" ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

111TH CONGRESS

1st Session 

REPORT

111–203 

ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT 

APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2010 

R E P O R T 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 

TOGETHER WITH

ADDITIONAL VIEWS 

[TO ACCOMPANY H.R. 3183]

JULY 13, 2009.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on 

the State of the Union and ordered to be printed 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGE:\Seals\Congress.#13
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2010 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

1 

50–860 

" ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

111TH CONGRESS

1st Session 

REPORT

2009

111–203 

ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT 

APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2010 

R E P O R T 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 

TOGETHER WITH

ADDITIONAL VIEWS 

[TO ACCOMPANY H.R. 3183]

JULY 13, 2009.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on 

the State of the Union and ordered to be printed 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGE:\Seals\Congress.#13

rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
111TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1st Session 111–203 

ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS 

BILL, 2010 

JULY 13, 2009.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of 

the Union and ordered to be printed 

Mr. PASTOR, from the Committee on Appropriations, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

together with 

ADDITIONAL VIEWS 

[To accompany H.R. 3183] 

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, 2010, and for other purposes. 

INDEX TO BILL AND REPORT 

Page Number 

Bill Report 

Introduction ........ 5 

I. Department of Defense, Corps of Engineers—Civil: 

Introduction .................................................................................. 2 8 

Investigations ............................................................................... 2 13 

Construction ................................................................................. 3 21 

Mississippi River and Tributaries .............................................. 4 38 

Operation and Maintenance ....................................................... 5 40 

Regulatory Program ..................................................................... 6 65 

Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program ................... 7 65 

Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies .................................... ........ 66 

Expenses ....................................................................................... 7 66 

Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) 8 67 

General Provisions ....................................................................... 8 67 

II. Department of the Interior: 

Central Utah Project Completion Account ........................................ 15 68 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
2 

Page Number 

Bill Report 

Bureau of Reclamation: ...................................................................... 15 69 

Fiscal Year 2010 Budget Overview ................................................... ........ 69 

Water and Related Resources ............................................................ 15 70 

Central Valley Project Restoration Fund .......................................... 17 77 

California Bay-Delta Restoration ...................................................... 18 77 

Policy and Administration .................................................................. 19 77 

General Provisions .............................................................................. 19 78 

III. Department of Energy: 

Introduction ......................................................................................... ........ 79 

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy ........................................ 22 91 

Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability ...................................... 24 105 

Nuclear Energy ................................................................................... 24 106 

Fossil Energy Research and Development ........................................ 25 110 

Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves ......................................... 28 112 

Strategic Petroleum Reserve .............................................................. 29 112 

Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve ............................................... 29 113 

Energy Information Administration .................................................. 29 113 

Non-Defense Environmental Management ....................................... ........ 113 

Non-Defense Environmental Cleanup ............................................... 29 114 

Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning 

Fund ................................................................................................. 30 115 

Science ................................................................................................. 30 115 

Advanced Research Projects Agency—Energy .................................. ........ 120 

Nuclear Waste Disposal ...................................................................... 31 120 

Title 17—Innovative Technology Loan Guarantee Program ........... 34 121 

Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loans Program ..... 35 123 

Departmental Administration ............................................................ 35 123 

Office of Inspector General ................................................................. 36 125 

Atomic Energy Defense Activities: 36 126 

National Nuclear Security Administration: 36 126 

Weapons Activities ....................................................................... 36 127 

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation .............................................. 37 134 

Naval Reactors ............................................................................. 38 138 

Office of the Administrator ......................................................... 38 138 

Defense Environmental Management ............................................... ........ 139 

Defense Environmental Cleanup ....................................................... 39 141 

Other Defense Activities ..................................................................... 39 143 

Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal ....................................................... 40 146 

Power Marketing Administrations: 41 146 

Bonneville Power Administration ............................................... 41 147 

Southeastern Power Administration .......................................... 41 147 

Southwestern Power Administration ......................................... 43 147 

Western Power Administration .................................................. 45 148 

Falcon and Amistad Operating and Maintenance Fund .......... 47 149 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ........................................... 48 149 

Committee Recommendation .............................................................. ........ 149 

General Provisions .............................................................................. 49 195 

IV. Independent Agencies: 

Appalachian Regional Commission ................................................... 58 196 

Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board ........................................... 59 196 

Delta Regional Authority ................................................................... 59 196 

Denali Commission ............................................................................. 59 197 

Northern Border Regional Commission ............................................ 60 197 

Southeast Crescent Regional Commission ........................................ 60 198 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission ....................................................... 60 198 

Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board ........................................... 61 200 

Federal Coordinator for Alaska Natural Gas Transportation 

Projects ............................................................................................. 62 200 

Tennessee Valley Authority ............................................................... ........ 201 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
3 

Page Number 

Bill Report 

V. General Provisions: 62 201 

House of Representatives Report Requirements ........ 202 

SUMMARY OF ESTIMATES AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee has considered budget estimates, which are contained in the Budget of the United States Government, 2010. The 

following table summarizes appropriations for fiscal year 2009, the 

budget estimates, and amounts recommended in the bill for fiscal 

year 2010. 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
4 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 01 here HR203.133
5 

INTRODUCTION

The Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill for fiscal 

year 2010 totals $33,307,000,000, a decrease of $1,086,709,000 from 

the President’s budget request, and $46,000,000 above the amount 

appropriated in fiscal year 2009, excluding emergency appropriations. 

Title I of the bill provides $5,541,025,000 for the programs of the 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, an increase of $416,025,000 from 

the budget request, and $138,660,000 above the fiscal year 2009 

enacted level, excluding emergency spending. The fiscal year 2010 

budget request for the Corps of Engineers totals $5,125,000,000 

which is composed entirely of new budget authority. 

Title II provides $1,079,809,000 for the Department of Interior 

and the Bureau of Reclamation, an increase of $17,122,000 from 

the budget request, and $37,929,000 below the fiscal year 2009 enacted level, excluding emergency appropriations. The Committee 

recommends $1,037,805,000 for the Bureau of Reclamation, 

$17,122,000 above the budget request and $37,933,000 below the 

fiscal year 2009 enacted level excluding emergency appropriations. 

The Committee recommends $42,004,000 for the Central Utah 

Project, including $1,500,000 for deposit into the Utah Reclamation 

Mitigation and Conservation Account, both the same as the budget 

request. 

Title III provides $26,878,850,000 for the Department of Energy, 

a decrease of $1,527,856,000 from the budget request, and 

$85,849,000 above the fiscal year 2009 enacted level, excluding 

emergency spending. The Committee recommends funding for renewable energy and energy efficiency programs at $2,250,000,000; 

nuclear energy programs at $812,000,000; and $4,943,587,000 for 

the Office of Science, an increase of $170,951,000 over the current 

year. 

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

$6,178,736,000, a decrease of $275,836,000 from the fiscal year 

2009 enacted level and an increase of $86,011,000 from the budget 

request. 

The Committee recommends $98,400,000 for Nuclear Waste Disposal and $98,400,000 for Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal, for a 

total of $196,800,000 for the Yucca Mountain repository, the same 

as the request. Included in this amount is $5,000,000, as requested, 

for a Blue Ribbon Commission to review alternative options for nuclear waste disposal. 

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 $9,215,062,000, a decrease of $729,965,000 from the 

request, and an increase of $85,468,000 from fiscal year 2009. The 

Committee recommendation includes $6,320,000,000 for Weapons 

Activities, a decrease of $60,000,000 from the current year and 

$64,431,000 below the budget request. 

Funding for the Power Marketing Administrations is provided at 

the requested levels. 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
6 

Title IV provides $320,316,000 for several independent agencies, $1,000,000 above the budget request, and $12,420,000 above the 

fiscal year 2009 enacted level. The requested funding is provided 

for the Appalachian Regional Commission, the Delta Regional Authority, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Inspector General, the 

Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board, the Denali Commission, 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Office of the Federal Coordinator for Alaska Natural Gas Transportation Projects. In addition, $500,000 is provided for the Northern Border Regional Commission as well as the Southeast Crescent Regional Commission. 

No funds are provided for the Office of Inspector General for the 

Tennessee Valley Authority. 

FUNDING TO ADDRESS FUEL PRICES

For fiscal year 2010, the Energy and Water Development appro- priation includes nearly $1,000,000,000 to contribute to lasting solutions for addressing rising fuel prices. This funding, in addition 

to investments made through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, provides for research, development, demonstration, and 

deployment of energy technologies that increase vehicle efficiency, 

advance new alternative fuel technologies, and help the nation reduce its dependence on petroleum-based fuels. While funding 

through these appropriations will not reduce vehicle fuel prices immediately, these funds are provided to improve vehicle technologies 

and advance alternative fuels such as next-generation biofuels. On 

a five- to ten-year timescale, these investments should reduce demand for oil, increase supplies of alternative motor fuels, and make 

American consumers and businesses less dependent on fluctuating 

prices for fuel from foreign sources. 

Activities at the Energy Department will improve the fuel economy of vehicles sold during the next decade. The Vehicle Technologies Program in the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable 

Energy will improve the energy efficiency of conventional vehicles 

through advancements in combustion engines and other vehicle 

components. The program seeks technology breakthroughs that will 

greatly reduce petroleum use by automobiles and trucks of all 

sizes, through research and development of lightweight materials, 

internal combustion engine efficiency, electronic power controls, 

and other vehicle components. 

The transportation sector is poised to become increasingly electrified through technologies such as plug-in hybrid electric vehicles. 

Efforts at the Department will remove market barriers and accelerate this transition by reducing energy demand and increasing the 

supply of clean electricity with reduced dependence on petroleumbased fuel. The Committee also continues funding for research and 

development (R&D) of hybrid and electric vehicle technologies, and 

continues grant programs intended to support the development of 

domestic capabilities to manufacture advanced technology vehicles. 

Further, the Administration proposes, and the Committee supports, 

a major increase from the fiscal year 2009 level to the Office of 

Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability to conduct research and 

development for new electricity transmission and distribution technologies. These novel technologies will increase grid efficiency and 

ultimately enable the large-scale deployment of grid-connected vehicles that can both charge their batteries using electricity from 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
7 

clean generation sources, and deliver energy back to the grid during daytime hours when electricity is needed most. 

The Committee also provides funding for reducing the nation’s oil 

dependence by increasing the production of next-generation alternative fuels that work with existing infrastructure. The research 

funded at the Department of Energy ranges from basic work to 

map the genomes of microorganisms that digest cellulose, to applied work testing the efficiency of existing vehicles with a variety 

of ethanol blends. Biomass and Biorefinery Systems R&D conducts 

research, development and technology validation on advanced technologies that will enable future biorefineries to convert cellulosic 

biomass to fuels, chemicals, heat and power. The program focuses 

on reducing processing energy requirements and production costs 

in biomass processing plants and future integrated industrial biorefineries. Activities within the Biological and Environmental Research program of the Office of Science include basic research to 

understand how microorganisms efficiently convert cellulose to sugars. 

Finally, while the Administration’s request eliminates funding 

for hydrogen transportation research and development programs 

previously funded under the Hydrogen Technologies program, the 

Committee recognizes hydrogen fuels as one of several technologies 

that have the potential to significantly reduce the transportation 

sector’s dependence on gasoline. The Committee believes that all 

viable options should be considered and supported, and maintains 

funding for hydrogen transportation systems within the Vehicle 

Technologies Program. 

The broad spectrum of activities at the Department of Energy 

supported by the Committee aims to reduce our nation’s vulnerability to high fuel prices in the next decade, and to transition the 

transportation sector to next-generation technologies that can substantially reduce the American economy’s dependence on foreign 

oil. 

HYDROPOWER INVESTMENTS

As energy security and issues of global climate change are becoming increasingly important to the decisions made regarding infrastructure investment, the nation’s hydropower facilities must be 

considered. 

Hydropower improvements at existing facilities provide a reliable, efficient, domestic, emission-free source of renewable energy. 

Hydropower plants have, without question, changed the natural 

river environment. However, with some exceptions, the environmental damages of existing dams are largely complete, and further 

investment in modern turbines can have the benefit of improving 

existing water quality and fish passage issues in addition to increasing generation efficiency and capacity. The Corps of Engineers 

and the Bureau of Reclamation must continue to focus on minimizing the negative impacts to the environment, while maximizing 

the use of existing infrastructure. Beyond generation capacity, hydropower benefits also include the flexibility to meet peak power 

demands, the displacement of additional thermal plants and their 

carbon emissions, and ancillary services such as voltage stability of 

the transmission system and system restoration after black-outs. 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
8 

Following a requirement in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 

(EPAct), the Department of Interior, the Federal Power Marketing 

Administrations and the Department of the Army, which the Corps 

represented, completed a study of additional hydropower potential 

at existing facilities. In this study, more than 1,200 megawatts 

(MW) of potential capacity were identified through the development 

of sites at existing facilities—approximately 900 MW for the Corps 

and 300 MW for the Bureau of Reclamation. Further, the study 

identified nearly 1,300 megawatts of additional capacity through 

refurbishments at existing Corps and Bureau sites. 

Further, with the emergence of new hydropower technologies 

such as hydrokinetics, which were not investigated in the EPAct 

report, it is estimated that an additional 200–300 MW of capacity 

could be achieved. With this additional capacity operating at about 

55 percent plant factor, some 7.2 million megawatt-hours of energy 

could be generated annually, enough energy to avoid using 4.2 million barrels of oil, or burning approximately 1 million metric tons 

of coal, and emitting 746 million kilograms (825,000 tons) of atmospheric carbon emissions. 

The Committee encourages the Administration to pursue these 

investments and provide a report outlining a five to ten year investment program to realize this additional generation capacity. 

Further, the Department of Energy is directed to conduct an assessment of existing conventional hydropower at sites not owned by 

Federal entities, and to report on strategies to encourage owners to 

invest in any identified upgrades. 

TERMINATIONS, REDUCTIONS AND OTHER SAVINGS

In order to invest in the critical priorities identified in this bill, 

and in an effort to build an economy on a solid foundation for 

growth and put the Nation on a path toward prosperity, the Committee has proposed herein a number of program terminations, reductions and other savings from the fiscal year 2009 level totaling 

over $1.8 billion. In addition, over $2.5 billion in other program terminations, reductions and other savings from the budget request 

are recommended. These adjustments, no matter their size, are important to setting the right priorities within the spending allocation, for getting the deficit under control, and creating a government that is as efficient as it is effective. 

TITLE I 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE—CIVIL 

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—CIVIL

INTRODUCTION

The Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act funds 

the Civil Works component of the Army Corps of Engineers, which 

encompasses approximately 23,000 civilians and 190 military personnel. Army involvement in works of civil nature dates back to the 

origins of the nation. Over the years, the Corps Civil Works mission has adapted to accommodate changing societal needs and valVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:48 Jul 14, 2009 Jkt 050860 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR203.XXX HR203

rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
9 

ues. A brief legislative history and the major mission areas of the 

Corps have been included in past Energy and Water Development 

reports. 

WATER RESOURCE INVESTMENT

The Administration’s request for the Corps of Engineers is the 

most robust of any in the history of the Corps. While the Committee continues to believe that the budget level is inadequate to 

meet the existing needs of the nation, the level requested by this 

Administration is far better than past requests. Congress included 

$4,500,000,000 for the Corps of Engineers in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and the Committee recommends additional resources in the fiscal year 2010 bill to address the nation’s 

water resource investment needs. The budget request and the Committee recommendation recognize the increasing cost of aging infrastructure through significantly increasing the funding level for operation and maintenance of existing projects. 

The Committee is concerned that the fiscal year 2010 budget request reduces the budget for navigation from 40 to 34 percent of 

the total budget request. As our national discussion on energy and 

carbon emissions moves forward, the carbon footprint of different 

transportation modes and the methods by which we generate our 

electricity must be considered. Our national waterways are an efficient mode of transportation from both a carbon emission and fuel 

consumption standpoint. While the determination of exactly which 

navigation channels and harbors provide the best investment may 

not be universally agreed upon, a subset that is economically important for the nation and the regions in which they reside should 

be more easily arrived at by all parties. The Committee encourages 

the Administration to reevaluate the navigation business line in 

light of the current discussion on the economy, energy and climate. 

The most immediate navigation need is addressing the insolvency of the Inland Waterways Trust Fund (IWTF). If the revenue 

stream is not addressed, the level of investment must be adjusted 

to the available resources—resulting in increased costs to existing 

projects as they are suspended, as well as the deferral of new 

projects in need of recapitalization. The budget request includes a 

legislative proposal regarding the IWTF and has not budgeted beyond the Trust Fund’s current revenue stream. 

Deep draft navigation requires attention on several fronts. The 

nation is continuing the ‘‘race to the bottom’’ as post-Panamax vessels become more prevalent in the industry and Canadian and 

Mexican ports threaten to garner larger market shares of cargo. 

This requires a national examination of which ports should be 

deepened to accommodate these vessels and the economic impact of 

those investments. The Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund currently 

carries significant balances of more than $4.5 billion, that if utilized could help realize significant economic efficiencies in our marine transportation system. 

While the Committee supports additional investment in waterborne transportation, investment decisions must also address the 

environmental consequences of our ports, harbors and navigation 

channels. To this end, it may be time to revisit the policy of leastcost dredge material disposal. Consideration of this change in policy may lead to more projects that include environmentally beneVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:48 Jul 14, 2009 Jkt 050860 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR203.XXX HR203

rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
10 

ficial elements rather than projects that are simply acceptable in 

terms of mitigation of environmental impacts. 

Finally, as outlined in the introduction to this report, the Committee believes that additional investment in existing federal hydropower facilities is desirable, and is encouraged by the Administration’s proposal to begin a nationwide evaluation of hydropower 

rehabilitation. The Committee directs the Corps of Engineers to 

provide a five to ten year plan to invest in facility upgrades that 

will provide additional generating capacity in an environmentally 

benign manner. 

FISCAL YEAR 2010 BUDGET OVERVIEW

The fiscal year 2010 budget request for the Corps of Engineers 

totals $5,125,000,000, $277,365,000 below the funding level enacted 

in fiscal year 2009, excluding emergency appropriations. As in previous years, the bulk of this proposed reduction is in the Construction account and would, if enacted, significantly undermine the provision of new water resource infrastructure. 

The budget proposal for the Investigations account is 

$100,000,000, $68,100,000 below fiscal year 2009 levels. The Administration proposes $50,583,000 for 66 studies to address water 

resource issues in cooperation with local sponsors. Within this 

funding, $25,000,000 is for one study, the Louisiana Coastal Area 

Ecosystem Restoration. The budget proposes funding for three new 

studies and two new activities. 

The proposed fiscal year 2010 Construction program is 

$1,718,000,000. The Construction program continues a performance-based structure to guide the allocation of funding construction 

projects. Flood and storm damage reduction, navigation and hydropower projects are ranked by their Benefit-to-Cost Ratio. Aquatic 

ecosystem restoration projects are ranked on how cost-effective 

they are in helping restore a regionally or nationally significant 

ecosystem that has become degraded as a result of a Civil Works 

project or a restoration effort that requires the Corps’ expertise in 

rehabilitating an aquatic regime. 

Significantly, the budget request includes funding both for construction of coastal projects to reduce storm damage and for periodic renourishment of such projects, a change in Administration 

policy the Committee strongly supports. The proposed projects also 

include 10 dam safety assurance, seepage control and static instability correction projects and nine projects justified based on lifesaving benefits. The budget request proposes five new start projects 

for a total of $44,000,000 and two new start activities totaling 

$48,510,000. Finally, the budget proposes funding to complete eight 

projects. 

The budget request includes a legislative proposal to authorize a 

lock usage fee for the Inland Waterways Trust Fund, which would 

replace the diesel fuel tax now paid by most commercial users of 

the inland and intracoastal waterways. The proposal is intended to 

address the declining balance in the Trust Fund and align the costs 

that commercial users pay with the associated capital investments. 

The proposed funding for the Operations and Maintenance account is $2,504,000,000, a significant increase of $255,033,000, 

after adjusting for $47,067,000 in activities previously funded in 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
11 

the Construction account. The budget request includes five new activities. 

The request for the Mississippi River and Tributaries account is $248,000,000, a reduction of $135,823,000 from fiscal year 2009 enacted levels. 

The Administration requests $134,000,000 for the Formerly Uti- lized Sites Remedial Action Program, a reduction of $6,000,000 

from current year levels. 

The budget request for Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies account is $41,000,000, an increase of the same amount from current year levels. The budget request for the Regulatory account is $190,000,000, an increase of $7,000,000 above current year levels. 

Expenses and the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) are requested at $184,000,000 and $6,000,000, an increase of $4,635,000 and $1,500,000, respectively. 

FISCAL YEAR 2010 BUDGET PRESENTATION

The Committee received the Corps of Engineers’ detailed budget 

documents on June 10, 2009, a full three weeks after a detailed 

budget was submitted by the President. Prior to that time, the 

Committee was forced to rely on the budget appendix, a project list 

and the short summary released with the budget blueprint in order 

to evaluate the Administration’s request of over $5,000,000,000 of 

taxpayer funds. The Committee is disappointed in this lack of 

transparency in the budgeting process. In the context of the Administration insisting that the Committee and Members of Congress provide more transparency on congressional priorities, this 

failure is inexplicable. 

The Committee has included a provision requiring the submission of detailed project justifications concurrent with the submission of the budget appendix for fiscal year 2011. The Committee expects that the budget submission for fiscal year 2011 will be provided in a timely manner and will address not only projects included in the budget request but detailed information on all 

projects funded in fiscal year 2010. 

FIVE-YEAR COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING

The Committee over the years has encouraged the Administration to provide five-year investment plans for all the agencies within the Energy and Water jurisdiction, particularly the Corps of Engineers, and remains hopeful that the Administration will not continue the past practice of resisting a five-year plan that is based 

on realistic assumptions of project funding needs. It is the Committee’s hope that once projects are 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 they do not support through the 

budget process. This leaves a considerable percentage of Corps 

funding that relies upon congressional direction and a year-to-year 

horizon for planning purposes. It would be beneficial for Congress, 

the Administration, and project partners to have a comprehensive 

plan to outline requirements for all projects that receive an appropriation. The Committee would welcome a dialogue to reach a muVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:48 Jul 14, 2009 Jkt 050860 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR203.XXX HR203

rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
12 

tually agreeable way to comprehensively plan for all ongoing 

projects. 

CONGRESSIONAL DIRECTION AND REPROGRAMMING

To ensure that the expenditure of funds in fiscal year 2010 is 

consistent with congressional direction, to minimize the movement 

of funds and to improve overall budget execution, the bill incorporates by reference the projects and direction identified in the report accompanying this Act into statute. Further, the bill carries a 

legislative provision outlining the circumstances under which the 

Corps of Engineers may reprogram funds. 

NEW STARTS

The passage of the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 

2007 continues to present the Committee with the challenge of 

seven years of pent-up demand for new water resource projects. 

While the Committee supports a move to a new generation of 

projects that address the challenges faced by local communities, 

there remain many projects authorized prior to WRDA 2007 that 

have yet to receive funding. In recognition of this need, the Committee provides funding for a limited number of new starts. The 

Committee includes the five new start Construction projects and 

the seven new activities in the Investigations and Operation and 

Maintenance accounts as proposed by the Administration, as well 

as 20 new projects not requested by the Administration. The Committee also limits the Corps ability to start two new construction 

activities, until certain reporting requirements are met. All new 

starts are provided $100,000 regardless of their phase; the projects 

may compete for additional funding in future years. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a total of $5,541,025,000 for the 

Corps of Engineers, an increase of $416,025,000 from the request 

and an increase of $138,660,000 from fiscal year 2009 enacted levels. The Committee provides these additional resources to partially 

address the regional disparities that were evident in the allocations 

from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. 

Due to the Administration’s failure to submit the necessary 

budget justifications in a timely manner, the funding recommendations made in this bill rely primarily upon past justifications and 

other ad hoc documents rather than a complete explanation of the 

funding decisions made by the Administration. 

A table summarizing the fiscal year 2009 enacted appropriation, 

the fiscal year 2010 budget request, and the Committee recommended levels is provided below: 

[Dollars in thousands] 

Account FY 2009 enacted FY 2010 request Commitee 

Investigations ....................................................................... $168,100 $100,000 $142,000 

Emergency appropriations 1 ........................................ 25,000 — — 

Construction ......................................................................... 2,141,677 1,718,000 2,122,679 

Emergency appropriations 1 ........................................ 2,000,000 — — 

Emergency appropriations 2 ........................................ 2,835,000 — — 

Mississippi River and tributaries ........................................ 383,823 248,000 251,375 

Emergency appropriations 1 ........................................ 375,000 — — 

Operation and Maintenance ................................................ 2,201,900 2,504,000 2,510,971 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
13 

[Dollars in thousands] 

Account FY 2009 enacted FY 2010 request Commitee 

Emergency appropriations 1 ........................................ 2,075,000 — — 

Regulatory program ............................................................. 183,000 190,000 190,000 

Emergency appropriations 1 ........................................ 25,000 — — 

FUSRAP ................................................................................. 140,000 134,000 134,000 

Emergency appropriations 1 ........................................ 100,000 — — 

Flood control and coastal emergencies ............................... — 41,000 — 

Emergency appropriations 2 ........................................ 2,926,000 — — 

Expenses .............................................................................. 179,365 184,000 184,000 

Office of Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) ..... 4,500 6,000 6,000 

Total, Corps of Engineers .................................. 15,763,365 5,125,000 5,541,025 

Appropriations .................................................... 5,402,365 (5,125,000 ) (5,541,025 ) 

Emergency appropriations 1 ...................... 10,361,000 (— ) (— ) 

1 Emergency appropriations P.L. 111–5. 

2 Emergency appropriations P.L. 110–252. 

INVESTIGATIONS

(INCLUDING RESCISSION OF FUNDS)

Appropriation, 2009 ............................................................................ $168,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ....................................................................... 100,000,000 

Recommended, 2010 ........................................................................... 142,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2009 .................................................................... ¥26,100,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ................................................................ +42,000,000 

This appropriation funds studies to determine the need, 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 $142,000,000, 

$26,100,000 below the fiscal year 2009 enacted level, and 

$42,000,000 above the budget request. 

The budget request for this account and the approved Committee 

allowance are shown on the following table: 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
14 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 002 hr203.090
15 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 003 hr203.091
16 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 004 hr203.092
17 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 005 hr203.093
18 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 006 hr203.094
19 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 007 hr203.095
20 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 008 hr203.096
21 

CONSTRUCTION

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriation, 2009 ............................................................................ $2,141,677,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ....................................................................... 1,718,000,000 

Recommended, 2010 ........................................................................... 2,122,679,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2009 .................................................................... ¥18,998,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ................................................................ +404,679,000 

This appropriation funds construction, major rehabilitation, and 

related activities for water resource projects whose principal purpose is to provide for 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 and the Inland Waterways Trust funds. 

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $2,122,679,000, 

$18,998,000 below the fiscal year 2009 enacted appropriation and 

$404,679,000 above the budget request. 

The Committee directs the Administration to report not later 

than March 31, 2010, on an updated detailed accounting of receipts 

into and obligations and expenditures from the Inland Waterways 

Trust Fund. The report shall include a list of priority projects eligible for additional funding, including the cost benefit ratio, life-safety information, total lifecycle cost remaining, and incremental information for each project. 

The budget request for this account and the approved Committee 

allowance are shown on the following table: 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
22 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 09 HR203.097
23 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 10 HR203.098
24 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 11 HR203.099
25 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 12 HR203.100
26 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 13 HR203.101
27 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 14 HR203.102
28 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 15 HR203.103
29 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 16 HR203.104
30 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 17 HR203.105
31 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 18 HR203.106
32 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 19 HR203.107
33 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 20 HR203.108
34 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 21 HR203.210
35 

White River Navigation to Newport, Arkansas.—Within the funds 

provided, not less than half of the amount appropriated shall be 

used for determining feasibility of navigation from Newport to 

Batesville, Arkansas. 

Ozark-Jeta Taylor Powerhouse, Arkansas.—The Committee provides no funds for the completion of this project given its understanding that the funds necessary to meet the existing contractual 

obligations will be provided through Recovery Act funding. 

Palm Beach County, Florida.—Within the funds provided for this project, $50,000 shall be for the Delray Beach segment and 

$1,150,000 for the Boca Raton segment. 

South Florida Ecosystem Restoration, Florida.—The Committee 

provides $210,239,000 for this important restoration project. While 

the amount is a reduction from the request, it is $80,000,000 more 

than the next largest project in the Construction account. Since 

2000, Energy and Water Development appropriations have provided more than $1,300,000,000 to this project, roughly twice the 

amount appropriated for the Olmstead Lock and Dam project, the 

next largest project currently under construction. The Committee 

provides for all but one element of the project as requested by the 

Administration, despite the fact that the budget proposes to initiate 

two construction projects totaling nearly $500,000,000. The Committee continues its historic support for this project; however, it believes that more comprehensive reporting is required in order to exercise accountability over a project of this scope and magnitude. 

Therefore, the Corps shall provide the House Appropriations Committee, within 30 days of enactment of this Act, a comprehensive 

plan for all elements of the Everglades Restoration outlining all existing authorized activities and projects, their estimated cost, funding requirements and completion schedule. Upon provision of this 

report, the Corps may obligate funding on new elements of the 

project. Further, no funds are provided for the Modified Waters Delivery project. This project should remain funded within the Interior Department. 

Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal, Illinois.—The Committee is 

concerned about the threat that harmful invasive species, such as 

the Asian Carp, pose to the Great Lakes ecosystem. The Committee 

is aware that the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal Second Dispersal Barrier is not yet operating at maximum capacity and that 

the voltage could be increased to provide maximum effectiveness. 

The Corps is directed to initiate safety testing of the Second Barrier at operational strength of up to 4 volts per inch, in coordination with the Coast Guard, within 180 days of enactment of this 

Act. 

Muddy River, Boston and Brookline, Massachusetts.—Funding is 

included to continue project design and construction, including ecosystem restoration features. 

Sault Ste. Marie (Replacement Lock), Michigan.—The Corps has 

identified billions of dollars in annual savings through commerce 

on the Great Lakes and through the St. Lawrence Seaway, commerce that would be devastated if a failure of the existing, aging 

infrastructure were to occur. The Omnibus Appropriations Act of 

2009 (P.L. 111–8), included $17 million to begin construction of a 

second Poe-sized lock at Sault St. Marie, Michigan. The Committee 

is deeply concerned that despite Congressional support for the 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
36 

project, despite the support of the states in the region, and despite 

the fact that the Army Corps of Engineers recognizes the Soo Locks 

as the ‘‘single point of failure’’ that can cripple Great Lakes shipping, the Administration has failed to include funding for a second 

large lock, either under the authorities provided in the American 

Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), or in its budget request 

funding for fiscal year 2010. Further, the Committee notes that the Corps included just $94 

million under ARRA for projects in the Great Lakes region, just 2% 

of the national total, despite the facts that the Soo Lock project is 

shovel ready, Michigan has the highest level of unemployment in 

the country and the entire region is struggling with the restructuring of a core industry, the automobile industry. Further, the 

Committee notes that despite ignoring this vitally-important investment in the regional economy, the Corps is apparently moving 

ahead on a groundbreaking event for the project. 

The Committee shares the concerns in the region that there is 

a disturbing disconnect between the growing maritime infrastructure needs and the Administration’s and the Corps’ shrinking understanding of those needs and expects them to be ready to address 

this in the fiscal year 2011 budget. 

Rural Nevada, Environmental Infrastructure, Nevada.—The 

Committee has included $3,000,000 for this project. Within the 

funds provided, the Corps should give consideration to projects at 

North Lemmon Valley and City of Fernely. Other communities that 

meet the program criteria should be considered as funding allows. 

Levisa and Tug Forks and Upper Cumberland River, West Virginia, Virginia & Kentucky.—Of the funds appropriated for this project, not less than $3,000,000 shall be designated for the Town 

of Martin element. 

Continuing Authorities Program (CAP).—This program continues 

to be a source of concern to the Committee. While the Corps continues to make process and program improvements, the program 

remains significantly oversubscribed. After three years of significant funding and limits on new projects, the backlog has nonetheless increased, according to data supplied by the Corps of Engineers. The table below, by CAP authority, provides a summary of 

the current backlog. For a program that receives approximately 

$120,000,000 per year, the scope of the backlog is staggering. 

Section Project fed cost Allocations thru FY08 Allocations planned 

FY09 

FY10–FY15 obligation 

capability 

14 ........................................................... $82,483,767 $35,882,936 $8,421,654 $38,179,177 

103 ......................................................... 64,644,200 20,589,876 3,979,324 40,075,000 

107 ......................................................... 154,626,756 46,897,949 4,162,794 103,566,013 

111 ......................................................... 52,113,000 5,145,800 118,000 46,849,200 

204 ......................................................... 36,333,500 7,495,518 5,025,400 23,812,582 

205 ......................................................... 579,947,619 203,968,755 17,724,842 358,254,022 

206 ......................................................... 515,795,612 146,618,577 25,982,843 343,194,192 

208 ......................................................... 770,000 245,700 193,000 331,300 

1135 ....................................................... 309,138,594 130,668,887 9,130,890 169,338,817 

Totals ........................................ 1,795,853,048 597,513,998 74,738,747 1,123,600,303 

In fiscal year 2010, the Committee recommendation does not 

specify funding for any CAP project, in recognition of the dynamic 

nature of the program. No projects, whether requested by the Administration or Members of Congress, are listed for the Section 14 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
37 

program. This funding is intended for emergency streambank protection of public facilities and, as such, shall be distributed on the 

basis of urgency. For fiscal year 2011, it is the Committee’s intention to discontinue listing projects for the Continuing Authorities 

Program, except for the purposes of initiating a new project. 

This in no measure relieves the Corps from judicious management of this program. The Corps must manage this program to realize economic and environmental benefits to the nation. Should 

the Corps return to past practices of inattention and benign neglect, the Committee will quickly reconsider this position and begin 

once again specifying priorities for the program. Due to the quickly 

changing circumstances of the individual projects, this would not 

be the ideal solution—it is the Corps’ responsibility to convince the 

Committee that proper management and decision-making is in 

place that will ensure taxpayer funds are spent wisely and with results. 

The preceding table includes a list of projects designated by Congress for fiscal year 2010 funding. The Corps may allocate funds 

to other, active projects after the funding for named projects is addressed. Under no circumstances shall the Corps initiate new 

projects in Section 205, 206 or 1135. New projects may be initiated 

in the remaining sections after an assessment is made that such 

projects can be funded over time based on historical averages of the 

appropriation for that section and after approval by the House and 

Senate Committees on Appropriations. The Corps shall prioritize 

the projects based on the following criteria: 

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

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

Project Cooperation Agreements (PCAs). 

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

to execute a PCA. 

3. D&I work which does not require executed agreements 

(e.g. continuing or pre-PCA design) for ongoing projects. 

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

Priorities for Feasibility Phase: 

1. Feasibility phase funding for projects with executed Feasibility Cost Sharing Agreements (FCSAs). 

2. Feasibility phase funding for projects approved by Corps 

Headquarters to execute a FCSA. 

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

ongoing projects. 

4. Feasibility phase funding for initiations or restarts. 

Within the last-funded priority level within the D&I and Feasibility phases, if the projects qualifying for funding exceed the available funding, funds shall be allocated based on project outputs and 

the non-Federal sponsor’s ability to meet local obligations. 

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

in accordance with the aforementioned priorities, except that all 

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

needed projects. 

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

20 percent between the Design and Implementation phase and the 

Feasibility phase within each authority. This split should be conVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:48 Jul 14, 2009 Jkt 050860 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR203.XXX HR203

rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
38 

sidered a guideline only, as there may be specific circumstances 

that require a slightly different weighting. 

Dam Safety and Seepage/Stability Correction Program.—The 

Committee supports the Administration’s request for this program 

to provide for studies and modification of completed Corps dams, 

including Isabella Dam. The Committee encourages the Corps to 

continue its risk-based approach to evaluate and address these facilities. 

MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES

Appropriation, 2009 ............................................................................ $383,823,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ....................................................................... 248,000,000 

Recommended, 2010 ........................................................................... 251,375,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2009 .................................................................... ¥132,448,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ................................................................ +3,375,000 

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 $251,375,000, 

$132,448,000 below the fiscal year 2009 enacted level and 

$3,375,000 above the budget request. 

The budget request for this account and the approved Committee 

allowance are shown on the following table: 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
39 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 010 50273A.007
40 

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

Appropriation, 2009 ............................................................................ $2,201,900,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ....................................................................... 2,504,000,000 

Recommended, 2010 ........................................................................... 2,510,971,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2009 .................................................................... +309,071,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ................................................................ +6,971,000 

This appropriation funds operation, maintenance, and related activities at the water resource projects that the Corps of Engineers 

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 $2,510,971,000, $309,071,000 above the fiscal year 2009 enacted level and 

$6,971,000 above the budget request. 

The Committee is concerned that the Los Angeles District of the 

Corps of Engineers has no standards or tools specifically for its 

emergency response operations or for day-to-day asset management. While the Corps’ current capability can produce and share 

pictorial representations of a hazard, it cannot readily produce actionable assessment and response information. The Committee directs the Corps to evaluate the need for a system with a common 

operating picture of district assets and emergency incident information that Corps district managers and staff can leverage, manage 

and share within the emergency management, business continuity, 

Federal, state and local defense and homeland security communities. The system should have the capability to visualize, analyze 

and share assessments of the consequences of a variety of hazards, 

and to provide effective day-to-day asset management and emergency response. The Corps shall report to the Committee not later 

than August 1, 2009, on the need for such a system and, if necessary, the resources needed to develop a prototype. 

The budget request for this account and the approved Committee 

allowance are shown on the following table: 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
41 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 021 here 50273A.109
42 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 022 here 50273A.110
43 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 023 here HR203.111
44 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 024 here 50273A.112
45 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 025 here 50273A.113
46 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 026 here 50273A.114
47 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 027 here 50273A.115
48 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 028 here 50273A.116
49 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 029 here 50273A.117
50 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 030 here 50273A.118
51 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 031 here 50273A.119
52 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 032 here 50273A.120
53 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 033 here 50273A.121
54 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 034 here 50273A.122
55 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 035 here 50273A.123
56 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 036 here 50273A.124
57 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 037 here 50273A.125
58 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 038 here 50273A.126
59 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 039 here 50273A.127
60 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 040 here 50273A.128
61 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 041 here 50273A.129
62 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 042 here 50273A.130
63 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 043 here HR203.131
64 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 044 here HR203.132
65 

Apalachicola, Chattachoochee and Flint Rivers, Georgia, Alabama & Florida.—The Corps of Engineers is directed to provide a 

report to the House Appropriations Committee within 90 days of 

enactment of this Act outlining a study plan to comprehensively examine the results of the National Research Council’s ‘‘Summary of 

a Workshop on Water Issues in the Apalachicola-ChattahoocheeFlint and Alabama-Coosa-Tallapoosa (ACR–ACT) River Basins’’ as 

they relate to the ACF basin. The report should provide estimates 

of funding needs as well as additional authorization requirements 

to execute such a study. The report shall also outline how these efforts would integrate, complement, or conflict with ongoing Corps 

of Engineers activities within the basin. 

REGULATORY PROGRAM

Appropriation, 2009 ............................................................................ $183,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ....................................................................... 190,000,000 

Recommended, 2010 ........................................................................... 190,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2009 .................................................................... +7,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ................................................................ — 

This appropriation provides funds to administer laws pertaining 

to 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 $190,000,000, 

the same as the request and $7,000,000 above the fiscal year 2009 

enacted level. 

FORMERLY UTILIZED SITES REMEDIAL ACTION PROGRAM (FUSRAP) 

Appropriation, 2009 ............................................................................ $140,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ....................................................................... 134,000,000 

Recommended, 2010 ........................................................................... 134,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2009 .................................................................... ¥6,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ................................................................ — 

This appropriation funds the cleanup of certain low-level radioactive materials and mixed wastes, located mostly at sites contaminated as a result of the Nation’s early efforts to develop atomic 

weapons. 

Congress transferred FUSRAP from the Department of Energy 

(DOE) 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 DOE had 

not completed cleanup. The Committee did not transfer to the 

Corps ownership of and accountability for real property interests, 

which remain with DOE. The Committee expects DOE to continue 

to provide its institutional knowledge and expertise to serve the 

Nation and the affected communities to ensure the success of this 

program. 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
66 

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $134,000,000, 

the same as the request, and $6,000,000 below the fiscal year 2009 

enacted level. The Committee continues to support the prioritization of sites, especially those that are nearing completion. The Secretary of the Army shall submit a report not later than 120 days 

after enactment of this Act to the Committees on Appropriations of 

the House of Representatives and the Senate detailing the progress 

of cleanup of the former Sylvania nuclear fuel site in Hicksville, 

New York. 

FLOOD CONTROL AND COASTAL EMERGENCIES

Appropriation, 2009 ............................................................................ — 

Budget estimate, 2010 ....................................................................... $41,000,000 

Recommended, 2010 ........................................................................... — 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2009 .................................................................... — 

Budget estimate, 2010 ................................................................ ¥41,000,000 

This appropriation funds the planning, training, exercises, and 

other measures that ensure the readiness of the Corps to respond 

to floods, hurricanes, and other natural disasters, and to support 

emergency operations in response to such natural disasters, including advance measures, flood fighting, emergency operations, the 

provision of potable water on an emergency basis, and the repair 

of certain flood and storm damage reduction projects. The requested amount is the base funding necessary for preparedness activities. 

The Committee recommends no funds for this account, 

$41,000,000 below the budget request and the same as the fiscal 

year 2009 enacted level. Funding for this purpose has been provided in the fiscal year 2009 Supplemental Appropriations Act 

(H.R. 2346). 

EXPENSES

Appropriation, 2009 ............................................................................ $179,365,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ....................................................................... 184,000,000 

Recommended, 2010 ........................................................................... 184,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2009 .................................................................... +4,635,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ................................................................ — 

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 $184,000,000, 

$4,635,000 above the fiscal year 2009 enacted level and the same 

as the budget request. 

The bill carries language requiring the Chief of Engineers to provide the detailed budget justifications for the Corps of Engineers 

concurrently with the President’s budget submission. 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
67 

OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE ARMY (CIVIL WORKS) 

Appropriation, 2009 ............................................................................ $4,500,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ....................................................................... 6,000,000 

Recommended, 2010 ........................................................................... 6,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2009 .................................................................... 1,500,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ................................................................ — 

The Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) oversees 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 $6,000,000, 

$1,500,000 above the fiscal year 2009 enacted level and the same 

as the budget request. 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISION

The bill includes an administrative provision allowing for the 

purchase or hire of passenger motor vehicles. 

GENERAL PROVISIONS

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—CIVIL

Reprogramming Restriction.—Section 101 prohibits the obligation 

or expenditure of funds through a reprogramming of funds in this 

title except in certain circumstances. 

Competitive Sourcing.—Section 102 prohibits the use of funds for 

any A–76 or HPO study. 

Contract Modification.—Section 103 prohibits 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. 

Inland Waterways Trust Fund.—Section 104 prohibits the award 

of continuing contracts for any project for which funds are derived 

from the Inland Waterways Trust Fund until such time as a longterm mechanism to enhance revenues sufficient to meet the costsharing requirements is enacted. 

Two Harbors, Minnesota.—Section 105 clarifies cost sharing requirements for the Two Harbor, Minnesota project. 

Northern Wisconsin.—Section 106 increases the total project 

limit for the Northern Wisconsin Environmental Assistance, Wisconsin project. 

Town of Martin, Kentucky.—Section 107 directs the Corps to proceed with the acquisition of flood damage reduction efforts under 

the Town of Martin Nonstructural Project Detailed Project Report, 

dated March 2000. 

White River Minimum Flow, Arkansas.—Section 108 modifies the 

terms of the White River Minimum Flow project. 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
68 

TITLE II 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

CENTRAL UTAH PROJECT

CENTRAL UTAH PROJECT COMPLETION ACCOUNT

Appropriation, 2009 ............................................................................ $42,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ....................................................................... 42,004,000 

Recommended, 2010 ........................................................................... 42,004,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2009 .................................................................... +4,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ................................................................ — 

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

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

Project by the Central Utah Water Conservancy District. The Act 

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

recreation mitigation and conservation; establishes an account in 

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

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

prohibits delegation of those responsibilities to the Bureau of Reclamation. 

The Committee recommendation for fiscal year 2010 to carry out 

the Central Utah Project is $42,004,000, $4,000 above the fiscal 

year 2009 enacted level and the same as the request. Within the 

funds recommended, the following amounts are provided for the 

Central Utah Valley Water Conservation District by activity, as requested in the budget request: 

Utah Lake drainage basin delivery system ...................................... $30,800,000 

Water conservation measures ........................................................... 5,886,000 

Other Title II programs ..................................................................... 1,000,000 

Total, Central Utah water conservation district ...................... 37,686,000 

The Committee recommendation includes the requested amount 

of $1,500,000 for deposit into the Utah Reclamation Mitigation and 

Conservation Account for use by the Utah Reclamation Mitigation 

and Conservation Commission. These funds, as proposed in the 

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

recreation mitigation and conservation projects authorized in Title 

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

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

Provo River/Utah Lake fish and wildlife .......................................... $445,600 

Diamond Fork Fish and Wildlife ....................................................... 24,000 

Duchesne/Strawberry Rivers fish and wildlife ................................. 62,400 

CRSP/Statewide fish, wildlife and recreation .................................. 696,800 

Section 201(a)(1) mitigation measures ............................................. 271,200 

Total, Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Commission ............................................................................................. 1,500,000 

For program oversight and administration, the Committee has 

provided $1,704,000, the same as the budget request and $64,000 

above the fiscal year 2009 enacted level. For fish and wildlife conVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:48 Jul 14, 2009 Jkt 050860 PO 00000 Frm 00072 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR203.XXX HR203

rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
69 

servation programs, the Committee has provided $1,114,000, the 

same level as the budget request and $41,000 above the fiscal year 

2009 enacted level. 

BUREAU OF RECLAMATION

FISCAL YEAR 2010 BUDGET OVERVIEW

The mission of the Bureau of 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 June 17, 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. The Bureau 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. The Bureau maintains 472 dams and 348 

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

These facilities deliver water to one of every five western farmers 

for about 10 million acres of irrigated land, and to over 31 million 

people for municipal, rural, and industrial uses. The Bureau is also 

the Nation’s second largest producer of hydroelectric power, generating 42 billion kilowatt hours of energy each year from 58 power 

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

recreation, and fish and wildlife benefits. 

Despite significant past achievements, the Committee has historically been concerned that the Bureau of Reclamation has become a caretaker agency and is no longer exerting a leadership role 

in the provision of water supply or maintenance of the West’s existing water supply infrastructure. Current projections of increasing 

needs and changing hydrology necessitate a Bureau that is a leader 

in the provision of water in the West. The investments made in the 

past are reaching their design life; municipal needs are growing 

and agricultural production must be protected. Balancing these 

competing priorities will be challenging and requires active participation and leadership on the part of the Bureau and its technical 

staff. The Committee hopes that the Secretary of the Interior and 

the Commissioner of Reclamation will take up this challenge by reinvigorating the structure and culture of the Bureau of Reclamation. 

The Committee recommendation totals $1,037,805,000 for the 

Bureau of Reclamation, $17,122,000 above the budget request and 

$37,933,000 below the fiscal year 2009 enacted level, excluding 

emergency appropriations. 

A table summarizing the fiscal year 2009 enacted appropriation, 

the fiscal year 2010 budget request, and the Committee recommendation is provided below. 

[Dollars in 1,000s] 

Account FY 2009 enacted FY 2010 request Cmte rec. 

Water and related resources .................................................... $920,259 $893,125 $910,247 

Emergency appropriations 1 ............................................. 1,000,000 0 0 

Central Valley project restoration fund .................................... 56,079 35,358 35,358 

California Bay-Delta restoration ............................................... 40,000 31,000 31,000 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
70 

[Dollars in 1,000s] 

Account FY 2009 enacted FY 2010 request Cmte rec. 

Policy and administration ......................................................... 59,400 61,200 61,200 

Total, Bureau of Reclamation ..................................... 2,075,738 1,020,683 1,037,805 

Appropriations .................................................................. 1,075,738 1,020,683 1,037,805 

Emergency appropriations ............................................... 1,000,000 — — 

1 Emergency Appropriations P.L. 111–5. 

WATER AND RELATED RESOURCES

(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

Appropriation, 2009 ............................................................................ a$920,259,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ....................................................................... 893,125,000 

Recommended, 2010 ........................................................................... 910,247,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2009 .................................................................... ¥10,012,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ................................................................ +17,122,000 a Excludes $1,000,000,000 of funding from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Public 

Law 111–5). 

The Water and Related Resources account supports the development, management, and restoration of water and related natural 

resources in the 17 western states. The account includes funds for 

operating and maintaining existing facilities to obtain the greatest 

overall 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 2010, the Committee recommends $910,247,000, 

$17,122,000 above the budget request and $10,012,000 below the 

fiscal year 2009 enacted level. 

The budget request for this account and the approved Committee 

allowance are shown on the following table: 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
71 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 032 50273A.028
72 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 033 50273A.029
73 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 034 50273A.030
74 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 035 HR203.031
75 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 036 HR203.032
76 

Upgrades to Existing Hydropower Facilities.—To fulfill Section 

1834 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, the Department of the Interior, the Army Corps of Engineers, and the Power Marketing Administrations released a 2007 report assessing the potential for increases to electric power generation at existing federal facilities 

through upgrades and efficiency enhancements. The Committee encourages the Bureau of Reclamation to consider such upgrades at 

its existing facilities, as described in more detail in the Introduction section of this report. 

St. Mary Diversion Rehabilitation, Glacier County, Montana.— The Committee recommendation includes $3,000,000 for the St. 

Mary Diversion Rehabilitation project. The funding provided is for 

rehabilitation project elements currently authorized under the Bureau of Reclamation. Although this project was authorized for the 

Corps of Engineers in the 2007 Water Resources Development Act, 

this project was originally constructed by the Bureau, and its rehabilitation should take place under the Bureau’s auspices. As in the 

explanatory statement accompanying the fiscal year 2009 Omnibus 

Appropriations Act, should the project sponsors desire further improvements outside of existing authority under the Bureau of Reclamation, the Committee encourages the project sponsors to pursue 

the necessary authority for the Bureau to undertake this work. 

Rural Water Program.—The Committee notes that, for the first 

time, the Bureau includes at least a minimal level of funding for 

all Title I ongoing rural water projects. The Committee appreciates 

and supports this approach and encourages its continuation in future years. 

Water Reclamation and Reuse Program.—The Title XVI Water 

Reclamation and Reuse Program contributes to water conservation 

in the western United States by furthering efficient use and reuse 

of water supplies. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 

2009 directed no less than $126,000,000 to Title XVI projects, to be 

expended by the end of fiscal year 2010. At the time this Act was 

written, the Bureau had not yet publicly released their allocation 

of Recovery Act funding to individual Title XVI projects. The Committee is unable to recommend funding for individual Title XVI 

projects without knowledge of the Bureau’s Recovery Act funding 

allocations. The Committee therefore provides $100,000 for each 

Title XVI project for the fiscal year 2010, pending the announcement of Recovery Act funding and accurate projections of project 

needs. 

Glen Canyon Dam.—The Committee continues to support the 

goals of the Grand Canyon Protection Act (GCPA) and the resulting 

duties placed upon the Bureau of Reclamation. However, the Committee is concerned that many of the procedural requirements in 

the GCPA and Charter for the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Work Group are being disregarded. The result appears to 

be that Federal responsibilities have been neglected and public 

transparency compromised. Specifically, the Committee strongly 

encourages that the Bureau of Reclamation, in cooperation and 

concurrence with the National Park Service, revisit the Operating 

Criteria for Glen Canyon Dam. The five-year review required by 

the Operating Criteria should be an open public process consistent 

with the GCPA and 1997 Operating Criteria requirements (62 FR 

9447–9448). 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
77 

CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT RESTORATION FUND

Appropriation, 2009 ............................................................................ $56,079,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ....................................................................... 35,358,000 

Recommended, 2010 ........................................................................... 35,358,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2009 .................................................................... ¥20,721,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ................................................................ — 

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 is also financed through additional 

mitigation and restoration payments collected on an annual basis 

from project beneficiaries. 

For fiscal year 2010, the Committee recommends $35,358,000, 

the same as the budget request and $20,721,000 below the fiscal 

year 2009 enacted level. Within this amount, the Committee provides funding for programs and activities according to the Administration’s request. The Committee notes that the reduction in the 

Bureau’s request for this account does not represent an intent to 

reduce funding in future years, but rather meets an existing statutory requirement to limit the three year rolling average to no more 

than $50,000,000. 

CALIFORNIA BAY-DELTA RESTORATION

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriation, 2009 ............................................................................ $40,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ....................................................................... 31,000,000 

Recommended, 2010 ........................................................................... 31,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2009 .................................................................... ¥9,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ................................................................ — 

The California Bay-Delta 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 2010, the Committee recommends $31,000,000, 

the same as the budget request and $9,000,000 below the fiscal 

year 2009 enacted level. Within this amount, the Committee provides funding for programs and activities according to the Administration’s request. 

POLICY AND ADMINISTRATION

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriation, 2009 ............................................................................ $59,400,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ....................................................................... 61,200,000 

Recommended, 2010 ........................................................................... 61,200,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2009 .................................................................... +1,800,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ................................................................ — 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
78 

The Policy and Administration account provides for the executive 

direction and management of all Reclamation activities, as performed by the Commissioner’s offices in Washington, DC, and 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 

2010, the Committee recommends $61,200,000, the same as the 

budget request and $1,800,000 above the fiscal year 2009 enacted 

level. 

Since 2006, the Committee has requested that the Bureau 

produce a five-year plan—a rational, reality-based assessment of 

investment needs, by project, outlining the expected and necessary 

expenses associated with the inventory of the existing projects and 

the new investments necessary to meet Reclamation’s mission for 

a planning horizon of five years. The original direction for the Bureau’s five-year plan was contained in the Committee’s fiscal year 

2006 report, providing adequate time for a meaningful plan to be 

assembled. The Committee continues to see a pressing need for this 

report. 

Historically, the Bureau has adequately not met this requirement. The Bureau’s five-year plan as submitted in 2008 did not 

meet the Committee’s needs. The Bureau provided a plan which 

contained only a list of projects along with, in the Administration’s 

words, ‘‘mechanistic, computer generated account data’’ for out-year 

costs. The Administration’s plan seemed to ignore actual programmatic needs and instead was built on an arbitrary funding 

level. This five-year plan was not useful as a planning document 

and appeared simply to be an effort to avoid the budgetary consequences to the Policy and Administration account of failing to 

submit the report. The Bureau has been aware of the Committee’s 

dissatisfaction with the products provided and no action to remedy 

the situation. 

The Committee hopes that the Administration will fulfill the requirements to produce an adequate and useful five-year plan that 

serves the public interest by providing visibility into the Bureau’s 

future plans and spending. The Committee expects that the fiveyear plan will include the following: 1) two funding scenarios, one 

which reflects the Administration’s expenditure ceilings and a second which reflects an expenditure level consistent with the fiscal 

year 2010 appropriation, including inflation for the out-years; 2) a 

list of active projects, including all projects receiving funding in the 

previous three years; 3) a full accounting of all rural water and 

Title XVI projects which are currently authorized, the total authorization, the balance to complete, and total appropriations to date; 

and 4) 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. 

GENERAL PROVISIONS

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Reprogramming Restriction.—Section 201 prohibits the obligation 

or expenditure of funds through a reprogramming of funds in this 

title except in certain circumstances. 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
79 

San Luis Unit.—Section 202 prohibits the use of funds to determine the final point of discharge for the interceptor drain for the 

San Luis Unit until certain reporting requirements are met and include language on the cost share requirements of the Kesterson 

Reservoir Cleanup. 

TITLE III 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

INTRODUCTION

Funds recommended in Title III provide for all Department of 

Energy (DOE) programs, including Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Nuclear Energy, Fossil Energy Research and Development, Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, Naval Petroleum 

and Oil Shale Reserves, the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, the 

Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve, the Energy Information Administration, Non-Defense Environmental Management, Uranium 

Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund, Science, 

Nuclear Waste Disposal, 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, Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal, the 

Power Marketing Administrations, and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Department of Energy (DOE) has requested a total budget 

of $28,406,706,000 in fiscal year 2010 to fund programs in its five 

primary mission areas: science, energy, environment, nuclear nonproliferation and national security. The overall DOE budget request is $1,613,705,000 above the fiscal year 2009 enacted level. 

The Committee recommends a number of changes to the fiscal 

year 2010 budget request to reflect specific congressional priorities 

addressing national interests. The total funding recommended for 

the Department of Energy is $26,878,850,000, $85,849,000 over the 

fiscal year 2009 enacted and $1,527,856,000 below the budget request. 

MAJOR COMMITTEE CONCERNS

The Committee is pleased that the Administration has fully engaged to confront the energy challenges facing this nation and has 

made energy policy a top priority of its agenda. Given the substantial short-, medium-, and long-term energy challenges, strong leadership from the Department of Energy is critical. As the nation 

confronts these challenges, focus, discipline, and a willingness to 

embrace and implement new ideas will be needed. The Committee 

fully supports the principle that innovation, technology, and research and development should be at the very core of national efforts to secure our energy future. 

The nation also needs a comprehensive energy policy for the 21st 

century. The energy crisis is not just about energy independence 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
80 

from the Middle East and foreign suppliers, it is about reducing the 

economic costs energy dependence inflicts on hardworking Americans, the national security threat it poses, and the havoc it wreaks 

on the environment. A balanced energy mix that introduces competition into the system will ensure future generations are not held 

captive by one source of energy. In addition to establishing diverse 

energy sources, there is a need to be more conscientious about energy consumption and further advance conservation efforts. Taken 

together these measures will ultimately reduce the national demand and increase the supply of cleaner energy. 

The government can lead the way through its policies and incentives to advance this new energy future. However, no matter the 

policy or incentive set forth, strong leadership and fundamental 

management reform at the Department of Energy must take place. 

The Committee is hopeful that the Administration’s aggressive approach to energy issues will be applied with equal enthusiasm to 

the management challenges it has inherited at the Department of 

Energy. 

The Committee recognizes that the Administration is still filling 

key vacancies at the Department. Strategies for improving the implementation of the Department’s programs are under development 

and it would be premature to be overly critical at this early stage 

of the Administration. This section expresses a number of the Committee’s historic concerns. The Committee expects that these concerns and many others will be addressed in the months and years 

ahead and will work closely with the Department’s new leadership 

to improve the overall effectiveness of the Department’s programs. 

CONGRESSIONAL DIRECTION

Article I, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution states ‘‘No money 

shall be drawn from the Treasury but in consequence of Appropriations made by law’’. The Committee reminds the Department of 

this Constitutional provision because of the repeated disregard for 

congressional direction in the execution of appropriations law. In 

previous years, the Department has at times ignored the clear intent of Congress, seeking to satisfy Administration desires rather 

than congressional mandates. The Committee looks forward to 

working closely with the Department to support the full implementation of congressional direction. 

IMPROVED STRATEGIC AND BUDGET PLANNING

A major concern of the Committee is the Department’s underdeveloped strategic planning process. The diverse set of missions at 

the Department complicates efforts to establish an over-arching, 

prioritized, and detailed strategic plan. More robust strategic planning would better inform budget formulation. Without strategic 

planning, programs and projects operate on a year-to-year planning 

horizon causing unnecessary uncertainty that disrupts program 

and project execution. The Department’s leadership has already expressed an interest in improving strategic and budget planning. 

The Department does not have a functioning Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Evaluation (PPBE) process that includes 

five-year budgeting. The Committee has encouraged the Department to submit five-year budget plans in recent years. A PPBE system would improve the alignment of funding with priorities. The 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
81 

Committee directs the Department to develop and implement a 

PPBE process, including five-year budget planning, for all programs and all projects exceeding $100,000,000. The Department 

shall provide the Committee its implementation plan not later than 

March 1, 2010. 

The National Nuclear Security Administration already provides 

five-year national defense plans with its budget submission and is 

encouraged to further develop its variant of the PPBE process. 

MANAGEMENT AND FEDERAL STAFFING

The Committee’s top organizational concern with the Department 

is its management and federal staffing. According to the Government Accountability Office (GAO), the Department of Energy has 

approximately 14,000 Federal employees overseeing 93,000 contract 

employees, dozens of construction projects, and 80 nuclear waste 

clean-up projects. Project and construction management has continued to be a weakness of the Department. The GAO noted that 9 

of the 10 largest construction projects at the Department had experienced cost increases and schedule delays. The Committee expects 

the Department to follow GAO’s recommendation regarding project 

management. 

Cost increases and schedule delays continue to plague the Department’s major construction and operating projects. Because of 

this, the Committee recently asked the GAO to review cost estimating practices at the Department. GAO’s preliminary results indicate that the Department’s policies and guidance for cost estimating are not adequate for supporting the development of credible 

cost estimates. Specifically, GAO found the Department does not 

have a current Department-wide policy or guidance indicating how 

the Department’s contractors should develop project cost estimates. 

For example, while DOE’s Project Management Order 413.3A directs projects to estimate total costs at critical decision points, it 

provides no criteria for developing such estimates. In addition, in 

2008, the Department issued a series of guides to be used in conjunction with Order 413.3A, but none of them provide guidance on 

the development of cost estimates. Other GAO findings note that 

the Department has recently taken actions to improve cost estimating, but it is unclear how well coordinated or effective they will 

be as some actions appear duplicative and inconsistent across the 

Department’s program offices. In light of these preliminary findings, the Committee directs the Department to report, within 60 

days of enactment of this Act, on specific activities undertaken and 

underway to improve its cost estimating practices, how these activities are being coordinated, who in the Department has specific responsibility for coordinating these activities, and what performance 

metrics the Department will use to demonstrate improvements in 

cost estimating as a result of these actions. 

Federal staffing is another major challenge facing the Department. The National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA) has 

completed a study of selected mission support functions at the Department—e.g. procurement and human resources. The Office of 

the Chief Human Capital Officer, in particular, is under-performing to the detriment of the Department. The Defense Logistics 

Agency (DLA), for example, maintains one Human Resources staff 

person per 100 staff serviced; DOE headquarters has one human 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
82 

resources staff person for 39 staff serviced, according to the NAPA 

report. Yet, according to the NAPA study, DLA takes 63 days to 

complete a hire and DOE headquarters takes 113 days. The Committee maintains it is important to improve this performance and 

supports the Department’s efforts. 

Pursuant to NAPA’s findings related to the Department’s Office 

of the Chief Human Capital Officer, the Department should consider alternative service delivery models for recruiting, hiring, and 

developing the Department’s workforce. It is commonplace for Federal agencies and private sector companies to consolidate and centralize human capital and other functional operations in Shared 

Service Centers to both improve service and to reduce transaction 

costs. The Department should contract with an expert independent 

entity to examine alternatives to providing human capital operations, such as a new shared service center or using an existing 

Federal service provider. The Committee provides additional direction in the Departmental Administration section of this report. 

DEPARTMENTAL PENSION LIABILITIES

The economic downturn and declining market conditions have increased the Department’s pension liabilities, particularly for the 

National Nuclear Security Administration and the Office of Environmental Management. The Department retains 47 defined benefit contractor plans as a legacy of the Manhattan Project and the 

Cold War. While the contractors for the Department’s sites are responsible for the pensions under the Employee Retirement Income 

Security Act of 1974 and related laws, the Department has, over 

the life of these contracts, included the pension costs as allowable 

and in doing so has assumed the long-term liability for reimbursement. The Committee recognizes the pension need for each year is 

based on the conditions of the market in January of that year; this 

makes the actual need difficult to estimate. However, the Committee remains concerned about the Department’s approach to pension liabilities. 

The Department proposed to treat the allocation of the additional 

funding to meet this obligation differently across the individual 

programs with no clear justification for the disproportionate treatment. For example, the Department requested $64,200,000 in the 

Readiness in Technical Base Facilities budget line and $45,000,000 

in the Office of Nuclear Energy to address pension shortfalls. The 

Office of Environmental Management requested $62,000,000 and 

Naval Reactors $57,800,000 for potential pension shortfalls but the 

funds were spread throughout the program sub-activities. This inconsistent treatment in the request makes it difficult for the Committee to understand the Department’s approach on pensions and 

how this approach will affect programmatic activities. 

The current estimate for fiscal year 2010 pension needs is 

$1,400,000,000. The Committee fully supports and expects the Department to meet these pension obligations. Given the uncertainty 

associated with the estimates of need, the Committee includes a 

General Provision that authorizes the Secretary to make funding 

available from relevant appropriations to keep the pension accounts within the statutory requirements. If additional funding is 

not required due to changed market conditions or due to cost recovVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:48 Jul 14, 2009 Jkt 050860 PO 00000 Frm 00086 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR203.XXX HR203

rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
83 

ery through overhead rates, this transfer authority shall be terminated. 

RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVES

The Department conducts a broad spectrum of basic and applied 

research and development aiming to foster science and technology 

innovation. Dating back to the Manhattan Project, these research 

and development programs create novel solutions to our nation’s 

pressing energy issues and are a critical pathway to developing 

low-cost means to reduce the nation’s dependence on fossil fuels, increase the energy supply, and address the global threat of climate 

change. The creation of new technologies will transform the way 

the nation produces and uses energy and accelerate the deployment 

of these innovative technologies into the marketplace. 

In the past, the Committee has expressed concerns that the Department was not striking an appropriate balance between basic 

and applied research, development, demonstration, and deployment. The Committee continues to have these concerns, and encourages the Department to articulate a vision that strikes a deliberate balance between basic and applied research and implements 

it consistently across the Department’s programs. The Committee 

has also expressed concerns that the Department does not have a 

comprehensive approach to transfer innovations from Department 

laboratories to industry. While individual program offices and national laboratories have spearheaded small initiatives, the Committee encourages the Administration to elevate this issue and implement a Department-wide technology transfer plan. 

The Department currently supports a variety of research and development efforts that advance U.S. scientific innovation in multiple disciplines. It funds core programmatic research and development in national labs, universities, private industry, and other research organizations for a variety of topic areas. Coordinating all 

of these efforts has commanded increased attention. The Department recently began several research and development initiatives 

focusing researchers on a discrete science or applied energy problem for a limited period of time. The Department initiated three 

Bioenergy Research Centers in late 2007 to focus basic and applied 

researchers under one roof on the scientific obstacles to next-generation biofuels production. In early 2009, the Department announced 46 Energy Frontier Research Centers (EFRCs) funded by 

the Department at $2,000,000-$5,000,000 annually to ‘‘enlist the 

talents and skills of the very best American scientists and engineers to address current fundamental scientific roadblocks to clean 

energy and energy security.’’ The budget request includes an additional $100,000,000 to continue and expand this effort. Also in 

2009, the Department announced a solicitation for the Advanced 

Research Projects Agency—Energy (ARPA–E), which will fund discrete projects conducting research and development to commercialize ‘‘transformational energy-related technologies’’. 

In the fiscal year 2010 budget request, the Department introduced an ambitious concept for advancing research and development. It would provide $280,000,000 to establish eight Energy Innovation Hubs, described as ‘‘multidisciplinary [Hubs], which focus 

on critical science and technology for high-risk, high-reward research to revolutionize how the U.S. produces, distributes, and uses 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
84 

energy.’’ The request provides $35,000,000 for each of eight Hubs, 

to continue at $25,000,000 per Hub annually for a possible total investment of more than $2,000,000,000 over ten years. 

The Hubs have the potential to be an innovative concept to fill 

research gaps in advancing transformative energy science and technology. However, the Committee has a number of concerns. First, 

the Hubs appear to be redundant with existing Department research topics and initiatives. The EFRCs, Bioenergy Research Centers, ARPA–E, and the proposed Hubs aim to produce transformative energy technologies by focusing on ‘‘high-risk, high-reward’’ research. These different initiatives take similar approaches 

while varying in size, implementation details, and emphasis on 

basic or applied research. Further, proposed research topics at the 

Energy Innovation Hubs overlap significantly with existing Department of Energy research centers. For example, the Department 

proposes a Hub to research batteries and energy storage. However, 

more than ten of the Energy Frontier Research Centers announced 

by the Department in early 2009 plan to, exclusively or in large 

part, investigate that topic. A new set of centers with overlapping 

research goals risks adding confusion and redundancy to the existing fleet of research and development initiatives. 

Second, the Department has not communicated sufficient planning and implementation details for the proposed Hubs. The individual program offices responsible for the proposed Hubs have not 

articulated consistent approaches and plans for site selection, staffing, and progress measurement. Program offices have not been consistent on even the most basic questions, such as whether or not 

each Hub will have its own physical location or will be a virtual 

collection of researchers. 

The Committee believes the Hubs are a promising concept and 

provides $35,000,000 to establish one Energy Innovation Hub 

under the Office of Science’s Basic Energy Sciences program. The 

Committee gives discretion for this appropriation to the Secretary 

of Energy to select one of the Department’s eight proposed Energy 

Innovation Hubs. The Committee further directs the Department, 

within 60 days of enactment of this Act, to submit to the Committee a report detailing the Department’s site selection process, 

progress measurement plan, and the Hub’s specific research goals 

and milestones. The Committee further directs the Department, 

not later than April 1, 2010, to report on the selected Hub’s 

progress, including site selection, staffing, and progress towards research goals. The report shall also include the Department’s plan 

for incorporating input from industry and the scientific community 

when it selects research topics for Hubs in future budget requests. 

The Committee strongly supports the Department’s efforts to develop new and innovative approaches to solving energy science and 

technology problems. It offers its support in developing the promising Hub concept further, and will reconsider additional Energy 

Innovation Hubs when the Department addresses the concerns described in this section and demonstrates progress with the selected 

Hub funded in this Act. 

ECONOMIC ANALYSIS

The Congress has invested substantial funding through the 

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 in the effort to 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
85 

develop a green-job economy as we recover from the deep economic 

downturn currently affecting our nation. 

The Committee continues to invest in the effort to grow the economy by creating green jobs in a range of areas including renewable 

energy production from wind, solar, and biomass sources; weatherization and both new building construction standards and older 

building efficiency and conservation retrofits; a massive commitment to public transportation, mass transit, and high speed rail; 

accelerating the shift to more energy efficient vehicles; and constructing a ‘‘smart’’ electrical grid transmission system. 

Substantial job impact and economic studies have been conducted to provide analysis of the economic impact of public clean 

energy investments. Studies that analyze the employment and 

macroeconomic effects of the Department’s clean energy policies, 

and that assess the optimum policy design for the Department’s incentive programs for the transition to a clean energy economy, will 

ensure the effectiveness and success of such public funding. The 

Committee believes the Department should continue this effort 

through ongoing arrangements with outside experts. The Department should also work with the Department of Labor to leverage 

its job market and economic expertise in the Department of Energy’s ongoing economic analyses of existing and potential public investments. 

MANAGEMENT OF NUCLEAR SPENT FUEL AND RADIOACTIVE WASTE

In recent years, the Department has lacked an integrated strategy to address existing and projected quantities of spent fuel and 

high-level waste over the next several decades. The Yucca Mountain geological repository was the centerpiece of the Department’s 

approach. The decision to terminate the Yucca Mountain geological 

repository has created even greater uncertainty. The Committee 

urges the Department to move forward as quickly as practicable in 

forming the proposed Blue Ribbon Commission to review alternative options for nuclear waste disposal. In the meantime, the 

Committee supports the Administration’s position that the Yucca 

Mountain application review should continue in order to answer all 

relevant technical questions. 

The Committee strongly believes that the review of alternatives 

should be based on scientific information and scientific merit. The 

‘‘President’s Memo on Scientific Integrity’’ (74 Fed. Reg. 18596), 

dated March 9, 2009, asserted that, ‘‘The public must be able to 

trust the science and scientific process informing public policy decisions.’’ The Committee accepts the Administration’s review of alternatives but it is difficult to understand why, if scientific integrity 

is a priority, Yucca Mountain would not be considered with the 

other alternatives. The Yucca Mountain site is, arguably, the most 

studied geology on the planet. Almost ten billion taxpayer dollars 

have been spent on Yucca Mountain and 1.5 million documents 

have supported the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s licensing of 

the site. It might well be the case that an alternative to Yucca 

Mountain better meets the requirements of the future strategy, but 

the review does not have scientific integrity without considering 

Yucca Mountain. Therefore, the Committee makes the $5,000,000 

for the Blue Ribbon Commission available provided that Yucca 

Mountain is considered in the review. 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
86 

More generally, and beyond Yucca, the Committee understands 

the challenges facing the Department in developing an integrated 

approach to manage spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive 

waste. Responsibilities for spent fuel and radioactive waste are divided among multiple program offices, primarily the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management (for the Yucca Mountain repository), the Office of Environmental Management (for site cleanup 

and stewardship of the Department’s spent fuel and high-level 

waste), the Office of Naval Reactors (for Navy spent fuel), and the 

Office of Nuclear Energy (for researching options to recycle spent 

fuel). Each of those program offices is making varying degrees of 

progress on its respective spent fuel and high-level waste responsibilities. It is important going forward that these offices work 

closely together to develop a comprehensive strategy. 

NUCLEAR WEAPONS ACTIVITIES

The nuclear weapons request has been described by its authors 

as a ‘‘treading water’’ budget. While this is obviously correct in 

many respects, the Committee does not fault the National Nuclear 

Security Administration (NNSA) for it; the Administration has not 

had sufficient time to establish its goals and priorities, and the 

overall budget situation is dire. In addition, the Nuclear Posture 

Review, which could have a significant impact on the U.S. nuclear 

strategy, stockpile, and complex, has yet to be completed. The Committee’s recommendation includes additional funding in key areas 

to support NNSA in its core mission—the reliability, safety, and security of our nuclear weapons arsenal—in the interim. 

By 2001 the United States nuclear stockpile held approximately 

one-third the number of nuclear weapons it had possessed at the 

peak of the Cold War. The nation has since reduced that force by 

more than half, and further reductions are in progress. The Committee supports these reductions and their expected continuation. 

The Committee also commends NNSA for its progress in safely dismantling excess nuclear weapons, although the Committee is convinced that the dismantlement rate can, and should, increase. 

The Committee commends NNSA for its excellent and innovative 

work on Stockpile Stewardship which has, without nuclear testing, 

produced a far more secure basis for confidence in the nuclear 

stockpile than ever existed under nuclear testing. NNSA’s expertise 

in certifying our nuclear weapons will be of utmost importance for 

future stockpile reductions. 

Nevertheless, the Committee is concerned that NNSA’s nuclear 

weapons programs have lost their direction. The United States has 

the most powerful nuclear arsenal in the world, far more effective 

than those of all other nations combined. However, U.S. nuclear 

weapons, and the complex that supports them, were built to Cold 

War legacy requirements. Nuclear yields are too high while margins are too low. The weapons complex is far larger and more costly 

than present or future needs will likely require. Yet the Departments of Energy and Defense have not produced a strategy specifying the purpose of the nuclear stockpile in the post Cold War 

world. In the absence of a strategy, it is impossible to make rational decisions on the size and composition of the stockpile and the 

complex that supports it. 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
87 

It is therefore essential that the Administration without delay 

update its nuclear posture to address dramatic changes in the 

threat environment we now face and will likely face in the coming 

decades. Our legacy nuclear forces were designed to deter, by 

threat of retaliation, attack from a hostile Soviet Union possessing 

nuclear strike capability comparable to our own. While we need to 

retain the ability to deter attack from any quarter, we are now 

faced with the threat of multiple hostile entities, some of which are 

sub-national and some of which do not appear to be deterrable by 

threat of retaliation. The only protection against the non-deterrable 

threat is to stop it from gaining possession, control, and the ability 

to use nuclear weapons. 

The difference between today’s threat and the Cold War threat 

cannot be overstated. We cannot afford to continue obsolete practices of the Cold War merely because we have always done them 

that way; neither can we afford to rule out a new course of action 

simply because we have never before taken it. The Committee expects the Nuclear Posture Review and Quadrennial Defense Review, both due in fiscal year 2010, to reflect a strategic vision of 

how we can most efficiently optimize and deploy our national assets, including our counter-terrorist capability, our deterrent forces, 

weapons surety, and our nonproliferation activities. 

In the fiscal year 2008 Appropriations report, Congress directed 

the Administration to provide, in sequence, (1) a nuclear strategy 

suitable to the post Cold War threat environment, (2) a nuclear 

stockpile plan to meet that strategy, and (3) a nuclear complex plan 

to support that stockpile. Subsidiary points and specifications were 

provided under each of the three primary directives. Congress reaffirmed this direction for fiscal year 2009. In both years, Congress 

refused to consider funding a new nuclear warhead until all of 

these directives had been met. 

The Committee again reaffirms this position. The Committee 

continues to strongly support enhanced surety. The Committee supports high margin designs because they will enable further nuclear 

reductions with increased confidence in the validity of our nuclear 

deterrent. The Committee understands that answers to its questions may need to be stated with error bands which may become 

increasingly broad as projections reach into the future. The Committee also understands that a strategy, stockpile, and complex 

plan delivered to Congress in calendar year 2009 will certainly 

need modification as circumstances change. 

The Committee re-emphasizes that it will not consider a new 

warhead or a major warhead redesign until it has received the 

strategy, stockpile, and complex plans for which it has been waiting over the past year and a half. Whether the Committee’s questions are answered in the Nuclear Posture Review or in another vehicle, they must be answered point by point. 

Additionally, the Committee directs the Secretary of Energy to 

submit to the Committees on Appropriations of the House and Senate, not later than 90 days after release of the Nuclear Posture Review, a report specifying the status of the Department’s plans for 

transformation of the Nuclear Weapons Complex. 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
88 

NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION

The Committee recognizes that the availability of nuclear material, technology, and expertise to terrorists and states, even in the 

smallest amounts, potentially poses a grave threat to the United 

States and the world. There is no simple way to address this complex threat. 

The United States cannot achieve its nonproliferation objectives 

alone. Multilateral international organizations and other countries 

are indispensable partners. When possible, the initial effort is to 

convince would-be proliferators that the pursuit of nuclear weapons 

is not in their best interest. This can be done through diplomacy, 

international safeguards, and international agreements, among 

other approaches. Recognizing the limits of persuasion on this matter, however, the United States and international partners have developed a robust set of programs to prevent nuclear proliferation by 

securing, detecting, and disposing of nuclear weapons, materials, 

and technology. 

The most effective strategy for preventing the spread of nuclear 

weapons is to block the multiple pathways to acquiring them in the 

first place. It is impossible to develop nuclear weapons without 

fissile material. Consequently, the first line of defense is to secure 

fissile materials and nuclear weapons at their source. The second 

line of defense is nuclear detection at borders, seaports, and other 

transportation nodes to prevent illicit trafficking. Another nonproliferation focus is disposing of existing nuclear material and reducing the production of fissile materials to diminish future proliferation concerns. Finally, developing the best nonproliferation-related technologies supports all of these defensive measures. The 

Committee regards the Department’s nuclear nonproliferation request to be generally well conceived. The expectation is that these 

defensive layers will be strengthened and strongly supported in the 

years ahead. 

The Committee encourages the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) to take a broader and more comprehensive 

view of how its nuclear nonproliferation programs work with one 

another. In particular, the NNSA should take a closer look at the 

prioritization of its nonproliferation program across the spectrum of 

its activities. Priorities have been developed within the Global 

Threat Reduction Initiative and Megaports program, for example, 

but a common framework does not cut across all of the NNSA nonproliferation programs. 

Prioritization is critical because of the considerable amount of 

work that needs to be done and the reality that resources are limited, even though the Committee and successive Administrations 

have strongly supported these programs. There are hundreds of 

ports globally, thousands of land-border crossings and radiological 

and nuclear materials spread throughout the world. Priorities are 

needed so that highest risk-reduction activities are completed first. 

The NNSA strategic plan provides the general priorities for nuclear nonproliferation. The top priority is securing vulnerable nuclear materials and weapons. The second priority is securing borders, ports, and other transportation hubs. The weakness in the 

current prioritization scheme is its lack of a risk reduction comparison between securing nuclear material and border crossings. ReVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:48 Jul 14, 2009 Jkt 050860 PO 00000 Frm 00092 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR203.XXX HR203

rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
89 

sources may not be allocated in an optimal way. For example, fiscal 

year 2010 funds are allocated to secure nuclear materials in developed countries, like the United Kingdom, while installation of nuclear detection equipment on Russia’s borders is deferred until fiscal year 2011 due to a lack of funding. It might be the case that 

installation of nuclear detection equipment at Russian border sites 

results in greater risk reduction than securing invulnerable nuclear 

material in the developed world; a more sophisticated prioritization 

scheme would be valuable in making these comparisons among 

nonproliferation activities. To better inform budget formulation, the 

Committee directs the NNSA to make a concerted effort to develop 

a risk-based prioritization scheme for all nuclear nonproliferation 

programs, including research and development. The NNSA shall 

provide a status report within 90 days of the enactment of this Act. 

Finally, the Committee strongly supports the NNSA’s efforts to 

prepare for the verification and dismantlement of the North Korean nuclear program. While recent events have set-back the prospects for a negotiated agreement in the near-term, there is a recognition that certain preparations must be made well in advance 

of any operation. The NNSA is encouraged to keep the Committee 

apprised of any developments in planning that might adjust current funding estimates. If progress is made in negotiations, events 

leading to overseas operations could proceed very quickly. 

REIMBURSEABLE WORK

As the Department of Energy (DOE) and the National Nuclear 

Security Administration (NNSA) move forward with the concept of 

a National Security Enterprise, the role of reimbursable work, or 

work for others as it is also known, must be examined comprehensively. As the Administration develops its national security posture 

through the Nuclear Posture Review and other efforts, the retention of premier scientific capabilities residing at the National Laboratories must be retained at a level that preserves and develops 

the scientific capabilities to meet the challenges of the future. 

Nearly one in six dollars spent by the Department is for work for 

others. At one lab, the percentage of work for others is over half 

of the work load annually. The Committee continues to be concerned that such a large portion of the Department’s workforce and 

assets are employed in the service of other agencies. This leaves 

the Department vulnerable to unanticipated shifts in funding over 

which it has little or no control. 

In concept, and by DOE Order, work for others includes full cost 

recovery for the services provided; it has become clear that this policy is not in fact applied uniformly across laboratories. While work 

for others helps to maintain critical capabilities and stability for indirect rates, it lacks a corporate strategy to guide the acceptance 

of such work. 

The Department and the NNSA are directed to conduct a review 

of all work for others and develop standard guidelines for acceptance of such work and mechanisms that uniformly apply full cost 

recovery. These guidelines shall include mechanisms to ensure that 

costs of facility construction and worker benefits, including pensions, are fully shared. Further, the Committee reiterates its direction that the Department account for its reimbursable activities in 

the accounts that are most closely related in mission to the work 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
90 

being carried out. In the event that the activity is not related to 

DOE’s mission, the Department must report these activities in the 

account that would normally supply the preponderance of the funding of the resources being used in reimbursable work, or owns the 

assets being used in reimbursable work. The Committee strongly 

recommends that the Department and NNSA regularly consult 

with the Committee during the development of these guidelines. 

Reporting Requirement.—The Committee reiterates its direction 

that the Department report on a quarterly basis on the status of 

work for others activities in each of the National Laboratories and 

DOE programs. 

FINANCIAL REPORTING

The Committee renews the direction provided in previous fiscal 

years requiring the Secretary of Energy to submit to the House and 

Senate Committees on Appropriations quarterly reports on the status of all projects, reports, fund transfers, and other actions directed in this bill and report. The Committee recognizes that this 

report has been delayed in the past due to the lack of orderly and 

coordinated internal processes. Therefore, the Committee requests 

that the Executive Secretariat, within the Office of Management, 

utilize its electronic document tracking and reporting systems to 

rectify this problem and respond to this requirement. The status of 

each reporting requirement must specify whether it is not drafted, 

drafted and in concurrence (including the date when it entered the 

Department’s concurrence), or completed. This should conform to 

the Department’s current reporting system. Any reports, transfers, 

or other actions directed in prior fiscal years that have not been 

completed as of the date of enactment of this Act should also be 

included in this quarterly report. 

A few of the Department’s programs carry large uncosted balances from year to year. These balances are the focus of scrutiny 

as they suggest programs are not spending funding in a timely 

manner. The Committee does not have access to all of the funding 

data that explains how, for example, funding can be uncosted but 

committed to contracts. The Committee directs the Department to 

provide semi-annual Financial Balances Reports to the Committee 

by January 1, 2010, and June 30, 2010. The report should provide 

for each program at the Congressional control level and on projects 

exceeding $100,000,000 the following information: total available 

balance (prior and current year); obligated, uncosted balances; unobligated but committed uncosted balances; unobligated, uncosted 

balances; and uncosted balances. American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funding should be displayed separately. Additionally, the 

Committee expects the Department to be ready to provide this information upon request throughout the fiscal year. 

REPROGRAMMING GUIDELINES

The Committee requires the Department to inform the Committee promptly and fully when a change in program execution and 

funding is required during the fiscal year. 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. The Committee directs the Department to follow this 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
91 

guidance for all programs and activities unless specific reprogramming guidance is provided below for a program or activity. 

Definition.—A reprogramming includes the reallocation of funds 

from one activity to another within an appropriation, or any significant departure from a program, project, or activity described in the 

agency’s budget justification as presented to and approved by Congress. For construction projects, a reprogramming constitutes the 

reallocation of funds from one construction project identified in the 

justifications to another project or a significant change in the scope 

of an approved project. 

Criteria for reprogramming.—A reprogramming should be made 

only when an unforeseen situation arises, and then only if delay of 

the project or the activity until the next appropriations year would 

result in a detrimental impact to an agency program or priority. 

Reprogrammings may also be considered if the Department can 

show that significant cost savings can accrue by increasing funding 

for an activity. Mere convenience or preference should not be factors for consideration. Reprogrammings should not be employed to 

initiate new programs, or to change program, project, or activity allocations specifically denied, limited, or increased by Congress in 

the Act or report. In cases where unforeseen events or conditions 

are deemed to require such changes, proposals shall be submitted 

in advance to the Committee and be fully explained and justified. 

Reporting and approval procedures.—The Committee has not 

provided statutory language to define reprogramming guidelines, 

but expects the Department to follow the spirit and the letter of the 

guidance provided in this report. Any reallocation of new or prior 

year budget authority or prior year deobligations must be submitted to the Committees in writing and may not be implemented 

prior to approval by the Committee on Appropriations. 

CONGRESSIONALLY DIRECTED PROJECTS

To ensure that the expenditure of funds in fiscal year 2010 is 

consistent with Congressional direction, the bill incorporates by reference the congressionally directed projects identified in the report 

accompanying this Act into statute. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee’s recommendations for Department of Energy 

programs in fiscal year 2010 are described in the following sections. 

A detailed funding table is included at the end of this title. 

ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY

Appropriation, 2009 ............................................................................ a $1,928,540,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ....................................................................... 2,318,602,000 

Recommended, 2010 ........................................................................... 2,250,000,000 

Comparison:.

Appropriation, 2009 .................................................................... +321,460,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ................................................................ ¥68,602,000 a Excludes $250,000,000 of emergency funding (Public Law 110–329) and $16,800,000 of funding from the 

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Public Law 111–5). 

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy programs include renewable energy and energy efficiency research, development, demonstration and deployment activities (RDD&D), and federal energy 

assistance programs. Renewable energy research, development, 

demonstration, and deployment activities include biomass and bioVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:48 Jul 14, 2009 Jkt 050860 PO 00000 Frm 00095 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR203.XXX HR203

rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
92 

refinery systems, geothermal technology, hydrogen technology, 

water power, solar energy, and wind energy technologies. Energy 

efficiency activities include improving the efficiency of vehicle, 

building, fuel cell, and industrial technologies, and the Federal Energy Management Program. Federal energy assistance programs 

include weatherization assistance, state energy programs, international renewable energy program, tribal energy activities, and 

the renewable energy production incentive. 

The total Committee recommendation for Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy (EERE) programs is $2,250,000,000, 

$321,460,000 above the fiscal year 2009 enacted level, excluding 

emergency funding, and $68,602,000 below the budget request. The 

Committee provides $1,787,440,000 for energy efficiency and renewable energy research and development activities, and 

$462,560,000 for federal energy assistance programs. 

Reporting Requirements.—The Committee directs the Department to quantify and track the progress and impact of the substantial investments the Committee has made in the Energy Efficiency 

and Renewable Energy portfolio. The Department shall report to 

the Committee on an annual basis on the return on investment for 

each of the accounts. 

Minority outreach programs.—The Committee directs DOE to 

continue implementing an aggressive program to take advantage of 

the Historically Black Colleges and Universities and Hispanic Serving Institutions across the country in order to deepen the recruiting 

pool of diverse scientific and technical staff available to support the 

growing renewable energy marketplace. The Committee continues 

to support this program and reinforces the importance of tapping 

the full diversity of talent as the Department works with the public 

and private sectors to meet our nation’s energy challenges. 

ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY RESEARCH, 

DEVELOPMENT, DEMONSTRATION, AND DEPLOYMENT

The Committee recommends $1,787,440,000 for energy efficiency 

and renewable energy research, development, demonstration, and 

deployment programs, an increase of $340,465,000 above the fiscal 

year 2009 enacted level and a decrease of $230,162,000 from the 

budget request. 

Fuel Cell Technology.—Formerly the Hydrogen Technologies program, the Fuel Cell Technology program seeks to enable the widespread commercialization and application of fuel cell technologies 

to reduce petroleum use, greenhouse gas emissions, and other air 

pollutants. This program supports the use of fuel cell systems for 

stationary, portable, and transportation applications through research, development, demonstration, and deployment (RDD&D). 

The Committee recommendation is $68,213,000, the same as the 

budget request and a decrease of $100,747,000 from the fiscal year 

2009 enacted level. The Committee recommendation includes 

$63,213,000 for fuel cell systems R&D, the same as the budget request; and $5,000,000 for systems analysis, the same as the budget 

request. The request proposes to eliminate all funding for activities 

related to hydrogen transportation systems funded in the fiscal 

year 2009 under the former Hydrogen Technologies Program. The 

Committee remains supportive of hydrogen technology RDD&D acVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:48 Jul 14, 2009 Jkt 050860 PO 00000 Frm 00096 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR203.XXX HR203

rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
93 

tivities and provides an additional $40,000,000 for these activities 

in the Vehicle Technologies program. 

Biomass and Biorefinery Systems R&D.—Biomass and Biorefinery Systems R&D conducts research, development and technology validation on advanced technologies that will enable future 

biorefineries to convert cellulosic biomass to fuels, chemicals, heat 

and power. The program focuses on reducing processing energy requirements and production costs in biomass processing plants and 

future integrated industrial biorefineries. The Committee supports 

efforts to develop cellulosic feedstocks that are not used as food 

sources, and encourages the Department to consider a broad portfolio of feedstocks including advanced biofuels sources such as 

algae. 

The Committee recommendation for integrated research and de- velopment on biomass and biorefinery systems is $235,000,000, the 

same as the budget request, of which not less than $25,000,000 is 

for grants for the production of advanced biofuels as authorized 

under Section 207 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 

2007 (Public Law 110–140). This funding is complemented by appropriations provided for bioenergy basic research in the Office of 

Science. 

Solar Energy.—The Solar Energy program develops solar energy 

technologies, such as photovoltaics and concentrating solar power, 

that are reliable, affordable and environmentally sound. The Committee recommends $258,655,000 for solar energy programs, an increase of $83,655,000 from the fiscal year 2009 enacted level and 

$61,345,000 below the budget request. No funding is provided within this amount for the Solar Electricity Energy Innovation Hub requested by the Department. 

The increase expands the Department’s existing solar energy research, development, demonstration, and deployment activities. 

These activities consist of photovoltaic research and development, 

including exploratory research, conversion devices, measurements 

and characterization, systems development, and technology evaluation; concentrating solar power research, development, and deployment; systems integration; and market transformation. 

Wind Energy.—The Wind Energy program focuses on the development of wind turbines that can operate economically in areas 

with low wind speeds, small wind turbines that can serve a range 

of distributed power applications, and system technology in support 

of offshore wind systems further from shore, particularly beyond 

the viewshed of coastal communities. The Committee recommends 

$70,000,000 for wind energy systems, $5,000,000 below the budget 

request and $15,000,000 above the fiscal year 2009 enacted level. 

Geothermal Technology.—The Geothermal Technology program 

works in partnership with U.S. industry and universities to establish geothermal energy as an economically competitive contributor 

to the U.S. energy supply. Enhanced geothermal systems have the 

potential to provide baseload electricity generation and other energy services with substantially greater resource potential and geographical reach than conventional geothermal sources. Only pilot 

systems with limited testing lifetimes have been built to date, and 

further research, development, and demonstration is needed to 

show that enhanced geothermal systems are economically and technologically viable. 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
94 

The Committee recommendation provides $50,000,000, the same as the budget request and $6,000,000 above the fiscal year 2009 enacted level, for the research, development, and demonstration of 

enhanced geothermal systems. The program will competitively select university, industry, and national laboratory partners to advance related technologies and address barriers to the deployment 

of enhanced geothermal systems. 

Water Power R&D.—The Committee recommends $30,000,000 for 

water power research and development, the same as the budget request. The Committee encourages the Department’s continued 

basic and applied research, development and demonstration for marine and hydrokinetic renewable technologies. 

In addition to investing in new ocean and marine power technologies, upgrading the efficiency and operations of existing conventional hydropower facilities can be a cost-effective and environmentally safe way to add clean, reliable electric generation using 

existing infrastructure. The Committee recommends not more than 

$3,500,000 for the Department to conduct an assessment of existing 

conventional U.S. hydropower and to identify opportunities to increase power generation at these sites, to be reported to the Committee by September 30, 2010. The Committee notes that the Department of the Interior, Army Corps of Engineers, and the Power 

Marketing Administrations released a 2007 report assessing the 

potential for electric generation increases through upgrades at federally owned dams. The Committee encourages the Department to 

focus the assessment on the balance of conventional hydropower 

sites not owned by Federal entities, and to report on strategies to 

encourage owners to invest in any identified upgrades. 

Vehicle Technologies.—The Vehicle Technologies program seeks 

technology breakthroughs that will greatly reduce petroleum use 

by automobiles and trucks of all sizes. These technologies include 

R&D on lightweight materials, electronic power control, high power 

storage, advanced combustion engines, and hybrid electric drive 

motors. The Committee recommends $373,302,000, an increase of 

$40,000,000 from the budget request and $100,064,000 above the 

fiscal year 2009 enacted level. 

The Committee recommends $164,661,000 for Hybrid Electric 

Systems, the same as the budget request and $38,952,000 above 

the fiscal year 2009 enacted level, to include $53,353,000 for vehicle and systems simulation and testing, $32,227,000 above the fiscal year 2009 enacted level and the same as the request; 

$77,437,000 for energy storage R&D, the same as the request; and 

$30,041,000 for advanced power electronics and electric motors 

R&D, the same as the request. 

The Committee recommendation provides $40,000,000 in Vehicle 

Technologies for hydrogen transportation systems RDD&D activities, to include hydrogen delivery, storage, and fuel cell systems, 

for overcoming technology, infrastructure, and manufacturing barriers to widespread deployment of transportation vehicles using hydrogen as a fuel. The budget request eliminates funding for these 

activities from within the former Hydrogen Technologies program. 

To be consistent with the Department’s position of investment in 

a portfolio of energy solutions with a broad range of risk profiles 

and payback periods, the Committee recommends maintaining a 

level of investment in this program, as one of a number of vehicle 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
95 

technologies supported by the Department, commensurate with the 

potential long term benefits of widespread adoption of hydrogen 

transportation technologies. 

The Committee supports the research and development of advanced internal combustion technologies that offer greater power 

density, fuel efficiency, and mechanical simplicity, and recommends 

$57,600,000 for Advanced Combustion Engine R&D, the same as 

the budget request and an increase of $16,800,000 above the fiscal 

year 2009 enacted level. The Committee recommends $54,905,000 

for Materials Technology, the same as the request and $15,002,000 

above the fiscal year 2009 enacted level, to include $34,039,000 for 

lightweight materials technology for research activities authorized 

in section 651 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 

(EISA). The Committee supports the lightweight materials research and development on advanced high-strength steels under 

this program to reduce the weight of commercial and passenger vehicles. The Committee recommends $25,122,000 for Fuels Technology, the same as the budget request and $5,000,000 above the 

fiscal year 2009 enacted level. The Committee recommends $31,014,000 for Technology Integration, the same as the request. The Committee recommendation includes $25,510,000 for vehicle technologies deployment, the same 

as the budget request, to support Clean Cities activities. 

Building Technologies.—In partnership with the buildings industry, this program develops, promotes, and integrates energy technologies and practices to make buildings more efficient and affordable. The Committee recommends $210,498,000 for Building Technologies, $70,498,000 above the fiscal year 2009 enacted level and 

$27,200,000 below the request. The Committee recommends 

$40,000,000 for Residential Buildings Integration, the same as the 

budget request, and $40,000,000 for Commercial Buildings Integration, the same as the budget request, for the Zero Net Energy Commercial Buildings Initiative as authorized in Section 422 of EISA. 

This initiative is designed to develop and disseminate technologies, 

practices, and policies that will facilitate establishment of zero net 

energy commercial buildings by 2030. 

The Committee recommends $65,498,000 for Emerging Technologies, $27,200,000 below the budget request and $21,658,000 

above the fiscal year 2009 enacted level. The recommendation includes $9,000,000 for space conditioning and refrigeration research 

and development, the same as the budget request; $16,000,000 for 

building envelope research and development, the same as the budget request; $5,500,000 for analysis tools, the same as the budget request; $6,500,000 for solar heating and cooling, the same as the 

budget request; and $27,000,000 for solid state lighting research 

and development, $7,800,000 above the request. The Committee encourages the Department to carry out a lighting technology research and development program to assist manufacturers of highefficacy general service lamps that achieve the wattage requirements imposed in Section 321 of the 2007 Energy Independence 

and Security Act, in order to lower manufacturing costs and accelerate the realization of energy and cost savings from the deployment of high-efficiency lighting. 

The Committee recommends $30,000,000 for Technology Validation and Market Introduction, the same as the request and 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
96 

$8,740,000 above the fiscal year 2009 enacted level. The Committee 

recommends $35,000,000, the same as the request and an increase 

of $15,000,000 over the fiscal year 2009 enacted level, for Equipment Standards and Analysis, for DOE to address the backlog of 

standards that are lagging behind schedule. 

Industrial Technologies.—The Industrial Technologies program 

cost shares research in critical technology areas identified in partnership with industry in order to realize significant energy benefits 

from increased energy efficiency. The Committee recommends 

$100,000,000, the same as the budget request. The Committee recommends $12,627,000 for Industries of the 

Future (Specific), the same as the budget request, to include 

$4,500,000 for the steel industry for improvements in production, 

the same as the request. The Committee recommends $87,373,000 for Industries of the 

Future (Cross-cutting), the same as the budget request and an increase of $12,948,000 above the fiscal year 2009 enacted level. The 

Committee recommends $25,000,000 for distributed energy, the 

same as the request, for distributed generation and combined-heat 

and power activities, and the advanced reciprocating engines system program. 

Federal Energy Management Program.—The Federal Energy 

Management Program (FEMP) reduces the cost and environmental 

impact of the Federal government by advancing energy efficiency 

and water conservation, promoting the use of renewable energy, 

and managing utility costs in Federal facilities and operations. The 

Committee recommendation for the FEMP is $32,272,000, the same 

as the budget request, to support investment in additional projects. 

Energy Education and Workforce Training Program.—The Department’s request includes $115,000,000 for an education and 

technical training initiative with a broad mandate to spur and enable more Americans to pursue careers in clean energy. The proposal includes K–12, higher education, and technical training activities. The Committee believes that the proposed initiative highlights an important set of goals to increase the domestic scientific 

and technical workforce in order to address today’s pressing energy 

issues, to develop the talents resident in American youth and workers into tomorrow’s workforce, and to enable our nation to lead the 

next generation of energy industries. 

However, the Committee is concerned that a program with such 

broad educational mandates, unlike some existing Energy Department programs that focus on specific areas, is more consistent with 

activities within the Department of Education for K–12 and higher 

education programs, and the Department of Labor for workforce 

training and re-specialization. In addition, the budget request does 

not highlight how this proposed initiative relates to the various 

educational and workforce development activities already conducted throughout the Department of Energy and in other federal 

agencies. 

For example, the Department of Labor requested $50,000,000 for 

the fiscal year 2010 for green jobs workforce development. The 

Labor Department also requested $135,000,000 for a Career Pathways Innovation Fund to prepare workers in high-demand industries. The Department of Education requested $31,000,000 for the 

‘‘Graduate assistance in areas of national need’’ program, which soVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:48 Jul 14, 2009 Jkt 050860 PO 00000 Frm 00100 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR203.XXX HR203

rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
97 

licits input from Federal agencies, including the National Science 

Foundation, and administers grants to graduate students in the 

identified areas of need. The House fiscal year 2010 appropriations 

bill provides $862,900,000 for National Science Foundation education programs, $17,600,000 above the fiscal year 2009 enacted 

level, to ‘‘ensure the United States has world-class scientists, mathematicians and engineers’’ through grants, fellowships, and awareness programs at the preK–12, higher education, and career development levels. The Energy Department’s request includes more 

than $70 million beyond this $115 million proposed initiative for 

workforce development in various program offices. 

While the Committee supports the desired end-results of the proposed program, the request lacks sufficient details and background 

research to assure the Committee that the program will be effective 

and not duplicative if fully funded in fiscal year 2010. The Committee therefore recommends $7,500,000 for the Department to conduct a study that: (1) defines the current and future 

needs for education and workforce development to further the Nation’s energy sector; (2) provides a detailed assessment of the current activities performed across the federal government to meet 

these needs, including efforts at the National Science Foundation, 

Department of Energy, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Department of Labor, and Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math 

(STEM) initiatives throughout the federal government; and (3) 

identifies any gaps in these federal activities that can be effectively 

conducted by the Department of Energy. The Committee looks forward to this study and further dialogue with the Department to 

better define the intentions of the proposal and understand what 

role the Department of Energy should play in a broadly mandated 

educational initiative. 

Facilities and Infrastructure.—The Committee recommendation 

for Facilities and Infrastructure is $63,000,000, the same as the 

budget request, to upgrade and maintain property, infrastructure, 

equipment, and access at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory. 

Program Direction.—Program Direction provides for the Federal 

staffing resources and associated costs for supporting the management and oversight of EERE programs. The overall budget for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy has increased substantially 

since the fiscal year 2007, and the Committee supports increasing 

Federal staffing levels to enable the Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy to effectively administer and oversee more than 

3,000 active contracts and agreements and the additional contracts 

and agreements expected to start. However, the Committee notes 

that the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy has had 

approximately 100 unfilled vacancies since 2007. Based on this recent track record, the Committee expresses concern that the Department of Energy’s existing services in the Office of the Chief 

Human Capital Officer will be unable to hire during the fiscal year 

2010 both the 100 unfilled vacancies and the additional requested 

253 federal positions for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. 

The Committee therefore recommends $188,000,000 for Program 

Direction, $50,117,000 below the budget request and $60,380,000 

above the fiscal year 2009 enacted level. The Committee provides 

additional direction regarding the Department’s Management and 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
98 

Federal Staffing under the Committee Concerns section of the report. 

Program Support.—Program Support activities for the EERE 

program include planning, analysis and evaluation, technology advancements and outreach, impact analysis, commercialization support, and the International Renewable Energy Program. The Committee recommendation for Program Support is $101,000,000, a decrease of $19,000,000 below the budget request and $82,843,000 

above the fiscal year 2009 enacted level. The Committee recommends $11,000,000 for Planning, Analysis, and Evaluation, the 

same as the request. For Technology Advancement and Outreach, 

the Committee recommends $11,000,000, the same as the request. 

The Committee recommendation for Strategic Priorities and Im- pact Analysis is $33,000,000, for Climate/Carbon Analysis; Market 

Analysis; Energy Policy and Systems Analysis; Data and Analysis 

Foundation and Dissemination; and Evaluation, Monitoring, and 

Verification Assets Strategy. No funds are provided under Strategic 

Priorities and Impact Analysis for unanticipated priority projects. 

The Committee supports centralized analysis within the Office of 

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy to prioritize activities and 

technology programs based on unbiased, objective analysis. Under 

this expanded analysis appropriation, the Committee directs the 

Department to report, by April 1, 2010, on the Department’s strategic plan for prioritizing investments in energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies and activities in order to increase the 

supply of clean, affordable energy; reduce energy demand; decrease 

the nation’s dependence on foreign oil; and reduce greenhouse gas 

emissions. 

The Committee recommendation for Commercialization is 

$36,000,000, a decrease of $9,000,000 from the request and 

$36,000,000 above the fiscal year 2009 enacted level. The Committee recommends $10,000,000 for the International 

Renewable Energy Program, the same as the budget request and 

$5,000,000 above the comparable fiscal year 2009 enacted level. 

The Committee supports moving this activity from the Weatherization and Intergovernmental Grants program to Program Support. 

FEDERAL ENERGY ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS

The Committee recommends a total of $462,560,000 for federal 

energy assistance programs, $161,560,000 above the budget request 

and $32,243,000 below the fiscal year 2009 enacted level. These 

programs are described in detail in the following sections. 

Weatherization Assistance.—The Committee recommends 

$220,000,000 for weatherization assistance program grants, the 

same as the budget request, to include $3,300,000 for training and 

technical assistance. 

State Energy Program.—The Committee recommends 

$75,000,000 for the State Energy Program, $25,000,000 above the 

fiscal year 2009 enacted level and the same as the budget request. 

Tribal Energy Activities.—The Committee recommends 

$10,000,000 for tribal energy projects, $4,000,000 above the budget 

request and $4,000,000 above the fiscal year 2009 enacted level. 

The Committee further encourages the Department to consider a 

range of project sizes in order to benefit a larger number of tribes 

than is possible with only large projects. 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
99 

Renewable Energy Production Incentive.—The Renewable Energy 

Production Incentive provides incentives to publicly owned and notfor-profit utilities, states, and territories for electricity generated 

from renewable sources. The deployment of renewable energy, however, has outstripped the scale and scope of the program, and the 

Committee urges the Department to work with the appropriate 

Committees to develop a more comprehensive solution for expanding renewable energy deployment across public and private power 

generation sectors. The Committee recommends no funding for the 

Renewable Energy Production Incentive, the same as the budget 

request. 

Congressionally Directed Projects.—The Committee recommendation includes $157,560,000 for the following projects and activities 

and for $4,000,000 of projects specified in bill language. The Committee believes these projects are consistent with or complementary 

to the purposes and objectives of existing Department of Energy activities and authorizations passed by Congress. The Committee directs the Department to work closely with recipients of congressionally designated funding to ensure that funded projects are consistent with authorized energy purposes and goals. The Department should remind recipients that statutory cost-sharing requirements may apply to these projects. 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
100 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 017 50273A.133
101 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 018 hr203.134
102 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 019 hr203.135
103 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 020 hr203.136
104 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 021 hr203.137
105 

ELECTRICITY DELIVERY AND ENERGY RELIABILITY

Appropriation, 2009 ............................................................................ a $137,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ....................................................................... 208,008,000 

Recommended, 2010 ........................................................................... 208,008,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2009 .................................................................... +71,008,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ................................................................ — a Excludes $4,500,000 of funding from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Public Law 

111–5). 

The electric grid plays a central role in our economy by delivering power to consumers and businesses, by integrating renewable 

and distributed generation with the existing power system, and by 

enabling new technologies such as electric vehicles to reduce our 

nation’s dependence on foreign oil. The mission of the Office of 

Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability is to lead national efforts to modernize the electric grid, increase the grid’s efficiency, 

enhance security and reliability of the energy infrastructure, and 

facilitate recovery from disruptions to the energy supply. The Committee recommendation for Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability is $208,008,000, an increase of $71,008,000 over the fiscal 

year 2009 enacted level and the same as the budget request. 

Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability Research and Development.—The Committee recommends $166,400,000 for electricity delivery and energy reliability research and development, 

$81,679,000 above the fiscal year 2009 enacted level, excluding 

emergency funding. The Committee supports the Department’s request to restructure electricity delivery and energy reliability research and development. The proposed structure reflects the opportunity for smart grid technologies to reduce electricity demand, to 

increase the efficiency of the national electric grid, and to enable 

the grid to accommodate larger quantities of distributed and renewable and generation. The proposed structure also highlights the 

importance of cyber security to the reliability, resilience, and security of the electrical grid as it becomes increasingly automated and 

network-connected and cyber attacks increase worldwide. 

The Committee recommends $42,000,000 for clean energy transmission and reliability, the same as the budget request. The Committee recognizes the importance of research and development that 

enables the integration of intermittent and distributed clean energy generation with the transmission and distribution grid. The 

Committee also encourages the Department to continue its efforts 

to decrease transmission losses for all generation sources. 

The Committee recommends $62,900,000 for smart grid research 

and development, $30,414,000 above the comparable fiscal year 

2009 enacted level and $4,100,000 below the budget request. No 

funding is provided within this amount for the Grid Materials, Devices, and Systems Energy Innovation Hub requested by the Department. 

The Committee recommends $15,000,000 for energy storage research and development, an increase of $10,934,000 above the comparable fiscal year 2009 enacted level and the same as budget request. The Committee recommends $46,500,000 for cyber security 

research and development, an increase of $34,500,000 from the 

comparable fiscal year 2009 enacted level and $3,500,000 below the 

budget request. 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
106 

Permitting, Siting, and Analysis.—The Committee recommends 

$6,400,000 for permitting, siting, and analysis, the same as the request. 

Infrastructure Security and Energy Restoration.—The Committee 

recommends $6,188,000 for infrastructure security and energy restoration, the same as the request. 

Program Direction.—For program direction, the Committee rec- ommends $21,420,000, the same as the budget request. 

Congressionally Directed Projects.—The Committee recommendation includes $7,600,000 for the following projects and activities. 

The Committee believes that these projects are consistent with 

and/or complementary to the purposes and objectives of existing 

Department of Energy authorizations passed by Congress. The 

Committee directs the Department to work closely with recipients 

of congressionally designated funding to ensure that funded 

projects are consistent with authorized energy purposes and goals. 

The Department should remind recipients that statutory cost-sharing requirements may apply to these projects. 

NUCLEAR ENERGY

Appropriation, 2009 ............................................................................ $792,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ....................................................................... 761,634,000 

Recommended, 2010 ........................................................................... 812,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2009 .................................................................... +20,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ................................................................ +50,366,000 

The Committee recommendation for Nuclear Energy is 

$812,000,000, an increase of $50,366,000 over the budget request 

and $20,000,000 over the fiscal year 2009 enacted level. The Committee recognizes the Administration is in the process of filling key 

vacancies and developing its major strategies, including its nuclear 

strategy. A well-formulated nuclear energy policy is no longer just 

an economic and environmental imperative nationally, but is also 

necessary to maintain our competitiveness on a global scale. 

Reporting Requirement.—Within 90 days of enactment, the Department shall submit its detailed nuclear energy research and development strategy and program plan. The strategic plan should 

clearly denote how the Department intends to balance and 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 023 hr203.147
107 

prioritize investments in nuclear energy between near-term deployment of new reactors and longer-term research in advanced reactors and the fuel cycle. 

NUCLEAR ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

The Committee continues to support the efforts of the Office of 

Nuclear Energy (NE) as the Federal government’s lead on the research and development of advanced and next-generation nuclear 

technologies. However, to adequately support the necessary efforts 

to develop and deploy next generation nuclear technologies, a sustained, long-term commitment by the Administration and the Congress is needed. The Committee provides $472,598,000 for Nuclear 

Energy Research and Development, $69,598,000 above the request, 

and $42,402,000 below fiscal year 2009. Consistent with activities 

funded in fiscal year 2009 and with the Administration’s fiscal year 

2010 budget request, this funding allows NE to ‘‘complete its contribution to work started over the last four years to license new nuclear plants in the United States by early in the next decade’’. No 

funds are provided for the Modeling and Simulation Hub. 

Nuclear Power 2010 (NP 2010).—The Committee recommends 

$71,000,000 for the NP 2010 program, an increase of $51,000,000 

above the President’s request, and $106,500,000 below fiscal year 

2009. NP 2010 is a $1.2 billion, joint government/industry partnership created by the Department in 2002 to support the near-term 

deployment of Generation III nuclear power plants by encouraging 

advanced and standardized designs for nuclear construction. The 

additional funds provided will complete the Department’s commitment to this effort. 

Generation IV nuclear energy systems initiative.—The Committee 

continues to support the Department’s collaborative efforts on the 

research and development (R&D) of a Generation IV (Gen IV) reactor design that will be safer, more cost effective, and more proliferation resistant than current designs, and recommends a total 

of $272,373,000 for Generation IV nuclear energy systems, an increase of $81,373,000 above the budget request. Of this amount, 

$16,000,000 is provided to address the underlying challenges of advanced reactor concepts, as specified by the request, and to support 

Generation IV R&D activities at university and educational institutions; and $10,000,000 is provided for the Light Water Reactor Sustainability program to support the long-term operation and sustainability of the existing fleet of light water nuclear reactors. 

The budget request did not specify funding for the Next Generation Nuclear Plant (NGNP). This has been one of the Committee’s 

priorities in recent years and a significant public investment has 

already been made in NGNP. The NGNP program provides the 

basis for the commercialization of a new generation of advanced 

nuclear plants that use high temperature gas-cooled reactor technology for the production of vast quantities of process heat. This 

nuclear process heat, a zero-carbon-emitting substitute for heat 

produced by fossil fuels, has the potential to be an energy source 

for all types of energy-dependent industrial applications, such as oil 

refinement and plastics and fertilizer manufacturing. The NGNP 

program represents a near-term deployment opportunity with 

strong commercialization potential. Therefore, from within the 

funds provided for the Generation IV nuclear energy systems iniVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:48 Jul 14, 2009 Jkt 050860 PO 00000 Frm 00111 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR203.XXX HR203

rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
108 

tiative, not less than $245,000,000 shall be for the NGNP program, 

including $7,000,000 for deep burn research, to continue the R&D 

on fuel and graphite testing and qualification, advanced high temperature materials performance testing of methods and high temperature instrumentation development and reactor conceptual design, licensing preparations, and the procurement of other longlead components necessary to meet the operational deadline of 

2021, as prescribed by the 2005 Energy Policy Act. 

The Committee notes that the Department’s timeframe for Gen 

IV reactor designs is approximately 2030. The Committee is aware 

that the potential commercial application of work previously funded in the NNSA accounts may be in a similar timeframe. The Committee directs the Office of Nuclear Energy, working in cooperation 

with the Office of Science, to lead an evaluation of the Naval Research Laboratory’s use of krypton-fluoride lasers and high-performance directly driven targets to generate inertial fusion energy. 

As detailed under the ‘‘Office of Science’’ appropriation, a report on 

its findings shall be provided to the Committee not later than August 31, 2009. 

FUEL CYCLE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

The fiscal year 2010 budget request proposes a new Fuel Cycle 

Research and Development (R&D) program. According to the request, this new program represents a fundamental shift in focus 

from that of the former Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative program to 

long-term, science-based R&D intended to better understand the 

science underlying advanced fuel cycle technologies, to improve 

waste management options, and to more effectively manage the 

fuel cycle. Furthermore, the scope of the new program is expanded 

to support R&D on storage technologies, security systems, and alternative disposal pathways, including the scientific considerations 

of long-term geologic storage. 

Fuel Cycle Research and Development.—The Committee recommends for Fuel Cycle Research and Development, $129,225,000, 

which is $62,775,000 below the request and $15,775,000 less than 

comparable activities in fiscal year 2009. The Committee supports 

continued research on advanced fuel cycles but is concerned by the 

lack specificity in terms of the direction of the research in this 

area. The research and development strategic plan should address 

this concern. No funding is provided for the Extreme Materials Energy Innovation Hub. 

RADIOLOGICAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT

The purpose of the Radiological Facilities Management program 

is to maintain the critical infrastructure necessary to support users 

from the defense, space, and medical communities. These outside 

users fund DOE’s actual operational, production, and research activities on a reimbursable basis. The Committee provides 

$67,000,000, $10,000,000 below the request and $854,000 above the 

fiscal year 2009 enacted level. 

Space and defense infrastructure.—The Committee recommendation is $42,000,000, $5,000,000 below the budget request and 

$7,000,000 above the fiscal year 2009 enacted level. This includes 

the requested $9,340,000 to operate radioisotope power systems at 

the Idaho National Laboratory (INL) as well as $27,030,000 to supVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:48 Jul 14, 2009 Jkt 050860 PO 00000 Frm 00112 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR203.XXX HR203

rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
109 

port the plutonium-238 (Pu-238) facilities at Los Alamos National 

Laboratory. 

Oak Ridge nuclear infrastructure.—The Committee recommends 

$15,000,000 for Oak Ridge radiological facilities management for 

hot cells at the Radiochemical Engineering Development Center. 

Plutonium-238 Production Restart.—While the Committee supports the re-start of Pu-238 for space missions and national security user applications, the Department has not provided a clear 

plan for how the $30,000,000 request will be utilized. The Committee is also concerned that the Department’s request does not address how major users of Pu-238, like the National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration, are partnering and contributing to this effort. The Committee recommends $10,000,000 for Pu-238 production start-up and directs the Department to provide its start-up 

plan, including the role and contribution of users, within 90 days 

of enactment of this Act. 

IDAHO FACILITIES MANAGEMENT

Idaho National Laboratory (INL) operations and infrastructure.— 

The budget requested $203,402,000 for INL operations and infrastructure. Of that amount, $45,000,000 was requested for the contractor defined-benefit pension shortfall, which the Committee recommendation has addressed elsewhere in this report. With this adjustment, the Committee recommendation of $194,030,000 is 

$9,372,000 below the request and $54,030,000 above the fiscal year 

2009 enacted level. Consistent with fiscal year 2009 funding, funds 

provided under this heading are to address Idaho facility management operations, maintenance and repair; Advanced Test Reactor 

(ATR) operations and life-extension program; environmental compliance; facility and infrastructure revitalization; and other necessary capital equipment purchases. 

Idaho Site-wide and Security Activities.—The Committee recommends $83,358,000, the same as the request, for 050 budget 

function activities (i.e. defense-related) available is provided in the 

Other Defense Activities account. 

Program direction.—The Committee recommends $77,872,000 for 

program direction, the same as the budget request. 

Congressionally Directed Projects.—The Committee recommendation includes $500,000 for the following projects and activities. The 

Committee believes these projects are consistent with or complementary to the purpose and objectives of existing Department of 

Energy activities and authorizations passed by Congress. The Committee directs the Department to work closely with recipients of 

congressionally designated funding to ensure that funded projects 

are consistent with authorized energy purposes and goals. The Department should remind recipients that statutory cost-sharing requirements may apply to these projects. 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 008 50273a.139
110 

FOSSIL ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

Appropriation, 2009 ............................................................................ a $876,320,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ....................................................................... 617,565,000 

Recommended, 2010 ........................................................................... 617,565,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2009 .................................................................... ¥258,755,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ................................................................ — a Excludes $3,400,000,000 of funding from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Public 

Law 111–5). 

Funds provided for Fossil Energy Research and Development are 

intended for research, development, and demonstration programs 

that help protect the environment by reducing carbon dioxide and 

pollutant emissions into the atmosphere, increase efficiency for 

power generation, and improve compliance and stewardship operations of fossil energy activities. The research funded under this account has the difficult goal of developing virtually pollution-free 

power plants, while increasing plant efficiency in order to compete 

with other forms of electricity generation. In addition to the importance of reducing carbon emissions in the United States, fossil energy research and development will potentially address the increasing carbon emissions from the developing world, which is rapidly 

increasing its use of fossil fuels. The Committee recommendation is $617,565,000, the same as 

the budget request. 

Carbon Sequestration.—The Committee recommends 

$144,865,000 for a carbon sequestration research, development, 

and demonstration program, $35,000,000 below the request. No 

funds are provided for the Carbon Capture and Storage Energy Innovation Hub. The Committee believes that carbon sequestration is 

critical to the future of coal power. It will be a key component of 

climate change mitigation strategies in the United States and globally. Carbon sequestration may be utilized to store carbon dioxide 

emissions not only from coal power plants, but also from natural 

gas power plants, as well as other industrial sources such as ethanol and cement plants. Further, the Committee directs the Office 

of Fossil Energy to continue to coordinate with the Office of Science 

to address the basic science needs for carbon sequestration, and 

with the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy to address opportunities for sequestration arising from ethanol, biomass, 

and industrial processes and waste. 

The Committee is concerned by the apparent overlap of programs 

funded under this heading in this and previous fiscal years, including CCPI, FutureGen, and Carbon Sequestration Regional Partnership. The Department is directed to provide a report to the Committee not later than six months after the date of enactment of this 

Act providing an updated integrated strategy and program plan, including activities supported by American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, for its research, development, and demonstration efforts 

relevant to the management of greenhouse gas emissions. 

Fuels and power systems.—The Committee recommends a total of 

$249,450,000 for fuels and power systems, $25,450,000 above the 

budget request excluding carbon sequestration. The Committee provides $41,000,000 for Innovations at Existing Plants, the same as 

the budget request. The Committee is pleased that the Department 

is following congressional leadership in this area and investing in 

a rigorous research program on the potential for retrofitting existVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:48 Jul 14, 2009 Jkt 050860 PO 00000 Frm 00114 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR203.XXX HR203

rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
111 

ing coal plants for carbon dioxide capture and sequestration. The 

Committee directs the Department to continue to focus these R&D 

efforts on carbon dioxide capture technology for existing pulverized 

coal (PC) combustion plants, to include efforts on high-strength materials for heat intensive operations, plant efficiency, and oxy-fuel 

combustion PC retrofit technology. The recommendation provides 

$55,000,000 for Advanced Integrated Gas Combined Cycle (IGCC), 

the same as the request, and $31,000,000 for advanced turbines, 

the same as the request. The Committee believes that the key barriers to the adoption of these technologies are not at the laboratory 

scale but at the utility and commercial scales. The Committee recommends $40,450,000 for fuels, $25,450,000 above the request. The 

production of high purity hydrogen from coal holds potential as a 

supply source for hydrogen-based technologies in the future. The 

Committee recommends $54,000,000, the same as the budget request, for fuel cells. The Committee provides $28,000,000 for advanced research, the same as the budget request. Within the 

amount provided for advanced research, the Committee directs that 

$20,000,000 shall be awarded competitively among universities, 

other nonprofits, industry and national laboratories to establish a 

strong program for modeling and simulation capability that will 

permit the analysis of design tradeoffs, turbine operation and sequestration requirements, and other factors that can accommodate 

validated engineering and cost data related to fossil fuel power generation with carbon capture and storage. 

Natural gas technologies.—The Committee recommends 

$25,000,000 for methane gas hydrates research and development, 

the same as the budget request and $5,000,0000 above the fiscal 

year 2009 enacted levels. 

Program direction.—The Committee recommends $158,000,000 

for program direction, the same as the budget request. 

Other.—The Committee recommendation includes $700,000 for 

special recruitment programs, $20,000,000 for plant and capital 

equipment, and $10,000,000 for fossil energy environmental restoration, same as the budget request. 

Congressionally Directed Projects.—The Committee recommendation includes $9,550,000 for the following projects and activities 

and for $1,550,000 of projects specified in bill language. The Committee believes these projects are consistent with or complementary 

to the purposes and objectives of existing Department of Energy activities and authorizations passed by Congress. The Committee directs the Department to work closely with recipients of congressionally designated funding to ensure that funded projects are consistent with authorized energy purposes and goals. The Department should remind recipients that statutory cost-sharing requirements may apply to these projects. 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
112 

NAVAL PETROLEUM AND OIL SHALE RESERVES

Appropriation, 2009 ............................................................................ $19,099,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ....................................................................... 23,627,000 

Recommended, 2010 ........................................................................... 23,627,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2009 .................................................................... +4,528,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ................................................................ — 

The Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves no longer serve the 

national defense purpose envisioned in the early 1900s, 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, DOE 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 is maintaining until it reaches its economic 

production limit. The DOE continues to be responsible for routine 

operations and maintenance of NPR–3, and management of the 

Rocky Mountain Oilfield Testing Center at NPR–3, and continuing 

environmental and remediation work at Elk Hills. 

The Committee recommendation for the operation of the Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves is $23,627,000, $4,528,000 above 

the fiscal year 2009 enacted level and the same as the budget request. 

STRATEGIC PETROLEUM RESERVE

Appropriation, 2009 ............................................................................ $205,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ....................................................................... 228,573,000 

Recommended, 2010 ........................................................................... 228,573,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2009 .................................................................... +23,573,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ................................................................ — 

The mission of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve is to store petroleum to reduce the adverse economic impact of a major petroleum 

supply interruption to the U.S. and to carry out obligations under 

the international energy program. The current capacity of the Reserve is 727 million barrels. When filled in the beginning of fiscal 

year 2010, this will equal 71 days of net import protection for the 

United States economy. 

The Committee recommends $228,573,000, $23,573,000 above the 

fiscal year 2009 enacted level and the same as the budget request. 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 055 50273A.140
113 

The funding increase over fiscal year 2009 is to replace a commercial storage cavern for a Bayou Choctaw site cavern posing environmental risks. 

NORTHEAST HOME HEATING OIL RESERVE

Appropriation, 2009 ............................................................................ $9,800,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ....................................................................... 11,300,000 

Recommended, 2010 ........................................................................... 11,300,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2009 .................................................................... +1,500,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ................................................................ — 

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 

2,000,000 barrel reserve is stored in commercial facilities in New 

York Harbor, New Haven, Connecticut, and the Providence, Rhode 

Island area. 

The Committee recommendation for the Northeast Home Heating Oil reserve is $11,300,000, $1,500,000 above the fiscal year 

2009 enacted level and the same as the budget request. 

ENERGY INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION

Appropriation, 2009 ............................................................................ $110,595,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ....................................................................... 133,058,000 

Recommended, 2010 ........................................................................... 121,858,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2009 .................................................................... +11,263,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ................................................................ ¥11,200,000 

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, executive branch, state governments, industry, 

and the public. The information and analysis prepared by the EIA 

are widely disseminated and the agency is recognized as an unbiased source of energy information and projections by government 

organizations, industry, professional statistical organizations, and 

the public. 

The Committee recommendation for the Energy Information Administration is $121,858,000, $11,263,000 above the fiscal year 

2009 enacted level and $11,200,000 below the budget request, to 

continue ongoing activities, augment end-use and energy efficiency 

data, and enhance energy and financial markets data and reporting 

capabilities. 

NON-DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT

The Non-Defense Environmental Management program includes 

funds to manage and clean up sites used for civilian, energy research, and non-defense-related activities. These past activities reVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:48 Jul 14, 2009 Jkt 050860 PO 00000 Frm 00117 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR203.XXX HR203

rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
114 

sulted in radioactive, hazardous, and mixed waste contamination 

that requires remediation, stabilization, or some other action. 

Reprogramming authority.—The Committee continues to support 

the need for flexibility to meet changing funding requirements at 

sites. In fiscal year 2010, the Department may transfer up to 

$2,000,000 between projects and programs within the Non-Defense 

Environmental Management accounts, to reduce health or safety 

risks or to gain cost savings as long as no program or project is increased or decreased by more than $2,000,000 during the fiscal 

year. The account control points for reprogramming are the Fast 

Flux Test Reactor Facility, West Valley Demonstration Project, 

Gaseous Diffusion Plants, Small Sites, and construction line-items. 

This reprogramming authority may not be used to initiate new programs or programs specifically denied, limited, or increased by 

Congress in the Act or report. The Committees on Appropriations 

of the House of Representatives and Senate must be notified within 

thirty days of the use of this reprogramming authority. Transfers 

which result in increases or decreases which would exceed the limitations outlined in previous paragraphs require prior notification of 

and approval by the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations. 

Economic development.—None of the Non-Defense Environmental 

Management funds, including those provided in the Non-Defense 

Environmental Cleanup and Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund, are available for economic development activities. 

NON-DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP

Appropriation, 2009 ............................................................................ a $261,819,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ....................................................................... 237,517,000 

Recommended, 2010 ........................................................................... 237,517,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2009 .................................................................... ¥24,302,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ................................................................ — a Excludes $483,000,000 of funding from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Public Law 

111–5) 

The Committee recommendation for Non-Defense Environmental 

Cleanup is $237,517,000, the same as the budget request. The recommendation provides $58,074,000 for solid waste stabilization and 

disposition, and nuclear facility decontamination and decommissioning (D&D), at the West Valley Demonstration Project, the same 

as the budget request. The Committee recommends $104,444,000 

for D&D of the gaseous diffusion plants, the same as the budget 

request. The recommendation provides $7,652,000 for the Fast Flux 

Test Reactor facility, the same as the budget request. 

Small Sites.—The Committee recommends $12,614,000 for 

Brookhaven National Laboratory, the same as the budget request, 

to accelerate the D&D of the graphite reactor. 

The Committee recommends $5,000,000, the same as the budget 

request, to address the excess contaminated facilities at Idaho National Laboratory. 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
115 

URANIUM ENRICHMENT DECONTAMINATION AND DECOMMISSIONING

FUND

Appropriation, 2009 ............................................................................ a $535,503,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ....................................................................... b 559,377,000 

Recommended, 2010 ........................................................................... 559,377,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2009 .................................................................... +23,874,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ................................................................ — a Excludes $390,000,000 of funds from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (PL 111–8). 

bDoes not include the $200,000,000 utility fee proposed in the fiscal year 2010 request. 

The Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund was established by the Energy Policy Act of 1992 

(P.L. 102–486) to pay for the cleanup of the three gaseous diffusion 

plants at Piketon, Ohio, Paducah, Kentucky, and East Tennessee 

Technology Park, Oak Ridge, Tennessee. Title X of the 1992 Act 

also authorized use of a portion of the fund to reimburse private 

licensees for the Federal government’s share of the cost of cleaning 

up uranium and thorium processing sites. The 1992 Act authorized 

the collection of revenues for 15 years to pay for authorized cleanup 

costs. The revenues are derived from: an assessment on domestic 

utilities of up to $150,000,000 annually, based on a ratio of their 

purchases of enriched uranium to the total purchases from DOE, 

including those for defense; and federal government appropriations 

for the difference between the authorized funding under the Energy 

Policy Act and the assessment on utilities. The utility fee expired 

in 2007. 

The Committee recommends $559,377,000 for activities funded 

from the Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund, the same as the budget request. The Committee recommendation includes $87,501,000 for the Paducah and 

$246,876,000 for the Portsmouth gaseous diffusion plants. This also 

includes $225,000,000 for the accelerated decontamination and decommissioning of Oak Ridge East Tennessee Technology Park nuclear facilities. 

Escalating cleanup cost estimates prompted the Administration 

to submit a legislative proposal to restore the utility fee to up to 

$200,000,000 per year. The Committee recommendation does not 

include the legislative language reinstating the utility fee. Given 

the legislative proposal addresses a 25-year time horizon it is best 

addressed in the context of action by the relevant authorizing committees. 

SCIENCE

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriation, 2009 ............................................................................ a $4,772,636,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ....................................................................... 4,941,682,000 

Recommended, 2010 ........................................................................... 4,943,587,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2009 .................................................................... +170,951,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ................................................................ +1,905,000 a Excludes $1,600,000,000 of funding from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Public 

Law 111–5). 

The Science account funds the Department’s work on high energy 

physics, nuclear physics, biological and environmental research, 

basic energy sciences, advanced scientific computing, maintenance 

of the laboratories physical infrastructure, fusion energy sciences, 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
116 

safeguards and security, workforce development for teachers and 

scientists, and science program direction. 

The Committee recommendation is $4,943,587,000, $1,905,000 

above the budget request and $170,951,000 above the fiscal year 

2009 enacted level. 

HIGH ENERGY PHYSICS

The Committee recommends a total of $819,000,000 for High Energy Physics, the same as the request. 

The control level is at the High Energy Physics level. 

NUCLEAR PHYSICS

The Committee recommendation for Nuclear Physics is 

$536,455,000, $15,545,000 below the request. 

The Committee recommends $111,816,000 for Low Energy Nuclear Physics, $5,000,000 below the request. From within these 

funds, the Committee recommends $12,000,000, $3,000,000 above 

the request, for the Facility for Rare Isotope Beams. 

The Committee recommends $12,000,000 for the 12GeV continuous electron beam facility upgrade at the Thomas Jefferson Laboratory, $10,000,000 below the request in light of reduced requirements for the project. 

The Committee recommends $29,200,000, $10,000,000 above the 

request, for Isotope Development and Production for Research and 

Applications, University Operations. The Committee is aware that 

several universities, including the University of California at Davis 

and Idaho State University, operate facilities with the potential to 

make important contributions to the nation’s supply of medical isotopes. The Committee directs the Department to work with the 

academic community to most cost-effectively increase the availability of medical isotopes. 

The control level is at the Nuclear Physics level. 

BIOLOGICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH

The Committee recommends $597,182,000, $7,000,000 less than 

the request, for Biological and Environmental Research. 

The control level is at the Biological and Environmental Research level. 

BASIC ENERGY SCIENCES

The Committee recommendation for Basic Energy Sciences is 

$1,675,000,000, $10,500,000 below the request. Within this sum, 

the Committee recommends $35,000,000 for one Energy Innovation 

Hub as described in the Research and Development Initiatives section of this report. 

The Committee recommends $365,112,000 for Materials Sciences 

and Engineering Research, including $10,020,000, $1,500,000 above 

the request, for EPSCOR, and $320,857,000 for Chemical Sciences, 

Geosciences, and Energy Biosciences. 

The Committee recommends $834,791,000, $23,000,000 above the 

request, for Scientific User Facilities. From within these funds, the 

Committee recommends $198,872,000, $15,000,000 above the request, for the Spallation Neutron Source, and $68,841,000, 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
117 

$8,000,000 above the request, for the High Flux Isotope Reactor, 

both at Oak Ridge National Laboratory. 

ADVANCED SCIENTIFIC COMPUTING RESEARCH

The Committee recommendation is $409,000,000, the same as 

the request and $40,180,000 above the fiscal year 2009 appropriation excluding emergency appropriations, for Advanced Scientific 

Computing Research. 

FUSION ENERGY SCIENCES

The Committee recommendation for fusion energy sciences is $441,000,000, $20,000,000 more than the request. 

From within these funds, the Committee recommends 

$20,000,000 for the laser fusion program at the Naval Research 

Laboratory (NRL), which has been funded in previous years from 

the accounts under the National Nuclear Security Administration. 

NRL has identified a path to inertial fusion energy that could substantially reduce the cost and the time to develop a practical fusion 

power source, based on krypton-fluoride (KrF) lasers and high-performance directly driven targets. NRL researchers and their collaborators have developed a staged plan to systematically develop 

the needed science and technologies for the energy application. The 

Committee directs the Department of Energy to evaluate the potential of the KrF laser for commercial fusion and the merits of the 

staged development plan. The Office of Nuclear Energy shall take 

the lead in this evaluation, working with the Office of Science, and 

report to the Committee not later than August 31, 2009, on its 

findings. 

SCIENCE LABORATORIES INFRASTRUCTURE

The Committee recommends $133,600,000 for Science Laboratories Infrastructure, the same as the budget request. 

SAFEGUARDS AND SECURITY

The Committee recommends $83,000,000, the same as the budget 

request, to meet safeguards and security requirements at Office of 

Science facilities. 

SCIENCE PROGRAM DIRECTION

The Committee recommendation for Science Program Direction is $190,932,000, $22,790,000 below the request and $2,637,000 above 

the fiscal year 2009 appropriation, excluding emergency appropriations, for Science Program Direction. Within these funds, 

$75,261,000 is recommended for Headquarters, $106,755,000 is recommended for Field Offices, and $8,916,000 is recommended for 

the Office of Scientific and Technical Information. 

The control level is at the Science Program Direction level. 

SCIENCE WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT

The Committee recommends $20,678,000 for workforce development for teachers and scientists in fiscal year 2010, the same as 

the requested amount. By utilizing the Department’s intellectual 

and physical assets to provide teachers with the opportunity to become teacher-scientists rather than teachers who happen to teach 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
118 

science, this program can significantly enhance the ability of teachers to involve their students in doing science rather than just reading about and reproducing well-established principles. 

CONGRESSIONALLY DIRECTED PROJECTS

Congressionally Directed Projects.—The Committee recommendation includes $37,740,000 for the following projects and activities. 

The Committee believes these projects are consistent with or complementary to the purposes and objectives of existing Department 

of Energy activities and authorizations passed by Congress. The 

Committee directs the Department to work closely with recipients 

of congressionally designated funding to ensure that funded 

projects are consistent with authorized energy purposes and goals. 

The Department should remind recipients that statutory cost-sharing requirements may apply to these projects. 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
119 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 017 50273A.141
120 

ADVANCED RESEARCH PROJECTS AGENCY—ENERGY

Appropriation, 2009 ............................................................................ a $15,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ....................................................................... 10,000,000 

Recommended, 2010 ........................................................................... — 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2009 .................................................................... ¥5,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ................................................................ ¥10,000,000 aFunding provided under Science, excludes $400,000,000 of funding from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Public Law 111–5). 

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act provided $400 

million for the establishment of the Advanced Research Projects 

Agency—Energy (ARPA–E). The Committee believes that, in addition to the fiscal year 2009 appropriation of $15,000,000 (for program direction), this funding will allow ARPA–E to fund its first 

round of projects beginning in fiscal year 2010 and provides an appropriate foundation of project funding as ARPA–E ramps-up to 

full operation. The decision not to provide any additional funding 

for ARPA–E in fiscal year 2010 beyond the funding already provided does not in any way suggest a lack of commitment to this 

new program by the Committee. The Committee looks forward to 

ARPA–E becoming fully operational in fiscal year 2010 and beginning its important work of developing innovative and transformational energy technologies. 

The initial staffing and leadership of ARPA–E will be critical to 

its long-term success. While the Committee commends the Department for moving quickly on the establishment of ARPA–E, there is 

concern that the timeline dictated by the agency’s Funding Opportunity Announcement may outpace the selection of the Program 

Managers and a Director or an acting Director, as intended in the 

America COMPETES Act. The Committee encourages the Secretary to use all existing authorities to aggressively recruit staff 

that will be uniquely qualified to both make project funding decisions and create a distinct organizational culture for ARPA–E. 

NUCLEAR WASTE DISPOSAL

Appropriation, 2009 ............................................................................ $145,390,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ....................................................................... 98,400,000 

Recommended, 2010 ........................................................................... 98,400,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2009 .................................................................... ¥46,990,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ................................................................ — 

The Department of Energy requested a total of $98,400,000 for 

Nuclear Waste Disposal. The requested funds terminate the Yucca 

Mountain nuclear waste repository. The Administration requested 

funds to continue to work supporting the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s licensing of the site with the purpose of informing the liVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:48 Jul 14, 2009 Jkt 050860 PO 00000 Frm 00124 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR203.XXX HR203

rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 018 hr203.146
121 

censing process for the Yucca successor. A Blue Ribbon Commission 

will be named to evaluate repository alternatives. 

For Nuclear Waste Disposal in fiscal year 2010, the Committee 

recommends $98,400,000, the same as the budget request. Of this 

amount, $5,000,000 is made available to support the Blue Ribbon 

Commission as requested by the Administration. The Committee 

supports this effort and provides full funding based on information 

received from the Department. However, the elimination of particular alternatives currently being proposed by the Administration 

does raise concerns. Since the Department’s overall strategy for the 

disposition and long-term storage of nuclear material hinges upon 

the conclusions of this Commission, the analysis must be done on 

scientific merit using well-established scientific processes. There 

may be disagreement on whether Yucca Mountain is a suitable alternative, but the public investment made to date and the integrity 

of the scientific process warrant considering all alternatives. Therefore, the Committee makes the $5,000,000 available for the Blue 

Ribbon Commission only for an analysis of alternatives that includes all options for nuclear waste disposal based on scientific 

merit, as previously discussed in the Management of Nuclear Spent 

Fuel and Radioactive Waste section of this report. Additionally, the 

Committee directs that the proposed Blue Ribbon Commission shall 

include an appropriate level of representation of decommissioned 

reactor sites to ensure their interests are considered in the formulation of a national nuclear waste policy. 

The Committee also fully funds the request of $98,400,000 for 

Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal for a total of $191,800,000 to support the licensing activities on the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste 

repository at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in fiscal year 

2010 excluding the amount provided for the Blue Ribbon Commission. Not less than $70,000,000 of these funds shall be for the management contractor to retain the sufficient legal, scientific and 

technical expertise necessary to maintain and update the Yucca 

Mountain license application and its supporting documentation as 

may be required by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Further, 

the Committee recommends the statutory language that funds local 

units of government at levels proportional to the total funding provided at the fiscal year 2009 enacted level. 

TITLE 17—INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY LOAN GUARANTEE PROGRAM

ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES

GROSS APPROPRIATION

Appropriation, 2009 ............................................................................ $19,880,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ....................................................................... 43,000,000 

Recommended, 2010 ........................................................................... 43,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2009 .................................................................... +23,120,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ................................................................ — 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
122 

OFFSETTING RECEIPTS

Appropriation, 2009 ............................................................................ $19,880,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ....................................................................... ¥43,000,000 

Recommended, 2010 ........................................................................... ¥43,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2009 .................................................................... +23,120,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ................................................................ — 

The Loan Guarantee program under Title XVII of the Energy 

Policy Act is a key component of the overall national effort to invest in renewable and low-emissions energy generation, as well as 

improved electric power transmission. The Committee lauds the 

Department’s new leadership for making the success of this program a top priority, but it urges the Department to translate its 

enthusiasm into action. 

Congress authorized the Title XVII Loan Guarantee program to 

support an historic investment into the nation’s energy future. According to the Department of Energy, a total of approximately 

$111,000,000,000 in loan authority is now available to support improvements to our energy system. Congress authorized the Department to issue $4,000,000,000 of loan guarantee authority in Division B of Public Law 109–289, as amended by Public Law 110–5. 

This was followed in fiscal year 2008 with another $38,500,000,000 

of loan authority. This amount included $10,000,000,000 for energy 

efficiency and renewable energy and advanced distribution, 

$18,500,000,000 for advanced nuclear power facilities, 

$2,000,000,000 for front-end nuclear fuel cycle activities, and 

$8,000,000,000 for low-emissions, coal-based generation. The authority continued to grow in the fiscal year 2009 Omnibus appropriation, where $8,500,000,000 of additional authority was provided 

for renewables, distributed energy generation, and transmission. 

Then, finally, under Section 406 of Public Law 111–5 (American 

Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009) an additional 

$6,000,000,000 was provided to subsidize additional energy investments in renewable energy and transmission projects, resulting in 

approximately $60,000,000,000 in loan authority. The Committee 

stands ready to assist in advancing this program forward as quickly and as responsibly as possible. 

The Committee is encouraged that the Department has made significant recent progress on this program, including the selection of 

a photovoltaic manufacturer in March, 2009, for the first loan guarantee. The Committee is also aware that some, including supporters of nuclear power, feel additional loan guarantee authority 

is necessary to make a substantive impact on the energy sector. 

The Committee encourages the Department to work with the applicable authorizing committees to ensure that an appropriate balance 

of loan guarantee authority is available to support a reliable, carbon-neutral energy sector. 

The bill also contains language involving wage-rate requirements 

under Section 1702 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 

16512). 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
123 

ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY VEHICLES MANUFACTURING LOAN

PROGRAM

Appropriation, 2009 ............................................................................ a— Budget estimate, 2010 ....................................................................... $20,000,000 

Recommended, 2010 ........................................................................... 20,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2009 .................................................................... +20,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ................................................................ — a Excludes $7,510,000,000 of emergency funding from Public Law 110–329. 

The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 established 

a direct loan program to support the development of advanced technology vehicles and associated components in the United States. 

The program provides loans to automobile and automobile part 

manufacturers for the cost of re-equipping, expanding, or establishing manufacturing facilities in the United States to produce advanced technology vehicles or qualified components, and for associated engineering integration costs. 

The Committee recommends $20,000,000 for the Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loan Program, the same as the 

budget request. 

DEPARTMENTAL ADMINISTRATION

GROSS APPROPRIATION

Appropriation, 2009 ............................................................................ $272,643,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ....................................................................... 302,071,000 

Recommended, 2010 ........................................................................... 289,684,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2009 .................................................................... +17,041,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ................................................................ ¥12,387,000 

REVENUES

Appropriation, 2009 ............................................................................ $¥117,317,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ....................................................................... ¥119,740,000 

Recommended, 2010 ........................................................................... ¥119,740,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2009 .................................................................... ¥2,423,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ................................................................ — 

NET APPROPRIATION

Appropriation, 2009 ............................................................................ $155,326,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ....................................................................... 182,331,000 

Recommended, 2010 ........................................................................... 169,944,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2009 .................................................................... +14,618,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ................................................................ ¥12,387,000 

The Committee recommendation for Departmental Administration is $289,684,000, $12,387,000 less than the budget request. The 

recommendation for revenues is $¥119,740,000, the same as the 

budget request, resulting in a net appropriation of $169,944,000. 

Funding recommended for Departmental Administration provides 

for general management and program support functions benefiting 

all elements of the Department of Energy, including the National 

Nuclear Security Administration. The account funds a wide array 

of headquarters activities not directly associated with the execution 

of specific programs. 

The Committee encourages the Department to seriously consider 

and pursue the National Academy of Public Administration recVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:48 Jul 14, 2009 Jkt 050860 PO 00000 Frm 00127 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR203.XXX HR203

rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
124 

ommendations regarding mission support functions. In particular, 

the Committee supports the recommendation that the Department 

create an Undersecretary for Management position, or a Business 

Council consisting of the leadership of the four major mission-support functions—human resources, acquisition, financial management, and information technology—and chaired by the Secretary, 

to provide an ongoing forum where these critical functions can develop an integrated and mission-focused approach to serving their 

customers. It currently appears that there is room for consolidation 

of activities, or at a minimum, coordination and clarification among 

the offices that currently reside under the Deputy Secretary. In 

light of these concerns, the Committee provides no funds for the 

Portfolio Analysis activity within the Management Office or the Office of Program Analysis and Evaluation within the Office of the 

Chief Financial Officer until the Department can clarify the roles 

and interactions between the two activities and the Office of Policy 

and International Affairs. 

Office of the Chief Human Capital Officer.—The Committee recommends $29,537,000, the same as the request. Within the resources available, $350,000 shall be directed to contract with an expert independent entity to examine alternatives to providing 

human capital operation, such as a new Shared Service Center or 

using an existing federal service provider. This study should be 

submitted to the Committee by March 1, 2010. 

Office of Indian Energy Policy and Programs.—The Committee 

recommends $1,500,000 from within the Departmental Administration, Office of Congressional Affairs account for the Office of Indian 

Energy Policy and Programs, as authorized in Section 502 of the 

Energy Policy Act of 2005, the same as the budget request. Consistent with the authorization, the Office will coordinate and implement DOE energy management, conservation, education, and delivery systems for Native Americans. 

Office of the Chief Financial Officer (CFO).—The Committee appreciates the dedication and enthusiasm that the CFO’s office has 

shown during the transition period between Administrations. The 

Committee relies on this office to provide timely, factual notification of and responses to financial and program execution issues. 

However, the Committee is increasingly concerned with the level of 

coordination and information received from the CFO. 

Office of Cost Analysis (OCA).—The Department was directed in 

fiscal year 2009 to move the Office of Cost Analysis from the CFO 

office and consolidate the OCA with the existing cost estimating 

group within the Office of Management. The Department not only 

has taken no action on this direction, but the budget justifications 

clearly indicate a decision to maintain the Office of Cost Analysis 

within the CFO organization despite congressional direction. The 

Committee reiterates the direction provided in the Energy and 

Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 

2009 that the Office of Cost Analysis be moved from the CFO office. 

The Committee supports strong actions to minimize the mission 

risk associated with the Department’s existing cost estimating; 

however it fails to understand how the current organizational 

structure meets that goal. If the Department’s objective is to create 

an organization similar to the Cost Analysis Improvement Group 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
125 

at the Department of Defense, cost estimating functions should either be consolidated, or a separate office should report directly to 

the Deputy Secretary as the official responsible for major investment decisions. Given the concerns expressed by this committee regarding cost estimating, the Department is also expected to aggressively pursue the recommendations of the GAO study requested by 

this Committee regarding cost estimating when available. The 

Committee is particularly interested in full, independent cost estimates of large capital projects. To the extent that a different organizational structure is necessary to achieve that goal, the Committee would welcome a dialogue to that end. However, the Committee generally opposes creating a new office to address an issue 

with existing mission functions—if cost estimating is truly broken 

at the Department, it should be addressed in a comprehensive fashion. 

Study of Internet Database on Renewable Energy Based Distributed Electricity Generation.—The Committee recognizes that the 

market for renewable energy based distributed electricity generation (RE–DG) is still in its infancy, particularly with respect to private financing opportunities. Despite a substantial increase in Federal grants and credit enhancements, private capital has been hesitant to underwrite all but the largest and most profitable ventures. 

The Committee believes that the federal government can play a 

productive role at encouraging private investment by making existing transactions more transparent and available on line. To understand this potential more clearly, the Committee directs the Department of Energy to study the merits of creating an internet 

database disclosing all (RE–DG) financing transactional data and 

documentation involving federal grants or loan guarantees. 

Disclosures would be limited to projects involving state and local 

governments and private commercial interests. The study would 

determine if the disclosure of a standard form and performance reports would help accelerate the market for (RE–DG) by providing 

transparent, searchable, standardized information that would help 

facilitate private investor confidence, identify best practices and 

minimize fraud and systemic risk. The study shall include (1) the 

identification of categories of financial transactional information 

that could prove useful to potential investors in assessing the feasibility of supporting renewable energy projects; (2) an assessment of 

the costs involved in ensuring accurate collection and reporting of 

such information to the public; and (3) an assessment of any confidentiality or proprietary information concerns that could hinder 

disclosure of particular details over the internet. The study along 

with its recommendation as to the development of an internet database should be completed within one year of enactment. 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

Appropriation, 2009 ............................................................................ $51,927,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ....................................................................... 51,445,000 

Recommended, 2010 ........................................................................... 51,927,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2009 .................................................................... — 

Budget estimate, 2010 ................................................................ +482,000 

The Office of Inspector General performs agency-wide audit, inspection, and investigative functions to identify and correct manVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:48 Jul 14, 2009 Jkt 050860 PO 00000 Frm 00129 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR203.XXX HR203

rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
126 

agement and administrative deficiencies that create conditions for 

existing or potential instances of fraud, waste and mismanagement. 

The audit function provides financial and performance audits of 

programs and operations. The inspections function provides independent inspections and analyses of the effectiveness, efficiency, 

and economy of programs and operations. The investigative function provides for the detection and investigation of improper and illegal activities involving programs, personnel, and operations. 

The Committee recommendation is $51,927,000, the same as the 

fiscal year 2009 enacted level and $482,000 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; Other Defense Activities; and Defense Nuclear Waste 

Disposal. Descriptions of each of these accounts are provided below. 

NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION 

The Department of Energy is responsible for enhancing U.S. national security through the military application of nuclear technology and reducing the global danger from the proliferation of 

weapons of mass destruction. The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), a semi-autonomous agency within the Department, carries out these responsibilities. Established in March 

2000 pursuant to Title 32 of the National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (Public Law 106–65), NNSA is responsible 

for the management and operation of the Nation’s nuclear weapons 

complex, naval reactors, and nuclear nonproliferation activities. 

Three offices within the NNSA carry out the Department’s national 

security mission: the Office of Defense Programs, the Office of Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation, and Naval Reactors. The Office of 

the NNSA Administrator oversees all NNSA programs. 

In the past, the Committee has criticized NNSA’s priorities as 

disproportionately heavy on Weapons Activities and light on Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation accounts. The Committee encourages NNSA to rectify this situation in future budgets. Since the 

NNSA has presented the fiscal year 2010 budget as a placeholder, 

the Committee will not belabor the point here, other than to reiterate that the quantity, destructive power, and variety of the U.S. 

nuclear weapons stockpile far exceeds any requirement for deterrence of any deterrable adversary in the post-Cold War world. The 

impact on deterrence of even a series of multiple failures across 

multiple nuclear weapon types would be almost immeasurably 

small. In contrast, a single nuclear weapon falling into the hands 

of a non-deterrable adversary could have an impact on U.S. national security that would be almost immeasurably large. The Committee urges DOE to take a more targeted approach to this challenge in the future. 

The Committee is concerned that NNSA’s budget request for the 

W–76 Life Extension Program does not reflect the needs of military 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
127 

clients. Given the ramifications that lack of coordination would 

have for the strategic security of the United States, it is incumbent 

upon NNSA to submit a budget request which supports the schedules of the Navy and the Air Force. The Committee directs NNSA 

to explicitly highlight in its future budget requests any instance in 

which its budget request will not support the military requirements 

of its Air Force and Navy clients, an explanation of the discrepancy, and an estimate of the additional budgetary resources that 

would be needed. 

The Committee recommends $9,215,062,000 for the NNSA, 

$729,965,000 below the budget request and $85,468,000 above the 

fiscal year 2009 level. The reduction in the budget request is due 

primarily to the movement of $665,534,000 in activities to Other 

Defense Activities. 

WEAPONS ACTIVITIES

Appropriation, 2009 ............................................................................ $6,380,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ....................................................................... 6,384,431,000 

Recommended, 2010 ........................................................................... 6,320,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2009 .................................................................... ¥60,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ................................................................ ¥64,431,000 

The goal of the Weapons Activities program is to ensure the safety, security, reliability and performance of the Nation’s nuclear 

weapons stockpile. The program seeks to maintain and refurbish 

nuclear weapons to sustain confidence in their security, safety and 

reliability under the nuclear testing moratorium and arms reduction treaties. The Committee recommends $6,320,000,000 for 

Weapons Activities, $64,431,000 below the budget request and 

$60,000,000 below the fiscal year 2009 level. 

Within this amount, the Committee recommends the use of 

$62,100,000 in prior year balances. 

Reprogramming authority.—The Committee provides limited reprogramming authority within the Weapons Activities account 

without submission of a reprogramming request to be approved in 

advance by the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations. 

The reprogramming control levels will be as follows: subprograms 

within Directed Stockpile Work, Life Extension Programs, Stockpile Systems, Warhead Dismantlement, Stockpile Services, Science 

Campaigns, Engineering Campaigns, Advanced Simulation and 

Computing, Pit Manufacturing and Certification, Facilities and Infrastructure Recapitalization Program, and Readiness Campaigns. 

This will provide the flexibility needed to manage these programs. 

The Committee provides no reprogramming authority between site 

allocations for Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities (RTBF) 

Operations of Facilities. In addition, funding of not more than 

$5,000,000 may be transferred between each of these categories 

and each construction project with the exception of the RTBF site 

allocations, subject to the following limitations: only one transfer 

may be made to or from any program or project; the transfer must 

be necessary to address a risk to health, safety or the environment; 

and funds may not be used for an item for which Congress has specifically denied funds or for a new program or project. 

The Department must notify Congress within 15 days of the use 

of this reprogramming authority. Transfers during the fiscal year 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
128 

which would result in increases or decreases which would exceed 

the limitations outlined in the previous paragraph require prior notification of and approval by the House and Senate Committees on 

Appropriations. 

U.S. Strategic Nuclear Weapons Strategy for the 21st Century and 

the Future Nuclear Weapons Stockpile.—While the Committee supports the goal of eventual elimination of nuclear weapons, the Committee sees no path leading to that goal, in light of (1) the difficulty 

of verifying very low numbers of nuclear weapons, and (2) the fact 

that substate actors do not observe any rules or agreements. The 

Committee therefore urges the Administration to focus on specific 

actions that, unlike discussions of abolition of nuclear weapons, 

offer concrete hope of reducing the probability of nuclear use and 

improving the cost/benefit ratio of the nuclear enterprise. 

Report on Nuclear Stockpile.—The Secretary of Energy shall, not 

later than December 1 of each year, submit a report to Congress 

specifying, for the due date of the report and projected for 5, 10, 

15, and 20 years after that date, (1) the number of nuclear weapons 

of each type in the active and reserve stockpiles (2) the strategic 

rationale for each type, and (3) the past and projected future total 

direct lifecycle cost of each type. 

Report on Laboratory Directed Research and Development 

(LDRD).—The Committee is concerned that LDRD in the weapons 

laboratories is insufficiently targeted on evolving national security 

needs. The Committee therefore encourages the weapons laboratories to devote a substantial porportion of their LDRD to countering threats not deterrable by threat of nuclear retaliation, and 

to seeking means to render deterrable those threats presently considered nondeterrable. The Committee directs the Administrator of 

NNSA to submit to the Appropriations Committee of the House 

and Senate, not later than six months after enactment of this Act 

and annually thereafter, a report on LDRD activities and achievements addressing these goals. 

Report on National Threat Reduction Center.—The Committee directs the NNSA Administrator to submit to the Appropriations 

Committees of the House and Senate, not later than six months 

after enactment of this Act, a report on the utility of a National 

Threat Reduction Center. This report will state NNSA’s view of the 

utility of such a center for technology development of treaty-related 

verification of seismic, radiation, and electromagnetic signatures of 

nuclear tests and nuclear weapons presence, of development of 

multi-sensor fusion for maximum sensitivity of detection, and for 

evaluation of the limits of detection and ability to hide weapons activities. The report will include an evaluation of potential sites for 

such a center. The report will include NNSA’s view of how relevant 

Work for Others, including work for allied governments, can be 

performed without NNSA absorbing any direct or overhead costs of 

such work. The Administrator shall invite the Intelligence Community, the State Department Bureau of Verification, Compliance, 

and Implementation, and other relevant potential United States 

Government users of such a center to submit annexes stating their 

views of the utility of such a center. 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
129 

DIRECTED STOCKPILE WORK (DSW)

The Committee recommends $1,472,467,000 for Directed Stockpile Work (DSW), $42,184,000 below the budget request. Directed 

Stockpile Work includes all activities that directly support weapons 

in the nuclear stockpile, including maintenance, research, development, engineering, certification, dismantlement, and disposal activities. The DSW account provides all the direct funding for the 

Department’s life extension activities, which are designed to extend 

the service life of the existing nuclear weapons stockpile by providing new subsystems and components for each warhead as needed. 

Stockpile Systems.—The Committee recommends $325,300,000 

for the DSW Stockpile Systems activities, $65,000,000 below the request. 

B61 Phase 6.2/2A ‘‘Refurbishment’’ Study.—The Committee recommends no funds for the requested study of the B61–12 nuclear 

bomb. As stated earlier this report, the Committee will not support 

a major warhead redesign in the absence of clearly defined nuclear 

weapons strategy, stockpile, and complex plans. In light of the 

evolving strategic climate, the B61 is particularly in need of a 

clearly articulated strategy. Since the required plans have not been 

delivered, the Committee recommends no funding for the B–61 

Phase 6.2/2A ‘‘Refurbishment’’ Study. 

Weapons Dismantlement and Disposition.—Weapons dismantlement and disposition are essential, both to reduce the number of 

weapons that must be secured at great cost, and to send a message 

to the international community that the United States is indeed serious about nuclear arms reduction. The Committee is encouraged 

by the NNSA’s request of $84,100,000 for Weapons Dismantlement 

and Disposition, which is $26,862,000 above the fiscal year 2009 

appropriation. The Committee recommends $108,916,000 for Weapons Dismantlement and Disposition, $24,816,000 above the request, 

in order to further increase the dismantlement rate. The Committee directs NNSA to use such portions of this increase for Containers, Storage, and Material Recycle and Recovery as are needed 

to execute the dismantlement program thus funded, while giving 

highest priority to prompt dismantlement itself. The Committee 

urges NNSA, in future submissions, to include dismantlement-generated needs for Containers, Storage, and Material Recycle and Recovery in a unified Dismantlement line, and while doing so to give 

highest priority to prompt dismantlement itself. 

Life Extension Programs.—The Committee recommends 

$233,196,000 for the W76 DSW Life Extension Program, 

$24,000,000 above the request, in order to achieve the Navy refit 

schedule. 

Plutonium Infrastructure Sustainment.—The Committee supports 

continued plutonium infrastructure sustainment. The Committee 

also accepts, with some skepticism, NNSA’s contention that preservation of plutonium capability requires the actual manufacture of 

plutonium pits, although the W88 pits now being produced are for 

a Cold War weapon poorly suited to the 21st Century threat. Under 

present plans, the production run of W88 pits will be completed in 

approximately three years, leaving no more pits to be produced to 

sustain the plutonium capability. Accordingly, the Committee recVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:48 Jul 14, 2009 Jkt 050860 PO 00000 Frm 00133 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR203.XXX HR203

rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
130 

ommends $123,201,000 for Plutonium Infrastructure Sustainment, 

$26,000,000 below the request in order to produce W88 pits at a 

minimum rate and extend plutonium capability, pending resolution 

of nuclear strategy issues. 

Other than B61 Phase 2.2A, W76 Life Extension, Weapons Dismantlement and Disposition, and Plutonium Infrastructure 

Sustainment, the Committee recommends funding for Directed 

Stockpile Work as requested. However, the Committee notes that 

the W80 Stockpile Systems request line has been sharply reduced 

in a manner that generally precedes a decision to retire a weapon. 

In light of the constrained budget, the Committee urges NNSA to 

resolve this issue without delay. 

CAMPAIGNS

Campaigns are focused on efforts involving the three weapons 

laboratories, the Nevada Test Site, the weapons production plants, 

and selected external organizations to address critical capabilities 

needed to achieve program objectives. For Campaigns, the Committee recommends $1,593,591,000, which is $33,861,000 above the 

request and $26,759,000 below the fiscal year 2009 appropriation. 

Science Campaign.—The Committee recommends $296,439,000, 

$20,251,000 below the request. The Committee commends NNSA 

for its outstanding Stockpile Stewardship program, which has performed better than expected and has created a technically superior 

alternative to nuclear testing. Stockpile Stewardship has enabled 

us to observe nuclear weapons phenomena more directly, in far 

more detail, and using statistically more significant samples than 

are possible with nuclear testing. Because of current progress in 

Stockpile Stewardship, in particular the recent results from the 

Dual-Axis Radiographic Hydrodynamic Test Facility (DARHT), the 

Committee finds no evidence that nuclear testing would add a useful increment to the immense and expanding body of weapons 

knowledge arising from Stockpile Stewardship. This is doubly fortuitous in that nuclear testing cannot be executed because of probable diplomatic and nuclear proliferation reactions as well as likely 

local opposition to nuclear testing. The Committee commends 

NNSA for requesting no dedicated funding for nuclear test readiness. 

The Committee recommends no funds for the $30,251,000 requested Academic Alliances new program. While the Administration’s budget justification material describes this as a consolidation 

of activities formerly funded in other programs, there is no concomitant reduction in those program lines. Therefore, the Committee must regard this program as a significant increase over that 

of fiscal year 2009, and does not find adequate justification for this 

major increase in an account with such limited funding. The Administration may continue its academic cooperation in the same 

programs that were funded in fiscal year 2009. 

The Committee includes $96,617,000, $10,000,000 above the 

budget request, for Dynamic Materials Properties to partially offset 

the costs of incorporating the activities formerly funded under Dynamic Plutonium Experiments. 

Engineering Campaign.—For Engineering Campaign, the Committee recommends $174,112,000, $24,112,000 above the request. 

Within this amount, $66,112,000 is provided only for Enhanced 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
131 

Surety of which, at minimum, $30,000,000 is provided only for enhanced surety intrinsic to the weapon. The Committee directs that 

priority for Enhanced Surety go to those weapon types at greatest 

long-term risk. 

Inertial Confinement Fusion and High Yield Campaign.—The 

Committee recommendation provides $461,915,000 for the Inertial 

Confinement Fusion and High Yield Campaign, $25,000,000 above 

the request. Within this campaign, the Committee recommends 

$268,929,000, $20,000,000 above the request, for Facility Operations and Target Production including not less than $8,800,000 for 

the Laboratory for Laser Energetics. Within the Inertial Confinement Fusion and High Yield Campaign, the Committee recommends $77,252,000, $5,000,000 above the request, for NIF 

Diagnostics, Cryogenics and Experimental Support, including not 

less than $4,000,000 for the Laboratory for Laser Energetics. 

Advanced Simulation and Computing Campaign.—The Committee recommends $561,125,000 for the Advanced Simulation and 

Computing Campaign, $5,000,000 above the request. Within this 

amount, $5,000,000 is provided for National Security Science, Technology and Engineering Activities for the purpose of technology assessments of nuclear weapons that could be employed by sub-state 

actors or potentially hostile minor nuclear powers. 

Readiness Campaign.—The Committee recommends 

$100,000,000 for the Readiness Campaign, the same as the request. 

READINESS IN TECHNICAL BASE AND FACILITIES (RTBF)

The Committee recommends $1,779,340,000 for Readiness in 

Technical Base and Facilities, $42,992,000 above the request. Out 

of this sum, $229,774,000, $19,000,000 above the request, is provided for Y–12 Plant operations and $139,602,000, $8,000,000 

above the request, is provided for Pantex Plant operations. 

The Administration has described the need for two major new facilities in the weapons complex: the Uranium Processing Facility 

(UPF) at Y–12 Complex, and the plutonium capabilities of the 

Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement (CMRR) facility 

at Los Alamos National Laboratory. The tightly constrained budget 

does not permit construction of both simultaneously, and the request funds both programs at sustainment levels pending a decision on prioritization. The Committee commends NNSA for its now 

completed ultra-secure design of the Highly Enriched Uranium Materials Facility, and notes that UPF is planned to incorporate the 

same security standards. For this reason as well as its uranium 

downblending nonproliferation benefits, the Committee’s recommendation includes $101,470,000 for UPF, $49,992,000 above 

the request, to achieve Critical Decision 2, and to fund the procurement of long-lead items if necessary. The Committee’s recommendation includes $55,000,000, the same as the request, for 

CMRR; these funds are recommended only for the Radiological 

Laboratory/Utility/Office Building and the ongoing design of 

CMRR–NF. 

Radioactive Liquid Waste Treatment Facility Upgrade.—No funding is recommended for 06–D–140–03, Radioactive Liquid Waste 

Treatment Facility Upgrade (PED), for which $11,000,000 was requested. The Committee is concerned with the significant cost overruns that the design has already experienced, and has delayed 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
132 

funding for this project until NNSA resolves the substantial problems communicated by the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board 

in its February 6, 2009 letter. 

Pit Disassembly and Conversion Facility (PDCF).—While the 

Committee strongly supports elimination of weapons-grade material, in light of the uncertain future of PDCF and the variety of options currently being evaluated by NNSA, the Committee recommends $10,321,000 for 99–D–141 PDCF, $20,000,000 below the 

request. 

LANSCE.—The Committee is concerned that the budget request 

eliminates funding for the LANSCE–R project without a clear analysis of alternatives. The Committee directs NNSA to submit to the 

Committee, not later than August 31, 2009, a detailed description 

of current work done at LANSCE, a specific explanation of alternative sites where such work could be done, and an analysis of the 

budget resources, including security costs, needed to upgrade or 

otherwise modify the alternative sites. 

Horizontally Integrated Contracting.—The Committee is concerned that because each site contracts for its own purchases of 

ammunition and other equipment, NNSA is not able to take advantage of quantity discounts that would be available if contracts for 

procurement of such equipment were negotiated complex-wide. The 

Committee directs the Administrator to take every opportunity for 

savings via complex-wide contracting, and to submit a report, to 

the Appropriations Committees of the House and Senate, within six 

months of passage of this Act, on NNSA’s progress on complex-wide 

contracting. 

Disaggregated Construction Contracting.—The Committee has 

reason to expect that, by contracting for construction directly rather than through the Maintenance and Operations prime contractor, 

NNSA could avoid significant overhead charges. The Committee directs the Administrator to submit a report to the Appropriations 

Committees of the House and Senate, within six months of enactment of this Act, on savings to be expected by direct contracting 

for construction, and on whether the greatest savings would be 

found on individual job, individual site, or complex-wide contracting. 

SECURE TRANSPORTATION ASSET

The Secure Transportation Asset program provides for the safe, 

secure movement of nuclear weapons, special nuclear materials, 

and non-nuclear weapon components between military locations 

and nuclear weapons complex facilities within the United States. 

The Committee recommends $243,915,000, $9,000,000 above the 

request, for the Secure Transportation Asset, and directs that Secure Transportation Asset resume execution of its plan for a fleet 

of 51 SGT transporters by fiscal year 2011. 

NUCLEAR COUNTERTERRORISM INCIDENT RESPONSE

The Nuclear Counterterrorism Incident Response program responds to and mitigates nuclear and radiological incidents worldwide. The Committee recommends $221,936,000, the same as the 

request, for Nuclear Counterterrorism Incident Response. 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
133 

FACILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE RECAPITALIZATION PROGRAM (FIRP)

The FIRP program was begun in fiscal year 2002 to reduce the 

deferred maintenance requirements that built up across the nuclear weapons complex. Because of budget limitations, the Committee recommendation for Facilities and Infrastructure Recapitalization Program is $93,922,000, $61,000,000 below the budget request. The Committee accepts the Administration’s proposal to reduce construction projects by $57,936,000, compared to fiscal year 

2009. 

SITE STEWARDSHIP

Site Stewardship includes Environmental Projects and Operations. Nuclear Materials Integration, and Stewardship Planning. 

While the Committee supports the objectives of this program, because of budget limitations the Committee recommends 

$62,374,000, $28,000,000 less than the request, for Site Stewardship. 

SAFEGUARDS AND SECURITY

Cyber Security.—The Committee recommends funding Cyber Security at $122,511,000, the same as the request. 

Defense Nuclear Security.—The Committee recommends 

$789,044,000 for Defense Nuclear Security, $40,000,000 above the 

request. Within these funds, the Committee provides $15,000,000 

for security upgrades needed to complete security features intended 

to implement the protection strategy promulgated in the April 2004 

special annex letter and incorporated in the 2008 Graded Security 

Protection Policy. The Committee expects NNSA to ensure the 

funding is used to complete physical features that maximize the 

benefit of previously completed upgrades. Within Defense Nuclear 

Security funding, the Committee also provides $25,000,000 above 

the request for improved training and equipment. 

FUNDING ADJUSTMENTS

Previously Appropriated Balances.—The Committee rescinds 

$62,100,000 in prior year balances and directs their use to meet fiscal year 2010 needs as described above. 

Congressionally Directed Projects.—The Committee recommendation includes $3,000,000 for the following projects and activities. 

The Committee believes these projects are consistent with or complementary to the purposes and objectives of existing Department 

of Energy activities and authorizations passed by Congress. The 

Committee directs the Department to work closely with recipients 

of congressionally designated funding to ensure that funded 

projects are consistent with authorized energy purposes and goals. 

The Department should remind recipients that statutory cost-sharing requirements may apply to these projects. 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 060 here 50273A.142
134 

DEFENSE NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION

Appropriation, 2009 ............................................................................ $1,482,350,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ....................................................................... 2,136,709,000 

Recommended, 2010 ........................................................................... 1,471,175,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2009 .................................................................... ¥11,175,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ................................................................ ¥665,534,000 

The Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation account includes funding 

for Nonproliferation and Verification Research and Development; 

Nonproliferation and International Security; Nonproliferation Programs with Russia including International Materials Protection, 

Control, and Cooperation, Elimination of Weapons-Grade Plutonium Production; Fissile Materials Disposition; and the Global 

Threat Reduction Initiative. 

The Committee’s recommendation for Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation is $1,471,175,000, which is $665,534,000 below the 

budget request. This reduction reflects the Committee’s recommendation that $665,534,000 comprising the construction and 

operation of the Mixed-Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility and the 

Waste Solidification Building be executed out of the Other Defense 

Activities appropriation. 

NONPROLIFERATION AND VERIFICATION RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

The nonproliferation and verification research and development 

program conducts applied research, development, testing, and evaluation of science and technology for strengthening the United 

States response to threats to national security posed by the proliferation of nuclear weapons and special nuclear materials. Activities center on the design and production of operational sensor systems needed for proliferation detection, treaty verification, nuclear 

warhead dismantlement initiatives, and intelligence activities. The Committee recommends $297,300,000 for Nonproliferation 

and Verification Research and Development, the same as the budget request. The Committee directs that programs for nuclear detection be awarded on the basis of merit, and not be limited to the 

national laboratories. 

Annual reporting requirement.—The Committee directs the Department to prepare an annual report on each project with the 

baseline cost, scope and schedule, deliverables, and the public or 

private entity performing the research and development, and the 

proposed user and submit this with the fiscal year 2011 budget request. 

NONPROLIFERATION AND INTERNATIONAL SECURITY

The Committee recommendation provides $187,202,000 for Nonproliferation and International Security, $20,000,000 less than the 

budget request and $37,202,000 above the fiscal year 2009 appropriation. The Committee is concerned that the Nonproliferation 

and International Security Congressional justification included an 

intent to ‘‘extract actionable information’’ on illicit supplier networks. This mission, by statute, is the domain of the intelligence 

community. 

Warhead Dismantlement and Fissile Materials Transparency.— 

The Committee recommends $72,763,000 for Warhead Dismantlement and Fissile Materials Transparency, which is $20,000,000 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
135 

below the request and $37,202,000 above the fiscal year 2009 appropriation. The reduction is due to recent setbacks in negotiations 

with North Korea and the subsequent slow-down in preparations 

for dismantlement activities. The Committee recommendation still 

includes $20,000,000 to support the development of the tools necessary to verify and dismantle the North Korean nuclear program 

should progress be made in negotiations. These activities will also 

support other nonproliferation efforts worldwide. 

International Nuclear Safeguards and Engagement Program.— 

The Committee recommends $50,708,000 for the International Nuclear Safeguards and Engagement Program, which is the same as 

the request and $6,632,000 above the fiscal year 2009 appropriation. As mentioned, the development of the Next Generation Safeguards Initiative should not focus on the development of ‘‘actionable’’ information as this mission should be left to the intelligence 

community. 

Global Initiatives for Proliferation Prevention (IPP) Program.— 

The Committee strongly supports the goal of preventing the spread 

of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) expertise by re-directing it 

into non-WMD jobs. The Committee recommends $20,000,000, the 

same as the request, and $5,000,000 above the fiscal year 2009 appropriation. None of these funds may be obligated or expended for, 

or in support of, Russian institutes conducting work on or with Iranian nuclear technology or facilities. 

INTERNATIONAL NUCLEAR MATERIALS PROTECTION AND COOPERATION

The International Nuclear Materials Protection and Cooperation 

(MPC&A) program is designed to work cooperatively with Russia 

and the border states of the former Soviet Union to secure weapons 

and weapons-usable nuclear material. The focus is to improve the 

physical security at facilities that possess or process significant 

quantities of nuclear weapons-usable materials that are of proliferation concern. Programmatic activities include installing monitoring equipment, inventorying nuclear material, improving the 

Russian security culture, and establishing a security infrastructure. 

The Committee recommends $592,050,000 for MPC&A activities, 

$39,750,000 above the request and $192,050,000 above the fiscal 

year 2009 appropriation. 

Civilian Nuclear Sites.—The Committee recommends 

$73,481,000 for the protection of civilian nuclear sites, $30,000,000 

above the request and $37,939,000 above the fiscal year 2009 appropriation. The Committee recommends that the additional 

$30,000,000 be applied to high priority work outside the former Soviet Union. 

National Programs and Sustainability.—The Committee recommends $68,469,000 for maintaining Russia and other partners’ 

security upgrades. Establishing a security culture at Russian nuclear sites and increased cost-sharing with Russia as the programs 

enter the sustainability phase are Committee priorities. 

Second Line of Defense (SLD).—The Committee recommends 

$88,432,000 for the SLD core program, $10,000,000 above the request and $16,515,000 above the fiscal year 2009 appropriation. 

The additional funds should be directed toward upgrading Russian 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
136 

border security sites. The recommendation includes $194,014,000 

for Megaports, $250,000 less than the request. 

ELIMINATION OF WEAPONS-GRADE PLUTONIUM PRODUCTION

The Committee recommendation for the Elimination of WeaponsGrade Plutonium Production Program (EWGPP) is $24,507,000, the 

same as the budget request and $116,792,000 less than the fiscal 

year 2009 appropriation. EWGPP is a cooperative effort with the 

Federation of Russia to halt plutonium production at the only three 

nuclear plutonium power-generation reactors still in operation, two 

located at Seversk and one at Zheleznogorsk. The Committee lauds 

the Office of Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation for nearing completion on this decade-long project to prevent the production of an additional 25 metric tons of weapons-grade plutonium had the Russian reactors continued to operate. 

FISSILE MATERIALS DISPOSITION

The Committee recommendation provides $36,366,000 for fissile 

materials disposition activities, the same as the budget request excluding the Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication (MOX) and Waste Solidification Building (WSB). No funding for MOX and WSB is recommended here since funding for these programs has been provided in Other Defense Activities. The Fissile Material Disposition 

Program is directed to continue collaboration with Russia on gasreactors using available resources. 

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 $333,500,000 for GTRI activities. The Committee strongly supports GTRI’s mission to secure 

vulnerable material worldwide as quickly as possible. However, the 

Committee is concerned that funds are not being spent to secure 

the most vulnerable materials first. The Committee recognizes that 

agreements have been reached that obligate GTRI to secure material in low-risk countries but all efforts should be made to address 

the most vulnerable material first. Within this initiative, the Committee recommends: 

Highly Enriched Uranium Reactor Conversion.—The Committee 

recommends $71,500,000 for Highly Enriched Uranium Reactor 

Conversion, which is the same as the request and $11,847,000 less 

than the fiscal year 2009 appropriation. This essential program will 

accelerate conversion of uranium reactors from Highly Enriched 

Uranium (HEU) to Low-Enriched Uranium (LEU) which is an 

order of magnitude less suited for use in an improvised nuclear 

weapon. The Committee commends NNSA for its progress in developing the technologies to enable conversion of HEU reactors to 

LEU. 

The Committee is deeply concerned with the current shortfall in 

supplies of the isotope Molybdenum-99 (Mo-99), which is used for 

medical purposes. The Committee is aware that civilian facilities 

throughout the country have the ability to increase production of 

this important isotope. The Committee is aware that Mo-99 can be 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
137 

produced using low-enriched uranium, and that the Department is 

working to help convert domestic reactors to its use. The Committee encourages the Department to request additional funds for 

this program or identify existing resources if such funds can speed 

the conversion of these reactors. 

The Committee has included an additional $10,000,000 for university reactors in Office of Science Medical Isotope Production and 

Applications, University Operations. The Committee directs that 

activities to support the short-term production of critical isotopes in 

short supply, including Mo-99, be given the highest priority for this 

funding. The Department should also evaluate the need for material processing facilities to support this effort. 

Gap Nuclear Material Removal.—The Committee recommends 

$31,000,000 for Gap Nuclear Material Removal, which is 

$20,000,000 less than the request and $23,721,000 above the fiscal 

year 2009 appropriation. The reduction is in response to recent setbacks in negotiations with North Korea. Preparations, including 

long-lead procurement, should continue to be taken for dismantling 

the North Korean program, and $20,000,000 is provided for this effort. 

BN–350 Nuclear Material Protection.—The Committee recommends $9,000,000, the same as the request, for BN–350 nuclear 

material protection. This marks the final phase of an important effort in Kazakhstan to secure approximately 3,000 kilograms of 

weapons grade plutonium and 10,000 kilograms of HEU in spent 

fuel. 

Concern Regarding Small Business.—The Committee is concerned that NNSA is not providing appropriate opportunities to 

small businesses qualified to take part in the Global Threat Reduction Initiative. The Committee directs the NNSA to report to the 

Committee not later than 30 days following enactment of this Act 

on the status of awards during fiscal years 2009 and 2010 under 

the DOE/NNSA’s Global Threat Reduction Initiative Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) small business program. NNSA 

shall consider transfering the IDIQ small business contracts from 

the NNSA Service Center to the Office of the Administrator at 

NNSA. 

Congressionally Directed Projects.—The Committee recommendation includes $250,000 for the following projects and activities. The 

Committee believes these projects are consistent with or complementary to the purposes and objectives of existing Department 

of Energy activities and authorizations passed by Congress. The 

Committee directs the Department to work closely with recipients 

of congressionally designated funding to ensure that funded 

projects are consistent with authorized energy purposes and goals. 

The Department should remind recipients that statutory cost-sharing requirements may apply to these projects. 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 061 here 50273A.143
138 

NAVAL REACTORS

Appropriation, 2009 ............................................................................ $828,054,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ....................................................................... 1,003,133,000 

Recommended, 2010 ........................................................................... 1,003,133,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2009 .................................................................... +175,079,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ................................................................ — 

The Naval Reactors program is responsible for all aspects of 

naval nuclear propulsion from technology development through reactor operations to ultimate reactor plant disposal. The program 

provides for the design, development, testing, and evaluation of improved naval nuclear propulsion plants and reactor cores. These efforts are critical to ensuring the safety and reliability of 102 operating Naval reactor plants and to developing the next generation 

reactor. The Committee recommendation provides $1,003,133,000, 

the same as the request, for Naval Reactors activities. 

OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriation, 2009 ............................................................................ $439,190,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ....................................................................... 420,754,000 

Recommended, 2010 ........................................................................... 420,754,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2009 .................................................................... ¥18,436,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ................................................................ — 

The Office of the Administrator of the National Nuclear Security 

Administration (NNSA) provides corporate planning and oversight 

for Defense Programs, Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation, and 

Naval Reactors, including the NNSA field offices in New Mexico, 

Nevada, and California. The Committee recommendation is 

$420,754,000, the same as the request. Consistent with the request, this sum includes the use of $10,320,000 in prior year balances. 

The Committee recommendation provides $12,000, the same as 

the request, for official reception and representation expenses for 

the NNSA. 

Program Direction for Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation.—The 

Administrator is directed to support the increase in Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation activities with sufficient resources for expanded nuclear nonproliferation activities. 

Support to Minority Colleges and Universities.—The Committee 

commends NNSA for its aggressive program to take advantage of 

the Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU) educational institutions across the country in order to deepen the recruiting pool of diverse scientific and technical staff available to the 

NNSA and its national laboratories in support of the nation’s national security programs. The Committee recommends $31,000,000, 

including $3,300,000 for the Dr. Samuel P. Massie Chairs of Excellence, as the NNSA contribution to the Department’s support for 

HBCUs. The Committee expects the Department to provide financial support in rough parity to both HBCUs and the Hispanic Serving Institutions (HSI). 

Educational Advancement Alliance HBCU Graduate program.— The Committee further recommends $5,000,000 to support the 

Educational Advancement Alliance HBCU Graduate program. The 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
139 

Committee directs these funds to be used for scholarships to HBCU 

graduates pursuing a graduate program leading to a degree in the 

sciences within five years of graduation from the HBCU. The program will include a National Conference for Potential Scholars and 

an endowment. 

Defense Environmental Management Program for Argonne National Laboratories.—The Committee directs $10,000,000 in previously appropriated funds be transferred from the Office of the 

Administrator to the Defense Environmental Management Program 

for Argonne National Laboratories to address the radioactive contamination and material legacy that exists at the site for facilities 

that are no longer used and require remediation. 

Congressionally Directed Projects.—The Committee recommendation includes $13,000,000 for the following projects and activities. 

The Committee believes these projects are consistent with or complementary to the purpose and objectives of existing Department of 

Energy activities and authorizations passed by Congress. The Committee directs the Department to work closely with recipients of 

congressionally designated funding to ensure that funded projects 

are consistent with authorized energy purposes and goals. The Department should remind recipients that statutory cost-sharing requirements may apply to these projects. DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT

The Defense Environmental Management (EM) program is responsible for identifying and reducing risks and managing waste at 

sites where the Department 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 Government Accountability Office (GAO) has reported that 

EM construction and operating projects have experienced cost increases and schedule delays. The estimated cost increases for construction projects have been billions above initial cost estimates. 

The GAO has specifically focused on the Waste Treatment Plant at 

the Hanford Site, which has experienced multi-billion-dollar cost 

increases and a schedule delay of over eight years. EM’s operating 

projects have also struggled to be on cost and schedule. In September 2008, the GAO reported that 9 of 10 major EM projects had 

cost increases ranging from $25 billion to $42 billion in total. The 

Committee expects improved project management to prevent further cost increases and schedule delays in EM projects. 

Hanford Tanks.—The Hanford site receives more than 

$1,000,000,000 in annual appropriations for its tank waste cleanup 

efforts. Under the Tri-Party Agreement between the Department of 

Energy (DOE), the Environmental Protection Agency, and the 

State of Washington Department of Ecology, DOE is required to 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 024 here 50273A.148
140 

complete the treatment of Hanford’s tank waste. The Committee directed GAO to examine the condition, contents and long-term stability of Hanford’s underground tanks; DOE’s strategy for managing the tanks and the waste they contain; and, the extent to 

which DOE has weighed the risks and benefits of its tank management strategy against the growing costs of that strategy. The GAO 

continues to examine this program and has concerns regarding the 

uncertainties and risks of the Department’s current strategy. EM 

should be implementing GAO’s findings to the extent practicable. 

Status Report on ARRA Funding and EM Progress.—The Committee looks forward to EM updating its progress after receiving 

fiscal year 2010 and ARRA funding. This funding, which in some 

cases exceeds the annual appropriation for some sites, should complete work scope and enable EM to shift more of its focus in the 

years ahead to its most complex projects. The Committee directs 

EM to update appendices A and B, pp. A1–B9, from their recently 

submitted report pursuant to Section 3130 of the fiscal year 2008 

National Defense Authorization Act (P.L. 110–81). The updates 

should include both ARRA funding and the fiscal year 2010 request 

or enacted, if available. These appendices contain Enforceable Milestones, Commitment dates, and Life-Cycle Costs by Project Baseline Summary, among other data. A column should be added to 

these tables that indicates the change in status and commitments 

since the first submission of the report. These updates shall be submitted to the Committee not later than April 1, 2010. 

Committee Expectations.—ARRA and the fiscal year 2010 request 

provide EM an opportunity to showcase the management improvements they have undertaken in recent years at the encouragement 

of the Committee and GAO. For years EM has maintained that 

milestones were not achieved due to lack of funding. With the resources available, funding should not be the limiting factor in the 

current fiscal year. The Committee expects that the findings and 

concerns raised by the Committee and the GAO will be taken into 

consideration in implementing the program and setting priorities. 

Reprogramming Authority.—The Committee continues to support 

the need for flexibility to meet changing funding requirements at 

sites. As EM demonstrates improved project management, the 

Committee is willing to engage the Department on increased flexibility. In fiscal year 2010, the Department may transfer up to 

$5,000,000 within accounts, and between accounts, as noted in the 

table below, without prior congressional approval, to reduce health 

or safety risks or to gain cost savings as long as no program or 

project is increased or decreased by more than $5,000,000 in total 

during the fiscal year. This reprogramming authority may not be 

used to initiate new programs or to change funding for programs 

specifically denied, limited, or increased by Congress in the Act or 

report. The Committees on Appropriations of the House and Senate 

must be notified within thirty days of the use of this reprogramming authority. Transfers which result in increases or decreases 

which would exceed the limitations outlined in previous paragraphs 

require prior notification of and approval by the House and Senate 

Committees on Appropriations. 

Account Control Points: 

• Closure Sites 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
141 

• Savannah River site, nuclear material stabilization and 

disposition • Savannah River site, 2012 accelerations • Savannah River site, 2035 accelerations • Savannah River Tank Farm • Waste Isolation Pilot Plant • Idaho National Laboratory • Oak Ridge Reservation • Hanford site 2012 accelerated completions • Hanford site 2035 accelerated completions • Office of River Protection (ORP) Waste Treatment & Immobilization (WTP) Pretreatment facility: • ORP WTP High-level waste facility • ORP WTP Low activity waste facility • ORP WTP Analytical laboratory • ORP WTP Balance of facilities • Program Direction • Program Support • UE D&D Fund contribution • Technology Development 

Details of the recommended funding levels follow for the Defense 

Environmental Cleanup account. 

DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriation, 2009 ............................................................................ a $5,657,250,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ....................................................................... 5,495,831,000 

Recommended, 2010 ........................................................................... 5,381,842,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2009 .................................................................... ¥275,408,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ................................................................ ¥113,989,000 a Excludes $5,127,000,000 of funding from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Public 

Law 111–5). 

The Committee’s recommendation for Defense Environmental 

Cleanup totals $5,381,842,000. This is $113,989,000 below the 

budget request of $5,495,831,000. Within the amounts provided, 

the Department is directed to fund hazardous waste worker training at $10,000,000. 

Closure Sites.—The Committee recommendation provides 

$41,468,000, the same as the budget request. The recommendation 

provides $8,225,000 for the Closure Sites Administration and 

$33,243,000 for Miamisburg, Ohio. 

Savannah River Site.—The Committee recommendation provides 

$1,194,949,000 for cleanup at the Savannah River Site, $15,000,000 

below the budget request. The Committee has continuing concerns 

about the management and oversight of the Salt Waste Processing 

Facility. The re-baselining resulted in an increase in Total Project 

Cost from $900,000,000 to $1,200,000,000. Furthermore, construction is beginning on components while the design work has not yet 

been finished. As such, the Committee recommends $219,118,000, 

$15,000,000 below the budget request, for the Salt Waste Processing Facility, and expects improved management of this construction project. The Committee recommends $385,310,000, the same 

as the budget request, for Nuclear Material Stabilization Disposition. 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
142 

Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP).—The Committee recommendation provides $230,337,000 for the WIPP, $10,000,000 

above the budget request. The recommendation includes 

$154,902,000, $10,000,000 above the budget request, for WIPP operations, including community investments and facility improvements. The Committee recommends $13,730,000, the same as the 

request, for the central characterization project. 

Idaho National Laboratory.—The Committee recommendation 

provides $475,000,000, $68,832,000 above the budget request and 

$761,000 below fiscal year 2009, for cleanup activities at the Idaho 

National Laboratory. The Committee recommends $99,000,000 for 

soil and water remediation, an increase of $28,000,000 from the 

budget request, for additional buried transuranic waste removal, 

and $10,900,000 for nuclear facility decontamination and decommissioning (D&D), an increase of $10,900,000 over the budget request. The Committee recommendation also includes $39,768,000 

for Spent Nuclear Fuel (SNF) stabilization and disposition—2012, 

an increase of $25,000,000 over the budget request. The Committee 

directs the Secretary of Energy to transfer radioactive cleanup liabilities at the Idaho National Laboratory which are currently the 

responsibility of the Office of Nuclear Energy to the Environmental 

Management program for remediation. The additional funds in 

SNF stabilization and disposition—2012 shall be used to begin addressing these liabilities. 

Oak Ridge Reservation.—The Committee recommendation provides $202,768,000, an increase of $49,000,000 over the budget request. The recommendation includes $48,900,000 for nuclear facility decontamination and decommissioning at Oak Ridge National 

Laboratory (ORNL), an increase of $10,000,000 over the budget request for the acceleration of cleanup activities at the ORNL Central 

Campus to meet enforceable regulatory milestones. The Committee 

recommends $73,000,000 for nuclear facility decontamination and 

decommissioning at Y–12, an increase of $39,000,000 over the 

budget request, for expansion of the solid waste disposal facility, 

and to address mercury mitigation and remediation at East Fork 

Poplar Creek Watershed. 

Hanford Site.—The Committee recommendation provides 

$851,259,000 for the Hanford Site, $51,821,000 less than the budget request. The recommendation includes $296,134,000, 

$31,821,000 less than budget request and $64,297,000 above fiscal 

year 2009 to carry out the D&D in the river corridor closure 

project-2012 accelerations. The Committee recommends 

$50,250,000 for D&D in the remainder of Hanford-2035 accelerations, $20,000,000 below the request. The recommendation also includes $176,766,000 for soil and water remediation of the groundwater/vadose zone at Hanford, the same as the budget request. The 

Committee recommends $118,087,000 for nuclear material stabilization and disposition at the Plutonium Finishing Plant (PFP), 

the same as the budget request, for D&D of high risk areas. 

Office of River Protection.—The Committee supports the Waste 

Treatment and Immobilization Plant and its obligation to mitigate 

potential environmental harm to the region caused by the legacy of 

nuclear weapons production. Still, the Committee and GAO remain 

concerned about the status of this effort. The Committee expects 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
143 

EM to work to resolve the outstanding technical and management 

difficulties. 

The Committee recommendation provides $1,098,000,000, the same as the budget request and $88,057,000 above the fiscal year 

2009 enacted. The Committee supports the Waste Treatment and 

Immobilization Plant and provides $690,000,000, the same as the 

request. The recommendation includes $325,000,000 for the 

pretreatment facility; $160,000,000 for the high level waste facility; 

$100,000,000 for the low activity waste facility; $55,000,000 for the 

analytical laboratory; and $50,000,000 for the balance of facilities. 

Program direction.—The recommendation provides $200,000,000 for program direction, $155,000,000 less than the budget request. 

The reduction is due to the large estimated carry-over balance of 

$225,000,000 for program direction. 

Program support.—The Committee recommendation provides $34,000,000 for program support, the same as the budget request. 

Federal Contribution to Uranium Enrichment Decontamination 

and Decommissioning Fund.—The Energy Policy Act of 1992 (Public Law 102–486) created the Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund to pay for the cost of cleanup of 

the gaseous diffusion facilities located in Oak Ridge, Tennessee; Paducah, Kentucky; and Piketon, Ohio. The Committee recommendation includes $463,000,000 for the Federal contribution to the Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund as 

authorized in Public Law 102–486. 

Technology development and deployment.—The Committee supports the development of new technologies to bolster EM’s cleanup 

efforts. Technology, however, is not the primary challenge facing 

EM. It is project management to utilize existing technologies to 

complete the current work scope. The Committee recommendation 

provides $35,000,000 for technology development and deployment, 

$20,000,000 less than the budget request. This is an increase of 

$2,680,000 over the fiscal year 2009 enacted level. The Committee 

directs the Department to provide a program plan, including priority areas of technology development, no later than March 1, 2010. 

The Committee encourages the Department to continue its cooperation with private sector partners such as Western Environmental 

Technology Office to perform environmental technology demonstration and development. 

NNSA Sites.—The Committee recommendation provides 

$276,624,000, the same as the budget request, to include 

$189,000,000 for Los Alamos National Laboratory. 

Safeguards and security.—The Committee recommendation provides $279,437,000, the same as the budget request. 

OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES

Appropriation, 2009 ............................................................................ $1,314,063,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ....................................................................... 852,468,000 

Recommended, 2010 ........................................................................... 1,518,002,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2009 .................................................................... +203,939,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ................................................................ +665,534,000 

This account provides funding for the Office of Environment, 

Safety and Health (Defense); Office of Legacy Management; Nuclear Energy Activities; Defense Activities in Defense Related AdVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:48 Jul 14, 2009 Jkt 050860 PO 00000 Frm 00147 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR203.XXX HR203

rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
144 

ministrative Support; and the Office of Hearings and Appeals. Descriptions of each of these programs are provided below. 

The Committee recommendation for Other Defense Activities totals $1,518,002,000, $665,534,000 above the budget request and 

$203,939,000 above fiscal year 2009 enacted levels. 

HEALTH, SAFETY, AND SECURITY

The Office of Health, Safety and Security develops programs and 

policies to protect the workers and the public, conducts independent oversight of performance, and funds health effects studies. 

The Committee recommendation is $449,882,000, the same as the 

request. 

OFFICE OF LEGACY MANAGEMENT

The Office of Legacy Management provides long-term stewardship following site closure. The Committee recommends 

$189,802,000 for Legacy Management, combining the Defense and 

Non-defense Legacy Management activities within Other Defense 

Activities, same as the budget request. 

NUCLEAR ENERGY ACTIVITIES

The fiscal year 2009 Omnibus Appropriation (Public Law 111–8) 

directed the Department to execute the Mixed Oxide (MOX) Fuel 

Fabrication Facility in the Other Defense Activities account. In fiscal year 2010, the Department requested MOX and the related 

Waste Solidification Building (WSB) in the National Nuclear Security Administration’s Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation account. 

The Committee remains concerned that cost-overruns of the beleaguered MOX program will erode the budget of the high priority 

overseas nonproliferation activities. Therefore, in Other Defense 

Activities, Nuclear Energy Activities, the bill provides $504,238,000 

for the construction of Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility, 

$84,296,000 for MOX operations (including $400,000 of MOX integration), $70,000,000 for the construction of the Waste Solidification Building (WSB), and $7,000,000 for WSB operations. Language 

is provided in the bill directing the Department to manage the 

MOX facility in adherence to DOE Order 413.3. 

The Committee remains concerned about DOE’s management of 

its surplus plutonium disposition program. The Congress directed 

the Government Accountability Office (GAO) in the Consolidated 

Appropriations Act of 2008 to monitor the construction and management of the MOX fuel fabrication facility. Since that time, the 

Committee has asked GAO to look at the broader issue of DOE’s 

management of its overall plutonium disposition program, which 

includes the planned construction of the MOX facility and two additional facilities at the Savannah River Site in South Carolina— 

the Pit Disassembly and Conversion Facility (PDCF) and the Waste 

Solidification Building (WSB). Preliminary observations by the 

GAO indicate continuing project management concerns. In March 

2009, the GAO identified concerns with DOE’s schedule for the 

MOX fuel fabrication facility construction project. GAO found that 

the project’s schedule did not adhere to a key practice that is fundamental to having a sufficiently reliable schedule—specifically, 

project staff had not conducted a risk analysis of their current 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
145 

schedule using statistical techniques. DOE officials responded that 

they plan to conduct a risk analysis of the schedule for the MOX 

project during the summer of 2009. The Committee looks forward 

to reviewing the results of this analysis. In May 2009, GAO identified a number of other concerns with DOE’s management of the design and construction of the PDCF and WSB. Specifically, DOE has 

postponed work on the PDCF project to evaluate other alternatives 

for obtaining a pit disassembly and conversion capability at the Savannah River Site. As a result, GAO could not determine reliable 

cost and schedule estimates for DOE’s overall plutonium disposition program. In addition, a January 2009 DOE independent review of the PDCF project identified a number of concerns that need 

to be addressed if DOE decides to construct the PDCF—among 

these concerns, the DOE review team identified several technologies to be used in the PDCF that are not fully mature. DOE 

has stated that it will decide on whether to continue with the 

PDCF project or to pursue an alternative strategy by June 2009. 

The Committee looks forward to DOE’s decision, as well as to receiving reliable cost and schedule estimates for DOE’s overall plutonium disposition strategy, including the cost and schedule associated with ensuring that the technologies for pit disassembly and 

conversion are fully mature prior to construction. With respect to 

the WSB project, DOE approved the start of construction activities 

in December 2008. However, an October 2008 DOE independent review of the project found that the project lacked a preliminary design for a technology at the heart of the facility—the in-barrel mixing and cementation process. While DOE has agreed to address 

this issue, the Committee remains concerned that this issue was 

only identified a few months prior to the start of construction activities. 

DEFENSE-RELATED ACTIVITIES AT IDAHO NATIONAL LABORATORY

The Committee recommendation includes $83,358,000 to fully 

fund defense-related (050 budget function) activities at Idaho National Laboratory. 

DEFENSE RELATED ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT

The Committee recommendation includes $120,982,000, 

$2,000,000 less than the budget request, to provide administrative 

support for programs funded in the atomic energy defense activities 

accounts. This will fund Departmental activities performed by offices including the Secretary, Deputy Secretary and Under Secretaries, the General Counsel, Chief Financial Officer, Human Resources, Congressional Affairs, and Public Affairs, which support 

the organizations and activities funded in the atomic energy defense activities accounts. 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

The Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) is responsible for all 

of the Department’s adjudicatory processes, other than those administered by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. The 

Committee recommendation is $6,444,000, the same as the budget 

request. 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
146 

CONGRESSIONALLY DIRECTED PROJECTS

The Committee recommendation includes $2,000,000 for the following projects and activities. The Committee believes these 

projects are consistent with or complementary to the purposes and 

objectives of existing Department of Energy activities and authorizations passed by Congress. The Committee directs the Department to work closely with recipients of congressionally designated 

funding to ensure that funded projects are consistent with authorized energy purposes and goals. The Department should remind recipients that statutory cost-sharing requirements may apply to 

these projects. 

DEFENSE NUCLEAR WASTE DISPOSAL

Appropriation, 2009 ............................................................................ $143,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ....................................................................... 98,400,000 

Recommended, 2010 ........................................................................... 98,400,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2009 .................................................................... ¥44,600,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ................................................................ — 

The Committee recommendation is $98,400,000, the same as the 

budget request. Combined with the $98,400,000 recommended for 

the Nuclear Waste Disposal, this will provide a total of 

$196,800,000 for nuclear waste disposal activities in fiscal year 

2010. 

POWER MARKETING ADMINISTRATIONS

Management of the Federal power marketing functions was 

transferred from the Department of Interior to the Department of 

Energy by the Department of Energy Organization Act (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 power marketing administrations except the Bonneville 

Power Administration are funded annually with appropriated 

funds. Revenues collected from power sales and transmission services are deposited in the treasury to offset expenditures. For the 

Southeastern, Southwestern, and Western Area Power Administrations, bill language has been included in this Act to reclassify as 

discretionary offsetting collections revenues which were previously 

mandatory offsetting collections for annual expenses. This change 

shall simplify the accounting requirements for the Power Administrations while maintaining accountability and appropriate congressional oversight. 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 022 here 50273A.145
147 

Operations of the Bonneville Power Administration are self-financed 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. 

BONNEVILLE POWER ADMINISTRATION

The Bonneville Power Administration is the Department of Energy’s marketing agency for electric power in the Pacific Northwest. 

Bonneville provides electricity to a 300,000 square mile service 

area in the Columbia River drainage basin. Bonneville markets the 

power from Federal hydropower projects in the Northwest, as well 

as power from non-Federal generating facilities in the region, and 

exchanges and markets surplus power with Canada and California. 

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, SOUTHEASTERN POWER

ADMINISTRATION

Appropriation, 2009 ............................................................................ $7,420,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ....................................................................... 7,638,000 

Recommended, 2010 ........................................................................... 7,638,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2009 .................................................................... +218,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ................................................................ — 

The Southeastern Power Administration markets the hydroelectric power produced at 23 Army Corps of Engineers Projects in 

eleven 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 Committee recommendation for the Southeastern Power Administration is $7,638,000, the same as the budget request. The 

total program level for Southeastern in fiscal year 2010 is 

$92,866,000, with $85,228,000 for purchase power and wheeling 

and $7,638,000 for program direction. The purchase power and 

wheeling costs will be offset by collections of $70,806,000, and annual expenses will be offset by collections of $7,638,000 provided in 

this Act. Additionally, Southeastern has identified $14,422,000 in 

alternative financing for purchase power and wheeling. Inclusion of 

a budgetary score of $7,638,000 for the reclassification of receipts 

from mandatory to discretionary offsetting collections for annual 

expenses yields a net appropriation of $7,638,000. 

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, SOUTHWESTERN POWER

ADMINISTRATION

Appropriation, 2009 ............................................................................ $28,414,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ....................................................................... 44,944,000 

Recommended, 2010 ........................................................................... 44,944,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2009 .................................................................... +16,530,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ................................................................ — 

The Southwestern Power Administration markets the hydroelectric power produced at 24 Army Corps of Engineers projects in 

the six-state area of Arkansas, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Oklahoma and Texas. Southwestern operates and maintains 1,380 miles 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
148 

of transmission lines, with the supporting substations and communications sites. Southwestern gives preference in the sale of its 

power to publicly and cooperatively owned utilities. 

The Committee recommendation for the Southwestern Power Administration is $44,944,000, the same as the budget request. The 

total program level for Southwestern in fiscal year 2010 is 

$94,944,000, including $12,775,000 for operation and maintenance 

expenses, $48,000,000 for purchase power and wheeling, 

$28,153,000 for program direction, and $6,016,000 for construction. 

Offsetting collections total $69,868,000, including $38,000,000 for 

power purchase and wheeling, $26,247,000 for program direction, 

and $5,621,000 for operations and maintenance. The inclusion of 

$12,000,000 of alternative financing identified by Southwestern 

and a budgetary score of $31,868,000 for the reclassification of receipts from mandatory to discretionary offsetting collections for annual expenses yields a net appropriation of $44,944,000. 

CONSTRUCTION, REHABILITATION, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, 

WESTERN AREA POWER ADMINISTRATION

Appropriation, 2009 ............................................................................ a $218,346,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ....................................................................... 256,711,000 

Recommended, 2010 ........................................................................... 256,711,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2009 .................................................................... +38,365,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ................................................................ — a Excludes $10,000,000 of funding from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Public Law 

111–5). 

The Western Area Power Administration is responsible for marketing the electric power generated by the Bureau of Reclamation, 

the Army 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 Central and Western states over a service area of 

1.3 million square miles. 

The Committee recommendation for the Western Area Power Administration is $256,711,000, the same as the budget request. The 

total program level for Western in fiscal year 2010 is $899,317,000, 

which includes $104,971,000 for construction and rehabilitation, 

$57,159,000 for system operation and maintenance, $548,847,000 

for purchase power and wheeling, $180,756,000 for program direction, and $7,584,000 for the Utah Mitigation and Conservation 

Fund. 

Offsetting collections include $497,337,000 for power purchase 

and wheeling and annual expenses, and the use of $3,879,000 of 

offsetting collections from the Colorado River Dam Fund (as authorized in P.L. 98–381). The inclusion of $288,920,000 of alternative financing identified by the Western Area Marketing Administration and a budgetary score of $147,530,000 for the reclassification of receipts from mandatory to discretionary offsetting collections for annual expenses yields a net appropriation of 

$256,711,000. 

Section 402 of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 

2009 established $3,250,000,000 in bonding authority for the Western Area Power Administration for the construction of new or upgraded transmission lines. The committee urges WAPA to utilize 

transparent processes in implementing this new authority; actively 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
149 

seek partnerships for projects to leverage the federal investment; 

and promote efficient utilization of public rights-of-way to minimize 

environment impacts. The Committee also expects that administrative costs associated with implementing this new authority will be 

separate and distinct from those expenses associated with WAPA’s 

core responsibilities of marketing and delivery of Federal hydropower. 

FALCON AND AMISTAD OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE FUND

Appropriation, 2009 ............................................................................ $2,959,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ....................................................................... 2,568,000 

Recommended, 2010 ........................................................................... 2,568,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2009 .................................................................... ¥391,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ................................................................ — 

Falcon Dam and Amistad Dam are two international water 

projects located on the Rio Grande River between Texas and Mexico. Power generated by hydroelectric facilities at these two dams 

is sold to public utilities through the Western Area Power Administration. The Foreign Relations Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 

1994 and 1995 created the Falcon and Amistad Operating and 

Maintenance Fund to defray the costs of operation, maintenance, 

and emergency activities. The Fund is administered by the Western 

Area Power Administration for use by the Commissioner of the 

U.S. Section of the International Boundary and Water Commission. The Committee recommendation is $2,568,000, the same as the 

budget request. The total program level is $2,568,000, with 

$2,348,000 of offsetting collections for annual expenses. The inclusion of a $2,348,000 charge for the reclassification of receipts from 

mandatory to discretionary offsetting collections for annual expenses yields a net appropriation of $2,568,000. 

FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation, 2009 ............................................................................ $273,400,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ....................................................................... 298,000,000 

Recommended, 2010 ........................................................................... 298,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2009 .................................................................... +24,600,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ................................................................ — 

REVENUES

Appropriation, 2009 ............................................................................ ¥$273,400,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ....................................................................... ¥298,000,000 

Recommended, 2010 ........................................................................... ¥298,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2009 .................................................................... ¥24,600,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ................................................................ — 

The Committee recommendation for the Federal Energy Regu- latory Commission (FERC) is $298,000,000, the same as the budget 

request. Revenues for FERC are established at a rate equal to the 

budget authority, resulting in a net appropriation of $0. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee’s detailed funding recommendations for programs 

in Title III are contained in the following table. 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
150 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 025 here 50273A.033
151 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 26 here 50273A.034
152 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 27 here 50273A.035
153 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 28 here 50273A.036
154 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 29 here 50273A.037
155 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 30 here 50273A.038
156 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 31 here 50273A.039
157 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 32 here 50273A.040
158 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 33 here 50273A.041
159 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 34 here 50273A.042
160 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 35 here 50273A.043
161 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 36 here 50273A.044
162 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 37 here 50273A.045
163 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 38 here 50273A.046
164 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 39 here 50273A.047
165 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 40 here 50273A.048
166 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 41 here 50273A.049
167 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 42 here 50273A.050
168 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 43 here 50273A.051
169 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 44 here 50273A.052
170 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 45 here 50273A.053
171 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 46 here 50273A.054
172 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 47 here 50273A.055
173 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 48 here 50273A.056
174 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 49 here 50273A.057
175 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 50 here 50273A.058
176 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 51 here 50273A.059
177 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 52 here 50273A.060
178 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 53 here 50273A.061
179 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 54 here 50273A.062
180 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 55 here HR203.063
181 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 56 here HR203.064
182 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 57 here HR203.065
183 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 58 here HR203.066
184 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 59 here HR203.067
185 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 60 here 50273A.068
186 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 61 here 50273A.069
187 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 62 here 50273A.070
188 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 63 here 50273A.071
189 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 64 here 50273A.072
190 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 65 here 50273A.073
191 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 66 here 50273A.074
192 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 67 here 50273A.075
193 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 68 here 50273A.076
194 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 69 here 50273A.077
195 

GENERAL PROVISIONS 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Unfunded Requests for Proposals.—Section 301 provides that 

none of the funds in this Act may be used to initiate requests for 

proposals or other solicitations or expressions of interest for new 

programs that have not yet been presented to Congress in the annual budget submission, and that have not yet been approved and 

funded by Congress. 

Section 3161 Assistance.—Section 302 prohibits the use of funds 

for workforce restructuring or enhanced severance payments under 

the worker and community transition program under section 4604 

of the Atomic Energy Defense Act. 

Unexpended Balances.—Section 303 permits the transfer and 

merger of unexpended balances of prior appropriations with appropriation accounts established in this bill. 

Bonneville Power Administration Service Territory.—Section 304 

provides that none of the funds in this or any other Act may be 

used by the Administrator of the Bonneville Power Administration 

to perform energy efficiency services outside the legally defined 

Bonneville service territory unless the Administrator certifies in 

advance that such services are not available from private sector 

businesses. 

User Facilities.—Section 305 establishes certain notice and competition requirements with respect to the involvement of universities in Department of Energy user facilities. A similar provision 

was included in the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, 2005. The detailed guidance on the application of this 

provision was provided in House Report 107–681 and continues to 

apply. 

Intelligence Activities.—Section 306 authorizes intelligence activities of the Department of Energy for purposes of section 504 of the 

National Security Act of 1947 during fiscal year 2010 until the enactment of the Intelligence Authorization Act for fiscal year 2010. 

Laboratory Directed Research and Development.—Section 307 

provides for authorization of Laboratory Directed Research and Development (LDRD), Site Directed Research and Development, and 

Plant Directed Research and Development (PDRD) activities. 

Limited Transfer Authority for Pensions.—Section 308 provides 

the Secretary of Energy limited transfer authority to address pension requirements. 

Congressional Notification.—Section 309 provides congressional 

notification requirements for the award or public announcement of 

grant allocations, discretionary grant or contract awards, or other 

transaction agreement. 

Wage Rate Requirements.—Section 310 provides wage rate guidance for the Title XVII Innovative Technology Loan Guarantee Program. 

Bonneville Power Administration Fund.—Section 311 provides direction regarding Treasury accounting procedures. 

Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing Loan Program.— 

Section 312 expands the eligibility criteria for the Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing Loan Program. 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
196 

TITLE IV 

INDEPENDENT AGENCIES 

APPALACHIAN REGIONAL COMMISSION

Appropriation, 2009 ............................................................................ $75,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ....................................................................... 76,000,000 

Recommended, 2010 ........................................................................... 76,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2009 .................................................................... +1,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ................................................................ — 

The Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC) is a regional economic development agency established in 1965. It is comprised of 

the governors of the thirteen Appalachian States and has a federal 

co-chairman appointed by the President. For fiscal year 2010, the 

budget request includes $76,000,000, of which $63,800,000 is for 

area development; $6,200,000 is for local development districts and 

technical assistance; and $6,000,000 is for salaries and expenses. 

The ARC budget justification indicates that it targets fifty percent of its funds to distressed counties or distressed areas in the 

Appalachian region. The Committee believes this should be the primary focus of the ARC. 

The Committee recommendation for the ARC is $76,000,000, 

$1,000,000 above 2009 enacted levels and the same as the budget 

request. 

DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation, 2009 ............................................................................ $25,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ....................................................................... 26,086,000 

Recommended, 2010 ........................................................................... 26,086,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2009 .................................................................... +1,086,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ................................................................ — 

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 Board is responsible for reviewing and 

evaluating the content and implementation of the standards relating to the design, construction, operation, and decommissioning of 

defense nuclear facilities of the Department of Energy. 

The Committee recommendation for fiscal year 2010 is 

$26,086,000, $1,086,000 above 2009 enacted levels and the same as 

the budget request. 

DELTA REGIONAL AUTHORITY

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation, 2009 ............................................................................ $13,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ....................................................................... 13,000,000 

Recommended, 2010 ........................................................................... 13,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2009 .................................................................... — 

Budget estimate, 2010 ................................................................ — 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
197 

The Delta Regional Authority (DRA) is a federal-state partnership serving a 252-county/parish area in an eight-state region. Led 

by a federal co-chairman 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 economically distressed communities leverage other federal and state programs, which are focused on basic 

infrastructure development and transportation improvements, business development, and job training services. Under federal law, at 

least 75 percent of funds must be invested in distressed counties 

and parishes and pockets of poverty, with 50 percent of the funds 

earmarked for transportation and basic infrastructure improvements. 

For fiscal year 2010, the Committee recommends $13,000,000, 

the same as 2009 enacted levels and the same as the budget request. 

DENALI COMMISSION

Appropriation, 2009 ............................................................................ $11,800,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ....................................................................... 11,965,000 

Recommended, 2010 ........................................................................... 11,965,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2009 .................................................................... +165,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ................................................................ — 

Introduced by Congress in 1998, the Denali Commission is a federal-state partnership designed to provide critical utilities, infrastructure, and economic support throughout Alaska. For fiscal year 

2010, the Committee recommends $11,965,000 for the costs of the 

Commission’s operations, $165,000 above 2009 enacted levels and 

the same as the budget request. 

NORTHERN BORDER REGIONAL COMMISSION

Appropriation, 2009 ............................................................................ — 

Budget estimate, 2010 ....................................................................... — 

Recommended, 2010 ........................................................................... $500,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2009 .................................................................... +500,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ................................................................ +500,000 

The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (HR 2419) authorizes the establishment of a Northern Border Regional Commission to address the economic development needs of portions of the 

four-state region of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, and New 

York. 

The Committee recommends $500,000 for a preliminary study to 

assess the needs and assets of the region as well as analyze the 

possible economic benefits associated with the establishment of a 

new regional commission. Given constrained budgets, the Committee is concerned with the prospects of initiating new regional 

commissions. This funding is intended to provide a technical analysis of the benefits that might accrue from additional investment 

in this region. 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
198 

SOUTHEAST CRESCENT REGIONAL COMMISSION

Appropriation, 2009 ............................................................................ — 

Budget estimate, 2010 ....................................................................... — 

Recommended, 2010 ........................................................................... $500,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2009 .................................................................... +500,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ................................................................ +500,000 

The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (H.R. 2419) authorizes the establishment of a Southeast Crescent Regional Commission to address the economic development needs of portions of 

the southeastern United States not already served by a regional development agency. The Committee recommends $500,000 for a preliminary study to 

assess the needs and assets of the region as well as analyze the 

possible economic benefits associated with the establishment of a 

new regional commission. Given constrained budgets, the Committee is concerned with the prospects of initiating new regional 

commissions. This funding is intended to provide a technical analysis of the benefits that might accrue from additional investment 

in this region. 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

GROSS APPROPRIATION

Appropriation, 2009 ............................................................................ $1,034,656,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ....................................................................... 1,061,000,000 

Recommended, 2010 ........................................................................... 1,061,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2009 .................................................................... +26,344,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ................................................................ — 

REVENUES

Appropriation, 2009 ............................................................................ ¥$860,857,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ....................................................................... ¥878,102,000 

Recommended, 2010 ........................................................................... ¥878,102,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2009 .................................................................... ¥17,245,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ................................................................ — 

NET APPROPRIATION

Appropriation, 2009 ............................................................................ $173,799,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ....................................................................... 182,898,000 

Recommended, 2010 ........................................................................... 182,898,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2009 .................................................................... +9,099,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ................................................................ — 

The Committee recommendation for the Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) salaries and expenses for fiscal year 2010 is 

$1,061,000,000, the same as the budget request. The total amount 

of budget authority is offset by estimated revenues of $878,102,000, 

resulting in a net appropriation of $182,898,000. The recommendation includes $56,000,000, the same as the request, to support the 

NRC’s review of the Department of Energy’s licensing application 

to construct and operate a permanent geologic repository at Yucca 

Mountain for spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste. 

Next Generation Nuclear Plant Licensing.—The Next Generation 

Nuclear Plant is a priority for the Committee. The Committee enVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:48 Jul 14, 2009 Jkt 050860 PO 00000 Frm 00202 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR203.XXX HR203

rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
199 

courages the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to continue engaging 

the Department of Energy on the Next Generation Nuclear Plant, 

so that technical issues involved in licensing can be identified and 

resolved as early as possible in the design process, before significant federal funds are expended on facility construction. 

Reports.—The Committee directs the Commission to continue to 

provide quarterly reports on the status of its licensing and other 

regulatory activities. The Committee has been very supportive of 

the Commission in recent years and recognizes the important role 

the NRC performs in the future of nuclear energy. 

The Committee notes that the NRC has recently begun to provide international training and support for radiological regulations, 

work which the NNSA’s Global Threat Reduction Initiative (GTRI) 

has ongoing. In particular, the Committee is concerned that the 

NRC may be providing physical protection recommendations that 

are less stringent than those recommended by the International 

Atomic Energy Agency. The Committee directs the NRC and NNSA 

to prepare a joint report explaining each program, identifying potential gaps, overlaps or conflicts, and describing how those issues 

will be resolved. This report shall also include an explanation of 

the physical protection standards recommended by each program, 

and an explanation of any difference between those standards and 

those required by the IAEA. 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

GROSS APPROPRIATION

Appropriation, 2009 ............................................................................ $10,860,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ....................................................................... 10,102,000 

Recommended, 2010 ........................................................................... 10,102,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2009 .................................................................... ¥758,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ................................................................ — 

REVENUES

Appropriation, 2009 ............................................................................ ¥$9,774,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ....................................................................... ¥9,092,000 

Recommended, 2010 ........................................................................... ¥9,092,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2009 .................................................................... +682,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ................................................................ — 

NET APPROPRIATION

Appropriation, 2009 ............................................................................ $1,086,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ....................................................................... 1,010,000 

Recommended, 2010 ........................................................................... 1,010,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2009 .................................................................... ¥76,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ................................................................ — 

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $10,102,000, the 

same as the budget request. Given the formula for fee recovery, the 

revenue estimate is $9,092,000, resulting in a net appropriation for 

the NRC Inspector General of $1,010,000. 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
200 

NUCLEAR WASTE TECHNICAL REVIEW BOARD

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation, 2009 ............................................................................ $3,811,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ....................................................................... 3,891,000 

Recommended, 2010 ........................................................................... 3,891,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2009 .................................................................... +80,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ................................................................ — 

The Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board 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 sees the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board as having a continuing independent oversight role, as is specified in Section 503 of the Nuclear 

Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended, as the Department begins 

to focus on the packaging and transportation of high-level radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel. 

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $3,891,000 for 

the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board in fiscal year 2010, 

$80,000 more than 2009 enacted levels and the same as the budget 

request. 

OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL COORDINATOR FOR ALASKA NATURAL GAS

TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS

Appropriation, 2009 ............................................................................ $4,400,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ....................................................................... 4,466,000 

Recommended, 2010 ........................................................................... 4,466,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2009 +66,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ................................................................ — 

The Office of the Federal Coordinator for Alaska Natural Gas 

Transportation Projects was established as an independent agency 

in the Executive Branch on December 13, 2006, pursuant to the 

Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline Act of 2004. The Federal Coordinator 

is responsible for coordinating all federal activities for an Alaska 

natural gas transportation project, including joint surveillance and 

monitoring with the State of Alaska of construction of a project. An 

Alaska natural gas transportation project could deliver significant 

natural gas supply to the U.S. lower 48 states. Action by the State 

of Alaska in reaching agreement with potential project owners as 

to fiscal terms is necessary before project development can move 

forward. 

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $4,466,000 to 

support the activities of this office in fiscal year 2010, $66,000 

above 2009 enacted levels and the same as the budget request. 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
201 

TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

GROSS APPROPRIATION

Appropriation, 2009 ............................................................................ — 

Budget estimate, 2010 ....................................................................... $19,000,000 

Recommended, 2010 ........................................................................... — 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2009 — 

Budget estimate, 2010 ................................................................ ¥19,000,000 

OFFSET FROM TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY FUND

Appropriation, 2009 ............................................................................ — 

Budget estimate, 2010 ....................................................................... ¥$19,000,000 

Recommended, 2010 ........................................................................... — 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2009 — 

Budget estimate, 2010 ................................................................ +19,000,000 

The Committee recommendation does not include the Administration proposal to establish a Congressionally funded Office of Inspector General to oversee the Tennessee Valley Authority. In recent years, the TVA has funded the requests of the TVA–IG office 

out of power revenues and receipts. This process has worked well 

and the Committee sees no compelling reason to change that mechanism for financing the TVA–IG. 

Reports.—The Committee directs the Inspector General to forward copies of all audit and inspection reports to the Committee 

immediately after they are issued, and immediately make the Committee aware of any review that recommends cancellation of, or 

modification to, any major acquisition project or grant, or which 

recommends significant budgetary savings. The Inspector General 

is also directed to withhold from public distribution for a period of 

15 days any final audit or investigation report that was requested 

by the House Committee on Appropriations. 

GENERAL PROVISIONS 

INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

Nuclear Regulatory Commission Reporting Requirement.—Section 

401 requires a report on streamlining the regulatory process for 

Combined Construction and Operating Licenses for qualified reactors. 

TITLE V 

GENERAL PROVISIONS 

The Committee recommendation includes several general provisions pertaining to specific programs and activities funded in the 

Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act. 

Prohibition on lobbying.—The bill includes a provision that none 

of the funds appropriated in this Act may be used in any way, directly or indirectly, to influence congressional action on any legislation or appropriation matters pending before Congress, other than 

to communicate to Members of Congress as described in section 

1913 of Title 18, United States Code. 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
202 

Delta Regional Authority.—The bill includes language regarding 

the voting structure of the Delta Regional Authority. 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES REPORT REQUIREMENTS 

The following items are included in accordance with various requirements of the Rules of the House of Representatives. 

CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY

Clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives states that: 

Each report of a committee on a public bill or public 

joint resolution shall contain the following: (1) A statement 

citing the specific powers granted to Congress in the Constitution to enact the law proposed by the bill or joint resolution. 

The Committee on Appropriations bases its authority to report 

this legislation from Clause 7 of Section 9 of Article I of the Constitution of the United States of America which states: 

No money shall be drawn from the Treasury but in consequence of Appropriations made by law. Appropriations 

contained in this Act are made pursuant to this specific 

power granted by the Constitution. 

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

Under ‘‘Construction’’, $1,500,000 previously appropriated in Division C, Title I of the Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009 (Pub. L. 

111–8; 123 Stat. 601–609) is transferred to the Investigations account to be applied, as originally intended, to the cost of carrying 

out the Seven Oaks Water Conservation Study, California. 

TITLE II—BUREAU OF RECLAMATION

Under ‘‘Water and Related Resources’’, $53,240,000 is available 

for transfer to the Upper Colorado River Basin Fund and 

$17,936,000 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 transVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:48 Jul 14, 2009 Jkt 050860 PO 00000 Frm 00206 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR203.XXX HR203

rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
203 

fers 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 ‘‘Science’’ $15,000,000 previously appropriated in the 

Science account for the Advanced Research Projects Agency—Energy is transferred to the Advanced Research Projects Agency—Energy. 

Under ‘‘Office of the Administrator’’ $10,000,000 previously appropriated for cleanup efforts at Argonne National Lab is transferred to Non-Defense Environmental Cleanup. 

Under ‘‘Defense Environmental Cleanup’’ $463,000,000 shall be 

transferred to the ‘‘Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund’’. 

Under Section 304, ‘‘General Provision—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 tafter may be accounted for as one fund for the same time period as originally enacted. 

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 the Corps of Engineers, Construction, providing for detailed studies and plans and specifications to be conducted for projects authorized or made eligible for selection by law. 

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 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
204 

charting northern and northwestern lakes and connecting waters; 

clearing and straightening channels; and removing obstructions to 

navigation. 

Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, Operation and Maintenance, permitting the use of funds from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund; providing for the use of funds from 

a special account for resource protection, research, interpretation, 

and maintenance activities at outdoor recreation areas; and allowing use of funds to cover the cost of operation and maintenance of 

dredged material disposal facilities for which fees have been collected. 

Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, Expenses, regarding support of the Humphreys Engineer Support 

Center Activity, the Institute for Water Resources, the Engineer 

Research and Development Center, and headquarters support functions at the Finance Center. 

Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, Expenses, providing that funds are available for official reception and 

representation expenses. 

Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, Expenses, prohibiting the use of other funds in Title I of this Act for 

the activities funded in Expenses. 

Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, Expenses, permitting any Flood Control and Coastal Emergency appropriation to be used to fund the supervision and general administration of emergency operations, repairs, and other activities in response to any flood, hurricane or other natural disaster. 

Language has been included to provide for funding for the Office 

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

Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, Administrative Provisions, providing for the purchase and hire of motor vehicles. 

Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, General 

Provisions, Section 102, prohibiting the use of funds provided 

under this Act or previous Acts for implementation of A–76 studies. 

Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, General 

Provisions, Section 103, prohibiting the execution of any contract 

for a program, project or activity that commits funds in excess of 

the amount appropriated (to include funds reprogrammed under 

Section 101) that remains unobligated. 

Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, General 

Provisions, Section 104 prohibiting the award of a continuing contract for any project funded out of the Inland Waterway Trust 

Fund. 

Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, General 

Provisions, Section 105 modifying the project for navigation, Two 

Harbors, Minnesota relating to the provision of non-Federal interest credit for planning, design and construction work performed 

prior to execution of the project agreement. 

Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, General 

Provisions, Section 106, amending the amount authorized for 

Northern Wisconsin Environmental Assistance program. 

Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, General 

Provisions, Section 107, directing the Secretary to expedite the 

flood damage reduction project for the Town of Martin, Kentucky. 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
205 

Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, General 

Provisions, Section 108, amending the project authorization for the 

White River Minimum Flow, AR. 

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; and providing 

that such sums as necessary may be advanced to the Colorado 

River Dam Fund, funds may be used for work carried out by the 

Youth Conservation Corps; and transfers may be increased or decreased within the overall appropriation. 

Language has been included under Bureau of Reclamation, 

Water and Related Resources providing for funds to be derived 

from the Reclamation Fund or the special fee account established 

by 16 U.S.C. 4601–6a(i); that funds contributed under 43 U.S.C. 

395 by non-Federal entities shall be available for expenditure; and 

that funds advanced under 43 U.S.C. 397a for operation and maintenance of reclamation facilities are to be credited to the Water and 

Related Resources account and available for expenditure. 

Language has been included under the Bureau of Reclamation, 

Water and Related Resources, allowing the Bureau of Reclamation 

to use funds for the Departmental Irrigation Drainage Program for 

site remediation on a nonreimbursable basis; and requiring funds 

to be deposited in the San Gabriel Basin Restoration Fund established by section 110 of Title I of appendix D of Public Law 106– 

554. 

Language has been included under Bureau of Reclamation, Central Valley Project Restoration Fund directing the Bureau of Reclamation to assess and collect the full amount of additional mitigation and; restoration payments authorized by section 3407(d) of 

Public Law 102–575. 

Language has been included under Bureau of Reclamation, Central Valley Project Restoration Fund providing that none of the 

funds under the heading may be used for the acquisition or lease 

of water for in-stream purposes if the water is already committed 

to in-stream purposes by a court order adopted by consent or decree. 

Language has been included under Bureau of Reclamation, California Bay-Delta Restoration permitting the transfer of funds to appropriate accounts of other participating Federal agencies to carry 

out authorized programs; allowing funds made available under this 

heading to be used for the Federal share of the costs of the 

CALFED Program management; making the use of any funds provided to the California Bay-Delta Authority for program-wide management and oversight activities subject to the approval of the Secretary of the Interior; and requiring that CALFED implementation 

be carried out with clear performance measures demonstrating conVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:48 Jul 14, 2009 Jkt 050860 PO 00000 Frm 00209 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR203.XXX HR203

rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
206 

current progress in achieving the goals and objectives of the program. 

Language has been included under Bureau of Reclamation, Policy and Administration providing that funds are to be derived from 

the Reclamation Fund and prohibiting the use of any other appropriation in the Act for activities budgeted as policy and administration. 

Language has been included under Bureau of Reclamation, Administrative Provisions providing for the purchase of motor vehicles 

for replacement. 

Language has been included under General Provisions, Department of the Interior, Section 202 regarding the San Luis Unit and 

the Kesterson Reservoir in California. This language has been carried in prior appropriations Acts. 

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 Distribution and 

Energy Reliability for the purchase, construction, and acquisition of 

plant and capital equipment. 

Language has been included under Nuclear Energy for the purchase, construction, and acquisition of plant and capital equipment; 

and for the purchase of motor vehicles. 

Language has been included under Fossil Energy Research and 

Development on the Clean Coal Power Initiative that provides for 

the use of funds appropriated under the Clean Coal Technology 

Program, Power Plant Improvement Initiative, the Clean Coal 

Power Initiative, and FutureGen for the Clean Coal Power Initiative; prohibits the selection of a Clean Coal Power Initiative project 

where funding is not available for the total project; places limitations on the time period for negotiations on selected Clean Coal 

Power Initiative project applications and the provision of financial 

assistance for costs in excess of costs estimated on the date of the 

original award; requires the expenditure of funds in accordance 

with Clean Coal Technology provisions of 42 U.S.C. 5903d; designates technology selected as Clean Coal Technology Programs 

and projects selected as Clean Coal Technology Projects; and allows 

funds available for the Clean Coal Power Initiative to be used to 

support technology relating to carbon capture and storage or beneficial uses of CO2 without regard to the funding allocations of section 402(b)(1)(a) and 402(b)(2)(A) of Public Law 109–58. 

Language has been included under the Naval Petroleum and Oil 

Shale Reserves, permitting the use of unobligated balances, and 

the hire of passenger vehicles. 

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 for the transfer of 

$15,000,000 previously appropriated in the Science account for the 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
207 

Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy to the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy. 

Language has been included under Nuclear Waste Disposal providing funds to the State of Nevada for scientific oversight responsibilities and licensing activities pursuant to the Nuclear Waste 

Disposal Act of 1982 (NWPA); to Nye County, NV for on-site oversight activities under section 117(d) of NWPA notwithstanding the 

fact Nye County does not have a written agreement with the State 

of Nevada under section 177(c) of NWPA; to affected units of local 

government, as defined in the NWPA, for appropriate activities and 

licensing activities to be distributed as specified between affected 

units of local government in California and Nevada; and to the 

Timbisha-Shoshone Tribe for appropriate activities and licensing 

activities under section 118(b) of NWPA. 

Language has been included under Nuclear Waste Disposal 

eliminating the Department’s monitoring, auditing and other oversight rights or responsibilities over amounts provided to affected 

units of local government; requiring funds for the State of Nevada 

to be paid by direct payment to the Office of the Attorney General 

and units of local government; requiring certification from the Office of the Attorney General of the State of Nevada and affected 

units of local government that funds expended from payments were 

expended for activities authorized by NWPA and this Act; making 

further funds contingent upon such certification; prohibiting the 

use of funds for influencing legislative action, litigation expenses, 

or support of coalition building activities inconsistent with this Act; 

providing that all proceeds and recoveries realized in carrying out 

activities under NWPA are available without further appropriation 

and remain available until expended; prohibiting the use of funds 

provided in this Act or previous Acts to pursue repayment or collection of funds provided in any fiscal year to affected units of local 

government for oversight activities previously approved or to withhold such funds. 

Language has been included under Innovative Technology Loan 

Guarantee Program crediting fees collected pursuant to section 

1702(h) of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 in an amount equal to the 

appropriated amount as offsetting collections to this account and 

making fees collected under section 1702(h) in excess of the appropriated amount unavailable for expenditure until appropriated. 

Language has been included under Departmental Administration 

providing for the hire of passenger vehicles and for official reception and representation expenses. 

Language has been included under Departmental Administration 

providing, notwithstanding the provisions of the Anti-Deficiency 

Act, such additional amounts as necessary to cover increases in the 

estimated amount of cost of work for others, as long as such increases are offset by revenue increases of the same or greater 

amounts. This language has been carried in prior appropriations 

Acts. 

Language has been included under Departmental Administration, notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, and consistent with the authorization in Public Law 95–238, to permit the Department of Energy to use revenues to offset appropriations. The appropriations 

language for this account reflects the total estimated program 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
208 

funding to be reduced as revenues are received. This language has 

been carried in prior appropriations Acts. 

Language has been included under Weapons Activities for the 

purchase, construction, and acquisition of plant and capital equipment; and for the purchase of motor vehicles. 

Language has been included under Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation for the purchase, construction, and acquisition of plant 

and capital equipment; and for the purchase of motor vehicles. 

Language has been included under the Office of the Adminis- trator providing not to exceed $12,000 for official reception and representation expenses. 

Language has been included under the Office of the Adminis- trator transferring $10,000,000 previously appropriated for cleanup 

efforts at Argonne National Lab to Defense Environmental Cleanup. 

Language has been included under Defense Environmental 

Cleanup for the purchase, construction, and acquisition of plant 

and capital equipment; and for the purchase of motor vehicles. 

Language has been included under Other Defense Activities for 

the purchase, construction, and acquisition of plant and capital 

equipment; and for the purchase of motor vehicles. 

Language has been included under Other Defense Activities requiring the Department of Energy (DOE) to adhere strictly to DOE 

Order 413.3A for the Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility, Savannah River Site, SC. 

Language has been included under Bonneville Power Administra- tion Fund providing not to exceed $1,500 for official reception and 

representation expenses, and precluding any new direct loan obligations. 

Language has been included under Southeastern Power Administration providing for amounts collected from the sale of power and 

related services to be credited as discretionary offsetting collections 

to remain available until expended for the sole purpose of funding 

the annual expenses of the Southeastern Power Administration. 

The appropriations language for this account reflects the total estimated program funding to be reduced as revenues are received. 

Language has been included under Southeastern Power Administration providing for amounts collected to recover purchase power 

and wheeling expenses to be credited as offsetting collections and 

remain available until expended for the sole purpose of making 

purchase power and wheeling expenditures. 

Language has been included under Southeastern Power Administration providing for amounts collected that are applicable to the 

repayment of the annual expenses of this account in this and subsequent fiscal years to be credited to this account as discretionary 

offsetting collections for the sole purpose of funding such expenses; 

and defining annual expenses for purposes of this appropriation. 

Language has been included under Southwestern Power Administration providing not to exceed $1,500 for official reception and 

representation expenses. 

Language has been included under Southwestern Power Administration providing for amounts collected from the sale of power 

and related services to be credited as discretionary offsetting collections to remain available until expended for the sole purpose of 

funding the annual expenses of the Southwestern Power AdminisVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:48 Jul 14, 2009 Jkt 050860 PO 00000 Frm 00212 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR203.XXX HR203

rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
209 

tration. The appropriations language for this account reflects the 

total estimated program funding to be reduced as revenues are received. 

Language has been included under Southwestern Power Administration providing for amounts collected to recover purchase power 

and wheeling expenses to be credited to the account as offsetting 

collections and remain available until expended for the sole purpose of making purchase power and wheeling expenditures. 

Language has been included under Southwestern Power Administration providing for amounts collected that are applicable to the 

repayment of the annual expenses of this account in this and subsequent fiscal years to be credited to this account as discretionary 

offsetting collections for the sole purpose of funding such expenses; 

and defining annual expenses for purposes of this appropriation. 

Language has been included under Construction, Rehabilitation, 

Operation and Maintenance, Western Area Power Administration, 

providing not to exceed $1,500 for official reception and representation expenses. 

Language has been included under Construction, Rehabilitation, 

Operation and Maintenance, Western Area Power Administration, 

providing for funds to be derived from the Department of Interior 

Reclamation Fund. 

Language has been included under Construction, Rehabilitation, 

Operation and Maintenance, Western Area Power Administration 

providing for amounts collected from the sale of power and related 

services to be credited as discretionary offsetting collections to remain available until expended for the sole purpose of funding the 

annual expenses of the Western Area Power Administration. The 

appropriations language for this account reflects the total estimated program funding to be reduced as revenues are received. 

Language has been included under Construction, Rehabilitation, 

Operation and Maintenance, Western Area Power Administration, 

provides for the deposit of funds into the Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Account. 

Language has been included under Construction, Rehabilitation, 

Operation and Maintenance, Western Area Power Administration 

providing for amounts collected to recover purchase power and 

wheeling expenses to be credited to the account as offsetting collections and remain available until expended for the sole purpose of 

making purchase power and wheeling expenditures. 

Language has been included under Construction, Rehabilitation, 

Operation and Maintenance, Western Area Power Administration, 

providing funds on a nonreimbursable basis for environmental remediation at the Basic Substation site in Henderson, NV. 

Language has been included under Construction, Rehabilitation, 

Operation and Maintenance, Western Area Power Administration 

providing for amounts collected by the Western Area Power Administration from the sale of power and related services that are applicable to the repayment of the annual expenses of this account in 

this and subsequent fiscal years shall be credited to this account 

as discretionary offsetting collections for the sole purpose of funding such expenses; and defining annual expenses for purposes of 

this appropriation. 

Language has been included under Falcon and Amistad Operating and Maintenance Fund providing for amounts collected by 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
210 

the Western Area Power Administration from the sale of power and 

related services to be credited as discretionary offsetting collections 

to remain available until expended for the sole purpose of funding 

the annual expenses of the hydroelectric facilities at Falcon and 

Amistad Dams and associated Western Area Power Administration 

activities. The appropriations language for this account reflects the 

total estimated program funding to be reduced as revenues are received. 

Language has been included under Falcon and Amistad Operating and Maintenance Fund providing for amounts collected by 

the Western Area Power Administration from the sale of power and 

related services from Falcon and Amistad Dams applicable to the 

repayment of the annual expenses of this account in this and subsequent fiscal years to be credited as discretionary offsetting collections for the sole purpose of funding such expenses; and defining 

annual expenses for purposes of this appropriation. 

Language has been included under Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission to permit the hire of passenger motor vehicles, not to 

exceed $3,000 to provide official reception and representation expenses, and to permit the use of revenues collected to reduce the 

appropriation as revenues are received. 

Language has been included under Department of Energy, General Provisions, Section 301, providing that none of the funds may 

be used to make payments for a noncompetitive management and 

operating contract unless certain conditions are met. 

Language has been included under Department of Energy, General Provisions, Section 302, prohibiting the use of funds to prepare 

or initiate requests for proposals for programs that have not yet 

been funded by Congress. 

Language has been included under Department of Energy, General Provisions, Section 303, regarding section 4604 of the Atomic 

Energy Defense Act, that prohibits the use of funds appropriated 

by the Act to augment funds made available for severance payments and other benefits and assistance grants under that section 

without prior submission of a reprogramming request to the appropriate congressional committees; and the provision of enhanced severance payments or other benefits under that section. 

Language has been included under Department of Energy, General Provisions, Section 304, 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 305, prohibiting the Administrator of the 

Bonneville Power Administration to enter into any agreement to 

perform energy efficiency services outside the legally defined Bonneville service territory. 

Language has been included under Department of Energy, General Provisions, Section 306, requiring the Department of Energy 

to ensure broad public notice when it makes a user facility available to universities and other potential users or seeks input regarding significant characteristics or equipment in a user facility or a 

proposed user facility, and requiring competition when the Department partners with a university or other entity for the establishment or operation of a user facility. 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
211 

Language has been included under Department of Energy, General Provisions, Section 307, 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 

2010 until enactment of the Intelligence Authorization Act for fiscal 

year 2010. 

Language has been included under Department of Energy, General Provisions, Section 308, regarding the laboratory directed research and development activities. 

Language has been included under Department of Energy, General Provisions, Section 309, providing limited transfer authority to 

the Secretary of Energy to address pension requirements 

Language has been included under Department of Energy, General Provisions, Section 310, adding a subsection on wage rate requirements to section 1702 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. 

Language has been included under Department of Energy, General Provisions, Section 311, relating to use of appropriated funds 

to record certain transactions under a funding account, subaccount 

or fund symbol other than the Bonneville Power Administration 

Fund account fund symbol. 

Language has been included under Department of Energy, General Provisions, Section 312, amending the definition of advanced 

technology vehicle in and adding a definition of ultra efficient vehicles to section 136 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 

2007 (42 U.S.C. 17013). 

TITLE IV—INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

Language has been included under Appalachian Regional Commission providing of the hire of passenger vehicles. 

Language has been included under Appalachian Regional Commission requiring any congressionally directed spending be taken 

from within a State’s allocation in the fiscal year provided. 

Language has been included under Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Salaries and Expenses that provides for official representation 

expenses; derives funds from the Nuclear Waste Fund; and permits 

the use of revenues from licensing fees, inspections services, and 

other services for salaries and expenses. The appropriations language for this account reflects the total estimated program funding 

to be reduced as revenues are received. 

Language has been included under Office of Inspector General 

that provides for the use of revenues from licensing fees, inspections services, and other services for salaries and expenses. The appropriations language for this account reflects the total estimated 

program funding to be reduced as revenues are received. 

Language has been included under Office of the Federal Coordinator for Alaska Natural Gas Transportation Projects making 

funds received pursuant to section 802 of Public Law 110–140 in 

excess of the amounts specified unavailable for obligation until appropriated. 

Language has been included under Independent Agencies, General Provisions, Section 401, directing the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to provide a report identifying barriers to and the NRC’s 

recommendations for streamlining issuance of a Combined Construction and Operating License for qualified new nuclear reactors. 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
212 

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 Congress. 

Language has been included under General Provisions, Section 

502 amending section 382B(c)(1) of the Consolidated Farm and 

Rural Development Act. 

COMPLIANCE WITH RULE XIII, CL. 3(e) (RAMSEYER RULE) 

In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by the bill, 

as reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is printed in italics, 

existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in roman): 

MISCELLANEOUS APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001 

(as enacted into law by Public Law 106–554) 

* * * * * * * 

DIVISION B 

TITLE I 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 154. NORTHERN WISCONSIN. 

(a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(h) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized to 

be appropriated to carry out this section ø$40,000,000¿ 

$60,000,000. Such sums shall remain available until expended. 

* * * * * * * 

SECTION 1702 OF THE ENERGY POLICY ACT OF 2005 

SEC. 1702. TERMS AND CONDITIONS. 

(a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(k) WAGE RATE REQUIREMENTS.—All laborers and mechanics employed by contractors and subcontractors in the performance of construction work financed in whole or in part by a loan guaranteed 

under this title shall be paid wages at rates not less than those prevailing on projects of a character similar in the locality as determined by the Secretary of Labor in accordance with subchapter IV 

of chapter 31 of title 40, United States Code. With respect to the 

labor standards in this subsection, the Secretary of Labor shall 

have the authority and functions set forth in Reorganization Plan 

Numbered 14 of 1950 (64 Stat. 1267; 5 U.S.C. App.) and section 

3145 of title 40, United States Code. 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
213 

SECTION 382B OF THE CONSOLIDATED FARM AND 

RURAL DEVELOPMENT ACT 

SEC. 382B. DELTA REGIONAL AUTHORITY. 

(a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(c) VOTING.— ø(1) IN GENERAL.— ø(A) TEMPORARY METHOD.—During the period beginning 

on the date of enactment of this subparagraph and ending 

on December 31, 2008, a decision by the Authority shall 

require the affirmative vote of the Federal cochairperson 

and a majority of the State members (not including any 

member representing a State that is delinquent under subsection (g)(2)(C)) to be effective. 

ø(B) PERMANENT METHOD.—Effective beginning on January 1, 2009, a decision by the Authority shall require a 

majority vote of the Authority (not including any member 

representing a State that is delinquent under subsection 

(g)(2)(C)) to be effective.¿ 

(1) IN GENERAL.—A decision by the Authority shall require 

the affirmative vote of the Federal co-chairperson and a majority of the State members (not including any member representing a State that is delinquent under subsection (g)(2)(C)) 

to be effective. 

* * * * * * * 

SECTION 132 OF THE ENERGY AND WATER 

DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2006 

SEC. 132. WHITE RIVER BASIN, ARKANSAS.—(a) MINIMUM

FLOWS.— 

(1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(3) IMPACTS ON NON-FEDERAL PROJECT.—The Administrator 

of Southwestern Power Administration, in consultation with 

the project licensee and the relevant state public utility commissions, shall determine any impacts on electric energy and 

capacity generated at Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

Project No. 2221 caused by the storage reallocation at Bull 

Shoals Lake, based on data and recommendations provided by 

the relevant state public utility commissions. The licensee of 

Project No. 2221 shall be fully compensated by the øCorps of 

Engineers¿ Southwestern Power Administration for those impacts on the basis of the present value of the estimated future 

lifetime replacement costs of the electrical energy and capacity 

at the time of implementation of the White River Minimum 

Flows project. Such costs shall be included in the costs of implementing the White River Minimum Flows project and allocated in accordance with subsection (a)(2) above. 

* * * * * * * 

(5) PAYMENT TO NON-FEDERAL LICENSEE.—Southwestern 

Power Administration shall compensate the licensee of Federal 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
214 

Energy Regulatory Commission Project No. 2221 pursuant to 

paragraph (3) using receipts collected from the sale of Federal 

power and energy related services. Pursuant to paragraph (6), 

Southwestern Power Administration will begin collecting receipts in the Special Receipts and Disbursement account upon 

the date of enactment of this paragraph. Payment to the licensee 

of Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Project No. 2221 

shall be paid as soon as adequate receipts are collected in the 

Special Receipts and Disbursement Account to fully compensate 

the licensee, and in accordance with paragraph (2), such payment shall be considered non-reimbursable. 

(6) The Southwestern Power Administration shall compensate 

the licensee of Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Project 

No. 2221 in annual payments of not less than $5,000,000, until 

the licensee of Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Project 

No. 2221 is fully compensated pursuant to paragraph (3). At 

the end of each fiscal year subsequent to implementation, any 

remaining balance to be paid to the licensee of Project No. 2221 

shall accrue interest at the 30-year U.S. Treasury bond rate in 

effect at the time of implementation of the White River Minimum Flows project. 

(7) ESTABLISHMENT OF SPECIAL RECEIPT AND DISBURSEMENT

ACCOUNTS.—There is established in the Treasury of the United 

States a special receipt account and corresponding disbursement account to be made available to the Administrator of the 

Southwestern Power Administration to disburse pre-collected 

receipts from the sale of federal power and energy and related 

services. The accounts are authorized for the following uses: 

(A) Collect and disburse receipts for purchase power and 

wheeling expenses incurred by Southwestern Power Administration to purchase replacement power and energy as a result of implementation of the White River Minimum Flows 

project. 

(B) Collect and disburse receipts related to compensation 

of the licensee of Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

Project No. 2221. 

(C) Said special receipt and disbursement account shall 

remain available for not more than 12 months after the 

date of full compensation of the licensee of Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission Project No. 2221. 

(8) TIME OF IMPLEMENTATION.—For purposes of paragraphs 

(3) and (4), ‘‘time of implementation’’ shall mean the authorization of the special receipt account and corresponding disbursement account described in paragraph (7). 

* * * * * * * 

SECTION 136 OF THE ENERGY INDEPENDENCE AND 

SECURITY ACT OF 2007 

SEC. 136. ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY VEHICLES MANUFACTURING INCENTIVE PROGRAM. 

(a) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
215 

(1) ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY VEHICLE.—The term ‘‘advanced 

technology vehicle’’ means an ultra efficient vehicle or a light 

duty vehicle that meets— 

(A) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(5) ULTRA EFFICIENT VEHICLE.—The term ‘‘ultra efficient vehicle’’ means a fully closed compartment vehicle designed to carry 

at least 2 adult passengers that achieves— 

(A) at least 75 miles per gallon while operating on gasoline or diesel fuel; 

(B) at least 75 miles per gallon equivalent while operating as a hybrid electric-gasoline or electric-diesel vehicle; 

or 

(C) at least 75 miles per gallon equivalent while operating as a fully electric vehicle. 

(b) ADVANCED VEHICLES MANUFACTURING FACILITY.—The Secretary shall provide facility funding awards under this section to 

automobile manufacturers, ultra efficient vehicle manufacturers, 

and component suppliers to pay not more than 30 percent of the 

cost of— 

(1) reequipping, expanding, or establishing a manufacturing 

facility in the United States to produce— 

(A) qualifying advanced technology vehicles; øor¿ 

(B) qualifying components; øand¿ or 

(C) ultra efficient vehicles; and 

(2) engineering integration performed in the United States of 

qualifying vehicles, ultra efficient vehicles, and qualifying components. 

* * * * * * * 

(g) PRIORITY.—The Secretary shall, in making awards or loans to 

those manufacturers that have existing facilities, give priority to 

those facilities that are oldest or have been in existence for at least 

20 years or are utilized primarily for the manufacture of ultra efficient vehicles. Such facilities can currently be sitting idle. 

(h) SET ASIDE FOR SMALL AUTOMOBILE MANUFACTURERS AND

COMPONENT SUPPLIERS.— 

(1) DEFINITION OF COVERED FIRM.—In this subsection, the 

term ‘‘covered firm’’ means a firm that— 

(A) * * * 

(B) manufactures øautomobiles¿ ultra efficient vehicles, 

automobiles, or components of automobiles. 

* * * * * * * 

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: 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
216 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 74 here 50273A.149
217 

RESCISSIONS

Pursuant to clause 3(f)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, the Committee notes that that the accompanying bill does not propose any rescissions. 

COMPARISON WITH THE BUDGET RESOLUTION

Pursuant to clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives and section 308(a)(1)(A) of the Congressional 

Budget Act of 1974, the following table compares the levels of new 

budget authority provided in the bill with the appropriate allocation under section 302(b) of the Budget Act. 

[In millions of dollars] 

302(b) allocation This bill 

Budget authority Outlays Budget authority Outlays 

Comparison of amounts in the bill with Committee allocations 

to its subcommittees of amounts in the First Concurrent 

Resolution for 2010: Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development 

General purpose discretionary .............................................. 33,300 42,764 33,307 1 42,771 

Mandatory ............................................................................. 0 0 0 0 1 Includes outlays from prior-year budget authority. 

FIVE-YEAR OUTLAY PROJECTIONS

Pursuant to section 308(a)(1)(B) of the Congressional Budget Act 

of 1974, the following table contains five-year projections prepared 

by the Congressional Budget Office of outlays associated with the 

budget authority provided in the accompanying bill: 

Projection of outlays associated with the recommendation: 

2010 .............................................................................................. 1 19,390 

2011 .............................................................................................. 9,181 

2012 .............................................................................................. 2,991 

2013 .............................................................................................. 638 

2014 and future years ................................................................. 831 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: 

[Millions] 

Budget Authority ................................................................................ 93 

Fiscal Year 2010 outlays resulting therefrom .................................. 19 

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: 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
218 

ROLL CALL NO.1

Date: July 7, 2009. 

Measure: Energy and Water Development Appropriations Bill, 

2010. 

Motion by: Simpson. 

Description of motion: An amendment to provide the Secretary of 

Energy with the flexibility to use remaining loan guarantee authority under the Innovative Technology Loan Guarantee Program to 

make loan guarantees for any technology authorized under the program. 

Results: Rejected, 22 yeas to 35 nays. 

Members Voting Yea Members Voting Nay 

Mr. Aderholt Mr. Berry 

Mr. Alexander Mr. Bishop 

Mr. Bonner Mr. Boyd 

Mr. Calvert Mr. Chandler 

Mr. Carter Mr. Davis 

Mr. Cole Ms. DeLauro 

Mr. Crenshaw Mr. Dicks 

Mr. Culberson Mr. Edwards 

Nr, Edwards Mr. Kattah 

Mrs. Emerson Mr. Farr 

Mr. Frelinghuysen Mr. Fattah 

Ms. Granger Mr. Hinchey 

Mr. Kingston Mr. Honda 

Mr. Kirk Mr. Israel 

Mr. Latham Ms. Kaptur 

Mr. LaTourette Mr. Kennedy 

Mr. Lewis Ms. Lee 

Mr. Rehberg Mrs. Lowey 

Mr. Simpson Ms. McCollum 

Mr. Tiahrt Mr. Mollohan 

Mr. Wamp Mr. Moran 

Mr. Wolf Mr. Murtha 

Mr. Young Mr. Obey 

Mr. Olver 

Mr. Pastor 

Mr. Price 

Mr. Rodriguez 

Mr. Rothman 

Ms. Roybal-Allard 

Mr. Ryan 

Mr. Salazar 

Mr. Schiff 

Mr. Serrano 

Mr. Visclosky 

Ms. Wasserman Schultz 

ROLL CALL NO.2

Date: July 7, 2009. 

Measure: Energy and Water Development Appropriations Bill, 

2010. 

Motion by: Calvert. 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
219 

Description of motion: An amendment to prohibit the Bureau of 

Reclamation and certain California agencies from restricting 

project operations to comply with two recent biological opinions, if 

those restrictions would lower water export levels below historical 

maximum levels. 

Results: Rejected, 25 yeas to 33 nays. 

Members Voting Yea Members Voting Nay 

Mr. Aderholt Mr. Berry 

Mr. Alexander Mr. Bishop 

Mr. Bonner Mr. Boyd 

Mr. Calvert Mr. Chandler 

Mr. Carter Mr. Davis 

Mr. Cole Ms. DeLauro 

Mr. Crenshaw Mr. Dicks 

Mr. Culberson Mr. Farr 

Mr. Edwards Mr. Fattah 

Mrs. Emerson Mr. Hinchey 

Mr. Frelinghuysen Mr. Honda 

Ms. Granger Mr. Israel 

Mr. Kingston Ms. Kaptur 

Mr. Kirk Mr. Kennedy 

Mr. Latham Ms. Kilpatrick 

Mr. LaTourette Ms. Lee 

Mr. Lewis Mrs. Lowey 

Mr. Rehberg Mr. McCollum 

Mr. Ruppersberger Mr. Mollohan 

Mr. Salazar Mr. Moran 

Mr. Simpson Mr. Murtha 

Mr. Tiahrt Mr. Obey 

Mr. Wamp Mr. Olver 

Mr. Wolf Mr. Pastor 

Mr. Young Mr. Price 

Mr. Rodriguez 

Mr. Rothman 

Ms. Roybal-Allard 

Mr. Ryan 

Mr. Schiff 

Mr. Serrano 

Mr. Visclosky 

Ms. Wasserman Schultz 

ROLL CALL NO.3

Date: July 7, 2009. 

Measure: Energy and Water Development Appropriations Bill, 

2010. 

Motion by: Carter. 

Description of motion: An amendment to require the Secretary of 

Energy to notify the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations if the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 or 

similar legislation causes an increase in electricity or fuel prices. 

Results: Rejected, 22 yeas to 36 nays. 

Members Voting Yea Members Voting Nay 

Mr. Aderholt Mr. Berry 

Mr. Alexander Mr. Bishop 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
220 

Mr. Bonner Mr. Boyd 

Mr. Calvert Mr. Chandler 

Mr. Carter Mr. Davis 

Mr. Cole Ms. DeLauro 

Mr. Crenshaw Mr. Dicks 

Mr. Culberson Mr. Edwards 

Mr. Emerson Mr. Farr 

Mr. Frelinghuysen Mr. Fattah 

Ms. Granger Mr. Hinchey 

Mr. Kingston Ms. Honda 

Mr. Kirk Mr. Israel 

Mr. Latham Ms. Kaptur 

Mr. LaTourette Mr. Kennedy 

Mr. Lewis Ms. Kilpatrick 

Mr. Rehberg Ms. Lee 

Mr. Simpson Mrs. Lowey 

Mr. Tiahrt Ms. McCollum 

Mr. Wamp Mr. Mollohan 

Mr. Wolf Mr. Moran 

Mr. Young Mr. Murtha 

Mr. Obey 

Mr. Olver 

Mr. Pastor 

Mr. Price 

Mr. Rodriguez 

Mr. Rothman 

Ms. Roybal-Allard 

Mr. Ruppersberger 

Mr. Ryan 

Mr. Salazar 

Mr. Schiff 

Mr. Serrano 

Mr. Visclosky 

Ms. Wasserman Schultz 

DIRECTED SPENDING BY CONGRESS AND BY THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH

This bill contains $7.28 billion in grant funding awarded solely 

at the discretion of the Administration, and $4.8 billion in funding 

requested by the President for specific projects. In addition to placing a one year moratorium on earmarks in appropriations bills enacted in 2007 so that new rules could be put in place, the Committee has subsequently taken unprecedented action to increase 

transparency and reduce funding for earmarks. The Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation accounts in this bill are 

project-based accounts, and as such comprise a specific list of authorized projects each year. These accounts fund the planning, construction and operation and maintenance of the nation’s water resource infrastructure; contribute to the safety of communities 

across the nation through flood and storm damage reduction 

projects; support the underpinnings of our economy through investments in our ports and harbors; and to restore the environment. 

The fiscal year 2009 Act reduced earmarks by 34 percent from 2006 

levels. This bill continues to reduce earmarks in 2010. For fiscal 

year 2010, earmarks are expected to be 10 percent below 2009. It 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
221 

should also be noted that under the policies adopted by the Committee, member earmarks will no longer be provided to for-profit 

entities as a functional equivalent of no bid contracts. In cases 

where the Committee is funding an earmark designated by a member for a for-profit entity, the Committee includes legislative language requiring the Executive Branch to nonetheless issue a request for proposal that gives other entities an opportunity to apply 

and requires the agency to evaluate all bids received and make a 

decision based on merit. This gives the original designee an opportunity to be brought to the attention of the agency, but with the 

possibility that an alternative entity may be selected. 

[$ in millions] 

FY06 FY08 FY09 FY10 

$ # $ # $ # $ 

$1,990 ........................ 1,101 $1,340 1,014 $1,307 719 $596 

DISCLOSURE OF EARMARKS AND CONGRESSIONALLY 

DIRECTED SPENDING ITEMS 

The following table is submitted in compliance with clause 9 of 

rule XXI, and lists the congressional earmarks (as defined in paragraph (e) of clause 9) contained in the bill or in this report. Neither 

the bill nor the report contain any limited tax benefits or limited 

tariff benefits as defined in paragraphs (f) or (g) of clause 9 of rule 

XXI. 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
222 

ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT 

[Presidentially Directed Spending Items] 

Agency Account Project Amount 

Requester(s) 

Administration House 

Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources AK CHIN INDIAN WATER RIGHTS SETTLEMENT ACT PROJECT $10,600,000 The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources ANIMAS-LA PLATA PROJECT $50,445,000 The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources ARBUCKLE PROJECT $234,000 The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources ARIZONA WATER SETTLEMENT ACT $1,400,000 The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources BALMORHEA PROJECT $58,000 The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources BOISE AREA PROJECTS $5,401,000 The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources CACHUMA PROJECT $1,674,000 The President Capps Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources CALIFORNIA INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM $500,000 The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources CALLEGUAS MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT RECYCLING PROJECT $100,000 The President Capps; Gallegly Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources CANADIAN RIVER PROJECT $217,000 The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources CARLSBAD PROJECT $3,719,000 The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECTS: AMERICAN RIVER DIVISION $9,576,000 The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECTS: AUBURN-FOLSOM SOUTH UNIT $1,663,000 The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECTS: DELTA DIVISION $20,405,000 The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECTS: EAST SIDE DIVISION $4,426,000 The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECTS: FRIANT DIVISION $5,756,000 The President 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
223 

Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECTS: MISCELLANEOUS PROJECT PROGRAMS $11,796,000 The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECTS: REPLACEMENTS, ADDITIONS, & EXTRAORDINARY MAINT. PROG. $25,000,000 The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECTS: SACRAMENTO RIVER DIVISION $16,379,000 The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECTS: SAN FELIPE DIVISION $1,651,000 The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECTS: SAN JOAQUIN DIVISION $356,000 The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECTS: SHASTA DIVISION $8,054,000 The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECTS: TRINITY RIVER DIVISION $10,495,000 The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECTS: WATER AND POWER OPERATIONS $9,280,000 The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECTS: WEST SAN JOAQUIN DIVISION, SAN 

LUIS UNIT 

$8,525,000 The President 

Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECTS: YIELD FEASIBILITY INVESTIGATION $450,000 The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources COLLBRAN PROJECT $3,885,000 The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources COLORADO INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM $300,000 The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources COLORADO RIVER BASIN, CENTRAL ARIZONA PROJECT‘ $18,305,000 The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources COLORADO RIVER FRONT WORK AND LEVEE SYSTEM $2,350,000 The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources COLORADO-BIG THOMPSON PROJECT $13,800,000 The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources COLUMBIA AND SNAKE RIVER FCRPS ESA IMP. $17,800,000 The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources COLUMBIA BASIN PROJECT $16,454,000 The President Hastings (WA) Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources CROOKED RIVER PROJECT $839,000 The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources DESCHUTES PROJECT $482,000 The President Walden 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
224 

ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT—Continued 

[Presidentially Directed Spending Items] 

Agency Account Project Amount 

Requester(s) 

Administration House 

Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources EASTERN NEW MEXICO INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAMS $50,000 The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources EASTERN OREGON PROJECTS $845,000 The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources FORT PECK RESERVATION/DRY PRAIRIE RURAL WATER SYSTEM $4,000,000 The President Rehberg Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources FRUITGROWERS DAM PROJECT $259,000 The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources FRYINGPAN-ARKANSAS PROJECT $8,650,000 The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources FRYINGPAN-ARKANSAS PROJECT (LAKE PUEBLO STATE PARK) $54,000 The President Salazar Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources GRAND VALLEY UNIT, CRBSCP, TITLE II $1,477,000 The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources HALFWAY WASH PROJECT STUDY $125,000 The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources HUNGRY HORSE PROJECT $1,865,000 The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources HUNTLEY PROJECT $87,000 The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources HYRUM PROJECT $198,000 The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources IDAHO INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM $300,000 The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources JICARILLA APACHE RESERVATION RURAL WATER SYSTEM $3,000,000 The President Lujan Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources KANSAS INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM $25,000 The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources KENDRICK PROJECT $3,258,000 The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources KLAMATH DAM REMOVAL STUDY $2,000,000 The President 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
225 

Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources KLAMATH PROJECT $25,000,000 The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources LAHONTAN BASIN PROJECT $7,276,000 The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources LAKE MEAD/LAS VEGAS WASH PROGRAM $2,700,000 The President Berkley; Titus Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources LAKE TAHOE REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM $102,000 The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources LEADVILLE/ ARKANSAS RIVER RECOVERY PROJECT $2,965,000 The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources LEWIS AND CLARK RURAL WATER SYSTEM $6,000,000 The President Herseth Sandlin; King (IA); Walz Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources LEWISTON ORCHARDS PROJECT $1,264,000 The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources LONG BEACH AREA WATER RECLAMATION PROJECT $100,000 The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources LONG BEACH DESALINATION RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT 

PROJECT 

$100,000 The President Richardson; Rohrabacher 

Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources LOWER COLORADO RIVER INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM $250,000 The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources LOWER RIO GRANDE WATER RESOURCES CONSERVATION PROGRAM $1,000,000 The President Hinojosa; Reyes Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources LOWER YELLOWSTONE PROJECT $547,000 The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources MANCOS PROJECT $178,000 The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources MCGEE CREEK PROJECT $664,000 The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources MID-DAKOTA RURAL WATER PROJECT $15,000 The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources MIDDLE RIO GRANDE PROJECT $23,699,000 The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources MILK RIVER PROJECT $1,800,000 The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources MILK RIVER/ST. MARY DIVERSION REHABILITATION $3,000,000 The President RehbergBureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources MINIDOKA AREA PROJECTS $7,168,000 The President 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
226 

ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT—Continued 

[Presidentially Directed Spending Items] 

Agency Account Project Amount 

Requester(s) 

Administration House 

Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources MIRAGE FLATS PROJECT $135,000 The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources MNI WICONI PROJECT $27,480,000 The President Herseth Sandlin Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources MONTANA INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM $140,000 The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources MOON LAKE PROJECT $80,000 The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources MOUNTAIN PARK PROJECT $525,000 The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources NAVAJO NATION INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM $200,000 The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources NEWTON PROJECT $98,000 The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources NORMAN PROJECT $477,000 The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources NORTH PLATTE PROJECT $1,617,000 The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources NORTHERN ARIZONA INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM $350,000 The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources NORTHERN UTAH INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM $200,000 The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources NUECES RIVER PROJECT $741,000 The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources OGDEN RIVER PROJECT $390,000 The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources OKLAHOMA INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM $150,000 The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources OREGON INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM $300,000 The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources ORLAND PROJECT $703,000 The President 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
227 

Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources PARADOX VALLEY UNIT, CRBSCP, TITLE II $2,346,000 The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources PECOS RIVER BASIN WATER SALVAGE PROJECT $209,000 The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources PERKINS COUNTY RURAL WATER SYSTEM $1,000,000 The President Herseth Sandlin Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources PHOENIX METROPOLITAN WATER REUSE PROJECT $100,000 The President Pastor (AZ) Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources PICK-SLOAN MISSOURI BASIN PROGRAM—GARRISON DIVERSION UNIT $26,347,000 The President Pomeroy Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources PINE RIVER PROJECT $346,000 The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources PROVO RIVER PROJECT $1,435,000 The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources RAPID VALLEY/DEERFIELD PROJECT $79,000 The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources RIO GRANDE PROJECT $4,999,000 The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources ROCKY BOYS/NORTH CENTRAL MONTANA RURAL WATER SYSTEM $5,000,000 The President Rehberg Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources ROGUE RIVER BASIN PROJECT, TALENT DIVISION $1,145,000 The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources SALT RIVER PROJECT $650,000 The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources SALTON SEA RESEARCH PROJECT $400,000 The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources SAN ANGELO PROJECT $436,000 The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources SAN CARLOS APACHE TRIBE WATER SETTLEMENT ACT $325,000 The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources SAN DIEGO AREA WATER RECLAMATION PROGRAM $100,000 The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources SAN GABRIEL BASIN PROJECT $100,000 The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources SAN JOSE AREA WATER RECLAMATION/REUSE PROGRAM—TITLE 

XVI 

$100,000 The President Honda; Lofgren, Zoe 

Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources SAN JUAN RIVER BASIN INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM $150,000 The President 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
228 

ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT—Continued 

[Presidentially Directed Spending Items] 

Agency Account Project Amount 

Requester(s) 

Administration House 

Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources SAN LUIS VALLEY PROJECT $5,480,000 The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources SAN LUIS VALLEY PROJECT (CONEJOS, CO) $646,000 The President Salazar Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources SAVAGE RAPIDS DAM REMOVAL $1,160,000 The President DeFazio; Walden Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources SCOFIELD PROJECT $187,000 The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources SHOSHONE PROJECT $1,156,000 The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources SOBABO WATER RIGHTS SETTLEMENT PROJECT $5,000,000 The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources SOLANO PROJECT $4,109,000 The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources SOUTH/CENTRAL ARIZONA INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM $1,000,000 The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources SOUTH/CENTRAL ARIZONA INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM (CENTRAL 

ARIZONA SALINITY STUDY) 

$80,000 The President Pastor (AZ) 

Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources SOUTHERN ARIZONA WATER RIGHTS SETTLEMENT ACT PROJECT $1,703,000 The PresidentBureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM $520,000 The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources SOUTHERN NEVADA/UTAH INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM $25,000 The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources SOUTHERN NEW MEXICO/WEST TEXAS INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM $150,000 The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources SOUTHERN UTAH INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM $225,000 The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources STRAWBERRY VALLEY PROJECT $269,000 The President 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
229 

Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources SUN RIVER PROJECT $378,000 The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources TEXAS INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM $45,000 The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources TUALATIN PROJECT $339,000 The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources TUCUMCARI PROJECT $41,000 The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources UMATILLA PROJECT $4,310,000 The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources UPPER COLORADO RIVER OPERATIONS PROGRAM $250,000 The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources UPPER RIO GRANDE BASIN INVESTIGATIONS $75,000 The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources VENTURA RIVER PROJECT $592,000 The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources W.C. AUSTIN PROJECT $458,000 The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources WASHINGTON AREA PROJECTS $208,000 The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources WASHINGTON INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM $150,000 The President Hastings (WA) Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources WASHITA BASIN PROJECT $1,055,000 The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources WEBER BASIN PROJECT $1,492,000 The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources WEBER RIVER PROJECT $159,000 The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources WICHITA PROJECT-CHENEY DIVISION $405,000 The President Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources WICHITA PROJECT-EQUUS BEDS DIVISION $600,000 The President Tiahrt Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources YAKIMA PROJECT $8,512,000 The President Hastings (WA) Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources YAKIMA RIVER BASIN WATER ENHANCEMENT PROJECT $8,500,000 The President Hastings (WA) Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources YUMA AREA PROJECTS $24,500,000 The President Corps of Engineers Construction ALTON TO GALE ORGANIZED LEVEE DISTRICT, IL & MO (DEF 

CORR) 

$300,000 The President Costello 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
230 

ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT—Continued 

[Presidentially Directed Spending Items] 

Agency Account Project Amount 

Requester(s) 

Administration House 

Corps of Engineers Construction AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED (COMMON FEATURES), CA $6,700,000 The President Lungren, Dan; Matsui Corps of Engineers Construction AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED (FOLSOM DAM MODIFICATIONS), 

CA 

$66,700,000 The President Lungren, Dan; Matsui 

Corps of Engineers Construction AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED (FOLSOM DAM RAISE & BRIDGE), 

CA 

$600,000 The President Lungren, Dan; Matsui 

Corps of Engineers Construction ANTELOPE CREEK, LINCOLN, NE $5,697,000 The President Fortenberry Corps of Engineers Construction ASSATEAGUE ISLAND, MD $1,000,000 The President Kratovil Corps of Engineers Construction ATLANTIC COAST OF LONG ISLAND, LONG BEACH ISLAND, NY $700,000 The President Corps of Engineers Construction ATLANTIC COAST OF NYC, ROCKAWAY INLET TO NORTON POINT, 

NY 

$4,000,000 The President Nadler (NY) 

Corps of Engineers Construction ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AT 

DEEP CREEK, CHESAPEAKE, VA 

$100,000 The President Forbes 

Corps of Engineers Construction BLUE RIVER CHANNEL, KANSAS CITY, MO $5,600,000 The President Cleaver Corps of Engineers Construction BLUESTONE LAKE, WV (DAM SAFETY ASSURANCE) $86,700,000 The President Corps of Engineers Construction BRAYS BAYOU, HOUSTON, TX $11,018,000 The President Culberson Corps of Engineers Construction CANTON LAKE, OK (DAM SAFETY) $24,250,000 The President Corps of Engineers Construction CAPE MAY INLET TO LOWER TOWNSHIP, NJ $200,000 The President LoBiondo Corps of Engineers Construction CAROLINA BEACH AND VICINITY, NC $1,500,000 The President McIntyre 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
231 

Corps of Engineers Construction CEDAR HAMMOCK, WARES CREEK, FL $5,565,000 The President Buchanan Corps of Engineers Construction CENTER HILL DAM, TN (SEEPAGE CONTROL) $56,000,000 The President Corps of Engineers Construction CHAIN OF ROCKS CANAL, MISSISSIPPI RIVER, IL (DEF CORR) $6,500,000 The President Costello; Shimkus Corps of Engineers Construction CHESTERFIELD, MO $3,331,000 The President Akin Corps of Engineers Construction CHICAGO SANITARY AND SHIP CANAL, DISPERSAL BARRIER, IL $7,275,000 The President Dahlkemper; Davis (IL); Ehlers; 

Kucinich; Oberstar; Petri; Roskam; Slaughter 

Corps of Engineers Construction CHICKAMAUGA LOCK, TENNESSEE RIVER, TN $1,000,000 The President Davis (TN); Wamp Corps of Engineers Construction CHIEF JOSEPH DAM GAS ABATEMENT, WA $1,000,000 The President Corps of Engineers Construction CLEARWATER LAKE, MO (SEEPAGE CONTROL) $40,000,000 The President Emerson Corps of Engineers Construction COLUMBIA RIVER FISH MITIGATION, WA, OR & ID $85,800,000 The President Corps of Engineers Construction COLUMBIA RIVER TREATY FISHING ACCESS SITES, OR & WA $500,000 The President Corps of Engineers Construction DELAWARE BAY COASTLINE, ROOSEVELT INLET TO LEWES 

BEACH, DE 

$350,000 The President Castle 

Corps of Engineers Construction DES PLAINES RIVER, IL $3,300,000 The President Roskam; Schakowsky Corps of Engineers Construction DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL FACILITIES PROGRAM: CALUMET 

HARBOR AND RIVER, IL & IN 

$1,501,000 The President Jackson (IL) 

Corps of Engineers Construction DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL FACILITIES PROGRAM: CHARLESTON HARBOR DMDF, SC $1,798,000 The President Brown (SC) Corps of Engineers Construction DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL FACILITIES PROGRAM: JACKSONVILLE HARBOR, FL $1,000,000 The President Brown, Corrine; Crenshaw Corps of Engineers Construction DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL FACILITIES PROGRAM: SAVANNAH HARBOR DMDF, GA $900,000 The President 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
232 

ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT—Continued 

[Presidentially Directed Spending Items] 

Agency Account Project Amount 

Requester(s) 

Administration House 

Corps of Engineers Construction DOVER DAM MUSKINGUM RIVER, OH $18,500,000 The President Space Corps of Engineers Construction DUWAMISH AND GREEN RIVER BASIN, WA $2,600,000 The President Dicks; McDermott; Reichert; Smith 

(WA) 

Corps of Engineers Construction EAST ST. LOUIS, IL $2,000,000 The President Costello; Shimkus Corps of Engineers Construction ELK CREEK LAKE, OR $500,000 The President Corps of Engineers Construction EMSWORTH LOCKS & DAM, OHIO RIVER, PA (STATIC INSTABILITY CORRECTION) $25,000,000 The President Altmire; Doyle Corps of Engineers Construction FIRE ISLAND INLET TO MONTAUK POINT, NY $5,800,000 The President King (NY) Corps of Engineers Construction GARRISON DAM AND POWER PLANT, ND (REPLACEMENT) $8,620,000 The President Corps of Engineers Construction GREAT EGG HARBOR INLET AND PECK BEACH, NJ $6,500,000 The President LoBiondo Corps of Engineers Construction HAMILTON AIRFIELD WETLANDS RESTORATION, CA $14,250,000 The President Pelosi; Woolsey Corps of Engineers Construction HERBERT HOOVER DIKE, FL (SEEPAGE CONTROL) $130,000,000 The President Rooney Corps of Engineers Construction HOWARD HANSON DAM, WA $13,000,000 The President Dicks Corps of Engineers Construction INDIANA HARBOR, CONFINED DISPOSAL FACILITY, IN $13,500,000 The President Visclosky Corps of Engineers Construction J. BENNETT JOHNSTON WATERWAY, LA $7,000,000 The President Alexander; Fleming Corps of Engineers Construction JOHN H. KERR DAM AND RESERVOIR, VA & NC (REPLACEMENT) $16,915,000 The President Corps of Engineers Construction KANSAS CITYS, MO & KS $100,000 The President Graves 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
233 

Corps of Engineers Construction KAWEAH RIVER, CA $640,000 The President Corps of Engineers Construction KENTUCKY LOCK AND DAM, TENNESSEE RIVER, KY $1,000,000 The President Whitfield Corps of Engineers Construction LAROSE TO GOLDEN MEADOW, LA (HURRICANE PROTECTION) $2,000,000 The President Melancon Corps of Engineers Construction LITTLE CALUMET RIVER, IN $20,000,000 The President Visclosky Corps of Engineers Construction LOCKS AND DAMS 2, 3 AND 4 MONONGAHELA RIVER, PA $6,210,000 The President Doyle; Murphy, Tim; Murtha Corps of Engineers Construction LOS ANGELES HARBOR MAIN CHANNEL DEEPENING, CA $885,000 The President Corps of Engineers Construction LOWER CAPE MAY MEADOWS, CAPE MAY POINT, NJ $400,000 The President LoBiondo Corps of Engineers Construction LOWER COLUMBIA RIVER ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, OR & WA $1,650,000 The President Baird; Blumenauer Corps of Engineers Construction LOWER SNAKE RIVER FISH AND WILDLIFE COMPENSATION, WA, 

OR & ID 

$1,500,000 The President 

Corps of Engineers Construction MARKLAND LOCKS AND DAM, KY (MAJOR REHAB) $1,000,000 The President Davis (KY) Corps of Engineers Construction MARTIN COUNTY, FL $350,000 The President Rooney Corps of Engineers Construction MCCOOK AND THORNTON RESERVOIRS, IL $25,000,000 The President Bean; Davis (IL); Gutierrez; Jackson 

(IL); Quigley; Roskam; Schakowsky 

Corps of Engineers Construction MISSISSIPPI RIVER BETWEEN THE OHIO AND MISSOURI RIVERS 

(REG WORKS), MO & IL 

$580,000 The President 

Corps of Engineers Construction MISSOURI RIVER FISH MITIGATION, IA, KS, MO, MT, NE, ND & 

SD 

$60,000,000 The President Rehberg 

Corps of Engineers Construction MT. ST. HELENS SEDIMENT CONTROL, WA $1,500,000 The President Baird Corps of Engineers Construction MUD MOUNTAIN DAM, WA (FISH PASSAGE) $400,000 The President Dicks; Reichert; Smith (WA) Corps of Engineers Construction MUDDY RIVER, MA $6,000,000 The President Frank (MA) 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
234 

ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT—Continued 

[Presidentially Directed Spending Items] 

Agency Account Project Amount 

Requester(s) 

Administration House 

Corps of Engineers Construction NAPA RIVER, CA $5,000,000 The President Thompson (CA) Corps of Engineers Construction NAPA RIVER, SALT MARSH RESTORATION, CA $100,000 The President Miller, George; Thompson (CA) Corps of Engineers Construction NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY HARBOR, NY & NJ $92,016,000 The President Sires Corps of Engineers Construction NORFOLK HARBOR, CRANEY ISLAND, VA $100,000 The President Nye; Scott (VA) Corps of Engineers Construction OAKLAND HARBOR (50 FOOT PROJECT), CA $1,000,000 The President Lee (CA); Pelosi Corps of Engineers Construction OLMSTED LOCKS AND DAM, OHIO RIVER, IL & KY $109,790,000 The President Whitfield Corps of Engineers Construction PINELLAS COUNTY, FL $14,000,000 The President Young (FL) Corps of Engineers Construction POPLAR ISLAND, MD $8,550,000 The President Cummings; Kratovil; Ruppersberger; 

Sarbanes 

Corps of Engineers Construction PORTUGUES AND BUCANA RIVERS, PR $42,000,000 The President Pierluisi Corps of Engineers Construction PRESQUE ISLE PENINSULA, PA (PERMANENT) $1,000,000 The President Dahlkemper Corps of Engineers Construction RARITAN RIVER BASIN, GREEN BROOK SUB-BASIN, NJ $7,000,000 The President Corps of Engineers Construction RICHARD B. RUSSEL DAM & LAKE, GA & SC $1,615,000 The President Corps of Engineers Construction RIO GRANDE FLOODWAY, SAN ACACIA TO BOSQUE DEL APACHE, 

NM 

$800,000 The President Teague 

Corps of Engineers Construction RIO PUERTO NUEVO, PR $4,000,000 The President Pierluisi Corps of Engineers Construction ROANOKE RIVER UPPER BASIN, HEADWATERS AREA, VA $1,075,000 The President Goodlatte 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
235 

Corps of Engineers Construction SACRAMENTO DEEPWATER SHIP CHANNEL, CA $10,000,000 The President Tauscher; Thompson (CA) Corps of Engineers Construction SACRAMENTO RIVER BANK PROTECTION PROJECT, CA $15,000,000 The President Herger; Matsui; McNerneyCorps of Engineers Construction SANTA ANA RIVER MAINSTEM, CA $52,193,000 The President Calvert; Miller, Gary; Rohrabacher; 

Sanchez, Loretta 

Corps of Engineers Construction SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION, GA $2,000,000 The President Barrow; Bishop (GA); Deal; Gingrey 

(GA); Kingston; Linder; Scott (GA) 

Corps of Engineers Construction SIMS BAYOU, HOUSTON, TX $25,700,000 The President Green, Al Corps of Engineers Construction SOUTH FLORIDA EVERGLADES ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, FL $210,239,000 The President Diaz-Balart, Lincoln; Diaz-Balart, 

Mario; Hastings (FL); Klein (FL); Rooney; Wasserman Schultz; Wexler 

Corps of Engineers Construction SOUTH SACRAMENTO COUNTY STREAMS, CA $4,750,000 The President Lungren, Dan; Matsui Corps of Engineers Construction ST. LOUIS FLOOD PROTECTION, MO $566,000 The President Carnahan Corps of Engineers Construction ST. PAUL HARBOR, AK $3,000,000 The President Corps of Engineers Construction SUCCESS DAM AND RESERVOIR, CA (DAM SAFETY) $10,000,000 The President Corps of Engineers Construction TEXAS CITY CHANNEL, TX $8,000,000 The President Paul Corps of Engineers Construction TURKEY CREEK BASIN, KANSAS CITY, KS & MO $2,500,000 The President Cleaver; Moore (KS) Corps of Engineers Construction UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER RESTORATION, IL, IA, MN, MO & WI $20,000,000 The President Akin; Boswell; Carnahan; Ellison; 

Halvorson; Hare; Jackson (IL); Loebsack; McCollum; Oberstar; Schock; Shimkus 

Corps of Engineers Construction WASHINGTON, DC & VICINITY $100,000 The President Corps of Engineers Construction WEST ONSLOW BEACH AND NEW RIVER INLET TOPSAIL BEACH, 

NC 

$400,000 The President McIntyre 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
236 

ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT—Continued 

[Presidentially Directed Spending Items] 

Agency Account Project Amount 

Requester(s) 

Administration House 

Corps of Engineers Construction WILLAMETTE RIVER TEMPERATURE CONTROL, OR $11,000,000 The President Corps of Engineers Construction WILMINGTON HARBOR, NC $1,800,000 The President McIntyre Corps of Engineers Construction WOLF CREEK DAM, LAKE CUMBERLAND, KY (SEEPAGE CONTROL) $123,000,000 The President Rogers (KY); Whitfield Corps of Engineers Construction WOOD RIVER LEVEE, IL $1,170,000 The President Costello; Shimkus Corps of Engineers Section 206 CAMP CREEK, ZUMWALT PRAIRIE PRESERVE, OR The President Walden Corps of Engineers Section 206 CARPENTER CREEK, WA The President Corps of Engineers Section 206 CHARITON RIVER/RATHBUN LAKE WATERSHED, IA The President Boswell; Loebsack Corps of Engineers Section 206 DRAYTON DAM, ND The President Corps of Engineers Section 206 EMIQUON FLOODPLAIN RESTORATION, IL The President Hare; Schock Corps of Engineers Section 206 EUGENE DELTA PONDS, OR The President DeFazio Corps of Engineers Section 206 GOOSE CREEK, CO The President Corps of Engineers Section 206 JACKSON CREEK, GWINETT COUNTY, GA The President Corps of Engineers Section 206 KELLOGG CREEK, OR The President Corps of Engineers Section 206 LITTLE RIVER WATERSHED, HALL COUNTY, GA The President Corps of Engineers Section 206 MALDEN RIVER ECOSYSTEM, MA The President Corps of Engineers Section 206 MOSES LAKE, TX The President 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
237 

Corps of Engineers Section 206 OAKS BOTTOM, OR The President Corps of Engineers Section 206 ORLAND PARK, IL The President Corps of Engineers Section 206 RIO GRANDE, LAREDO, TX The President Corps of Engineers Section 206 SPRING LAKE, SAN MARCOS, TX The President Corps of Engineers Section 206 SPRINGFIELD MILLRACE, OR The President DeFazio Corps of Engineers Section 206 STORM LAKE, IA The President King (IA) Corps of Engineers Section 206 VENTURA MARSH, CLEAR LAKE, IA The President Latham Corps of Engineers Section 206 WILSON BAY RESTORATION, JACKSONVILLE, NC The President Corps of Engineers Section 206 WWTP, STEPHENVILLE, TX The President Corps of Engineers Section 204 ATACHAFALAYA RIVER, SHELL ISLAND PASS, ST. MARY PARISH, 

LA 

The President 

Corps of Engineers Section 204 BARATARIA BAY WATERWAY, MILE 6.0—0.0, PLAQUEMINES PH, 

LA 

The President 

Corps of Engineers Section 204 BLACKHAWK BOTTOMS, DES MOINES COUNTY, IA The President Loebsack Corps of Engineers Section 204 BUFFALO RIVER REGIONAL SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT, NY The President Corps of Engineers Section 204 CALCASIEU RIVER, MILE 5.0—14.0, CAMERON PARISH, LA The President Boustany Corps of Engineers Section 204 CAPE COD CANAL, SANDWICH, MA The President Corps of Engineers Section 204 MANTEO, OLD HOUSE CHANNEL, NC The President Corps of Engineers Section 204 MAUMEE BAY HABITAT RESTORATION, OH The President Kaptur Corps of Engineers Section 204 NEWBURYPORT HARBOR, MA The President Corps of Engineers Section 204 NJIWW BENEFICIAL USE, NJ The President 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
238 

ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT—Continued 

[Presidentially Directed Spending Items] 

Agency Account Project Amount 

Requester(s) 

Administration House 

Corps of Engineers Section 204 SOUTH PADRE ISLAND, TX (REGIONAL SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT) The President Ortiz Corps of Engineers Section 204 WYNN ROAD, OREGON, OH The President Kaptur Corps of Engineers Section 205 BEAVER CREEK & TRIBS, BRISTOL, TN The President Boucher Corps of Engineers Section 205 BLANCHARD RIVER, FINDLAY, OH The President Jordan (OH); Latta Corps of Engineers Section 205 BLANCHARD RIVER, OTTAWA, OH The President Latta Corps of Engineers Section 205 DUCK CREEK, OH (FLOOD WARNING SYSTEM) The President Corps of Engineers Section 205 EUREKA CREEK, MANHATTAN, KS The President Corps of Engineers Section 205 LITTLE RIVER DIVERSION, DUTCHTOWN, MO The President Emerson Corps of Engineers Section 205 LIVINGSTON, MT The President Corps of Engineers Section 205 MAD CREEK, MUSCATINE, IA The President Loebsack Corps of Engineers Section 205 PLATTE RIVER, FREMONT, NE The President Fortenberry Corps of Engineers Section 205 PLATTE RIVER, SCHUYLER, NE The President Fortenberry Corps of Engineers Section 205 RIO DESCALABRADA, SANTA ISABEL,PR The President Corps of Engineers Section 205 RIO GUAMANI, GUAYANA, PR The President Corps of Engineers Section 205 SUN VALLEY, EL PASO, TX The President Corps of Engineers Section 205 WEST VIRGINIA STATEWIDE FLOOD WARNING SYSTEM, WV The President 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
239 

Corps of Engineers Section 205 WYNNE, AR The President Corps of Engineers Section 111 BRUNSWICK HARBOR/JEKYLL ISLAND, GA The President Corps of Engineers Section 111 CAMP ELLIS, SACO, ME The President Corps of Engineers Section 111 EAST PASS CHANNEL, PANAMA CITY, FL The President Corps of Engineers Section 111 FAIRPORT HARBOR, OH The President Corps of Engineers Section 111 MANISTEE HARBOR & RIVER CHANNEL, MI The President Corps of Engineers Section 111 MOBILE PASS, AL The President Corps of Engineers Section 111 VERMILLION, OH The President Corps of Engineers Section 111 WHITCOMB FLATS, WA The President Corps of Engineers Section 107 BUCKS HARBOR, MACHIASPORT, ME The President Corps of Engineers Section 107 MACKINAC ISLAND HARBOR BREAKWATER, MI The President Corps of Engineers Section 107 SAVOONGA HARBOR, ST LAWRENCE, AK The President Corps of Engineers Section 1135 AQUATIC HABITAT RESTORATION AT PUEBLO OF SANTA ANA, NM The President Corps of Engineers Section 1135 BENNINGTON LAKE DIVERSION DAM, WA The President Corps of Engineers Section 1135 BLOOMINGTON STATE PARK, MO The President Corps of Engineers Section 1135 BLUE VALLEY WETLANDS, JACKSON COUNTY, MO The President Cleaver Corps of Engineers Section 1135 BRAIDED REACH, ID The President Corps of Engineers Section 1135 DUCK CREEK, STODDARD COUNTY, MO The President Corps of Engineers Section 1135 GREEN RIVER DAM MOD, KY The President Corps of Engineers Section 1135 LOWER COLUMBIA SLOUGH, OR The President Blumenauer 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
240 

ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT—Continued 

[Presidentially Directed Spending Items] 

Agency Account Project Amount 

Requester(s) 

Administration House 

Corps of Engineers Section 1135 LOWER KINGMAN ISLAND, DC The President Corps of Engineers Section 1135 PRISON FARM SHORELINE HABITAT, ND The President Corps of Engineers Section 1135 SHORTY’S ISLAND, ID The President Corps of Engineers Section 1135 TAPPAN LAKE, OH The President Corps of Engineers Section 1135 WALLA WALLA RIVER, OR The President Corps of Engineers Section 103 COASTAL AREAS, MARSHFIELD, MA The President Corps of Engineers Section 103 FORT SAN GERONIMO, PR The President Corps of Engineers Section 103 LINCOLN PARK BEACH, SEATTLE, WA The President Corps of Engineers Investigations ALA WAI CANAL, OAHU, HI $308,000 The President Abercrombie Corps of Engineers Investigations AUGUSTA, GA $278,000 The President Corps of Engineers Investigations BAYOU SORREL LOCK, LA $1,239,000 The President Corps of Engineers Investigations BOSTON HARBOR (45-FOOT CHANNEL), MA $500,000 The President Corps of Engineers Investigations BRAZOS ISLAND HARBOR, BROWNSVILLE CHANNEL, TX $600,000 The President Edwards (TX); Ortiz Corps of Engineers Investigations BUFFALO RIVER ENVIRONMENTAL DREDGING, NY $350,000 The President Higgins Corps of Engineers Investigations CALCASIEU LOCK, LA $1,000,000 The President Boustany Corps of Engineers Investigations CALIFORNIA COASTAL SEDIMENT MASTER PLAN, CA $900,000 The President Harman 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
241 

Corps of Engineers Investigations COLLECTION AND STUDY OF BASIC DATA—COASTAL FIELD 

DATA COLLECTION: COASTAL DATA INFORMATION PROGRAM & SOUTHERN CA BEACH PROCESSES STUDY, CA 

$525,000 The President Bilbray; Woolsey 

Corps of Engineers Investigations COYOTE AND BERRYESSA CREEKS, CA $102,000 The President Honda Corps of Engineers Investigations CURRITUCK SOUND, NC $150,000 The President Corps of Engineers Investigations DELAWARE RIVER BASIN COMPREHENSIVE, NJ $400,000 The President Holt; Smith (NJ) Corps of Engineers Investigations DES PLAINES RIVER, IL (PHASE II) $500,000 The President Corps of Engineers Investigations EASTERN SHORE, MID-CHESAPEAKE BAY ISLAND, MD $250,000 The President Cummings; Kratovil; Ruppersberger; 

Sarbanes 

Corps of Engineers Investigations EDISTO ISLAND, SC $167,000 The President Corps of Engineers Investigations FREEPORT HARBOR, TX $675,000 The President Paul Corps of Engineers Investigations GIWW, HIGH ISLAND TO BRAZOS RIVER REALIGNMENTS, TX $200,000 The President Corps of Engineers Investigations GREAT LAKES NAVIGATION SYSTEM STUDY, MI, IL, IN, MN, NY, 

OH, PA & WI 

$400,000 The President 

Corps of Engineers Investigations GUADALUPE AND SAN ANTONIO RIVER BASINS, TX $423,000 The President Rodriguez Corps of Engineers Investigations HAGATNA RIVER FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION, GUAM $200,000 The President Bordallo Corps of Engineers Investigations HAMILTON CITY, CA $400,000 The President Herger Corps of Engineers Investigations HUDSON-RARITAN ESTUARY, HACKENSACK MEADOWLANDS, NJ $250,000 The President Rothman (NJ); SiresCorps of Engineers Investigations HUDSON-RARITAN ESTUARY, LOWER PASSAIC RIVER, NJ $200,000 The President Pascrell; Rothman (NJ); Sires Corps of Engineers Investigations HUDSON-RARITAN ESTUARY, NY & NJ $200,000 The President Crowley; Sires Corps of Engineers Investigations ILLINOIS RIVER BASIN RESTORATION, IL $400,000 The President Halvorson Corps of Engineers Investigations INDIAN RIVER LAGOON NORTH, FL $150,000 The President 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
242 

ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT—Continued 

[Presidentially Directed Spending Items] 

Agency Account Project Amount 

Requester(s) 

Administration House 

Corps of Engineers Investigations INDIANA HARBOR, IN $1,000,000 The President Visclosky Corps of Engineers Investigations INTERBASIN CONTROL OF GREAT LAKES-MISSISSIPPI RIVER 

AQUATIC NUISANCE SPECIES, IL, IN, OH, WI 

$300,000 The President 

Corps of Engineers Investigations JAMAICA BAY, MARINE PARK AND PLUMB BEACH, NY $200,000 The President Sires; Weiner Corps of Engineers Investigations JOHN H. KERR DAM & RESERVOIR, VA & NC (SEC 216) $300,000 The President Corps of Engineers Investigations KANSAS CITYS, MO & KS $700,000 The President Cleaver; Moore (KS) Corps of Engineers Investigations LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, LA $20,000,000 The President Boustany; Cao Corps of Engineers Investigations LOUISIANA COASTAL PROTECTION AND RESTORATION, LA $3,000,000 The President Cao Corps of Engineers Investigations LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN, TX $700,000 The President Conaway; Edwards (TX); Smith (TX) Corps of Engineers Investigations LOWER COLUMBIA RIVER ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, OR & WA $300,000 The President Corps of Engineers Investigations LYNNHAVEN RIVER BASIN, VIRGINIA BEACH, VA $112,000 The President Nye Corps of Engineers Investigations MATANUSKA RIVER WATERSHED, AK $100,000 The President Corps of Engineers Investigations MERRIMACK RIVER WATERSHED STUDY, NH & MA $200,000 The President Hodes Corps of Engineers Investigations MILL CREEK WATERSHED, DAVIDSON COUNTY, TN $50,000 The President Corps of Engineers Investigations MINNESOTA RIVER WATERSHED STUDY, MN & SD $350,000 The President Corps of Engineers Investigations MISSOURI RIVER DEGRADATION, MO & KS $700,000 The President Cleaver; Graves; Moore (KS) Corps of Engineers Investigations NEUSE RIVER BASIN, NC $200,000 The President 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
243 

Corps of Engineers Investigations NUECES RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, TX $600,000 The President Gonzalez; Ortiz; Rodriguez; Smith 

(TX) 

Corps of Engineers Investigations PILGRIM LAKE, TRURO & PROVINCETOWN, MA $100,000 The President Corps of Engineers Investigations PIMA COUNTY (TRES RIOS DEL NORTE), AZ $275,000 The President Giffords; Grijalva Corps of Engineers Investigations PORT EVERGLADES HARBOR, FL $825,000 The President Wasserman Schultz Corps of Engineers Investigations PUGET SOUND NEARSHORE MARINE HABITAT RESTORATION, WA $400,000 The President Baird; Dicks; Inslee; Larsen (WA); 

McDermott; Smith (WA) 

Corps of Engineers Investigations PUYALLUP RIVER, WA $600,000 The President Dicks; Smith (WA) Corps of Engineers Investigations RED RIVER OF THE NORTH BASIN, ND, MN, SD & MANITOBA, 

CANADA 

$150,000 The President Pomeroy 

Corps of Engineers Investigations RIO GRANDE BASIN, TX $304,000 The President Corps of Engineers Investigations SABINE PASS TO GALVESTON BAY, TX $200,000 The President Paul Corps of Engineers Investigations SAC-SAN JOAQUIN DELTA, DELTA ISLANDS AND LEVEES, CA $468,000 The President McNerney Corps of Engineers Investigations SHREWSBURY RIVER BASIN AND TRIBUTARIES, NJ $511,000 The President Pallone Corps of Engineers Investigations SOLANA-ENCINITAS SHORELINE, CA $440,000 The President Bilbray Corps of Engineers Investigations SUTTER COUNTY, CA $1,100,000 The President Herger Corps of Engineers Investigations TOPEKA, KS $100,000 The President Corps of Engineers Investigations TYBEE ISLAND, GA $206,000 The President Corps of Engineers Investigations UPPER PENITENCIA CREEK, CA $386,000 The President Honda Corps of Engineers Investigations VA SHLY’AY AKIMEL SALT RIVER RESTORATION, AZ $1,050,000 The President Mitchell; Pastor (AZ) Corps of Engineers Investigations WALLA WALLA WATERSHED, OR & WA $203,000 The President McMorris Rodgers; Walden Corps of Engineers Investigations WILD RICE RIVER, MN (RED RIVER OF THE NORTH BASIN) $500,000 The President Peterson 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
244 

ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT—Continued 

[Presidentially Directed Spending Items] 

Agency Account Project Amount 

Requester(s) 

Administration House 

Corps of Engineers Investigations WILLAMETTE RIVER FLOODPLAIN RESTORATION, OR $240,000 The President Wu Corps of Engineers Investigations YAKUTAT HARBOR, AK $450,000 The President Corps of Engineers Investigations YELLOWSTONE RIVER CORRIDOR, MT $200,000 The President Rehberg Corps of Engineers MRT—Investigations ALEXANDRIA TO THE GULF, LA $1,000,000 The President Corps of Engineers MRT—Investigations COLDWATER RIVER BASIN BELOW ARKABUTLA LAKE, MS $84,000 The President Corps of Engineers MRT—Investigations DONALDSONVILLE TO THE GULF, LA $400,000 The President Melancon Corps of Engineers MRT—Investigations MEMPHIS METRO AREA, STORM WATER MANAGEMENT STUDY, 

TN 

$100,000 The President 

Corps of Engineers MRT—Construction ATCHAFALAYA BASIN FLOODWAY SYSTEM, LA $2,664,000 The President Corps of Engineers MRT—Construction ATCHAFALAYA BASIN, LA $5,834,000 The President Melancon Corps of Engineers MRT—Construction CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT, AR, IL, KY, LA, MS, MO & TN $47,721,000 The President Berry; Taylor Corps of Engineers MRT—Construction MISSISSIPPI DELTA REGION, LA $2,250,000 The President Cao Corps of Engineers MRT—Construction MISSISSIPPI RIVER LEVEES, AR, IL, KY, LA, MS, MO & TN $28,874,000 The President Berry; Cao; Emerson Corps of Engineers MRT—Operations and Maintenance ATCHAFALAYA BASIN FLOODWAY SYSTEM, LA $2,532,000 The President Corps of Engineers MRT—Operations and Maintenance ATCHAFALAYA BASIN, LA $12,374,000 The President 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
245 

Corps of Engineers MRT—Operations and Maintenance BATON ROUGE HARBOR, DEVIL SWAMP, LA $43,000 The President Corps of Engineers MRT—Operations and Maintenance BAYOU COCODRIE AND TRIBUTARIES, LA $54,000 The President Corps of Engineers MRT—Operations and Maintenance BONNET CARRE, LA $2,415,000 The President Corps of Engineers MRT—Operations and Maintenance CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT, AR, IL, KY, LA, MS, MO & TN $67,350,000 The President Corps of Engineers MRT—Operations and Maintenance GREENVILLE HARBOR, MS $549,000 The President Thompson (MS) Corps of Engineers MRT—Operations and Maintenance HELENA HARBOR, PHILLIPS COUNTY, AR $211,000 The President Berry Corps of Engineers MRT—Operations and Maintenance INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, AR $425,000 The President Boozman Corps of Engineers MRT—Operations and Maintenance INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, IL $191,000 The President Corps of Engineers MRT—Operations and Maintenance INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, KY $100,000 The President Yarmuth Corps of Engineers MRT—Operations and Maintenance INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, LA $1,716,000 The President Corps of Engineers MRT—Operations and Maintenance INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MO $150,000 The President Corps of Engineers MRT—Operations and Maintenance INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MS $25,000 The President Corps of Engineers MRT—Operations and Maintenance INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, TN $45,000 The President 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
246 

ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT—Continued 

[Presidentially Directed Spending Items] 

Agency Account Project Amount 

Requester(s) 

Administration House 

Corps of Engineers MRT—Operations and Maintenance LOWER ARKANSAS RIVER, NORTH BANK, AR $223,000 The President Corps of Engineers MRT—Operations and Maintenance LOWER ARKANSAS ROVER, SOUTH BANK, AR $150,000 The President Corps of Engineers MRT—Operations and Maintenance LOWER RED RIVER, SOUTH BANK LEVEES, LA $100,000 The President Corps of Engineers MRT—Operations and Maintenance MEMPHIS HARBOR, MCKELLAR LAKE, TN $1,417,000 The President Cohen Corps of Engineers MRT—Operations and Maintenance MISSISSIPPI DELTA REGION—CAERNARVON, LA $358,000 The President Corps of Engineers MRT—Operations and Maintenance MISSISSIPPI RIVER LEVEES, AR, IL, KY, LA, MS, MO & TN $8,011,000 The President Berry; Cao; Emerson Corps of Engineers MRT—Operations and Maintenance OLD RIVER, LA $9,739,000 The President Corps of Engineers MRT—Operations and Maintenance ST. FRANCIS RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, AR & MO $6,243,000 The President Berry; Emerson Corps of Engineers MRT—Operations and Maintenance TENSAS BASIN, BOEUF AND TENSAS RIVERS, AR & LA $2,485,000 The President Ross Corps of Engineers MRT—Operations and Maintenance TENSAS BASIN, RED RIVER BACKWATER, LA $3,660,000 The President Corps of Engineers MRT—Operations and Maintenance VICKSBURG HARBOR, MS $42,000 The President 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
247 

Corps of Engineers MRT—Operations and Maintenance WAPPAPELLO LAKE, MO $5,416,000 The President Emerson Corps of Engineers MRT—Operations and Maintenance WHITE RIVER BACKWATER, AR $1,217,000 The President Corps of Engineers MRT—Operations and Maintenance YAZOO BASIN, ARKABUTLA LAKE, MS $6,091,000 The President Corps of Engineers MRT—Operations and Maintenance YAZOO BASIN, BIG SUNFLOWER RIVER, MS $154,000 The President Corps of Engineers MRT—Operations and Maintenance YAZOO BASIN, ENID LAKE, MS $5,915,000 The President Corps of Engineers MRT—Operations and Maintenance YAZOO BASIN, GREENWOOD, MS $807,000 The President Corps of Engineers MRT—Operations and Maintenance YAZOO BASIN, GRENADA LAKE, MS $6,331,000 The President Corps of Engineers MRT—Operations and Maintenance YAZOO BASIN, MAIN STEM, MS $1,733,000 The President Corps of Engineers MRT—Operations and Maintenance YAZOO BASIN, SARDIS LAKE, MS $7,329,000 The President Corps of Engineers MRT—Operations and Maintenance YAZOO BASIN, TRIBUTARIES, MS $778,000 The President Corps of Engineers MRT—Operations and Maintenance YAZOO BASIN, WILL M WHITTINGTON AUX CHAN, MS $332,000 The President Corps of Engineers MRT—Operations and Maintenance YAZOO BASIN, YAZOO BACKWATER AREA, MS $544,000 The President Corps of Engineers MRT—Operations and Maintenance YAZOO BASIN, YAZOO CITY, MS $731,000 The President 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
248 

ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT—Continued 

[Presidentially Directed Spending Items] 

Agency Account Project Amount 

Requester(s) 

Administration House 

Corps of Engineers O&M ABIQUIU DAM, NM $3,305,000 The President Lujan Corps of Engineers O&M ALABAMA—COOSA COMPREHENSIVE WATER STUDY, AL $253,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M ALABAMA RIVER LAKES, AL $16,785,000 The President Bonner; Davis (AL) Corps of Engineers O&M ALAMO LAKE, AZ $1,542,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M ALBENI FALLS DAM, ID $1,545,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M ALLATOONA LAKE, GA $7,077,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M ALLEGHENY RIVER, PA $9,039,000 The President Doyle Corps of Engineers O&M ALMOND LAKE, NY $524,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M ALUM CREEK LAKE, OH $1,545,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M ALVIN R. RUSH DAM, PA $659,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M ANCHORAGE HARBOR, AK $18,659,000 The President Young (AK) Corps of Engineers O&M APALACHICOLA, CHATTAHOOCHEE AND FLINT RIVERS, GA, AL & 

FL 

$2,437,000 The President 

Corps of Engineers O&M APPLEGATE LAKE, OR $1,302,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M AQUILLA LAKE, TX $1,564,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M ARCADIA LAKE, OK $521,000 The President 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
249 

Corps of Engineers O&M ARKANSAS-RED RIVER BASINS CHLORIDE CONTROL-AREA VIII, 

TX 

$1,558,000 The President 

Corps of Engineers O&M ARKPORT DAM, NY $298,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M ASHTABULA HARBOR, OH $840,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M ATCHAFALAYA RIVER AND BAYOUS CHENE, BOEUF & BLACK, LA $11,640,000 The President Alexander; Melancon Corps of Engineers O&M ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY—ACC, VA $2,620,000 The President Forbes Corps of Engineers O&M ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY—DSC, NC & VA $991,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, GA $865,000 The President Kingston Corps of Engineers O&M ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, NC $4,300,000 The President McIntyre Corps of Engineers O&M ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, SC $2,500,000 The President Brown (SC); Wilson (SC) Corps of Engineers O&M AYLESWORTH CREEK LAKE, PA $215,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M B. EVERETT JORDAN DAM AND LAKE, NC $1,898,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M BALL MOUNTAIN, VT $858,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M BALTIMORE HARBOR AND CHANNELS (50 FOOT), MD $15,513,000 The President Cummings; Ruppersberger; Sarbanes Corps of Engineers O&M BALTIMORE HARBOR, MD (DRIFT REMOVAL) $360,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M BARATARIA BAY WATERWAY, LA $165,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M BARBERS POINT HARBOR, HI $201,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M BARDWELL LAKE, TX $2,229,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M BARKLEY DAM AND LAKE, BARKLEY, KY & TN $10,393,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M BARNEGAT INLET, NJ $475,000 The President Adler (NJ) 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
250 

ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT—Continued 

[Presidentially Directed Spending Items] 

Agency Account Project Amount 

Requester(s) 

Administration House 

Corps of Engineers O&M BARRE FALLS DAM, MA $753,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M BARREN RIVER LAKE, KY $2,514,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M BAYOU BODCAU RESERVOIR, LA $954,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M BAYOU LAFOURCHE AND LAFOURCHE-JUMP WATERWAY, LA $1,211,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M BAYOU PIERRE, LA $24,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M BAYOU SEGNETTE WATERWAY, LA $49,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M BAYOU TECHE & VERMILION RIVER, LA $15,000 The President Boustany Corps of Engineers O&M BAYOU TECHE, LA $200,000 The President Boustany Corps of Engineers O&M BAYPORT SHIP CHANNEL, TX $4,968,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M BEAR CREEK LAKE, CO $395,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M BEAVER LAKE, AR $8,864,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M BEECH FORK LAKE, WV $1,405,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M BELTON LAKE, TX $3,280,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M BELTZVILLE LAKE, PA $1,201,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M BENBROOK LAKE, TX $2,575,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M BERLIN LAKE, OH $2,198,000 The President 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
251 

Corps of Engineers O&M BIG BEND DAM, LAKE SHARPE, SD $9,873,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M BIG SANDY HARBOR, KY $1,710,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M BIGSTONE LAKE AND WHETSTONE RIVER, MN & SD $276,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M BILOXI HARBOR, MS $1,250,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M BIRCH HILL DAM, MA $1,203,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M BIRCH LAKE, OK $902,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M BLACK BUTTE LAKE, CA $2,234,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M BLACK ROCK CHANNEL AND TONAWANDA HARBOR, NY $1,503,000 The President Higgins Corps of Engineers O&M BLACK ROCK LAKE, CT $1,436,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M BLACK WARRIOR AND TOMBIGBEE RIVERS, AL $24,180,000 The President Aderholt; Bachus Corps of Engineers O&M BLACKWATER DAM, NH $610,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M BLAKLEY MT DAM, LAKE OUACHITA, AR $7,000,000 The President Ross Corps of Engineers O&M BLUE MARSH LAKE, PA $2,696,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M BLUE MOUNTAIN LAKE, AR $1,914,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M BLUE RIVER LAKE, OR $940,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M BLUESTONE LAKE, WV $1,661,000 The President Rahall Corps of Engineers O&M BONNEVILLE LOCK & DAM, OR & WA $13,911,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M BOSTON HARBOR, MA $7,000,000 The President Lynch Corps of Engineers O&M BOWMAN HALEY, ND $350,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M BRAZOS ISLAND HARBOR, TX $7,000,000 The President Edwards (TX); Ortiz 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
252 

ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT—Continued 

[Presidentially Directed Spending Items] 

Agency Account Project Amount 

Requester(s) 

Administration House 

Corps of Engineers O&M BROKEN BOW LAKE, OK $3,202,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M BROOKVILLE LAKE, IN $862,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M BRUNSWICK HARBOR, GA $7,156,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M BUCHANAN DAM, HV EASTMAN LAKE, CA $2,041,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M BUCKHORN LAKE, KY $1,585,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M BUFFALO BAYOU & TRIBUTARIES, TX $2,958,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M BUFFALO HARBOR, NY $1,925,000 The President Higgins Corps of Engineers O&M BUFFUMVILLE LAKE, MA $836,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M BUFORD DAM AND LAKE SIDNEY LANIER, GA $8,924,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M BULL SHOALS LAKE, AR $14,234,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M BURNS WATERWAY HARBOR, IN $165,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M BURNSVILLE LAKE, WV $2,246,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M BUTTERMILK CHANNEL, NY $1,760,000 The President Nadler (NY) Corps of Engineers O&M CADDO LAKE, LA $224,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M CAESAR CREEK LAKE, OH $1,500,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M CAGLES MILL LAKE, IN $892,000 The President 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
253 

Corps of Engineers O&M CALCASIEU RIVER AND PASS, LA $17,968,000 The President Boustany Corps of Engineers O&M CALUMET HARBOR AND RIVER, IL & IN $3,120,000 The President Jackson (IL) Corps of Engineers O&M CANAVERAL HARBOR, FL $4,600,000 The President Posey Corps of Engineers O&M CANTON LAKE, OK $2,217,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M CANYON LAKE, TX $4,005,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M CAPE COD CANAL, MA $13,263,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M CAPE FEAR RIVER ABOVE WILMINGTON, NC $988,000 The President McIntyre Corps of Engineers O&M CARLYLE LAKE, IL $5,171,000 The President Shimkus Corps of Engineers O&M CARR CREEK LAKE, KY $1,737,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M CARTERS DAM AND LAKE, GA $8,318,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M CARUTHERSVILLE HARBOR, MO $40,000 The President Emerson Corps of Engineers O&M CAVE RUN LAKE, KY $926,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M CECIL M. HARDEN LAKE, IN $1,027,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M CEDAR BAYOU, TX $1,790,000 The President Edwards (TX); Paul Corps of Engineers O&M CENTER HILL LAKE, TN $6,143,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M CENTRAL & SOUTHERN FLORIDA, FL $23,876,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M CHANNEL TO HARLINGEN, TX $2,161,000 The President Edwards (TX) Corps of Engineers O&M CHANNEL TO PORT BOLIVAR, TX $383,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M CHANNELS IN LAKE ST. CLAIR, MI $1,636,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M CHARLES RIVER NATURAL VALLEY STORAGE AREA, MA $275,000 The President 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
254 

ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT—Continued 

[Presidentially Directed Spending Items] 

Agency Account Project Amount 

Requester(s) 

Administration House 

Corps of Engineers O&M CHARLESTON HARBOR, SC $10,694,000 The President Brown (SC) Corps of Engineers O&M CHARLEVOIX HARBOR, MI $203,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M CHATFIELD LAKE, CO $1,442,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M CHEATHAM LOCK AND DAM, TN $6,454,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M CHENA RIVER LAKES, AK $2,816,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M CHERRY CREEK LAKE, CO $1,999,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M CHETCO RIVER, OR $909,000 The President DeFazio Corps of Engineers O&M CHICAGO HARBOR, IL $3,889,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M CHICAGO RIVER, IL $493,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M CHICKAMAUGA LOCK, TENNESSEE RIVER, TN $3,775,000 The President Wamp Corps of Engineers O&M CHIEF JOSEPH DAM, WA $790,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M CHINCOTEAGUE INLET, VA $913,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M CLAIRBORNE COUNTY PORT, MS $2,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M CLARENCE CANNON DAM AND MARK TWAIN LAKE, MO $6,813,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M CLARENCE J BROWN DAM, OH $1,145,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M CLEARWATER LAKE, MO $2,933,000 The President Emerson 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
255 

Corps of Engineers O&M CLEVELAND HARBOR, OH $7,357,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M CLINTON LAKE, KS $2,073,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M COCHITI LAKE, NM $6,876,000 The President Lujan Corps of Engineers O&M COLD BROOK LAKE, SD $436,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M COLD SPRING INLET, NJ $250,000 The President LoBiondo Corps of Engineers O&M COLEBROOK RIVER LAKE, CT $615,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M COLUMBIA & LWR WILLAMETTE R BLW VANCOUVER, WA AND 

PORTLAND, OR 

$24,495,000 The President Baird 

Corps of Engineers O&M COLUMBIA RIVER AT BAKER BAY, WA & OR $86,000 The President Baird Corps of Engineers O&M COLUMBIA RIVER AT THE MOUTH, OR & WA $12,945,000 The President Baird Corps of Engineers O&M COLUMBIA RIVER BETWEEN CHINOOK AND SAND ISLAND, WA $7,000 The President Baird Corps of Engineers O&M COLUMBIA RIVER BETWEEN VANCOUVER, WA & THE DALLES, 

OR 

$689,000 The President 

Corps of Engineers O&M CONANT BROOK LAKE, MA $210,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M CONCHAS LAKE, NM $1,796,000 The President Lujan Corps of Engineers O&M CONEMAUGH RIVER LAKE, PA $1,253,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M CONNEAUT HARBOR, OH $1,191,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M COOPER RIVER, CHARLESTON HARBOR, SC $4,685,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M COOS BAY, OR $5,091,000 The President DeFazio Corps of Engineers O&M COPAN LAKE, OK $1,035,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M COQUILLE RIVER, OR $578,000 The President DeFazio 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
256 

ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT—Continued 

[Presidentially Directed Spending Items] 

Agency Account Project Amount 

Requester(s) 

Administration House 

Corps of Engineers O&M CORALVILLE LAKE, IA $3,381,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M CORDELL HULL DAM AND RESERVOIR, TN $6,813,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M CORPUS CHRISTI SHIP CHANNEL, TX $4,523,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M COTTAGE GROVE LAKE, OR $1,130,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M COTTONWOOD SPRINGS LAKE, SD $271,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M COUGAR LAKE, OR $1,582,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M COUNCIL GROVE LAKE, KS $1,739,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M COWANESQUE LAKE, PA $1,889,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M COYOTE VALLEY DAM, LAKE MENDOCINO, CA $3,829,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M CROOKED CREEK LAKE, PA $1,683,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M CUMBERLAND, MD AND RIDGELEY, WV $177,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M CURWENSVILLE LAKE, PA $757,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M DALE HOLLOW LAKE, TN $6,386,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M DARDANELLE LOCK & DAM, AR $9,754,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M DEER CREEK LAKE, OH $1,481,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M DEGRAY LAKE, AR $7,000,000 The President Ross 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
257 

Corps of Engineers O&M DELAWARE LAKE, OH $1,322,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M DELAWARE RIVER AT CAMDEN, NJ $15,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M DELAWARE RIVER, PHILADELPHIA TO THE SEA, NJ, PA & DE $19,600,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M DELAWARE RIVER, PHILADELPHIA, PA TO TRENTON, NJ $820,000 The President Smith (NJ) Corps of Engineers O&M DENISON DAM, LAKE TEXOMA, TX & OK $10,676,000 The President Cole Corps of Engineers O&M DEQUEEN LAKE, AR $1,752,000 The President Ross Corps of Engineers O&M DETROIT LAKE, OR $949,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M DETROIT RIVER, MI $5,415,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M DEWEY LAKE, KY $1,775,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M DIERKS LAKE, AR $1,360,000 The President Ross Corps of Engineers O&M DILLINGHAM HARBOR, AK $885,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M DILLON LAKE, OH $1,366,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M DISPOSAL AREA MONITORING, ME $1,000,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M DORENA LAKE, OR $1,160,000 The President DeFazio Corps of Engineers O&M DRY CREEK (WARM SPRINGS) LAKE & CHANNEL, CA $5,139,000 The President Woolsey Corps of Engineers O&M DULUTH-SUPERIOR HARBOR, MN & WI $5,985,000 The President Obey Corps of Engineers O&M DWORKSHAK DAM AND RESERVOIR, ID $2,875,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M EAST BRANCH CLARION RIVER LAKE, PA $1,524,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M EAST BRIMFIELD LAKE, MA $950,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M EAST FORK, TOMBIGBEE RIVER, MS $187,000 The President 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
258 

ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT—Continued 

[Presidentially Directed Spending Items] 

Agency Account Project Amount 

Requester(s) 

Administration House 

Corps of Engineers O&M EAST LYNN LAKE, WV $2,167,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M EAST RIVER, NY $300,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M EAST ROCKAWAY INLET, NY $2,950,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M EAST SIDNEY LAKE, NY $588,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M EASTCHESTER CREEK, NY $4,090,000 The President Crowley Corps of Engineers O&M EAU GALLE RIVER LAKE, WI $888,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M EDIZ HOOK, WA $730,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M EDWARD MACDOWELL LAKE, NH $560,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M EL DORADO LAKE, KS $1,586,000 The President Tiahrt Corps of Engineers O&M ELK CITY LAKE, KS $718,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M ELKINS, WV $15,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M ELVIS STAHR (HICKMAN) HARBOR, KY $40,000 The President Whitfield Corps of Engineers O&M ERIE HARBOR, PA $555,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M ESCAMBIA AND CONECUH RIVERS, FL $56,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M ESTELLINE SPRINGS EXPERIMENTAL PROJECT, TX $43,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M EUFAULA LAKE, OK $6,620,000 The President 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
259 

Corps of Engineers O&M EVERETT HARBOR AND SNOHOMISH RIVER, WA $1,766,000 The President Larsen (WA) Corps of Engineers O&M FALL CREEK LAKE, OR $1,864,000 The President DeFazio Corps of Engineers O&M FALL RIVER LAKE, KS $1,283,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M FALLS LAKE, NC $1,859,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M FARM CREEK RESERVOIRS, IL $352,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M FARMINGTON DAM, CA $481,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M FERN RIDGE LAKE, OR $2,362,000 The President DeFazio Corps of Engineers O&M FERNANDINA HARBOR, FL $1,625,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M FERRELLS BRIDGE DAM, LAKE O’ THE PINES, TX $3,485,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M FIRE ISLAND INLET TO JONES INLET, NY $150,000 The President King (NY) Corps of Engineers O&M FISHTRAP LAKE, KY $2,171,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M FLUSHING BAY AND CREEK, NY $60,000 The President Crowley Corps of Engineers O&M FORT GIBSON LAKE, OK $11,768,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M FORT RANDALL DAM, LAKE FRANCIS CASE, SD $12,210,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M FORT SUPPLY LAKE, OK $1,104,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M FOSTER JOSEPH SAYERS DAM, PA $674,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M FOX POINT HURRICANE BARRIER, PROVIDENCE, RI $500,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M FOX RIVER, WI $2,421,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M FRANCIS E WALTER DAM, PA $969,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M FRANKLIN FALLS DAM, NH $1,921,000 The President 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
260 

ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT—Continued 

[Presidentially Directed Spending Items] 

Agency Account Project Amount 

Requester(s) 

Administration House 

Corps of Engineers O&M FREEPORT HARBOR, TX $3,316,000 The President Paul Corps of Engineers O&M FRESHWATER BAYOU, LA $2,235,000 The President Boustany Corps of Engineers O&M FRIDAY HARBOR, WA $111,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M FT. PECK DAM AND LAKE, MT $6,361,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M GALISTEO DAM, NM $591,000 The President Lujan Corps of Engineers O&M GALVESTON HARBOR AND CHANNEL, TX $13,095,000 The President Paul Corps of Engineers O&M GARRISON DAM, LAKE SAKAKAWEA, ND $14,746,000 The President Pomeroy Corps of Engineers O&M GATHRIGHT DAM AND LAKE MOOMAW, VA $2,323,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M GAVINS POINT DAM, NE & SD $8,165,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M GENERAL EDGAR JADWIN DAM AND RESERVOIR, PA $224,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M GEORGETOWN HARBOR, SC $1,073,000 The President Brown (SC) Corps of Engineers O&M GILLHAM LAKE, AR $1,366,000 The President Ross Corps of Engineers O&M GIWW, CHANNEL TO VICTORIA, TX $2,264,000 The President Paul Corps of Engineers O&M GIWW, CHOCOLATE BAYOU, TX $1,733,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M GRAND HAVEN HARBOR, MI $820,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M GRANGER DAM AND LAKE, TX $2,588,000 The President 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
261 

Corps of Engineers O&M GRAPEVINE LAKE, TX $2,735,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M GRAYS HARBOR AND CHEHALIS RIVER, WA $11,140,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M GRAYSON LAKE, KY $1,709,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M GREAT KILLS HARBOR, STATEN ISLAND, NY $60,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M GREAT SALT PLAINS LAKE, OK $347,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M GREAT SALT POND, BLOCK ISLAND, RI $100,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M GREAT SOUTH BAY, NY $60,000 The President Bishop (NY) Corps of Engineers O&M GREEN AND BARREN RIVERS, KY $1,880,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M GREEN BAY HARBOR, WI $3,459,000 The President Kagen Corps of Engineers O&M GREEN PETER—FOSTER LAKES, OR $3,650,000 The President DeFazio Corps of Engineers O&M GREEN RIVER LAKE, KY $2,202,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M GREERS FERRY LAKE, AR $7,759,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M GULF INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, AL $5,735,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M GULF INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, LA $24,777,000 The President Cao Corps of Engineers O&M GULF INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, TX $26,046,000 The President Paul Corps of Engineers O&M GULFPORT HARBOR, MS $3,470,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M HAMPTON ROADS, NORFOLK & NEWPORT NEWS HARBOR, VA 

(DRIFT REMOVAL) 

$882,000 The President 

Corps of Engineers O&M HANCOCK BROOK LAKE, CT $442,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M HARLAN COUNTY LAKE, NE $2,312,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M HARRY S. TRUMAN DAM AND RESERVOIR, MO $9,393,000 The President 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
262 

ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT—Continued 

[Presidentially Directed Spending Items] 

Agency Account Project Amount 

Requester(s) 

Administration House 

Corps of Engineers O&M HARTWELL LAKE, GA & SC $11,999,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M HELENA HARBOR, AR $40,000 The President Berry Corps of Engineers O&M HEYBURN LAKE, OK $748,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M HIDDEN DAM, HENSLEY LAKE, CA $2,170,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M HILLS CREEK LAKE, OR $843,000 The President DeFazio Corps of Engineers O&M HILLSDALE LAKE, KS $860,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M HODGES VILLAGE DAM, MA $567,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M HOLLAND HARBOR, MI $2,151,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M HOMER HARBOR, AK $400,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M HOMME LAKE, ND $252,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M HOP BROOK LAKE, CT $917,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M HOPKINTON-EVERETT LAKES, NH $1,148,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M HORDS CREEK LAKE, TX $1,605,000 The President Conaway Corps of Engineers O&M HOUMA NAVIGATION CANAL, LA $2,569,000 The President Melancon Corps of Engineers O&M HOUSTON SHIP CHANNEL, TX $15,063,000 The President Culberson; Edwards (TX); Green, Al; 

Green, Gene; Jackson-Lee (TX); Olson 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
263 

Corps of Engineers O&M HOWARD HANSON DAM, WA $3,694,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M HUDSON RIVER CHANNEL, NY $60,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M HUDSON RIVER, NY (MAINT) $1,270,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M HUDSON RIVER, NY (O & C) $1,550,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M HUGO LAKE, OK $1,738,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M HULAH LAKE, OK $2,097,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M HUMBOLDT HARBOR AND BAY, CA $3,010,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M ICE HAROBR LOCK & DAM, WA $5,828,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M ILLINOIS WATERWAY, IL & IN (MVR PORTION) $31,736,000 The President Hare Corps of Engineers O&M ILLINOIS WATERWAY, IL & IN (MVS PORTION) $1,748,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M INDIANA HARBOR, IN $2,330,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M INSPECTION OF COMPLETED ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS, GA $48,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M INSPECTION OF COMPLETED ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS, IL $65,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M INSPECTION OF COMPLETED ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS, OR $34,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M INSPECTION OF COMPLETED ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS, WA $74,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M INSPECTION OF COMPLETED ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS, WY $10,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, AK $168,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, AR $673,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, AZ $199,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, CA $6,702,000 The President 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
264 

ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT—Continued 

[Presidentially Directed Spending Items] 

Agency Account Project Amount 

Requester(s) 

Administration House 

Corps of Engineers O&M INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, CO $773,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, CT $392,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, DC $140,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, FL $1,200,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, GA $108,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, HI $705,000 The President Hirono Corps of Engineers O&M INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, IA $483,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, ID $324,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, IL $1,298,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, IN $709,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, KS $220,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, KY $665,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, LA $1,487,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MA $414,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MD $155,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, ME $215,000 The President 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
265 

Corps of Engineers O&M INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MI $158,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MN $633,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MO $1,491,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MS $183,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MT $115,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NC $244,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, ND $452,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NE $714,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NH $126,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NJ $205,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NM $639,000 The President Heinrich; Lujan; Teague Corps of Engineers O&M INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NV $63,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NY $898,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, OH $555,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, OK $255,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, OR $636,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, PA $880,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, RI $48,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, SC $70,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, SD $75,000 The President 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
266 

ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT—Continued 

[Presidentially Directed Spending Items] 

Agency Account Project Amount 

Requester(s) 

Administration House 

Corps of Engineers O&M INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, TN $50,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, TX $1,520,000 The President Reyes Corps of Engineers O&M INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, UT $84,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, VA $369,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, VT $109,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, WA $725,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, WI $91,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, WV $336,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, WY $25,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M INTERNATIONAL WATER STUDIES, ME $17,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY CALOOSAHATCHEE R TO ANCLOTE R, 

FL 

$780,000 The President Buchanan; Mack; Young (FL) 

Corps of Engineers O&M INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, DELAWARE R TO CHESAPEAKE BAY, 

DE & MD 

$28,390,000 The President Castle; Cummings; Ruppersberger; 

Sarbanes 

Corps of Engineers O&M INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, JACKSONVILLE TO MIAMI, FL $4,500,000 The President Crenshaw; Hastings (FL); Klein (FL); 

Kosmas; Meek (FL); Mica; RosLehtinen; Wasserman Schultz; Wexler 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
267 

Corps of Engineers O&M INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, REHOBOTH BAY TO DELAWARE BAY, 

DE 

$70,000 The President 

Corps of Engineers O&M ISABELLA LAKE, CA $1,802,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M J. BENNETT JOHNSTON WATERWAY, LA $10,598,000 The President Alexander; Fleming Corps of Engineers O&M J. EDWARD ROUSH LAKE, IN $944,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M J. PERCY PRIEST DAM AND RESERVOIR, TN $4,818,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M J. STROM THURMOND LAKE, GA & SC $10,316,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M JACKSON HOLE LEVEES, WY $877,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M JACKSONVILLE HARBOR, FL $6,035,000 The President Brown, Corrine; Crenshaw Corps of Engineers O&M JAMAICA BAY, NY $220,000 The President Meeks (NY); Sires Corps of Engineers O&M JAMES RIVER CHANNEL, VA $4,479,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M JEMEZ CANYON DAM, NM $756,000 The President Lujan Corps of Engineers O&M JENNINGS RANDOLPH LAKE, MD & WV $1,779,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M JIM CHAPMAN LAKE, TX $1,718,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M JIM WOODRUFF LOCK AND DAM, LAKE SEMINOLE, FL, AL & GA $9,732,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M JOE POOL LAKE, TX $1,096,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M JOHN DAY LOCK AND DAM, OR & WA $8,901,000 The President Baird Corps of Engineers O&M JOHN H. KERR LAKE, VA & NC $11,585,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M JOHN MARTIN RESERVOIR, CO $2,554,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M JOHN REDMOND DAM AND RESERVOIR, KS $3,685,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M JOHN W. FLANNAGAN DAM AND RESERVOIR, VA $2,104,000 The President 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
268 

ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT—Continued 

[Presidentially Directed Spending Items] 

Agency Account Project Amount 

Requester(s) 

Administration House 

Corps of Engineers O&M JOHNSTOWN, PA $34,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M JONES INLET, NY $150,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M KANAWHA RIVER LOCKS & DAM, WV $14,089,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M KANOPOLIS, KS $2,288,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M KASKASKIA RIVER NAVIGATION, IL $2,148,000 The President Costello Corps of Engineers O&M KAW LAKE, OK $2,751,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M KENTUCKY RIVER, KY $10,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M KEWAUNEE HARBOR, WI $440,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M KEWEENAW WATERWAY, MI $37,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M KEYSTONE LAKE, OK $6,947,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M KINZUA DAM AND ALLEGHANY RESERVOIR, PA $1,338,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M KNIGHTVILLE DAM, MA $1,421,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M LAC QUI PARLE LAKES, MINNESOTA RIVER, MN $627,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M LAKE ASHTABULA AND BALDHILL DAM, ND $1,351,000 The President Pomeroy Corps of Engineers O&M LAKE KEMP, TX $327,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M LAKE MICHIGAN DIVERSION, IL $683,000 The President 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
269 

Corps of Engineers O&M LAKE MONTAUK HARBOR, NY $100,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M LAKE PROVIDENCE HARBOR, LA $572,000 The President Alexander Corps of Engineers O&M LAKE SHELBYVILLE, IL $5,454,000 The President Shimkus Corps of Engineers O&M LAKE TRAVERSE, SD & MN $598,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M LAKE WASHINGTON SHIP CANAL, WA $9,246,000 The President Dicks Corps of Engineers O&M LAUREL RIVER LAKE, KY $1,927,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M LAVON LAKE, TX $3,497,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M LEWISVILLE DAM, TX $3,549,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M LIBBY DAM, MT $1,948,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M LITTLE BLUE RIVER LAKES, MO $845,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M LITTLE GOOSE LOCK & DAM, WA $2,551,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M LITTLE SODUS BAY HARBOR, NY $5,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M LITTLEVILLE LAKE, MA $889,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M LONG BRANCH LAKE, MO $949,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M LONG ISLAND INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, NY $100,000 The President Bishop (NY) Corps of Engineers O&M LONG ISLAND SOUND, DMMP, CT $4,000,000 The President Courtney; DeLauro; Murphy (CT) Corps of Engineers O&M LOOKOUT POINT LAKE, OR $2,766,000 The President DeFazio Corps of Engineers O&M LORAIN HARBOR, OH $880,000 The President Sutton Corps of Engineers O&M LOS ANGELES COUNTY DRAINAGE AREA, CA $4,597,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M LOST CREEK LAKE, OR $3,636,000 The President 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
270 

ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT—Continued 

[Presidentially Directed Spending Items] 

Agency Account Project Amount 

Requester(s) 

Administration House 

Corps of Engineers O&M LOWER GRANITE LOCK & DAM, WA $7,651,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M LOWER MONUMENT LOCK & DAM, WA $2,735,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M LOYALHANNA LAKE, PA $1,346,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M LUCKY PEAK LAKE, ID $2,597,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M LYNNHAVEN INLET, VA $277,000 The President Nye Corps of Engineers O&M MADISON PARISH PORT, LA $7,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M MAHONING CREEK LAKE, PA $1,286,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M MANASQUAN RIVER, NJ $160,000 The President Smith (NJ) Corps of Engineers O&M MANSFIELD HOLLOW LAKE, CT $861,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M MANTEO (SHALLOWBAG) BAY, NC $3,945,000 The President Jones; Price (NC) Corps of Engineers O&M MARION LAKE, KS $1,820,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M MARTINS FORK LAKE, KY $814,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M MARTIS CREEK LAKE, NV & CA $1,192,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M MASONBORO INLET AND CONNECTING CHANNELS, NC $2,300,000 The President McIntyre Corps of Engineers O&M MASSILLON LOCAL PROTECTION PROJECT, OH $37,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M MATAGORDA SHIP CHANNEL, TX $4,627,000 The President Edwards (TX); Paul 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
271 

Corps of Engineers O&M MATTITUCK HARBOR, NY $60,000 The President Bishop (NY) Corps of Engineers O&M MCCLELLAN-KERR ARKANSAS RIVER NAVIGATION SYSTEM, AR $40,516,000 The President Berry Corps of Engineers O&M MCCLELLAN-KERR ARKANSAS RIVER NAVIGATION SYSTEM, OK $6,173,000 The President Boren Corps of Engineers O&M MCNARY LOCK & DAM, OR & WA $7,137,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M MELVERN LAKE, KS $2,151,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M MERCED COUNTY STREAMS, CA $451,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M MERMENTAU RIVER, LA $1,913,000 The President Boustany Corps of Engineers O&M MICHAEL J KIRWAN DAM AND RESERVOIR, OH $1,089,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M MIDDLE RIO GRANDE ENDANGERED SPECIES COLLABORATIVE 

PROGRAM, NM (MRGESCP) 

$3,150,000 The President Heinrich; Lujan; Teague 

Corps of Engineers O&M MIDDLESBORO CUMBERLAND RIVER BASIN, KY $113,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M MILFORD LAKE, KS $2,057,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M MILL CREEK LAKE, WA $3,834,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M MILLWOOD LAKE, AR $5,122,000 The President Ross Corps of Engineers O&M MINNESOTA RIVER, MN $256,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M MISPILLION RIVER, DE $30,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M MISSISSINEWA LAKE, IN $974,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M MISSISSIPPI FLOOD CONTROL, OH $1,727,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M MISSISSIPPI RIVER BETWEEN MISSOURI RIVER AND MINNEAPOLIS (MVP PORTION), MN $44,130,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M MISSISSIPPI RIVER BETWEEN MISSOURI RIVER AND MINNEAPOLIS (MVR PORTION), IL $58,714,000 The President Hare 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
272 

ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT—Continued 

[Presidentially Directed Spending Items] 

Agency Account Project Amount 

Requester(s) 

Administration House 

Corps of Engineers O&M MISSISSIPPI RIVER BETWEEN MISSOURI RIVER AND MINNEAPOLIS (MVS PORTION), IL $22,227,000 The President Akin; Hare; Shimkus Corps of Engineers O&M MISSISSIPPI RIVER BETWEEN THE OHIO AND MISSOURI RIVERS 

(REG WORKS), MO & IL 

$23,403,000 The President 

Corps of Engineers O&M MISSISSIPPI RIVER OUTLETS AT VENICE, LA $2,838,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M MISSISSIPPI RIVER, BATON ROUGE TO THE GULF OF MEXICO, LA $54,994,000 The President Cao Corps of Engineers O&M MISSOURI RIVER—KENSLERS BEND, NE TO SOIUX CITY, IA $129,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M MISSOURI RIVER—SOUIX CITY TO RULO, IA, NE, KS & MO $8,669,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M MOBILE HARBOR, AL $23,996,000 The President Bonner Corps of Engineers O&M MOJAVE RIVER DAM, CA $288,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M MONONGAHELA RIVER, PA $16,758,000 The President Doyle Corps of Engineers O&M MONROE LAKE, IN $1,101,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M MOREHEAD CITY HARBOR, NC $9,500,000 The President Jones Corps of Engineers O&M MORICHES INLET, NY $100,000 The President Bishop (NY) Corps of Engineers O&M MORRO BAY HARBOR, CA $3,300,000 The President Capps Corps of Engineers O&M MOSQUITO CREEK LAKE, OH $995,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M MOUNT MORRIS DAM, NY $2,696,000 The President Lee (NY) 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
273 

Corps of Engineers O&M MOUTH OF YAZOO RIVER, MS $40,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M MT. ST. HELENS SEDIMENT CONTROL, WA $279,000 The President Baird Corps of Engineers O&M MUD MOUNTAIN DAM, WA $3,056,000 The President Reichert; Smith (WA) Corps of Engineers O&M MURDERKILL RIVER, DE $30,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M MUSKINGUM RIVER LAKES, OH $7,306,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M MYSTIC RIVER, CT $250,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M NARROWS DAM, LAKE GREESON, AR $4,505,000 The President Ross Corps of Engineers O&M NARROWS OF LAKE CHAMPLAIN, VT & NY $85,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M NAVARRO MILLS LAKE, TX $4,168,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M NEAH BAY, WA $67,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M NEW BEDFORD AND FAIRHAVEN HARBOR, MA $500,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M NEW BEDFORD, FAIRHAVEN AND ACUSHNET HURRICANE BARRIER, MA $619,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M NEW HOGAN LAKE, CA $2,515,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M NEW JERSEY INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, NJ $500,000 The President Adler (NJ); LoBiondo; Smith (NJ) Corps of Engineers O&M NEW MADRID HARBOR, MILE 889, MO $40,000 The President Emerson Corps of Engineers O&M NEW MADRID HARBOR, MO $90,000 The President Emerson Corps of Engineers O&M NEW MELONES LAKE, DOWNSTREAM CHANNEL, CA $1,898,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M NEW PORT BAY HARBOR, CA $1,780,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M NEW RIVER INLET, NC $700,000 The President Jones Corps of Engineers O&M NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY CHANNELS, NY $4,100,000 The President 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
274 

ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT—Continued 

[Presidentially Directed Spending Items] 

Agency Account Project Amount 

Requester(s) 

Administration House 

Corps of Engineers O&M NEW YORK HARBOR, NY $3,698,000 The President Sires Corps of Engineers O&M NEW YORK HARBOR, NY & NJ (DRIFT REMOVAL) $7,000,000 The President Pallone Corps of Engineers O&M NEW YORK HARBOR, NY & NJ (PREVENTION OF OBSTRUCTIVE 

DEPOSITS) 

$1,045,000 The President Pallone 

Corps of Engineers O&M NEWARK BAY, HACKENSACK AND PASSAIC RIVERS, NJ $150,000 The President Payne; Rothman (NJ) Corps of Engineers O&M NEWTOWN CREEK, NY $150,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M NIMROD LAKE, AR $2,289,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M NOLIN LAKE, KY $2,477,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M NOME HARBOR, AK $820,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M NORFOLK HARBOR, VA $11,343,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M NORFORK LAKE, AR $5,717,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M NORTH BRANCH KOKOSING RIVER LAKE, OH $274,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M NORTH FORK OF POUND RIVER LAKE, VA $630,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M NORTH HARTLAND LAKE, VT $772,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M NORTH SAN GABRIEL DAM AND LAKE GEORGETOWN, TX $2,382,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M NORTH SPRINGFIELD LAKE, VT $854,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M NORTHFIELD BROOK LAKE, CT $610,000 The President 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
275 

Corps of Engineers O&M O.C. FISHER DAM AND LAKE, TX $1,164,000 The President Conaway Corps of Engineers O&M OAHE DAM, LAKE OAHE, SD & ND $11,816,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M OAKLAND HARBOR, CA $10,000,000 The President Lee (CA) Corps of Engineers O&M OCEANSIDE HARBOR, CA $1,500,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M OHIO RIVER LOCKS AND DAMS, KY, IL, IN & OH $40,748,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M OHIO RIVER LOCKS AND DAMS, PA, OH & WV $21,470,000 The President Doyle Corps of Engineers O&M OHIO RIVER LOCKS AND DAMS, WV, KY & OH $35,276,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M OHIO RIVER OPEN CHANNEL WORK, KY, IL, IN & OH $5,836,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M OHIO RIVER OPEN CHANNEL WORK, PA, OH & WV $516,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M OHIO RIVER OPEN CHANNEL WORK, WV, KY & OH $2,996,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M OKATIBBEE LAKE, MS $1,703,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M OKEECHOBEE WATERWAY, FL $2,357,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M OLD HICKORY LOCK AND DAM, TN $12,304,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M ONTONAGON HARBOR, MI $1,122,000 The President Stupak Corps of Engineers O&M OOLOGAH LAKE, OK $4,106,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M OPTIMA LAKE, OK $219,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M ORWELL LAKE, MN $533,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M OSCEOLA HARBOR, AR $1,940,000 The President Berry Corps of Engineers O&M OTTER BROOK LAKE, NH $553,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M OUACHITA AND BLACK RIVERS, AR & LA $9,605,000 The President Ross 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
276 

ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT—Continued 

[Presidentially Directed Spending Items] 

Agency Account Project Amount 

Requester(s) 

Administration House 

Corps of Engineers O&M OZARK-JETA TAYLOR LOCK & DAM, AR $5,725,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M PAINT CREEK LAKE, OH $1,216,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M PAINTED ROCK DAM, AZ $1,320,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M PAINTSVILLE LAKE, KY $1,231,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M PALM BEACH HARBOR, FL $3,225,000 The President Klein (FL) Corps of Engineers O&M PANAMA CITY HARBOR, FL $2,055,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M PAPILLION CREEK, NE $847,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M PASCAGOULA HARBOR, MS $7,505,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M PASSAIC RIVER FLOOD WARNING SYSTEM, NJ $553,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M PAT MAYSE LAKE, TX $1,208,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M PATOKA LAKE, IN $887,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M PEARL RIVER, MS & LA $193,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M PEARSON-SKUBITZ BIG HILL LAKE, KS $1,472,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M PENSACOLA HARBOR, FL $67,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M PENSACOLA RESERVOIR, LAKE OF THE CHEROKEES, OK $114,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M PERRY LAKE, KS $2,015,000 The President 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
277 

Corps of Engineers O&M PHILPOTT LAKE, VA & NC $5,638,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M PINE AND MATHEWS CANYONS LAKES, NV $341,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M PINE CREEK LAKE, OK $1,276,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M PINE FLAT LAKE, CA $3,201,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M PIPESTEM LAKE, ND $496,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M PLYMOUTH HARBOR, PLYMOUTH, MA $200,000 The President Delahunt Corps of Engineers O&M POINT JUDITH HARBOR OF REFUGE, RI $300,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M POMME DE TERRE LAKE, MO $2,231,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M POMONA LAKE, KS $2,047,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M PONCE DE LEON INLET, FL $600,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M PORT ORFORD, OR $38,000 The President DeFazio Corps of Engineers O&M PORTCHESTER HARBOR, NY $60,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M PORTSMOUTH HARBOR AND PISCATAQUA RIVER, NH $500,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M POTOMAC AND ANACOSTIA RIVER, DC (DRIFT REMOVAL) $805,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M PRESQUE ISLE HARBOR, MI $335,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M PROCTOR DAM AND LAKE, TX $2,324,000 The President Conaway Corps of Engineers O&M PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, AK $930,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, AL $100,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, CA $2,442,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, CT $1,050,000 The President 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
278 

ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT—Continued 

[Presidentially Directed Spending Items] 

Agency Account Project Amount 

Requester(s) 

Administration House 

Corps of Engineers O&M PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, DC $30,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, DE $105,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, FL $1,300,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, GA $151,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, HI $570,000 The President Hirono Corps of Engineers O&M PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, IL $104,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, IN $185,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, LA $65,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MA $1,200,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MD $400,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, ME $750,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MI $410,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MN $82,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MS $75,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, NC $295,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, NH $275,000 The President 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
279 

Corps of Engineers O&M PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, NJ $1,653,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, NY $2,123,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, OH $295,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, OR $200,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, PA $120,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, RI $500,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, SC $465,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, TX $223,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, VA $850,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, WA $524,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, WI $283,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M PROMPTON LAKE, PA $434,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M PUGET SOUND AND TRIBUTARY WATERS, WA $1,011,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M PUNXSUTAWNEY, PA $22,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M QUILLAYUTE RIVER, WA $266,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M R. D. BAILEY LAKE, WV $1,927,000 The President Rahall Corps of Engineers O&M RARITAN RIVER TO ARTHUR KILL CUT-OFF, NJ $200,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M RARITAN RIVER, NJ $120,000 The President Pallone Corps of Engineers O&M RATHBUN LAKE, IA $3,019,000 The President Loebsack Corps of Engineers O&M RAY ROBERTS LAKE, TX $1,324,000 The President 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
280 

ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT—Continued 

[Presidentially Directed Spending Items] 

Agency Account Project Amount 

Requester(s) 

Administration House 

Corps of Engineers O&M RAYSTOWN LAKE, PA $3,847,000 The President Shuster Corps of Engineers O&M RED LAKE RESERVOIR, MN $150,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M RED ROCK DAM AND LAKE, RED ROCK, IA $3,978,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M REDWOOD CITY HARBOR, CA $6,745,000 The President Eshoo Corps of Engineers O&M REMOVAL OF AQUATIC GROWTH, FL $4,445,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M REMOVAL OF AQUATIC GROWTH, LA $1,410,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M REMOVAL OF AQUATIC GROWTH, VA $50,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M REND LAKE, IL $5,386,000 The President Costello; Shimkus Corps of Engineers O&M RESERVOIRS AT HEADWATERS OF MISSISSIPPI RIVER, MN $3,398,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M RICHARD B. RUSSEL DAM & LAKE, GA & SC $9,209,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M RICHMOND HARBOR, CA $9,589,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M ROBERT S. KEER LOCK AND DAM AND RESERVOIR, OK $8,441,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M ROCHESTER HARBOR, NY $1,000,000 The President Slaughter Corps of Engineers O&M ROGUE RIVER AT GOLD BEACH, OR $978,000 The President DeFazio Corps of Engineers O&M ROLLINSON CHANNEL, NC $50,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M ROSEDALE HARBOR, MS $596,000 The President Thompson (MS) 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
281 

Corps of Engineers O&M ROSEVILLE LOCAL PROTECTION PROJECT, OH $35,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M ROUGH RIVER LAKE, KY $2,742,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M RUDEE INLET, VA $795,000 The President Nye Corps of Engineers O&M SABINE-NECHES WATERWAY, TX $13,399,000 The President Poe (TX) Corps of Engineers O&M SACRAMENTO RIVER (30 FOOT PROJECT), CA $3,351,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M SACRAMENTO RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES (DEBRIS CONTROL), CA $1,712,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M SACRAMENTO RIVER SHALLOW DRAFT CHANNEL, CA $234,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M SAGINAW RIVER, MI $3,624,000 The President Kildee Corps of Engineers O&M SALAMONIE LAKE, IN $904,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M SALEM RIVER, NJ $100,000 The President LoBiondo Corps of Engineers O&M SALT CREEK AND TRIBUTARIES, NE $1,079,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M SAM RAYBURN DAM AND RESERVOIR, TX $6,247,000 The President Brady (TX) Corps of Engineers O&M SAN FRANCISCO BAY, DELTA MODEL STRUCTURE, CA $1,118,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M SAN FRANCISCO HARBOR AND BAY, CA (DRIFT REMOVAL) $2,945,000 The President Pelosi Corps of Engineers O&M SAN FRANCISCO HARBOR, CA $3,237,000 The President Pelosi Corps of Engineers O&M SAN JOAQUIN RIVER, PORT OF STOCKTON, CA $3,554,000 The President Cardoza; McNerney Corps of Engineers O&M SAN JUAN HARBOR, PR $1,200,000 The President Pierluisi Corps of Engineers O&M SAN PABLO BAY AND MARE ISLAND STRAIT, CA $2,650,000 The President McNerney Corps of Engineers O&M SANDUSKY HARBOR, OH $1,465,000 The President Kaptur Corps of Engineers O&M SANTA ANA RIVER BASIN, CA $3,094,000 The President 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
282 

ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT—Continued 

[Presidentially Directed Spending Items] 

Agency Account Project Amount 

Requester(s) 

Administration House 

Corps of Engineers O&M SANTA BARBARA HARBOR, CA $1,690,000 The President Capps Corps of Engineers O&M SANTA ROSA DAM AND LAKE, NM $1,099,000 The President Teague Corps of Engineers O&M SARDIS LAKE, OK $1,254,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M SAVANNAH HARBOR, GA $14,187,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M SAVANNAH RIVER BELOW AUGUSTA, GA $274,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M SAYLORVILLE LAKE, IA $4,685,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, AZ $31,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, CA $1,915,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, CO $612,000 The President Salazar Corps of Engineers O&M SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, FL $30,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, ID $484,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, KS $100,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, MD $108,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, MO $327,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, MT $145,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, ND $138,000 The President 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
283 

Corps of Engineers O&M SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, NM $477,000 The President Lujan; Teague Corps of Engineers O&M SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, OK $900,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, OR $69,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, PA $59,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, SD $81,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, TX $149,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, UT $594,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, WA $537,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, WY $118,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M SCHUYLKILL RIVER, PA $200,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M SEATTLE HARBOR, WA $172,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M SEBEWAING RIVER, MI $1,200,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M SHARK RIVER, NJ $400,000 The President Pallone Corps of Engineers O&M SHENANGO RIVER LAKE, PA $6,992,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M SHINNECOCK INLET, NY $100,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M SHOAL HARBOR AND COMPTON CREEK, NJ $80,000 The President Pallone Corps of Engineers O&M SILVER LAKE HARBOR, NC $250,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M SIUSLAW RIVER, OR $817,000 The President DeFazio Corps of Engineers O&M SKIATOOK LAKE, OK $1,414,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M SKIPANON CHANNEL, OR $6,000 The President 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
284 

ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT—Continued 

[Presidentially Directed Spending Items] 

Agency Account Project Amount 

Requester(s) 

Administration House 

Corps of Engineers O&M SMITHVILLE LAKE, MO $1,850,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M SOMERVILLE LAKE, TX $3,366,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M SOURIS RIVER, ND $286,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M SOUTHERN NEW YORK FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS, NY $807,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M ST. CLAIR RIVER, MI $533,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M ST. JOSEPH HARBOR, MI $755,000 The President Upton Corps of Engineers O&M ST. LUCIE INLET, FL $350,000 The President Rooney Corps of Engineers O&M ST. MARYS RIVER, MI $23,010,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M STAMFORD HURRICANE BARRIER, CT $434,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M STILLAGUAMISH RIVER, WA $165,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M STILLHOUSE HOLLOW DAM, TX $2,096,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M STILLWATER LAKE, PA $452,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M STOCKTON LAKE, MO $4,370,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M STONEWALL JACKSON LAKE, WV $1,148,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M STURGEON BAY HARBOR AND LAKE MICHIGAN SHIP CANAL, WI $1,927,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M SUCCESS LAKE, CA $1,989,000 The President 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
285 

Corps of Engineers O&M SUISUN BAY CHANNEL, CA $4,019,000 The President McNerney; Tauscher Corps of Engineers O&M SUMMERSVILLE LAKE, WV $3,234,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M SURRY MOUNTAIN LAKE, NH $760,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, IL $685,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, IN $126,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, MI $2,612,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, MN $359,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, ND $35,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, NY $579,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, OH $234,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, OR $10,400,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, PA $98,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, WA $50,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, WI $388,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M SUTTON LAKE, WV $2,413,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M TABLE ROCK LAKE, MO & AR $7,550,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M TAMPA HARBOR, FL $5,620,000 The President Bilirakis; Castor (FL); Putnam Corps of Engineers O&M TACOMA, PUYALLUP RIVER, WA $130,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M TAYLORSVILLE LAKE, KY $1,104,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M TENKILLER FERRY LAKE, OK $6,625,000 The President Boren 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
286 

ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT—Continued 

[Presidentially Directed Spending Items] 

Agency Account Project Amount 

Requester(s) 

Administration House 

Corps of Engineers O&M TENNESSEE RIVER, TN $16,833,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M TENNESSEE-TOMBIGBEE WATERWAY WILDLIFE MITIGATION, AL & 

MS 

$2,500,000 The President Childers; Davis (AL) 

Corps of Engineers O&M TENNESSEE-TOMBIGBEE WATERWAY, AL & MS $22,978,000 The President Childers; Davis (AL) Corps of Engineers O&M TERMINUS DAM, LAKE KAWEAH, CA $2,037,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M TEXAS CITY SHIP CHANNEL, TX $4,000,000 The President Edwards (TX); Paul Corps of Engineers O&M TEXAS WATER ALLOCATION ASSESSMENT, TX $100,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M THE DALLES LOCK & DAM, WA & OR $8,769,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M THOMASTON DAM, CT $1,136,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M TILLAMOOK BAY AND BAR, OR $48,000 The President Schrader Corps of Engineers O&M TIOGA HAMMOND LAKES, PA $2,456,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M TIONESTA LAKE, PA $1,812,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M TOLEDO HARBOR, OH $5,034,000 The President Kaptur Corps of Engineers O&M TOM JENKINS DAM, OH $894,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M TORONTO LAKE, KS $3,522,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M TOWN BLUFF DAM, B. A. STEINHAGEN LAKE, TX $2,505,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M TOWNSHEND LAKE, VT $814,000 The President 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
287 

Corps of Engineers O&M TRINIDAD LAKE, CO $960,000 The President Salazar Corps of Engineers O&M TULLY LAKE, MA $666,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M TUTTLE CREEK LAKE, KS $2,062,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M TWO HARBORS, MN $350,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M TWO RIVERS DAM, NM $404,000 The President Teague Corps of Engineers O&M TYGART LAKE, WV $1,478,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M UMPQUA RIVER, OR $1,174,000 The President DeFazio Corps of Engineers O&M UNION CITY LAKE, PA $440,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M UNION LAKE, MO $6,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M UNION VILLAGE DAM, VT $627,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M UPPER RIO GRANDE WATER OPERATIONS MODEL STUDY, CO, 

NM, TX 

$4,188,000 The President Heinrich; Lujan; Teague 

Corps of Engineers O&M VENTURA HARBOR, CA $6,426,000 The President Capps Corps of Engineers O&M W. KERR SCOTT DAM AND RESERVOIR, NC $3,421,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M WACO LAKE, TX $3,711,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M WALLACE LAKE, LA $244,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M WALLISVILLE LAKE, TX $2,114,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M WALTER F. GEORGE LOCK AND DAM, AL & GA $8,972,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M WASHINGTON HARBOR, DC $25,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M WATER/ENVIRONMENTAL CERTIFICATION, AL $76,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M WATER/ENVIRONMENTAL CERTIFICATION, FL $380,000 The President 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
288 

ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT—Continued 

[Presidentially Directed Spending Items] 

Agency Account Project Amount 

Requester(s) 

Administration House 

Corps of Engineers O&M WATER/ENVIRONMENTAL CERTIFICATION, MS $66,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M WATER/ENVIRONMENTAL CERTIFICATION, VA $104,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M WATERWAY FROM EMPIRE TO THE GULF, LA $47,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M WATERWAY FROM INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY TO BAYOU DULAC, 

LA 

$48,000 The President 

Corps of Engineers O&M WATERWAY ON THE COAST OF VIRGINIA, VA $201,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M WAUKEGAN HARBOR, IL $492,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M WAURIKA LAKE, OK $1,431,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M WEBBERS FALLS LOCK & DAM, OK $5,903,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M WEST FORK OF MILL CREEK LAKE, OH $745,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M WEST HILL DAM, MA $572,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M WEST POINT DAM AND LAKE, GA AND AL $9,591,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M WEST THOMPSON LAKE, CT $569,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M WESTCHESTER CREEK, NY $100,000 The President Crowley Corps of Engineers O&M WESTVILLE LAKE, MA $784,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M WHITE RIVER, AR $40,000 The President Berry Corps of Engineers O&M WHITLOW RANCH DAM, AZ $300,000 The President 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
289 

Corps of Engineers O&M WHITNEY LAKE, TX $8,348,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M WHITNEY POINT LAKE, NY $685,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M WICOMICO RIVER, MD $1,676,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M WILLAMETTE RIVER AT WILLAMETTE FALLS, OR $87,000 The President Schrader Corps of Engineers O&M WILLAMETTE RIVER BANK PROTECTION, OR $41,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M WILLAPA RIVER AND HARBOR, WA $40,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M WILLIAM H. HARSHA LAKE, OH $1,029,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M WILLOW CREEK LAKE, OR $629,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M WILMINGTON HARBOR, DE $320,000 The President Castle Corps of Engineers O&M WILMINGTON HARBOR, NC $12,155,000 The President McIntyre Corps of Engineers O&M WILSON LAKE, KS $1,717,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M WISTER LAKE, OK $856,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M WOLF CREEK DAM, LAKE CUMBERLAND, KY $7,835,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M WOLF RIVER HARBOR, TN $373,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M WOODCOCK CREEK LAKE, PA $1,041,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M WOONSOCKET, RI $200,000 The President Kennedy Corps of Engineers O&M WRIGHT PATMAN DAM AND LAKE, TX $3,517,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M YAQUINA BAY AND HARBOR, OR $1,790,000 The President Schrader Corps of Engineers O&M YATESVILLE LAKE, KY $1,143,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M YAZOO RIVER, MS $35,000 The President 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
290 

ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT—Continued 

[Presidentially Directed Spending Items] 

Agency Account Project Amount 

Requester(s) 

Administration House 

Corps of Engineers O&M YELLOW BEND PORT, AR $4,000 The President Ross Corps of Engineers O&M YORK INDIAN ROCK DAM, PA $478,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M YOUGHIOGHENY RIVER LAKE, PA & MD $2,335,000 The President Corps of Engineers O&M YUBA RIVER, CA $146,000 The President 

ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT 

[Congressionally Directed Spending Items] 

Agency Account Project Amount Requester(s) 

Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources ALBUQUERQUE METRO AREA WATER & RECLAMATION REUSE $100,000 Heinrich Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources ARKANSAS VALLEY CONDUIT $5,000,000 Markey (CO); Salazar Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources BAY AREA REGIONAL WATER RECYCLING PROJECT $100,000 Eshoo; Lofgren, Zoe; McNerney; 

Miller, George; Stark; Tauscher 

Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECTS: FRIANT DIVISION (SEMITROPIC PHASE II GROUNDWATER BANKING) $800,000 Costa Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources CITY OF CORONA WATER RECYCLING AND REUSE PROJECT $100,000 Calvert Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources GROUNDWATER REPLENISHMENT SYSTEM MID-BASIN INJECTION PILOT FACILITIES $100,000 Miller, Gary; Sanchez, Loretta Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources HI DESERT WATER DISTRICT WASTEWATER COLLECTION AND REUSE PROJECT $100,000 Baca; Lewis (CA) Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources INLAND EMPIRE REGIONAL WATER RECYCLING PROJECT $100,000 Baca; Calvert; Dreier


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
291 

Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources MANCOS PROJECT (JACKSON GULCH REHABILITATION PROJECT) $2,630,000 Salazar Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources NATIVE AMERICAN AFFAIRS PROGRAM: SID YATES SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAM $210,000 Pastor (AZ) Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources NORTH BAY WATER REUSE PROJECT $100,000 Thompson (CA); Woolsey Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources NORTH LAS VEGAS WATER REUSE $100,000 Berkley Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources ODESSA SUBAREA SPECIAL STUDY $3,000,000 Hastings (WA); McMorris Rodgers Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources ORANGE COUNTY REGIONAL WATER RECLAMATION PROJECT $100,000 Calvert; Miller, Gary; Rohrabacher; Sanchez, Loretta Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources RIVERSIDE-CORONA FEEDER $1,000,000 Baca; Calvert Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources SAN BERNARDINO MWD, CA $1,000,000 Baca; Lewis (CA) Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources SAN DIEGO FOUR-RESERVOIR INTERTIE $250,000 Filner; Hunter Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources SAN GABRIEL BASIN RESTORATION FUND $4,000,000 Dreier; Napolitano; Roybal-Allard Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources SIERRA VISTA SUBWATERSHED FEASIBILITY STUDY $600,000 Giffords Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM (LAKE ARROWHEAD) $1,000,000 Lewis (CA) Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources TUALATIN VALLEY WATER SUPPLY FEASIBILITY STUDY $200,000 Wu Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources UPPER MOJAVE RIVER WELL FIELD $100,000 Lewis (CA) Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources WATSONVILLE AREA WATER RECYCLING PROJECT $100,000 Farr Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources WEBER BASIN PROJECT (ARTHUR V. WATKINS DAM FEASIBILITY STUDY) $1,000,000 Bishop (UT) Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources YAKIMA RIVER BASIN WATER SUPPLY STUDY $1,500,000 Hastings (WA) Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources YUMA EAST WETLANDS $2,000,000 Grijalva; Pastor (AZ) Corps of Engineers Construction ALAMOGORDO, NM $2,000,000 Teague Corps of Engineers Construction ANACOSTIA RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, MD & DC $467,000 Van Hollen 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
292 

ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT—Continued 

[Congressionally Directed Spending Items] 

Agency Account Project Amount Requester(s) 

Corps of Engineers Construction AQUATIC PLANT CONTROL: LAKES GRANBURY AND WITNEY, TX WATER QUALITY 

PROGRAM 

$500,000 Edwards (TX) 

Corps of Engineers Construction ATLANTA ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE, GA $2,000,000 Bishop (GA); Kingston; Lewis 

(GA); Scott (GA) 

Corps of Engineers Construction BARNEGAT INLET TO LITTLE EGG HARBOR INLET, NJ $600,000 Adler (NJ); Rothman (NJ) Corps of Engineers Construction BEAVER CREEK RESERVOIR, BEAVER AND SALEM TOWNSHIPS, PA $100,000 Thompson (PA) Corps of Engineers Construction BLUE RIVER BASIN, KANSAS CITY, MO $750,000 Cleaver Corps of Engineers Construction BOIS BRULE DRAINAGE AND LEVEE DISTRICT, MO $3,773,000 Emerson Corps of Engineers Construction BOSQUE RIVER WATERSHED, TX $100,000 Edwards (TX) Corps of Engineers Construction BRECKENRIDGE, MN $2,000,000 Peterson; Pomeroy Corps of Engineers Construction BREVARD COUNTY, FL $600,000 Posey Corps of Engineers Construction BRIGANTINE INLET TO GREAT EGG HARBOR INLET, ABSECON ISLAND, NJ $2,000,000 LoBiondo Corps of Engineers Construction BRUNSWICK COUNTY BEACHES, NC $1,100,000 McIntyre Corps of Engineers Construction CALUMET REGION, IN $4,000,000 Visclosky Corps of Engineers Construction CAPE GIRARDEAU (FLOODWALL), MO $183,000 Emerson Corps of Engineers Construction CENTRAL CITY, FORT WORTH, UPPER TRINITY RIVER BASIN, TX $7,200,000 Edwards (TX); Granger Corps of Engineers Construction CENTRAL WEST VIRGINIA, WV $1,500,000 Capito Corps of Engineers Construction CHESAPEAKE BAY ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION AND PROTECTION, MD, VA & PA $350,000 Sarbanes 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
293 

Corps of Engineers Construction CHESAPEAKE BAY OYSTER RECOVERY, MD & VA $2,000,000 Connolly (VA); Edwards (MD); 

Hoyer; Kratovil; Moran (VA); Norton; Ruppersberger; Sarbanes; Scott (VA); Van Hollen 

Corps of Engineers Construction CHICAGO SHORELINE, IL $1,000,000 Jackson (IL); Quigley Corps of Engineers Construction CITY OF INGLEWOOD, CA $100,000 Waters Corps of Engineers Construction CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CA $1,100,000 McKeon Corps of Engineers Construction CLEAR CREEK, TX $2,500,000 Olson; Paul Corps of Engineers Construction CONTRA COSTA CANAL, OAKLEY AND KNIGHTSEN, CA $100,000 McNerney; Miller, George; 

Tauscher 

Corps of Engineers Construction COOK COUNTY, IL $400,000 Jackson (IL); Lipinski; Quigley Corps of Engineers Construction CORTE MADERA CREEK, CA $500,000 Woolsey Corps of Engineers Construction CUMBERLAND COUNTY WATER SUPPLY, TN $400,000 Davis (TN) Corps of Engineers Construction DALLAS FLOODWAY EXTENSION, TRINITY RIVER PROJECT, TX $2,000,000 Edwards (TX); Johnson, Eddie 

Bernice 

Corps of Engineers Construction DELAWARE COAST PROTECTION, DE $390,000 Castle Corps of Engineers Construction DES MOINES AND RACCOON RIVERS, IA $3,639,000 Boswell Corps of Engineers Construction DES MOINES RECREATIONAL RIVER AND GREENBELT, IA $4,300,000 Boswell; Latham Corps of Engineers Construction DESOTO COUNTY, MS $2,000,000 Childers Corps of Engineers Construction EAST ROCKAWAY INLET TO ROCKAWAY INLET AND JAMAICA BAY, NY $500,000 Weiner Corps of Engineers Construction EL PASO COUNTY, TX $100,000 Reyes Corps of Engineers Construction FARMINGTON RECHARGE DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM, CA $500,000 McNerney 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
294 

ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT—Continued 

[Congressionally Directed Spending Items] 

Agency Account Project Amount Requester(s) 

Corps of Engineers Construction FLORIDA KEYS WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENTS, FL $500,000 Ros-Lehtinen Corps of Engineers Construction GENESEE COUNTY, MI $500,000 Kildee Corps of Engineers Construction GRAHAM, TX (BRAZOS RIVER BASIN) $1,000,000 Neugebauer Corps of Engineers Construction GREAT EGG HARBOR INLET TO TOWNSEND INLET, NJ $500,000 LoBiondo Corps of Engineers Construction GREAT LAKES FISHERY AND ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, MI $3,200,000 Dahlkemper; Ehlers; Kildee; 

Kucinich; Oberstar; Petri; Slaughter 

Corps of Engineers Construction GREENBRIER RIVER BASIN, WV $1,500,000 Rahall Corps of Engineers Construction HAMILTON DAM, FLINT RIVER, FLINT, MI $500,000 Kildee Corps of Engineers Construction HARBOR/SOUTH BAY WATER RECYCLING PROJECT, LOS ANGELES, CA $1,000,000 Harman; Richardson; Roybal-Allard; Waters Corps of Engineers Construction HOLES CREEK, WEST CARROLLTON, OH $500,000 Turner Corps of Engineers Construction HOUSTON-GALVESTON NAVIGATION CHANNELS, TX $500,000 Culberson; Edwards (TX); Green, 

Al; Green, Gene; Jackson-Lee (TX); Olson; Paul 

Corps of Engineers Construction HUNTING BAYOU, HOUSTON, TX $100,000 Green, Gene Corps of Engineers Construction IAO STREAM FLOOD CONTROL, MAUI, HI $250,000 Hirono Corps of Engineers Construction INDIANA SHORELINE, IN $1,600,000 Visclosky Corps of Engineers Construction INDIANAPOLIS, WHITE RIVER (NORTH), IN $9,400,000 Carson (IN) 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
295 

Corps of Engineers Construction JACKSONVILLE HARBOR, FL $1,000,000 Brown, Corrine; Crenshaw; 

Stearns 

Corps of Engineers Construction JAMES RIVER, DEEP WATER TURNING BASIN, VA $2,000,000 Scott (VA) Corps of Engineers Construction JOHNSON CREEK, UPPER TRINITY BASIN, ARLINGTON, TX $1,500,000 Barton (TX) Corps of Engineers Construction JONES INLET TO EAST ROCKAWAY INLET, LONG BEACH PROJECT, NY $500,000 King (NY) Corps of Engineers Construction JOSEPH G. MINISH PASSAIC RIVER WATERFRONT, NJ $2,000,000 Payne; Sires Corps of Engineers Construction LACKAWANNA RIVER, SCRANTON, PA $1,000,000 Kanjorski Corps of Engineers Construction LAKE MICHIGAN WATERFRONT, IN $4,000,000 Visclosky Corps of Engineers Construction LAKES MARION AND MOULTRIE, SC $7,000,000 Clyburn Corps of Engineers Construction LEVISA AND TUG FORKS AND UPPER CUMBERLAND RIVER, WV, VA & KY (KENTUCKY) $9,500,000 Rogers (KY) Corps of Engineers Construction LEVISA AND TUG FORKS AND UPPER CUMBERLAND RIVER, WV, VA & KY (VIRGINIA) $2,000,000 Boucher Corps of Engineers Construction LITTLE WOOD RIVER, GOODING, ID $100,000 Simpson Corps of Engineers Construction LLAGAS CREEK, CA $500,000 Honda; Lofgren, Zoe; McNerney Corps of Engineers Construction LOWER MUD RIVER, MILTON, WV $1,000,000 Rahall Corps of Engineers Construction MADISON AND ST. CLAIR COUNTIES, IL $1,650,000 Costello; Shimkus Corps of Engineers Construction MANATEE COUNTY, FL $200,000 Buchanan Corps of Engineers Construction MANATEE HARBOR, FL $200,000 Buchanan; Castor (FL) Corps of Engineers Construction MERAMEC RIVER BASIN, VALLEY PARK LEVEE, MO $600,000 Akin Corps of Engineers Construction MIDDLE RIO GRANDE FLOOD PROTECTION, BERNALILLO TO BELEN, NM $800,000 Heinrich Corps of Engineers Construction MID-VALLEY AREA LEVEE RECONSTRUCTION, CA $600,000 Herger 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
296 

ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT—Continued 

[Congressionally Directed Spending Items] 

Agency Account Project Amount Requester(s) 

Corps of Engineers Construction MT. ZION DAM, FULTON COUNTY, IN $225,000 Donnelly (IN) Corps of Engineers Construction MURRIETA CREEK, CA $2,000,000 Bono Mack; Calvert Corps of Engineers Construction NEW YORK CITY WATERSHED, NY $1,000,000 Engel; Hall (NY) Corps of Engineers Construction NOGALES WASH, AZ $2,000,000 Grijalva Corps of Engineers Construction NORTHEASTERN MINNESOTA, MN $2,000,000 Oberstar Corps of Engineers Construction NORTHERN WEST VIRGINIA ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE, WV $100,000 Mollohan Corps of Engineers Construction NORTHERN WISCONSIN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSISTANCE, WI $5,000,000 Obey Corps of Engineers Construction OHIO ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE, OH: CITY OF HILLSBORO, HIGHLAND 

COUNTY, OH 

$400,000 Turner 

Corps of Engineers Construction OHIO ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE, OH: CITY OF MENTOR-ON-THE-LAKE, OH $500,000 LaTourette Corps of Engineers Construction OHIO ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE, OH: CITY OF PARMA, OH (BRADENTON 

BLVD) 

$400,000 Kucinich 

Corps of Engineers Construction OHIO ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE, OH: CITY OF PARMA, OH (PARKHAVEN 

DRIVE) 

$400,000 Kucinich 

Corps of Engineers Construction OHIO ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE, OH: FRESNO, COSHOCTON, OH $400,000 Space Corps of Engineers Construction OHIO ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE, OH: LAKE COUNTY, OH $500,000 LaTourette Corps of Engineers Construction OHIO ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE, OH: NILES, OH (LAWNVIEW SEWER OVERFLOW DETENTION BASIN) $2,000,000 Ryan (OH) Corps of Engineers Construction OHIO ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE, OH: TOLEDO, OH $1,200,000 Kaptur 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
297 

Corps of Engineers Construction OHIO ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE, OH: VILLAGE OF BLANCHESTER, CLINTON 

COUNTY, OH 

$400,000 Turner 

Corps of Engineers Construction OHIO ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE, OH: VILLAGE OF DALTON, OH $400,000 Boccieri Corps of Engineers Construction OHIO ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE, OH: VILLAGE OF OAK HILL, JACKSON 

COUNTY, OH 

$400,000 Space 

Corps of Engineers Construction OHIO ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE, OH: VILLAGE OF POLK, ASHLAND COUNTY, 

OH 

$400,000 Latta 

Corps of Engineers Construction OHIO ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE, OH:VILLAGE OF RISINGSUN, WOOD COUNTY, OH $400,000 Latta Corps of Engineers Construction OHIO RIVER GREENWAY PUBLIC ACCESS, IN $2,000,000 Hill Corps of Engineers Construction OHIO RIVERFRONT, CINCINNATI, OH $4,900,000 Driehaus; Schmidt Corps of Engineers Construction ONONDAGA LAKE, NY $1,000,000 Maffei Corps of Engineers Construction ORCHARD BEACH, BRONX, NY $1,000,000 Crowley; Serrano Corps of Engineers Construction PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL (REIMBURSEMENT) $1,200,000 Klein (FL); Wexler Corps of Engineers Construction PASSAIC RIVER BASIN FLOOD MANAGEMENT, NJ $5,000,000 Frelinghuysen; Pascrell Corps of Engineers Construction PETALUMA RIVER, CA $1,500,000 Woolsey Corps of Engineers Construction PIER 36 REMOVAL, CA $6,220,000 Pelosi Corps of Engineers Construction PINHOOK CREEK, HUNTSVILLE, AL $1,000,000 Griffith Corps of Engineers Construction PONCE DE LEON INLET, FL $2,000,000 Kosmas Corps of Engineers Construction PORT EVERGLADES HARBOR, FL $1,500,000 Wexler Corps of Engineers Construction RED RIVER BASIN CHLORIDE CONTROL, TX & OK $1,800,000 Boren; Hall (TX) Corps of Engineers Construction RED RIVER BASIN CHLORIDE CONTROL, TX & OK (ELM FORK, AREA VI ELEMENT) $800,000 Lucas 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
298 

ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT—Continued 

[Congressionally Directed Spending Items] 

Agency Account Project Amount Requester(s) 

Corps of Engineers Construction RED RIVER BELOW DENISON DAM, AR, LA & TX $2,300,000 Alexander; Fleming Corps of Engineers Construction RED RIVER EMERGENCY BANK PROTECTION, AR, LA, OK, & TX $2,200,000 Alexander; Boren; Fleming; Ross Corps of Engineers Construction RIO DE FLAG, FLAGSTAFF, AZ $4,000,000 Kirkpatrick (AZ) Corps of Engineers Construction RURAL IDAHO, ID $5,000,000 Simpson Corps of Engineers Construction RURAL MONTANA, MT $5,000,000 Rehberg Corps of Engineers Construction RURAL NEVADA, NV $3,000,000 Heller Corps of Engineers Construction RURAL UTAH, UT $1,000,000 Matheson Corps of Engineers Construction SAN ANTONIO CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT, TX $1,500,000 Cuellar; Edwards (TX); Gonzalez; 

Rodriguez; Smith (TX) 

Corps of Engineers Construction SAN LORENZO RIVER, CA $500,000 Farr Corps of Engineers Construction SAN RAMON VALLEY RECYCLED WATER, CA $350,000 McNerney; Tauscher Corps of Engineers Construction SAND CREEK WATERSHED, SAUNDERS COUNTY, NE $500,000 Fortenberry Corps of Engineers Construction SANDY HOOK TO BARNEGAT INLET, NJ $2,000,000 Pallone; Smith (NJ) Corps of Engineers Construction SOUTH CENTRAL PENNSYLVANIA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPROVEMENT, PA $8,000,000 Murtha Corps of Engineers Construction SOUTH CENTRAL PENNSYLVANIA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPROVEMENT, PA $4,000,000 Shuster Corps of Engineers Construction SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE, PA: SANDYFORD 

RUN WETLAND CREATION, PA 

$500,000 Schwartz 

Corps of Engineers Construction SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE, PA: TACONY 

CREEK, PHILADELPHIA, PA 

$800,000 Fattah; Schwartz 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
299 

Corps of Engineers Construction SOUTHERN AND EASTERN KENTUCKY, KY $1,500,000 Rogers (KY) Corps of Engineers Construction SOUTHERN WEST VIRGINIA ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE, WV $1,000,000 Rahall Corps of Engineers Construction SOUTHWEST VALLEY, FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION, ALBUQUERQUE, NM $2,000,000 Heinrich Corps of Engineers Construction ST. CLAIR RIVER AND LAKE ST. CLAIR MANAGEMENT PLAN, MI $100,000 Levin; Miller (MI) Corps of Engineers Construction ST. JOHNS COUNTY, FL $700,000 Mica Corps of Engineers Construction ST. LOUIS, MO (COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW) $1,500,000 Carnahan; Clay Corps of Engineers Construction STE. GENEVIEVE, MO $500,000 Carnahan Corps of Engineers Construction STOCKTON METROPOLITAN FLOOD CONTROL REIMBURSEMENT, CA $1,000,000 Cardoza; McNerney Corps of Engineers Construction TAMPA HARBOR, FL $500,000 Buchanan; Castor (FL); Putnam; 

Young (FL) 

Corps of Engineers Construction THREE RIVERS WET WEATHER DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM, ALLEGHENY COUNTY, PA $2,000,000 Doyle Corps of Engineers Construction TOWNSEND INLET TO CAPE MAY INLET, NJ $300,000 LoBiondo Corps of Engineers Construction TRES RIOS, AZ $15,000,000 Mitchell; Pastor (AZ) Corps of Engineers Construction TUCSON DRAINAGE AREA, AZ $5,000,000 Giffords; Grijalva; Pastor (AZ) Corps of Engineers Construction VIRGINIA BEACH, VA (HURRICANE PROTECTION) $1,500,000 Nye Corps of Engineers Construction WEST VIRGINIA AND PENNSYLVANIA FLOOD CONTROL, PA & WV $1,500,000 Mollohan; Murtha Corps of Engineers Construction WESTERN SARPY COUNTY AND CLEAR CREEK, NE $1,000,000 Fortenberry Corps of Engineers Construction WHITE RIVER MINIMUM FLOWS, AR & MO $7,500,000 Berry; Boozman Corps of Engineers Construction WYOMING VALLEY, PA (LEVEE RAISING) $1,200,000 Carney; Kanjorski Corps of Engineers Construction YUBA RIVER BASIN, CA $1,000,000 Herger Corps of Engineers General Provisions TRANSFER AUTHORITY: SEVEN OAKS WATER CONSERVATION STUDY Lewis (CA) 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
300 

ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT—Continued 

[Congressionally Directed Spending Items] 

Agency Account Project Amount Requester(s) 

Corps of Engineers Section 206 BEARGRASS CREEK WETLANDS, KY Yarmuth Corps of Engineers Section 206 BEAVER CREEK, OR Blumenauer Corps of Engineers Section 206 BIG FISHWEIR CREEK, FL Crenshaw Corps of Engineers Section 206 BLUE HOLE LAKE, SANTA ROSA, NM Teague Corps of Engineers Section 206 BLUE RIVER, CO Salazar Corps of Engineers Section 206 BOTTOMLESS LAKES STATE PARK, NM Teague Corps of Engineers Section 206 BURNHAM PRAIRIE, IL Jackson (IL) Corps of Engineers Section 206 CANONSBURG LAKE, PA Murphy, Tim Corps of Engineers Section 206 CENTERVILLE, TN Davis (TN) Corps of Engineers Section 206 CHATTACHOOCHIE RIVER DAM REMOVAL, GA Bishop (GA); Rogers (AL) Corps of Engineers Section 206 CONCORD STREAMS RESTORTION, CONCORD, NC Kissell Corps of Engineers Section 206 CYPRESS CREEK, MONTGOMERY, AL $100,000 Bright Corps of Engineers Section 206 DOG ISLAND SHOALS, MD Kratovil Corps of Engineers Section 206 HIGHWAY 47, VERNONIA, OR Wu Corps of Engineers Section 206 HOFFMAN DAM, IL Lipinski Corps of Engineers Section 206 HOGAN’S CREEK, FL Brown, Corrine Corps of Engineers Section 206 HOMER LAKE, ST JOSEPH RIVER, MI Schauer 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
301 

Corps of Engineers Section 206 IA RVR/CLEAR CREEK, JOHNSON COUNTY, IA Loebsack Corps of Engineers Section 206 JANES-WALLACE MEMORIAL DAM, SANTA ROSA, NM Teague Corps of Engineers Section 206 LAKE LOU YAEGER RESTORATION, IL Shimkus Corps of Engineers Section 206 LOCKPORT PRAIRIE NATURE PRESERVE, WILL COUNTY, IL Biggert Corps of Engineers Section 206 MILL RIVER, STAMFORD, CT Himes Corps of Engineers Section 206 NORTH BEACH, MD Hoyer Corps of Engineers Section 206 NORTH FORK GUNNISON, CO Salazar Corps of Engineers Section 206 NORTH PARK, ALLEGHENY COUNTY, PA Altmire Corps of Engineers Section 206 NORTHWEST BRANCH, ANACOSTIA RIVER, MD Edwards (MD); Van Hollen Corps of Engineers Section 206 OLENTANGY 5TH AVENUE DAM, OH Kilroy Corps of Engineers Section 206 OSGOOD POND, MILFORD, NH Hodes Corps of Engineers Section 206 PAINT BRANCH FISH PASSAGE, MD Edwards (MD) Corps of Engineers Section 206 PAINTER CREEK, MN Paulsen Corps of Engineers Section 206 PING TOM PARK, IL Davis (IL) Corps of Engineers Section 206 SALT RIVER RESTORATON, CA Thompson (CA) Corps of Engineers Section 206 SHERADEN PARK & CHARTIERS CREEK, PA Doyle Corps of Engineers Section 206 SOUNDVIEW PARK, CITY OF BRONX, NY Crowley; Serrano; Sires Corps of Engineers Section 206 SPRING CREEK, NY Meeks (NY); Sires Corps of Engineers Section 206 SWEET ARROW LAKE, PA Holden Corps of Engineers Section 206 TAMARISK ERADICATION, CO Salazar 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
302 

ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT—Continued 

[Congressionally Directed Spending Items] 

Agency Account Project Amount Requester(s) 

Corps of Engineers Section 206 TEN MILE RIVER, RI Kennedy Corps of Engineers Section 206 URIEVILLE LAKE, MD Kratovil Corps of Engineers Section 206 WALNUT BRANCH, SEGUIN, TX Cuellar Corps of Engineers Section 206 WESTERN CARY STREAMS RESTORATION, CARY, NC Miller (NC) Corps of Engineers Section 205 BEPJ POPLAR BROOK, NJ Pallone Corps of Engineers Section 205 BLACK ROCKS CREEK, SALISBURY, MA Tierney Corps of Engineers Section 205 BLACKSNAKE CREEK, ST. JOSEPH, MO Graves Corps of Engineers Section 205 CASS RIVER, SPAULDING TOWNSHIP, MI Camp Corps of Engineers Section 205 CIENEGAS CREEK, DEL RIO, TX Rodriguez Corps of Engineers Section 205 CITY OF INDEPENDENCE, OH Kucinich Corps of Engineers Section 205 CONCORDIA, KS Moran (KS) Corps of Engineers Section 205 FARMERS BRANCH, TARRANT COUNTY, TX Granger Corps of Engineers Section 205 HAMILTON TOWNSHIP, NJ Smith (NJ) Corps of Engineers Section 205 HATCH, NM Teague Corps of Engineers Section 205 INDIAN CREEK, CEDAR RVR, CEDAR RAPIDS, IA Loebsack Corps of Engineers Section 205 JACKSON BROOK, MORRIS CITY, NJ Frelinghuysen Corps of Engineers Section 205 LAGRANGE GUT, FREDERIKSTED, VI Christensen 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
303 

Corps of Engineers Section 205 LAS GALLIANAS CREEK, MARIN COUNTY, CA Woolsey Corps of Engineers Section 205 LIMESTONE CREEK, FAYETTEVILLE, NY Maffei Corps of Engineers Section 205 LITTLE RIVER, HOPKINSVILLE, KY Whitfield Corps of Engineers Section 205 MINNESOTA RIVER, GRANITE FALLS, MN Peterson Corps of Engineers Section 205 NORTH RIVER, PEABODY, MA Tierney Corps of Engineers Section 205 PENNSVILLE, NJ LoBiondo Corps of Engineers Section 205 PHILADELPHIA SHIPYARD FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION, PHILADELPHIA, PA Brady (PA) Corps of Engineers Section 205 RIO GRANDE AND UNNAMED TRIBUTARY, EAGLE PASS, TX Rodriguez Corps of Engineers Section 205 SWANNANOA RIVER WATERSHED, NC Shuler Corps of Engineers Section 205 VALLEY VIEW, OH Kucinich Corps of Engineers Section 107 APRA SMALL BOAT HARBOR, GUAM Bordallo Corps of Engineers Section 107 BASS HARBOR, TREMONT, ME Michaud Corps of Engineers Section 107 FAIRLESS HILLS, PA (TURNING BASIN DEEPENING) Murphy, Patrick Corps of Engineers Section 107 HAMPTON HARBOR, NH Shea-Porter Corps of Engineers Section 107 NAPOLEON AVENUE CONTAINER TERMINAL ACCESS, NEW ORLEANS, LA $100,000 Scalise Corps of Engineers Section 107 ST. JEROME CREEK, ST. MARY’S COUNTY, MD Hoyer Corps of Engineers Section 1135 ASSUNPINK CREEK, NJ Holt; Smith (NJ) Corps of Engineers Section 1135 INDIAN RIDGE MARSH, CHICAGO, IL Jackson (IL) Corps of Engineers Section 1135 LAKE POYGAN, WI Petri Corps of Engineers Section 1135 LAS CRUCES DAM ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, DONA ANA COUNTY, NM Teague 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
304 

ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT—Continued 

[Congressionally Directed Spending Items] 

Agency Account Project Amount Requester(s) 

Corps of Engineers Section 1135 RATHBUN LAKE HABITAT RESTORATION PROJECT, IA Boswell; Loebsack Corps of Engineers Section 1135 SARASOTA BAY RESTORATION, SARASOTA COUNTY, FL Buchanan Corps of Engineers Section 1135 SMOKES CREEK, ERIE COUNTY, NY Higgins Corps of Engineers Section 1135 SPUNKY BOTTOMS RESTORATION, BROWN COUNTY, IL Schock Corps of Engineers Section 1135 TUJUNGA WASH ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, CA Berman; Roybal-Allard Corps of Engineers Section 103 BAY FARM ISLAND DIKE, CA Stark Corps of Engineers Section 103 CHESAPEAKE BAY SHORELINE, HAMPTON, VA Nye; Scott (VA) Corps of Engineers Section 103 PISMO BEACH, CA Capps Corps of Engineers Investigations ABILENE, TX (BRAZOS RIVER BASIN-ELM CREEK) $220,000 Neugebauer Corps of Engineers Investigations ANACOSTIA RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, MD & DC (COMPREHENSIVE PLAN) $321,000 Edwards (MD); Hoyer; Van Hollen Corps of Engineers Investigations ARKANSAS RIVER CORRIDOR, OK $100,000 Sullivan Corps of Engineers Investigations ARROYO SECO WATERSHED, CA $500,000 Becerra; Dreier; Roybal-Allard; 

Schiff 

Corps of Engineers Investigations BALLONA CREEK RESTORATION, CA $500,000 Harman; Roybal-Allard Corps of Engineers Investigations BOLINAS LAGOON ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, CA $200,000 Woolsey Corps of Engineers Investigations BOSSIER PARISH, LA $500,000 Fleming Corps of Engineers Investigations BRONX RIVER BASIN, NY $325,000 Crowley; Lowey; Serrano; Sires Corps of Engineers Investigations BRUSH CREEK BASIN, KS & MO $300,000 Cleaver; Moore (KS) 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
305 

Corps of Engineers Investigations BUFFALO BAYOU AND TRIBUTARIES, MAIN STEM, TX $100,000 Culberson Corps of Engineers Investigations BUFFALO BAYOU AND TRIBUTARIES, WHITE OAK BAYOU, TX $100,000 Culberson Corps of Engineers Investigations CANAVERAL HARBOR, FL $900,000 Posey Corps of Engineers Investigations CARPINTERIA SHORELINE STUDY, CA $500,000 Capps Corps of Engineers Investigations CEDAR RIVER TIME CHECK AREA, CEDAR RAPIDS, IA $887,000 Loebsack Corps of Engineers Investigations CENTRALIA, CHEHALIS RIVER, LEWIS COUNTY, WA $500,000 Baird; Dicks Corps of Engineers Investigations CHARLESTON HARBOR, SC $100,000 Brown (SC) Corps of Engineers Investigations CHEHALIS RIVER BASIN, WA $500,000 Baird; Dicks Corps of Engineers Investigations CHOWAN RIVER, VA & NC $100,000 Forbes Corps of Engineers Investigations COLLECTION AND STUDY OF BASIC DATA—FLOOD PLAIN MANAGEMENT SERVICES: 

BUCKS COUNTY, PA 

$250,000 Murphy, Patrick 

Corps of Engineers Investigations COLLECTION AND STUDY OF BASIC DATA—FLOOD PLAIN MANAGEMENT SERVICES: 

MON-MAQ DAM REMOVAL STUDY & LOCAL FLOODPLAIN MASTER PLANNING, MONTICELLO, IA 

$250,000 Braley (IA) 

Corps of Engineers Investigations COLLECTION AND STUDY OF BASIC DATA—FLOOD PLAIN MANAGEMENT SERVICES: 

WICHITA AREA DRAINAGE MASTER PLAN, KS 

$550,000 Tiahrt 

Corps of Engineers Investigations CONNECTICUT RIVER ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, CT, MA, NH & VT $450,000 Courtney; Hodes; Murphy (CT) Corps of Engineers Investigations COORDINATION WITH OTHER AGENCIES—PLANNING ASSISTANCE TO STATES: CEDAR 

LAKE WATER QUALITY STUDY, WI 

$65,000 Obey 

Corps of Engineers Investigations COORDINATION WITH OTHER AGENCIES—PLANNING ASSISTANCE TO STATES: LAKE 

COUNTY WETLAND PRESERVATION, PROTECTION AND RESTORATION PLAN, IL 

$200,000 Bean 

Corps of Engineers Investigations COORDINATION WITH OTHER AGENCIES—PLANNING ASSISTANCE TO STATES: OKLAHOMA COMPREHENSIVE WATER PLAN, OK $250,000 Boren; Fallin 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
306 

ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT—Continued 

[Congressionally Directed Spending Items] 

Agency Account Project Amount Requester(s) 

Corps of Engineers Investigations COORDINATION WITH OTHER AGENCIES—PLANNING ASSISTANCE TO STATES: SOUTH 

MAUI WATERSHED, HI 

$300,000 Abercrombie; Hirono 

Corps of Engineers Investigations CROSS LAKE, LA $100,000 Fleming Corps of Engineers Investigations CYPRESS VALLEY WATERSHED, TX $100,000 Gohmert Corps of Engineers Investigations DELAWARE RIVER WATERFRONT, PA $154,000 Schwartz Corps of Engineers Investigations DESERT HOT SPRINGS, CA $100,000 Lewis (CA) Corps of Engineers Investigations ELLIOTT BAY SEAWALL, WA $800,000 Dicks; Larsen (WA); McDermott Corps of Engineers Investigations ESPANOLA VALLEY, RIO GRANDE AND TRIBUTARIES, NM $300,000 Lujan Corps of Engineers Investigations ESTUDILLO CANAL, CA $250,000 Stark Corps of Engineers Investigations FARGO, ND—MOORHEAD, MN & UPSTREAM (RED RIVER OF THE NORTH BASIN) $200,000 Pomeroy Corps of Engineers Investigations FARGO-MOORHEAD METRO STUDY, ND & MN (RRN BASIN AUTHORITY) $1,400,000 Pomeroy Corps of Engineers Investigations FLAGLER COUNTY, FL $233,000 Mica Corps of Engineers Investigations FORGE RIVER WATERSHED, NY $260,000 Bishop (NY) Corps of Engineers Investigations FOUR MILE RUN, VA $150,000 Moran (VA) Corps of Engineers Investigations GATHRIGHT DAM AND LAKE MOOMAW, VA $300,000 Goodlatte Corps of Engineers Investigations GOLETA BEACH, CA $500,000 Capps Corps of Engineers Investigations GRAND LAKE COMPREHENSIVE STUDY, OK $190,000 Boren Corps of Engineers Investigations GRAYS HARBOR, WA $400,000 Dicks 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
307 

Corps of Engineers Investigations GREAT LAKES REMEDIAL ACTION PLANS & SEDIMENT REMEDIATION, MI, IL, IN, MN, 

NY, OH, PA & WI 

$4,000,000 Dahlkemper; Ehlers; Kaptur; 

Kucinich; Oberstar; Petri; Slaughter 

Corps of Engineers Investigations GREENUP LOCKS AND DAM, KY & OH $1,000,000 Davis (KY); Wilson (OH) Corps of Engineers Investigations GREENWOOD LAKE, NY & NJ $100,000 Garrett (NJ) Corps of Engineers Investigations HARRIS RIVERFRONT, HUNTINGTON, WV $100,000 Rahall Corps of Engineers Investigations HEACOCK AND CACTUS CHANNELS, CA $500,000 Bono Mack Corps of Engineers Investigations HUDSON-RARITAN ESTUARY, GOWANUS CANAL, NY $300,000 Sires; Velazquez Corps of Engineers Investigations HUMBOLDT, IA $152,000 Latham Corps of Engineers Investigations LAKE MONTAUK HARBOR, NY $119,000 Bishop (NY) Corps of Engineers Investigations LITTLE COLORADO RIVER, WINSLOW, AZ $500,000 Kirkpatrick (AZ) Corps of Engineers Investigations LONG BEACH BREAKWATER STUDY, CA $100,000 Richardson Corps of Engineers Investigations LOS ANGELES COUNTY DRAINAGE AREA (LACDA) WATER CONSERVATION AND SUPPLY, WHITTIER NARROWS DAM, CA $300,000 Napolitano; Roybal-Allard; Schiff Corps of Engineers Investigations LOS ANGELES RIVER DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS, CA $100,000 Becerra; Berman; Harman; Roybal-Allard; Schiff; Sherman Corps of Engineers Investigations LOS ANGELES RIVER ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, CA $1,500,000 Becerra; Berman; Harman; Roybal-Allard; Sherman; Watson Corps of Engineers Investigations LOS ANGELES RIVER WATERCOURSE IMPROVEMENT, HEADWORKS, CA $550,000 Roybal-Allard; Schiff Corps of Engineers Investigations LOWER CACHE CREEK, YOLO COUNTY, WOODLAND AND VICINITY, CA $150,000 Herger; Thompson (CA) Corps of Engineers Investigations LOWER SADDLE RIVER, NJ $500,000 Rothman (NJ) Corps of Engineers Investigations METROPOLITAN LOUISVILLE, MILL CREEK BASIN, KY $225,000 Yarmuth 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
308 

ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT—Continued 

[Congressionally Directed Spending Items] 

Agency Account Project Amount Requester(s) 

Corps of Engineers Investigations MIAMI HARBOR CHANNEL, FL $600,000 Diaz-Balart, Lincoln; Diaz-Balart, 

Mario; Ros-Lehtinen; Wasserman Schultz 

Corps of Engineers Investigations MIDDLE BRAZOS RIVER, TX $300,000 Carter; Edwards (TX) Corps of Engineers Investigations MIDDLE POTOMAC COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, MD, VA, PA, WV & DC $753,000 Connolly (VA); Moran (VA); Norton; Van Hollen Corps of Engineers Investigations MIDDLE POTOMAC RIVER—CAMERON RUN/HOLMES RUN, VA $600,000 Moran (VA) Corps of Engineers Investigations MIDDLE POTOMAC RIVER, GREAT SENECA/MUDDY BRANCH, MD $301,000 Edwards (MD); Van Hollen Corps of Engineers Investigations MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED, MN $500,000 Ellison Corps of Engineers Investigations MISSOURI RIVER LEVEE SYSTEM, UNITS L-455 & R 460-471, MO & KS $350,000 Graves Corps of Engineers Investigations MONTAUK POINT, NY $200,000 Bishop (NY) Corps of Engineers Investigations NORTH SHORE OF LONG ISLAND, ASHAROKEN, NY $300,000 Israel Corps of Engineers Investigations NORTHERN KENTUCKY RIVERFRONT COMMONS, KY $279,000 Davis (KY) Corps of Engineers Investigations OHIO RIVER SHORELINE, PADUCAH, KY $44,000 Whitfield Corps of Engineers Investigations ONONDAGA LAKE, NY $250,000 Maffei Corps of Engineers Investigations OTHER—TRIBAL PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM: NEW MEXICO $300,000 Heinrich; Lujan; Teague Corps of Engineers Investigations PAJARO RIVER, CA $1,000,000 Farr; Honda Corps of Engineers Investigations PECKMAN RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, NJ $443,000 Pascrell Corps of Engineers Investigations PINE MOUNTAIN DAM, AR $500,000 Boozman 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
309 

Corps of Engineers Investigations PRAIRIE DUPONT LEVEE AND SANITARY DISTRICT AND FISH LAKE DRAINAGE AND 

LEVEE DISTRICT, IL 

$1,000,000 Costello; Shimkus 

Corps of Engineers Investigations RAHWAY RIVER BASIN, NJ $300,000 Lance Corps of Engineers Investigations RARITAN BAY AND SANDY HOOK BAY, HIGHLANDS, NJ $300,000 Pallone Corps of Engineers Investigations RED CLAY CREEK, CHRISTINA RIVER WATERSHED, DE $300,000 Castle Corps of Engineers Investigations RED RIVER NAVIGATION STUDY, SOUTHWEST ARKANSAS, AR & LA $25,000 Alexander; Boren; Fleming; Hall 

(TX); Ross 

Corps of Engineers Investigations RIO GRANDE BASIN, NM, CO AND TX (SECTION 729) $120,000 Heinrich; Lujan; Reyes; Teague Corps of Engineers Investigations RIO SALADO OESTE, SALT RIVER, AZ $2,000,000 Pastor (AZ) Corps of Engineers Investigations RIVER DES PERES, MO $129,000 Carnahan; Clay Corps of Engineers Investigations RIVERSIDE COUNTY SPECIAL AREA MANAGEMENT PLAN, CA $221,000 Calvert Corps of Engineers Investigations SAN CLEMENTE SHORELINE, CA $100,000 Calvert Corps of Engineers Investigations SAN DIEGO COUNTY SPECIAL AREA MANAGEMENT PLAN, CA $300,000 Filner Corps of Engineers Investigations SAN FRANCISQUITO CREEK, CA $300,000 Eshoo; Honda Corps of Engineers Investigations SAN JOAQUIN RIVER BASIN, LOWER SAN JOAQUIN RIVER, CA $1,500,000 Cardoza; McNerney Corps of Engineers Investigations SAN JOAQUIN RIVER BASIN, WEST STANISLAUS COUNTY, ORESTIMBA CREEK, CA $460,000 Cardoza Corps of Engineers Investigations SAN JUAN CREEK, SOUTH ORANGE COUNTY, CA $582,000 Calvert Corps of Engineers Investigations SANTA ANA RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, CA $1,000,000 Lewis (CA) Corps of Engineers Investigations SANTA ANA RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, BIG BEAR LAKE, CA $800,000 Lewis (CA) Corps of Engineers Investigations SANTA ANA RIVER, PRADO BASIN ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, ORANGE COUNTY, CA $44,000 Baca Corps of Engineers Investigations SANTA CLARA RIVER WATERSHED, CA $500,000 Capps; Gallegly 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
310 

ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT—Continued 

[Congressionally Directed Spending Items] 

Agency Account Project Amount Requester(s) 

Corps of Engineers Investigations SARASOTA, LIDO KEY BEACH, FL $500,000 Buchanan Corps of Engineers Investigations SAVANNAH RIVER BASIN COMPREHENSIVE STUDY, GA & SC $1,000,000 Barrett (SC) Corps of Engineers Investigations SEVEN OAKS DAM WATER CONSERVATION STUDY, CA $800,000 Baca; Calvert; Lewis (CA) Corps of Engineers Investigations SKAGIT RIVER, WA $300,000 Larsen (WA) Corps of Engineers Investigations SKOKOMISH RIVER BASIN, WA $700,000 Dicks Corps of Engineers Investigations SOUTH RIVER, RARITAN RIVER BASIN, NJ $500,000 Holt; Pallone Corps of Engineers Investigations SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO SHORELINE, CA $2,800,000 Eshoo; Honda; Lofgren, Zoe; 

Pelosi; Stark 

Corps of Engineers Investigations SOUTHEAST OKLAHOMA WATER RESOURCE STUDY, OK $300,000 Boren; Cole Corps of Engineers Investigations SOUTHWEST ARKANSAS, AR $190,000 Ross Corps of Engineers Investigations SOUTHWEST COASTAL LOUISIANA HURRICANE PROTECTION, LA $1,000,000 Boustany Corps of Engineers Investigations ST. CROIX RIVER BASIN, MN & WI $154,000 Obey Corps of Engineers Investigations ST. CROIX RIVER RELOCATION OF ENDANGERED MUSSELS, MN & WI $350,000 Obey Corps of Engineers Investigations ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FL $1,000,000 Hastings (FL); Rooney Corps of Engineers Investigations STONY BROOK, MILLSTONE RIVER BASIN, NJ $250,000 Lance Corps of Engineers Investigations SUN VALLEY WATERSHED, CA $600,000 Berman; Roybal-Allard; Sherman Corps of Engineers Investigations UPPER OHIO NAVIGATION SYSTEM STUDY, PA $1,250,000 Altmire; Doyle; Murphy, Tim 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
311 

Corps of Engineers Investigations UPPER SUSQUEHANNA RIVER BASIN COMPREHENSIVE FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION, 

NY 

$100,000 Hinchey 

Corps of Engineers Investigations UPPER TRINITY RIVER BASIN, TX $500,000 Barton (TX); Burgess; Granger Corps of Engineers Investigations VICINITY AND WILLOUGHBY SPIT, NORFOLK, VA $243,000 Nye; Scott (VA) Corps of Engineers Investigations WAILUPE STREAM, OAHU, HI $175,000 Abercrombie Corps of Engineers Investigations WASHITA RIVER BASIN, OK $250,000 Cole Corps of Engineers Investigations WESTMINSTER, EAST GARDEN GROVE, CA $900,000 Rohrabacher; Sanchez, Loretta Corps of Engineers Investigations WHITE RIVER NAVIGATION TO NEWPORT, AR $500,000 Berry Corps of Engineers Investigations WILLAMETTE RIVER ENVIRONMENTAL DREDGING, OR $615,000 Blumenauer; Wu Corps of Engineers Investigations WRECK POND, MONMOUTH COUNTY, NJ $100,000 Smith (NJ) Corps of Engineers MRT—Investigations SPRING BAYOU, LA $350,000 Alexander Corps of Engineers MRT—Construction BAYOU METO BASIN, AR $100,000 Berry Corps of Engineers MRT—Construction ST. FRANCIS BASIN, AR & MO $2,200,000 Berry Corps of Engineers MRT—Construction ST. JOHNS BAYOU & NEW MADRID FLOODWAY, MO $200,000 Emerson Corps of Engineers O&M APPOMATTOX RIVER, VA $600,000 Forbes Corps of Engineers O&M ARCADIA HARBOR, MI $170,000 Hoekstra Corps of Engineers O&M ASHLAND HARBOR, WI $913,000 Obey Corps of Engineers O&M BEAUFORT HARBOR, NC $250,000 Jones Corps of Engineers O&M BLOCK ISLAND HARBOR OF REFUGE, RI $600,000 Langevin Corps of Engineers O&M BOGUE INLET AND CHANNEL, NC $325,000 Jones Corps of Engineers O&M CEDAR ISLAND KEATON BEACH CHANNEL, FL $300,000 Boyd 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
312 

ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT—Continued 

[Congressionally Directed Spending Items] 

Agency Account Project Amount Requester(s) 

Corps of Engineers O&M COCHECO RIVER, NH $1,200,000 Shea-Porter Corps of Engineers O&M CORNUCOPIA HARBOR, WI $173,000 Obey Corps of Engineers O&M CRESCENT CITY HARBOR, CA $3,900,000 Thompson (CA) Corps of Engineers O&M DEPOE BAY, OR $118,000 Schrader Corps of Engineers O&M EVERGLADES AND SOUTH FLORIDA ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, FL $575,000 Wasserman Schultz Corps of Engineers O&M FISHING CREEK, CALVERT COUNTY, MD $160,000 Hoyer Corps of Engineers O&M GRAYS HARBOR AND CHEHALIS RIVER, WA (COASTAL MODELING SYSTEM) $300,000 Dicks Corps of Engineers O&M GREENWICH HARBOR, CT $178,000 Himes Corps of Engineers O&M HAMPTON HARBOR, HAMPTON, NH $130,000 Shea-Porter Corps of Engineers O&M J. PERCY PRIEST GREENWAY, TN $3,500,000 Gordon (TN) Corps of Engineers O&M LAKE CUMBERLAND, KY $1,000,000 Rogers (KY) Corps of Engineers O&M LAKE SUPERIOR SMALL HARBOR MAINTENANCE, WI $1,924,000 Obey Corps of Engineers O&M MENOMINEE HARBOR, MI & WI $233,000 Kagen Corps of Engineers O&M MIAMI RIVER, FL $777,000 Diaz-Balart, Mario; Ros-Lehtinen; 

Wasserman Schultz 

Corps of Engineers O&M MILL CREEK AND SOUTH SLOUGH, IL $1,000,000 Hare Corps of Engineers O&M MISSISSIPPI RIVER BETWEEN MISSOURI RIVER AND MINNEAPOLIS (MVR PORTION), 

IL (SUNSET MARINA) 

$500,000 Hare 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
313 

Corps of Engineers O&M NAPLES TO BIG MARCO PASS, FL $1,500,000 Mack Corps of Engineers O&M NEW BUFFALO HARBOR, MI $139,000 Upton Corps of Engineers O&M NEWBURYPORT HARBOR, MA (DREDGING) $1,260,000 Tierney Corps of Engineers O&M NORWALK HARBOR, CT $2,000,000 Himes Corps of Engineers O&M OHIO RIVER LOCKS AND DAMS, WV, KY & OH (PARKERSBURG/VIENNA, WV) $2,786,000 Mollohan Corps of Engineers O&M OLCOTT HARBOR, NY $197,000 Slaughter Corps of Engineers O&M PENTWATER HARBOR, MI $185,000 Hoekstra Corps of Engineers O&M PINOLE SHOAL MANAGEMENT STUDY, CA $200,000 Cardoza; McNerney; Miller, 

George; Tauscher 

Corps of Engineers O&M PORT ST. JOE HARBOR, FL $500,000 Boyd Corps of Engineers O&M REGIONAL SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM: MATHEWS COUNTY, VA $238,000 Wittman Corps of Engineers O&M SAN FRANCISCO BAY, LONG TERM MANAGEMENT STRATEGY, CA $3,500,000 Pelosi Corps of Engineers O&M ST. HERMAN’S HARBOR, KODIAK, AK $500,000 Young (AK) Corps of Engineers O&M TRINITY RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, TX $1,996,000 Poe (TX) Corps of Engineers O&M WINTER HARBOR, MATHEWS COUNTY, VA $1,190,000 Wittman Corps of Engineers General Provisions SECTION 105—TWO HARBORS, MN Oberstar Corps of Engineers General Provisions SECTION 106—NORTHERN WISCONSIN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSISTANCE, WI Obey Corps of Engineers General Provisions SECTION 107—MARTIN, KY Rogers (KY) Corps of Engineers General Provisions SECTION 108—WHITE RIVER MINIMUM FLOW, AR Berry Department of Energy EERE ADVANCED AUTOMOTIVE FUELS RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, & COMMERCIALIZATION 

CLUSTER 

$1,500,000 Ryan (OH) 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
314 

ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT—Continued 

[Congressionally Directed Spending Items] 

Agency Account Project Amount Requester(s) 

Department of Energy EERE ADVANCED BATTERY MANUFACTURING $200,000 Perriello Department of Energy EERE AGRI-BUSINESS ENERGY INDEPENDENCE DEMONSTRATION, NY $80,000 Arcuri Department of Energy EERE ALABAMA INSTITUTE FOR DEAF AND BLIND BIODIESEL PROJECT GREEN $300,000 Rogers (AL) Department of Energy EERE ALGAE TO BIODIESEL, CARLSBAD, NM $500,000 Teague Department of Energy EERE ALTERNATIVE ENERGY SCHOOL OF THE FUTURE $500,000 Berkley; Titus Department of Energy EERE ALTERNATIVE ENERGY TRAINING INSTITUTE $500,000 McKeon Department of Energy EERE ALTERNATIVE FUEL BUS PROJECT, SCHAGHTICOKE, NY $300,000 Murphy (NY) Department of Energy EERE AUBURN UNIVERSITY, BIOMASS TO LIQUID FUELS AND ELECTRIC POWER RESEARCH $1,500,000 Bonner; Rogers (AL)Department of Energy EERE BEXAR COUNTY SOLAR COLLECTION FARM AND DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM $1,000,000 Gonzalez; Smith (TX) Department of Energy EERE BIO ENERGY INITIATIVE FOR CONNECTICUT $1,500,000 DeLauro Department of Energy EERE BIODIESEL PRODUCTION FROM GREASE WASTE $250,000 Bono Mack Department of Energy EERE BIOENERGY/BIONANOTECHNOLOGY PROJECTS $500,000 Alexander Department of Energy EERE BIOFUEL MICRO-REFINERIES FOR LOCAL SUSTAINABILITY $500,000 Cohen Department of Energy EERE BIOFUELS CAMPUS FOR ACCELERATED DEVELOPMENT $500,000 Butterfield Department of Energy EERE BIOFUELS RESEARCH LABORATORY $1,000,000 Guthrie Department of Energy EERE BIOFUELS, BIOPOWER AND BIOMATERIALS INITIATIVE $1,250,000 Kingston; Scott (GA) Department of Energy EERE BIOPROCESSES RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, MICHIGAN BIOTECHNOLOGY INSTITUTE, LANSING, MI $500,000 Rogers (MI) 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
315 

Department of Energy EERE BOULDER SMARTGRIDCITY—PLUG-IN ELECTRIC HYBRID VEHICLES $500,000 Polis Department of Energy EERE BRIDGE HYDRO-TURBINE STUDY $150,000 Blumenauer; Wu Department of Energy EERE BROOKSTON WIND TURBINES STUDY, BROOKSTON, IN $75,000 Buyer Department of Energy EERE CALIFORNIA POLYTECHNIC STATE UNIVERSITY CENTER FOR RENEWABLE ENERGY 

AND ALTERNATIVE ELECTRIC TRANSPORTATION TECHNOLOGIES EQUIPMENT ACQUISITION 

$250,000 McCarthy (CA) 

Department of Energy EERE CENTER FOR ADVANCED BIO-BASED BINDERS (CABB) AND POLLUTION REDUCTION 

TECHNOLOGIES 

$700,000 Braley (IA) 

Department of Energy EERE CENTER FOR APPLIED ALTERNATIVE ENERGY, SUSTAINABLE & PRACTICES $500,000 Buchanan Department of Energy EERE CENTER FOR ENERGY STORAGE RESEARCH $1,000,000 Johnson, Sam Department of Energy EERE CENTER FOR ENVIROMENTAL AND ENERGY RESEARCH $250,000 Massa Department of Energy EERE CENTRAL CORRIDOR ENERGY DISTRICT INTEGRATION STUDY $500,000 McCollum Department of Energy EERE CENTRAL PIEDMONT COMMUNITY COLLEGE $525,000 Kissell; Watt Department of Energy EERE CHRISTMAS VALLEY RENEWABLE ENERGY DEVELOPMENT $410,000 Walden Department of Energy EERE CITY HALL LEADERSHIP IN ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN (LEED) CERTIFICATION $500,000 Diaz-Balart, Mario Department of Energy EERE CITY OF BOISE GEOTHERMAL EXPANSION TO BOISE STATE UNIVERSITY $1,000,000 Simpson Department of Energy EERE CITY OF GRAND RAPIDS SOLAR ROOF DEMONSTRATION PROJECT $250,000 Ehlers Department of Energy EERE CITY OF NORCO WASTE-TO-ENERGY FACILITY $750,000 Calvert Department of Energy EERE CITY OF OAKDALE ENERGY EFFICIENCY UPGRADES $400,000 McCollum Department of Energy EERE CITY OF REDLANDS FACILITIES UPGRADES TO IMPROVE ENERGY EFFICIENCY $900,000 Lewis (CA) Department of Energy EERE CITY OF TALLAHASSEE INNOVATIVE ENERGY INITIATIVES $250,000 Crenshaw 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
316 

ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT—Continued 

[Congressionally Directed Spending Items] 

Agency Account Project Amount Requester(s) 

Department of Energy EERE CITY OF WINTER GARDEN WEATHERIZATION DEMONSTRATION PROJECT $200,000 Grayson Department of Energy EERE CLEMSON UNIVERSITY CELLULOSIC BIOFUEL PILOT PLANT $1,000,000 Barrett (SC); Inglis Department of Energy EERE CLOUD COUNTY COMMUNITY COLLEGE RENEWABLE ENERGY CENTER OF EXCELLENCE $750,000 Moran (KS) Department of Energy EERE COASTAL OHIO WIND PROJECT: REMOVING BARRIERS TO GREAK LAKES OFFSHORE 

WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT 

$1,000,000 Kaptur; Latta 

Department of Energy EERE COMPREHENSIVE WIND ENERGY PROGRAM, PURDUE UNIVERSITY-CALUMET, IN $500,000 Visclosky Department of Energy EERE COMPRESSED NATURAL GAS FUELING FACILITY $700,000 Blunt Department of Energy EERE CONCENTRATOR PHOTOVOLTAIC TECHNOLOGY $900,000 Giffords Department of Energy EERE CONSOLIDATED ALTERNATIVE FUELS RESEARCH $250,000 Lucas Department of Energy EERE CONSORTIUM FOR PLANT BIOTECHNOLOGY RESEARCH $3,000,000 Abercrombie; Bishop (GA); Conyers; Etheridge; Lewis (GA); 

Miller (NC); Price (NC); Rogers (KY); Rogers (MI); Rothman (NJ); Stupak 

Department of Energy EERE CONTROLLED ENVIRONMENTAL AGRICULTURE AND ENERGY PROJECT $200,000 McHugh Department of Energy EERE CREIGHTON UNIVERSITY TRAINING & RESEARCH IN SOLAR POWER $1,200,000 Terry Department of Energy EERE DAEMEN COLLEGE ALTERNATIVE ENERGY/GEOTHERMAL TECHNOLOGIES DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM, ERIE COUNTY, NY $950,000 Lee (NY) Department of Energy EERE DEDHAM MUNICIPAL SOLAR PROJECT $500,000 Lynch Department of Energy EERE DEMONSTRATION PLANT FOR BIODIESEL FROM LOW-IMPACT CROPS $500,000 Schock 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
317 

Department of Energy EERE DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION OF GEOTHERMAL ENERGY SYSTEMS AT WEST CHESTER UNIVERSITY $300,000 Sestak Department of Energy EERE DEVELOPMENT OF HIGH YIELD FEEDSTOCK AND BIOMASS CONVERSION TECHNOLOGY FOR RENEWABLE ENERGY PRODUCTION AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT $1,000,000 Hirono Department of Energy EERE DEVELOPMENT OF POLLUTION PREVENTION TECHNOLOGIES $900,000 Clarke; Meeks (NY); Towns; 

Weiner 

Department of Energy EERE EAST KENTUCKY BIOENERGY CAPACITY ASSESSMENT PROJECT $250,000 Rogers (KY) Department of Energy EERE EASTERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY BIOMASS PLANT $1,000,000 Johnson (IL) Department of Energy EERE ENERGY AUDIT, EFFICIENCY IMPROVEMENTS, AND RENEWABLE ENERGY INSTALLATIONS, TOWNSHIP OF BRANCHBURG, NJ $1,000,000 Lance Department of Energy EERE ENERGY CONSERVATION AND EFFICIENCY UPGRADE OF HVAC CONTROLS $500,000 Maloney Department of Energy EERE ENERGY CONSERVATION UPGRADES, INGHAM REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, LANSING, MI $250,000 Rogers (MI) Department of Energy EERE ENERGY EFFICIENCY ENHANCEMENTS $250,000 Aderholt Department of Energy EERE ENERGY EFFICIENCY REPAIRS AND AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENTS AT LYONSDALE 

BIOMASS 

$500,000 McHugh 

Department of Energy EERE ENERGY EFFICIENCY UPGRADES, NEW ROCHELLE, NY $1,000,000 Lowey Department of Energy EERE ENERGY REDUCTION AND EFFICIENCY IMPROVEMENT THROUGH LIGHTING CONTROL $120,000 Dent Department of Energy EERE ENERGY SAVING RETROFITTING FOR THE CFCC MAIN CAMPUS $300,000 Stearns Department of Energy EERE ENERGY-EFFICIENT INNOVATIONS FOR HEALTHY BUILDINGS $500,000 Maffei Department of Energy EERE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT PROTOCOLS FOR TIDAL POWER $1,000,000 Michaud; Pingree (ME) Department of Energy EERE ETHANOL FROM AGRICULTURE $500,000 Berry Department of Energy EERE FAIRBANKS GEOTHERMAL ENERGY PROJECT $1,000,000 Young (AK) 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
318 

ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT—Continued 

[Congressionally Directed Spending Items] 

Agency Account Project Amount Requester(s) 

Department of Energy EERE FAIRVIEW DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS BUILDING AND SITE IMPROVEMENTS $500,000 Rothman (NJ) Department of Energy EERE FARM DEPLOYABLE MICROBIAL BIOREACTOR FOR FUEL ETHANOL PRODUCTION $800,000 Aderholt; Bright Department of Energy EERE FAST CHARGING ELECTRIC VEHICLE DEMONSTRATION PROJECT IN CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA $500,000 Perriello Department of Energy EERE FEASIBILITY STUDY AND DESIGN OF BRIGHTFIELD SOLAR FARM $200,000 Sestak Department of Energy EERE FLORIDA RENEWABLE ENERGY PROGRAM $1,000,000 Putnam Department of Energy EERE FORT MASON CENTER PIER 2 PROJECT $2,000,000 Pelosi Department of Energy EERE GADSDEN STATE COMMUNITY COLLEGE GREEN OPERATIONS PLAN $75,000 Aderholt Department of Energy EERE GEORGETOWN SOUTH COMMERCIAL PARK, PHOTOVOLTAIC GENERATION FACILITY $100,000 Carter Department of Energy EERE GEORGIA SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY BIODIESEL RESEARCH $250,000 Kingston Department of Energy EERE GEOTHERMAL DEVELOPMENT IN HOT SPRINGS VALLEY $491,000 Rehberg Department of Energy EERE GEOTHERMAL POWER GENERATION PLANT AT OREGON INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY $1,000,000 Walden; Wu Department of Energy EERE GLOBAL GREEN NEW ORLEANS—HOLY CROSS PROJECT $550,000 Cao Department of Energy EERE GOGEBIC COMMUNITY COLLEGE (GCC)—CAMPUS ENERGY EFFICIENT AND WEATHERIZATION UPGRADE $300,000 Stupak Department of Energy EERE GREAT LAKES INSTITUTE FOR ENERGY INNOVATION $500,000 Fudge; LaTourette Department of Energy EERE GREEN BUILDING RESEARCH LABORATORY $1,000,000 Wu Department of Energy EERE GREEN BUILDINGS/RETROFITTING $350,000 Forbes 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
319 

Department of Energy EERE GREEN FUELS DEPOT $1,500,000 Biggert Department of Energy EERE GREEN ROOF DEMONSTRATION PROJECT $600,000 Souder Department of Energy EERE GREEN ROOF FOR THE DUPAGE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING $250,000 Roskam Department of Energy EERE GREENFIELD COMMUNITY COLLEGE HYBRID GEO-THERMAL PROJECT $525,000 Olver Department of Energy EERE HARDIN COUNTY GENERAL HOSPITAL ENERGY EFFICIENCY UPGRADES $500,000 Shimkus Department of Energy EERE HENDERSON, SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT $500,000 Titus Department of Energy EERE HIGH PENETRATION WIND POWER IN TATITLEK $900,000 Young (AK) Department of Energy EERE HIGH TEMPERATURE HYDROGEN GENERATION SYSTEMS $300,000 Inglis Department of Energy EERE HOSPITAL LIGHTING RETROFIT $500,000 Rush Department of Energy EERE HOUSATONIC RIVER NET-ZERO-ENERGY BUILDING $1,000,000 Olver Department of Energy EERE HULL MUNCIPAL LIGHT PLANT OFFSHORE WIND PROJECT $750,000 Delahunt Department of Energy EERE ILLINOIS COMMUNITY COLLEGE SUSTAINABILITY NETWORK $250,000 Costello; Halvorson; Jackson (IL); 

Johnson (IL); Schakowsky; Schock 

Department of Energy EERE ILLINOIS ENERGY RESOURCES CENTER AT THE UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT CHICAGO $400,000 Lipinski Department of Energy EERE IMPROVING FUEL CELL DURABILITY AND RELIABILITY INITIATIVE $2,500,000 Courtney; Larson (CT) Department of Energy EERE INSTALLATION OF A SOLAR CANOPY $534,000 Olver Department of Energy EERE INSTITUTE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP $1,000,000 Fattah Department of Energy EERE INSTITUTE FOR SUSTAINABLE ENERGY $1,000,000 Bachus; Davis (AL) Department of Energy EERE INTEGRATED BIOMASS REFINING INSTITUTE $1,000,000 Etheridge; Price (NC) Department of Energy EERE INTEGRATED POWER FOR MICROSYSTEMS $250,000 Lee (NY) 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
320 

ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT—Continued 

[Congressionally Directed Spending Items] 

Agency Account Project Amount Requester(s) 

Department of Energy EERE INTEGRATED RENEWABLE ENERGY & CAMPUS SUSTAINABILITY INITIATIVE $750,000 Latham Department of Energy EERE IOWA CENTRAL RENEWABLE FUEL TESTING LABORATORY $500,000 Latham Department of Energy EERE ISSAQUAH HIGHLANDS ZERO ENERGY AFFORDABLE HOUSING $500,000 Reichert Department of Energy EERE JENKS ENERGY MANAGEMENT EQUIPMENT $250,000 Sullivan Department of Energy EERE JUNIATA HYBRID LOCOMOTIVE $1,000,000 Shuster Department of Energy EERE KANSAS STATE UNIVERSITY CENTER FOR SUSTAINABLE ENERGY $500,000 Moran (KS) Department of Energy EERE LA FERIA SOLAR LIGHTING INITIATIVE $500,000 Hinojosa Department of Energy EERE LANCASTER LANDFILL SOLAR FACILITY $500,000 Tsongas Department of Energy EERE LARGE-SCALE WIND TRAINING PROGRAM, HUDSON VALLEY COMMUNITY COLLEGE, 

TROY, NY 

$300,000 Murphy (NY) 

Department of Energy EERE LIGNOCELLULOSIC BIOFUELS FROM NEW BIOENERGY CROPS $1,000,000 Edwards (TX) Department of Energy EERE LONG ISLAND 50 MW SOLAR INITIATIVE $1,750,000 Israel Department of Energy EERE LONG ISLAND BIOFUELS ALLIANCE $2,750,000 Israel Department of Energy EERE MARET CENTER $1,500,000 Blunt Department of Energy EERE MARINE RENEWABLE ENERGY CENTER $750,000 Delahunt; Frank (MA); McGovern Department of Energy EERE MIAMI CHILDREN’S MUSEUM GOING GREEN INITIATIVE $1,000,000 Ros-Lehtinen Department of Energy EERE MILL SEAT LANDFILL BIOREACTOR RENEWABLE GREEN POWER PROJECT $1,000,000 Lee (NY) Department of Energy EERE MORRIS COUNTY RENEWABLE ENERGY INITIATIVE $2,000,000 Frelinghuysen 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
321 

Department of Energy EERE MOVING TOWARD AN ENERGY EFFICIENT CAMPUS AT WHEELOCK COLLEGE $400,000 Capuano Department of Energy EERE MT. WACHUSETT COMMUNITY COLLEGE WIND PROJECT $1,000,000 Olver Department of Energy EERE MULTI-HYBRID POWER VEHICLES WITH COST EFFECTIVE AND DURABLE POLYMER 

ELECTROLYTE MEMBRANE FUEL CELL AND LITHIUM ION BATTERY FOR OHIO UNIVERSITY 

$600,000 Wilson (OH) 

Department of Energy EERE MUNICIPAL BUILDING ENERGY EFFICIENT WINDOW REPLACEMENT PROGRAM $180,000 Lance Department of Energy EERE MUNICIPAL COMPLEX SOLAR POWER PROJECT $200,000 Sires Department of Energy EERE NANOSTRUCTURED MATERIALS FOR ENERGY $1,000,000 Miller (NC) Department of Energy EERE NATIONAL CENTER OF EXCELLENCE IN ENERGY STORAGE TECHNOLOGY $900,000 Kilroy Department of Energy EERE NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR AVIATION RESEARCH, ADVANCED MATERIALS RESEARCH $1,500,000 Tiahrt Department of Energy EERE NATIONAL OFFSHORE WIND ENERGY CENTER $1,000,000 Green, Al; Green, Gene; JacksonLee (TX) Department of Energy EERE NATIONAL OPEN-OCEAN ENERGY LABORATORY $800,000 Klein (FL); Wasserman Schultz; 

Wexler 

Department of Energy EERE NCMS $900,000 Dingell Department of Energy EERE NEIGHBORHOOD WEATHERIZATION COLLABORATIVE $500,000 DeGette Department of Energy EERE NEWARK MUSEUM ALTERNATIVE ENERGY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM $500,000 Frelinghuysen; Payne Department of Energy EERE NEXT GENERATION COMPOSITE WIND BLADE MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGIES $250,000 Michaud; Pingree (ME) Department of Energy EERE NEXT GENERATION WIND TURBINE $1,000,000 Neal Department of Energy EERE NORTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY TRANSPORTATION ENERGY PROGRAM $1,000,000 Lipinski Department of Energy EERE NTRCI LEGACY ENGINE DEMONSTRATION PROJECT $500,000 Duncan Department of Energy EERE NY STATE CENTER FOR ADVANCED FERRITE PRODUCTION $300,000 McHugh 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
322 

ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT—Continued 

[Congressionally Directed Spending Items] 

Agency Account Project Amount Requester(s) 

Department of Energy EERE OAKLAND UNIVERSITY ALTERNATIVE ENERGY EDUCATION $500,000 Peters Department of Energy EERE OFFSHORE WIND PROJECT STUDY $500,000 Ackerman Department of Energy EERE ORANGE COUNTY SOLAR DEMONSTRATION & RESEARCH FACILITY $300,000 Grayson Department of Energy EERE OU CENTER FOR BIOMASS REFINING $500,000 Cole Department of Energy EERE PASSIVE NOX REMOVAL CATALYST RESEARCH, NOTRE DAME UNIVERSITY, IN $900,000 Visclosky Department of Energy EERE PERU ELECTRICAL DEPARTMENT WIND TURBINE GENERATION $1,000,000 Halvorson Department of Energy EERE PHIPPS CONSERVATORY CTI WASTE-TO-ENERGY PROJECT $500,000 Murphy, Tim Department of Energy EERE PHOENIX CHILDREN’S HOSPITAL CENTRAL ENERGY PLANT EXPANSION $2,000,000 Pastor (AZ) Department of Energy EERE PHOTOVOLTAIC POWER ELECTRONICS RESEARCH INITIATIVE (PERI) $700,000 Brown, Corrine; Kosmas Department of Energy EERE PITTSBURGH GREEN INNOVATORS $1,500,000 Doyle Department of Energy EERE PLUG-IN HYBRID INITIATIVE $500,000 Schauer Department of Energy EERE PORT OF GALVESTON SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT $250,000 Paul Department of Energy EERE PROTOTYPING AND DEVELOPMENT OF COMMERCIAL NANO-CRYSTALLINE THIN FILM 

SILICON FOR PHOTOVOLTAIC MANUFACTURING 

$500,000 Tonko 

Department of Energy EERE PURDUE SOLAR ENERGY UTILIZATION LABORATORY, WEST LAFAYETTE, IN $425,000 Buyer Department of Energy EERE R & D OF CLEAN VEHICLE TECHNOLOGY $1,000,000 Ryan (OH); Sutton Department of Energy EERE RENEWABLE ENERGY CENTER $750,000 Butterfield; Watt 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
323 

Department of Energy EERE RENEWABLE ENERGY/DISASTER BACKUP SYSTEM FOR HAWAII RED CROSS HEADQUARTERS BUILDING $240,000 Abercrombie; Hirono Department of Energy EERE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT OF LIQUID CARRIERS FOR HYDROGEN ENERGY $500,000 Reichert Department of Energy EERE RICHLAND COMMUNITY COLLEGE BIOENERGY PROGRAM $500,000 Johnson (IL) Department of Energy EERE RUNNING SPRINGS RETREAT CENTER SOLAR UPGRADE $1,000,000 Lewis (CA) Department of Energy EERE SAINT JOSEPH’S UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP $1,000,000 Brady (PA) Department of Energy EERE SAN DIEGO CENTER FOR ALGAE BIOTECHNOLOGY (SD-CAB) $750,000 Bilbray; Davis (CA) Department of Energy EERE SAN FRANCISCO ELECTRIC VEHICLE INITIATIVE $1,000,000 Pelosi Department of Energy EERE SHOW ME ENERGY COOPERATIVE BIOMASS DEVELOPMENT $900,000 Skelton Department of Energy EERE SOLAR ENERGY PARKING CANOPY DEMONSTRATION PROJECT $3,000,000 Lewis (CA) Department of Energy EERE SOLAR ENERGY PROGRAM $800,000 Wasserman Schultz Department of Energy EERE SOLAR ENERGY RESEARCH CENTER INSTRUMENTATION FACILITY, UNIVERSITY OF 

NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL 

$1,000,000 Price (NC) 

Department of Energy EERE SOLAR FURNACE RESEARCH PROGRAM, VALPARAISO UNIVERSITY, IN $500,000 Visclosky Department of Energy EERE SOLAR HOT WATER PROJECT IN GREENBURGH, NY $169,000 Lowey Department of Energy EERE SOLAR LIGHTING FOR ARTESIA PARKS $250,000 Sanchez, Linda Department of Energy EERE SOLAR PANEL EXPANSION INITIATIVE $500,000 Rodriguez Department of Energy EERE SOLAR PANELS ON HUDSON COUNTY FACILITIES $500,000 Sires Department of Energy EERE SOLAR POWER FOR MAYWOOD $300,000 Rothman (NJ) Department of Energy EERE SOLAR POWERED LIGHTING FOR FOREST PRESERVE DISTRICT OF DUPAGE COUNTY, 

IL 

$300,000 Roskam 

Department of Energy EERE SOLAR POWEREED COMPRESSED NATURAL GAS REFUELING STATION $500,000 McCarthy (NY) 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
324 

ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT—Continued 

[Congressionally Directed Spending Items] 

Agency Account Project Amount Requester(s) 

Department of Energy EERE SOLID OXIDE FUEL CELL SYSTEMS PVL PILOT LINE $1,000,000 Boccieri; Sutton Department of Energy EERE SOMERSET COUNTY RENEWABLE ENERGY INITIATIVE $2,000,000 Frelinghuysen Department of Energy EERE SOUTH JERSEY WIND TURBINES $500,000 LoBiondo Department of Energy EERE SOUTHERN PINE BASED BIOREFINERY CENTER $500,000 Lewis (GA); Marshall; Scott (GA) Department of Energy EERE ST. LUKE’S MINERS MEMORIAL HOSPITAL ENERGY EFFICIENCY IMPROVEMENT 

PROJECT 

$525,000 Holden 

Department of Energy EERE ST. MARKS REFINERY REDEVELOPMENT $350,000 Boyd Department of Energy EERE ST. PETERSBURG SOLAR PILOT PROJECT $1,000,000 Young (FL) Department of Energy EERE ST. PETERSBURG SUSTAINABLE BIOSOLIDS/RENEWABLE ENERGY PLANT $2,500,000 Young (FL) Department of Energy EERE STATE COLLEGES’ (VSC) STATEWIDE ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY 

INITIATIVE 

$450,000 Welch 

Department of Energy EERE STREET LIGHTING FIXTURE ENERGY EFFICIENCY RETROFIT PROJECT $500,000 Becerra; Harman; Sanchez, 

Linda; Watson 

Department of Energy EERE SUSTAINABLE ALGAL ENERGY PRODUCTION AND ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION $500,000 Wittman Department of Energy EERE SUSTAINABLE ENERGY OPTIONS FOR RURAL NEBRASKA $500,000 Fortenberry Department of Energy EERE SUSTAINABLE ENERGY RESEARCH CENTER $1,500,000 Harper Department of Energy EERE SWEET SORGHUM ALTERNATIVE FUEL AND FEED PILOT PROJECT $750,000 Grijalva Department of Energy EERE SWITCHGRASS BIOFUEL RESEARCH: CARBON SEQUESTRATION AND LIFE CYCLE 

ANALYSIS 

$250,000 Fortenberry 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
325 

Department of Energy EERE SYNTHESIS OF RENEWABLE BIOFUELS FROM BIOMASS $500,000 Rehberg Department of Energy EERE THE BIOREFINERY IN NEW YORK-BIO BUTANOL FROM BIOMASS $400,000 Maffei Department of Energy EERE THE BOSTON ARCHITECTURAL COLLEGE’S URBAN SUSTAINABILITY INITIATIVE $1,600,000 Capuano Department of Energy EERE THE JOHNSTON AVENUE SOLAR PROJECT $500,000 Smith (NJ) Department of Energy EERE THE SOLAR ENERGY CONSORTIUM $2,250,000 Hinchey; Hall (NY) Department of Energy EERE THURGOOD MARSHALL COLLEGE FUND MINORITY ENERGY SCIENCE INITIATIVE: 

NNSA 

$3,000,000 Butterfield; Towns 

Department of Energy EERE TODAY’S LEADERS FOR A SUSTAINABLE TOMORROW: A SUSTAINABLE ENERGY PROGRAM $1,500,000 Oberstar Department of Energy EERE TUCSON PUBLIC BUILDING SOLAR ARRAYS $450,000 Giffords Department of Energy EERE UNION TERMINAL $500,000 Driehaus Department of Energy EERE UNITED WAY OF SOUTHEASTERN MICHIGAN $400,000 Conyers; Dingell; Kilpatrick (MI); 

Levin; Miller (MI) 

Department of Energy EERE UNIVERSITY OF AKRON NATIONAL POLYMER INNOVATION CENTER $1,000,000 Ryan (OH); Sutton Department of Energy EERE UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS AT LITTLE ROCK NANOSTRUCTURED SOLAR CELLS $500,000 Snyder Department of Energy EERE UNIVERSITY OF DETROIT MERCY ENERGY EFFICIENT CHEMISTRY BUILDING RENOVATIONS $800,000 Kilpatrick (MI) Department of Energy EERE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH ALABAMA GREEN CAMPUS INITIATIVE $200,000 Aderholt Department of Energy EERE UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA AIKEN BIOFUELS LABORATORY IN AIKEN, SC $456,000 Barrett (SC) Department of Energy EERE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN OSHKOSH’S ANAEROBIC DRY DIGESTION FACILITY $500,000 Petri Department of Energy EERE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-BARABOO/SAUK COUNTY NET-ZERO ENERGY BUILDING $500,000 Baldwin 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
326 

ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT—Continued 

[Congressionally Directed Spending Items] 

Agency Account Project Amount Requester(s) 

Department of Energy EERE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MILWAUKEE ADVANCED NANOMATERIALS FOR HIGH-EFFICIENCY SOLAR CELLS $500,000 Moore (WI) Department of Energy EERE UW NORTHWEST NATIONAL MARINE RENEWABLE ENERGY CENTER $880,000 Inslee; McDermott; Schrader; Wu Department of Energy EERE WARREN TECHNOLOGY AND BUSINESS CENTER FOR ENERGY SUSTAINABILITY $2,200,000 Ryan (OH) Department of Energy EERE WASHINGTON STATE BIOFUELS INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENT $1,000,000 McDermott; Reichert; Smith (WA) Department of Energy EERE WESTERN IOWA TECH COMMUNITY COLLEGE RENEWABLE ENERGY ECONOMY CORRIDOR $500,000 King (IA) Department of Energy EERE WESTERN KENTUCKY UNIVERSITY RESEARCH FOUNDATION BIODIESEL PROJECT $500,000 Guthrie Department of Energy EERE WIND SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING CENTER $1,000,000 Neugebauer Department of Energy EERE WIND TURBINE INFRASTRUCTURE FOR GREEN ENERGY AND RESEARCH ON WIND 

POWER IN DELAWARE 

$300,000 Castle 

Department of Energy EERE YPSI CIVIC CENTER $1,000,000 Dingell Department of Energy Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability ADAPTIVE SUPERVISORY CONTROL AND DATA ACQUISITION (SCADA) TECHNOLOGY FOR INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION $750,000 Miller (FL); Stearns Department of Energy Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability AUTOMATED REMOTE ELECTRIC AND WATER METERS IN SOUTH RIVER $500,000 Holt Department of Energy Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability CLEAN POWER ENERGY RESEARCH CONSORTIUM (CPERC) $1,000,000 Cao Department of Energy Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability DEVELOPMENT OF A SMART MICROGRID TESTBED $500,000 Barton (TX) 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
327 

Department of Energy Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability ENERGY TRANSMISSION AND INFRASTRUCTURE NORTHERN OHIO $1,100,000 Kaptur Department of Energy Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability INSTITUTE FOR ENERGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT AT VERMONT LAW SCHOOL $450,000 Welch Department of Energy Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability MICROGRIDS AND RENEWABLE ENERGY AND TECHNOLOGIES RESEARCH INITIATIVE $750,000 Teague Department of Energy Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability NATIONAL CENTER FOR RELIABLE ELECTRIC TRANSMISSION $500,000 Boozman Department of Energy Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability POWER MICRO-GRIDS FOR COLONIAS ALONG THE TEXAS/MEXICO BORDER $550,000 Cuellar Department of Energy Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability SMART GRID INITIATIVE $500,000 Schiff; Sherman Department of Energy Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA COMPRESSED AIR ENERGY STORAGE $500,000 Pastor (AZ) Department of Energy Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability WESTERN BALDWIN COUNTY, AL GRID INTERCONNECTION $500,000 Bonner Department of Energy Nuclear Energy MCCLELLAN NUCLEAR RADIATION CENTER $500,000 Lungren, Dan Department of Energy Fossil Energy R&D CENTER FOR ADVANCED SEPARATION TECHNOLOGIES $500,000 Boucher; Moran (VA) Department of Energy Fossil Energy R&D CENTER FOR RENEWABLE ENERGY, SCIENCE, AND TECHNOLOGY (CREST) $1,000,000 Barton (TX) Department of Energy Fossil Energy R&D CENTER FOR ZERO EMISSIONS RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY $3,000,000 Rehberg Department of Energy Fossil Energy R&D GULF OF MEXICO HYDRATES RESEARCH CONSORTIUM $250,000 Childers Department of Energy Fossil Energy R&D INNOVATIONS FOR LOW-COST GASIFICATION SYSTEMS $750,000 Dent Department of Energy Fossil Energy R&D INNOVATIONS IN CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES FOR SYNTHESIS GAS COMBUSTION $300,000 LaTourette Department of Energy Fossil Energy R&D METHANOL ECONOMY $750,000 Watson 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
328 

ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT—Continued 

[Congressionally Directed Spending Items] 

Agency Account Project Amount Requester(s) 

Department of Energy Fossil Energy R&D OKLAHOMA UNIVERSITY ENHANCED OIL RECOVERY DESIGN CENTER $500,000 Cole Department of Energy Fossil Energy R&D RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT OF FUEL CELLS FOR ELECTRICITY FROM FOSSIL— 

AND BIO-BASED FUELS 

$500,000 Kucinich; LaTourette 

Department of Energy Fossil Energy R&D UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY STRATEGIC LIQUID TRANSPORTATION FUELS DERIVED 

FROM COAL 

$2,000,000 Davis (KY); Rogers (KY) 

Department of Energy Science ADVANCED ARTIFICIAL SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING RESEARCH INFRASTRUCTURE $300,000 Hall (TX) Department of Energy Science ADVANCED MANUFACTURING AND ENGINEERING EQUIPMENT $1,000,000 Ellsworth Department of Energy Science APPLIED BIOMECHANICAL ENGINEERING GRADUATE PROGRAM $400,000 Souder Department of Energy Science BETHUNE-COOKMAN UNIVERSITY STEM RESEARCH LAB $250,000 Mica Department of Energy Science BUILDING SURFACE SCIENCE CAPACITY TO SERVE THE AUTOMOBILE INDUSTRY IN 

SOUTHEASTERN MICHIGAN 

$500,000 Conyers; Dingell 

Department of Energy Science CENTER FOR ADVANCED SCIENTIFIC MODELING (CASCAM) $700,000 Burgess Department of Energy Science CENTER FOR NANOMEDICINE AND CELLULAR DELIVERY $500,000 Cummings Department of Energy Science CENTER FOR SUSTAINABLE ENERGY AT BRONX COMMUNITY COLLEGE, BRONX, NY $500,000 Serrano Department of Energy Science CLEAN ENERGY STORAGE, CONVERSION, AND GENERATION RESEARCH $500,000 Schakowsky Department of Energy Science CLEMSON UNIVERSITY CYBERINSTITUTE $500,000 Inglis Department of Energy Science COLLEGE OF SAINT ELIZABETH $1,000,000 Frelinghuysen Department of Energy Science COMPUTATIONAL MODELING OF DRUG-RESISTANT BACTERIA $915,000 Gordon (TN) 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
329 

Department of Energy Science ENERGY EFFICIENCY & WATER INSTITUTE RESEARCH FACILITY, PURDUE UNIVERSITY-CALUMET, IN $2,000,000 Visclosky Department of Energy Science ENERGY SYSTEMS ENGINEERING INSTITUTE $500,000 Dent Department of Energy Science FOURIER TRANSFORM NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE (FTNMR) SPECTROMETER $500,000 Lee (NY) Department of Energy Science FUSION ENERGY SPHEROMAK TURBULENT PLASMA EXPERIMENT (STPX) $500,000 Boyd; Meek (FL); Wasserman 

Schultz 

Department of Energy Science GREEN MANUFACTURING AND ENERGY CONSCIOUS DESIGN PROGRAM $1,000,000 Upton Department of Energy Science IDAHO ACCELERATOR CENTER PRODUCTION OF MEDICAL ISOTOPES $1,500,000 Simpson Department of Energy Science IDAHO NATIONAL LABORATORY CENTER FOR ADVANCED ENERGY STUDIES $1,000,000 Simpson Department of Energy Science INSTITUTE FOR COLLABORATIVE SCIENCES RESEARCH $1,200,000 Diaz-Balart, Lincoln; Wasserman 

Schultz 

Department of Energy Science INSTITUTE FOR INTERGRATED SCIENCES $2,000,000 Markey (MA) Department of Energy Science LANDFILL LEACHATE RECIRCULATION AND GAS TO ENERGY PROJECT $500,000 Shuler Department of Energy Science METEOROLOGY AND ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCE PROGRAM AT THE UNIVERSITY OF 

LOUISVILLE 

$350,000 Yarmuth 

Department of Energy Science NEVADA WATER RESOURCES DATA, MODELING AND VISUALIZATION (DMV) CENTER $750,000 Berkley; Heller; Titus Department of Energy Science NOTRE DAME INNOVATION PARK, SOUTH BEND, IN $575,000 Donnelly (IN) Department of Energy Science PHYSICAL AND BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES LABORATORY LEARNING CENTER $400,000 Diaz-Balart, Lincoln Department of Energy Science ROCKLAND CC SCIENCE LAB UPGRADE $300,000 Engel Department of Energy Science SCIENCE LAB EXPANSION $550,000 Massa Department of Energy Science SMART GRID SIMULATION LABORATORY $900,000 Markey (CO); Perlmutter 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
330 

ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT—Continued 

[Congressionally Directed Spending Items] 

Agency Account Project Amount Requester(s) 

Department of Energy Science STATE-OF-THE-ART LARGE-SCALE TESTING FOR WIND TO ENHANCE INFRASTRUCTURE RESILIENCY AND DEVELOP ENERGY-EFFICIENT BUILDINGS. $1,000,000 Diaz-Balart, Mario Department of Energy Science STEM INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT $1,500,000 Spratt Department of Energy Science STEM MINORITY GRADUATE PROGRAM $3,500,000 Fattah Department of Energy Science SUSQUEHANNA UNIVERSITY, EQUIPMENT FOR NEW SCIENCE CENTER $1,000,000 Carney Department of Energy Science SUSTAINABLE BIOFUELS DEVELOPMENT CENTER $500,000 Markey (CO) Department of Energy Science TRANSYLVANIA UNIVERSITY BROWN SCIENCE CENTER EQUIPMENT $650,000 Chandler Department of Energy Science TU ALGAE TO GREEN FUELS ENERGY PROJECT $750,000 Sullivan Department of Energy Science TWIN TOWER OBSERVATORY $200,000 McKeon Department of Energy Science ULTRA FAST POWER PROCESSOR FOR SMART GRID $1,000,000 Gerlach Department of Energy Science UMASS INTEGRATIVE SCIENCE BUILDING $2,000,000 Olver Department of Energy Science UNIQUE METHODOLOGIES FOR NANO/MICRO MANUFACTURING AND JOB TRAINING 

FOR NANOTECHNOLOGY 

$500,000 Foster 

Department of Energy Science UNIVERSITY OF DELAWARE ENERGY INSTITUTE $500,000 Castle Department of Energy Science UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT CHICAGO HIGH PERFORMANCE COMPUTING $1,000,000 Davis (IL) Department of Energy Science UNIVERSITY OF RHODE ISLAND REGIONAL EARTH SYSTEMS INSTITUTE $750,000 Kennedy; Langevin Department of Energy Science UNIVERSITY PARK AND RESEARCH CENTER IN CHULA VISTA, CA $1,000,000 Filner Department of Energy Science WHITWORTH UNIVERSITY STEM EQUIPMENT $300,000 McMorris Rodgers 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
331 

Department of Energy NNSA—Weapons Activities CENTER FOR INNOVATION THROUGH VISUALIZATION AND SIMULATION, PURDUE UNIVERSITY-CALUMET, IN $3,000,000 Visclosky Department of Energy NNSA—Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation GLOBAL SEISMOGRAPHIC NETWORK EQUIPMENT RENEWAL $250,000 Teague; Tsongas Department of Energy NNSA—Office of the Administrator ACE PROGRAM AT MARICOPA COUNTY COMMUNITY COLLEGES $1,000,000 Pastor (AZ) Department of Energy NNSA—Office of the Administrator HISTORICALLY BLACK COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES PROGRAM $10,000,000 Clyburn Department of Energy NNSA—Office of the Administrator MOREHOUSE COLLEGE MINORITY ENERGY SCIENCE RESEARCH AND EDUCATION INITIATIVE $2,000,000 Lewis (GA); Marshall; Scott (GA) Department of Energy Other Defense Activities MIAMISBURG MOUND ENERGY PARK REDEVELOPMENT $1,000,000 Turner Department of Energy Other Defense Activities WORKER HEALTH PROTECTION PROGRAM $1,000,000 Whitfield 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
332 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 057 hr203.078
333 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 058 hr203.079
334 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 059 hr203.080
335 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 060 hr203.081
336 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 061 hr203.082
337 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 062 hr203.083
338 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 063 HR203.084
339 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 064 hr203.085
340 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 065 hr203.086
341 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 066 HR203.087
(342) 

ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF JERRY LEWIS AND RODNEY 

FRELINGHUYSEN 

We commend Chairman Obey and Vice Chairman Pastor for 

their efforts to assemble this bill in an inclusive manner. The bill 

funds critical water projects, develops a cleaner and more reliable 

energy sector less dependent on imported sources, and supports our 

national defense through critical weapons and nonproliferation 

funding, all priorities which can and should be developed in a bipartisan manner. Vice Chairman Pastor has worked hard to incorporate the interests of Members from both parties, and the result 

is a stronger, more representative product. 

However, the democratic process must not stop after the subcommittee assembles its recommendation. We regret that all recorded votes in Committee were along purely partisan lines, without any real consideration of the merits of the amendments offered. 

We hope that floor debate of this bill will return to regular order. 

Otherwise, more than 375 Members of both parties who are not on 

the Appropriations Committee will not have a full opportunity to 

debate the bill and represent the interests of their constituents. 

We also believe that it is important that those 375 Members 

have the benefit of reviewing the totality of the Committee’s views 

on the priorities and recommendations included in the bill before 

deciding whether to offer amendments on this bill. We indicated at 

the markup that the minority did intend to invoke its right under 

House Rules to file minority views. We are deeply concerned that 

subsequent to the Committee’s markup of this legislation, Chairman Obey and the Democrat Leadership appear to have decided 

that this bill will not come under the open regular order process. 

Instead, they have mandated that all Members submit their 

amendments to this bill before this bill is even eligible to be filed 

in the House in accordance with House Rules that protect the 

rights of all Members to file additional views. We hope that Chairman Obey and the Democrat leadership reconsider this arbitrary 

deadline for amendments so that the rights of all Members to both 

file views, and then have the benefit of reviewing those views before deciding to offer amendments, is protected. The Subcommittee’s allocation is $33,300,000,000, a decrease of 

$1,093,709,000 from the Administration’s budget request and 

$39,000,000 above the fiscal year 2009 level. We consider this to be 

a reasonable level of funding for this bill, reflecting the need for 

continued investment in critical energy, water, and national security priorities. To be clear, this does not reflect the pressing need 

for fiscal conservatism. We would note that this bill was preceded 

by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, which gave more 

than $44 billion to the agencies under our jurisdiction. In fact, 

nearly $39 billion alone went to the Department of Energy. These 

agencies face major management and oversight challenges as a reVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:48 Jul 14, 2009 Jkt 050860 PO 00000 Frm 00346 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6604 E:\HR\OC\HR203.XXX HR203

rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
343 

sult of the massive amounts of money given to them in recent 

months, and vigilant Congressional oversight will be necessary to 

ensure that the funds are spent in a responsible, transparent manner. 

We are concerned that funding in other Committee bills is dramatically increasing. Since the Democratic Party took control of 

Congress, discretionary spending has increased by 41 percent. Nondefense, non-veterans spending has nearly doubled. This largesse is 

only made possible by increasing our national borrowing. According 

to a recent analysis by the Congressional Budget Office, the United 

States national debt is on track to reach 82 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) by 2019, roughly twice its level in 2008. By 

2026, our national debt will be higher than ever in our history. By 

2038, it will be twice our GDP. In fact, since the Democrats became 

the majority, the amount of debt created exceeds the total amount 

of debt accumulated since the country’s founding. The irresponsible 

spending policies pursued by the Democratic Party are 

unsustainable and are jeopardizing the prosperity of this country. 

We commend the Chairman for including in this bill an appropriate level of support for our nation’s water infrastructure, including twenty new starts. Water issues are of growing importance for 

the health and economic prosperity of our constituents, and the federal government has an important role to play in supporting reliable access to water, protection from floods, and safe use of our waterways for commercial and recreational traffic. 

We strongly encourage the Administration to work with waterways users and the appropriate authorizing committees to fix the 

Inland Waterways Trust Fund revenue crisis. The facilities costshared by this Fund are of critical importance both to the local population and to the economic prosperity of our country. However, we 

agree with the Vice Chairman that new continuing contracts must 

be postponed until the revenues are available to fund them in a 

regular, responsible fashion. 

We are disappointed that the Chairman placed his personal 

schedule ahead of the farmers and other residents of California’s 

San Joaquin Valley. In Committee consideration of the bill, a sensible solution was presented to protect these people from unreasonable environmental regulations which will cost the region 80,000 

jobs and 500,000 acres of rich farmland. Rather than helping these 

people, the Chairman argued that accepting the solution would 

jeopardize his ability to finish Committee work by August recess. 

We feel that we were elected to represent our constituents, not 

keep an arbitrarily determined schedule. 

The bill includes a responsible, balanced approach to improving 

the energy supply of the United States. We are pleased by the increase in support for renewable energy and nuclear power, both of 

which are critical components of a reliable, clean electricity sector. 

Funding for nuclear power is $50,000,000 over the Administration’s 

request, an increase which will support new American jobs and the 

supply of reliable, clean baseload power. Within this, funding for 

Nuclear Power 2010 is increased to $71,000,000, thereby meeting 

the Department’s commitment to its partners. Finally, we are 

pleased that the bill reaffirms the Committee’s support for the 

Next Generation Nuclear Plant initiative. 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
344 

However, we would have preferred to improve the Department’s 

ability to provide loan guarantees in support of our energy sector. 

In Committee debate, an amendment was offered to allow the technical experts at the Department to determine which energy technologies should receive loan guarantees. The Chairman refused to 

support it, citing an internal agreement with the Democrat leadership which has made available roughly $75 billion in loan guarantees for renewable energy and transmission projects, more than 

double that for all other sources of clean energy. At least $20 billion of these renewable guarantees are unlikely to be used, and we 

strongly support making them available to oversubscribed technologies, such as nuclear power plants and fuel enrichment 

projects. We do not believe that the country’s energy future should 

be held hostage to political agreements. 

We are also disappointed that the bill does not increase funding 

to support the Yucca Mountain geological repository application 

currently before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). The 

Yucca Mountain site is likely the most studied geology in the 

United States, and there is no scientific objection to using it as a 

long-term repository for waste and spent nuclear fuel. The Obama 

Administration has removed its support for the repository for political reasons while presenting no reasonable option. We are pleased, 

however, that the bill provides an adequate amount of funding to 

ensure that the Department of Energy is able to responsibly answer questions raised during the NRC’s consideration of the application. We are also pleased that the funding which the bill makes 

available to support the ‘‘Blue Ribbon Commission’’ charged with 

considering options for long-term waste management may only be 

released if the Commission includes the Yucca Mountain Site 

among the options considered. 

Our biggest concern with the bill is in the Weapons Activities account. The Committee has correctly continued its policy to postpone 

new major construction projects and weapons initiatives until the 

nation has developed a nuclear weapons strategy and plan appropriate to the threats we face today and into the foreseeable future. 

However, we must provide adequate funding to retain our highly 

specialized scientists and technicians, and to maintain the facilities 

they must have to do their work. The only way to support our national security is by increasing this account, not holding it flat. I 

hope that we can address this in conference. 

In conclusion, while we continue to have specific concerns in this 

bill, we support its reasonable level of spending and its general priorities. We commend Chairman Obey and Vice Chairman Pastor 

for their efforts to put together a balanced, inclusive bill, and we 

express the strong hope that the Democratic Party will allow floor 

consideration to proceed in a similar manner. 

JERRY LEWIS. 

RODNEY P. FRELINGHUYSEN. 

Æ 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING