................................................... 241,174,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2014 .................................................................... +9,409,000 

Budget estimate, 2015 ................................................................ +15,000,000 

Non-Defense Environmental Cleanup includes funds to manage 

and clean up sites used for civilian, energy research, and non-deVerDate Mar 15 2010 06:12 Jun 21, 2014 Jkt 088390 PO 00000 Frm 00115 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR486.XXX HR486

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
116 

fense related activities. These past activities resulted in radioactive, hazardous, and mixed waste contamination that requires remediation, stabilization, or some other action. The Committee recommends $241,174,000 for Non-Defense Environmental Cleanup, 

$9,409,000 above fiscal year 2014 and $15,000,000 above the budget request. To the extent possible within available funds, the Department of Energy should take advantage of near-term opportunities to realize lifecycle cost savings by accelerating completion of 

ongoing small sites projects. 

Small Sites.—The Committee recommends $65,223,000, 

$5,981,000 below fiscal year 2014 and $5,000,000 above the budget 

request. Within funding for Small Sites, $5,000,000 is provided to 

clean up outstanding Department of Energy liabilities at the 

Southwest Experimental Fast Oxide Reactor. 

Construction.—The Committee recommends $10,000,000 for 

physical security upgrades at the Fort St. Vrain Nuclear Generating Station. Considering the growing cost of continuing to store 

these materials for which the Department has assumed responsibility, the Department is directed to provide to the Committees on 

Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate not 

later than December 1, 2014, a report that describes the costs of 

continuing to store spent nuclear fuel at Fort St. Vrain and the feasibility and costs of consolidating this material at another DOE 

site. 

URANIUM ENRICHMENT DECONTAMINATION AND DECOMMISSIONING

FUND

Appropriation, 2014 ............................................................................ $598,823,000 

Budget estimate, 2015 ....................................................................... 530,976,000 

Recommended, 2015 ........................................................................... 585,976,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2014 .................................................................... ¥12,847,000 

Budget estimate, 2015 ................................................................ +55,000,000 

The Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund was established by the Energy Policy Act of 1992 to 

pay for the cleanup of gaseous diffusion plants at Portsmouth, 

Ohio; Paducah, Kentucky; and the East Tennessee Technology 

Park in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. The Committee recommends 

$585,976,000 for activities funded from the Uranium Enrichment 

Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund, $12,847,000 below 

fiscal year 2014 and $55,000,000 above the budget request. 

Oak Ridge.—The Committee recommends $157,898,000, 

$38,092,000 below fiscal year 2014 and $20,000,000 above the 

budget request. The Committee commends the Department for its 

high level of performance in completing demolition of the K–25 

building and provides funding above the budget request to preserve 

momentum on completing cleanup work at the site. 

Paducah.—The Committee recommends $207,215,000, 

$58,005,000 below fiscal year 2014 and the same as the budget request. The Committee is aware that the Department intends to 

carry over approximately $107,000,000 into fiscal year 2015 as a 

result of the delays in the turnover of the gaseous diffusion plant 

from the United States Enrichment Corporation. With the additional funds provided in this bill, the Department will have approximately $314,000,000 to conduct cleanup activities in fiscal 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
117 

year 2015. The Department is obligated to decommission and decontaminate the gaseous diffusion plant and other structures at the 

Paducah site in a timely fashion, but has done a poor job explaining its future cleanup plans to the Committee, stakeholders, and 

the public. The Committee does not support placing the gaseous 

diffusion plant in a cold and dark state. The Department is directed to submit to the Committees on Appropriations of the House 

of Representatives and the Senate not later than 30 days after enactment a report that clearly describes the anticipated timeline for 

decontamination and decommissioning of the Paducah gaseous diffusion plant and that includes the Department’s five-year projected 

cost and schedule planning assumptions for accomplishing work at 

the site. 

Portsmouth.—The Committee recommends $175,000,000, 

$37,387,000 above fiscal year 2014 and $15,000,000 above the 

budget request. Additional funds above the budget request are to 

compensate for reduced uranium barter proceeds anticipated by the 

continued depression of uranium market prices. 

Title X Uranium/Thorium Reimbursements.—The Committee 

recommends $20,000,000 to reimburse private licensees for the federal government’s share of the cost of cleaning up uranium and 

thorium processing sites in accordance with Title X of the Energy 

Policy Act of 1992, $20,000,000 above fiscal year 2014 and 

$20,000,000 above the budget request. The Department reports 

that it has $54,586,000 in approved but unpaid claim balances, but 

the Department has failed to provide plans for addressing these liabilities. These cleanup activities are important to the health and 

safety of a number of communities, and the recommendation provides funding above the budget request to reduce the backlog of 

outstanding claims. The Committee expects the Department to provide sufficient resources within future budget plans to reimburse licensees for approved claim balances. 

SCIENCE

Appropriation, 2014 ............................................................................ $5,071,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2015 ....................................................................... 5,111,155,000 

Recommended, 2015 ........................................................................... 5,071,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2014 .................................................................... – – – 

Budget estimate, 2015 ................................................................ ¥40,155,000 

The Office of Science funds basic science research across national 

laboratories, universities, and other research institutions in support of American innovation and the Department’s energy-focused 

missions. Through research in physics, biology, chemistry, and 

other science disciplines, these activities expand scientific understanding and secure the nation’s leadership in energy innovation. 

The Office of Science funds a significant portion of science research 

nationwide. 

The Science program office includes Advanced Scientific Computing Research, Basic Energy Sciences, Biological and Environmental Research, Fusion Energy Sciences, High Energy Physics, 

Nuclear Physics, Workforce Development for Teachers and Scientists, Science Laboratories Infrastructure, Safeguards and Security, and Program Direction. The Committee has placed a high priority on funding these activities within the limited resources availVerDate Mar 15 2010 06:12 Jun 21, 2014 Jkt 088390 PO 00000 Frm 00117 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR486.XXX HR486

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
118 

able in fiscal year 2015, given the private sector is not likely to 

fund research whose findings either have high non-commercial 

value or are not likely to be commercialized in the near- or medium-term. However, this work is vital to sustaining the scientific 

leadership of the United States and can provide the underpinnings 

for valuable intellectual property in the coming decades. The Committee recommendation is $5,071,000,000 for the Office 

of Science, the same as fiscal year 2014 and $40,155,000 below the 

budget request. 

ADVANCED SCIENTIFIC COMPUTING RESEARCH

The Advanced Scientific Computing Research program develops 

and hosts some of the world’s fastest computing and network capabilities to enable science and energy modeling, simulation, and research. The Committee recommends $541,000,000 for Advanced 

Scientific Computing Research, $62,407,000 above fiscal year 2014 

and the same as the budget request. 

Exascale Computing.—The Committee continues to support the 

exascale initiative, which seeks to develop the next generation of 

computing systems three orders of magnitude faster than today’s 

fastest systems. This decade-long effort is critical to enabling basic 

and energy-focused science research not previously possible and to 

maintaining the nation’s global leadership in computing technologies. The recommendation includes the requested level of 

$91,000,000. 

High Performance Computing and Network Facilities.—In addition to the long-term exascale intiative, the Committee supports 

continued upgrade and operation of the Leadership Computing Facilities at Argonne and Oak Ridge National Laboratories and of the 

High Performance Production Computing capabilities at Lawrence 

Berkeley National Laboratory. These systems’ capabilities are a 

critical component of science and industrial research and development across the nation, and they should be maintained as worldleading facilities. The recommendation includes the requested levels of $80,320,000 for the Argonne Leadership Computing Facility; 

$104,317,000 for the Oak Ridge Leadership Computing Facility; 

and $69,000,000 for the National Energy Research Scientific Computing Center at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. 

All other activities within the Advanced Scientific Computing Research program are funded at the requested level. 

BASIC ENERGY SCIENCES

The Basic Energy Sciences program funds basic research in materials science, chemistry, geoscience, and bioscience. The science 

breakthroughs in this program enable a broad array of innovation 

in energy technologies and other industries critical to American 

economic competitiveness. The Committee recommends 

$1,702,000,000 for Basic Energy Sciences, $10,757,000 below fiscal 

year 2014 and $104,500,000 below the budget request. 

The program’s budget consists of funding for research, the operation of existing user facilities, and the design, procurement, and 

construction of new facilities and equipment. The long-term success 

of the program hinges on striking a careful balance among these 

three areas. However, the increasing level of research commitments 

and completion of new facilities make it difficult to adequately fund 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
119 

all three components of the Basic Energy Sciences program within 

existing budgetary constraints. The Committee strongly cautions 

the Department against assuming an ever-increasing budget when 

planning the balance among facility runtime, construction, and research funding. 

Research.—The Committee recommends $1,574,000,000 for Basic 

Energy Sciences research, $36,757,000 below fiscal year 2014 and 

$93,800,000 below the budget request. Within available funds, the 

recommendation provides $100,000,000 for Energy Frontier Research Centers. 

For materials science and engineering research, the rec- ommendation includes $371,382,000, of which $10,000,000 is for 

the Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research and 

$8,000,000 is for Computational Materials Sciences. All other activities within this subprogram are funded at the requested level, 

including $24,175,000 for the third year of the Batteries and Energy Storage Innovation Hub. 

For chemical sciences, geosciences, and biosciences, the rec- ommendation includes $291,280,000. The recommendation includes 

no funding for the Fuels from Sunlight Innovation Hub, which received its final year of funding for its initial five-year award term 

in fiscal year 2014. The Committee notes the Department has made 

no decision for continued funding for the hub beyond the initial 

term, which ends in September 2015. 

For scientific user facilities, the recommendation includes 

$911,338,000, of which $32,168,000 is for research; $42,500,000 is 

for major items of equipment; and $9,300,000 is for other projects 

costs. The recommendation includes $799,529,000 for facilities operations of the nation’s synchrotron radiation light sources, high 

flux neutron sources, and nanoscale science research centers, of 

which $248,490,000 is for the High-Flux Neutron Sources to operate at optimal levels and $105,000,000 is for the National Synchrotron Light Source-II at Brookhaven National Laboratory to transition from early operations to full operations during fiscal year 

2015. 

Construction.—The Committee recommends $128,000,000 for 

Basic Energy Sciences construction, $26,000,000 above fiscal year 

2014 and $10,700,000 below the budget request. The recommendation supports the second year of construction funding for the revised LINAC Coherent Light Source II project to include the addition of a superconducting linear accelerator and additional 

undulators to generate an unprecedented high-repetition-rate freeelectron laser. 

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 $540,000,000 for Biological and Environmental Research, $70,196,000 below fiscal year 2014 and 

$88,000,000 below the budget request. 

The Committee continues to support the Biological Systems 

Science subprogram, which focuses on the biology of plant and microbes with the ultimate goal of enabling future generations of 

biofuels from a variety of sustainable domestic biomass sources. In 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
120 

addition to reducing our nation’s dependence on petroleum-based 

fuels with chronically high prices, the biofuels produced through 

this program’s science breakthroughs can lower the cost of, improve 

the sustainability of, and ease industry’s transition to those fuel alternatives. 

The recommendation includes $75,000,000 for the third year of 

the second five-year term of the three Bioenergy Research Centers, 

the same as fiscal year 2014 and the budget request. The recommendation includes no funding for the new Climate Model Development and Validation activity. 

Quickly advancing capabilities in high performance computing, 

informatics, data science and analysis, and simulation and modeling have a profound impact on scientific discovery and innovation. The Committee encourages the Biological Systems Science 

subprogram to leverage the computational, data, and informatics 

capabilities of the national laboratories, research universities, and 

other stakeholders to advance its biological mission, and to see that 

the benefits of these resources are accessible to a broad set of researchers. 

FUSION ENERGY SCIENCES

The Fusion Energy Sciences program supports basic research 

and experimentation aiming to harness nuclear fusion for energy 

production. The Committee recommends $540,000,000 for Fusion 

Energy Sciences, $34,323,000 above fiscal year 2014 and 

$124,000,000 above the budget request. Within available funds, the 

recommendation provides not less than $71,220,000 for the National Spherical Torus Experiment (NSTX); not less than 

$80,250,000 for DIII–D; and not less than $22,260,000 for Alcator 

C–Mod. 

Research.—The Committee recommends $315,000,000 for the domestic fusion program, $9,323,000 above fiscal year 2014 and 

$49,000,000 above the budget request. The domestic fusion program is a critical component of United States science leadership 

and a necessary building block of any successful fusion project, including the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor 

(ITER). 

For the science subprogram, which advances the predictive understanding of plasma confinement, dynamics, and interactions 

with surrounding materials, the recommendation provides 

$184,138,000, of which $35,500,000 is for DIII–D research; 

$8,000,000 is for Alcator C–Mod research; $11,545,000 is for international research; $28,500,000 is for NSTX research; $17,500,000 is 

for High Energy Density Laboratory Plasmas; $25,170,000 is for 

theory; and $9,500,000 is for Scientific Discovery through Advanced 

Computing. 

For facilities operations, which support operation, maintenance, 

and modifications to the research equipment and diagnostics at the 

major U.S. fusion facilities, the recommendation provides 

$103,855,000, of which $44,750,000 is for DIII–D; $38,250,000 is for 

NSTX operations; $3,470,000 is for the NSTX upgrade project; and 

$14,260,000 is for Alcator C–Mod. 

For enabling research and development, which develops and continually improves the hardware, materials, and technology incorporated into existing and next-generation fusion research facilities, 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
121 

the recommendation provides $27,007,000, of which $13,597,000 is 

for Materials Research. 

Construction.—The Committee recommends $225,000,000 for the 

U.S. contribution to the ITER project, $25,000,000 above fiscal year 

2014 and $75,000,000 above the budget request. Within available 

funds, the recommendation provides not less than $200,000,000 for 

in-kind hardware contributions and up to $25,000,000 for cash contributions to the ITER Organization. The recommendation continues a reprogramming control point for the ITER project, as well 

as bill language restricting cash contributions to the ITER Organization pending implementation of the Third Biennial International 

Organization Management Assessment Report recommendations. 

The Committee continues its support for a robust fusion program 

and believes ITER to be an important international collaboration 

that represents a major step forward for the fusion energy sciences. 

However, the Committee is alarmed by the breadth of the findings 

in the latest management assessment report and dismayed that the 

main challenge for the project remains its management, rather 

than the science and technology of the experiment itself. The Committee interprets the collection of these shortfalls as a serious 

threat to the ultimate success of the project. The Committee will 

not tolerate lower project management standards for scientific experiments conducted outside of the U.S. compared to those conducted inside of the U.S., particularly those that result in cost overruns, lengthy delays, and unrealistic schedules. 

Nevertheless, if successful, the ITER project continues to represent a significant leap forward towards the ultimate goal of a 

prototype commercial fusion reactor. It has the support of 35 countries and seven member organizations, of which the U.S. is responsible for approximately nine percent of the total cost and in-kind 

hardware contributions. It remains the most practical U.S. investment in the fusion energy sciences, pending implementation of the 

management assessment reforms. The Committee strongly supports the recent efforts of the ITER Council to adopt the latest 

management assessment recommendations and, by the summer of 

2015, to adopt a realistic schedule and funding profile for the ITER 

project among all member nations. For fiscal year 2015, the Committee includes funding to allow the ITER Council the time it 

needs to implement these recommendations as soon as practicable. 

Should the ITER Council fail in its attempts to create a strong 

project culture within the ITER Organization, the Committee questions whether the project can succeed as a scientific experiment 

and, as such, will be forced to reconsider its support for the international project. 

The Committee is discouraged by the Department’s budget request of $150,000,000 for ITER, of which $110,000,000 is for inkind hardware contributions and $40,000,000 is for cash contributions. If adopted, the request would only serve to extend the 

timeline of the project by six months to two years and result in cost 

overruns—both for U.S. in-kind hardware contributions and the 

U.S. share of the ITER Organization—for no apparent reason. This 

is not a fiscally responsible proposal. According to the Department’s 

latest cost estimate of the ITER project, which was submitted before the fiscal year 2015 budget request, the U.S. share to reach 

first plasma—the primary major milestone on the path to total 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
122 

project completion—is $2,751,885,000, with the total U.S. share of 

construction, operating and decommissioning costs at 

$3,900,000,000 excluding contingency funding. The recommendation supports the Department’s latest estimate to meet the U.S. obligations to first plasma by 2023. 

HIGH ENERGY PHYSICS

The High Energy Physics program supports fundamental research into the elementary constituents of matter and energy, and 

ultimately into the nature of space and time. The program focuses 

on particle physics theory and experimentation in three areas: the 

energy frontier, which investigates new particles and fundamental 

forces through high-energy experimentation; the intensity frontier, 

which focuses on rare events to better understand our fundamental 

model of the universe’s elementary constituents; and the cosmic 

frontier, which investigates the nature of the universe and its form 

of matter and energy on cosmic scales. The Committee recommends 

$775,000,000 for High Energy Physics, $22,521,000 below fiscal 

year 2014 and $31,000,000 above the budget request. 

The Committee notes that the high energy physics research community is currently engaged in developing a ten-year plan for U.S. 

particle physics, which will include a ten-year report by the Particle Physics Project Prioritization Panel under various budget scenarios. The Committee applauds the Department for this undertaking and continues to support a clearly articulated vision under 

realistic budget scenarios for each of the Science programs. The 

Committee encourages the Department to make modifications to its 

high energy physics fiscal year 2015 budget request as necessary 

based on the findings of this multi-step planning process. 

The Department is directed to submit to the Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate not 

later than 90 days after enactment of this Act a work plan that 

would advance second-generation dark matter direct detection experiments, stage four cosmic microwave background experiments, 

and the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument. 

Within available funds, the recommendation includes 

$22,000,000 for the Long Baseline Neutrino Experiment (LBNE) 

and its alternatives, to include $10,000,000 for research and development and $12,000,000 for project engineering and design activities. The recommendation includes no funding for long-lead procurements or construction activities for the LBNE project. The 

Committee recognizes the importance of this project to maintaining 

American leadership in the intensity frontier and to basic science 

discovery of neutrino and standard model physics. However, the 

Committee also recognizes that LBNE construction must be affordable under existing budgetary constraints. 

The recommendation also includes $23,000,000 to support Superconducting Radio Frequency Accelerator research and development, 

as well as facilities and infrastructure. 

Research.—The Committee recommends $738,000,000 for High 

Energy Physics research, $8,521,000 below fiscal year 2014 and 

$19,000,000 above the budget request. The recommendation rejects 

the Department’s proposal to reduce core research funding by three 

percent and instead restores funding for all affected activities. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
123 

For energy frontier experimental physics, the recommendation 

provides $157,888,000. Within available funds, the recommendation 

provides $15,000,000 for two new major items of equipment, consisting of $7,500,000 for the A Large Toroidal Large Hadron 

Collider (LHC) Apparatus Detector Upgrade and $7,500,000 for the 

LHC Compact Muon Solenoid Detector Upgrade. 

For intensity frontier experimental physics, the recommendation 

provides $266,691,000. Within available funds, the recommendation 

provides $52,946,000 for research; $179,775,000 for facility operations and experimental support, of which $156,796,000 is for 

Fermi Complex Operations and $15,000,000 is for Homestake 

Mine; and $33,970,000 for projects, of which $13,000,000 is for the 

Muon g-2 Experiment and $10,000,000 is for Future Projects research and development. 

For cosmic frontier experimental physics, the recommendation 

provides $103,056,000. Within available funds, the recommendation 

provides $50,364,000 for research; $11,692,000 for facility operations and experimental support; and $41,000,000 for projects, of 

which $35,000,000 is for the Large Synoptic Survey Telescope Camera and $6,000,000 is for the Second Generation Dark Matter experiments, to include $2,000,000 for design activities as a major 

item of equipment. 

For other subprograms that comprise the high energy physics 

program, the recommendation provides $60,670,000 for theoretical 

and computational physics; $125,076,000 for advanced technology 

research and development, of which $54,736,000 is for General Accelerators; and $3,000,000 for accelerator stewardship. 

Construction.—The Committee recommends $37,000,000 for High 

Energy Physics construction, $14,000,000 below fiscal year 2014 

and $12,000,000 above the budget request. Within available funds, 

the recommendation includes $25,000,000 for the Muon to Electron 

Conversion Experiment. 

NUCLEAR PHYSICS

The Nuclear Physics program supports basic research into the 

fundamental particles that compose nuclear matter, how they 

interact, and how they combine to form the different types of matter observed in the universe today. The Committee recommends 

$600,000,000 for Nuclear Physics, $30,062,000 above fiscal year 

2014 and $6,427,000 above the budget request. 

Operations and Maintenance.—The Committee recommends 

$493,500,000 for Nuclear Physics operations and maintenance, 

$4,062,000 above fiscal year 2014 and $6,427,000 above the budget 

request. For medium energy nuclear physics, the recommendation 

provides $153,842,000, of which $100,000,000 is for operations at 

Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility to support up to 27 

weeks of runtime at the 12 GeV Continuous Electron Beam Accelerator Facility. For heavy ion nuclear physics, the recommendation 

provides $201,466,000, of which $167,572,000 is for operations at 

Brookhaven National Lab to support 22 weeks of runtime at the 

Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider. All activities within the low energy 

nuclear physics, nuclear theory, and isotope development and production for research and applications subprograms are funded at 

the requested level. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
124 

Construction.—The Committee recommends $106,500,000 for Nuclear Physics construction, $26,000,000 above fiscal year 2014 and 

the same as the request. The recommended level of funding includes the requested level of $90,000,000 for the Facility for Rare 

Isotope Beams. 

NUCLEAR WASTE DISPOSAL

Appropriation, 2014 ............................................................................ – – – 

Budget estimate, 2015 ....................................................................... – – – 

Recommended, 2014 ........................................................................... $150,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2014 .................................................................... +150,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2015 ................................................................ +150,000,000 

The Committee recommendation includes $150,000,000 for Nuclear Waste Disposal, $150,000,000 above fiscal year 2014 and 

$150,000,000 above the budget request, to continue the Department of Energy’s statutorily required activities for the Yucca 

Mountain license application. Within available funds, the Department is directed to reestablish its organizations to respond to the 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission during its adjudicatory process, 

and to otherwise fully support the Yucca Mountain licensing process. 

While the Committee notes that some of the recommendations 

within the Administration’s Strategy for the Management and Disposal of Used Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste may 

have merit, Congress has neither formally considered nor approved 

them. In addition, the implementation of many of the recommendations would require changes to authorizing statutes. Nuclear waste 

disposal is too complex of an issue for the Administration to unilaterally develop or implement policy, and the Committee encourages 

the Administration to take this into account while formulating its 

fiscal year 2016 budget request. 

The Committee reiterates that the Administration’s repeated 

statements that Yucca Mountain is not a ‘‘workable option’’ ignores 

both the support of the host community and the expressed intent 

of Congress. 

ADVANCED RESEARCH PROJECTS AGENCY—ENERGY

Appropriation, 2014 ............................................................................ $280,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2015 ....................................................................... 325,000,000 

Recommended, 2015 ........................................................................... 280,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2014 .................................................................... – – – 

Budget estimate, 2015 ................................................................ ¥45,000,000 

The Advanced Research Projects Agency—Energy (ARPA–E) supports research aimed at rapidly developing energy technologies 

whose development and commercialization are too risky to attract 

sufficient private sector investment but are capable of significantly 

changing the energy sector to address our critical economic and energy security challenges. Projects funded by ARPA–E include such 

wide-ranging areas as production processes for transportation fuel 

alternatives that can reduce our dependence on imported oil, heating and cooling technologies with exceptionally high energy efficiency, and improvements in petroleum refining processes. 

The Committee recommends $280,000,000 for the Advanced Research Projects Agency—Energy, the same as fiscal year 2014 and 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
125 

$45,000,000 below the budget request. Within available funds, the 

recommendation provides $28,000,000 for Program Direction. 

TITLE 17 INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY LOAN GUARANTEE PROGRAM

ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES

GROSS APPROPRIATION

Appropriation, 2014 ............................................................................ $42,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2015 ....................................................................... 42,000,000 

Recommended, 2015 ........................................................................... 42,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2014 .................................................................... – – – 

Budget estimate, 2015 ................................................................ – – – 

OFFSETTING COLLECTIONS

Appropriation, 2014 ............................................................................ $¥22,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2015 ....................................................................... ¥25,000,000 

Recommended, 2015 ........................................................................... ¥25,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2014 .................................................................... +3,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2015 ................................................................ – – – 

NET APPROPRIATION

Appropriation, 2014 ............................................................................ $20,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2015 ....................................................................... 17,000,000 

Recommended, 2015 ........................................................................... 17,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2014 .................................................................... ¥3,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2015 ................................................................ – – – 

The Committee recommends administrative expenses of 

$42,000,000, the same as fiscal year 2014 and the same as the 

budget request, which are offset by fees collected pursuant to section 1702(h) of the Energy Policy Act, for a final net appropriation 

of $17,000,000. 

The Committee is concerned about the credit review, compliance, 

and reporting functions that the Department has in place to adequately monitor risk. The Department is directed to provide a report to the Committee not later than 60 days after enactment of 

this Act evaluating the effectiveness of the Department’s portfolio 

monitoring and risk management efforts. This report is to also include a plan for fully complying with its credit review, compliance, 

and reporting functions. 

ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY VEHICLES MANUFACTURING LOAN

PROGRAM

Appropriation, 2014 ............................................................................ $6,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2015 ....................................................................... 4,000,000 

Recommended, 2015 ........................................................................... 4,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2014 .................................................................... ¥2,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2015 ................................................................ – – – 

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 adVerDate Mar 15 2010 06:12 Jun 21, 2014 Jkt 088390 PO 00000 Frm 00125 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR486.XXX HR486

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
126 

vanced technology vehicles or qualified components, and for associated engineering integration costs. The Committee recommends $4,000,000 for the Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loan Program, $2,000,000 below 

fiscal year 2014 and the same as the budget request. The funds 

provided support administrative operations only. 

CLEAN COAL TECHNOLOGY

(INCLUDING RESCISSION OF FUNDS)

Appropriation, 2014 ............................................................................ – – – 

Budget estimate, 2015 ....................................................................... $¥6,600,000 

Recommended, 2015 ........................................................................... ¥6,600,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2014 .................................................................... ¥6,600,000 

Budget estimate, 2015 ................................................................ – – – 

The Clean Coal Technology Program was established in 1985 to 

perform commercial-scale demonstrations of advanced coal-based 

technologies. All projects within this program have concluded and 

only closeout activities remain. The fiscal year 2015 budget request 

proposes to cancel $6,600,000 in unobligated balances in this account. For fiscal year 2015, the Committee recommends a rescission of $6,600,000, the same as the budget request. 

DEPARTMENTAL ADMINISTRATION

GROSS APPROPRIATION

Appropriation, 2014 ............................................................................ $234,637,000 

Budget estimate, 2015 ....................................................................... 248,223,000 

Recommended, 2015 ........................................................................... 255,171,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2014 .................................................................... +20,534,000 

Budget estimate, 2015 ................................................................ 6,948,000 

REVENUES

Appropriation, 2014 ............................................................................ $¥108,188,000 

Budget estimate, 2015 ....................................................................... ¥119,171,000 

Recommended, 2015 ........................................................................... ¥119,171,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2014 .................................................................... ¥10,983,000 

Budget estimate, 2015 ................................................................ – – – 

NET APPROPRIATION

Appropriation, 2014 ............................................................................ $126,449,000 

Budget estimate, 2015 ....................................................................... 129,052,000 

Recommended, 2015 ........................................................................... 136,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2014 .................................................................... +9,551,000 

Budget estimate, 2015 ................................................................ 6,948,000 

The Committee recommendation for Departmental Administration is $255,171,000, $20,534,000 above fiscal year 2014 and 

$6,948,000 above the budget request. The recommendation for revenues is $119,171,000 as requested, resulting in a net appropriation 

of $136,000,000. Funding recommended for Departmental Administration provides for general management and program support 

functions benefiting all elements of the Department of Energy, including the National Nuclear Security Administration. The account 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
127 

funds a wide array of Headquarters activities not directly associated with the execution of specific programs. 

Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs.—The recommendation includes $4,700,000, $1,600,000 less than the request. 

International Affairs.—The Committee is aware the Department 

of Energy is examining the potential for leveraging its expertise in 

support of energy-related issues in Ukraine. The Department is directed to report to the Committees on Appropriations of the House 

of Representatives and the Senate not later than July 30, 2014, on 

what appropriate technical assistance the Department could provide in support of U.S. foreign assistance through the State Department. 

Office of Indian Energy Policy and Programs.—The Committee 

recommends $16,000,000, $16,000,000 above the budget request, to 

coordinate and implement energy management, conservation, education, and delivery systems for Native Americans. The Committee 

includes full funding for the Department’s request in this account 

rather than in a new account, as requested. 

Office of Human Capital.—The recommendation includes 

$24,500,000 for the Office of Human Capital, $900,000 below the 

budget request. 

Minority Economic Impact.—The recommendation includes 

$2,800,000 for Minority Economic Impact, $1,127,000 above the 

budget request. 

Office of Management.—The recommendation includes 

$67,352,000 for the Office of Management, $941,000 below the 

budget request. 

Office of Energy Policy and Systems Analysis.—The recommendation includes $31,181,000, $7,364,000 below the budget request. 

The Committee includes requested funding to support the development of the Quadrennial Energy Review. If the Department wishes 

to pursue activities related to grid modernization and consumer energy consumption, the Committee will consider funding for those 

projects in the appropriate program accounts. Until then, these activities should continue in the program accounts where they have 

been traditionally funded. 

Use of Prior-Year Balances.—The recommendation includes the 

use of $4,205,000 in prior-year balances, as requested. 

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

Appropriation, 2014 ............................................................................ $42,120,000 

Budget estimate, 2015 ....................................................................... 39,868,000 

Recommended, 2015 ........................................................................... 42,120,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2014 .................................................................... – – – 

Budget estimate, 2015 ................................................................ +2,252,000 

The Office of the Inspector General performs agency-wide audit, 

inspection, and investigative functions to identify and correct management and administrative deficiencies that create conditions for 

existing or potential instances of fraud, waste, and mismanagement. The audit function provides financial and performance audits 

of programs and operations. The inspections function provides independent inspections and analyses of the effectiveness, efficiency, 

and economy of programs and operations. The investigative funcVerDate Mar 15 2010 06:12 Jun 21, 2014 Jkt 088390 PO 00000 Frm 00127 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR486.XXX HR486

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
128 

tion provides for the detection and investigation of improper and illegal activities involving programs, personnel, and operations. 

The budget request proposes the use of $10,420,000 in prior-year 

balances to offset fiscal year 2015 needs. While the recommendation does not direct the use of specific prior-year balances, the Office of the Inspector General should ensure it is effectively managing its prior-year funds and is using those balances to fully support its mission in fiscal year 2015. 

The Committee recommendation is $42,120,000, the same as fiscal year 2014 and $2,252,000 above 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 Management 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 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. 

The Office of the NNSA Administrator oversees all NNSA programs. 

Laboratory Directed Research and Development.—The fiscal year 

2014 Act updated the percentage of funds that the Secretary could 

authorize for laboratory directed research and development 

(LDRD). It has come to the attention of the Committee that the 

NNSA is considering allowing some NNSA laboratories to charge 

as much as 7.75 percent to DOE programs in fiscal year 2014 because it has interpreted the statutory cap to apply to the total operating budget of the laboratory, which includes additional amounts 

received from Work For Others (WFO). The bill contains a general 

provision which clarifies congressional intent that no greater than 

the statutory cap, established at 6 percent in the fiscal year 2014 

Act, shall be charged to any individual DOE activity for LDRD. The 

provision should not be interpreted to limit the ability of the national laboratories to charge LDRD to WFO or to conflict with the 

Department’s policy to charge the same LDRD percentage that is 

authorized for DOE programs to WFO customers. 

The Committee is concerned that the LDRD funds derived from 

cleanup work performed by the Office of Environmental Management do not sufficiently benefit the cleanup mission of the Department. The Department must provide additional information on the 

use of these funds to better justify to the Committee why cleanup 

funds should continue to be charged for LDRD. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
129 

The Committee is concerned that the Department is not accurately representing the size and nature of individual LDRD 

projects in the annual LDRD report to Congress. To improve reporting, the Department is directed to include the total amount of 

funding awarded to each LDRD project if that LDRD project is a 

multi-year award and to identify all major items of equipment and 

real property assets to be funded by any LDRD project, consistent 

with other Committee reporting requirements for multi-year 

grants, minor construction, and capital equipment. 

Overpayments into the NNSA’s Contractor Defined Benefit Pension Plans.—The budget request includes more than $400,000,000 

to avoid potential future costs predicted in the NNSA’s latest outyear projections for its contractor defined benefit pension plans. 

These additional payments represent amounts that are above requirements established by the Congress in the Pension Protection 

Act and other applicable legislation. Defined benefit pension costs 

are highly dependent on market conditions and the Department’s 

ability to accurately predict payments several years in advance is 

inherently limited. With emergent national security needs such as 

the recovery of the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) and timesensitive modernization plans at risk, the actual needs today outweigh the hypothetical future benefits of overpayment. None of the 

funds for the NNSA shall be available to make contractor defined 

benefit pension payments above requirements in fiscal year 2015 if 

those payments would result in a funded status in excess of 100 

percent. This direction shall not be interpreted to permit the Department to transfer funds already contributed to a pension plan 

or reduce payments into any contractor employee pension plan 

below statutory or contractual requirements. The recommendation 

contains a provision that allows the Secretary of Energy to transfer 

up to $120,000,000 of NNSA funds that are requested for payments 

above requirements to meet the needs of WIPP recovery. These 

funds shall be proportionally derived according to the normal distribution of pension costs for the NNSA, with 75 percent of the 

total amount to be derived from Weapons Activities and 25 percent 

of the total amount to be derived from Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation. 

WEAPONS ACTIVITIES

Appropriation, 2014 ............................................................................ $7,781,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2015 ....................................................................... 8,314,902,000 

Recommended, 2015 ........................................................................... 8,204,209,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2014 .................................................................... +423,209,000 

Budget estimate, 2015 ................................................................ ¥110,693,000 

Weapons Activities provides funding to ensure the safety, security, reliability, and effectiveness 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 a fiscal year 2015 program level of 

$8,204,209,000 for Weapons Activities, $423,209,000 above fiscal 

year 2014 and $110,693,000 below the budget request. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
130 

DIRECTED STOCKPILE WORK

Directed Stockpile Work includes all activities that directly support weapons in the nuclear stockpile, including maintenance, research, development, engineering, certification, dismantlement, and 

disposal activities. The Committee recommends $2,696,960,000 for 

Directed Stockpile Work, $254,927,000 above fiscal year 2014 and 

$49,644,000 below the budget request. 

Life Extension Programs.—The Committee recommends full funding for the NNSA’s life extension programs (LEPs), including the 

ongoing refurbishment efforts for the B61, W76, and W88. The recommendation includes $17,018,000 for a new life extension study 

for the cruise missile warhead, $7,600,000 above the budget request. 

In response to the reporting requirements in the fiscal year 2014 

Act, the NNSA has provided a detailed analysis of its alternatives 

for extending the life of the B61 and has certified to the Committee 

that the less costly alternatives that were originally considered do 

not address the needs for extending the life of the B61. Rather, 

pursuing a more limited near-term scope would drive up costs considerably due to the successive updates that would still be needed 

to extend the life of the B61 to an extent comparable to the W76– 

1. The NNSA’s analysis also showed that the cost of the B61 LEP 

is much higher than the cost of the W76–1 largely due to the complexity of the B61’s nonnuclear components. While the Committee 

supports continued full funding for the B61 LEP, the high cost of 

the program will continue to exert significant pressure on the 

NNSA’s budget. The process of conducting a comprehensive analysis of alternatives, informed by independently-verified cost estimates, must be incorporated into the NNSA’s normal way of doing 

business. The bill contains an updated provision that permanently 

establishes a requirement to conduct a comprehensive analysis of 

alternatives as part of all future life extension programs. The 

NNSA is directed to provide to the Committees on Appropriations 

of the House of Representatives and the Senate not later than 30 

days after enactment of this Act a report that describes the interagency plan for revising and updating its joint Phase 6.x warhead 

acquisition process to ensure these improvements are formalized 

and integrated into future life extension programs. 

Weapons Dismantlement and Disposition.—The Committee recommends $54,264,000, the same as fiscal year 2014 and 

$24,256,000 above the budget request. The NNSA continues to cut 

funding for dismantlement in its budget request, despite a clear requirement to continue to dismantle warheads, sustain production 

line capacity, and harvest materials for recycling to meet stockpile 

needs. 

Research and Development Certification and Safety.—The Committee recommends $154,508,000, $3,375,000 above fiscal year 

2014 and $46,971,000 below the budget request. No funding is provided for technology maturation or exploratory development activities, the same as in fiscal year 2014. It is essential that the NNSA 

establish dedicated funding to conduct Significant Finding Investigations and respond to stockpile issues, rather than continuing to 

fund technology maturation and exploratory development activities 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
131 

within Stockpile Services in an effort to distribute funding for these 

activities across multiple control points. 

Tritium Readiness.—The Committee recommends $138,053,000, 

$58,053,000 above fiscal year 2014 and $2,000,000 below the budget request. The recommendation includes a one-time increase for 

the purchase of low enriched uranium to fuel multiple reactors. No 

funds shall be available for the NNSA to enter into a future agreement to supply low enriched fuel to reactors that are not being actively used for tritium production. 

CAMPAIGNS

Campaigns are focused efforts involving the three weapons laboratories, the Nevada National Security Site, the weapons production plants, and selected external organizations to address critical 

capabilities needed to achieve program objectives. For Campaigns, 

the Committee recommends $1,726,989,000, $68,662,000 above fiscal year 2014 and $114,358,000 below the budget request. 

Science.—The Committee recommends $395,091,000, $25,368,000 

above fiscal year 2014 and $61,339,000 below the budget request. 

The recommendation provides a substantial increase for a robust 

experimental effort in fiscal year 2015 to better understand the 

properties of plutonium and ensure the NNSA can support certification requirements for pit reuse as an option for future LEPs. The 

recommendation includes full funding for Primary Assessment 

Technologies to expand predictive science capabilities to enhance 

U.S. capabilities to assess foreign state weapons activities. The recommendation includes no funding for new radiography capabilities 

at U1a within Advanced Radiography. The NNSA has outstanding 

reporting requirements related to its scaled experiments program 

and must be able to provide a clear and direct linkage to stockpile 

needs if additional radiography capabilities are needed. 

Inertial Confinement Fusion and High Yield.—The Committee 

recommends $511,993,000, $1,964,000 below fiscal year 2014 and 

$902,000 below the budget request. Within these funds, 

$68,000,000 is for the OMEGA Laser Facility at the University of 

Rochester and $328,500,000 is for the National Ignition Facility. 

Readiness.—The Committee previously directed the NNSA to 

eliminate the Readiness Campaign and provides no funding in fiscal year 2015, $125,909,000 below the budget request. The recommendation includes funding requested for these and related activities under Advanced Manufacturing as described below. 

Advanced Manufacturing.—The Committee recommends 

$93,900,000 to develop, demonstrate, and utilize advanced technologies that are needed to enhance the NNSA’s secure manufacturing capabilities and ensure timely support for the production of 

nuclear weapons and other critical national security components. 

The NNSA has requested funding for a variety of manufacturing 

development-related projects under Readiness Campaign, Recapitalization, Material Recycle and Recovery, and Directed Stockpile 

Work. The Committee recommends consolidating funding for these 

related activities within Campaigns because these development efforts represent more focused programmatic investments that have 

the potential to shorten production schedules, reduce risks, enhance personnel safety, and ultimately improve the NNSA’s ability 

to meet its production requirements on time and within budget. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
132 

Development funds within Advanced Manufacturing shall be limited to low technology readiness levels, whereas production engineering that is at a sufficient maturity level as to be associated 

with a particular LEP or project should be planned and executed 

within funds for that LEP or project. Development activities that 

are related to a construction project should be fully incorporated 

into that project’s performance baseline at Critical Decision-2. 

The NNSA has yet to close out recommendations from a 2009 

Government Accountability Office report that attributed the significant cost growth for the W76 LEP to the NNSA’s failure to plan 

for manufacturing of a critical material used in the W76. In addition, the Government Accountability Office recently investigated 

the NNSA’s manufacturing technology maturation efforts for the 

Uranium Processing Facility (UPF) and identified numerous risks 

in developing and integrating new production technologies. The 

Committee is seriously concerned that the NNSA has failed to integrate its technology development requirements with its major construction plans and has primarily funded UPF technology development from plant-directed research and development, which should 

not be used to meet programmatic needs. These production technologies remain at low technology readiness levels and will require 

dedicated funding to ensure they are sufficiently mature prior to 

selection in the UPF project to reduce technology-related risks. 

Within funds for Advanced Manufacturing, the recommendation 

includes $12,600,000 for development of Additive Manufacturing 

technologies that will support secure stockpile production needs, including $2,100,000 for a secure additive manufacturing machine at 

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. The recommendation includes $60,000,000 for Component Manufacturing Development for 

development activities requested within the Readiness Campaign. 

The recommendation includes $21,300,000 for Processing Technology Development to develop and demonstrate new production 

technologies and ensure new technologies reach optimal levels of 

maturity prior to critical project and program acquisition milestones. Within Processing Technology Development, the recommendation includes $5,000,000 for Direct Electrolytic Reduction, 

$2,000,000 for Enriched Uranium Salt Synthesis, $7,800,000 for 

the Y–12 Calciner, and $6,500,000 for Y–12 Electrorefiners, as requested within the budget request for Recapitalization and Material Recycle and Recovery. 

READINESS IN TECHNICAL BASE AND FACILITIES

Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities (RTBF) provides 

funding for the operations, maintenance, and recapitalization of 

NNSA facilities and infrastructure. The Committee recommends 

$2,045,962,000 for RTBF, $21,463,000 below fiscal year 2014 and 

$9,559,000 below the budget request. 

The Committee takes a dim view of the NNSA’s prioritization of 

its infrastructure needs in its fiscal year 2015 budget request. The 

NNSA historically has failed to adequately fund its facility maintenance and recapitalization needs. The NNSA’s budget request proposes to defer ten percent of its preventative maintenance planned 

at each of its eight sites, activities that are critical to ensure long 

term sustainment and viability of the infrastructure. At the same 

time, the budget request proposes to start two new projects that toVerDate Mar 15 2010 06:12 Jun 21, 2014 Jkt 088390 PO 00000 Frm 00132 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR486.XXX HR486

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
133 

gether will cost approximately $65,000,000 in order to replace 

emergency operations facilities that are not yet beyond their useful 

lifetimes. Meanwhile, buildings are literally falling apart elsewhere 

in the complex and the NNSA has yet to request project funding 

to address those safety and security needs. The Committee will 

continue to prioritize infrastructure funding within Weapons Activities to address the backlog of facilities operating beyond their 

useful lifetimes and to ensure that legacy facilities can be operated 

safely and securely. 

Maintenance and Repair of Facilities.—The Committee recommends $227,000,000, $591,000 below fiscal year 2014 and 

$22,000,000 above the budget request. The Committee is disappointed that the NNSA continues to undercut maintenance and 

repair in its budget request. The recommendation includes funding 

above the request to restore overall maintenance and repair funding to the fiscal year 2014 level. Within this amount, $10,000,000 

is provided to address immediate health and safety issues at the 

NNSA Albuquerque Complex while the NNSA reexamines its longterm recapitalization plans using line-item project funds as directed below. 

Recapitalization.—The Committee recommends $224,600,000, 

$44,600,000 above fiscal year 2014 and $15,279,000 above the 

budget request. Despite instructions to submit a project list in the 

budget request, the NNSA was able to provide details on only a 

portion of its Recapitalization funds. In addition, the NNSA was 

considerably late in providing an accounting of its use of fiscal year 

2014 funds and did not provide sufficient detail in its report. The 

Committee requires considerably better planning and reporting 

from the NNSA to ensure that it will efficiently execute funds for 

the highest priority projects. As a result, the Committee will designate funding for specific recapitalization projects until the NNSA 

can demonstrate it has made improvement in its infrastructure 

planning processes. The NNSA shall allocate Recapitalization funds 

according to the table that follows. To the extent possible, the recommendation provides full funding for small sized projects, instead 

of funding those projects over multiple years as in the budget request. The recommendation includes $23,400,000 for advanced 

manufacturing projects within the Advanced Manufacturing Campaign, instead of within Recapitalization as requested. Including 

the shift of those projects, the Committee’s recommendation for recapitalization-related projects totals $248,000,000, which represents a substantial investment to sustain and modernize the 

NNSA’s nuclear security enterprise. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
134 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 03 here 87057A.045
135 

Albuquerque Complex Upgrades.—The Committee recommends 

$12,000,000 for recapitalization of the NNSA’s federal complex at 

Albuquerque, rather than $19,900,000 to lease new space under Office of the Administrator as in the budget request. Twenty years 

of deferred maintenance with no major upgrades has resulted in 

deteriorating conditions at the Albuquerque Complex. The Committee is concerned that the NNSA has failed to take any action 

to sustain its existing infrastructure and has instead made a decision to lease commercial space that does not provide the best value 

to the government, does not take responsibility for ultimate disposition of the existing infrastructure, and will introduce security 

vulnerabilities and operational inefficiencies by locating secure federal functions off-site. 

The NNSA’s previous efforts to address these recapitalization 

needs resulted in an overbuilt and unaffordable big-box design that 

did not leverage the ability to use existing facilities that are not yet 

beyond their useful life and that prioritized goals for obtaining energy efficiency savings over the need to provide clean and safe facilities for its workers. In addition, the NNSA inappropriately 

eliminated an option to construct several smaller stand-alone facilities early on in its analysis. The Committee directs the NNSA to 

undertake a new analysis of alternatives using an expedited red 

team approach to develop a more cost-effective solution that might 

accelerate delivery of the NNSA’s most immediate and pressing 

federal space needs. In conducting this analysis, the NNSA is directed to make use of recent Government Accountability Office 

workspace utilization studies. These studies suggest ways for federal agencies to efficiently and effectively minimize the square footage usage per person and achieve savings significantly below the 

220 square foot per person assumed in the NNSA’s analysis of its 

space needs, which is considerably greater than the prevailing 

standard workspace average of 190 square feet per person. 

15–D–613 Emergency Operations Center, Y–12.—The Committee 

recommends $2,000,000, the same as the budget request, to construct a new facility that will address seismic and safety deficiencies identified by the DOE Office of Health, Safety and Security. 

12–D–301 TRU Waste Facilities, LANL.—The Committee recommends no funding, $6,938,000 below the budget request. The 

budget request is to provide additional contingency funds for the 

project, which the NNSA estimates at 25 percent of the total construction costs. The Committee will consider a request for additional contingency funds for the project in future years if performance on the project indicates that the estimated contingency 

amount is actually needed. 

06–D–141, Uranium Processing Facility, Y–12.—The Committee 

recommends $335,000,000, $26,000,000 above fiscal year 2014 and 

the same as the budget request. No funding shall be available for 

site preparation or facility construction until the NNSA achieves 90 

percent design completion for the entire project. The Committee 

supports the Department’s decision to move forward with a more 

affordable alternative for the project that would expedite the 

NNSA’s plans to move out of Building 9212. 

04–D–125, Chemistry and Metallurgy Research (CMR) Replacement Project, LANL.—The Committee recommends $35,700,000, inVerDate Mar 15 2010 06:12 Jun 21, 2014 Jkt 088390 PO 00000 Frm 00135 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR486.XXX HR486

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
136 

stead of providing funds for these activities under Program Readiness as in the budget request. This approach is consistent with the 

Committee’s previous direction to the NNSA to carry out all CMR 

replacement activities in accordance with DOE Order 413.3B, rather than within operations funding where there is little transparency or accountability for delivering these activities on time and 

within budget. While the capacity and amount of process equipment needed may be evolving due to changing programmatic requirements for plutonium, the scope of the additional work being 

requested is consistent with the original mission need to provide 

analytic chemistry and material characterization space in a different facility than the legacy CMR building. Similarly, PF–4 reconfiguration activities are also appropriate to be conducted as part 

of the original CMR Replacement project so long as they are limited to re-equipping lab space for capabilities that were previously 

housed in the legacy CMR building. Construction of new modular 

facilities and installation of equipment within PF–4 to establish enhanced pit production capabilities are not sufficiently related to the 

original mission need of the existing project, and the Committee 

does not support the inclusion of these activities as subprojects 

within the existing CMR replacement project. 

SECURE TRANSPORTATION ASSET

The Office of Secure Transportation Asset 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 $219,000,000 for Secure Transportation Asset, $9,000,000 above fiscal year 2014 and $14,813,000 

below the budget request. 

The reduction below the budget request is due to excessive prioryear balances in program direction. In addition, the NNSA has not 

provided sufficiently detailed acquisition plans for the Mobile 

Guardian Transporter and its vehicle and tractor fleet. The NNSA 

is directed to provide to the Committees on Appropriations of the 

House of Representatives and the Senate not later than 60 days 

after enactment of this Act an acquisition plan that details the 

number of transporters, replacement vehicles, and tractors to be 

procured, according to a five-year cost and schedule baseline. 

NUCLEAR COUNTERTERRORISM INCIDENT RESPONSE

The NNSA Office of Emergency Operations responds to and mitigates nuclear and radiological incidents worldwide in order to defend the nation from the threat of nuclear terrorism. The Committee recommends $202,940,000 for Nuclear Counterterrorism Incident Response (NCTIR), $25,303,000 below fiscal year 2014 and 

$29,500,000 above the budget request. Within this amount, the recommendation includes $25,000,000 for Render Safe, disablement, 

and other emergency response-related research and development 

activities that traditionally have been funded within Weapons Activities, $25,000,000 above the budget request; $142,577,000 for 

emergency response activities, $3,500,000 above the budget request, to fully support the NNSA costs of the ninth stabilization 

city as part of its joint program with the Federal Bureau of Investigation; and $14,850,000 for Operations Support, $3,000,000 above 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
137 

the request, to address improvements needed to ensure the 

functionality of the Department of Energy’s Operations Center. 

The Committee is concerned that the nation’s emergency response capabilities necessary to respond to domestic nuclear incidents are not being appropriately funded because the NNSA has 

prioritized expansion of counterproliferation-related activities that 

are driven by international cooperative nuclear security and other 

nonproliferation goals. To address gaps in the NNSA’s support of 

counterproliferation and other cooperative nuclear security missions, the NNSA created the Office of Counterterrorism and 

Counterproliferation and requested separate funding for this office 

within Weapons Activities, instead of integrating these activities 

under the Deputy Administrator for Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation, a Senate-confirmed position whose existing statutory responsibilities for preventing the spread of nuclear materials, technology, 

and expertise, providing for international nuclear safety, and detecting the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction worldwide 

are clearly established under the NNSA Act. While the recommendation does not provide constraints on which NNSA organizations should execute funds provided for NCTIR, the recommendation provides no funding requested specifically for Counterterrorism and Counterproliferation Programs within Weapons Activities. The Committee recommends consolidating research and development activities related to countering nuclear device proliferation 

within Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation, as part of broader direction to reinvigorate the NNSA’s nonproliferation research and development base. 

The recommendation includes $4,595,000 for international emergency management and cooperation, $2,000,000 below the request. 

The Committee has funded international emergency management 

and cooperation activities within NCTIR since fiscal year 2009, 

when the NNSA requested to transfer these activities from Defense 

Nuclear Nonproliferation to Weapons Activities. The NNSA should 

reconsider transferring these activities back to Defense Nuclear 

Nonproliferation, where they may be better integrated with other 

international cooperative nuclear security activities. 

SITE STEWARDSHIP

Site Stewardship provides funding for Long-Term Stewardship, 

Nuclear Materials Integration, and Minority Serving Institution 

Partnerships. Funding for Corporate Project Management has been 

shifted to the Office of the Administrator to consolidate funding for 

support services contracts. The Committee recommends 

$79,531,000 for Site Stewardship, $7,795,000 below fiscal year 2014 

and $2,918,000 below the budget request. 

Minority Serving Institution Partnerships.—The Committee recommends $14,531,000, the same as fiscal year 2014 and $1,300,000 

above the budget request. The Committee is disappointed the budget request reduced funding for this important program and provides additional funding above the budget request to sustain the 

current level of funding for the program. The Committee supports 

the educational and research partnerships of the Department and 

encourages additional partnerships to be developed with minority 

serving institutions, including Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs), to ensure diversity within the next generation 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
138 

of scientists and researchers addressing nuclear security and environmental management issues. 

DEFENSE NUCLEAR SECURITY

Defense Nuclear Security is responsible for developing and implementing security programs for the protection, control, and accountability of materials and for the physical security of all facilities of 

the nuclear security enterprise. The Committee recommends 

$650,123,000 for Defense Nuclear Security, $14,858,000 below fiscal year 2014 and $32,000,000 above the budget request. The Committee is concerned that the NNSA proposed a seven percent reduction in funding for Defense Nuclear Security and no construction 

funds to address the backlog of maintenance and upgrades needed 

at NNSA sites. In addition, the NNSA has overestimated the savings it expects to realize from organizational and contract reforms 

and has not assured the Committee it can provide adequate protective force levels at a lower level of funding. The Committee expects 

the NNSA to request a more appropriate level of funding in future 

years to ensure protection of special nuclear materials at the 

NNSA sites. 

14–D–710 Device Assembly Facility (DAF) Argus Installation 

Project, NNSS.—The Committee recommends $14,000,000, 

$14,000,000 above fiscal year 2014 and the budget request. This 

project was deferred in the fiscal year 2014 Act while the NNSA 

implemented organizational reforms. The recommendation allows 

the NNSA to proceed with its plans to upgrade aging security systems at the Nevada Nuclear Security Site. 

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND CYBER SECURITY

Information Technology and Cyber Security provides funding for 

the NNSA’s cyber infrastructure, cyber development activities, and 

information technology needs. The Committee recommends 

$179,646,000 for Information Technology and Cyber Security, 

$34,578,000 above fiscal year 2014 and the same as the budget request. 

LEGACY CONTRACTOR PENSIONS

The Committee provides $307,058,000 for payments into the legacy University of California contractor employee defined benefit 

pension plans, $27,461,000 above fiscal year 2014 and the same as 

the budget request. 

DOMESTIC URANIUM ENRICHMENT

Domestic Uranium Enrichment provides research, development, 

operations, and maintenance funding to sustain the availability of 

low enriched uranium to support stockpile stewardship and other 

national security needs. The Committee recommends $96,000,000 

for Domestic Uranium Enrichment, $34,000,000 above fiscal year 

2014 and $96,000,000 above the budget request. 

The NNSA has concluded its project to demonstrate the technical 

viability of centrifuges with the United States Enrichment Corporation. Funding for Domestic Uranium Enrichment is provided to 

maintain those centrifuges in warm standby while the Department 

conducts further analysis of its tritium and enriched uranium reVerDate Mar 15 2010 06:12 Jun 21, 2014 Jkt 088390 PO 00000 Frm 00138 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR486.XXX HR486

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
139 

quirements. No funds shall be used to construct additional centrifuges in fiscal year 2015. The Committee will consider further 

investments in domestic enriched uranium capabilities only after 

the Secretary of Energy and the Secretary of Defense conduct a 

bottoms-up interagency reevaluation of the active and reserve tritium stockpile requirements, and the Nuclear Weapons Council certifies to the Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representative and the Senate that the revalidated tritium stockpile 

amounts to be maintained by the Department of Energy represent 

the minimum active and reserve national security requirements. To 

ensure that the results of such analysis are available for consideration of the fiscal year 2016 budget request, the Nuclear Weapons 

Council should provide this certification to the Committees not 

later than March 1, 2015. 

The NNSA is further directed to conduct an analysis of the process technologies available for providing enriched uranium, produce 

a conceptualized plant size for the options evaluated, and estimate 

the costs and time necessary for build-out of such plants. As part 

of this analysis, the NNSA shall include an option that represents 

the minimum train needed to produce LEU for anticipated tritium 

production needs, and compare the return on investment of additional acquisition costs needed to operate a full national security 

train at optimal efficiency. The NNSA shall provide the results of 

its analysis to the Committee on Appropriations of the House of 

Representatives and the Senate not later than June 1, 2015. 

United States Enrichment Corporation Fund.—The Committee 

notes that despite the Government Accountability Office’s May 

2014 decision that the authorized uses of the United States Enrichment Corporation Fund (Fund) have been fulfilled, the Department 

is considering using approximately $40,000,000 of the Fund to support domestic uranium enrichment capabilities through the end of 

fiscal year 2014. The Committee notes that the fiscal year 2014 Act 

made available transfer authority, which the Department has not 

utilized, to support these activities. The Committee recognizes that 

funding for domestic enrichment for defense purposes must be balanced against all other priorities and includes discretionary appropriations for such activities. The recommendation includes a general provision that rescinds the remaining balances of the Fund. 

DEFENSE NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION 

(INCLUDING RESCISSION OF FUNDS)

Appropriation, 2014 ............................................................................ $1,954,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2015 ....................................................................... 1,555,156,000 

Recommended, 2015 ........................................................................... 1,555,156,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2014 .................................................................... ¥398,844,000 

Budget estimate, 2015 ................................................................ – – – 

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation includes funding for Research 

and Development; Nonproliferation and International Security; 

International Material Protection and Cooperation; Fissile Materials Disposition; and the Global Threat Reduction Initiative. The 

Committee recommendation for new budget authority for Defense 

Nuclear Nonproliferation is $1,592,156,000, $361,844,000 below fiscal year 2014 and $37,000,000 above the budget request. After accounting for the rescission of $37,000,000 in prior-year unobligated 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
140 

balances in this bill, the recommendation is $1,555,156,000, 

$398,844,000 below fiscal year 2014 and the same as the budget request. 

Continuing Nonproliferation Activities in Russia.—In consideration of recent Russian aggression in Ukraine and the resultant 

changes in the geopolitical environment, the NNSA must reexamine existing strategies for securing nuclear materials in Russia to 

confirm the United States government is not inappropriately subsidizing the cost of the Russian government or other Russian interests. Furthermore, it is essential that the NNSA demonstrate that 

its activities with Russia are effectively addressing U.S. national 

security interests according to measurable national security goals. 

The recommendation includes a provision that requires the Secretary of Energy to reassess the Department of Energy’s engagement with Russia and to certify to the Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate that any ongoing and new contracts or agreements made with Russia are in 

the national security interest of the United States. While the Secretary of Energy undertakes this strategic reassessment, the Committee provides no funds to enter into new contracts or agreements 

in the Russian Federation in fiscal year 2015. In addition, the 

Committee directs the use of funds provided in previous years for 

nonproliferation projects in Russia, but which have not yet been expended, to fund additional nonproliferation-related work in fiscal 

year 2015. The NNSA is directed to request new budget authority 

for any new work or agreements with Russia in future years. While 

eliminating all funding requested for new projects in Russia in fiscal year 2015, the recommendation nevertheless sustains overall 

funding for the NNSA’s nonproliferation activities at the level of 

the budget request to reflect the importance of these activities. 

Reinvesting in the Nonproliferation Capabilities of the DOE National Laboratories.—The Department of Energy’s national laboratories are world-class institutions that provide a national capability 

for developing innovative and advanced technical solutions to difficult nuclear security problems. However, the NNSA has failed to 

fully access those capabilities and continues to reduce funding in 

its budget request for nonproliferation-related research and development, among other nonproliferation programs. Considering the 

large reductions in the budget request, it appears that the Office 

of Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation (DNN) has not sufficiently 

adapted its programs to meet evolving nuclear security challenges. 

Rather, the NNSA continues to operate in a fragmented manner 

where DNN is limited to carrying out only traditional nonproliferation programs, many of which are in their sunset years. While 

DNN has supported several Nuclear Security Summits, it has assigned responsibility for many follow up initiatives to other organizations. Further, the NNSA has adopted a dispersed approach to 

address strategic gaps in NNSA’s support of counterproliferation 

missions. Specifically, the NNSA created the Office of Counterterrorism and Counterproliferation, instead of integrating these activities under the Deputy Administrator for Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation, a Senate-confirmed position whose existing statutory 

responsibilities for preventing the spread of nuclear materials, 

technology, and expertise, providing for international nuclear safety, and detecting the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
141 

worldwide are clearly established under the NNSA Act. Given the 

concerns regarding the spread of nuclear technologies and the continued reluctance of DNN to evolve its programs to meet the latest 

threats, the Committee recommendation reprioritizes funding to reinvigorate the nonproliferation research and development base of 

the Department’s national laboratories, provide focus to nuclear 

forensics and attribution activities, and integrate new counterproliferation-related research and development into the NNSA’s ongoing nonproliferation activities. 

DEFENSE NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION RESEARCH AND

DEVELOPMENT

The Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation Research and Development program conducts applied research, development, testing, and 

evaluation of science and technology to respond to threats to national security posed by the proliferation of nuclear weapons and 

special nuclear materials. The Committee recommends 

$452,709,000 for Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation Research and 

Development, $53,871,000 above fiscal year 2014 and $91,901,000 

above the budget request. 

Nuclear Forensics and Attribution.—The NNSA has failed to respond to Committee direction to name a lead office within the 

NNSA that is responsible for coordinating development of a national nuclear forensics capability. Therefore, the recommendation 

provides $25,000,000 for nuclear forensics and attribution to focus 

NNSA’s efforts that support development of U.S. nuclear forensics 

capabilities. 

Counterproliferation Research and Development.—The recommendation includes $51,901,000 for counterproliferation-related research and development activities that were requested to be funded 

within Weapons Activities under a new program for Counterterrorism and Counterproliferation. The recommendation for Weapons 

Activities only includes funding for counterterrorism activities that 

have been traditionally funded within that account and includes 

funds for the remaining requested activities within Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation Research and Development. 

NONPROLIFERATION AND INTERNATIONAL SECURITY

The Nonproliferation and International Security program applies 

technical and policy expertise to facilitate nuclear cooperation, safeguard and secure nuclear materials, and provide solutions for treaty monitoring and compliance. The Committee recommends 

$144,246,000 for Nonproliferation and International Security, 

$15,571,000 above fiscal year 2014 and $2,887,000 above the budget request. Funding above the request is provided to accelerate 

technical review of export licenses for dual-use commodities to better support U.S. industry and to provide enhanced capabilities to 

determine proliferation trends and impacts. 

INTERNATIONAL MATERIALS PROTECTION AND COOPERATION

The International Materials Protection and Cooperation (IMPC) 

program works cooperatively with partner countries to secure 

weapons and weapons-usable nuclear material in order to improve 

the physical security at facilities that possess or process significant 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
142 

quantities of materials that are of proliferation concern. The Committee recommends $233,367,000 for IMPC activities, $186,258,000 

below fiscal year 2014 and $72,100,000 below the budget request. 

The Committee recommendation does not include $72,100,000 that 

was requested for Second Line of Defense activities downblending 

operations, physical security upgrades, and sustainability of facilities in the Russian Federation. No IMPC or other NNSA funds may 

be used for the purchase of the Multiple Integrated Laser Engagement System (MILES) for Russia. 

While Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction and other successful cooperative nuclear security initiatives have concluded, follow-on proposals to continue related work must be reassessed from 

a U.S. national security standpoint. For example, the recently completed Megatons to Megawatts program represented a programmatic model that exemplified how a cooperative nuclear security agreement could provide high national security value as well 

as other national benefits. Under Megatons to Megawatts, Russian 

weapons-origin highly enriched uranium (HEU) was downblended 

to low enriched uranium (LEU) so that it could never again be used 

for nuclear weapons, and the resulting LEU was made available to 

U.S. nuclear utilities in what was effectively a mutually advantageous commercial deal. The NNSA is requesting to continue to 

pay for Russian HEU downblending operations for nuclear material 

that is not verified to be Russian weapons-origin and that is not 

made available to U.S. utilities. Russia has extremely large stockpiles of HEU and the relatively small quantity of HEU that is reduced by the NNSA’s IMPC program has little impact on the overall size of Russian HEU stockpiles. Rather, continuing the program 

appears to primarily benefit Russian interests by providing access 

in Russia to a source of LEU fuel whose production is effectively 

subsidized by the United States. As the NNSA reanalyzes its cooperative nonproliferation activities with Russia, the NNSA must ensure that only those activities which are effectively and measurably 

contributing to U.S. nuclear security objectives are continued. 

FISSILE MATERIALS DISPOSITION

The Fissile Materials Disposition (FMD) program is responsible 

for meeting commitments under the U.S.-Russia Plutonium Management and Disposition Agreement. The Committee recommendation provides $430,000,000 for fissile materials disposition, 

$96,057,000 below fiscal year 2014 and $118,875,000 above the 

budget request. 

U.S. Plutonium Disposition.—The Committee recommends 

$60,000,000, $97,557,000 below fiscal year 2014 and $25,000,000 

below the budget request. Funding below the budget request is a 

result of the transfer of MOX Other Project Costs (OPCs) to the 

MOX project as described below. 

Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility, Savannah River, SC.— 

The Committee recommends $345,000,000, $1,500,000 above fiscal 

year 2014 and $149,000,000 above the budget request. The recommended amount includes $25,000,000 requested for MOX OPCs 

within U.S. plutonium disposition, consistent with the Committee’s 

recommendation for other major DOE projects with a total project 

cost greater than $750,000,000. Consolidating OPCs into one 

project line improves integration of startup and commissioning acVerDate Mar 15 2010 06:12 Jun 21, 2014 Jkt 088390 PO 00000 Frm 00142 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR486.XXX HR486

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
143 

tivities, eliminates a common need for reprogramming, and provides greater transparency into the costs of major construction 

projects. After accounting for this shift, the total amount recommended for the MOX project is $38,500,000 below fiscal year 

2014 and $124,000,000 above the budget request. 

The Plutonium Management Disposition Agreement (PMDA) represents the only active and verifiable agreement that the United 

States has with the Russian Federation to permanently dispose of 

weapons-grade plutonium. The Department has released a report 

that describes five alternatives to meeting U.S. commitments under 

the PMDA that suggests downblending the material and disposing 

of it at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) may be less expensive than continuing to construct the MOX plant. However, the 

Committee is concerned that the Department has not accurately 

represented the comparative life cycle costs of these alternatives. 

The NNSA has little capability to accurately estimate programmatic and project costs and did not seek outside assistance to 

independently verify its lifecycle cost estimates. 

The omissions in the lifecycle cost estimates are numerous. While 

the NNSA explains that feedstock production capabilities are needed for each option, the cost of providing feedstock is not estimated 

consistently across the options. There is no attempt to quantify 

project risks, and the Department’s analysis does not properly account for risk reduction strategies that are already mature, such as 

contract modifications that could cap construction costs. Considering the very long timeline for the downblending option, estimated 

to take 43 years or nearly twice as long as the MOX option, quantifying those risks could have a significant impact on the life-cycle 

costs of downblending. In addition, the NNSA has made little 

progress working with nuclear utilities to identify potential sources 

of income that might offset MOX operating costs and has not attempted to quantify the economic benefit to ratepayers of providing 

access to a relatively inexpensive source of nuclear fuel. Furthermore, and perhaps most significantly, the NNSA has identified 

some issues but has not provided critical analysis on the feasibility 

of downblending considering the necessity of gaining congressional 

support for changing the Land Withdrawal Act for WIPP at a time 

when the Department’s mismanagement of its cleanup operations 

has resulted in the shutdown of that facility. 

To address these inadequacies, the NNSA is directed to prepare 

an independent lifecycle cost estimate for the MOX construction 

and downblending options, and to provide to the Committees on 

Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate not 

later than 60 days after enactment of this Act a report that describes those lifecycle costs and discusses the relative costs and 

benefits and feasibility of the two options. The Department shall 

discontinue further study of all other options. The Department’s alternatives report did not suggest that any of the other three alternatives identified would save costs, which was the Department’s 

primary rationale for reconsidering potential alternatives. There is 

no value to continuing to analyze alternatives that are not feasible 

and do not save costs. Rather, establishing a protracted deadline 

for making a decision drives up costs, wastes additional taxpayer 

funds, and delays resolution of project management issues that 

must be addressed no matter which alternative is selected. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
144 

The recommendation provides funding above the budget request 

to sustain the current pace of construction on the MOX facility in 

fiscal year 2015 and includes a provision that prohibits the use of 

MOX funding to place the project in cold standby. 

Waste Solidification Building, Savannah River, SC.—The Committee recommends no funding, the same as fiscal year 2014 and 

$5,125,000 below the budget request. The Committee will not allocate additional taxpayer dollars to this project that continues to fall 

further behind schedule. The NNSA must first exhaust all options 

to pay for further cost increases out of prior-year funds. 

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 $342,888,000 for GTRI activities, $99,214,000 below fiscal year 2014 and $9,400,000 above 

the budget request. 

HEU Reactor Conversions.—The Committee recommends 

$118,083,000, $43,917,000 below fiscal year 2014 and $4,300,000 

below the budget request. The reduction below the budget request 

eliminates funding for conversion costs of the reactor at the 

Kurchatov Institute in Russia which has ties to the Russian military. 

International Nuclear and Radiological Material Removal and 

Protection.—The Committee recommends $161,173,000, to remove 

and secure nuclear and radiological materials around the world, 

$38,929,000 below fiscal year 2014 and $28,700,000 above the 

budget request. The Committee recommendation does not include 

$11,300,000 that was requested to upgrade security systems in 

Russian facilities housing radiological materials and does not include $10,000,000 that was requested to consolidate nuclear materials within Russia to reduce its financial burden associated with 

maintaining those security systems. The Committee directs those 

funds be used instead to pay for storage, management, and processing of spent foreign fuel removals at the Savannah River Site 

and Idaho National Laboratory. The NNSA has not been accounting for the costs of its material removal program and is placing an 

increasing financial burden on the Defense Environmental Cleanup 

program to pay for these costs. Funding for Defense Environmental 

Cleanup is intended to be used for the cleanup of the legacy of the 

U.S. nuclear weapons program, not to meet the costs of international material consolidation and removal activities in support of 

U.S. nonproliferation goals. The cost sharing arrangement between 

the NNSA and Office of Environmental Management (EM) is nearly ten years old and was negotiated before the President’s Four 

Year Goal brought increased quantities of foreign spent fuel into 

the U.S. for management and disposal by EM. The Department is 

directed to reanalyze the costs of the GTRI program and to provide 

to the Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate not later than 90 days after enactment of this 

Act a report describing an updated cost sharing arrangement for 

spent fuel storage, processing, and EM support of other NNSA missions, such as feedstock production. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
145 

Domestic Radiological Material Removal and Protection.—The 

Committee recommends $63,632,000, $16,368,000 below fiscal year 

2014 and $15,000,000 below the budget request. The fiscal year 

2014 Act contained a large increase for these activities that at the 

time of the writing of this report is approximately 78 percent unencumbered. The Committee will not support continuing such high 

levels of funding if the NNSA cannot demonstrate it can efficiently 

execute those funds in a timely manner. 

FUNDING ADJUSTMENTS

Rescissions.—The Committee rescinds $37,000,000 in unobligated 

and unencumbered prior-year balances that were planned for 

projects in Russia, but which the NNSA has no plan to use in fiscal 

year 2014. 

Use of prior-year balances.—The Committee directs the use of 

$113,963,000 in prior-year balances to offset fiscal year 2015 needs 

as described above. Prior-year balances shall be derived from 

unencumbered funds that the NNSA planned to use for projects in 

Russia in fiscal years 2014 and 2015. The NNSA should request 

new budget authority to support new agreements or contracts in 

Russia that are certified to be in the U.S. national security interest 

in future budget requests. 

NAVAL REACTORS

Appropriation, 2014 ............................................................................ $1,095,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2015 ....................................................................... 1,377,100,000 

Recommended, 2015 ........................................................................... 1,215,342,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2014 .................................................................... +120,342,000 

Budget estimate, 2015 ................................................................ ¥161,758,000 

The Naval Reactors (NR) program is responsible for all aspects 

of naval nuclear propulsion from technology development through 

reactor operations to ultimate reactor plant disposal. The program 

provides for the design, development, testing, and evaluation of improved naval nuclear propulsion plants and reactor cores. The 

Committee recommendation for Naval Reactors is $1,215,342,000, 

$120,342,000 above fiscal year 2014 and $161,758,000 below the 

budget request. The Committee recommendation fully funds development of the Ohio-Replacement ballistic missile submarine and 

refueling of the S8G prototype, which is closely linked to the OhioReplacement. The Committee continues to provide funding separately for these high-priority activities. 

Naval Reactors Budget Review.—The Committee remains concerned about the high year-to-year increases that NR is using for 

its programmatic planning basis in future years. In order to carry 

out its plans, NR’s out-year budgets would need to grow dramatically, an unlikely scenario considering the current fiscal environment. Even if the increases planned were attainable, NR’s five-year 

budget figures in the budget request appear to artificially limit 

funding in order to fit within the Administration’s projected budget 

caps. In light of these fiscal realities, NR is directed to conduct a 

multi-year review of its programmatic requirements to better understand how funding levels below its five-year projections might 

impact its long-term strategies. As part of its review, NR should 

consider how its projects and activities may need to be reprioritized 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
146 

or re-sequenced in order to stay on track with the highest priority 

goals. NR is directed to submit to the Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate not later than 

90 days after enactment of this Act a report that describes the results of its review and includes an integrated priority list of its 

budgetary requirements. 

Ohio-Replacement Reactor Systems Development.—The Committee recommends $156,100,000, $29,700,000 above fiscal year 

2014 and the same as the budget request. The Committee’s recommendation prioritizes increases for new development work associated with the Ohio-replacement above base development activities 

funded under NR Development that are not associated with a 

major development effort. 

S8G Prototype Refueling.—The Committee recommends 

$126,400,000, $18,000,000 below fiscal year 2014 and the same as 

the budget request. 

NR Development.—The Committee recommends $410,351,000, 

$3,947,000 below fiscal year 2014 and $15,349,000 below the budget request. Within this amount, $68,000,000 is provided for the Advanced Test Reactor at Idaho National Laboratory to resolve fuel 

supply shortages that have occurred due to funding cuts over the 

past few years. 

NR Operations and Infrastructure.—The Committee recommends 

$368,071,000, $11,771,000 above fiscal year 2014 and $44,309,000 

below the budget request. Within this amount, not less than 

$119,279,000 is provided for Research Reactor Facility Operations 

and Maintenance to ensure sufficient funding is available for a 

maintenance shutdown of the prototype reactor at the Kesselring 

Site. Funding for Spent Fuel Handling Facility Other Project Costs 

(OPCs) is transferred to the line-item construction project as described below. 

Construction.—The Committee recommends $112,920,000, 

$88,547,000 above fiscal year 2014 and $97,000,000 below the 

budget request. The Committee supports increased investment in 

NR infrastructure, but prioritizes continued funding for ongoing 

projects and those that address outstanding safety and security 

issues. As a result, the recommendation defers commencement of 

an overpack storage expansion project that is not needed until 

2022. In addition, the Committee provides no funding to construct 

a simulation training facility that is primarily intended to meet 

Navy training needs because the training of Navy nuclear operators is a Navy rather than DOE responsibility. 

The Committee is concerned about the affordability of NR’s construction plans. The fiscal year 2015 budget request proposes to 

commence five new construction projects, despite failing to identify 

all the funds needed to complete these projects within its projected 

five-year budget plan. In addition, estimated project costs are continuing to rise due to what appears to be a failure to control project 

scope. The total project cost of the Kesselring Central Office Building project has grown to $24,850,000, an increase of $9,600,000 or 

63 percent above its previously reported cost of $15,250,000. The 

total project cost of the Materials Characterization Laboratory Expansion project has grown to $38,200,000, an increase of 

$16,400,000 or 75 percent above its previously reported cost of 

$21,800,000. The Committee defers additional funding and directs 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
147 

NR to resolve the expansion of scope before requesting additional 

funds for these two projects. 

The budget request fails to provide the minimum required information regarding square footage of each new facility and associated 

demolition work. The Committee provides clarification that this reporting requirement is applicable to NR projects and should be 

clearly reported in each project data sheet in future budget requests. 

Spent Fuel Handling Recapitalization Project, NRF.—The Committee recommends $70,000,000, $70,000,000 above fiscal year 

2014 and $71,100,000 below the budget request. The Committee 

provides funding for Other Project Costs (OPCs) within project 

funds, consistent with the recommendation for accounting for OPCs 

for other DOE major projects with a total project cost greater than 

$750,000,000. Consolidating OPCs into one project line improves 

integration of startup and commissioning activities, eliminates a 

common need for reprogramming, and provides greater transparency into the costs of major construction projects. The recommended level permits work on the project to move forward, but 

maintains a slight delay that will stagger peak funding requirements with NR’s other major multi-year activities in order to provide a more reliable planning basis. The Committee expects NR to 

conduct an independent cost review and to establish a clear path 

for completing its National Environmental Policy Act requirements 

prior to the award of Critical Decision-1. 

OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR

Appropriation, 2014 ............................................................................ $377,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2015 ....................................................................... 410,842,000 

Recommended, 2015 ........................................................................... 386,863,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2014 .................................................................... +9,863,000 

Budget estimate, 2015 ................................................................ ¥23,979,000 

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 

$386,863,000, $9,863,000 above fiscal year 2014 and $23,979,000 

below the budget request. The Committee does not approve the 

NNSA’s request to change the name of this appropriation to Federal Salaries and Expenses. 

Corporate Project Management.—The Committee recommends 

$9,863,000, $1,946,000 below the budget request. After accounting 

for the transfer of these activities from Weapons Activities as directed in the fiscal year 2014 Act, the recommended amount for 

Corporate Project Management is $745,000 below fiscal year 2014. 

The NNSA should expedite establishing permanent federal capabilities for cost estimating and project management instead of relying on large support service contracts to conduct its oversight. 

Albuquerque Complex.—The recommendation provides no funding to build out or lease commercial office space in Albuquerque, 

$19,900,000 below the budget request. The NNSA’s proposal does 

not provide the best value to the government and will cost the taxpayer more over time than refurbishing existing space and conVerDate Mar 15 2010 06:12 Jun 21, 2014 Jkt 088390 PO 00000 Frm 00147 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR486.XXX HR486

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
148 

structing new facilities. In addition, the NNSA’s proposal to build 

out secure space for handling highly sensitive national security information creates a security vulnerability that is not acceptable 

considering the availability of existing onsite facilities that are not 

yet beyond their useful life. The recommendation includes funding 

and additional direction within Weapons Activities to address facility conditions at the Albuquerque Complex. 

ENVIRONMENTAL AND OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES 

DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP

Appropriation, 2014 ............................................................................ $5,000,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2015 ....................................................................... 4,864,538,000 

Recommended, 2015 ........................................................................... 4,801,280,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2014 .................................................................... ¥198,720,000 

Budget estimate, 2015 ................................................................ ¥63,258,000 

The Defense Environmental Cleanup 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 $4,801,280,000, $198,720,000 below fiscal year 2014 and $63,258,000 below the budget request. The recommendation does not include a federal contribution of 

$463,000,000 into the Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and 

Decommissioning Fund. Within the amounts provided, the Department is directed to fund hazardous waste worker training at 

$10,000,000. 

The recommendation reflects the fiscal constraints that are impacting resources available to accelerate work at cleanup sites and 

to respond to new challenges that might arise. While the recommended funding level for Defense Environmental Cleanup is 

reduced from the request, additional funds have been provided 

to non-defense cleanup activities to provide an overall level of funding for the Office of Environmental Management (EM) of 

$5,628,430,000, $202,158,000 below fiscal year 2014 and $6,742,000 

above the budget request. 

Special Transfer Authority.—The Department has identified no 

funds in its budget request to address the recent incidents that 

have led to the shutdown of the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant 

(WIPP). Investigative reports have found that at least some of the 

problems that the Department must now address were entirely preventable. The Committee anticipates that funding available for environmental cleanup will continue to be highly constrained for the 

next several years. The Department’s ability to safely and efficiently execute its program of work will directly impact its ability 

to meet other cleanup commitments, and events at WIPP increase 

the likelihood that the Department will have to use its limited 

cleanup funds to pay penalties to the states rather than to make 

progress on cleanup goals. 

To meet the immediate needs for expediting the return of WIPP 

to full operations, the Committee has identified funds in the budget 

request for payments in excess of requirements into the NNSA’s 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
149 

contractor defined benefit pension plans. Pension payments are 

highly dependent on market conditions and the Department’s ability to accurately predict payments several years in advance is inherently limited. The Committee notes that the intent of contributing funds above requirements is to avoid future programmatic 

risk if changes in market conditions require large variations in future required payments. However, the actual needs today at WIPP 

outweigh the hypothetical future benefits of overpaying into plans. 

The bill contains a provision that allows the Secretary of Energy 

to transfer up to $120,000,000 of NNSA funds that were requested 

for overpayments to pay for the costs of WIPP recovery. 

Hanford Site.—The Committee recommends $2,085,071,000, 

$66,145,000 below fiscal year 2014 and $2,000,000 above the budget request. In recognition of the responsiveness of the Department 

to better account for its smaller construction activities, the Committee has provided greater flexibility by combining control points 

for Richland. While funding for Hanford is consolidated to enhance 

transparency into the overall funding provided to the site, the Committee maintains separate funding for DOE’s two distinct site offices at Hanford. 

For the Richland Office, the recommendation funds the request of $26,290,000 for Richland construction activities, funds the request of $14,701,000 for community and regulatory support, and 

provides $832,080,000, $25,000,000 above the budget request, for 

Richland cleanup and disposition operations. Within that amount, 

at least $235,000,000 shall be used for the River Corridor Closure 

project. 

For the Office of River Protection, the recommendation provides $522,000,000 for Tank Farm Activities, $1,784,000 above fiscal year 

2014 and the same as the request. For Office of River Protection 

construction activities, the recommendation provides $690,000,000, 

the same as fiscal year 2014 and $25,000,000 below the request. 

Within this amount, $12,000,000 is provided to commence detailed 

design activities on the Low Activity Waste Pretreatment System 

project. The Committee does not support further acceleration of 

construction for the new framework agreement until DOE can resolve the cost and schedule uncertainties of its proposal. While the 

recommendation continues to provide control point flexibility between subprojects of the Waste Treatment and Immobilization 

Plant (WTP) in fiscal year 2015, the Committee expects the rebaseline effort currently underway to result in a proposal that will better account for the various costs of the project. The Department 

needs to provide considerably greater detail on the use of its funding, including its anticipated costs and schedule requirements for 

resolving the outstanding technical issues of the WTP. The Committee is also concerned that DOE has been shifting the allocation 

of funding for WTP-related work between Tank Farms and WTP 

subprojects by adjusting accounting codes for ‘‘Shared Services’’ in 

an effort to artificially show that a nominal $690,000,000 per year 

is being spent on the project. It is essential that the Department 

establish formal methods of accounting for its project costs so that 

overall progress can be tracked, contractor performance can be 

monitored, and taxpayer dollars are not wasted. 

Hanford’s Tank Farms.—The Committee is concerned about the 

continued deterioration of aging tanks at Hanford and directs the 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
150 

Department to provide to the Committees on Appropriations of the 

House of Representatives and the Senate not later than February 

1, 2015, a comprehensive report on tank maintenance and upgrade 

requirements, including projected costs of needed safety and maintenance upgrades. The report shall include an estimate of the costs 

and timeline for constructing new tanks with a description of the 

impacts on the timeline for constructing the Waste Treatment 

Plant if new tanks were required. 

Idaho National Laboratory.—The Committee recommends 

$380,203,000, $6,797,000 below fiscal year 2014 and $13,000,000 

above the budget request. The Committee is concerned about the 

impact that the closure of WIPP is having on DOE’s ability to meet 

its cleanup milestones. The recommendation includes an additional 

$10,000,000 to support work plan adjustments needed to meet 2018 

milestones now that TRU waste shipments have been temporarily 

suspended. The recommendation also includes $3,000,000 to accelerate shipments of mixed low level waste to maximize inventory 

disposals. 

NNSA Sites.—The Committee recommends $249,018,000, 

$65,658,000 below fiscal year 2014 and $44,617,000 below the 

budget request. Within this amount, the Committee recommends 

$180,000,000 for Los Alamos National Laboratory. The recommendation funds the request of $4,600,000 for project engineering and design of the Hexavalent Chromium Pump and Treatment 

Facility but does not provide the $24,000,000 requested for construction because DOE cannot initiate the project until it is approved by the State of New Mexico. The fiscal year 2014 Act provided a one-time increase to support an agreement to expedite the 

removal of above ground legacy TRU waste. Now that TRU waste 

shipments to WIPP are suspended, the recommendation maintains 

overall funding for Los Alamos above the fiscal year 2013 level and 

urges the Department to obtain resolution of its long-term cleanup 

plans for the site. 

Separations Process Research Unit (SPRU).—The Committee recognizes that the Department of Energy and the private contractor 

are continuing cleanup at the site. The Committee notes that 

$12,500,000 is available from prior-year appropriations and an additional $20,500,000 is obligated but uncosted. The Committee directs the Department to preserve the $33,000,000 until a plan has 

been determined for the site. If, at that time, the Department is 

found to have a liability, the Committee expects the Department to 

apply the $32,500,000 toward that outstanding obligation. If additional funding is needed once final agreement between the parties 

is achieved, the Committee expects the Department to submit a reprogramming request to fully support the agreed plan. 

Oak Ridge Reservation.—The Committee recommends 

$212,818,000, $2,182,000 below fiscal year 2014 and $5,935,000 

above the budget request. The recommendation provides funding 

above the request for Oak Ridge Cleanup and Disposition to address work plan revisions for contact- and remote-handled TRU 

waste that are necessary due to the closure of WIPP. The recommendation also provides additional control point flexibility by including funding requested for OR Nuclear Facility D&D within OR 

cleanup and waste disposition. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
151 

Savannah River Site.—The Committee recommends 

$1,104,904,000, $29,330,000 below fiscal year 2014 and $45,202,000 

below the budget request. The recommendation reduces funding for 

site risk management, but includes additional funding within Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation to better account for the costs of the 

NNSA’s spent fuel removal initiatives. The recommendation also 

includes direction for the Department to conduct a review of the 

cost sharing arrangement between EM and the NNSA to better account for the costs of NNSA programmatic needs. The recommendation does not provide the amount requested for radioactive liquid tank waste stabilization and disposition because the 

Department has not updated the performance baseline for the full 

scope of the Salt Waste Processing Facility project and cannot justify its timeline for conducting supporting startup and commissioning work. 

Salt Waste Processing Facility (SWPF).—The Committee recommends $135,000,000, $10,000,000 above fiscal year 2014 and the 

same as the budget request. This amount includes ‘‘Other Project 

Costs’’ consistent with funding for OPCs for other Department of 

Energy projects with a total project cost greater than $750,000,000. 

Completion of the SWPF represents the critical path for meeting 

the Department’s cleanup commitments at the site and therefore 

remains the Committee’s highest priority at Savannah River. 

Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP).—The Committee recommends 

$236,020,000, $19,827,000 above fiscal year 2014 and $20,000,000 

above the budget request. Funds above the request are provided to 

initiate two new construction projects, a safety-significant ventilation system and a new exhaust shaft, which are needed to ensure 

WIPP can be safely operated. 

The Secretary of Energy is directed to designate an official to be 

responsible for developing a formal WIPP Recovery Plan that will 

return the facility to full operations. The recovery plan shall detail 

the Department’s strategy to implement corrective actions to address the root causes of the fire and radiological incidents. The recovery plan shall continue to be updated with findings of ongoing 

accident and root cause investigations. While the Committee does 

not require outside independent review, the Department should seriously consider this action in light of the importance of WIPP to 

other Department sites as well as the uniqueness of the event and 

the facility. Before use of its special transfer authority, the Department shall provide its WIPP Recovery Plan to the Committees on 

Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate. 

The Department shall further provide the Committees a monthly 

update on its progress in implementing its recovery plan and addressing the root causes of the fire and radiological event. 

Program Support.—The Committee recommends $16,979,000, 

$1,000,000 below fiscal year 2014 and $2,000,000 above the budget 

request. Additional funding above the request is provided to expedite WIPP recovery efforts, including funding for mine safety expertise, review of documented safety analyses and engineered changes, 

and study of decontamination alternatives. 

Technology Development and Deployment.—The Committee recommends $10,000,000, $8,000,000 below fiscal year 2014 and 

$3,007,000 below the budget request. Within this amount, 

$2,000,000 is provided for the National Spent Fuel Program at 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
152 

Idaho National Laboratory in order to maintain and update the 

database regarding the current inventory and characteristics of 

EM-managed spent fuel. In addition, the Department is directed to 

assess the current status of its spent fuel storage and processing 

infrastructure and to provide an assessment of the current risks 

and status of deferred maintenance to the Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate not later 

than September 30, 2015. 

Use of prior-year balances.—The Committee directs the use of 

$13,367,000 in prior-year balances that are greater than five years 

old. 

OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES

Appropriation, 2014 ............................................................................ $755,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2015 ....................................................................... 753,000,000 

Recommended, 2015 ........................................................................... 754,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2014 .................................................................... ¥1,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2015 ................................................................ +1,000,000 

This account provides funding for the Office of Environment, 

Health, Safety and Security; Office of Independent Enterprise Assessments; Office of Legacy Management; Defense Related Administrative Support; and the Office of Hearings and Appeals. The 

Committee recommendation for Other Defense Activities (ODA) is 

$754,000,000, $1,000,000 below fiscal year 2014 and $1,000,000 

above the budget request. 

Environment, Health, Safety and Security.—The Committee supports the Department of Energy’s request to provide separate funding for the newly reorganized Health, Safety and Security activities. The Committee recommends $180,998,000 for the Office of Environment, Health, Safety and Security and $73,534,000 for the Office of Independent Enterprise Assessments, the same as the budget request. Overall funding for these two organizations is 

$2,615,000 above fiscal year 2014. 

The Committee believes it is critical to preserve the ability of the 

Department to conduct independent assessments of compliance and 

performance and that access to and cooperation from all Departmental programs is provided to the Office of Independent Enterprise Assessments. The Office of Independent Enterprise Assessments is directed to provide to the Committee an annual report 

that provides an overview of its oversight activities, findings, and 

recommendations for the fiscal year. 

The Committee notes that the Department still has not approved 

a revision to its Graded Security Posture (GSP) that will update security standards at DOE sites to meet the latest threats. While the 

Department has implemented organizational reforms, it has not yet 

demonstrated those reorganized offices can effectively reform security practices or impose accountability. The Department is directed 

to move expeditiously in updating its analysis with the latest 

known threats and approving a GSP that can be used to set and 

enforce consistent and appropriate standards of protection at each 

DOE site. 

Specialized Security Activities.—The Committee recommends 

$203,152,000 for Specialized Security Activities, $910,000 above fiscal year 2014 and $1,000,000 above the budget request. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
153 

Office of Legacy Management.—The Office of Legacy Management provides long-term stewardship following site closure. The 

Committee recommends $171,980,000 for Legacy Management, 

$5,003,000 below fiscal year 2014 and the same as the budget request. The Committee commends the Office of Legacy Management’s efforts to undertake creative reforms to limit the volatility 

of its liabilities for contractor employee defined benefit pension 

plans while preserving the commitments made to legacy employees. 

The Committee supports additional reforms that might further reduce risks to ongoing programmatic activities at the Department of 

Energy. 

Defense Related Administrative Support.—The Committee recommends $118,836,000, the same as fiscal year 2014 and the budget request, to provide administrative support for programs funded 

in the atomic energy defense activities accounts. 

Office of Hearings and Appeals.—The Office of Hearings and Appeals is responsible for all of the Department’s adjudicatory processes, other than those administered by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. The Committee recommends $5,500,000, 

$478,000 above fiscal year 2014 and the same as the budget request. 

POWER MARKETING ADMINISTRATIONS 

Management of the federal power marketing functions was transferred from the Department of the Interior to the Department of 

Energy in the Department of Energy Organization Act of 1977 

(P.L. 95–91). These functions include the power marketing activities authorized under section 5 of the Flood Control Act of 1944 

and all other functions of the Bonneville Power Administration, the 

Southeastern Power Administration, the Southwestern Power Administration, and the power marketing functions of the Bureau of 

Reclamation that have been transferred to the Western Area Power 

Administration. 

All four power marketing administrations give preference in the 

sale of their power to publicly-owned and cooperatively-owned utilities. Operations of the Bonneville Power Administration are financed principally under the authority of the Federal Columbia 

River Transmission System Act (P.L. 93–454). Under this Act, the 

Bonneville Power Administration is authorized to use its revenues 

to finance the costs of its operations, maintenance, and capital 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. The capital expenses of Southwestern and 

Western Area Power Administrations are appropriated annually. 

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 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
154 

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 Black Canyon Trout Hatchery. 

The Committee recognizes extraordinary measures were taken 

recently by the Department of Energy in an effort to correct hiring 

irregularities that negatively impacted veterans applying for employment at the Bonneville Power Administration. Both the Department and Bonneville need to ensure that all job applicants are 

treated fairly, all appropriate federal hiring laws are followed, and 

whistleblowers are protected. At the same time, the Committee reiterates its longstanding recognition of Bonneville’s autonomy within the Department of Energy as a separate and distinct self-funding agency under the Bonneville Project Act, DOE Organization 

Act, and the Federal Columbia River Transmission System Act. Accordingly, the Committee expects the Department intervention in 

Bonneville management provoked by this matter to be both temporary and limited. 

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, SOUTHEASTERN POWER

ADMINISTRATION

Budget estimate, 2015 ....................................................................... $– – – 

Appropriation, 2014 ............................................................................ – – – 

Recommended, 2015 ........................................................................... – – – 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2014 .................................................................... – – – 

Budget estimate, 2015 ................................................................ – – – 

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 2015 is 

$96,930,000, with $89,710,000 for purchase power and wheeling 

and $7,220,000 for program direction. The purchase power and 

wheeling costs will be offset by collections of $73,579,000, and annual expenses will be offset by collections of $2,220,000 provided in 

this Act and the use of prior-year balances of $5,000,000. Additionally, SEPA has identified $16,131,000 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, 2014 ............................................................................ $11,892,000 

Budget estimate, 2015 ....................................................................... 11,400,000 

Recommended, 2015 ........................................................................... 11,400,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2014 .................................................................... ¥492,000 

Budget estimate, 2015 ................................................................ – – – 

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 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
155 

transmission lines, along with supporting substations and communications sites. 

The Committee recommendation for the Southwestern Power Administration is a net appropriation of $11,400,000, the same as the 

budget request. The total program level for Southwestern in fiscal 

year 2015 is $122,666,000, including $15,174,000 for operation and 

maintenance expenses, $63,000,000 for purchase power and wheeling, $31,089,000 for program direction, and $13,403,000 for construction. Offsetting collections total $87,840,000, including 

$5,438,000 for operation and maintenance, $53,000,000 for purchase power and wheeling, and $29,402,000 for program direction. 

Southwestern estimates it will secure alternative financing from 

customers in the amount of $23,426,000. 

CONSTRUCTION, REHABILITATION, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, WESTERN AREA POWER ADMINISTRATION

Appropriation, 2014 ............................................................................ $95,930,000 

Budget estimate, 2015 ....................................................................... 93,372,000 

Recommended, 2015 ........................................................................... 93,372,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2014 .................................................................... ¥2,558,000 

Budget estimate, 2015 ................................................................ – – – 

The Western Area Power Administration is responsible for marketing the electric power generated by the Bureau of Reclamation, 

the Corps of Engineers, and the International Boundary and Water 

Commission. Western also operates and maintains a system of 

transmission lines nearly 17,000 miles long. Western provides electricity to 15 western states over a service area of 1.3 million square 

miles. 

The Committee recommendation for the Western Area Power Administration is a net appropriation of $93,372,000, the same as the 

budget request. The total program level for Western in fiscal year 

2015 is recommended at $837,731,000, which includes $86,645,000 

for construction and rehabilitation, $81,958,000 for system operation and maintenance, $441,223,000 for purchase power and 

wheeling, and $227,905,000 for program direction. Offsetting collections include $471,540,000 for purchase power and wheeling and 

annual expenses, and the use of $7,161,000 of offsetting collections 

from the Colorado River Dam Fund (as authorized in P.L. 98–381). 

Western Area estimates it will secure alternative financing from 

customers in the amount of $265,658,000. 

The Committee is concerned that Western has not been as responsive as it could be in its efforts to work with its customers. Accordingly, the Committee encourages Western to improve its approach to addressing customer concerns, and the Committee will 

continue to monitor further developments. 

FALCON AND AMISTAD OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE FUND

Appropriation, 2014 ............................................................................ $420,000 

Budget estimate, 2015 ....................................................................... 228,000 

Recommended, 2015 ........................................................................... 228,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2014 .................................................................... ¥192,000 

Budget estimate, 2015 ................................................................ – – – 

Falcon Dam and Amistad Dam are two international water 

projects located on the Rio Grande River between Texas and MexVerDate Mar 15 2010 06:12 Jun 21, 2014 Jkt 088390 PO 00000 Frm 00155 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR486.XXX HR486

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
156 

ico. 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 budget request includes a proposal for authority to accept 

contributed funds in fiscal year 2015 for use in fulfilling duties associated with the Falcon and Amistad Dams. This authority would 

be equivalent to the authority used throughout the Western Area 

Power Administration to secure alternative financing. The Committee includes this proposal. 

The Committee recommendation is a net appropriation of $228,000, the same as the budget request. The total program level 

is $5,529,000, with $4,499,000 of offsetting collections applied toward annual expenses and $802,000 of alternative financing. 

FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation, 2014 ............................................................................ $304,600,000 

Budget estimate, 2015 ....................................................................... 327,277,000 

Recommended, 2015 ........................................................................... 304,389,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2014 .................................................................... ¥211,000 

Budget estimate, 2015 ................................................................ ¥22,888,000 

REVENUES

Appropriation, 2014 ............................................................................ $¥304,600,000 

Budget estimate, 2015 ....................................................................... ¥327,277,000 

Recommended, 2015 ........................................................................... ¥304,389,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2014 .................................................................... +211,000 

Budget estimate, 2015 ................................................................ +22,888,000 

The Committee recommendation for the Federal Energy Regu- latory Commission (FERC) is $304,389,000, $211,000 below fiscal 

year 2014 and $22,888,000 below the budget request. Revenues for 

FERC are established at a rate equal to the budget authority, resulting in a net appropriation of $0. As described below, the Committee is concerned about the Commission’s lack of responsiveness 

to ratepayers, state and local leaders, and the Committee, and has 

rejected the proposed one percent increase in salaries and benefits 

and delimited the Commissioners’ use of funding. 

In addition, the Committee has denied the request for $20,277,000 to partially fund a $44,000,000 building consolidation 

project. The Commission has approximately $22,000,000 in carryover balances that it intends to use on this project, which is not 

scheduled to be completed until fiscal year 2020. The Committee 

encourages the Commission to request funding for this multi-year 

project so as not to create spikes in its requested salaries and expenses, and therefore revenues, in any one year. 

The Committee is aware that concerns remain about the degree 

of consideration given by FERC to the rights and concerns of private property owners during the process for developing, reviewing, 

and approving shoreline management plans. The Committee reiterVerDate Mar 15 2010 06:12 Jun 21, 2014 Jkt 088390 PO 00000 Frm 00156 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR486.XXX HR486

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
157 

ates its support for the expeditious development and implementation of innovative and mutually agreeable solutions to resolve conflicts among project purposes and private property at specific locations. 

The Committee is concerned with recent reports from localities 

experiencing dramatic increases in their electricity costs for January 2014 due to transmission charges, with some localities reporting increases of more than one hundred percent over their estimated charges. The Committee appreciates FERC taking note of 

these impacts and hosting a technical conference on Winter 2013– 

2014 Operations and Market Performance in Regional Transmission Organizations and Independent System Operators. The 

Commission shall provide to the Committees on Appropriations of 

the House of Representatives and the Senate a report on the 

causes of these increased costs, the impacts on localities and residents, and any authorities and actions that have been or potentially could be used to address these issues. 

However, the Committee urges the Commission to be more 

proactive in addressing the concerns of ratepayers. In particular, 

when the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission considers a request for approval of a new capacity zone, the Committee expects 

the views of local and state officials, regulators, and business leaders to be taken into account during the process. Further, the Committee also expects that the process will include considerations 

such as costs to ratepayers in addition to electrical reliability and 

availability. 

The Committee remains concerned about the backlog of liquefied 

natural gas export applications at the Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission and continues to support a clearly communicated, 

timely process to reach an appropriate determination on each application. The Committee notes that FERC has yet to comply with 

the report directive included in House Report 113–135 and referenced by the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2014, which required FERC to submit to the Committees on Appropriations of the 

House of Representatives and the Senate, not later than February 

16, 2014, its plan to complete consideration of all applications filed 

with the Commission. The Committee reiterates its previous direction. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION 

The Committee’s detailed funding recommendations for programs 

in Title III are contained in the following table. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
158 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 05 here 87057A.046
159 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 6 here 87057A.047
160 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 7 here 87057A.048
161 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 8 here 87057A.049
162 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 9 here 87057A.050
163 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 10 here 87057A.051
164 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 11 here 87057A.052
165 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 12 here 87057A.053
166 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 13 here 87057A.054
167 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 14 here 87057A.055
168 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 15 here 87057A.056
169 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 16 here 87057A.057
170 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 17 here 87057A.058
171 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 18 here 87057A.059
172 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 19 here 87057A.060
173 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 20 here 87057A.061
174 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 21 here 87057A.062
175 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 22 here 87057A.063
176 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 23 here 87057A.064
177 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 24 here 87057A.065
178 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 25 here 87057A.066
179 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 26 here 87057A.067
180 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 27 here 87057A.068
181 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 28 here 87057A.069
182 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 29 here 87057A.070
183 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 30 here 87057A.071
184 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 31 here 87057A.072
185 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 32 here 87057A.073
186 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 33 here 87057A.074
187 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 34 here 87057A.075
188 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 35 here 87057A.076
189 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 36 here 87057A.077
190 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 37 here 87057A.078
191 

GENERAL PROVISIONS, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

(INCLUDING TRANSFER AND RESCISSIONS OF FUNDS)

The bill includes a provision that prohibits the use of funds provided in this title to initiate requests for proposals, other solicitations or arrangements for new programs or activities that have not 

yet been approved and funded by the Congress; requires notification or a report for certain funding actions; prohibits funds to be 

used for certain multi-year ‘‘Energy Programs’’ activities without 

notification; and prohibits the obligation or expenditure of funds 

provided in this title through a reprogramming of funds except in 

certain circumstances. 

The bill continues a provision that permits the transfer and 

merger of unexpended balances of prior appropriations with appropriation accounts established in this bill. 

The bill continues a provision that authorizes intelligence activities of the Department of Energy for purposes of section 504 of the 

National Security Act of 1947. 

The bill modifies a provision that prohibits the use of funds in 

this title for capital construction of high hazard nuclear facilities, 

unless certain independent oversight is conducted, to account for a 

change in the Department of Energy’s organizational structure. 

The bill continues a provision that prohibits the use of funds provided in this title to approve critical decision-2 or critical decision3 for certain construction projects, unless a separate independent 

cost estimate has been developed for that critical decision. 

The bill modifies a provision regarding uranium transfer notifications. A new subparagraph (c) has been included to increase the accuracy of Secretarial determinations required by the USEC Privatization Act. In implementing this subparagraph (c), the Department shall seek to minimize impacts on uranium transfers already 

planned during the fiscal year in which the new determination is 

required and should continue uranium transfers until the new determination is completed. The Department shall explore the use of 

expedited determination procedures and determinations completed 

on a timeframe to accommodate upcoming transfers. 

The bill continues a provision prohibiting the Office of Science 

from entering into multi-year funding agreements with a value of 

less than $1,000,000. 

The bill modifies a provision requiring cost reporting for major 

warhead refurbishment programs. 

The bill includes a provision rescinding funds from specific accounts. 

The bill includes a provision transferring funds to ‘‘Defense Environmental Cleanup.’’ 

The bill includes a provision restricting certain activities in the 

Russian Federation. 

The bill includes a provision rescinding funds from ‘‘United 

States Enrichment Corporation Fund.’’ 

The bill includes a provision regarding management of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. 

The bill includes a provision clarifying laboratory directed research and development authorities. 

The bill includes a provision regarding a Department of Energy 

rule on ceiling fans and ceiling fan light kits. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
192 

TITLE IV—INDEPENDENT AGENCIES 

APPALACHIAN REGIONAL COMMISSION

Appropriation, 2014 ............................................................................ $80,317,000 

Budget estimate, 2015 ....................................................................... 68,200,000 

Recommended, 2015 ........................................................................... 80,317,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2014 .................................................................... – – – 

Budget estimate, 2015 ................................................................ +12,117,000 

The Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC) is a regional economic development agency established in 1965 by the Appalachian 

Regional Development Act (Public Law 89–4). It is comprised of the 

governors of the 13 Appalachian States and a federal co-chair appointed by the President. Each year, the ARC provides funding for 

several hundred projects in the Appalachian Region in areas such 

as business development, education and job training, telecommunications, infrastructure, community development, housing, and 

transportation. 

The Committee recommendation for the ARC is $80,317,000, the 

same as fiscal year 2014 and $12,117,000 above the budget request. 

To diversify and enhance regional business development, 

$10,000,000 is provided to continue the program of high-speed 

broadband deployment in distressed counties within the Central 

Appalachian region that have been most negatively impacted by 

the downturn in the coal industry. This funding shall be in addition to the 30 percent directed to distressed counties. 

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, 2014 ............................................................................ $28,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2015 ....................................................................... 30,150,000 

Recommended, 2015 ........................................................................... 29,150,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2014 .................................................................... +1,150,000 

Budget estimate, 2015 ................................................................ ¥1,000,000 

The Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (DNFSB) was created by the fiscal year 1989 National Defense Authorization Act. 

The Board, composed of five members appointed by the President, 

provides advice and recommendations to the Secretary of Energy 

regarding public health and safety issues at the Department’s defense nuclear facilities. The DNFSB is responsible for reviewing 

and evaluating the content and implementation of the standards 

relating to the design, construction, operation, and decommissioning of the Department of Energy’s defense nuclear facilities. 

The Committee expects the DNFSB to continue to play a significant role in scrutinizing the Department’s safety and security activities, including the reform initiatives underway in the Department that may impact projects under its jurisdiction. The Committee recommendation for fiscal year 2015 is $29,150,000, 

$1,150,000 above fiscal year 2014 and $1,000,000 below the budget 

request. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
193 

DELTA REGIONAL AUTHORITY

Appropriation, 2014 ............................................................................ $12,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2015 ....................................................................... 12,319,000 

Recommended, 2015 ........................................................................... 12,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2014 .................................................................... – – – 

Budget estimate, 2015 ................................................................ ¥319,000 

The Delta Regional Authority (DRA) is a federal-state partnership established by the Delta Regional Authority Act of 2000 (Public Law 106–554) that serves a 252-county/parish area in an eightstate region near the mouth of the Mississippi River. Led by a federal co-chair and the governors of each participating state, the DRA 

is designed to remedy severe and chronic economic distress by 

stimulating economic development and fostering partnerships that 

will have a positive impact on the region’s economy. The DRA 

seeks to help local communities leverage other federal and state 

programs, which are focused on basic infrastructure development, 

transportation improvements, business development, and job training services. Under federal law, at least 75 percent of appropriated 

funds must be invested in distressed counties and parishes, with 

50 percent of the funds designated for transportation and basic infrastructure improvements. 

For fiscal year 2015, the Committee recommends $12,000,000, 

the same as fiscal year 2014 and $319,000 below the budget request. 

DENALI COMMISSION

Appropriation, 2014 ............................................................................ $10,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2015 ....................................................................... 7,396,000 

Recommended, 2015 ........................................................................... 10,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2014 .................................................................... – – – 

Budget estimate, 2015 ................................................................ +2,604,000 

The Denali Commission is a regional development agency established by the Denali Commission Act of 1998 (Public Law 105 

–277) to provide critical utilities, infrastructure, health services, 

and economic support throughout Alaska. To ensure that local communities have a stake in Commission-funded projects, local costshare 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 2015, 

the Committee recommends $10,000,000, the same as fiscal year 

2014 and $2,604,000 above the budget request. 

The Committee supports the Denali Commission’s recent efforts 

to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding with the Office of 

the Inspector General of the Department of Commerce to provide 

oversight of the Commission’s management, expenditures, and programs. 

NORTHERN BORDER REGIONAL COMMISSION

Appropriation, 2014 ............................................................................ $5,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2015 ....................................................................... 3,000,000 

Recommended, 2015 ........................................................................... 3,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2014 .................................................................... ¥2,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2015 ................................................................ – – – 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
194 

The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (Public Law 

110–234) authorized the establishment of the Northern Border Regional Commission (NBRC) as a federal-state partnership intended 

to address the economic development needs of distressed portions 

of the four-state region of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, and 

New York. The Committee has continued legislative language addressing the Commission’s administrative expenses. The Committee recommends $3,000,000 to support the Commis- sion’s activities in fiscal year 2015, $2,000,000 below fiscal year 

2014 and the same as the budget request. 

SOUTHEAST CRESCENT REGIONAL COMMISSION

Appropriation, 2014 ............................................................................ $250,000 

Budget estimate, 2015 ....................................................................... – – – 

Recommended, 2015 ........................................................................... 250,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2014 .................................................................... – – – 

Budget estimate, 2015 ................................................................ +250,000 

The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (Public Law 

110–234) authorized the establishment of the Southeast Crescent 

Regional Commission as a federal-state partnership intended to address the economic development needs of distressed portions of the 

seven-state region in the southeastern United States not already 

served by a regional development agency. 

The Committee recommends $250,000 for operations of the commission in fiscal year 2015, the same as fiscal year 2014 and 

$250,000 above the budget request. 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation, 2014 ............................................................................ $1,043,937,000 

Budget estimate, 2015 ....................................................................... 1,047,433,000 

Recommended, 2015 ........................................................................... 1,052,433,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2014 .................................................................... +8,496,000 

Budget estimate, 2015 ................................................................ +5,000,000 

REVENUES

Appropriation, 2014 ............................................................................ $¥920,721,000 

Budget estimate, 2015 ....................................................................... ¥925,155,000 

Recommended, 2015 ........................................................................... ¥880,155,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2014 .................................................................... +40,566,000 

Budget estimate, 2015 ................................................................ +45,000,000 

NET APPROPRIATION

Appropriation, 2014 ............................................................................ $123,216,000 

Budget estimate, 2015 ....................................................................... 122,278,000 

Recommended, 2015 ........................................................................... 172,278,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2014 .................................................................... +49,062,000 

Budget estimate, 2015 ................................................................ +50,000,000 

The Committee recommendation for the Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) salaries and expenses for fiscal year 2015 is 

$1,052,433,000, $8,496,000 above fiscal year 2014 and $5,000,000 

above the budget request. The total amount of budget authority is 

graphic by estimated revenues of $880,155,000, $40,566,000 less 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
195 

than fiscal year 2014 and $45,000,000 less than the budget request. 

Including revenues, the net appropriation for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is $172,278,000. 

The recommendation reduces the amount made available for salaries and expenses by $40,000,000 to account for anticipated carryover from fiscal year 2014 to fiscal year 2015. The Committee authorizes the NRC to re-allocate its unobligated carryover to supplement its fiscal year 2015 appropriation and directs the NRC, not 

later than 30 days after enactment of this Act, to submit a base 

table that documents this re-allocation. The recommendation further reduces salaries and expenses by $10,000,000 below the fiscal 

year 2015 budget request to account for lower-than-anticipated 

staffing levels. Within available funds, not more than $9,500,000 is 

included for salaries, travel, and other support costs for the Office 

of the Commission. These salaries and expenses shall include only 

salaries and benefits costs and travel costs, and are not to include 

general and administrative and infrastructure costs. The Committee directs that these funds are to be jointly managed by the 

Commissioners, and the bill requires that the use and expenditure 

of these salaries and expenses shall only be by a majority vote of 

the Commission. The NRC shall continue to include a breakout and 

explanation of the Commission salaries and expenses in its annual 

budget requests. If the Commission wishes to change the composition of the funds requested for its salaries and expenses in future 

years, it must do so in an annual budget request or through a reprogramming. 

The Committee notes that the NRC continues its administrative 

shutdown of the Yucca Mountain license application, as well as its 

willful misrepresentation of congressional intent. The recommendation continues language prohibiting the Chairman of the NRC from 

terminating any program, project, or activity without the approval 

of a majority of Commissioners. In addition, the recommendation 

requires the NRC to notify and report to the Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate on the 

use of emergency functions. 

The recommendation directs $55,000,000 to continue adjudication 

of the Yucca Mountain license application. The Committee does not 

share the Administration’s perspective that once Nuclear Waste 

Fund resources are depleted, the NRC’s responsibility to complete 

the Yucca Mountain license application is obviated. The NRC is directed to report to the Committees on Appropriations of the House 

of Representatives and the Senate not later than January 1, 2015, 

on its plan to complete the license application and its additional 

funding needs as necessary. 

Integrated University Program.—From within available funds, 

the Committee recommends $15,000,000 to provide financial support for the university education programs relevant to the NRC 

mission, as the Commission continues to be reliant on a pipeline 

of highly trained nuclear engineers and scientists and benefits substantially from this university program. Not less than $5,000,000 

of this amount is to be used for grants to support research projects 

that do not align with programmatic missions, but are critical to 

maintaining the discipline of nuclear science and engineering. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
196 

Reporting Requirements.—The Committee directs the Commission to continue to provide semi-annual reports on the status of its 

licensing and other regulatory activities. 

The Committee is aware that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is planning to conduct a comprehensive review of its business 

lines, including a five-year plan of the agency’s anticipated workload for licensing and construction of new and advanced facilities, 

an assessment of the size of the operating fleet, and an evaluation 

of required corporate support resources. As part of that process, the 

Committee directs the Commission to engage an outside entity 

with expertise on federal agency management to recommend ways 

the Commission can reduce its corporate support requirements and 

improve the efficiency of the Commission’s internal processes. Not 

later than March 1, 2015, the Committee directs the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to submit the review’s findings, budgetary impacts, and a long-term strategic workforce plan to the Committees 

on Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate. 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

GROSS APPROPRIATION

Appropriation, 2014 ............................................................................ $11,955,000 

Budget estimate, 2015 ....................................................................... 12,071,000 

Recommended, 2015 ........................................................................... 12,071,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2014 .................................................................... +116,000 

Budget estimate, 2015 ................................................................ – – – 

REVENUES

Appropriation, 2014 ............................................................................ $¥9,994,000 

Budget estimate, 2015 ....................................................................... ¥10,099,000 

Recommended, 2015 ........................................................................... ¥10,099,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2014 .................................................................... ¥105,000 

Budget estimate, 2015 ................................................................ – – – 

NET APPROPRIATION

Appropriation, 2014 ............................................................................ $1,961,000 

Budget estimate, 2015 ....................................................................... 1,972,000 

Recommended, 2015 ........................................................................... 1,972,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2014 .................................................................... +11,000 

Budget estimate, 2015 ................................................................ – – – 

The Committee recommends $12,071,000, $116,000 above fiscal 

year 2014 and the same as the budget request. Given the formula 

for fee recovery, the revenue estimate is $10,099,000, resulting in 

a net appropriation for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Inspector General of $1,972,000. 

The Committee has included $850,000 within the appropriation 

for the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board for the Board to 

procure Inspector General services from the Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission Inspector General. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
197 

NUCLEAR WASTE TECHNICAL REVIEW BOARD

Appropriation, 2014 ............................................................................ $3,400,000 

Budget estimate, 2015 ....................................................................... 3,400,000 

Recommended, 2015 ........................................................................... 3,400,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2014 .................................................................... – – – 

Budget estimate, 2015 ................................................................ – – – 

The Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board (NWTRB) was established by the 1987 amendments to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act 

of 1982 to provide independent technical oversight of the Department of Energy’s nuclear waste disposal program. The Committee 

expects the NWTRB to continue its active engagement with the Department and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on issues involving nuclear waste disposal. 

The Committee recommends $3,400,000 for the NWTRB, the 

same as fiscal year 2014 and the budget request. 

OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL COORDINATOR FOR ALASKA NATURAL GAS

TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS

Appropriation, 2014 ............................................................................ $1,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2015 ....................................................................... – – – 

Recommended, 2015 ........................................................................... – – – 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2014 .................................................................... ¥1,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2015 ................................................................ – – – 

The Office of the Federal Coordinator for Alaska Natural Gas 

Transportation Projects was established as an independent agency 

in the Executive Branch on December 13, 2006, pursuant to the 

Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline Act of 2004 (Public Law 108–324). 

The Federal Coordinator is responsible for coordinating local, federal, and international activities for a natural gas transportation 

project, including facilitating the permitting process, as well as 

joint surveillance and monitoring of construction with the State of 

Alaska. The recent market shift in the supply and demand for natural gas, coupled with the recently announced plans for a pipeline 

to deliver natural gas to Pacific Rim markets leads the Committee 

to conclude that no active or pending projects fit within the scope 

of the Office of the Federal Coordinator for Alaska Natural Gas 

Transportation Projects. 

The Committee recommends no funds to support the activities of 

this office in fiscal year 2015, and directs that the Office of the 

Federal Coordinator for Alaska Natural Gas Transportation 

Projects use remaining balances to implement an orderly shutdown. 

GENERAL PROVISIONS, INDEPENDENT AGENCIES 

The bill includes a provision making permanent reporting on the 

use of emergency authority. 

The bill modifies a provision requiring the Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission to fully comply with congressional requests for information to allow changes or modifications to procedures governing 

congressional requests. In allowing procedural changes with the 

support of the majority of the commissioners, the Committee continues to expect that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission will be 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
198 

responsive to congressional requests in a timely and transparent 

manner. 

TITLE V—GENERAL PROVISIONS 

(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

The bill continues a provision that prohibits the use of funds provided in this Act to, in any way, directly or indirectly influence congressional action on any legislation or appropriation matters pending before the Congress, other than to communicate to Members of 

Congress as described in section 1913 of Title 18, United States 

Code. 

The bill continues a provision limiting the use of funds to enter 

into a contract, memorandum of understanding, or cooperative 

agreement with; make a grant to; or provide a loan or loan guarantee to corporations convicted of a felony criminal violation of 

Federal law within the preceding 24 months. The Department shall 

provide an annual report to the Committees on Appropriations of 

the House of Representatives and the Senate, due not later than 

30 days after the end of each fiscal year, detailing its implementation of this provision, including a list of affected corporations and 

a justification for any cases in which the Department has determined that the limitation should not apply. 

The bill continues a provision limiting the use of funds to enter 

into a contract, memorandum of understanding, or cooperative 

agreement with; make a grant to; or provide a loan or loan guarantee to corporations with certain unpaid Federal tax liabilities. 

The Department shall provide an annual report to the Committees 

on Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate, 

due not later than 30 days after the end of each fiscal year, detailing its implementation of this provision, including a list of affected 

corporations and a justification for any cases in which the Department has determined that the limitation should not apply. 

The bill continues a provision consolidating the transfer authorities into and out of accounts funded by this Act. No additional 

transfer authority is implied or conveyed by this provision. For the 

purposes of this provision, the term ‘‘transfer’’ shall mean the shifting of all or part of the budget authority in one account to another. 

In addition to transfers provided in this Act or other appropriation 

Acts, and existing authorities, such as the Economy Act (31 U.S.C. 

1535), by which one part of the United States Government may 

provide goods or services to another part, the Act allows transfers 

using Section 4705 of the Atomic Energy Defense Act (50 U.S.C. 

2745). The first semiannual report required by subsection (c) shall 

be submitted not later than six months after enactment of this Act. 

The bill continues a provision prohibiting funds in contravention 

of Executive Order No. 12898 of February 11, 1994, regarding environmental justice. 

The bill continues a provision prohibiting funds in this Act from 

being used to close the Yucca Mountain license application process 

or for actions that would remove the possibility that Yucca Mountain might be an option in the future. 

The bill includes a provision setting at $0 the amount that the 

proposed new budget authority in this recommendation exceeds the 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
199 

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. 

STATEMENT OF GENERAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

Pursuant to clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, the following is a statement of general performance goals and objectives for which this measure authorizes funding: 

The Committee on Appropriations considers program performance, including a program’s success in developing and attaining 

outcome-related goals and objectives, in developing funding recommendations. 

TRANSFER OF FUNDS

Pursuant to clause 3(f)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, the following is submitted describing the transfer of funds provided in the accompanying bill. 

TITLE I—CORPS OF ENGINEERS—CIVIL 

Under section 104, ‘‘General Provisions, Corps of Engineers— Civil’’, $4,700,000 under the heading ‘‘Operation and Maintenance’’ 

may be transferred to the Fish and Wildlife Service to mitigate for 

fisheries lost due to Corps projects. 

TITLE II—BUREAU OF RECLAMATION 

Under ‘‘Water and Related Resources’’, $25,000 is available for 

transfer to the Upper Colorado River Basin Fund and $6,840,000 

is available for transfer to the Lower Colorado River Basin Development Fund. Such funds as may be necessary may be advanced 

to the Colorado River Dam Fund. The amounts of transfers may be 

increased or decreased within the overall appropriation under the 

heading. 

Under ‘‘California Bay Delta Restoration’’, such sums as may be 

necessary to carry out authorized purposes may be transferred to 

appropriate accounts of other participating federal agencies. 

TITLE III—DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Under section 302, ‘‘General Provisions—Department of Energy’’, 

unexpended balances of prior appropriations provided for activities 

in this Act may be transferred to appropriation accounts for such 

activities established pursuant to this title. Balances so transferred 

may be merged with funds in the applicable established accounts 

and thereafter may be accounted for as one fund for the same time 

period as originally enacted. 

Under section 310, ‘‘General Provisions—Department of Energy’’, 

up to $90,000,000 from ‘‘Weapons Activities’’ and up to $30,000,000 

from ‘‘Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation’’ pension plan overpayments are available to transfer to ‘‘Defense Environmental Cleanup’’ to support needs at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
200 

TITLE V—GENERAL PROVISIONS 

Under section 504, transfer authorities are clarified for the purposes of accounts funded by the Act. 

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, Construction, stating that funds can be used for the construction of river 

and harbor, flood and storm damage reduction, shore protection, 

aquatic ecosystem restoration, and related projects authorized by 

law, and for detailed studies and plans and specifications of such 

projects. 

Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, Construction, permitting the use of funds from the Inland Waterways Trust 

Fund and the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund. 

Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, Mississippi River and Tributaries, permitting the use of funds from the 

Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund. 

Language has been included under the Corps of Engineers, Operation and Maintenance, stating that funds can be used for: the operation, maintenance, and care of existing river and harbor, flood 

and storm damage reduction, aquatic ecosystem restoration, and 

related projects authorized by law; providing security for infrastructure owned or operated by the Corps, including administrative 

buildings and laboratories; maintaining authorized harbor channels 

provided by a State, municipality, or other public agency that serve 

essential navigation needs of general commerce; surveying and 

charting northern and northwestern lakes and connecting waters; 

clearing and straightening channels; and removing obstructions to 

navigation. 

Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, Operation and Maintenance, permitting the use of funds from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund; providing for the use of funds from 

a special account for resource protection, research, interpretation, 

and maintenance activities at outdoor recreation areas; and allowing use of funds to cover the cost of operation and maintenance of 

dredged material disposal facilities for which fees have been collected. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
201 

Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, Operation and Maintenance, providing that one percent of the total 

amount of funds provided for each of the programs, projects, or activities funded under the Operation and Maintenance heading shall 

not be allocated to a field operating activity until the fourth quarter of the fiscal year and permitting the use of these funds for 

emergency activities as determined by the Chief of Engineers to be 

necessary and appropriate. 

Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, Expenses, regarding support of the Humphreys Engineer Support 

Center Activity, the Institute for Water Resources, the United 

States Army Engineer Research and Development Center, and the 

United States Army Corps of Engineers Finance Center. 

Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, Expenses, providing that funds are available for official reception and 

representation expenses. 

Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, Expenses, prohibiting the use of other funds in Title I of this Act for 

the activities funded in Expenses. 

Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, Expenses, permitting any Flood Control and Coastal Emergency appropriation to be used to fund the supervision and general administration of emergency operations, repairs, and other activities in response to any flood, hurricane or other natural disaster. 

Language has been included to provide for funding for the Office 

of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works. 

Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, General 

Provisions, section 101, providing that none of the funds may be 

available for obligation or expenditure through a reprogramming of 

funds except in certain circumstances. 

Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, General 

Provisions, section 102, prohibiting the execution of any contract 

for a program, project or activity which commits funds in excess of 

the amount appropriated (to include funds reprogrammed under 

section 101) that remain unobligated. 

Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, General 

Provisions, section 103, 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 104, 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 105, prohibiting certain actions related to the 

definition of fill material or discharge of fill material under the jurisdiction of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. 

Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, General 

Provisions, section 106, prohibiting certain actions related to the 

definition of waters under the jurisdiction of the Federal Water 

Pollution Control Act. 

Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, General 

Provisions, section 107, allowing the possession of firearms at 

water resources development projects under certain circumstances. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
202 

TITLE II—DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Language has been included under Bureau of Reclamation, 

Water and Related Resources, providing that funds are available 

for fulfilling federal responsibilities to Native Americans and for 

grants to and cooperative agreements with State and local governments and Indian tribes. 

Language has been included under Bureau of Reclamation, 

Water and Related Resources, allowing fund transfers within the 

overall appropriation to the Upper Colorado River Basin Fund and 

the Lower Colorado River Basin Development Fund; providing that 

such sums as necessary may be advanced to the Colorado River 

Dam Fund; and, transfers may be increased or decreased within 

the overall appropriation. 

Language has been included under Bureau of Reclamation, 

Water and Related Resources, providing for funds to be derived 

from the Reclamation Fund or the special fee account established 

by 16 U.S.C. 6806; that funds contributed under 43 U.S.C. 395 by 

non-federal entities shall be available for expenditure; and that 

funds advanced under 43 U.S.C. 397a are to be credited to the 

Water and Related Resources account and available for expenditure. 

Language has been included under Bureau of Reclamation, 

Water and Related Resources, providing that funds may be used for 

high priority projects carried out by the Youth Conservation Corps, 

as authorized by 16 U.S.C. 1706. 

Language has been included under Bureau of Reclamation, Central Valley Project Restoration Fund, directing the Bureau of Reclamation to assess and collect the full amount of additional mitigation and restoration payments authorized by section 3407(d) of 

Public Law 102–575. 

Language has been included under Bureau of Reclamation, Central Valley Project Restoration Fund, providing that none of the 

funds under the heading may be used for the acquisition or lease 

of water for in-stream purposes if the water is already committed 

to in-stream purposes by a court order adopted by consent or decree. 

Language has been included under Bureau of Reclamation, California Bay-Delta Restoration, permitting the transfer of funds to 

appropriate accounts of other participating federal agencies to 

carry out authorized programs; allowing funds made available 

under this heading to be used for the federal share of the costs of 

the CALFED Program management; and requiring that CALFED 

implementation be carried out with clear performance measures 

demonstrating concurrent progress in achieving the goals and objectives of the program. 

Language has been included under Bureau of Reclamation, Policy and Administration, providing that funds are to be derived from 

the Reclamation Fund and prohibiting the use of any other appropriation in the Act for activities budgeted as policy and administration expenses. 

Language has been included under Bureau of Reclamation, Bureau of Reclamation Loan Program Account, rescinding unobligated 

funds. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
203 

Language has been included under Bureau of Reclamation, Administrative Provision, providing for the purchase of motor vehicles 

for replacement. 

Language has been included under General Provisions, Department of the Interior, section 201, providing that none of the funds 

may be available for obligation or expenditure through a reprogramming of funds except in certain circumstances. 

Language has been included under General Provisions, Department of the Interior, section 202, regarding the San Luis Unit and 

the Kesterson Reservoir in California. 

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 Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability for the purchase, construction, and acquisition of 

plant and capital equipment. 

Language has been included under Nuclear Energy for the purchase, construction, and acquisition of plant and capital equipment; 

and for the purchase of motor vehicles. 

Language has been included under Fossil Energy Research and 

Development for the acquisition of interest, including defeasible 

and equitable interest in any real property or any facility or for 

plant or facility acquisition or expansion, and for conducting inquires, technological investigations, and research concerning the 

extraction, processing, use and disposal of mineral substances without objectionable social and environmental cost under 30 U.S.C. 3, 

1602 and 1603. 

Language has been included under the Naval Petroleum and Oil 

Shale Reserves, permitting the use of unobligated balances. 

Language has been included under the Elk Hills School Lands 

Fund, permitting payment to California for the State Teachers’ Retirement Fund. 

Language has been included under Northeast Home Heating Oil 

Reserve rescinding funds that were not designated by the Congress 

as emergency funding. 

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 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 Science restricting the availability of funds for an international project until certain conditions 

are met, or a waiver is issued. 

Language has been included under Nuclear Waste Disposal for 

the acquisition of real property or facility construction or expansion. 

Language has been included under Innovative Technology Loan 

Guarantee Program crediting fees collected pursuant to section 

1702(h) of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 as graphicting collections 

to this account and making fees collected under section 1702(h) in 

excess of the appropriated amount unavailable for expenditure 

until appropriated. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
204 

Language has been included under Innovative Technology Loan 

Guarantee Program prohibiting the subordination of certain interests. 

Language has been included under Clean Coal Technology rescinding funds that were not designated by the Congress as emergency funding. 

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 graphic by revenue increases of the same or greater 

amounts. 

Language has been included under Departmental Administration, notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, and consistent with the authorization in Public Law 95–238, to permit the Department of Energy to use revenues to graphic appropriations. The appropriations 

language for this account reflects the total estimated program 

funding to be reduced as revenues are received. 

Language has been included under Weapons Activities for the 

purchase, construction, and acquisition of plant and capital equipment; and for the purchase of motor vehicles. 

Language has been included under Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation for the purchase, construction, and acquisition of plant 

and capital equipment and other incidental expenses. 

Language has been included under Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation restricting the use of funds provided for a specific 

project. 

Language has been included under Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation rescinding funds that were not designated by the Congress as emergency funding. 

Language has been included under Naval Reactors for the purchase, construction, and acquisition of plant and capital equipment, 

facilities, and facility expansion. 

Language has been included under 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. 

Language has been included under Bonneville Power Administration Fund providing funding for official reception and representation expenses; approving funds for certain programs; and precluding any new direct loan obligations. 

Language has been included under Southeastern Power Administration providing funds for official reception and representation expenses. 

Language has been included under Southeastern Power Administration providing that, notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302 and 16 

U.S.C. 825s, amounts collected from the sale of power and related 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
205 

services shall be credited to the account as discretionary 

graphicting 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 

graphicting 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 

graphicting 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 

graphicting collections and remain available until expended for the 

sole purpose of making purchase power and wheeling expenditures. 

Language has been included under Construction, Rehabilitation, 

Operation and Maintenance, Western Area Power Administration, 

providing funds for official reception and representation expenses. 

Language has been included under Construction, Rehabilitation, 

Operation and Maintenance, Western Area Power Administration 

providing that, notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, 16 U.S.C. 825s, 

and 43 U.S.C. 392a, amounts collected from the sale of power and 

related services shall be credited to the account as discretionary 

graphicting 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 

graphicting 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 graphicting collections and remain available until expended for the sole purpose of funding the annual expenses of the 

hydroelectric facilities of those dams and associated Western Area 

Power Administration activities. 

Language has been included under Falcon and Amistad Operating and Maintenance Fund providing that the Western Area 

Power Administration may accept a limited amount of contributions from the United States power customers of the Falcon and 

Amistad Dams for use by the Commissioner of the United States 

Section of the International Boundary and Water Commission for 

operating and maintenance of hydroelectric facilities. 

Language has been included under Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission to permit the hire of passenger motor vehicles, to provide official reception and representation expenses, and to permit 

the use of revenues collected to reduce the appropriation as revenues are received. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
206 

Language has been included under Department of Energy, General Provisions, section 301, prohibiting the use of funds to prepare 

or initiate requests for proposals or other solicitations or arrangements for programs that have not yet been fully funded by the 

Congress; requiring notification and reporting requirements for certain funding awards; limiting the use of multi-year funding mechanisms; and providing that none of the funds may be available for 

obligation or expenditure through a reprogramming of funds except 

in certain circumstances. 

Language has been included under Department of Energy, General Provisions, section 302, providing that unexpended balances of 

prior appropriations may be transferred and merged with new appropriation accounts established in this Act. 

Language has been included under Department of Energy, General Provisions, section 303, providing that funds for intelligence 

activities are deemed to be specifically authorized for purposes of 

section 504 of the National Security Act of 1947 during fiscal year 

2015 until enactment of the Intelligence Authorization Act for fiscal 

year 2015. 

Language has been included under Department of Energy, General Provisions, section 304, prohibiting the use of funds for capital 

construction of high hazard nuclear facilities unless certain independent oversight is conducted. 

Language has been included under Department of Energy, General Provisions, section 305, prohibiting the use of funds to approve 

critical decision-2 or critical decision-3 for certain construction 

projects, unless a separate independent cost estimate has been developed for that critical decision. 

Language has been included under Department of Energy, General Provisions, section 306, regarding uranium determinations. 

Language has been included under Department of Energy, General Provisions, section 307, requiring the Office of Science to fund 

up-front funding arrangements for less than $1,000,000. 

Language has been included under Department of Energy, General Provisions, section 308, requiring certain reporting on major 

warhead refurbishments. 

Language has been included under Department of Energy, General Provisions, section 309, rescinding certain funds that were not 

designated by the Congress as emergency funding. 

Language has been included under Department of Energy, General Provisions, section 310, providing transfer authority to support 

an environmental cleanup project. 

Language has been included under Department of Energy, General Provisions, section 311, prohibiting nonproliferation activities 

in the Russian Federation until certain reporting requirements are 

met. 

Language has been included under Department of Energy, General Provisions, section 312, rescinding funds under ‘‘USEC Privatization Fund’’. 

Language has been included under Department of Energy, General Provisions, section 313, prohibiting funds for certain activities 

related to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve without prior notification to the Congress and limiting the type of petroleum product 

that may be purchased with certain funds. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
207 

Language has been included under Department of Energy, General Provisions, section 314, clarifying laboratory directed research 

and development authorities. 

Language has been included under Department of Energy, General Provisions, section 315, regarding a Department of Energy rule 

on ceiling fans and ceiling fan light kits. 

TITLE IV—INDEPENDENT AGENCIES 

Language has been included under Appalachian Regional Commission providing for the hire of passenger vehicles and allowing 

the expenditure of funds as authorized by subtitle IV of title 40, 

United States Code, without regard to section 14704. 

Language has been included under Delta Regional Authority allowing the expenditure of funds as authorized by the Delta Regional Authority Act without regard to section 382C(b)(2), 382F(d), 

382M and 382N of said Act. 

Language has been included under Denali Commission allowing 

the expenditure of funds notwithstanding section 306(g) of the 

Denali Commission Act of 1998, and providing for cost-share requirements for Commission-funded construction projects in distressed and non-distressed communities, as defined by section 307 

of the Denali Commission Act of 1998 (Division C, Title III, Public 

Law 105–277), and an amount not to exceed 50 percent for non-distressed communities. 

Language has been included under Northern Border Regional 

Commission for expenditure as authorized by subtitle V of title 40, 

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, to be controlled by 

majority vote of the Commission. 

Language has been included under Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Salaries and Expenses that provides for official representation 

expenses and permits the use of revenues from licensing fees, inspections services, and other services for salaries and expenses to 

reduce the appropriation as revenues are received. Funding is provided to support university research and development, and for a 

Nuclear Science and Engineering Grant Program. 

Language has been included under Office of Inspector General 

that provides for the use of revenues from licensing fees, inspections services, and other services for salaries and expenses, notwithstanding section 3302 of title 31, United States Code, to reduce 

the appropriation as revenues are received. 

Language has been included under Independent Agencies, General Provisions, section 401, permanently improving transparency 

for the use of emergency powers at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Language has been included under Independent Agencies, General Provisions, section 402, requiring the NRC to comply with certain procedures when responding to Congressional requests for information. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
208 

TITLE V—GENERAL PROVISIONS 

Language has been included under General Provisions, section 

501, prohibiting the use of funds in this Act to influence congressional action on any legislation or appropriation matters pending 

before the Congress. 

Language has been included under General Provisions, section 

502, prohibiting funds for any financial arrangement with a corporation which has been convicted of a felony, except in certain circumstances. 

Language has been included under General Provisions, section 

503, prohibiting funds for any financial arrangement with a corporation which has any unpaid Federal tax liability that has been 

assessed, except in certain circumstances. 

Language has been included under General Provisions, section 

504, prohibiting the transfer of funds except pursuant to a transfer 

made by, or transfer authority provided in this or any other appropriations Act, or certain other authorities, and requiring a report. 

Language has been included under General Provisions, section 

505, prohibiting funds in contravention of Executive Order No. 

12898 of February 11, 1994, regarding environmental justice. 

Language has been included under General Provisions, section 

506, prohibiting funds in this Act from being used to close the 

Yucca Mountain license application process, or for actions that 

would remove the possibility that Yucca Mountain might be an option in the future. 

Language has been included under General Provisions, section 

507, setting at $0 the amount that the proposed new budget authority exceeds the allocation made by the Committee on Appropriations under section 302(b) of the Congressional Budget Act of 

1974. 

PROGRAM DUPLICATION

No provision of this bill establishes or reauthorizes a program of 

the Federal Government known to be duplicative of another Federal program, a program that was included in any report from the 

Government Accountability Office to Congress pursuant to section 

21 of Public Law 111–139, or a program related to a program identified in the most recent Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance. 

DIRECTED RULE MAKING

The bill does not direct any rule making. 

COMPLIANCE WITH RULE XIII, CL. 3(e) (RAMSEYER RULE) 

In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the Committee notes that the accompanying bill does not propose to repeal or amend a statute or part 

thereof. 

APPROPRIATIONS NOT AUTHORIZED BY LAW

Pursuant to clause 3(f) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 

Representatives, the following table lists the appropriations in the 

accompanying bill which are not authorized: 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
209 

[in thousands of dollars] 

Agency/Program Last Year of 

Authorization 

Authorization 

Level 

Appropriation in 

Last Year of 

Authorization 

Net 

Appropriation 

in this Bill 

Corps FUSRAP ............................................................ ........................ 1 .......................... 100,000 

EERE Program Direction ............................................. 2006 110,500 164,198 150,000 

EERE Weatherization Activities .................................. 2012 1,400,000 68,000 203,000 

EERE State Energy Programs .................................... 2012 125,000 50,000 50,000 

Nuclear Energy ........................................................... 2009 495,000 792,000 899,000 

Fossil Energy .............................................................. 2009 641,000 727,320 593,000 

Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves .................. 2014 20,000 20,000 19,950 

Office of Science ........................................................ 2013 6,007,000 4,876,000 5,071,000 

Advanced Research Projects Agency—Energy .......... 2013 312,000 265,000 280,000 

Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing Program ...................................................................... 2012 not specified 6,000 4,000 

Non-Defense Environmental Cleanup: 

West Valley Demonstration ............................... 1981 5,000 5,000 58,986 

Departmental Administration ..................................... 1984 246,963 185,682 136,000 

Atomic Energy Defense Activities: 

National Nuclear Security Administration: ....... ........................ .......................... ..........................

Weapons Activities ................................... 2014 7,909,252 7,781,000 8,204,209 

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation ............ 2014 2,180,142 1,954,000 1,555,156 

Naval Reactors ......................................... 2014 1,246,134 1,095,000 1,215,342 

Office of the Administrator ...................... 2014 382,000 377,000 386,863 

Defense Environmental Cleanup ................................ 2014 5,015,409 5,000,000 4,801,280 

Other Defense Activities ............................................ 2014 758,658 755,000 754,000 

Power Marketing Administrations: 

Southwestern ..................................................... 1984 40,254 36,229 11,400 

Western Area ..................................................... 1984 259,700 194,630 93,372 

Appalachian Regional Commission ........................... 2013 110,000 68,263 80,317 

Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board ................... 2014 29,915 28,000 29,150 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission ................................ 1985 460,000 448,200 172,278 

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 

Bureau of Reclamation: Bureau of Reclamation Loan Program Account ... $500,000 

Department of Energy: Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve ................... 6,000,000 

Department of Energy: Clean Coal Technology ............................................ 6,600,000 

Department of Energy: Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy ............. 18,111,000 

Department of Energy: Science ...................................................................... 5,257,000 

Department of Energy: Nuclear Energy ........................................................ 1,046,000 

Department of Energy: Fossil Energy Research and Development ............ 8,243,000 

Department of Energy: Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability ........... 4,809,000 

Department of Energy: Advanced Research Projects Agency—Energy ...... 619,000 

Department of Energy: Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation .......................... 37,000,000 

Department of Energy: Construction, Rehabilitation, Operation and 

Maintenance, Western Area Power Administration ................................. 1,720,000 

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. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
210 

[In millions of dollars] 

302(b) Allocation This Bill 

Budget Authority Outlays Budget Authority Outlays 

Mandatory ....................................................................... n.a. n.a. 0 0 1

Discretionary ................................................................... 34,010 37,831 34,010 37,831 

1 Includes outlays from prior-year budget authority. 

FIVE YEAR OUTLAY PROJECTIONS

Pursuant to section 308(a)(1)(B) of the Congressional Budget Act 

of 1974, the following table contains five-year projections prepared 

by the Congressional Budget Office of outlays associated with the 

budget authority provided in the accompanying bill: 

[In millions of dollars] 

Projection of outlays associated with the recommendation: 

2014 .............................................................................................. 20,141 1

2015 .............................................................................................. 9,554 

2016 .............................................................................................. 2,988 

2017 .............................................................................................. 643 

2018 and future years ................................................................. 600 1 Excludes outlays from prior-year budget authority. 

ASSISTANCE TO STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS

Pursuant to section 308(a)(1)(C) of the Congressional Budget Act 

of 1974, the amount of financial assistance to State and local governments is as follows: 

[In millions of dollars] 

Budget Authority ................................................................................ 94 

Outlays ................................................................................................ 19 1

1 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: 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
211 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 019 HR486.001
212 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 020 HR486.002
213 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 021 HR486.003
214 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 022 HR486.004
215 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 023 HR486.005
216 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 024 HR486.006
217 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 025 HR486.007
218 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 026 HR486.008
219 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 027 HR486.009
220 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 028 HR486.010
221 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 029 HR486.011
(222) 

ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF NITA LOWEY AND MARCY KAPTUR 

We commend Chairman Rogers and Chairman Simpson for their 

efforts to assemble this bill in an inclusive manner. The bill funds 

critical water resource projects, supports science activities necessary for American competitiveness, and contributes to our national defense through vital weapons, naval reactor research, and 

nonproliferation funding, all priorities that unite rather than divide 

us. Chairman Simpson has worked hard to incorporate the interests of Members from both parties. As a result, the bill is largely 

a reflection of priorities from both sides of the aisle. 

The subcommittee’s allocation is $34,010,000,000, an increase of 

$326,862,000 from the Administration’s budget request and 

$50,499,000 below the 2014 level. While the non-defense allocation 

for the bill is the same as 2014, the defense allocation is 

$50,000,000 below 2014. Within the constraints placed on the committee by the overall budget number, the allocation is a reasonable 

one; yet, the allocation still necessitated difficult decisions, particularly within the defense activities. 

We commend the Chairman for increasing Corps of Engineers 

funding by $959,499,000 above the President’s woefully inadequate 

request, ensuring that some ongoing projects will continue. The bill 

also provides more than $1,100,000,000 for projects funded from 

the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund, in excess of $185,000,000 

above the budget request. This funding will allow preventive and 

proactive investments necessary for the economy and the safety of 

American citizens. As we are reminded often by increasingly common weather events, in every case, it makes more fiscal sense to 

prevent a disaster than to respond. The funding will also allow investments in the nation’s ports and waterways, which are critical 

to ensuring that American made goods can move to market, both 

domestically and abroad. We firmly believe that our underinvestment in infrastructure continues to hamper economic gains and 

prolongs the current employment crisis. 

The Corps of Engineers currently has a backlog of authorized 

projects in excess of $60,000,000,000, without including the deauthorization of $18,000,000,000 in the recent Water Resource Reform and Development Act. Even limiting the figure to those 

projects currently budgeted, the balance to complete these ongoing 

projects is more than $20,000,000,000. While this bill ensures increased investment beyond that included in the budget request, we 

should be doing more to build infrastructure and create jobs, not 

less. Federal support of water resource projects creates construction 

jobs and indirect economic benefits that encourage local businesses 

and individuals to embrace risk and make critical investments in 

their communities. The bill does not include funding for new 

projects. While we understand the Chairman’s reasoning, we must 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
223 

start investing in projects that meet tomorrow’s needs, not yesterday’s. 

The Science and ARPA–E accounts, critical to the competitiveness of our nation, are equal to the level of funding provided in 

2014. With a return on investment of 20 to 67 percent, publicly 

funded research grows our economy and helps the United States 

maintain its position as the global leader in innovation. If we truly 

wish to achieve energy independence and tackle the challenges 

posed by climate change, the federal government must continue to 

prioritize investments in cutting edge research at our national laboratories and universities along with supporting advancements in 

high-potential, high-impact energy technologies that are too early 

for private-sector investment. 

With regard to the applied energy programs at the Department 

of Energy, investments in energy technology programs are skewed 

too heavily toward fossil fuels, that undermines the future of a 

clean energy economy. While we must provide for critical research 

and development for the nuclear and fossil energy sectors that currently provide the bulk of our current electricity generation, but 

continued and sustained research and development programs in renewable energy are necessary and appropriate. Renewable energy 

has achieved cost competitiveness in some areas and this investment can drive down the costs of existing technology and provide 

breakthroughs in others. While current trends show that the nation will meet 97 percent of our energy needs through domestic 

production by 2035, investment in portfolio diversity remain necessary for the long term. The United States can leverage its 

strength—innovation—to restore the United States to a position of 

global leadership in clean energy. This effort is a critical national 

priority, with implications for our economic competitiveness, national security, and environmental legacy. 

Our nation’s chief strategic vulnerability is its dependence on foreign energy imports and our lack of energy independence. The 

United States has spent $2,300,000,000,000 importing foreign petroleum since 2003. This represents thousands of dollars out of the 

pockets of every hard-working American spent, not in much-needed 

American job creation, but overseas, assisting our competitors in 

developing their economies and their energy futures. Our republic 

will not compete in the 21st Century and beyond if we further reduce investments in this area and cede the energy future to other 

countries. 

Nonproliferation programs are our first line of defense and the 

most cost-effective way to achieve the urgent goal of securing and 

reducing the amount of vulnerable bomb-grade material. While the 

Chairman reprioritizes within the account to meet the most pressing needs, the defense allocation prevents the bill from overcoming 

the disappointing reduction, some $398,844,000 below 2014 to 

these activities contained in the budget request. 

Within the weapons account we very much appreciate the Chairman’s decision to restore the funding to the dismantlement of retired weapons. The Chairman continues the strong oversight of the 

National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) which has been 

plagued by breathtaking cost overruns and schedule delays. While 

we understand the need to modernize a complex built substantially 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
224 

in the 1950’s, we question whether the organization has the necessary tools and processes to continue to manage large increases to 

these activities year after year. Further, we question whether the 

NNSA can objectively plan for its mission requirements. Year after 

year, the NNSA informs Congress that certain investments are 

critical, the minimum required, and the only option, only to return 

with a more affordable alternative once faced with budgetary realities. The nuclear deterrent is too important and resources too precious to waste funds pursuing capital investments which are unnecessary. 

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. This, again, was driven by a defense allocation 

which left the Chairman little choice. 

While the funding levels of the bill are fair, the inclusion of controversial riders is an unnecessary diversion from our primary responsibility—ensuring that taxpayer funds are invested wisely in 

Federal programs which will contribute to the economic vitality of 

our Nation. 

Most concerning is the inclusion of two water riders which, taken 

together, risk environmental gains and protection of the world’s 

most precious resource: water. The first Clean Water Act prohibition prevents the Corps of Engineers from taking steps to clarify 

which waters are protected by the Clean Water Act, and lock in 

place a widely-acknowledged state of confusion about the scope of 

the law’s pollution control programs. The second prevents the 

Corps of Engineers from using funds to ‘‘develop, adopt, implement, 

administer, or enforce any change’’ to regulations pertaining to the 

definitions of the terms ‘‘fill material’’ or ‘‘discharge of fill material’’ 

under the Clean Water Act. This rider would lock in industry loopholes, leaving many of our nation’s waterways vulnerable to harmful pollution. 

Lastly, the inclusion of the rider allowing guns to be carried on 

all Corps of Engineers lands injects into the bill an unnecessarily 

partisan topic that is unwarranted. The Second Amendment provides a right that we do not dispute at its core. However, we do 

disagree with the notion that reasonable limits on where guns can 

be carried are an infringement upon that right. In an era when a 

school shooting seems to engender collective shrugs, we see no need 

to contribute to an environment where guns are commonplace in 

recreational areas where families are trying to escape the pressures 

of everyday life. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
225 

In spite of these concerns, we would like to reiterate our appreciation for the Chairman’s work with us on many issues, ensuring 

the Energy and Water Development Subcommittee continues its 

tradition of bipartisanship—the Subcommittee has operated collaboratively and effectively for many years and, within the constraints facing the bill, it largely addresses the interests we have 

expressed. We look forward to working with the Chairman and the 

Members of the Committee to advance the process and complete 

the task before us. 

NITA LOWEY

MARCY KAPTUR

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS